With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the reform of schools.

Every child matters, and children have only one chance of a good school education. Our ambition is for every child to get that chance and to develop their talents to the fullest extent. The White Paper that I am publishing today aims to make this aspiration a reality by building systematically on eight years of rising school standards and of sustained investment by this Government in the teaching profession and school reform. It places parents at the heart of education, extending parental choice and giving schools the freedom that they require to meet parental demand and pupil need in radically new and better ways.

Since 1997, the quality of teaching and leadership in our schools has been transformed. Primary schools now have a daily literacy hour and mathematics lesson. Classes are smaller, and there has been significant investment in the training of primary teachers and assistants. Secondary schools have benefited from a systematic upgrading in the number, quality and training of subject specialist teachers. Graduate applications for secondary school teaching have risen by 60 per cent. in just six years. There are 32,000 more teachers than in 1997, and the number of school support staff has doubled over the same period. Ofsted reports that the proportion of good or excellent teaching in primary schools has risen since 1997 from 45 per cent. to 74 per cent., and in secondary schools the figure has risen from 59 per cent. to 78 per cent. The proportion of badly taught lessons has halved.

Thanks to our literacy and numeracy strategies, around 96,000 more children a year start secondary school able to do well in basic maths, and 84,000 more do so in English. There have been big improvements at GCSE level too—[Interruption.]

Order. The Secretary of State must be heard.—[Interruption.] Order. Many Back-Bench Members will want to be called to comment on the statement, but I will not be able to call so many if these interruptions continue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There have been big improvements at GCSE level too, with 63,000 more 16-year-olds achieving five or more good GCSE passes than in 1997. In addition, change has been greatest in many areas of historic underperformance. In inner London, 50 per cent. more young people gained five good grades this year than eight years ago.

Specialist schools consistently out-perform other schools and nearly 2,400 have now been established. Twenty-seven academies are already open, with more to come. There are now 413 non-selective schools where 70 per cent. or more pupils gain five good GCSEs; in 1997, there were just 83.

This is a record of success. However, challenges remain. For all the progress so far, too many 11-year-olds still leave primary school without mastering the three Rs; too many 16-year-olds are still not achieving good GCSEs or vocational qualifications and too few are staying in education post 16. Parents often feel disengaged and too many schools are coasting rather than improving. And those who fail to achieve too often come from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.

We are at an historic turning point. We have an education system that has overcome more than half a century of underperformance. With courage to reform further, by placing the parent and the pupil right at the heart of the system, we can now make our schools truly world class—a system that commands parental confidence and extends excellence to all.

There will be no return to the divisive 11-plus. There will be no return to the unfair assisted places scheme. There will be no return to privileging a few schools at the expense of the rest. Instead, teaching will be rigorously tailored for pupils of all aptitudes in schools unafraid to be distinctive, proud of their individual ethos yet proud, too, of the communities that they serve.

Our best schools and school leaders are models in all these respects. The challenge of change is for all schools to emulate the best, forging whatever partnerships they need to enhance their leadership and mission, while giving parents real power to drive change.

Today's White Paper sets out six key reform priorities to bring this about. First, to improve teaching and learning, we will provide significant new incentives for schools to tailor education to the needs of each and every child. There will be more use of small group and one-to-one tuition, particularly for those who fall behind. We will intensify our focus on literacy and numeracy, which are the keys to success in all subjects. There will be expanded opportunities for gifted and talented pupils. We will further encourage setting and grouping pupils by ability. We will continue to expand and improve provision for pupils with special educational needs, enabling far more special schools to join the successful specialist school movement and share their expertise widely with all local schools.

There will be a national delivery plan for the creation of the new specialised diplomas that I announced in February to transform educational choices for pupils beyond the age of 14. All of this will be underpinned by the Government's record investment in schools, including £335 million to be specifically earmarked for personalised learning within the new dedicated schools grant that I announced to the House last week. Work force reform and the increased use of information and communication technology will further transform the capacity of schools to meet the needs of each and every child.

Secondly, we will give all schools the independence that they need to drive radical improvements in standards and the flexibility to create real centres of excellence. Building on our successful specialist school and academies programmes, we will extend academy-style freedoms and opportunities to thousands of schools through new trust schools. These self-governing schools will be funded by local authorities but will partner with and be supported by not-for-profit trusts—established, for example, by successful educational foundations, leading schools and universities, parents' groups and voluntary organisations. These schools will bring extra dynamism to education. All schools will be eligible to be trust schools, alongside our planned 200 academies.

I am pleased to announce that a range of outstanding organisations, including Microsoft, the Open university, the Mercers Company and Thomas Telford school, the United Learning trust, the Church of England, KPMG and the Peabody trust have all agreed to work with us to develop the trust model, bringing to it extensive educational and school management experience, together with strong links to local communities.

Thirdly, we will improve the choice of schools for parents by giving less affluent parents the means to make choice effective, and by putting in place much more rapid mechanisms for turning round and replacing failing schools. A choice between weak or failing schools is no choice at all. Schools that are still failing after a year will be closed, federated with another more successful school or replaced with an academy or another new provider. Our new inspection regime will focus on schools that are coasting as well as on those that are failing. We will raise the bar on underperformance across the system. In addition, we will improve the advice for parents on the options available. We will improve transport to school, particularly for the most deprived pupils where the cost of transport can be a barrier; and we will promote admission systems that extend access, and ensure fair admissions for all new schools.

The role of the parent does not stop with the choice of school. Education works best where schools and parents work together, with each recognising both their rights and their responsibilities. So fourthly, we will enable all parents to contribute much more fully throughout a child's school career, with better support, information and advice, especially at key transition points. We will place a new duty on governing bodies to have regard to parents' views. We will improve the quality and regularity of the dialogue between parents and schools, including reports at least once a term in place of the existing minimum of once a year. We will give parents a new right of complaint to Ofsted, if local procedures have been exhausted.

Fifthly, teachers and heads have asked us for better support to tackle disruption and ill-discipline, so we will implement Sir Alan Steer's recommendations, giving teachers a clear statutory right to discipline and giving schools an unambiguous power to set and enforce their own discipline codes. Parents will take their responsibilities seriously or face sanctions where they do not, including fixed penalty notices for parents who do not properly supervise pupils who are excluded from school. Pupils excluded for more than five days—not 15 days as now—will be expected to attend supervised education units.

Sixthly, we will underpin our reforms with a new and crucial role for local authorities. They will become the commissioner of education, the champion of the pupil and parent and the local strategic leader. They will tackle coasting and failing schools. They will oversee competitions to deliver new schools, and they will work with the office of the schools commissioner that I will create to promote new trust schools and academies in response to parental demand. Many local authorities are already pioneering that approach. We now need all our local authorities to do so.

These reforms mark a watershed in the development of our national education system. All our young people deserve the best; we intend them to receive it, so that social mobility once again accelerates as the engine of a fairer and more prosperous society—every pupil receiving a tailored education, every parent with real choice and every school with the freedom to deliver.

I commend the White Paper to the House.

Hear, hear.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement—on the Conservative Benches, I think that feeling goes fairly wide. I am also grateful for an early copy of the White Paper, especially as I understand that 5,000 copies were pulped last night as the Cabinet could not actually agree on the policy.

Our approach to the Secretary of State's proposals will be straightforward: wherever the Government promote rigour, encourage discipline, give schools more autonomy and parents more choice, we will support them. And, as we read that the Chancellor, the Deputy Prime Minister and many other Labour Members are against her, she will need all the support that she can get, but there is one question that jumps out of the White Paper. Eight years ago, the Government abolished grant-maintained schools. Let us remember that those were state schools, free of local authority control and able to set their own culture and ethos. Does that sound familiar? So why has it taken eight years to get right back to where they started?

Let me take each of the key issues in turn. First, on school autonomy, all the evidence shows that standards rise when schools are free to innovate, free to diversify, and free to specialise. The question for the Government is this: will today's proposals lead to real autonomy? Real autonomy means schools controlling their own finances. So will the Secretary of State confirm that, under her plans, funding will still go through local education authorities and not directly to schools? Real autonomy means that head teachers are in control, not tied up in centralised rules, regulations and bureaucracy. So will she take action to cut paperwork, including the current self-evaluation reports that run to hundreds of pages and drive head teachers up the wall?

What guarantee can the Secretary of State give that the White Paper will not add to bureaucracy? Can she explain the point of the new schools commissioner? Can she tell us whether her new parents' councils will replace governing bodies or whether they will be set up in addition to them? If Government want real autonomy—they will have our support if they deliver it—can she confirm that those independent schools in the state sector will own their buildings and land, employ their own staff and have the freedom to expand and the ability to opt out of national agreements?

The White Paper shows a complete muddle about the role of local education authorities. Can the Secretary of State tell us how much independence those schools will really have? Can she explain why, on page 28— hon. Members will be interested in this—it says:

"Trust schools will be funded in exactly the same way as other local schools. They will be subject to the Code of Practice on admissions and to all of the accountability mechanisms that apply to state schools."

So can she explain what these new freedoms are? That gives every impression of having been written by a deeply divided committee—I think that we can call it the Cabinet. [Interruption.]

We support the proposal to get independent providers into the state sector, but we have heard that so many times from the Government: we heard it in 1998, 2002 and earlier this year. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, so far, just one—[Interruption.]

Order. There is far too much noise. Mr. Cawsey, you are usually a very quiet Member of Parliament and I do not like to tell you off, but you are far too near the Speaker's Chair to shout or to be shouting.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that, so far, only one additional independent school has come into the state sector? The White Paper talks of a new role for LEAs. Can she tell us what will be done to stop them preventing new providers from coming into the sector? If they are to replace school organisation committees—another set of quangos that Labour set up and is now abolishing—will not the problem get even worse?

The next point is the expansion of good schools. Education Ministers have repeatedly given us assurances from the Dispatch Box that the surplus places rule did not exist. Yesterday, the Prime Minister confirmed that it did and that it would be scrapped. Why has it taken so long for the Government to identify and get rid of the roadblocks to giving us more good school places? Should we not conclude that we have had surplus Ministers, as well as surplus places? [Hon. Members: "More!"] There is plenty more.

The White Paper praises city academies. Conservative Members back academies because they are just like the city technology colleges that we set up in the first place. Can the Secretary of State tell us how she will avoid the real danger that they end up replicating failed comprehensives in smart new buildings? Will she give them real freedoms, including over admissions? Will business backers be able to cut waste and open these buildings to the whole community so that they can be engines of regeneration, not just islands of investment?

The next issue is a difficult one: admissions. We all want to move from the situation in which we have selection by house price to one of genuine diversity in schools with parents having choice. However, the Government have created total confusion over this issue. One briefing has suggested that there will be compulsory banding and then the bussing of children across LEAs. That would represent top-down social engineering beyond even the wildest dreams of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will the Secretary of State rule out today bussing that is designed to meet some arbitrary central admissions quota?

The White Paper argues that streaming and setting should be the norm in all schools—we agree. In its 1997 manifesto, Labour said the same thing. What has it been doing for the past eight years? Why has it taken three manifestos, nine Acts of Parliament, five Green Papers, four White Papers, two strategy documents and four Education Secretaries before anything has been done about that? If the Government are serious about standards, is it not time to reform the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, to insist on rigour in exam standards and to give heads the final say on discipline and exclusions? Will she confirm that the White Paper shows once again that the Government are keeping appeals panels? Why do they not scrap them?

Yesterday the Prime Minister said that this was a pivotal moment. Today he says that it is a historic turning point. Tomorrow I expect that we will have the hand of history on his shoulder again. In the past eight years, we have had lines in the sand, final moments and final chances, but this has been pivotal for parents, teachers and children all along.

When it comes to reforming education, is it not the case that the Chancellor will not have it, the Cabinet does not like it, the Back Benchers will not wear it, the Deputy Prime Minister cannot bear it and the teaching unions and Labour LEAs will try to stop it? Conservative Members fear that only the worst parts of the White Paper will be implemented and the best will be forgotten. Is it not the case that the only way in which the best ideas in the White Paper will have a chance of being introduced will be if we have a Government who believe heart, head and soul in rigour, choice and autonomy? Is not that the message of today's statement?

I am truly delighted that the hon. Gentleman has come here today to welcome the proposals in the White Paper. It might be only his fourth appearance at the Dispatch Box, but I think that it is a sign of his increasing political maturity that when there are well-thought-out proposals that will make a difference to our school system, he can stand there and welcome them, no matter what that might mean for his own political ambitions, or anything else relating to his side of the House. I hope that the support that he has offered us today will mean that his party—whoever leads it—will support the legislation that we will bring forward to enact the proposals that I have set out today. I look forward to his and his colleagues' support in the Division Lobby.

I was glad that the hon. Gentleman did not challenge the fact that there have been significant improvements in our school system over the past eight years and the fact that we have transformed the situation that we inherited in 1997. However, he should recognise that that has been achieved not only through reform—although reform there has been with the literacy hour, the numeracy hour and the other reforms that I mentioned—but because of the investment that we have been putting in. By 2007–08, Labour will have doubled per pupil spending since 1997. He might not have sat in the House for very long, but during that short time, he has voted against every single opportunity to put investment back into our schools where it is needed. He has also voted against innovation in our schools, modernising school governance and laying the foundation for work force remodelling. I am thus pleased to hear that he is changing his party's political tune. However, today was his first big test, so I had rather hoped that he would have done his homework just a little better.

The hon. Gentleman thinks that our new trust-school system will represent the re-creation of grant-maintained schools. There could be nothing more different from the new model that we are proposing for all schools than the failed grant-maintained system of the past. There are some similarities.—[Interruption.] Let us see what they are. Grant-maintained schools had classrooms, teachers and books. I have to admit that there are some similarities, but that is where they end. Grant-maintained schools could set whatever admissions arrangements they wanted, they could select the best pupils and were encouraged to opt out of the local family of schools. Indeed, they were bribed to do so, because they were given unfair funding that discriminated against other schools. They operated on the basis of unfair admissions that privileged elite schools by cream-skimming pupils from our state schools. Grant-maintained schools received the only capital funding on offer in the system. Anyone who remembers those days will recall the two-tier system that emerged. Indeed, grant-maintained schools defined themselves through opposition to other schools in the system. They did the best for their children, but not for others.

We are not proposing the return of the grant-maintained school, because our schools rightly insist on fair funding, fair admissions and fair accountability. We want autonomous schools that drive improvement for their own pupils and others by sharing that expertise and success across the school system, as we have set out in the schools White Paper. The hon. Gentleman asked what school autonomy means in practice. Schools will have the opportunity to develop their own mission, purpose and ethos, and to work with an external partner if they think that that is in the interests of parents and pupils. They will be able to manage their own assets and employ their own staff. They will be able to control the funding distributed to them by local authorities and ring-fenced through the dedicated school grant. To argue that they should be free of accountability and should not have to participate in the self-evaluation scheme that head teachers themselves have requested from us is absurd. The way to drive improvement through the system is for one head teacher to learn what works from another so that they can apply it in their school to improve standards for their own pupils and others.

The hon. Gentleman argued for autonomy on admissions but, once again, his proposals are not thought through. I read an article that he wrote in the Evening Standard last week in which he said that over time all schools should be able to determine their own admissions procedures and, if they wanted to do so, select pupils.

Like Eton?

Absolutely.

The hon. Gentleman argued that some schools will want to select by academic ability. He pretends that that does not mean the return of the grammar school, and that if some schools want to select by ability, all other schools can have their own individual ethos. In fact, when that system operates on the ground 80 per cent. of children are left in the equivalent of secondary moderns with no aspirations for attainment, which does not drive improvement across the system. I do not want to return to that, and I hope that when he thinks through the consequences of his policy he will draw back from it. His only criticism of the academies programme, as far as I could see, was that academies in our most disadvantaged areas are not allowed to select. His policy would promote the well-being of a few, not the many, but the policies in the White Paper will drive improvement across our school system by delivering the freedoms and accountabilities that those schools need to develop in the way that works best for them and their pupils.

The hon. Gentleman asked about bussing. I do not propose to force any child on to a bus, but we have to raise the aspirations of children in our most disadvantaged areas. We have a specialist school system. If a specialist school offers sport, music or another specialism of which children wish to take advantage, we should not prevent them from going to that school because of the cost of transport. We recommend in the White Paper that children from a low-income background be given help with the costs of transport.

The hon. Gentleman asked about discipline. The last time a right to discipline was recommended was in 1989, but the Government of the day rejected it. We will implement such a right, and we will implement all the other recommendations in the report from Sir Alan Steer's panel. Interestingly, that panel did not consider that the abolition of appeals panels would be in schools' interests. It knew what happens when appeals panels are abolished—difficult cases end up in the courts. We have seen an example of that only recently. Head teachers know that that will not be in their own best interests.

The hon. Gentleman questions the role that local authorities have to play. We have articulated in the White Paper a clear, if radically reformed, new role for local authorities. They will be at the heart of our proposals for delivering the school system of the future. Yes, they will replace the school organisation committee and there will be a presumption that, where good schools want to expand, they should be able to. But to imagine that one could run a school system from Whitehall that caters not just for 500 grant-maintained schools, but for 23,000 schools is absurd. How would someone in Whitehall know what was wanted for schools in Bolton, what parents wanted delivered on the ground for schools in my constituency, what capital investment was needed, or what teachers were needed? It is ridiculous to suggest that that could be the case. Local authorities will have a new if radically reformed role under our schools White Paper.

Although the hon. Gentleman seeks to appear as the modern face of the Conservative party, what we see are policies which, at the first hint of scrutiny, start to unravel—policies that serve the few, rather than the many. Ours are policies that will drive up standards right across our school system and particularly serve the needs of the most disadvantaged at the heart of our communities.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for her answer to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). It was clear from that answer and from the reaction from those on the Conservative Benches that she has been thinking what they have been thinking. I doubt that the hon. Gentleman will copy his Witney predecessor and join Labour, but the Tory Opposition are being talked out of a job, whether or not he becomes leader.

The fundamental problem with the plan is that it is about structures, not standards. We need to focus on what is happening in the classroom, not in the boardroom. On school freedom, the Minister has a case. The Government will have our support if they have really turned their back on top-down centrist control of English schools. We embrace freedom from Whitehall diktat, including diversity and new providers, but can the Minister confirm that her Whitehall Department will keep complete control of schools funding?

Is it not central Government, rather than local government, who have been stifling variety? Is it not the Treasury rules and her own Department that prevent communities building the schools they need? Can she tell us what powers the Chancellor has given up and what powers she is giving up? For without the Chancellor's signature on the White Paper, can we really expect irreversible change?

At first glance, it seems that today is not the end of local democratic involvement with education, contrary to the Prime Minister's weekend spin. Why, then, is the Secretary of State still seeking to hand over admissions policy to some schools, when it is the one policy that parents need their local community to keep? Does she not realise that handing over admissions risks a free-for-all between schools, producing a shambles that will confuse parents, not help them? If the Minister wants to see admission reform, why does she not free local authorities and their schools to collaborate—for instance, on banding admissions?

We want a variety of social markets in education, not the right hon. Lady's free market. In her model, who will speak up for the special needs child? Who will be the advocate for the looked-after child? Who will guarantee fairness and equality of opportunity? Her answer seems to be parent power. That may work in some places, but what happens where parents do not get involved, will not get involved or cannot get involved?

The Secretary of State talks of expanding schools and we accept that that can work, especially with school federations, but can she confirm that a school will have no control over its size even if existing parents value a small school ethos? What is to stop schools being forced to double in size? When it comes to choice, my party is pro-choice—meaningful choice that becomes possible by grasping the new opportunity of falling secondary school numbers. Can she confirm that Government figures show nearly 500,000 fewer children in secondary schools within 10 years? Can she confirm that even in London, where too many parents have not had real choice, the decline in pupil numbers equals 40 empty schools? Is that not the spare capacity that we need, both for meaningful parental choice and for raising quality and standards?

The Prime Minister has talked about independent schools. The future years of falling pupil numbers are the best time to copy the best bits of private schools and to introduce smaller classes and smaller schools, when we might have the quality local schools that every parent wants.

The Government's ideas will have almost no impact on one of the most scandalous statistics in British education today—25 per cent. of 17-year-olds are not in full-time education or training. Radical reform would free up the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds, and revisiting the Tomlinson plans for diplomas would stretch our brightest children and re-engage the disaffected.

Perhaps the most disappointing thing is the lack of new ideas for primary education. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the best way to improve secondary education is to ensure that more primary school leavers can read, write and add up? The real barrier to higher standards is that nearly 50 per cent. of 11-year-olds still cannot master all three Rs. The Secretary of State's focus on structures not standards will not change anything in any classroom anywhere in the country. The priority should be children's literacy, not the Prime Minister's legacy.

Our schools need reform, because the status quo is far from perfect, and we will champion that cause. In not using the opportunity of falling school rolls, Labour is designing policy for past educational problems rather than future challenges. The Liberal Democrats want schools to be free from Whitehall. Labour wants to retain—

Order. What the Liberal Democrats want has nothing to do with the statement. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] Order. The hon. Gentleman is questioning the right hon. Lady's statement, and he will ask questions about the statement. By the way, I am getting a bit weary— the replies to the statement should be briefer, because Back Benchers have not been called and it is already 10 past four.

Why is Labour retaining central controls and keeping hold of the purse strings? Why is it not providing real choice for parents, and why is it not using the fall in school numbers to drive standards in all schools? Labour's structural approach will change little.

In some senses, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to reply. The hon. Gentleman has made a list of eclectic points that do not address the kind of public service reform that we should deliver in our school system or how we should deliver excellence and equity for all.

The hon. Gentleman has, however, made a number of specific points, and I shall deal with them. He is right that we must concentrate on the three Rs. Surely he does not dispute the facts that we have increased the number of pupils gaining the right outcomes in reading, writing and arithmetic from 43 per cent. to 57 per cent. over the past eight years, which is a huge improvement. We are meeting our targets for English and maths, with almost four out of five children achieving the required level. He is also right that we must do more, and the White Paper sets aside sums to deliver further results in primary schools and, indeed, in secondary schools.

The transition years in secondary schools are particularly important. Where children fall behind in English and maths, we should enable them to attend specific catch-up classes to help sort out the basics, which will allow them to access the rest of the curriculum and make the most of the opportunities in secondary schools. The White Paper deals with how teaching and learning should be delivered and how we can create a more personalised, tailored system, so that everybody not only gets the basics right, but takes advantage of extra support and opportunities for the gifted and talented.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that falling school rolls raise several issues for the future. We will deal with those issues through the building schools for the future programme, which allows individual local authorities to take advantage of the capital investment on offer, to think out their educational vision for an area and to build schools in the right places that meet pupil need and parent demand. That programme is probably the biggest lever over falling rolls that any Government have ever used.

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that some schools will not want to expand the number of pupils that they take because they pride themselves on the small-school ethos that they have developed for their pupils. We will not force any school to expand if it does not want to, but a successful school that wants to expand faces obstacles because of the interests represented on the school organisation committees. If the local authority assumes the role of strategic leader of the system, it can make better-informed decisions about what is right for an area.

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there are difficulties in getting parents involved, particularly those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned special needs and looked-after children. We deal with those two groups in detail in the White Paper. In the new admissions system, looked-after children will have priority in being considered for and getting into the best schools. In terms of special educational needs, we want to ensure the continuation of the situation whereby children with statements get priority and an automatic right of entry to those schools.

We want schools that are free to follow their curriculum and to develop their individual ethos but also free to work in collaboration with other schools to raise standards for everyone in their local area. That is what the White Paper is about.

Before coming into this place in 1997, I worked in one of the previous Government's grant-maintained schools. There is no doubt that the autonomy possessed by that school enabled it to achieve more, but it also enjoyed privileged funding, to the disadvantage of other schools, and benefited from an admissions policy that was not equitable across the area. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that her proposals will ensure fair funding and fair admissions policies for all schools?

I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. He is absolutely right that the purpose of these reforms is to deliver higher standards for everybody, but particularly for those who have not been served well by the current system. That means that there must be a framework of fair funding, fair accountability and fair admissions.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her splendid statement. Does she agree that she is proposing not to revive grant-maintained schools but to go back to something far better—the direct-grant school?

I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that he quite understands the relationship of schools with the local authority under these proposals. We are proposing a system in which schools have the freedom and flexibility to tailor their curriculum and starting structures to develop the ethos that they need to raise standards for their pupils, at the same time working within a local framework whereby they spread success and work with each other as they drive up improvements across a system in which the local authority remains as the allocator of schools and the guarantor of good school standards.

May I ask my right hon. Friend who will fix and decide teachers' pay?

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Teachers' pay will be determined by the School Teachers Review Body, as it is at the moment. Support staff will be employed by the school and their pay will be determined on the same basis as for self-governing schools at the moment.

There is always a power to innovate, and schools can apply directly to the Department in that respect. For example, they may want to come to us with proposals for different models of term times or lengths of school day. We would consider those on their merits and decide whether to approve them.

I welcome what the Prime Minister described yesterday as a pivotal moment, and what some may describe as an about-turn. The Minister has promised to give extended opportunities to talented pupils, to encourage setting and grouping by ability, and to create genuine centres of excellence. I hope that those include centres of academic excellence. Why has not she gone the whole hog and simply introduced academic selection, which in Northern Ireland has served pupils well and has raised standards higher than in any other region of the United Kingdom? Is she bound by political ideology and Cabinet in-fighting? Will she regret in a year's time that she has not gone further?

No, I will not. I never want to see a return to selection. I want a state school system that can promote excellence for each and every one of its pupils; that can set by ability where that is required, particularly in core subjects but also in other areas; that provides special help for those who are falling behind and special opportunities for those who are gifted and talented; and that acts to provide specialist centres of excellence that work to drive up standards in that specialism in other schools. That is not what happens in a grammar school system—it is what happens in a specialist comprehensive school system, and it is what I want for all our schools.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, in inner-city communities, where comprehensive schools have improved and taken many local children on to their rolls, the whole community benefits, crime falls and there is a better sense of community cohesion? How is my constituency helped at all by the proposals, which, I suspect, will mean many children travelling all over London, with all the problems that that entails and the attendant loss of community?

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need good local schools. The point of the proposals is to ensure that every state school has the opportunities that are currently reserved for a few. If a school needs extra freedom and flexibility to tailor its curriculum, hold extra classes, develop a specialist mission and ethos, it should have the ability to do that. That is how one develops strong schools that are rooted in the community, work with other schools and fulfil the needs of pupils and parents.

When the right hon. Lady's predecessor announced last summer the policy of allowing successful and popular schools to expand, it became clear a couple of days later that that did not apply to grammar schools, which we have in south Warwickshire—like them or not, they are an essential part of the provision. Will her policy allow the inclusion of grammar schools in the ability of successful schools to expand freely? If not, why will the policy apply to specialist schools in my constituency, which will be able to select people on their aptitude for mathematics, modern languages, technology, music and sport, but not grammar schools, which select on academic ability?

Grammar schools will not be able to expand and I do not want selection to be expanded in the system. However, if a head teacher of a grammar school who is good at raising standards and promoting good educational outcomes wants to work in a school that is not a grammar school, we should allow an opportunity for that leadership to develop. In some parts of the country, grammar schools choose to federate with other schools and ensure that all children have access to the facilities in the grammar schools. The more we can break down such divides, the better.

Specialist schools, which my right hon. Friend rightly celebrates, work best when they reach out and collaborate with the local community, as happens in Blackpool. However, does she agree that, since Government policy across the board for matters that affect children is collaboration in education, it is key for my constituents that the policy is maintained under the White Paper's proposals? How will co-operation and collaboration on transience, special educational needs and staying-on rates be implemented or continued? How will they be guaranteed and enforced?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to those points of detail. We state in the White Paper that schools should take account of the children and young person's plan when they propose their school improvement plans. We propose that local authorities, with local learning and skills councils, should be responsible for delivering the 14 to 19 entitlement for specialised diplomas throughout the local area, and for publishing a prospectus for the area to ensure that that happens. We also suggest that they should be able to propose special needs units at schools when they believe that that is appropriate.

Will parents and local communities lose their current right of appeal against a local authority decision to close a village school? If they are faced with that, would taking trust status for the school allow it to continue despite the local authority's wishes?

No, I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman about that. The White Paper does not propose reducing local authorities' powers to close schools. Indeed, in some respects, they are enhanced. A school will not be able to take on trust status when it is under threat of closure.

I commend my right hon. Friend's passion for education, which clearly comes through. What evidence has she taken to ascertain that freeing up schools will lead to the achievement of her aims, which many of us share? After all, in the national health service, hospitals were freed up, through foundation status and so on, but that did not lead to the results that we wanted. It was said that all hospitals would become free through foundation trusts, but that has not happened. Could not the same thing happen to education?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We have learned from what has worked on the ground. It would be foolhardy to pretend that we dreamt up the ideas in isolation from our observation of what happens in our best local authority schools. Let us consider Knowsley. It has received an outstanding grade from Ofsted for the way it works to draw in external partners, provides 14 to 19 vocational opportunities for its pupils, and for its schools choosing to work together and with the local further education college to ensure that opportunities are available for everybody. We know that that works. We also know that, when a school develops a specialism or, as in the case of a city academy, develops a strong ethos in a short time, standards can improve. Such freedom and flexibility should not be reserved for the few but be available for all our state schools.

Where does this leave the programme of inclusion? Given the closure of so many special schools over the past eight years, and the new autonomy to be given to state schools, where will the measures leave children with special educational needs?

I would ask the hon. Lady to look at the facts. The proportion of children with statements in special schools has gone up, compared with eight years ago. That is a clear matter of fact. In the White Paper, we are saying to special schools that we want them to share in the mainstream specialist schools programme, and that if they want to develop a speciality, either in special needs or in the mainstream curriculum area, they should have the opportunity to do so. If they want to work more closely with a mainstream school, we should also make that happen. This is about providing opportunities for children with special needs as well as for everyone else.

My right hon. Friend recently visited one of our three brand-new secondary schools in Crawley. The school, which used to be unpopular with parents and had falling rolls, is now a sports excellence college and people are fighting to get their children in there. It also has an excellent record of working with pupils who have been excluded or who are having trouble getting into a school. How will the White Paper help it to build on its excellent relationship with the pupil referral units, to allow it to continue that fantastic work?

I am glad that my hon. Friend brought that school to my attention. I was very impressed with what I saw there, and I hope that she will send my best wishes to all its staff and pupils. She is right to say that it has a curriculum for excellence in sport, and that it is excellent at working with excluded pupils through the pupil referral units. The White Paper's approach to hard-to-place pupils is that schools should work together in collaboration to plan the necessary provision for those difficult pupils. Special learning support units or specialist off-site provision might be needed, but schools should have those pupils on their rolls, where appropriate—unless they are excluded—so that there is a clear incentive to drive up standards in the pupil referral units as well as in the schools.

I have great admiration for the right hon. Lady's intellect, but I am puzzled by her somewhat schizophrenic approach to admissions policy. Could she make it somewhat clearer for simple souls like myself? Is she also aware that a large majority of the parents polled in Bournemouth were in favour of the retention of Bournemouth's excellent grammar schools, which were, at one time, grant maintained? Can she explain why she is so opposed to their continuation in that former role?

The answer is quite simple: I want parents to be able to choose schools. I do not want schools to be able to choose parents, which is what happens under a grammar school system. The schools cream off the children who are able to do well and to pass the 11-plus, and the others are left behind. I want every school to be a centre of excellence so that parents can choose between them. If that means raising parents' aspirations for the children in our most disadvantaged communities and getting them to think more broadly about which school might match their children's talents, I want them to do that. If there are financial barriers to their getting into a school that is, for example, slightly further away than the one at the end of their street, we should help them to overcome those barriers. This is about widening choice in the system, and about making that choice work for the people who want it and need it most.

In my constituency, the very best schools have done extremely well under this Government. However, it is the schools that traditionally had the poorer performances that have done best of all, by increasing standards at a faster rate, taking on specialist school status and working collaboratively in clusters. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how this already very good performance will be enhanced by her proposals? Will she also ensure that standards continue to rise, and that no school is left behind or feels that it does not have a place in the new system?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact not only that standards have been rising across all schools, but that those in schools in the most disadvantaged areas have been catching up with the rest. Our proposals will try to bring in an external partner—for those schools that want one, not where the school or the parents do not want one—to the schools that need that most. If a school in a disadvantaged area has improved rapidly, but should be doing even better for the children, it should have the first bite of the cherry. Such schools should be the first to look for an external partner, if they want to go down that road and if they think they could benefit from being linked with a trust.

The schools commissioner, who will be based in the Department, will work with local authorities to set up those trusts, but also to match-make, so that they go to the schools that need them most and so that those trusts do not cherry-pick the best schools and the best pupils, but really work for the most disadvantaged pupils.

Last year, the Education and Skills Committee published its report on school admissions. In 100 pages, it documented the failures of the admissions system under which a largely voluntary code of practice and largely powerless and weak LEAs were letting down children with special educational needs, those receiving free school meals and children in care. Can the Secretary of State explain how, in her brave new world of completely independent competing schools and completely powerless LEAs, those children will do anything but get an even worse deal?

They will get a better deal and—to take an example—we are just about to lay the regulations on looked-after children, which will mean that looked-after children are top of the list of the admissions criteria for schools. So all schools will have to look at those children first—[Interruption.] Yes. By 2007, hard-to-place pupils will also have to get priority in the queue, as it were.

If schools need to deal with those pupils by having extra off-site provision, because that is the way those children will benefit most, that is the way they should go, and they should plan that provision between themselves. But schools will have the incentive to plan good provision, because those children will be on their rolls, unless they have been excluded from school. So those children will be some of the first to benefit from these proposals.

I applaud the fact that my right hon. Friend has turned her face against selection at 11 and her intention to promote social mobility through education, but that surely has to mean equality of access to the best education irrespective of where people live in an authority, irrespective of their means and irrespective, for instance, of their ability to move house next to the school they want their children to go to in order to get in. Will she please spell out very clearly how her proposals will reconcile the apparent conflict between greater freedom for the schools, including matters of entrance, and guaranteeing equality of access for all social classes in areas like mine?

My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. The first thing to say is that local authorities will have a clear duty, for the first time, to ensure fair access to schools for all pupils living in that community, so they will have to go out and find out what parents want. They will have to talk to parents when their children are in year 1, year 2 or year 3 of primary school to find out what sort of secondary school they want to go to and to ensure that they have access to schools of the sort that they want to attend. Authorities will have to build that into their school transport plans and ensure that there is fair access. Financial help will be given to them to overcome that barrier, but underpinning all that is, first and foremost, a requirement for every school to be a good school. Choice is not real choice unless standards are driven up across the system, but fair access to the schools that are on offer is at the heart of our proposals in the White Paper.

Education in Walsall is run by Serco. Do the Secretary of State's statement and the White Paper presage the end of its control?

No, they do not.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her statement, but may I ask her whether she believes that parent power will in any respect stand in the way of expanding schools and improving them? Where are the schools that want to expand to take on more challenging pupils?

Are we not empowering parents who have moved heaven and earth to get near to the successful schools, and who often have moved house to do so? Will they turn round and say, "Yes, expand this school and make it bigger to take on those more challenging pupils," when they feel that they have left those pupils behind through their ability to move closer to the most successful schools? I urge my right hon. Friend to think very carefully about the system we are introducing. Are not these proposals in danger of being a charter for the chattering classes to leave behind the inner-city secondary schools, as they have always done in our education system? What mechanisms will she put in place to ensure that that does not happen?

I do not think that that is the case. I accept that schools are not bursting to come forward with plans for expansion—not many have been put forward in recent years, some have been approved, and some have been turned down—and if there are barriers in the system that prevent schools from even thinking about that, we want to remove them. The more likely model, however, is one that I see happening with my own eyes in my constituency. I have a head teacher who runs a successful school and I have a school that has been in special measures and has been very weak for many years. The head teacher of the successful school has now become executive principal of both, and the result, even in a very short space of time, has been dramatic. If we can get successful heads to want to take over under-performing, failing schools, that will drive up standards very quickly and spread opportunity across the system. The people who will benefit are those who are disadvantaged and who really need to benefit. That is at the heart of this White Paper.

May I thank the right hon. Lady for gladdening my heart? I fear, however, that she has depressed many of her colleagues, and I wish her well in the battle ahead. In relation to local authorities, I was particularly interested in the phrase in her statement, "They will oversee competitions to deliver new schools." I hope that that will gladden my heart, too. Will she explain that statement a little more?

Under legislation that has already been passed, all new schools that are being proposed will be subject to a school competition so that the best school provider obtains. That process will be overseen by the local authority, with the voice of the parent also respected in the process, so that the school obtained is right for the area and the children, with the local authority setting the admissions criteria, the sort of curriculum and other specialist aspects that it is seeking. That is a strong role for a local authority, but not a new one.

We would all approve of certain aspects of the White Paper, such as the concept of clusters of excellence, which makes sense both in the most deprived and the most advantaged areas. But does my right hon. Friend understand the real fears of many on seeing this White Paper that the very powerful social stratification in our education system will be intensified by parental choice? Can she give some comfort to those who, like me, fear that their constituents, and their constituents' children, will miss out in the rush to the excellent schools? If all parents choose, some will choose better.

I can give my hon. Friend some reassurance on that point. First, the White Paper is also about teaching and learning in our schools. It is about making sure that every child has the best possible education, tailored to their individual needs. When they are falling behind, they will have small group or individual tuition to bring them up to the expected standards in English and maths, and when they are gifted and talented, they will also have extra support. This is freedom for a purpose, not freedom just for freedom's sake. That freedom can drive up standards not just for one school, as collaboration can be encouraged by the use of that freedom and flexibility. That is exactly what is happening in local authorities such as Knowsley and in other areas such as Sheffield and Manchester. Such schools choose, because of the freedom that they have, to work with others to improve education throughout their locality. Collaboration will be strengthened by strong, autonomous schools rather than the reverse. Those schools that most need help—those in the disadvantaged areas—will be the first to be able to benefit from the new trust model, because that is what the schools commissioner is there to do.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to Standing Order No. 112, which allows a Minister to make a statement to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee and to answer questions put by members of that Committee on the statement. You might or might not be aware that this morning, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced details of the Northern Ireland budget to a press conference in Belfast. The decisions that the Secretary of State announced concerned the expenditure of £10 billion of taxpayers' money, and also involved a 15 per cent. increase in the rate bills paid by people in Northern Ireland. Despite the importance of that statement, however, not even a written statement has been made to the House of Commons today.

May I ask you, Sir, to remind the Secretary of State that our Standing Orders already allow Ministers to make statements, if not in the Chamber, to—in this instance—the Northern Ireland Grand Committee? That would at least allow the people elected by our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland to question Ministers about decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of their constituents.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If it is your wish to speak to the Secretary of State, will you please point out that the importance of the issue lies in the fact that this is a 19 per cent. rate increase, the highest in living memory in Northern Ireland? Yet Northern Ireland Members of Parliament have received no information other than what they can obtain from the BBC's website.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that the Secretary of State is due to appear before the Select Committee tomorrow? He could have saved his information until then, when he could be questioned by Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Let me place it on record that I prefer Ministers to come to the House, or to a Committee of the House. I hope that that is borne in mind. As for the point of order from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), it would be for the hon. Gentleman to approach the usual channels and ask for a meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee to be held. I cannot interfere in that; it is a matter for the usual channels. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 2003 in relation to touring circuses; and for connected purposes.

When the world is so troubled by natural disasters, international terrorism, threats of flu pandemics, the impact of climate change and scandalous poverty, malnutrition and disease, circus may seem a rather trivial matter for the House to consider, but I believe that the performing arts have a vital contribution to make to the wealth of our nation, and circus is perhaps the most overlooked, undervalued and misunderstood performing art of them all. Today, touring circus is not just misunderstood; its very existence is under threat.

I am a school friend of Gary Smart, grandson of the legendary Billy Smart, and I freely confess that since then circus has been in my blood. This summer I was delighted to see two very different circuses, the charming and intimate Gifford's circus and the outstanding and exhilarating Zippo's. At both, the looks on the faces of the children, and for that matter the adults, were enough to persuade me to continue the campaign to save the circus from extinction.

Neither of those two circuses uses wild animals, and I must make it clear at the outset that the Bill has nothing whatever to do with the use of wild animals in circuses. Indeed, I signed early-day motion 468, which expressed concern about the use of such animals in circuses. Of the 30 to 40 touring circuses, only about three still use wild animals, only one to any significant extent. The overwhelming majority of circuses are now all-human, or use only domestic animals. The Bill is about protecting a fine British tradition that was born on the south side of Westminster bridge, on land now owned by St. Thomas's hospital. It was begun in 1768 by Philip Astley, a retired sergeant-major who had served in the 15th Light Dragoons in the seven years war and who was a gifted horseman. Initially he became an equestrian trick rider, and performed at pleasure gardens in London. He opened a riding school just across the river, added other acts and set up a ring, calling it "the circus"—which derived, I believe, from the French word for a circle.

For many thousands of young people, a touring circus is now their first introduction to live performing art. Circuses are the last unsubsidised touring art form in the country, visiting some of the smallest as well as some of the largest communities of our land. Circus is a profoundly democratic art form, and its very nature is multicultural. The innocent pleasure that circuses bring, however—as highly talented professionals risk their lives twice daily—is threatened, although I am sure that it is unintentional, by the Licensing Act.

The debate about the Licensing Act has concentrated on alcohol-related antisocial behaviour, 24-hour drinking and, to an extent, the Act's impact on village halls and sports clubs. But the Act also threatens to destroy the touring circus. That is hardly surprising, as it simply was not constructed with the needs of touring circuses in mind. Indeed, the circus industry had been promised total exemption from its provisions, just like that granted to travelling fairgrounds and even to Morris dancers. It was realised too late that that promise had been broken—or perhaps just forgotten.

I have taken industry representatives to meet Ministers on three occasions. Those meetings have always been courteous, including that with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), whom I am glad to see in his place today. But the policy has not changed at all. I have initiated two Adjournment debates, asked many questions and written many letters to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I hope, even at this eleventh hour, that I can persuade Ministers to embrace this Bill, which is entirely in keeping with the spirit of the Licensing Act.

I am not alone in my concern. I am sure that Ministers know that Arts Council England continues to be concerned that the Act will have a damaging and lasting impact on the circus industry. The central problem is that the Act requires premises to be licensed. That is fine for a theatre that does not move, but it is a real issue for a touring circus that moves many times a year. So the Royal Opera house needs one licence, while a small touring circus needs 40, and sometimes as many as 60, separate licences. Getting 40 or more licences poses three problems for circuses, the first of which is cost. There is the cost not just of the fee but of duplicating plans, advertising the application and so on. Even without costing the labour to make the application, the average cost for just one licence is about £600. Most circuses operate on very small margins, and for 40 venues, £600 per venue works out at £24,000 a year.

The second problem is the bureaucracy. It is very difficult for a small circus out on tour—often, such organisations are very small indeed—to go through all the complex formalities needed to apply for a licence. All but the largest circuses have no back office beyond the one that travels with them in a caravan on the road. Organising photocopying and advertising, and dealing with local authorities in other parts of the country, imposes an intolerable—indeed, impossible—additional burden on these very small operators.

The third and perhaps most serious problem is the resultant inflexibility. Touring circuses need to be flexible. Their schedules change all the time. Bad weather can make a field unusable, and a competitor may have exhausted the market for circuses in a particular place the previous week. A circus responds by changing its intended venue, but under the Act it cannot be flexible. The time that it takes to apply for a licence means that it cannot change its plans, and it loses its revenue for the whole week because it either does not put on shows at all, or performs to very small audiences.

But the situation gets worse. It is now obvious that local authorities simply do not know how to treat circuses under the Act. Some are effectively refusing to licence them at all, while others are making obtaining a licence very difficult. Some are saying that the land on which the tent is erected needs a licence, while others are saying that the tent—the big top—needs one. Some are even saying that circuses are not covered by the Act at all and do not need licences. Cost, bureaucracy, inflexibility and now confusion: this fearful foursome means that the Licensing Act is likely to kill all but the three or four largest circuses, unless we make changes.

It is not as if circuses do not already have enough legislation to comply with. Licensing circuses will not add in any way to public safety, or provide any extra safeguards for local communities. They already liaise with local authorities, fire brigades and police forces about their sites, and any advice offered is always acted on. A complex and detailed web of legislation is already in place. I have in my hand the operational manual of one touring circus—Zippo's. Such a manual is needed to ensure that it complies with health and safety requirements, fire regulations, disability discrimination regulations, food safety and hygiene requirements, noise control rules, regulations for the safe storage of oil and gas, and requirements for all manner of risk assessments. Such assessments include a detailed analysis of the risks posed by the domestic budgerigars used in a particular act.

I also have in my hand the 12 certificates that a touring circus is already required to have, many of which must be applied for annually. They are a certification of test and examination of lifting equipment; a fire extinguisher inspection certificate; a flame-retardant application certificate; a National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting electrical installation report; a first aid qualification; a food hygiene certificate; a public liability insurance certificate; employer's liability insurance; an animal trainer licence; a veterinary inspection certificate; water extraction permission; and staff training documentation for fire, health and safety and manual handling. Anyhow, the purpose of the Act was to provide safeguards around the use and abuse of alcohol. Circuses do not serve alcohol and I am aware of no public order issues around circuses. Families with children intent on a good time do not usually take part in antisocial behaviour: the closest to it is probably the behaviour of the clowns in the circus ring.

The Bill provides three different routes for the Government to use to solve the problem. All three will be on the basis of an order-making power for the Secretary of State, but there will be a requirement for at least one of them to be implemented within a specific period.

The first possibility—my preferred route—is the annual licensing of circuses. The nature of the licence and the body responsible for issuing it will be left to secondary legislation. The Secretary of State could issue it him or herself, or it could be issued by the Health and Safety Executive, the home local authority of the circus, or any other body deemed appropriate by the Minister. The big top would be licensed, and unless there were changes to the layout of the big top during the season, the licence would be valid for a calendar year and no local authority would be able to overturn it.

The second possibility is the amendment of the temporary event notice procedure for circuses. The TEN regime is also designed for particular static venues like village halls and pubs. This clause would permit a special category of TEN, developed specifically for circuses, with more TENs available for longer periods and for larger audiences. A tight definition of what constitutes a circus should remove any risk of "creep" of the provision beyond circuses.

The third possibility is a provision to exempt circuses from the Licensing Act 2003 altogether. The Minister thinks that he already has the power to do this—I hope he will do so if he does have that power—but I am not so convinced. This would be an important fall-back provision if, for any reason, the first two routes proved unworkable.

Circuses are in real jeopardy unless the Government act. It was never intended that the Licensing Act 2003 should have this outcome. My Bill is simple, workable and sets no dangerous precedent. It just delivers what the Government originally promised to circuses. I know that the present Government have a fondness for regulation, and they often seem a tad serious in their approach—perhaps more roundhead than cavalier. I hope that Ministers in what was once known as the "Ministry of Fun" can now live up to that name and agree that circus is fun, is threatened, is worth saving and can be saved. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Peter Luff, Harry Cohen, Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, Mark Fisher, Andrew George, Mr. Michael Jack, Kate Hoey, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Lembit Öpik, Stephen Pound and Mr. John Whittingdale.

Licensing Act 2003 (Amendment)

Peter Luff accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 2003 in relation to touring circuses; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 December, and to be printed [Bill 65]

I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

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

As Members of this House, we are all here because we are elected to represent our constituents under our democratic system. That is an extraordinary privilege, and as we swing through those doors marked "Members Only" we cannot help but feel a sense of pride. However, I bring the Electoral Administration Bill to the House on Second Reading today because all is not well with our democracy. As Members, we need to acknowledge the problems; as the Government, we need to take action to tackle them.

The legitimacy of our democracy depends on three things—everyone having the right to vote, everyone wanting to vote and no one fiddling the vote. However, we have problems with each of those three legs of the stool. Before I come to the specific measures that I am commending to the House in the Bill, I want to make it clear that the problems of under-registration and low turnout are not evenly spread, so those problems with our democracy are the map of inequality in our society.

We are all familiar with the concept of social exclusion—with communities that suffer from poorer health, lower educational achievement and worse housing—and we all agree that it is the business of Government to act to tackle the problems. However, what is less accepted is that social exclusion has a political dimension—that although the better off are on the register and go out to vote, people in poorer communities are more likely to be left off the register and are less likely to go out to vote.

As the Constitutional Affairs Committee pointed out in its report of March this year, people who are white owner-occupiers in non-metropolitan areas will be on the register. However, about 3 million people—most of whom are poor, council tenants, black and living in inner cities—will not be. In those areas, low registration and low turnout compound each other to create what I call democracy deserts, where it is the norm not to vote. Therefore, the Bill contains measures to ensure that those hard to reach people are included on the electoral register.

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the particular problems in London, where 21 of the 25 constituencies with the highest levels of under-registration are situated. Does the Bill contain special measures for London?

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Electoral Commission also reported last month, and it found that London was the region with the lowest turnout. As he will be only too well aware, the problem in London is compounded by the fact that we have 32 electoral registration authorities. That results in fragmentation among those whose task it is to deal with the cross-London problem. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured to hear that I am working with the Mayor of London, the Association of Electoral Administrators, parliamentary colleagues and all the capital's local authorities to try to establish a much better register before the May elections.

On behalf of her party, does the Minister accept any responsibility for the fact that electoral services in the places to which she refers by and large have been run for many years by Labour councils? Precious little has been done to deal with the problem.

I had hoped that this Bill would not become a party political football. We should undertake a shared analysis of the problem and take into consideration the findings of both the Select Committee and the Electoral Commission, as we all have an interest in supporting democracy and tackling inequality. Everyone would like the situation to be better, but today's debate is an opportunity for the House to determine whether the measures in the Bill, and other operational measures, can help to resolve the problem.

The Minister will know that I share her concern and also her commitment to ensuring that many more people vote in areas such as the ones that she and I represent. I want to make a couple of constructive suggestions. First, we should hold a census day every year that has much better publicity than is currently the case, and it should be on a regular date so that people can recognise and remember it. A week before a general election, another day should be set aside as the last day for registering to vote. With huge publicity, that would help to ensure that people go to the polling booth.

Secondly, people who want to vote often go to the wrong polling station and are turned away. They should be allowed to vote there and then, and any other votes cast by them should be discounted. That approach would at least prevent people from feeling that they are not wanted, which can put them off ever trying to vote again.

The hon. Gentleman shares a borough and its electoral registration services with me, and he makes a very important point. The idea of holding a democracy day, which people would know was the last possible date for registering to vote, is not a bad one. We could try it out in London. I hope that he will be part of the London campaign as we need many ideas to tackle the problem that I have outlined. We need to ensure that all registration officers take all the necessary steps to get people registered, and that all of them follow best practice and reach the highest standards.

The Bill introduces a new duty for electoral registration officers to take all necessary steps to ensure comprehensive registers and it sets out what those steps must include. We will extend the registration time until after an election has been called, instead of the current cut-off of six weeks before the election. Once the election campaign is under way and the parties are out and about, people often feel most motivated to get on the register, only to discover that that is not possible. We will allow them to register up to 11 working days before the election. We will require administrators to make public the amount that they spend on electoral services to ensure that we can all see how much each authority is spending.

Ensuring that everyone has the right to vote also means ensuring that everyone who is eligible and registered to vote is then able and encouraged to participate. To promote participation we are requiring that all polling stations are regularly reviewed to ensure that they provide proper access for everyone.

There is a particular problem of young people not being registered—and of not voting even when they are registered.

Will the right hon. and learned Lady reflect that we provide citizenship education for our young people up to the age of 16 and then force them to wait until they are 18 to exercise their vote? Will she consider bringing forward proposals that will allow the voting age to be reduced to 16—[Interruption.]—so as to harness the enthusiasm of 16-year-olds and encourage participation and community cohesion?

The problem of young people not voting is so acute that, with respect, I would say to right hon. and hon. Members who say, "No, that is a bad idea", that we are not in a position to rule out any options. We must be as open-minded as we can possibly be on this issue.

I hope that the provision in the Bill to allow parents to take their children into the polling booth with them will enable parents to show their children how to vote and give them the opportunity to teach their children democracy in practice.

Does the right hon. and learned Lady understand that this is not a mechanism? The failure to register is not because the process is inadequate. Among young people there is a complete disengagement from politics. I commend to her a report produced by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which shows that most people get out of the habit of voting. That does not relate to youth alone—an entire generation feels that this place is entirely alien from it. To re-engage with the members of that generation means reaching into society. It is not a question of mechanism.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Many of us in this place—I and colleagues on both sides of the Chamber—have argued for modernisation of the House. We have not gone far enough. We need completely to reinvent the role of the MP, but that is not the subject of the Bill. Its provisions are important, but they will not change things overnight. However, they are necessary and I commend them to the House.

The Minister makes interesting points about young people. She opened the door a little to the prospect of allowing 16-year-olds to vote. Does she accept that the issue is not that 16 or 17-year-olds are children, but that the law regards them as adults in many different ways, including the right to have children and to get married? Will she explain why the Government are still resistant on bestowing the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds who, in many other ways, are already regarded as adults in the eyes of the law?

The hon. Gentleman advances strongly the arguments in favour of changing the voting age and reducing it from 18 to 16. I have said that, as well as pursuing citizenship classes and many other measures, we will try to keep as open a mind as possible. It is not a question of people losing the habit of voting. A generation of people are growing up who have never voted. They have never got into the habit of voting.

We are proposing lowering the age of candidacy from 21 to 18 in line with the change in voting age that has already taken place, opening up the possibility of teenage Members for the first time. Hon. Members have expressed their concern that our system denies some members of our armed forces the right to vote. I acknowledge the representations on this issue of my right hon. Friends the Minister for Industry and the Regions and the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and the hon. Members for Gosport (Peter Viggers), for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes). Many other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have also brought the issue to my attention.

As a result of those representations, I have met my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the armed forces, and the Electoral Commission has, together with the armed forces, begun a concerted campaign to ensure that every member of the armed forces gets on the register and then gets either a postal vote or a proxy vote. It must be right to make absolutely sure that our servicemen and women, away from their homes on national service, do not thereby lose their right to vote. We shall monitor the situation to ensure that the changes are working, and the first test will be the May 2006 elections.

What estimate have the Government made of the number of service voters who were unable to vote because they did not make it on to the register at the last election? Could the right hon. and learned Lady also explain why, despite the fact that vigorous representations were made a full nine months before the general election, we still went into the election with those who are trying to bring democracy to Iraq unable even to vote in their own country?

The hon. Gentleman has been to the fore in bringing that to our attention and he is right to express frustration. I understand the strength of feeling about the matter. We are determined to monitor the situation and take forward practical measures. One of the problems was that there was no accepted figure for the amount of under-registration in the armed forces. To some extent, people said that there was no problem, but now that it has been acknowledged, it will be tackled and measured to ensure that our proposals work. I hope that we can make progress on that.

The whole House should support the Government's efforts to improve registration, whether for service people or others. In relation to compulsory postal voting, or all-postal voting as opposed to what I gather is now called traditional voting—we all want to maximise the number of people who have the opportunity to vote through being on the register. However, even more important than the poll percentage is the integrity of the ballot and the perception among the mass of the population that the vote is honest and fair. Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear all those points in mind when considering the question of compulsory postal voting, which is, as she knows, extremely controversial?

I hope that I can allay my right hon. Friend's concerns when I reach the next passage in my speech, which is about the security of the vote.

I welcome the Minister's remarks about ensuring that the armed forces have a greater opportunity to vote. However, although I received many complaints from serving soldiers about their inability to vote in the last general election, I received more complaints from serving members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who were unable to vote due to the logistics of election day in Northern Ireland, when a far greater police presence is required. Will she look into that issue and ensure that every serving police officer is allowed to vote and does not have their vote whipped away at the last moment by some change of direction by a senior officer?

Perhaps I could discuss that with my ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office. I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman's point is drawn to their attention.

At a meeting last week, the Minister told me that there had been considerable discussions between her, her Department, the Ministry of Defence and the Electoral Commission and she undertook to write to me with details. I look forward to receiving that communication and hope that I do so before the Bill goes into Committee, as it would be helpful in deciding whether the Bill requires amendment.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the points that he made in our meeting last week. We all need to work together. We should not be incapable of solving the problem—and if the Ministry of Defence, my Department, and the armed forces work together, we really ought to be able to sort it out.

As the Minister will know, originally service personnel filled in a service voter card and were thereafter registered to vote in the constituency they specified, but now an annual update is required to the local registration officer in whichever constituency the person wants to vote, which has caused a problem for the armed forces. What will the Minister do to get around that problem? Can we go back to the old system or have a new one that ensures that our servicemen can vote?

We need to be sure that the concerted efforts to be made by the MOD, the Electoral Commission and the armed forces to get service personnel on to the register make progress. If they do not, we shall have to look into other ways of dealing with the matter. We are absolutely fixed on the objective of getting members of our armed forces on to the register and enabling them to vote. Quite frankly, whatever means we need—whether primary or secondary legislation, or whatever—we must take those measures to make that happen. If a different system for armed forces personnel from the one for people who are not in the armed forces is necessary, we can take that step.

The tendency to sweep names off the register annually, which affects service voters and others, has increased following the changes in service arrangements. Does the right hon. and learned Lady recognise—as we did when the Constitutional Affairs Committee considered the issue—that where the data show that a name should be removed from the register, of course, that should be done, but the automatic removal of names at the year end takes off the register the names of people who have simply failed to get their names on to the form during that year, which leads to under-registration?

I pay tribute to the Select Committee's work under the right hon. Gentleman's leadership. He raises an important issue in the Committee's work and in the House today. People who have voted all their lives find it exasperating if they go down to the polling station and are told that they cannot vote because they are not on the electoral register. They usually protest and say, "How can the council think that I am not there? They sent me a council tax bill yesterday." We should ensure that we strike off people who have moved and so on—it is important that the register is as accurate as possible —but whether we can use data sharing to check who is or is not in an area is something that the Electoral Commission's performance standards can address.

Some electoral registration officers feel that they are not allowed to carry out data checking to tackle either any gap in the register or people whose names may have fallen off the register. To clarify that, we will state in secondary legislation that they have the right to check all the data that they have. We will also consider whether we need secondary legislation to give them access to other data beyond what is held by councils for the purpose of completing the electoral register. Under the Bill, we will require them to check the data that they hold to ensure that their register is as complete as possible.