Consumer Rights Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman kindly said that he had a great deal of respect for what I had to say, which is certainly more than can be said for most people on the Government Benches, so I am very grateful to him for that kind comment. It probably will not do much for his reputation within his party, but I am grateful for it, because I have a great deal of respect for him, too.

I believe in the free market and am not ashamed of doing so. I believe it acts in the best interests of the consumer. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said he was surprised that I was not standing up for my constituents as consumers, but I am. I believe in the free market; I believe that people should have the right to sell on their ticket if they buy one and then find that they cannot go to the event or that somebody else is prepared to pay a higher price for it. I will happily take my chances with my electorate at the general election, to see whether they are happy that I look after their interests, just as he will put his record before his electorate at the general election—we shall see how we both get on.

The Minister glossed over the fact that the Government have done a complete U-turn on this issue. I do not know whether she is embarrassed about that or not, but I would be if I were in her shoes.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I am surprised to hear about the extent of the U-turn. Can my hon. Friend explain why there has been such a U-turn? Surely the Government are normally consistent—or try to be consistent—from one week to the next.

[Philip Davies]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on keeping a straight face when he said that, but it is not for me to explain it. I have certainly kept my position consistent, and I have to congratulate the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on maintaining a consistent position on these issues. I can only presume that the interference of our Liberal Democrat coalition friends in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has led to this about-turn.

We have an issue here, because the Minister seems to be arguing that nobody in the secondary market has anything to worry about and that their industry is going to thrive, prosper and flourish, yet all the sporting bodies and events organisers, and some of our hon. Friends, are cock-a-hoop about this. They are not cock-a-hoop because they think the secondary ticketing market is going to thrive and prosper as a result of this Lords amendment being accepted; they are cock-a-hoop because they think the exact opposite will happen. I have to congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who has been very persistent on this issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley). They obviously knew what they were dealing with in Liberal Democrat Ministers; they knew that they were always in the game for a U-turn whenever the Lib Dems were involved, and I congratulate them on their industry and initiative in that regard.

The question nobody has asked is why are the sporting bodies and events organisers so keen for the full details of the ticket—the row number, the section number, the ticket number, the seat number and the whole lot—to be published online? Let me give hon. Members the answer. They are so desperate to have that information so that they can see who bought the ticket, cancel the ticket if it gets sold on to somebody else, blacklist the person involved and prevent them from ever buying a ticket in the future. The only reason they want this information is so that they can use that information to stop this market.

The Government have said that these bodies will not be able to do that—the law will say they cannot do that—but I would like to know from the Minister who is going to police that? When somebody turns up to an event with a ticket bought from a secondary ticketing site and the event organiser says, “Sorry, I’m not going to let you in. We don’t like the look of that ticket. We saw it in the secondary ticketing industry”, who is going to be there from the Government to say, “No, this chap should be allowed into this event”? Nobody will be there. That person will be sent away and never get to see the event they wanted to see—the Government will have let them down. Even if the person went to court and won the case, they would still have not got to the event they particularly wanted to see. It is an absolute con if consumers think this will protect their interests when they buy a ticket from the secondary market. The sporting bodies know it and the hon. Members here who have been agitating for this measure know it, and that is why the sporting bodies and the events organisers are so keen to have this information. The Minister says that people cannot be blacklisted, but who is going to police that? Who is going to stop it? What resources are the Government putting in to make sure that does not happen? The answer is none. Basically, there are just warm words. The Government are repeating what they did on immigration, which is making a promise that they know they are in no position to keep. It is that kind of thing that brings politics into disrepute.

The Minister said that consumers could now have confidence in the market, but where is the evidence that consumers do not have confidence in the secondary ticketing market? Consumers have confidence in the secondary ticketing market, but the sporting bodies and the big event organisers do not. If people did not have confidence in it, they would not be buying tickets there in the first place. The problem for these big bodies and these multi-millionaire music organisers is that too many people do have confidence in the secondary ticketing market, which is why they want to damage it. That is why we should reject these Lords amendments this evening.

Electoral Registration

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said, the register that will be used for the general election in 92 days’ time will have missing from it those who have just reached the age of 18 and should be taking part in general elections. It is estimated that there will be 3.3 million first-time voters on 7 May, and we are concerned that too many of them will be missing from the register.

Almost three quarters of those who vote are in socio-economic class AB—the wealthiest—yet fewer than two thirds of C2s and Ds do so. Our elections are being fought on the basis of a seriously skewed register, with key groups and communities under-represented.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

In a moment.

Our election results are being decided by voters who are older and more affluent. This is an appropriate time for me to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Chope]

There are 47 countries in the Council of Europe, and individual voter registration is a basic minimum safeguard against fraud in every single one of them. Does the right hon. Gentleman not support that as a basic principle?

[Sadiq Khan]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we introduced the measure in 2009, and he supported it. Under our motion, we would not get rid of individual voter registration but ensure that there were safeguards before the next general election.

Overseas Voters Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 23rd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

This is another Bill relating to the forthcoming general election. It would ensure higher participation among those who would be entitled to vote if they registered, notwithstanding the fact that they are overseas. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, on which I have the privilege of serving, has been considering voter participation. Although the focus at the beginning was mainly on the situation within the United Kingdom, during the course of our inquiry a lot more emphasis has been given to the situation of British citizens who are resident overseas and would otherwise be entitled to vote.

It is estimated that there may be as many as 5 million such people. How many of them are currently registered? The latest figure is about 16,000 of a potential 5 million or more. That is scandalous, and I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), whom I am pleased to see on the Front Bench, agrees that there needs to be much greater participation among electors who are resident overseas.

Clause 1 should, therefore, commend itself to the Government. It would impose a

“duty on the Electoral Commission so far as is reasonably practicable to…identify the names and addresses of British citizens resident overseas who would be able to participate in United Kingdom Parliamentary elections if they were registered to vote, and…facilitate the registration of those identified”.

Clause 2 of this simple Bill states:

“There shall be no restriction placed on the eligibility of a British citizen resident overseas to register to vote or vote in UK Parliamentary elections based solely upon the length of time that such voter has been resident overseas.”

That would remove the current 15-year restriction, a subject on which my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) has a ten-minute rule Bill. The proposal has the support of the Conservative party and I understand that it will be a definite part of its manifesto—a pledge to remove the 15-year restriction on an overseas voter’s eligibility to vote if they are a British citizen who would otherwise be eligible to do so.

Clause 3 deals with internet voting. I am always keen to embrace new technology, as my wife and family will testify, so why should we not embrace new technology in the voting system? Anyone who is resident in the United Kingdom in the run-up to an election can obtain a proxy or a postal vote, or can vote in person at the polling station. That is much more difficult for those who are resident overseas. Obviously, they cannot physically vote at a polling station because we, unlike a lot of other countries, do not set up polling stations in our embassies or in other buildings in foreign countries. People who are resident overseas therefore have to rely on a proxy or a postal vote.

It is possible to organise a proxy vote if it is planned in advance and if the person who is overseas knows somebody in this country who can exercise it. However, with postal voting, it is difficult to ensure that the ballot paper is sent to the person who is resident overseas in sufficient time to enable them to put the ballot paper back in the post and return it to the United Kingdom so that it can be included in the count. That situation has been eased to an extent, because the Government have said that there will be a longer period between the close of nominations and printing of ballot papers and the date of the election. However, we know that a relatively small proportion of those overseas who are registered to vote actually do vote. One reason for that is the difficulty of registering their vote.

If we are to go down the road of internet voting—I know that some colleagues are sceptical about it—surely we should allow it for those who are overseas. Just as people can now Skype their friends and relatives who are overseas at practically zero cost, I see no reason why we should not facilitate, through the internet, increased participation among United Kingdom citizens who are resident overseas and who rightly take a close interest in what we do in this legislature.

I have said to a number of people who have written to me on this subject that if more British citizens who are resident overseas participated in our elections, it would strengthen the case for reforming things such as the rights of British pensioners overseas to pension increases and there would be a lot more pressure on Parliament to give those overseas pensioners justice. People would realise that we are not talking about just a handful of potential voters in a constituency, but about hundreds or thousands of people who could influence the outcome of an election.

This is a Bill with three straightforward clauses. It provides Ministers with the opportunity, under clause 3, to bring forward regulations to deal with internet voting. I have to admit that my drafting skills did not enable me to produce a detailed regime for overseas internet voting, so I am relying on somebody else to do the donkey work on that. However, it is important that the Bill states, as it does in clause 3(2), that any regulations must

“include provisions to prevent identity fraud and to ensure that only those eligible to vote can vote.”

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

It strikes me that if we start looking at internet voting for people who are resident abroad, that will prepare us for new provisions that may eventually be introduced in this country for the whole electorate. Those provisions will necessarily be complicated, so this proposal would be a good exercise to ensure that we were up to speed. We could register a discrete group of people for internet voting, in preparation for what I think will ultimately be introduced across the country.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend because there are two schools of thought. The first, which she articulated, is that this proposal would be a good test bed for internet voting. Others say that it would set a dangerous precedent, and that before we realise it we will have internet voting without control for the whole United Kingdom electorate, which will facilitate a lot of fraud. I think that internet voting for those who are resident overseas is a discrete matter, and we could develop a regime for that, and see how it works and whether we are able to introduce systems that prevent identity fraud and ensure that only those who are eligible vote. Based on that knowledge and experience, the House could consider rationally whether we wish to extend the system more widely.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I suspect there is an inevitability about voting online and that one day it will come, although we do not know what will happen. My hon. Friend mentions someone voting online when they are abroad, and if they are resident abroad that is easy to determine. What about if someone was on holiday or having a gap year or whatever—I do not mean a week in the sun, but a longer period of time? Would they qualify for online voting abroad as opposed to a proxy or postal vote? I can foresee difficulties in quantifying who would qualify.

[Mr Chope]

Clause 3 would apply only to British citizens who were ordinarily resident overseas, not those who happened to be on holiday. The latter group would be brought in only in the event of our extending internet or online voting to the United Kingdom electorate, and it is important to distinguish between those two groups. It is much more complicated to deal with people voting while on holiday than with those who are resident overseas.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s Bill because, as he would say himself, this is about the rights of British residents to vote in a general election. Has he made any comparison with other countries—perhaps, although not exclusively, in other parts of the European Union—that have similar arrangements? Should the Bill apply not only to parliamentary elections but, for example, to a referendum on the EU?

[Mr Chope]

I understand that the franchise for an EU referendum includes all those who are eligible to participate in a parliamentary election, and I would stick to that. If we encouraged more people from overseas to register, they would be able to participate in a national referendum that had been extended to all registered voters.

I sometimes monitor elections on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and almost all its 47 countries have more extensive systems for facilitating voting by their diaspora, as it is described, than we do. Many countries extend voting arrangements to providing facilities in embassies, consulates and other places, in addition to postal or proxy votes. Those countries believe—quite rightly—that their diaspora is an important part of that country, and that people should be encouraged to participate in its affairs. That can best be done by participating in elections. We are probably well behind the curve by comparison with the 47 member countries of the Council of Europe. That is another reason why the Bill needs immediate attention rather than putting on the back burner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response and for his repetition of the position that the Conservatives would support removing the 15-year restriction on the eligibility of British citizens resident overseas to vote. The only question he did not really answer was why the coalition minority partners are against such a change. Obviously, had they not been, my Bill would have been able to make progress today.

It is also interesting to note some of the points made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) on issues associated with individual voter registration. It is essential that we do not compromise on that principle. It is well established within the Council of Europe that every person who goes to vote should be individually registered, but our country has been a bit late in getting on that bandwagon. Some of the body language from Opposition Members suggests that they think that there should be flexibility on that, but I think that we should be resolute in saying that only those people who are duly registered and present themselves to vote should be able to vote. Having that said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

European Parliament Elections Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 9th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

This is the first of three Bills that I hope we shall have the chance to discuss today. In a sense, this is my contribution to manifesto development for the Conservative party in the run-up to the next general election, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) is here in the House today, as he has a great deal of knowledge of this matter: he is a former MEP and, indeed, leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament. He understands what our policy used to be. The Conservative policy used to be in favour of open lists for European Parliament elections, rather than the closed lists we have at the moment. I hope the Minister will say that he agrees wholeheartedly that open lists are more democratic than closed lists, and that open lists are likely to encourage more people to participate in European elections, because they will have a real choice, rather than having choice limited by the closed list system. This would be a good thing for democracy. As you know well, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you have a good point, there is no need to labour it, so with that, I have the pleasure of moving the Second Reading motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

With the leave of the House, may I respond to the very encouraging words from my hon. Friend the Minister? It looks as though this is the revelation of a new part of the Conservative party manifesto. I certainly hope so. It is also good that we have so much support from the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), because if such a measure is going to make progress it is best that it does so on a cross-party basis. There is cross-party support for the idea of increasing voter engagement in elections, whether one is a Eurosceptic or a Europhile, as it is in the interests of democracy and of the European Union that there should be maximum participation in the elections to the European Parliament. I should have tabled the Bill much earlier in this Parliament, but I will take it away and hope that I see it reflected in the Conservative party manifesto.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. It has been brought to my attention that due to a misunderstanding the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) on the calendar of business for Friday 27 March for Second Reading of the Pavement Parking Bill did not appear on today’s Order Paper. I will therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to move his motion at the appropriate time, as I am reinstating it in the Order Paper after motion 5.

Ofsted

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to introduce a debate on the accountability of Ofsted, not least because Her Majesty’s chief inspector’s annual report was published today. Few issues can be more important for our country than standards and attainment in education. Ofsted plays, and has played, a pivotal role in trying to ensure that all our schools are stretched to demonstrate excellence in what they do, and that they are held to account publicly for their failures and shortcomings.

At the start of such a debate, one can do little better than to refer to the chief inspector’s conclusion in today’s report, in which he states:

“We are at a watershed moment in the history of our education system. As we near the next general election, no major political party is talking about reversing the trend towards the greater autonomy that our schools now enjoy.

I believe the time has now come to move away from the debate that has raged for the past five years about school structures and towards a sharper focus on what works in all schools, regardless of their model of governance or status.

The essential ingredients for success are no secret and have been well documented from time immemorial—strong leadership, a positive and orderly culture, good teaching and robust assessment systems.”

I want to concentrate on that last phrase. Without robust assessment systems, it is difficult for Ofsted to demonstrate that it is objective and consistent. Ofsted must be accountable publicly for its actions and judgments, and particularly for ensuring the factual accuracy of the data on which such judgments are made. Only then can we be sure that the assessments it makes are robust.

On 30 October this year, the National Audit Office published a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on oversight and intervention in academies and maintained schools. The NAO states:

“Our public audit perspective helps Parliament hold government to account and improve public services.”

As the report makes clear, it has been the policy of the Department for Education since 2010 that a maintained school with sustained or serious underperformance should normally expect to become a sponsored academy. A sponsored academy is directly accountable to the Secretary of State rather than to the local authority. The latest figures from the NAO show that there are some 4,200 academies in England, and that 17,300 maintained schools are still overseen by local authorities. Academies have been an important vehicle for improving standards. They have helped to ensure that the majority of schools that Ofsted rates inadequate improve by their next inspection.

As the NAO reminds us, however, 1.6 million of the 7 million children aged four to 16 are still educated at schools that are not rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. Against that background, we must be concerned by the NAO’s conclusion that the Department for Education has not demonstrated that the £382 million of taxpayers’ money that was spent on oversight and intervention in 2013-14 is delivering value for money. The NAO states that

“the clear messages about acceptable standards of performance must be paired with more ways to spot problems early on and a demonstrably consistent approach to tackling underperformance when it occurs.”

Ofsted responded, in a sense, to those comments on page 25 of its annual report:

“We are also taking action to improve the quality of inspection.”

That is an implicit acceptance of the fact that, hitherto, the quality of inspection has not been sufficiently good. The report states that

“from next year, Ofsted will contract directly with inspectors, rather than through third party providers. This will enable Ofsted to take direct control of the selection, quality assurance and development of its inspection workforce.”

Having provided some background, I want to draw attention to what has happened to a secondary school in my constituency. In today’s annual report, the chief inspector states:

“Over 170,000 pupils are now in secondary schools rated inadequate, around 70,000 more than in 2012.”

On that basis, more secondary schools are becoming inadequate at a time when everybody is saying that we have to improve standards. My concern is that some of the judgments about whether schools are inadequate or good are extremely subjective.

Pupils at Ferndown upper school in my constituency are among that cohort of 70,000. When the school was inspected on 24 and 25 November 2010, it was rated good, which is the second highest of the four categories. In its report on that inspection, Ofsted stated:

“Ferndown Upper is a good school that has improved appreciably since the last inspection and has the capacity to improve further.”

The report also states:

“There is a rising trend in students’ attainment and the majority of students make good progress regardless of their background, starting points or special educational needs. Teaching is good and there is a strategic policy to ensure that regular and systematic assessment takes place in all subject areas.”

According to the report,

“examination results for 2010 show a continuing trend of improvement…there has been a significant increase in the number of students attaining five A* to C grades at GCSE, including English and mathematics. This figure has risen by 12 per cent since last year and is now above the national average.”

The report goes on to say:

“The school has worked hard to improve attendance and has put in place monitoring and support systems”.

It also states:

“The headteacher and his leadership team have a clear vision for the school. They are committed to driving through a range of improvements to raise standards and develop students as ‘confident, independent learners and responsible citizens’.”

Just over three years later, another Ofsted report was published. The school has the same head teacher and chair of governors, and, speaking as the Member of Parliament, there is no dispute among local people about the fact that the school, although by no means perfect, has not deteriorated but has improved during those three years. In the inspection of 9 and 10 January 2014, Ofsted rated the school as inadequate, which is the lowest of the four grades. Ofsted said that the school had “serious weaknesses” and stated:

“Achievement is inadequate because both past and current students have not made sufficient progress, especially in English.”

It stated that teaching was inadequate and that leaders

“have not taken the actions needed to improve teaching and achievement, particularly in English”.

The school was, understandably, incensed that it had been marked down in such an arbitrary fashion.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

What has happened to the school’s GCSE results since 2010? What happened to the number of pupils receiving five A* to C grades in the period between the two inspections?

[Mr Chope]

I do not have those figures in my head, but I have figures showing that, in the period since the inspection, there has been a significant increase in GCSE performance at A* to C. Those figures compare very favourably with many other schools in Dorset that are rated not inadequate but good. If in due course I look at the detailed material I have here, I might be able to answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific question.

The school and its governors decided to appeal against what they regarded as an inadequate conclusion to the inspection. The report was published on 19 March 2014, and when the head distributed it to parents, as he is obliged to do, he said that the inspectors had ignored various issues. He said that, although

“there remain areas for improvement, the Governors and Senior Leadership Team of the school share with the whole staff the belief that this inspection was unfair and deeply unjust…We knew and accepted that English had under-performed”.

He stated that the school was taking action about that, which is why the school was

“predicting…good results in English this summer”.

Indeed, the school did get good results in English in the summer of 2014, and the head expressed concern about predictions for the future:

“a point the inspectors seem to have ignored. Instead they focused on data from the last 3 years, including 2012, the year in which grade boundaries were suddenly changed leading to a national outcry. This directly contradicts their own guidance which urges inspectors not to focus just on the last 3 years but to take into account current progress.

Inspectors also appear to have ignored the wealth of opportunity that the school continues to offer through the wide variety of trips, activities, clubs and achievements that cannot be measured as easily as English results.”

He drew a contrast with the inspector’s report from 2010, saying that

“everyone who knows the school well would say that it is actually a better school today than in 2010!”

One of the concerns the head and the governors have is that Ofsted compared the school’s attendance and exclusions—the inspection was carried out not by Ofsted inspectors but by Tribal, a subcontractor to Ofsted—with secondary schools that were not comparable. Ferndown upper school has only years 9, 10, 11 and a sixth form, whereas the schools with which Ofsted compared it also have years 7 and 8. Obviously, in years 7 and 8, as national figures make clear, attendance is better and exclusions are fewer. Ofsted was not comparing like with like, which is a fundamental error.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Using the evidence of one school, he seems to be saying that there are concerns about standards within Ofsted. He just mentioned that the inspection was carried out by a subcontractor. Does he agree that the answer to improving the consistency and quality of Ofsted is to ensure that all inspectors are directly engaged, as Sir Michael Wilshaw has recommended in recent months?

[Mr Chope]

Indeed, Sir Michael Wilshaw has recommended that, and I assume that the only reason he has done so is because in his experience there has not been such consistency and quality assurance under the old regime. I support his judgment on that, but it is no consolation for a school that has fallen foul of the old and inconsistent regime. Future improvements may lead to more consistency; indeed, the purpose of this debate is to try to find out what can be done to ensure consistency. So much turns on Ofsted’s judgment of a particular school.

What happens if a school is dissatisfied with an inspection? All it can do is appeal. Under Ofsted’s internal appeals process, Ofsted inspectors judge the work of other Ofsted inspectors. In the case of Ferndown upper school, a more junior Ofsted inspector judged the work of a more senior inspector, which I would submit is quite an invidious position to be put in—it certainly lacks the transparency and objectivity that we should demand of such organisations.

The school then appealed to the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted, which deals with appeals against Ofsted. Unfortunately, the ICASO is effectively toothless because it cannot adjudicate on the important issues. The school made what is called a stage 4 complaint, which said, for example, that the inspectors who went to the school made notes and said orally to the school that they found that the pupils’ behaviour was good and that there were no examples of bad behaviour, but that they changed their judgment at a later stage in the process and said that they were concerned that there had been examples of bad behaviour.

Not surprisingly, the school said, “Well, let’s see where those examples of bad behaviour were noted by the inspectors at the time.” The school was told, “That’s all confidential information and it’s not available under freedom of information.” The school raised that issue with ICASO. The response from ICASO, which came through in the summer, stated that the complainant’s concerns relating to the Freedom of Information Act lie entirely outside ICASO’s remit, so it was not able to look at that. ICASO also said that it is not within its remit to overturn Ofsted judgments or to scrutinise its inspection criteria. Indeed, the only thing ICASO can do is look at the process, which is not really what we want in an appeals system.

Once a school has gone through that stage and had its ICASO adjudication, what can it do next? All it can do is send the matter to the parliamentary ombudsman. If ever there was the long grass, it is the parliamentary ombudsman—I am not insulting him, but the parliamentary ombudsman, again, can only consider administrative processes. Because of his work load, a complaint referred to the parliamentary ombudsman is unlikely to be determined for a significant period of time, by when the school will have a completely different cohort of pupils. That does not seem to be an adequate process of accountability. I would be interested to know whether the Minister—whom I am delighted to see in his place—agrees and whether he has any proposals for change, because the more emphasis we put on the regulatory and inspection process, the more important it is that it should be seen to be objective and above reproach. The trouble is that the consequences of such judgments feed into the school’s morale and the esteem in which it is held by potential pupils. That in itself can result in it suffering to a greater extent.

The school has now shown, through its results in the July exams, a significant improvement in the quality of its education. That is surely good news, but when one looks at the inspector’s follow-up letter, one does not get the impression that he is as pleased as the school is with the progress made and the way in which it is now outperforming many other schools in Dorset in the exam league tables. That raises another issue: because the school has a grade 4 assessment from Ofsted, while comparable schools in Dorset have grade 2 assessments—that is, good—people immediately reach the conclusion that it is less good than the others. However, because of when those other schools had their inspections, we may well not be comparing like with like.

That is one of the problems, which we know is not unique to Dorset or to Ferndown upper school. Evidence from throughout the country shows that Ofsted will quite often fail to see things in a school that are going badly wrong. Just to show that the debate is not purely about the Christchurch constituency, I will refer briefly to what happened at Saltley school and specialist science college. The International New York Times had an exclusive interview with the former principal of that school who talked about “harassment” from the local board over courses. He referred to the “relentless criticism” that he faced from a “Muslim-dominated school board”—he being a Sikh—and spoke about how he was eventually forced to step down as principal.

We now know that that school was the subject of an emergency report, “Report into allegations concerning Birmingham schools arising from the ‘Trojan Horse’ letter”, which was published in July 2014 and made severe criticisms. In a statement issued to Parliament yesterday, the Government drew attention to the gross inadequacies of Birmingham city council in dealing with those and other issues and they have proceeded, as near as they can, to put Birmingham city council under special measures. At a time when the Government are talking about the importance of devolving even more power to local authorities, that finding shows that one of the largest local authorities—I think Birmingham has more children under its control than any other local education authority—is severely lacking.

One might ask, “What do Ofsted think about Saltley school and specialist science college?” It was inspected on 9 and 10 May 2013 and under every category—achievement of pupils, quality of teaching, behaviour and safety of pupils, and leadership and management—it was marked as good. The report said that the school was “good” and that:

“Students made good progress from their low starting points,”

and so on. It also said:

“The new head teacher and senior leaders have accurately identified strengths and weaknesses in the school and have continued to improve teaching and raise achievement.”

We now know that that was substantially wide of the mark, yet does anything in Ofsted’s annual report explain how it was able to produce that inspection for Saltley school on 9 and 10 May 2013, when just over a year later, in July 2014, it became clear that what was alleged to be a really good school was far from that?

I give that as another example of Ofsted’s inconsistency and lack of accountability. When parents who were thinking about sending their children to Saltley school and specialist science college looked at the Ofsted report, they must have thought, “This is brilliant; this is fantastic.” Yet just over a year later, they would have been ashamed about having made that judgment.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that the increasing numbers of educational practitioners who it is hoped will be on Ofsted teams from now on will decrease the likelihood of his experience being repeated in the future?

[Mr Chope]

I certainly hope so, but whatever system is in place—this is the essence of the debate—there needs to be some means of appeal, if needs be, into the substance. In such situations, conciliation and discussion is much better than formal, adversarial appeals processes. Ultimately, there must be a way for a school head to engage with an inspector or a group of inspectors and say, “Sorry, you’ve got this wrong.”

One of the difficulties in the case of Ferndown upper was that the moderation process was not allowed to be developed early on. It was said that because the school had been assessed as grade 4, it needed to be dealt with first by the inspectorate before the concerns expressed could be moderated. We need a system that ensures that where schools feel they have been judged incorrectly, they can have that put right in a timely fashion, because there are implications for their viability. In this debate we are talking about publicly funded schools, but if we look at how inspection processes can affect commercial organisations, we can see that the consequences of an unjustly bad report may be disastrous for their viability.

I am delighted that other people have come along to participate in the debate. When we get to the conclusion, I hope that the Minister will set out exactly how we can improve Ofsted’s accountability to teachers, parents and pupils—everyone involved.

Nothing I have said is designed to detract from the importance of ensuring that we have the highest standards in our schools. Standards have been improving, and a lot of credit is due to the Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), who will respond to the debate, as well as the previous Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), and the current Secretary of State for being vigorous in saying that we must try to move away from a culture in which producer interests prevail to the disadvantage of the consumer. I am all in favour of these reforms, but they would be even better if we could get more objectivity into the way Ofsted is held accountable to the public, to the Secretary of State for Education and ultimately, through the Secretary of State, to this House.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing this important debate. He has made a compelling case for ensuring the accountability of Ofsted. He has given a number of examples where it has fallen short and made arbitrary and subjective decisions.

Of course, Ofsted inspects not only schools but whole children’s departments and the protection and care of children. I will talk about a report that Ofsted produced on Manchester city council’s children’s department on 1 September, but first I want to reiterate what the hon. Gentleman said: inspection and monitoring are vital parts of public services. They are necessary parts of the accountability process, and it is important that we get them right and understand what is happening.

It is also important that the metrics are right. I will give just one example of how difficult metrics can be. When the Conservative Government in the early ’90s brought in metrics to measure the performance of planning departments and introduce a level of accountability, they said that planning applications should be determined within 40 days, and if they were not, the department concerned was seen to be failing. I was leader of Manchester city council then, and our average time for turning applications round was about 43 days. We were very pleased with that, because there were very few appeals against our decisions. As a lot of work was put in beforehand, the decisions were often better and all parties were happy. However, an arbitrary metric misguided the public as to the competence of the department.

One also has to look at who the inspectors are. My guess is that people do not start out life deciding to be an inspector of planning or an Ofsted inspector. Ofsted inspectors probably start off in child protection of some sort, as a social worker, or as a teacher. Sometimes they become inspectors because they have not done so well, or have failed, in those professions, and sometimes it is because they want more money, but my experience is that as a result they often have a jaundiced view of the inspection process. One has to be wary, and aware that that is a possibility, when looking at how effective these inspections are and what the accountability should be.

I will talk about Manchester’s children’s services department, but I want to place on the record that this is not a defence of that department. I have been concerned about a number of areas; I have written to the council; and I have published statistics that did not show the council in the best light with regard to what happened to referred children, because often they were not dealt with quickly enough, and in some cases they were not dealt with at all.

I have expressed public concern about referred children. I knew of a number of cases where the culture of the department had inhibited the fostering and adoption of children: the process was too lengthy; people had not turned up on time, or at all, to interview potential foster parents and adoptive parents; and interviewers often asked questions that were intrusive and—to my mind, and the minds of the potential foster and adoptive parents—irrelevant. So this is not a mindless defence of Manchester city council’s children’s department from an ex-leader of that department. It is really a case of asking whether we understand more about what is going on in the children’s department after Ofsted’s inspection.

On 1 September, Ofsted said in its report that for

“Children who need help and protection”

the service is “inadequate”. Similarly, it said that for

“Children looked after and achieving permanence”

the service “requires improvement”. Adoption performance was judged “inadequate”, and

“Experiences and progress of care leavers”

also “requires improvement”. Finally, it said that “Leadership, management and governance” were “inadequate”. That is not a glowing report. It was produced by eight inspectors over a period of about five or six weeks, and it must have been quite expensive.

Having complained about the department previously, I went to the report with some interest, but I have to say—this is the core of my contribution—that I was extremely disappointed. The department had had inspections in 2010, 2011 and 2013. The 2013 inspection was on fostering, the 2011 inspection was on adoption, and the 2010 inspection was on safeguarding looked-after children. Those inspections produced two “good” ratings and one “adequate” rating, so they were not cause for concern. However, as there had now been a report giving an “inadequate” rating, I wanted to look at numbers, to see exactly how the service had deteriorated during the period in question.

Although there were some numbers in the report, they were absolute numbers, telling us how many single assessments had not progressed, for example—there was a number in the report for that. However, that was not compared with any of the previous reports, and the comments were generally things such as “slow”, “quality of care record keeping: not good”, “could do better”, “too long to get help” or “too many children waiting for help”. Not only were there not absolute numbers but it was not possible to compare the numbers in the report with those in previous reports.

There was one particularly odd thing. It was not really a metric, but a comment that too many of the looked-after children did not go to good schools. The report did not say how many of the schools in Manchester were good and whether it was possible for all the looked-after children to go to them.

I wrote to Ofsted and asked if it could produce the comparative tables that would enable me to see if the department had gone backwards or forwards, and to see what the situation was that had justified the change to “inadequate”. Ofsted replied to me within about a fortnight; I have no complaint about its speed of response. The response was from Jo Morgan, Ofsted’s regional director, north-west. She said that it was not possible to produce those tables and she gave the reasons why. I will quote from her letter:

“The recent inspection differs from previous inspections as it has a different methodology. It is therefore not possible to make any direct comparisons between judgements. The current single inspection framework is an unannounced universal inspection. It is conducted in a three year cycle and judges local authority services for looked after children, alongside the arrangements to protect children. Ofsted acknowledges that the ‘bar’ has been raised in two ways. Firstly, ‘good’ is now the minimum acceptable standard. The new framework sets out the criteria for ‘good’ in respect of the protection of children, the care they receive, and the arrangements in place to lead and manage services. Any local authority that is unable to provide evidence that the characteristics of good are in place will be will be deemed to ‘require improvement’. The second aspect of our raising the ‘bar’ relates to our explicit and unrelenting focus on both the experiences of children, young people and families and the difference that the help they receive makes to their lives and life chances. Whilst it is recognised that this methodology presents a challenge to local authorities, our priority remains the contribution inspection can make to the help, protection and care of vulnerable children and young people.”

The philosophy behind that is sound, but if the local authority and anybody interested in what is happening are to know whether those serious criteria are being met, they have to be able to measure things and put numbers on them, but the letter and the report make no attempt to do that. Therefore, when Ofsted says that the methodology presents a challenge to local authorities, I would say it makes it impossible for them to know, other than in terms of a generalised report, why they are succeeding or failing. Unless a percentage or a rate of improvement is given for the speed at which children are assessed when they are referred to the local authority, or for the number of children placed in foster care or accepted for adoption, it is difficult for the authority to know what is happening.

Ofsted is failing in terms of inspectors’ basic task of enabling those who want to hold it to account to do so. One does not have to be too cynical to say that in Rotherham, Rochdale and, previously, Haringey, and a number of the other terrible situations we have seen in many of our towns and cities where children were not properly protected by the local authority, the police and others who should have been looking after them, Ofsted had given virtually all the local authorities involved a clean bill of health. After Rotherham was given a clean bill of health, we found that 1,400 children had been abused. From memory—I did not look it up—Haringey had been given an excellent rating before the baby P case.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. Does he share my hope that the Minister will be able to explain how Ofsted was held to account for its manifest failures of judgment in those cases?

[Graham Stringer]

I am looking forward to the Minister’s reply to the hon. Gentleman’s contribution and mine. After those awful events, I am led to the conclusion that, when Ofsted raises the bar, as it puts it, without giving quantified criteria, it is engaged in an exercise that is about not inspection and the accountability of child protection services, but the protection of Ofsted. If Ofsted says that Manchester city council or some other local authority is inadequate or requires improvement, and something terrible happens—I sincerely hope it does not—Ofsted is not to blame, whereas it clearly could be blamed for the reports it gave on the authorities I mentioned earlier. What we are seeing is not an inspection regime that helps us to understand whether our children are being protected, but one that puts out a lot of propaganda for its own protection. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing the debate and on his thoughtful and important contribution, in which he sought to outline the experience of a school in his constituency of going through the Ofsted inspection process.

I intervened on the hon. Gentleman earlier about the school’s exam history, and it would have been helpful had he been able to tell us a little more about it. Perhaps the Minister knows the details and can tell us whether it was a factor in Ofsted’s judgment. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman raised some important issues.

The hon. Gentleman made the important point that, in making serious judgments about the quality of schools, we should not forget the wider aspects of schools or the wider curriculum. I certainly agree that no school should be able to be rated as outstanding unless it has a broad and balanced offer for its pupils, including an excellent cultural offer. Perhaps we need to think more about that, and I might say more about it later.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Trojan horse affair in Birmingham. I do not intend to go through it in any great detail again today, but it would be useful if the Minister told us his view of what has happened since the Trojan horse affair, and of how Ofsted is inspecting schools in the light of the newly introduced need to teach British values in the aftermath of that affair. If he could update us on the Department’s view of how that is going, that might benefit the House and would certainly relate very much to Ofsted’s accountability, which is the subject of the debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) on his contribution. He expressed concerns about the quality of inspections of children’s services in Manchester. He made some important points about safeguarding and the failure of inspections sometimes to pick up problems with safeguarding children. Those are serious issues, and the Minister will have taken those remarks on board and will want to say something about them.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), who was born on the same day as me, although she looks a lot younger. She raised a serious constituency issue, which should be the subject of a formal complaint. I am sure that she, as a constituency MP, will take that up directly, but it would be useful to hear the Minister’s response.

As many Members here know, I used to be a teacher, so I have been through the process of being inspected, albeit not under the current dispensation. I can tell Members, and any teacher will agree, that it is not necessarily a pleasant experience, but it is a necessary experience. I absolutely accept that inspection forms an important part of the process. Before the Minister starts looking up how I did in that inspection, let me say that I was perfectly happy with how it turned out.

We should acknowledge that inspection is a stressful process and that head teachers, teachers and even pupils and parents can find it stressful. Although inspection is an extremely necessary process and must focus forensically on ensuring that children are not being failed in our system—a principle that the Opposition absolutely support—we should bear in mind the human side of things when schools are inspected.

One of the sad things about discussions of Ofsted is that they are very much based on the headlines we tend to see in the newspapers when things such as the Ofsted annual report are published. Very few people read beyond the headlines and into the detail of what the chief inspector says in his report. People tend to take up political positions on what has been said, but Sir Michael Wilshaw made some extremely sensible remarks in his commentary on the annual report, some of which are things we have known for a long time, such as that for a school to be outstanding it needs great leadership. It is also necessary for it to have great middle-level leaders; and that depends on the great senior leadership. We could do a lot more to strengthen the role of middle leaders, particularly in secondary schools. Sir Michael said in his report today that he is concerned that they are not making progress and that more children are being taught in schools rated inadequate. The necessary things include good leadership and good teachers, effective and accurate assessment, and dealing with such things as low-level disruption.

As a former teacher I do not think it is really possible to teach without first creating a quiet, orderly environment. Beyond that, many things are possible and teachers can move on to all sorts of innovative and interesting activities; but it is and always has been the starting point—the basis and foundation of the craft of the classroom. I would not go as far as saying, as we used to when I was teaching, “Never smile until Easter,” but it is necessary to establish the proper quiet and orderly environment in a classroom if a teacher is to teach effectively and make sure that learning happens. I understand why Sir Michael is concerned about low-level disruption; about the stretching of able pupils; about many schools’ failure to do enough to narrow the gap between disadvantaged pupils and those from better-off backgrounds; and—topically, after the Government’s announcement today—about the current poor careers advice in schools, which is almost universally accepted, except by the Department for Education, to have worsened significantly since 2010.

Perhaps the Minister will expand a little further on today’s announcement about the new careers company—particularly why it was not put out to tender and how the choice was made to give a particular sum of money to a particular individual and group to run it. I should be interested to know what thinking was behind that. Was it to do with the time it would take to get that done before purdah, or was there a genuine operational, strategic reason for doing things in that way instead of by the normal governmental tendering process? The Public Accounts Committee might be interested to know about that.

Sir Michael Wilshaw also talked about governance not being strong enough. We all need to listen to that, and to address the issue. He also flagged up a severe concern about teacher supply. I know the Minister is interested in that, and he noted the 17% fall since 2010 in the numbers entering initial teacher training. I should be interested in his view of Sir Michael’s remarks. Does he agree that teacher supply is an emerging issue, and if so what will he do about it?

Under the present Government there have been problems relating to the proper relationship between the Department for Education and Ofsted. Indeed, there have been accusations of an attempt by the Department to politicise Ofsted in the current Parliament, not least because of the sacking of its chair, Sally Morgan, and the memo from senior advisers to the former Secretary of State suggesting that it might be right to sack Sir Michael Wilshaw. Those revelations have led to accusations by people speaking on behalf of the Schools Minister—he is here this afternoon—of a Government attempt to politicise Ofsted. The report of 9 October in The Guardian said:

“A Liberal Democrat source close to schools minister David Laws said: ‘The fact is that, Gove, Cummings and others around them have been deeply disappointed by Michael Wilshaw’s refusal to play ball. This is almost certainly what lay behind their previous attempt to politicise the inspectorate.’”

So that is confirmation from the Schools Minister, or rather his spokesperson, whom he might perhaps want to identify—it might have been him; I do not know, but whoever the source close to him was, I am sure he would like to tell us—that the previous Secretary of State and his advisers have been involved in an attempt to politicise Ofsted. Of course, that is a dangerous path to take, so when the Minister talks about the accountability of Ofsted, perhaps he will tell us how he valiantly fought off the attempts in his Department to politicise it, who was involved in them, and what he is doing to rein in that tendency in the Department.

That is not to say that Ofsted is a perfect organisation, as anyone would admit. Concerns are frequently expressed to Ministers, shadow Ministers and others. We have heard in the debate some of the concerns about the way Ofsted inspections are carried out. We need to think about how to move on and reform it. It might help if I say something about Labour policy on Ofsted. The Opposition recognise that school inspections play a crucial role in upholding standards in schools, but we oppose the Government’s attempts to politicise Ofsted, which the Schools Minister has complained about, because they would ultimately undermine the integrity and independence of the schools inspectorate. National systems of inspection and accountability should be collaborative rather than confrontational—an issue that perhaps contributes to some of the concerns expressed in the debate. Otherwise, the effect of inspection could too often be to narrow children’s educational experience.

We need to prevent that from happening. We want schools to be innovative; we do not want them to operate in an accountability framework that makes them fear innovating, developing new pedagogies and using new technologies. Of course they must meet the requirements on standards, but we do not want an atmosphere in which schools always play a conservative part. We want innovation and we need pedagogies to be developed. We need to use and unleash the talents of teachers in what Ofsted called in 2010 the finest generation of teachers we have ever had in this country—albeit one dreadfully undermined by the Government’s disastrous policy, with which I understand the Schools Minister also disagrees, of allowing unqualified teachers in schools.

Labour believes that the role of the schools inspectorate needs to be examined. In government we will ensure that the inspection process is more collaborative and that school improvement involves schools reviewing one another, and monitoring by the middle tier. We have talked about creating directors of school standards to clear up the muddle that has occurred since the present Government’s piecemeal, rapid and politically motivated timetable of academisation. What Sir Michael Wilshaw said today about the obsession with structures, rather than the things that really matter for school improvement, was extremely helpful. The name over the door does not matter. What matters is the quality of leadership and teaching in a school, not the name and title. An end to a Government-favoured brand of school will be a positive step forward, and I am glad that Sir Michael said what he did.

[Mr Chope]

On that point, does the hon. Gentleman accept, on behalf of the Labour party, that there should not be an obsession with being for or against academies, free schools or maintained schools, but that we should look at each school on its merits?

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes, I accept the hon. Gentleman’s proposition that each school should be considered on its merits, but we should be creating a framework of fairness within which schools of all types and denominations can operate, with a fair and proper admissions procedure, an effective admissions code and a stronger adjudicator on admissions, to ensure that schools are operating together in a collaborative framework. We do not believe in using naked market forces to drive schools out of business. We believe in weaker schools being helped by stronger schools in the system and insisting that such collaboration must happen, because ultimately that is how an increase is standards is achieved. That is what happened under the framework of London Challenge, for example, through a collaborative approach, rather than relying on creating an over-supply to drive schools out of business and, ultimately, putting pupils in ever-failing and declining schools over time and ruining their lives with an obsession with market forces. Unfortunately, that certainly was the philosophy of the previous Secretary of State and some of his closest advisers.

We will ensure that there is more collaborative work on school improvement, involving schools reviewing one another and monitoring by the middle tier; we have talked about creating directors of school standards, as well as the national inspectorate. We will ensure that early years settings and primary schools are judged against how well they develop children’s knowledge, skills and qualities through a broad and balanced curriculum, alongside tests in English and maths. We have already called for Ofsted to have the power to inspect academy chains and we are committed to monitoring its role. That confirms what I said to the hon. Member for Christchurch: we want the same treatment for all schools, so that, as well as inspecting local authorities, which may have responsibility for groups of schools, Ofsted can inspect not just individual schools in an academy chain but the operation of the chain itself.

I hear concerns that schools in some academy chains have less autonomy and are given directions from head office about exactly what they have to do. That head office is sometimes in a remote part of the country, far away from where the school is operating. Those schools’ policies are being determined from far away and there is little accountability in the system, so inspecting academy chains is important. I hope the Schools Minister agrees. We were not able to persuade the previous Secretary of State or the current one to permit that, but Sir Michael Wilshaw has asked for it and we support it. I hope the Schools Minister confirms that he supports that, too, because he seems to support an awful lot of what we say nowadays about schools and education policy, in contrast with his colleagues in the Department for Education.

Does the Minister agree with Sir Michael Wilshaw, who said today that in the last couple of years 70,000 more pupils are being taught in inadequate secondary schools? If so, what is his policy response and how should we deal with it? Obviously, if that is so—I have no reason to believe that the chief inspector of schools is wrong—there needs to be some policy response. It is not adequate simply to say, “Our academisation programme and our free schools policy will solve all problems”, because we know that is not true. What are we actually trying to do to put that right? It is a challenge to all of us, if such a process is occurring.

I recognise the improvements made by many schools in recent years, under this Government and the previous one, and their raising of standards. That is to be celebrated and commended but it is down, principally, to the hard work of school teachers, school leaders, governors and others, probably far more than to politicians and education policy makers, who often have little experience of the front line—the classroom—and more experience of policy think-tanks. However, if over the past couple of years 70,000 more pupils are being taught in inadequate schools, the Government should be concerned about that and should have something to say about it. I hope that the Minister has.

Will the Minister update us on what is happening about accusations that the Inspiration Trust in Norfolk was given prior notification of inspection? As has been said, this system has to be fair across the country and everybody must have the same notification—or no notification—of inspection. I am sure that Members would be grateful for any information the Minister could provide to update the House.

Will the Minister comment on the following, from an article in The Guardian on Tuesday 9 December?

“In September 2013, an Ofsted stipulation that inspectors should ‘consider the food on offer at the school and atmosphere of the school canteen’ was introduced, following pressure from organisations including the Jamie Oliver Foundation. But this August, it I was quietly removed, in a streamlining of inspection guidance. Ofsted’s latest consultation on a new inspection framework, which closed last Friday, has also omitted to mention school food.”

I know the Minister has a genuine interest in this subject. Can he shed any light on whether there is to be a dilution of the inspection of the quality of school food?

What does the Minister think of the following remark by Sir Michael Wilshaw in the annual report?

“The proportion of secondary schools in which leadership and management are judged inadequate has…doubled over the past two years.”

Again, that should be of direct concern to the Department. Does the Minister agree with and recognise Sir Michael Wilshaw’s observation? If so, what is his response and what does he intend to do about it?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and I will certainly follow your wise advice, in spite of the temptations of the shadow Schools Minister to draw me off into all sorts of other areas.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on raising this issue, giving us an opportunity not only to address the issue of his local school, but to reflect on the accountability of Ofsted and the appeals processes that our schools inspectorate operates under. He has also, as he said, given us an opportunity to touch on issues arising out of Ofsted’s annual report published today, within the constraints of the debate.

I think that, by and large, Ofsted does a difficult job well, and most hon. Members would recognise that. It is a job that is necessary. Few of us would want to go back to 30 or 40 years ago, when the oversight and accountability of the school system was much weaker and, as a consequence, there was a risk that underperforming schools could continue, failing their local communities and young people for long periods. We certainly do not want to go back to that. Ofsted is a good organisation and the current chief inspector is one of the best we have had. Of course, the Government will reflect carefully on the annual report and the comments the chief inspector made today on its launch.

I should also say, as I believe the chief inspector said on the “Today” programme this morning, that Ofsted carries out some 30,000 inspections every year, not only of schools but in other settings. The chief inspector will be the first to acknowledge that when carrying out inspections in such a number of settings, there are bound to be imperfections in a small minority of cases. It is important that we ensure that, where there are issues, those are taken seriously and dealt with. Of course, we need to make sure that the overall quality of the inspection process is as high as it can possibly be.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and others who have participated in this debate have pointed out that the judgments made by Ofsted are important and have big consequences for people’s livelihoods, schools’ reputations and the decisions parents take. In fairness to parents and schools, it is therefore important that we get those judgments right. If we err on the side of generosity in any judgment, that has serious consequences. We could end up with schools not doing well enough and failing their local communities for long periods and, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) mentioned, what is important in the schools system is even more crucial in safeguarding. We should be fair to all those involved in that important work, but we should be rigorous in our inspection to ensure that vulnerable young people are not at risk.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because I did not know he was going to raise issues on children’s services and safeguarding. I am not the lead Minister on that issue in the Department; the Minister with responsibility for children, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), will have been particularly involved in the oversight of some of the services in Manchester and elsewhere, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman following the debate to follow up on some of the points he raised.

Before coming back to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, I will respond briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), who raised concerns about information that her constituent gave Ofsted anonymously to inform the inspection of a school. I am sure that the chief inspector would take the same view as me and her—that information given anonymously should be treated in that way; the source of that information should not be revealed to the institution being inspected. I am concerned to hear that there may have been an instance where privacy was not respected. I will look into that. I will see the chief inspector shortly, and I will raise the issue with him and ask whether he can look into it, if my hon. Friend can give me the details—in confidence, of course—of her constituent and the circumstances.

I will pick up on a number of the points that the shadow Schools Minister raised, but specifically on accountability and the situation in Norfolk, I can update him and the House by saying that the fresh independent review ordered by Sir Michael after questions were raised about the earlier inspection is under way. We expect that review to be completed by the end of the year.

I will touch on the annual report, and then I will comment on Ofsted’s inspection and appeals process. I will then touch on Ferndown school, which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned. Today’s annual Ofsted report on schools provides a timely reminder of the importance of Ofsted’s inspection work. Earlier today, the chief inspector announced that good and outstanding schools now account for 81% of all schools inspected, up from 68% in 2010. We should all acknowledge that that is a significant increase. In spite of some of the concerns about secondary schools, that is the highest proportion of good and outstanding schools at any time since Ofsted was set up. Primary schools, as the chief inspector mentioned this morning, have done particularly well, with 82% now good or outstanding, which means that 190,000 more pupils are in good and outstanding primary schools than last year. That is 700,000 more than in 2012, and we should celebrate that.

The report also shows that schools are responding positively to inspection. Two thirds of schools that were previously judged as requiring improvement secured good or outstanding on re-inspection this year. There is also positive news on the performance of pupils from lower-income backgrounds. The disadvantage gap, particularly in primary schools, is closing rapidly. All that means that more than 1 million more pupils are in good or outstanding schools than in 2010. While much of the credit for that must go to hard-working individuals in schools, we believe that inspection is also contributing to the improvement in the system.

The shadow Schools Minister mentioned the less encouraging recent statistics for secondary schools. Significantly more work needs to be done to ensure that improvement is maintained in the future, rather than schools remaining at existing levels. The percentage of secondary schools graded good or outstanding is up from 68% in 2010 to 71%. The number of pupils of secondary age being educated in schools in the secondary sector classed as requiring improvement or inadequate dropped from 1,073,000 to 793,000 last year, which is encouraging.

The inspection and regulatory functions of Ofsted are vested in Her Majesty’s chief inspector, who is primarily accountable directly to Parliament. He appears before the Education Committee at least twice a year, giving evidence on the work of Ofsted and on his annual report. He is also subject to other parliamentary scrutiny. As recently as last month he appeared before the Public Accounts Committee, so there are many parliamentary opportunities for the work of Ofsted to be examined. The Education Committee can also conduct inquiries specifically into Ofsted and its work. In April 2011, the Committee conducted an inquiry into the role and performance of Ofsted. The report from that inquiry concluded:

“Ofsted’s independent status is broadly valued by inspectors, by professionals, and by the public, and we strongly support the retention of that status.”

As the Department for Education is the lead policy and ministerial Department covering Ofsted’s work, the Secretary of State for Education meets the chief inspector regularly, as do I, to discuss the work of Ofsted.

Every year Ofsted conducts approximately 6,500 school inspections and 30,000 inspections of all settings. It has a massive job of work to do. As part of its procedures, Ofsted sends out a feedback questionnaire after every inspection. The latest figures for the second quarter of 2014-15 show that 93% of respondents said that they were satisfied with the way an inspection was carried out. That is against an overall response rate of 71%, which indicates that in the majority of settings, there is contentment on the effectiveness and fairness of the Ofsted process. As good as those figures are, there is no room for complacency.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that Sir Michael takes particular interest in the quality of inspectors’ work. He recognises—I believe he has said this publicly—that more needs to be done to ensure that all inspections are delivered to a consistently high standard the first time around. That is why he appointed Sir Robin Bosher, one of Ofsted’s directors, to take direct responsibility for inspection quality and the training of inspectors. As a result, Ofsted has put in place more stringent quality checks and monitoring of inspections and reports. It has also invested more in the training of inspectors, in place of having detailed written guidance documents. I know that Sir Michael is working hard to ensure quality and consistency, and I am confident that he will tackle any underperformance in the inspection work force. He is prepared to take tough action where necessary to remove inspectors, or to require additional training where inspectors fail to meet his high expectations.

Looking ahead—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned this—Sir Michael has announced that he will bring the management of inspections, including all inspector training, in-house from September 2015. As part of the programme, Ofsted will change how it sources and selects additional inspectors, and how it trains, contracts with and performance-manages them. Much of that is currently arranged through contracts with three inspection service providers: Tribal, Serco and CfBT. Under the planned changes, however, all complaints will be handled directly by Ofsted.

Another important step in trying to improve the quality of inspections is making more use of serving practitioners—something to which Sir Michael Wilshaw is committed. The latest figures from Ofsted show that 56% of school inspections include at least one serving practitioner, which could be a head teacher or a senior leader from a high-performing school. That is up from just 15% in 2011, so there has been a massive increase in the involvement of serving practitioners. Many of them are also national leaders of education and play a wider part in the overall leadership of the school system.

I will briefly turn to how the Ofsted complaints procedure works. I appreciate that this might seem unnecessarily detailed, but as it is at the centre of my hon. Friend’s concerns, it is important for me to set out just what the process looks like and to consider whether it needs any change.

Ofsted has a clear, published complaints procedure. During an inspection, those with concerns are strongly encouraged to raise issues with the lead inspector as soon as they arise. If a complainant feels unable to raise concerns directly with the lead inspector during the inspection, they can contact the Ofsted helpline directly. If concerns have not been resolved, a formal complaint can be raised with Ofsted within 10 working days of the incident of concern. If the concern is about an inspection, the complaint should be made no more than 10 working days following the publication of the report. When Ofsted receives the complaint, it will investigate and send a written response to answer the agreed main points of concern within 30 working days. It does not normally withhold publication of an inspection report or withdraw a published inspection report while it investigates complaints unless there are exceptional circumstances.

There is a second, appeal stage to the complaints process. If a complainant remains dissatisfied, they may appeal to the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted, which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned. The Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution has been appointed by the Secretary of State to undertake that important role. If complainants are not satisfied with the outcome of the adjudication service review, they can contact the parliamentary ombudsman. That is quite a prolonged process, and I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments about the ombudsman’s potential role and the time that such things can take, but it is relevant that in 2013 only 12 cases concerning schools were referred to the independent complaints adjudication service, which is a small proportion given that Ofsted inspects approximately 6,500 schools a year. That suggests to me that the number of schools that are seriously concerned about the quality of their inspections is relatively small.

[Mr Chope]

Might not another explanation be that schools realise that ICASO cannot really do anything? All that it can do is look at the process rather than the substance.

[Mr Laws]

It might be that my hon. Friend would seek to put that construction on it, but that is unduly pessimistic, not only because the appeals process has previous stages, but because a body that seeks to escalate a complaint to the independent complaints adjudication service can seek to raise concerns about the substance—although they may appear to be addressed to the process—if it feels that aspects of the inspection process have not been respected. I will return to that with regard to the school mentioned by my hon. Friend in a moment.

The independent complaints adjudication service also reported that it saw an improvement in the quality of Ofsted’s complaint handling from previous years. All but four of the general recommendations made to Ofsted were accepted fully, with the others being accepted partially.

I know that my hon. Friend has exchanged correspondence with the chief inspector and Ofsted’s south-west regional director, Bradley Simmons, about the inspection of Ferndown upper school in January 2014. My hon. Friend is concerned that the school was graded inadequate, with serious weaknesses. I note that the inspection reported several areas of concern, including that students were not making enough progress, especially in English, that work set was not suitable for the least or most able students, that progress was too slow for students eligible for the pupil premium, for boys and for students with special educational needs or disabilities, that fixed-term exclusions and persistent absence figures were too high and impacting on the progress being made by those pupils, that sixth-form students were not making enough progress and that leaders, including governors, were not tackling weaknesses quickly enough.

As Schools Minister, I cannot comment personally on all those judgments, as my hon. Friend will understand. However, I can reflect on the data and what they indicate for the school. At the time of the inspection, the proportion of students gaining five good GCSE passes, including English and mathematics at grade C or above, had been significantly below the national average for three years. It was 47% against 58% in 2011, 49% against 59% in 2012 and 50% against 60.6% in 2013. As I understand it, the school has a lower than average number of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds in receipt of, for example, the pupil premium. GCSE English language passes at grade A* to C were 69% against the national average of 82%. Attainment was significantly below the national average in nine curriculum areas, and above in just two. Just 59% of students made expected progress in English against 69% nationally. I will not comment on the precise judgments in the Ofsted report, but we should reflect on the fact that data do suggest that the school has performance issues and challenges.

On accountability, I know that the school followed Ofsted’s published complaints procedure. The head teacher complained about the outcome of the inspection. His complaint was investigated by the inspection service provider, Tribal, but was not upheld. He requested that his complaint be elevated, and a further investigation was undertaken by Her Majesty’s inspectors to ascertain whether the original had been fair and thorough. The outcome of the original investigation was validated. The head teacher then took his complaint to the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted. The adjudicator reported that Ofsted had

“addressed the complainant’s concerns in significant detail and in a fair and reasonable manner”

and went on to say:

“I do not find that I can provide any advice or make any recommendations to further improve Ofsted’s practices for dealing with complaints in this instance.”

Picking up on some of the concerns that the school raised about being marked down for attendance, I understand that the investigation into the complaint found that inspectors had considered the school’s own attendance data alongside those available nationally. That is correct procedure. Inspectors should use RAISEonline as a benchmark and should ask questions as necessary. The response to the school’s complaint mentioned there being no national comparison data on attendance rates for sixth forms only.

[Mr Chope]

On that point about no data being available, that is not correct. Does my right hon. Friend accept that?

[Mr Laws]

The response to the school’s complaint mentioned there being no national comparison data on attendance rates for sixth forms only, but attendance data are available and show that, although improving slightly recently, persistent absence has risen for girls and for some students with special educational needs. It has fallen for students eligible for free school meals, but remains seven points above the national average as in 2013.

Attendance is not a separate judgment and does not alone determine the behaviour and safety judgment. A school cannot be marked down for its attendance statistics alone, and this particular school was not. Behaviour and safety were judged not to be inadequate, but to require improvement. My hon. Friend is concerned that performance data should be correctly assessed in a local context, but while local comparisons are important, Ofsted makes comparisons on attainment and progress against national data, taking account of pupils’ prior attainment. That is clearly set out in the inspection handbook, so it should not come as a surprise to any school. If one looks at the attainment data, it is clear that the school has some questions to answer about its performance against comparable national figures.

I understand that Ofsted has undertaken two monitoring inspections of the school, in May and September, since the original inspection. The first visit found that the school was planning appropriate action for improvement, supported by the local authority. The second visit judged senior leaders to be making reasonable progress towards the removal of serious weaknesses. However, it also found that school leaders lacked rigour and urgency in their approach to improving the school. While recognising improvements, Her Majesty’s inspectorate found that

“the school lacks a consistently rigorous and relentless focus on improving the achievement of those students who could, and should, do better, regardless of their background, ability or starting point”.

We should expect all schools to serve the interests of all pupils.

It is important to remember that, for the vast majority of schools, the current inspection system works well. I would, however, encourage any school that feels that its inspection has fallen short of normal expectations to raise its concerns with Ofsted at the earliest possible opportunity, as many have done. However, the chief inspector’s decision must be final if inspection is to remain credible. Without that, every school that disagreed with the judgment would seek to challenge the outcome of its inspection, delaying critical action to start to bring about improvement for the children at the school who, after all, will not get a second chance.

I hope that I have demonstrated that there are many stages in the process of scrutinising an Ofsted decision. In fact, the only way that we could really meet my hon. Friend’s requirement for an additional degree of scrutiny would be to have another school inspection service. There is no evidence at present that that would be value for money given the overall level of complaints. We will, however, keep a close eye on the issue and seek to improve the quality of inspections in future.

Repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am coming to an end. I have put it several times to our beloved Prime Minister that we should end this coalition, which is haemorrhaging our support, and the support of the Liberal Democrats. He says that he cannot do it because, under this ridiculous Act of Parliament, he could not call a general election, and the Leader of the Opposition might be in power by teatime. I do not know whether or not that is right, but there is a certain rigidity in the system. We should end this coalition and go to the people at an appropriate moment.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act is a constitutional aberration. It was cobbled together without pre-legislative review or proper national debate. It could and does result in zombie-government in the latter part of the term. Indeed it could conceivably lead to a Belgian situation of weak Government and weak Parliament. As is found around the world, it could and does lead to rigidity and angry calls by a disaffected public to extra-parliamentary activity. It actually leads to the growth of extremist fringe parties, as we are finding in our own country.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I was about to end, but I will give way one last time.

[Mr Chope]

Will my hon. Friend pray in aid the example of Ukraine, which has parliamentary elections this weekend? It had a fixed-term Parliament, but the President has called what he has described as early parliamentary elections.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Indeed, and dangerous situations can often be the result of fixed-terms.

We could see, as a result of this Act, an unprecedented long period without any Government at all. This is a bad Act. It was not thought through and it is not in our traditions. It should be reviewed and repealed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

I will give way first to my distinguished colleague from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee.

[Mr Chope]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the argument is essentially between those who believe in rigidity, as he does, and those of us on the Government Benches who believe in flexibility? In a sense, is not that illustrated by what happened in Scotland? Had the Scots voted to leave the Union, the Prime Minister would surely have been required to call a general election, but the Fixed-term Parliaments Act would have prevented him from having that discretion.

[Mr Allen]

The hon. Gentleman is known for being a rather floppy and flexible individual, and perhaps I am renowned for being inflexible in the multitude of compromises I have attempted to make over my political career to secure at least some small reforms in our democracy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

Absolutely. Traineeships are provided by good and outstanding institutions, because we want them to be a high-quality product to make sure that everybody gets the skills they need and the capability and character they need to hold down a job. They are filling a gap that was left before.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

14. When he last discussed education policy with leaders of independent schools.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

I regularly enjoy meeting the heads of our leading independent schools.

[Mr Chope]

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the important role that independent schools play in raising education standards in this country, and does he applaud the enormous contribution that fee-paying parents make in investing in our education system?

[Michael Gove]

I take a close interest in the success of England’s independent schools. In particular, I reinforce the point that my hon. Friend makes. Those parents who support independent schools are supporting not just a great education for their own children. In many cases—for example, with schools such as Wellington and Eton college—they are also supporting improved state education by sponsoring free schools, which would not exist if Labour came to power. I stress that the head teachers of independent schools appreciate the changes being made to the state sector. Only this weekend the headmaster of King’s College school in Wimbledon pointed out that the state sector “has really improved” under this Government—so much so that it is totally different from the situation that prevailed 10 years ago under Labour.

Canterbury City Council Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I have listened with interest to the three contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), with typical understatement, said that their lordships had some concerns about the Bill—the disproportionate powers, the power of seizure and so on. We will discuss the pedlars aspect of the Bill under the second group of Lords amendments, but essentially, their lordships have filleted the Bill. The Bill originally extended to some 18 clauses, but it now has only 13. The clauses that have been taken out are the subject of the Lords amendments we are discussing under this group—clause 6, on seizure; clause 7, on the seizure of perishable items; clause 8, on the return and disposal of seized items; clause 9, on the forfeiture of seized items; and clause 10, on compensation when seizure is unlawful.

You, Mr Deputy Speaker, may recall that the concerns expressed by their lordships were also expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and I, and by other hon. Members, during the passage of the Canterbury City Council Bill and the three other Bills we are considering.

Let us briefly remind ourselves of the history. The Canterbury City Council Bill was presented to Parliament as a private Bill on 27 November 2007. I do not know whether the fact that we are still considering it is some sort of record. The Bill was read the First time on 22 January 2008. Second Reading began on 12 June 2008 and continued on 29 October 2008. The Canterbury City Council Bill was completed, but the need to keep the four Bills together meant there was a third day on Second Reading on 3 June 2009. Significantly—this is one of the important messages that should go out from this exercise—because there were no Commons petitions against the Bills, the matter went to a Committee on Unopposed Bills, which rubber-stamped the provisions on 8 July 2009. The fact that the Bill came straight back from a Committee on Unopposed Bills meant we were unable to debate the Bill on Report. We were therefore able to express our concerns further only on Third Reading on 14 January 2010, just over three years ago.

Fortunately, Members of the other place took the Bills seriously—we owe them a great debt of gratitude. My noble Friend Lord Lucas, who took an interest in earlier Bills, did not serve in Committee in the other place, but he has been instrumental in working closely with pedlars and their representatives to ensure that the importance of the Bill was raised in the other place. As a result of that and Lords petitions against the Canterbury City Council Bill and the other Bills, the House of Lords Opposed Bill Committee sat for three days in November 2011. The other place debated the Bill in Committee on 24 November 2011, which was followed by a debate on Third Reading on 3 December 2012.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the Front Bench. I was hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who was in his place earlier in the Bill’s passage, would continue his interest in today’s subject matter, but unfortunately he is unable to do so. What the Minister failed to tell us about in his short contribution was that between the Committee stage on 24 November 2011 and Third Reading on 3 December 2012 in the other place, the Government issued yet another consultation paper on the subject of pedlars. I will refer in more detail to some aspects of that consultation paper in relation to the second group of amendments, to which I think it has a greater relevance, but let us remind ourselves that the effect of the Government’s proposals is to abolish all existing legislation relating to pedlars and to replace it. They argue that the existing legislation is at odds with the European Union services directive. When I raised this matter in the House in 2010, people thought it was a device to try to prolong proceedings. However, it is apparent that this was an important issue of substance and, although it seems to have taken a long time, the Government have realised that the EU services directive did and does impinge on the Bills.

One consequence of what the Minister said—if the Government are happy for the Bills, as amended by their lordships, to go on to the statute book—is that we will have several different regimes for dealing with the regulation of pedlars operating in this country: the regimes of councils that got their Bills through before now and that tend to have a tighter regulation than this one; the Bills before us today; and all councils continuing to operate under the existing law relating to pedlars. The Government have said that they do not think that that is satisfactory. I am therefore surprised that they seem to be relaxed about allowing to go on to the statute book four new local Bills that will be inconsistent with the Government’s intentions as set out in the consultation paper. My hon. Friend the Minister could argue that the closing date for contributions to the consultation paper is not until 15 February 2013, and that the Government will then listen to the representations received. In the light of that, I am surprised that the Government are not saying, “Hold on a moment, let us see whether what is proposed by their lordships as a result of these amendments is consistent with what we have in mind.”

In the Third Reading debate on the Canterbury City Council Bill in the other place—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Before my hon. Friend moves on, given that a number of the amendments relate to the amount of training that would need to be given to people by local authorities, would it not be a spectacular waste of money for local authorities to spend an awful lot of money on training people, only for a Government Bill to make all that training completely redundant?

[Mr Chope]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend on that point. He refers to the money that has been wasted. Councils and council tax payers will need to ask questions about how they got themselves into this mess. They have each probably spent hundreds of thousands of pounds to try to promote legislation that was ill-conceived from the outset and was certainly ill-conceived following the implementation and introduction of the EU services directive. It has also been much criticised at all stages in this House and in the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

Given the extent to which the Lords amendments fillet the Bill, as my hon. Friend described, where do they leave its substance? He will recall that when we were debating these matters in the previous Parliament, we were told that all the clauses relating to seizure were essential for local authorities, and that without them the Bill would be pointless and worthless. Does my hon. Friend have any comment on where it would leave the Bill if we were to accept the Lords amendments?

[Mr Chope]

It would leave the Bill exactly as it is now, but with those aspects removed. The point needs to be made—my hon. Friend is probably making it—that there are going to be a lot of words to be eaten as a result of this. Some of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members were saying how essential these powers were, and that the Bill would be wholly unworkable without them. Now that these powers have been removed and they are carrying on quite contentedly. Either their bluff has been called, or they do not want to face up to the new reality. I cannot ascribe motives to my hon. Friends or to Opposition Members; all I can say is that the councils will need to think carefully about whether they took the right line in promoting the Bills. Apart from anything else, Baroness Knight said that

“the four Bills presented would undoubtedly have given councils a disproportionate power in relation to suspected street trading offences.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 446.]

That is why they reduced those powers significantly and, in relation to the issuing of fixed penalty notices, introduced a requirement that councils trained all officials. Viscount Eccles was even more robust, saying:

“I want to talk briefly about fixed penalties. I think that in principle fixed penalties are undesirable. They may be necessary but, when they are, they are a necessary evil. The problem is that many people acquire the power to impose fixed penalties. We try to offset that by training and I hope that that works, but”—

it had to be recognised that—

“all power corrupts.”

He could see the dangers in the Bill as originally drafted, and that there is still potential danger in the Bill as amended by their lordships in relation to training. Then the noble Lord Strasburger explained:

“We added a requirement for better training of council officials on trading laws and”—

my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey did not make this point—

“constrained the value of fixed penalties.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 452.]

That differentiated, for example, the fixed penalties imposed for failing to give a name and address from those imposed for giving a false name and address. That was a sensible amendment from their lordships’ House.

The amendments on enforcement are steps in the right direction, but I have tabled amendments to amendment C27 on information and training, which inserts a new clause after clause 17, but leaves rather a lot of loopholes. For instance, amendment (a) would leave out “on its internet website”, so that subsection (1) would read:

“The council shall publish information about—“

Why tell a council that it only needs to publish such information on its internet website?

It might have been a slip of the tongue, but my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey said that all street traders could access the internet and find out what was going on, but the Bill is primarily concerned with pedlars, and pedlars and street traders are very different animals. Pedlars are on their own and normally travelling from town to town and from street to street. It is important, therefore, that a pedlar registered with the police in, say, Liverpool, when visiting Canterbury can find out what the rules are. A pedlar who has travelled to Canterbury from, say, Gravesend, might not have had access to the internet—perhaps because the local library was shut over the weekend, or whatever.

[Philip Davies]

I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point, but were we to remove “on its internet website”, how does he imagine that the information either would or should be published?

[Mr Chope]

I imagine it would be published in a form that people could read, without having to access the internet—in other words, in a document or notice that could be obtained from local council offices or sent in advance.

[Philip Davies]

I am presuming that, in essence, my hon. Friend’s amendment would actually help local authorities. Under their lordships’ amendment, the information would have to be published on the council’s internet website, whereas if his amendment was accepted, presumably the council could publish it in any form it liked. It could still be on the website, but the council would have a choice.

[Mr Chope]

I accept that. If my hon. Friend is saying that my amendment is ill-conceived because it would not achieve the objective of enabling pedlars in a city such as Canterbury to find out what was happening, I am beginning to understand his point. That, however, is why I tabled amendment (e), stating that the information

“shall also be displayed prominently in any designated area”.

That would mean that when a pedlar arrived in a street on which he was not allowed to operate as a pedlar unimpeded, there would be notices in the street telling him so.

[Philip Davies]

I certainly agree with that, but I was merely making the point that my hon. Friend’s initial amendment seemed to help the local authority by being less prescriptive and bureaucratic, and that perhaps it was an indication that he was going soft in his old age.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I take those sorts of allegations very seriously, particularly if one is talking about going soft in the head. I think my hon. Friend was referring to the Local Government Association. It is worth pointing out, therefore, the disparaging remarks made in the other place about how the LGA responded to the Government’s consultation in November. The noble Lord Lucas said:

“It would have been nice, too, to be able to praise the Local Government Association, but its reaction to the consultation was immediate, negative and silly.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 450.]

Even if I am going soft on the LGA, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the noble Lord Lucas is not pulling his punches.

Amendment (b), which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), would insert a new paragraph after paragraph (a). The clause would then read:

“The council shall publish on its internet website information about the provision of this Act and of the 1982 Act as amended by this Act; and any street comprised in any area designated in section 5.”

If particular streets are to be brought within the ambit of streets on which pedlars cannot carry on their business normally but have to comply with requirements set out in these Bills, it is essential that there be no doubt about the ambit of those streets and that pedlars be given proper notice of where they may operate. That is why I tabled amendment (b)—so that the council has to publish information about any street comprised in a designated area.

Amendment (c), which would insert a new paragraph after subsection (1)(b), deals with information about

“the boundaries of areas designated under section 5.”

It would require that the information provided cover not only the streets but the boundaries of those areas. At the moment, the Bill enables the council to designate an area either on health and safety grounds or because the highway might be obstructed. The Bill gives it those powers but without the requirement to specify exactly how they are being applied.

[Philip Davies]

I totally support my hon. Friend on these amendments. Does he agree that it is in the local authority’s interest to make this information clear, because if it wants to deal with an issue in a particular part of its city or district, it would be helpful for that information to be made clear? Given that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey seemed to dismiss his amendments very quickly, are we not in danger of repeating the scenario where amendments are discarded but later shown to have been perfectly sensible?

[Mr Chope]

It is a significant danger, and that is the problem. Whenever anyone suggests we should deal with something on the nod, it means that the full implications of the proposal are not examined, but that is the whole purpose of scrutiny in this place. That is why I hope that in responding to this debate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey will address the substance of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and I are making.

[Philip Davies]

Has my hon. Friend had any discussions with the local authorities concerned to understand better why they seem to object to his sensible amendments?

[Mr Chope]

In all honesty, I had not expected that there would be objections, save perhaps on the basis of the “not invented here” formula, because people are not always generous in accepting other people’s ideas and suggestions.

However, I would like to put on record the fact that in considering these four Bills, I had a constructive meeting with a representative from Leeds city council, from which came the idea that the way forward would be to impose constraints on the size of the trolleys that pedlars can use in Leeds city centre. That theme has now been picked up in the other Bills and the Lords amendments, as well as in the suggestions in the Government’s consultation paper on where we go from here. That was a good example of constructive working between a Member of this House and an official from one of the councils seeking to promote this legislation. My hon. Friend might remember that when the question arose of whether any of the other councils would be prepared to accept similar constraints or amendments, they resolutely refused to engage. In a sense, they have now been forced to do so as a result of what happened in the other place, but there is always a lot more scope for those promoting these Bills and the officials behind them to speak with colleagues directly about issues such as the one my hon. Friend identifies.

Let me turn to my amendments to subsection (2) of the proposed new clause to be inserted after clause 17 by Lords amendment C27. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause currently reads:

“The information published shall, in particular, be such as the council reasonably considers is sufficient to enable those wishing to trade in the city to understand the circumstances in which they may lawfully do so.”

That would be much stronger if, instead of saying that the information shall be such as “the council reasonably considers”, it said that the information shall, in particular, be “such as is sufficient”. The important thing is that the information should be sufficient to enable those wishing to trade in the city to understand the circumstances. Whether the council thinks that information is sufficient is of subsidiary importance.

[Philip Davies]

Is my hon. Friend contending that if the council reasonably considered that it did not need to provide any information at all, that would be fine under the current wording? He is much more skilled in the law than I am. What constraints would there be on the local authority before a court if the existing wording was not amended as he seeks?

[Mr Chope]

It would be open to a council to provide minimal information, on the basis that the council reasonably considered it to be sufficient. Somebody who felt that it was insufficient—a pedlar who was potentially suffering a fixed penalty—would not be able to argue that the information was not sufficient to enable him to understand the circumstances under which he could trade, because all the council had to do was provide information that the council itself reasonably considered sufficient. The council would therefore be introducing a subjective test, thereby removing the effectiveness of what, on the face of it, seems perfectly sensible—that the information provided should be sufficient. The notion that the information is sufficient if the council considers it to be sufficient effectively negates what would otherwise be a worthwhile amendment.

[Philip Davies]

I would like to press my hon. Friend on the words “the council reasonably considers”. Would what the council reasonably considered sufficient be materially different from what anybody else reasonably considered to be sufficient?

[Mr Chope]

It may well be, and that is my concern. Let us look at what has happened in the past. Their lordships found a lot of evidence that councils were making assertions about the conduct of pedlars that they could not back up with evidence before their lordships’ Committee, so a council might consider something to be sufficient when it is not sufficient, because of that council or its officers having a particular prejudice or taking a cavalier approach.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Bill would surely be clearer if it did not allow the council discretion. If the council were to err in its use of discretion, that could lead to judicial reviews and all sorts of expenses to the council, so the promoters of these Bills would benefit by accepting his amendments.

[Mr Chope]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that succinct and, I hope, persuasive—indeed, conclusive—argument in support of my amendments. I hope that our hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey has noted it—although sadly I do not see any messages being passed between him and the people sitting in the officials’ Box on behalf of the promoters of the Bills.

Let me turn to my amendment (e), which would add the following words at the end of subsection (2) of the proposed new clause inserted by Lords amendment C27:

“and shall also be displayed prominently in any designated area.”

It is obviously useful for a motorist visiting a town who is thinking of parking somewhere to know where the parking restrictions apply, and the way to find out is by looking at a notice close to where they intend to park. Similarly, it is quite useful for pedlars intending to peddle their goods in a city or town centre to be able to see on a notice whether a different regime operates there compared with the national regime. That is fundamental to ensuring fair play and justice for visitors to a designated area who are not quite sure whether it is indeed a designated area, and so on. What harm would there be in requiring signs on the circumference of a designated area to make it absolutely clear to any passer-by?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend has given any consideration to the design of such signs and how it might be made clear to people that they are in a peddling or non-peddling zone.

[Mr Chope]

It would be useful if there were distinct signs. Indeed, an enterprising local authority might want to invite local schools to enter a competition to see who could produce the best design for such a sign. I do not think there should necessarily be uniform signs across the country, because that sounds rather bureaucratic and top-down. The most important thing is that the signs should be prominent and clear and not contain a lot of detail—unlike the conditions on the back of one’s new credit card, for example. There need to be relatively few words, prominently displayed.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I urge my hon. Friend not to do down the communist route of centrally dictating things, because these are individual Bills. It would not be beyond the wit of man to have little signs, as we do with conservation areas, for instance. That would be useful. Will the promoters of the Bill accept these amendments?

[Mr Chope]

I thank my hon. Friend for supporting these amendments. I have yet to hear officially, although in introducing their lordships’ amendments and mine at the beginning of the debate—I know my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough was not in his place at that time—our hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey implied en passant that he did not want to accept any of these amendments. Perhaps in the light of the ensuing debate, he will change his mind.

[Stuart Andrew]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Chope]

Colleagues elected in 2010 have discovered that when they are asked by promoters to sponsor a Bill in this House, it does not mean that they lose all their discretion over it. It is ultimately up to them as Members of Parliament to decide what to accept and what not to accept, and they do not need to be beholden to the officials.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I was getting very worried about this constitutional principle. It is surely up to this House and not up to individual promoters or local councils, to decide what passes into law.

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely, and I am sorry if I did not make that clear. There was an occasion—you may remember it, Mr Deputy Speaker—on a different private Bill earlier in this Parliament when one of my hon. Friends felt a certain reluctance to do anything other than what he had been told to do by the promoters. I explained to him that he would be doing the promoters, himself and the House a good service if he showed some flexibility. In fairness to him, he did show such flexibility. That is a good precedent, and I draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey in case he was not there at the time.

[Philip Davies]

Going back to the substantial issue of notices, as my hon. Friend knows, I am with him on virtually all of this and have been for a number of years. However, we are in danger of parting company, I fear, on the issue of the notices being different in every local authority. Surely the whole point of the objection is that people going from one place to another cannot be expected to know the exact regime in a particular place. Surely therefore it would be helpful if the same notice were in place in each local authority. Just as “no parking” notices are the same across the country, should not the same thing apply to pedlars’ notices?

[Mr Chope]

Fortunately, if we disagree on this issue, it need not concern us because the amendment does not spell that out. It was only in response to an intervention from our hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that I ventured to suggest that if any notices were produced, they need not be uniform across the country. That, of course, would be left to the discretion of the local authority, so I think my hon. Friend and I can probably live together on that particular interpretation.

[Philip Davies]

That is next Tuesday’s business.

[Mr Chope]

Sorry, I should not anticipate next Tuesday’s debate. I can see that my hon. Friend is going to be on really good form next week.

Amendment (f) to subsection (1) of the inserted new clause on training deals with the same theme of trying to remove the subjective test for the council so that there is some objectivity about it. Instead of saying:

“The council shall not authorise an officer to act for the purposes of this Act unless they are satisfied that the officer has received adequate training”,

subsection (1) of the inserted new clause on training would say:

“The council shall not authorise an officer to act for the purposes of this Act unless the officer has received adequate training”.

It would no longer be an issue of whether or not the council was satisfied, but a more objective test of whether the officer had received adequate training. Obviously, if the council is doing the training and it is by any objective test inadequate, that would not be a problem under the current wording. Only when the council has to satisfy an objective test in relation to training will we ensure that the right quality of training, to which our noble Friends in the other place referred, will be implemented. My amendment would strengthen this part of clause 17.

[Philip Davies]

I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend says, as he is making a good point. Does he know how this compares with what is required for other officers employed by local authorities—whether it be parking attendants or even perhaps the police force? Are my hon. Friend’s proposals the norm or is what is in the Bill the norm in that respect?

[Mr Chope]

In all honesty, I do not have the comparable statutory provisions before me to be able to answer my hon. Friend’s point. I am sure, however, that with the resources that have gone into the budgets of the promoters’ advisers, that sort of information should be available. Perhaps we will hear in due course from our hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey and find out whether similar provisions apply anywhere else.

This issue should not be treated lightly. Their lordships were quite concerned that, if we are going to allow people who are not constables or police community support officers to intervene in these areas, and we are going to allow “authorised persons” to intervene, it is essential that those authorised people are properly trained.

[Philip Davies]

In many respects, this amendment is more important than my hon. Friend’s previous amendment. The provisions on information at least ask the council “reasonably” to consider whether they are sufficient, whereas without my hon. Friend’s amendment, the wording on the training provisions is that the council needs only to be “satisfied”—not that it “has reason” to be satisfied or is “reasonably” satisfied. It is literally as blanket as that. Surely my hon. Friend would agree that his amendment on the training aspect is even more important than the one on information.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. If we cannot vote on all my amendments and have to select one—

[Philip Davies]

A shame.

[Mr Chope]

Yes, it would be a shame if we could not vote on all of them—perhaps some of them will be accepted. I must not be downhearted at this stage, as they might all be accepted. However, in the event that this one is not accepted, I can understand my hon. Friend’s point that it would be a useful amendment on which to test the opinion of the House. The essence of my amendment (f) is that it is designed to prevent the officers of the local authority from being judges in their own courts. That is a pretty fundamental principle, and I would have thought that all Members would like to sign up to it and apply it in practice.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I am sorry that I was not in my place to hear the beginning of my hon. Friend’s exposition of his various amendments. On this particular amendment and even allowing for it, it will still be up to the council to determine what is and what is not “adequate”. Does my hon. Friend think that it is right for the council to decide rather than some independent body?

[Mr Chope]

I would have hoped that we could trust councils to provide adequate training. The purpose of my amendment is to try to ensure that that happens. If the training is not adequate, it will be open to somebody to make a complaint to the council or the councillors; ultimately, it could be used as a defence to a fixed penalty notice or something like that—although I would not want to speculate on that. The test is that the officers must be properly trained: that is what the provisions would require—rather than that the council thought the training was adequate. I hope it would not be necessary to set up a new bureaucracy—an appeals panel or something like that—to deal with the situation, as we are already overburdened with bureaucracy and officialdom in this country, and we do not want even more of it.

My amendment (g) to Lords amendment C27 proposes the deletion of subsection (2), which makes training provided by the council mandatory. It states:

“The council shall make the training referred to in subsection (1) available also to constables and community support officers empowered by section 5(1) to give a fixed penalty notice.”

That is redundant, because constables and community support officers receive training that enables them to perform this function outside the ambit of any particular local Act relating to pedlars, and it is therefore unnecessary to require the council to become involved in training them. Obviously, if the chief constable asks the local council whether it will provide training for constables and community support officers, the council will probably be happy to oblige and to explain the procedure.

[Mr Bone]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way—he is being exceptionally generous—but did he mean to refer to the police and crime commissioner just now, rather than the chief constable?

[Mr Chope]

I think that it would be the chief constable in this instance. My understanding is that police and crime commissioners are there to decide whether to hire and fire, and to set out the budget for the police authorities, whereas operational issues are dealt with by the chief constables. I would regard the question of whether constables or community support officers on the beat are capable or knowledgeable enough to introduce or apply a fixed penalty notice regime as an operational issue.

[Mr Bone]

I would understand my hon. Friend’s logic if this were national legislation, but given that it is local legislation, by virtue of being a private Bill, surely it should be up to the police and crime commissioner to decide whether he wants to get involved with this nonsense at all.

[Mr Chope]

I take my hon. Friend’s point, but I trust that police and crime commissioners have bigger fish to fry.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey will support my amendments. As was made clear earlier, they also apply to the other Bills with which we are dealing today. We are not picking on Canterbury in particular, but it is the first Bill on the Order Paper.

[Philip Davies]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) not just for his speech, although it was of the customary calibre, but for his dedication in ensuring that, if the Bill ever leaves this place, it will leave in a much better state than the state in which it arrived. Without my hon. Friend’s personal dedication to this issue, and his determination that we should do what we ought to do in this place—that is, defend people’s freedoms and defend enterprise—the Bill would have passed through Parliament in a much less satisfactory manner.

Like my hon. Friend, I am grateful for the work that was done by their lordships. I do not know whether my hon. Friend felt the same, but I feared that the Bill would go through on the nod in the House of Lords. Their lordships should be commended for going through it in great detail and considering the arguments properly, and, consequently, tabling some amendments with which I think we can be particularly pleased.

I agree with what my hon. Friend said about many of the amendments. He focused on the subject of seizures, and on the Lords amendments that proposed the omission of various clauses relating to it. He may recall that the issue caused great controversy when it was debated for the first time in this place. It struck me as unacceptable that local authorities should employ authorised officers to go around seizing people’s goods willy-nilly. As my hon. Friend will recall, we argued the case vehemently for many months. We were told that the clauses were essential to the Bill, and that without them it would be unworkable and meaningless. We were also told that the proposals in the amendments would be unenforceable, and that they were in effect wrecking amendments: that, if I remember rightly, is what my hon. Friend was accused of when he tried to persuade the promoters that what they were saying was over the top.

I should be interested to know why the promoters thought that removing those clauses then would wreck the Bill, whereas removing them today apparently does not wreck it all. It seems that it will still be fit to proceed into law. It is difficult for us to consider the merits of the amendments until we are given some satisfactory answers to the question of how important the clauses are to the Bill as a whole.

I have the impression that we have reached a stage at which the promoters are determined to produce an Act of Parliament, irrespective of what is in it and whether anything that is in it will ever be applied. This seems to have become a war of attrition, a battle of wills. The promoters seem merely to want an Act of Parliament to hang their hat on. I certainly support the removal of all these clauses—page after page of them—and I think we should be grateful for the fact that the promoters may have come round to my hon. Friend’s way of thinking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that other promoters preparing private Bills take into account the verdict of their lordships on these seizure powers? We have seen a lot of attempts to introduce or smuggle equivalent powers in other private Bills.

[Philip Davies]

I absolutely agree. I hope that, in many respects, what their lordships have done will set a precedent and that we will not have to worry so much about some of the worst consequences of such legislation.

A notable omission from my hon. Friend’s speech was the issue of touting, although I appreciate that he was trying to be as brief as possible. If he did mention that and I missed it, I apologise to him. One amendment before us today deals with touting. He did not mention it—[Interruption.] I think it comes later on in our proceedings. It is in the third group, so I will save up my expertise on touting until that time; I apologise for mentioning it now.

The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch were focused mainly on training. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) is my parliamentary neighbour and an excellent Member of Parliament. The only bad thing about having him as my neighbour is that he puts me to shame. He has already successfully steered a private Member’s Bill through Parliament in his short time in the House. He did so with an awful lot of panache and charm, and by being practical and reasonable about what it was sensible to do in order to get that legislation through. I very much hope he will adopt the same strategy now, because he saw how well it worked with his Bill; I hope he will use that experience when considering this legislation, too.

Let us consider the debate we have had so far from a layman’s perspective—from the point of view of people who have no vested interest in the legislation and who have not been going through battles which started six years ago, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said. People who do not have that baggage and who listened to the argument that my hon. Friend made for his amendments to Lords amendment C27 could not fail to have been persuaded by his case. We started from the position that these Bills were designed to give local authorities far too much power—that was the whole point for us when we started out. As a result of my hon. Friend’s work and what happened in their lordships’ House, gradually, bit by bit, the excessive powers have been whittled down. We hope to end up with legislation that, although perhaps not ideal—it may not be something we particularly agree with—will certainly be an awful lot better than it was when we started out. We have an opportunity to carry on the theme that my hon. Friend started, and that their lordships continued, by removing some of the remaining parts that put far too much power in the hands of local authorities and give far too little protection, literally, to the man on the street.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Is not one of the problems the fact that local authorities have form on this issue? On Third Reading in the other place, the noble Lord Strasburger said that the Select Committee spent a lot of time trying to find out why the four local authorities wanted the powers to seize and introduce fixed penalties. It was told that pedlars sell substandard goods, but as he said

“no evidence whatever was offered to prove this allegation”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 451.]

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right. In many respects, the attitude that some local authorities have adopted has been sad—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

My understated manner was mentioned earlier, and I plan to carry on in that manner as I speak to this group of amendments. The pedlar provisions have generated the most interest, from those who petitioned against the Bills in the Lords and from a number of hon. Members in this House. Under the existing licensing legislation, an exception is given to persons who act as a pedlar under the authority of a pedlars certificate granted under the Pedlars Act 1871. The Bills would have limited that exemption so that it applied only to pedlars who traded by way of house-to-house visits. All other pedlars would have required a street-trading licence or consent.

The Lords Committee amended the pedlar provision very much in favour of pedlars. The amendments made will now restrict the exemption from the street-trading regime enjoyed by pedlars to trading by house-to-house visits, trading without any means of support—that is, by traders carrying the items they wish to sell—or trading with a wheeled trolley that does not exceed 0.75 metres in width, 0.5 metres in depth and 1.25 metres in height. The overall size of the display of goods has also been listed in the provision. So the Committee has limited the circumstances in which the restrictions on acting as a pedlar can apply.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend has referred to the Committee stage of the Bills in the other place. He will be aware that since then, on 27 November last year, the Government issued a consultation paper that proposes to repeal the UK-wide Pedlars Act in order to comply with the European services directive. How is that consistent with the rewriting of clause 5, which still purports to amend the Pedlars Act?

[Stuart Andrew]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Honestly. This process has been going on for a considerable time. In fact, even back in the 1990s, the Home Office was promising to introduce changes, although it never did so. We could go on debating these matters for many years to come. I shall now continue to make my points.

In addition, the amendments provide that the restrictions on pedlars’ activities should be confined to areas that have been designated by the councils. Each designation must be justified against two criteria. One involves ensuring road safety; the other involves preventing the obstruction of the highway. So, as I mentioned, the regime in the Bills is now far more generous to pedlars than the one originally set out in the Bills. The promoters of course accept the decision of the Lords in this regard.

I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has tabled further amendments to these amendments on all four Bills. His amendments are mainly concerned with the designation of areas. They would have the effect of allowing designation of streets rather than areas, and would limit the reasons for designation further than the Lords Committee thought necessary. The promoters do not agree that his amendments are necessary or desirable. They believe it to be entirely appropriate that they should be able to safeguard against obstruction of the highway, as the Lords decided.

My hon. Friend has also tabled amendments to the Nottingham City Council Bill and the Reading Borough Council Bill. Nottingham and Reading have included extra provision whereby the councils will be able to control the purchase, as well as the sale, of tickets under street-trading legislation. It is perhaps worth noting that the sale of tickets on the street is already subject to street-trading legislation nationally, but ticket touts buy tickets as well as sell them. My hon. Friend’s amendments would not change the position in general for Nottingham and Reading councils. They would still be able to control the buying of tickets. The Lords amendment that he is seeking to alter is a consequential one, and the councils do not believe the change to be necessary or desirable. I therefore commend the Lords amendments to the House.

[Mr Chope]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) suggested, we have now come to the meat of the Bills—namely, the provisions on pedlars and street trading. Their lordships looked at the issues and decided that clause 4 should be left out. Amendment C8 covers that. Under amendment C9, clause 5 would be left out and the new clause to which my hon. Friend briefly referred would be inserted.

Confusion has been caused. Since the Lords looked at these issues in November 2011, the Government have come forward with a consultation that effectively says that, because of the impact of the services directive, it is important that the Pedlars Act be repealed nationally. Although I agree that this process has been going on for a while—many years, perhaps—this is the first time we have got what might be described as a European dimension. If the European services directive is going to apply as the Government interpret it, we in this subordinate legislature will not be able to act outside its terms. The Government will not have any option but to proceed along the lines set out in the consultation document.

The Minister is looking at me in a way that suggests he wishes to intervene and put me right. If that is correct, I will be happy to give way to him.

[Mr Nuttall]

Will my hon. Friend give way to me instead?

[Mr Chope]

Yes, of course.

[Mr Nuttall]

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills impact assessment states:

“In any case, our assessment is that the Government has no choice but to abolish the Pedlars Act to comply with the European Services Directive.”

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing my point, and if the Minister wishes to intervene, I would be happy to give way.

[Matthew Hancock]

Unusually, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) accurately represents the Government position. Some aspects of the Pedlars Act are inconsistent with the European services directive. The consultation that will close on 15 February is known to the four authorities involved; they know that a consultation about a change in the national law is taking place. The proposals up for discussion in the consultation include repealing the Pedlars Act and amending the national street trading regime, and the local authorities would need to amend their legislation to take account of any such changes.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I therefore presume that the Government will vote against Lords amendment C9, which was passed in the other place in 2011, as it has been overtaken by events. It tinkers with amendments to the pedlars legislation, but the Minister says the legislation should be completely repealed.

[Philip Davies]

On this basis, it is irrelevant whether Members vote for or against that amendment. It does not matter which way the Government vote, therefore, because it will be a complete waste of time whichever way they go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

That may be the case in the future, but our national Parliament is still sovereign to the extent that, until we implement the services directive in legislative form, we will have the existing law on the statute book. If we accept Lords amendment C9, we will in effect be re-enacting something the Government tell us is no longer consistent with European law.

Many Members—and, I suspect, many pedlars, too—would be very pleased if we were to free ourselves from the shackles of Brussels, and we are greatly looking forward to the referendum on the matter. The points being discussed today are part of the campaign, as we are setting out reasons why we would be better off out. Until we rid ourselves of distractions from Brussels, however, we are stuck with having its rule of law apply to our own legislation. I hope that in due course the Minister will explain the Government’s position: do they support or oppose amendment C9?

[Philip Davies]

Is my hon. Friend in favour of Amendment C9?

[Mr Chope]

I have some sympathy with amendment C9 as it contains many of the proposals that we were trying to persuade councils other than Leeds to accept when this Bill was before our House. Leeds conceded that instead of having a regime under which pedlars could only go from door to door, it would be content with one where pedlars could go to pedestrianised high street areas, provided they did not cause an obstruction by having a very elaborate and large apparatus. That is where the concept of having trolleys of limited size came from; it came from Leeds city council, and the idea was discussed with me and some of my hon. Friends. The proposal to give pedlars the freedom to operate on the street with a trolley of sufficient size to enable them to display their goods and provide articles to those who wish to purchase them is a valuable development and makes a lot of common sense. Although the Government consultation specifies a maximum size of trolley rather larger than the one specified in amendment C9, they appear to accept the principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend mentioned that it was suggested in the consultation document that a rather larger trolley be allowed. Is he as surprised as I am that neither the promoters nor the Government have brought forward amendments to bring the new clause in Lords amendment C9 in line with the consultation document?

[Mr Chope]

I am surprised about that. I am also a bit disappointed in myself, because I should have tabled such an amendment so that the House could have discussed it. I failed to do that, so the House does not have the opportunity to compare the alternative proposals for the best size of trolley.

[Philip Davies]

While we are on the sizes of trolleys, my hon. Friend will see that Lords amendment C9 gives specific measurements for trolleys, including a width of 0.88 metres, a depth of 0.83 metres and a height of 1.63 metres. First, can he help those of us who do not understand the meaning of 0.83 metres by telling us what those measurements mean in old money? Secondly, does he have any idea why those measurements are so specific?

[Mr Chope]

The short answer is that I am not able to convert metres into feet and inches. I take my hon. Friend’s point that it would be much better if the measurements were expressed in a way that most people can understand. Most people understand feet. I am told that I am approaching 2 metres in height, if that gives my hon. Friend any guidance on the size of the trolleys.

[Philip Davies]

How wide are you though?

[Mr Chope]

The issue of depth is also an important one.

[Matthew Hancock]

As my hon. Friend knows, the consultation is ongoing, so there is good reason not to bring forward amendments at this stage. To do so might be seen as prejudging the consultation. The appropriate size of trolleys is part of the consultation, so when the consultation closes, we will bring forward conclusions on what is the appropriate size.

[Mr Chope]

So does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea for the promoters of the Bills, when the appointed time for discussing them today has expired, to seek the indulgence of the Chairman of Ways and Means to ensure that the Bills are not brought back before the House until after the conclusion of the consultation period and until the Government’s position is clearer? That would enable the necessary consequential amendments to be made to the Bills, rather than their being rushed on to the statute book only for the councils that promote them to come back with fresh amendments in the future. Surely he would think that good advice for the promoters of the Bills.

Were our consideration delayed beyond the expiry date of the consultation, would the Government come forward with amendments to Lords amendment C9 so that it properly reflected the Government’s view on the impact of the services directive?

[Matthew Hancock]

As a relatively new Member and Minister, I have much to learn from my hon. Friend about the procedures of this place. His ability to describe as rushed legislation that has so far been six and a bit years in the making, while at the same time speaking at great length to ensure that it is scrutinised properly, is very impressive. What he has said about timing is on the record and these things are always looked at.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous comments, and for noting, without expressing an opinion, that the point is now on the record for the promoters of the Bill. It is hard to imagine, but if I were a promoter of a private Bill, I would certainly be keen for everything to be dealt with in one Bill, rather than face a situation in which my Bill was amended and put on the statute book in a form that would not comply with legislation brought forward by the Government in due course. One difficulty the Government may have is that to amend private legislation that is different in different parts of the country could either involve hybrid Bills or rely on individual local authorities to bring forward their own private Bills, with all the scope that would offer for people to raise petitions and so on.

There is a serious issue about the status of pedlars, and what was said in the other place and resulted in these Lords amendments is highly pertinent to today’s discussion. The noble Lord Bilston told their lordships that the Bills were disproportionate, and that there was concern to protect the rights of

“genuine pedlars…who play by the rules, who move around when trading and who do not use oversized stores to display their wares.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 443.]

That is why he was keen to include in the Bill provisions to restrict the size of stores that can be used by pedlars, but otherwise enable them to carry on as before. His concerns were reflected by other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness Knight of Collingtree who said that, in essence, and as far as she interpreted the Bills, local authorities were

“seeking the total eradication of pedlars from their streets.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 445.]

Their lordships were, I think, wise and helpful in responding to the concerns expressed by pedlars on these issues, but I am not sure that they went as far as they could have done in ensuring that the new regime will work well in practice. The principal reason for saying that is reflected in my amendments to C9, which are centred around whether we should have “designated areas” or streets. Everybody understands a street; it has a name and can be found on a Google map—just to show how modern I am—and that name can be seen at the side of the street as someone walks along. A “designated area”, however, is much vaguer and could be large or small. The most difficult concept for us to deal with in clause 9, as amended, is that subsection (7) now states:

“The council may designate an area for the purposes of this section only if it has reason to believe that it is necessary to do so to ensure road safety or prevent obstruction of the highway.”

I have tabled three amendments to subsection (7). Amendment (e) would leave out “an area” and insert “a street”, and amendment (f) would remove the words

“it has reason to believe”

thereby introducing an objective, rather than subjective, test as to whether the provision is necessary to ensure road safety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, if the words of the Lords amendment remained and were taken literally, virtually any article in the highway could be construed as an obstruction of it? It would therefore be possible for the authority to name virtually any street as being at risk of falling foul of the provision.

[Mr Chope]

Exactly—my hon. Friend is right to make that point.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way—he is being exceptionally generous. In his desire to rush through his speech so that we can complete the business today, he has not admitted the fact that any obstruction of the highway is a police matter, and that they can deal with it. The measure is therefore superfluous.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Such measures are quite often a matter of interpretation. The trained police officer is in a far better position to interpret the law than a council that is prejudiced against the interests of pedlars. To reinforce the point about prejudice, the noble Lord Strasburger said on Third Reading that:

“It was alleged that pedlars create a situation that attracts pickpockets, but…no evidence was offered. It was also said that pedlars cause obstruction of the highway. Little evidence for this allegation was offered apart from a small number of cases where wide and expanding trolleys had been used…The witnesses who spoke for the local authorities were somewhat unconvincing. We heard evidence from pedlars that many council officers and the police are ignorant about the 1871 Act, and we also heard much evidence of a bullying culture on the part of council officials towards honest and hard-working pedlars.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 451-52.]

That is why we need to be alert to the precise wording of the Lords amendments. We need to ensure that the intention is to establish a level playing field for pedlars and street traders, and to ensure that pedlars cannot be undermined by over-zealous or prejudiced council officials. For those reasons, Lords amendment C9 would be much improved by amendments (a) to (h), which I have tabled.

Amendment (h) would remove subsection (8), which states that:

“The provisions of sub-paragraph…(2)…of Schedule 4 to the 1982 Act shall apply to a resolution under this section as they apply to a resolution under that paragraph but as if…for ‘street’ there were substituted ‘area’”.

That completely undermines the concept of pedlars’ freedom to go from house to house and sell their wares on the public highway by trading from street to street.

The Lords amendments grouped under the heading “Pedlars and street trading” are a significant improvement.

[Philip Davies]

I was concerned that my hon. Friend seemed to be coming to a close. He does not seem to have mentioned—if he did, he glossed over it very quickly—Lords amendment C8, which relates to leaving out clause 4, something I think he mentioned only in passing. Does he have a view on whether leaving out clause 4 is a requirement of the services directive? It is unclear to me.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to the attention of the House, because it takes us back to our discussions on clause 4 in the previous Parliament. It was in the context of the provision of services that the issue of the services directive was raised. That was why, as I recall, we were arguing that the provision of services should not be covered under these particular local Acts. There seems to be a recognition that clause 4 is outlawed by the services directive. What I do not understand—I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about this—is why the directive also applies to pedlars who are dealing not in services, but goods. How does the directive apply to the sale of goods by pedlars? That is causing concern among the pedlar fraternity.

There may be as many as 4,000 pedlars in this country, so the implications are significant. They are concerned that if the legislation, which sets out a separate regime for pedlars and has been established for well over 100 years, is torn up and repealed, it may be that the significant status and freedom that pedlars have hitherto enjoyed—of being able to obtain a certificate and, as long as they are of good character, trade from door to door, place to place and town to town—will be removed from them.

As was said in their lordships’ House, pedlary goes back long before the time of Shakespeare to the time of Chaucer, if not before. Therefore, to tear up the 1871 Act, as the Government seem to be proposing in their consultation paper, would be damaging to the interests of pedlars.

[Mr Bone]

Perhaps my hon. Friend can explain something to me before he concludes his opening remarks on this group of amendments. It is Government policy to encourage micro-businesses, and pedlars are small business men at the very smallest level. Therefore, it appears to me that these councils are going against Government policy.

[Mr Chope]

That may well be so. If councils are going against Government policy, one would expect the Government to say to their supporters in the Chamber that they wish them to vote on the amendments in a particular way.

Sadly, my hon. Friend the Minister is temporarily not in his place, but I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) in his place instead. I am sure he will make a careful note of what I am about to say. Under the heading, “Chapter 1 - Proposal to repeal the Pedlars Acts 1871 and 1881 (Part 2 of the draft Regulations at Annex A)”, the Government’s consultation paper, which is still out for consultation, reads:

“Below we detail our proposals (reflected in the proposed draft Regulations set out at Annex A) to repeal the Pedlars Acts 1871 and 1881 in relation to the whole of the UK.”

That is not a discussion of the possibility of repealing the Acts, but a specific proposal to repeal the Acts in toto. The proposal might still be out to consultation, but the Government have effectively made up their mind to repeal the Acts.

For reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and others explained, the Government have been diffident about declaring their hand in relation to the provisions in the Bills when they have had the opportunity to do so. One of the difficulties when considering Lords amendments is finding out why they were proposed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) just pointed out, removing clause 4 from this Bill and equivalent provisions in the other Bills was not referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey. It was taken as a given, despite its having significant implications.

Neither was there proper explanation of why, if they thought that removing clause 4 would satisfy the services directive, the Government now say that to satisfy it we would effectively have to repeal clause 5 in toto and not replace it with any other provision relating to pedlars.

[Philip Davies]

During the debate on the first group of amendments, my hon. Friend said, quite rightly, that the Lords had “filleted” the Bill. On the second group, does he contend that the removal of clause 4 and the total rewriting of clause 5 has the same effect of destroying the original arguments for why the Bill was necessary?

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely. This takes us back to the precursors to these Bills, one of which was the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill. The argument put forward by the promoters was that life was intolerable for retailers in the city centres because of the activities of pedlars, and therefore that pedlars needed to be banned outright from the city centres. Now, as a result of their lordships’ amendment, the promoters have recognised that pedlars are welcome and free to operate in city centres—or is that really what they intend? Does the local authority really want pedlars to be free, or will it seize on the provisions about obstructing the highways to create designated areas where pedlars cannot operate?

[Philip Davies]

Does that mean that clause 5, as amended by amendment C9, would cause more confusion about what would be allowed, making it difficult for a pedlar to be clear about how each of the four local authorities might interpret the same clause, even though the provisions are the same for each authority?

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely, because this clause—new clause 5, as I am calling it—effectively gives local authorities the discretion to interpret in their own way what they regard as a road safety issue or a potential obstruction of the highway, and what it is necessary to do to ensure road safety or prevent an obstruction of the highway. If local authorities are able to persuade themselves that something is necessary for the purposes of road safety—a wide concept that includes pedestrian safety—and they couple that with the need to prevent obstruction of the highway, that almost drives a coach and horses through the provisions. Local authorities would thereby retain almost absolute discretion to designate areas as they wished, potentially arbitrarily way to the detriment of the pedlar fraternity.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend’s amendment (f) would remove the words

“it has reason to believe that”

from subsection (7) of the clause inserted by Lords amendment C9. I apologise for appearing for ever to be picking his legal brains, but does he have any idea what, as far as a court is concerned, would constitute a legitimate “reason to believe”?

[Mr Chope]

Obviously I cannot give any legal advice, but the short answer is that if we are talking about a subjective test, all the council has to do is to say that it has reason to believe, whereas if we are talking about an objective test, the issue is not what the council believes, but what actually happened and the impact. If something was going to be an obstruction to the highway or have an impact on road safety, that could be objectively verified.

[Philip Davies]

Is not the key to this the word “reason”? The council must have a reason to believe, as opposed to just believing without reason. Presumably, there must be some tangible reason to justify the belief; I am just concerned about how strenuous that reason would need to be.

[Mr Chope]

I cannot advise my hon. Friend on that. Obviously the reasonableness of any reason that was put forward could, I suppose, be tested, although that is more an academic or theoretical question, rather than a question about what will happen in practice. My concern is that the provision will be used to perpetuate a campaign of discrimination against pedlars and try to drive them out of particular cities, which was of course the original intent behind the four Bills.

[Philip Davies]

What I am trying to get at is this: if my hon. Friend’s amendment (f) were accepted and we removed the words “reason to believe”—so that subsection (7) read: “only if it is necessary to do so”—what difference does he think that would make in practice to how the council had to operate?

[Mr Chope]

If we left out the words “it has reason to believe that”, subsection (7) would read: “The council may designate an area for the purposes of this section only if it is necessary to do so to ensure road safety”. That is something on which evidence could be drawn from all angles. One could argue that designating an area was necessary for road safety or that it was not, but it would not depend on the council. Under subsection (7) as currently worded, as long as the council says that in its view designating an area is necessary for road safety, that is the end of the matter and it cannot be challenged.

[Philip Davies]

I understand the thrust of what my hon. Friend is saying and, as he knows, I am sympathetic to it, but if subsection (7) was simply left to read: “The council may designate an area for the purposes of this section only if it is necessary to do so”, would not the people deciding whether it was necessary to designate an area still be the council?

[Mr Chope]

Yes, obviously they would—I am sorry that it seems to have taken my hon. Friend quite a long time to drill out the answer he was looking for from this particular stone—because the council will be the one determining the matter. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is going to make reference in his own contribution to the circularity of the argument, but I understand the point he is getting at. I think the way to put it is to say “I surrender”.

Looking at the amendments in the context of the revisions to the legislation envisaged by the Government, my own view is that it would be wrong for the House to accept amendment C9 as drafted. Amendment C9 is a lot better than the provisions that were in place before it. If it were simply an amendment to leave out clause 5, that would be fine, but to

“insert the following new Clause”

as set out in C9 risks the danger that the provisions, when enacted, will be totally at odds with legislation brought forward by the Government, whether it be legislation relating to the size of the trolleys or to the circumstances in which those trolleys can be used by pedlars, particularly because C9 seeks to amend the pedlars legislation at a time when the Government are saying that those Acts have to be repealed.

[Mr Nuttall]

On that very point, is my hon. Friend aware of any reason why such very specific measurements are included in their lordships’ amendment C9? I refer to where a width of 0.75 metres, a depth of 0.5 metres and a height of 1.25 metres are specified. It would have been far better to go with the Government’s originally suggested amendments and measurements of 1 metre and 2 metres.

[Mr Chope]

The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that when their lordships drew up these amendments in November 2011, the Government had not declared their hand. They did not do that until November 2012—and nobody can be blamed for not anticipating what the Government would say.

[Mr Bone]

I may be wrong, but could it possibly be that 0.88 metres is actually equivalent to a yard?

[Mr Chope]

If that is correct, I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I cannot understand why we do not use yards and feet rather than refer to 0.88 metres. We always say when we come to this place that we always learn something. That is certainly something I have learned today, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for it.

Let me reach a summation on these particular issues. I have seen some movement on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey, and I hope he will ensure that we have time to listen to the Minister’s response, as it is very important for the Minister to send out some clear messages to pedlars, many of whom are very worried by the proposed changes to the legislation and are confused by the attitude of the Government, particularly towards amendment C9 when looked at alongside the Government’s consultation paper.

I fear that an atmosphere is developing in which the Bill’s promoters think, “Well, it has taken us so long, so rather than try to improve it further, we might as well try to drive it home as quickly as we can and curtail debate as much as possible”, which obviously has the effect of creating a reaction. We know that the House’s procedures have resulted in a considerable curtailing of the rights of Members to speak in some debates. Fortunately, in private business, we still have the right to try to insist on getting the promoters of Bills to listen to our arguments.

I think that that is what we are looking for on this occasion. We are asking the promoters to reflect on the arguments that we have presented, and to consider tabling their own amendments to the Lords amendments. One of the virtues of a debate organised in this way is that, in this instance, we have so far discussed and voted on only Lords amendments C3, C4 and C5, which means that the promoters still have an opportunity to table their own amendments to those on which we have not yet voted.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s full explanation of the position. As I understand it, the benefit of the procedure that we are using today will result, eventually, in a better Act of Parliament. By allowing the promoters to reflect on the arguments and then come up with amendments that may even improve on those tabled by my hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and me, we are likely to end up with a much better Bill. Would it not be great if the Government followed the example set by private business and dropped programme motions? Then this could happen week in, week out when we debated Government business.

[Mr Chope]

I think that there is a strong case for asking the Procedure Committee to look into the possibility of applying the principles relating to private business to public business. What has happened today demonstrates the virtues of being able to engage in what might be described as an iterative process, during which we discuss the issues, and the promoters have a chance to reflect on the points that have been made—over weeks, months or years—and to respond to them accordingly.

I do not need to speak any longer on this group of amendments—[Hon. Members: “Shame!”] I know that—

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

On the regional growth fund, the hon. Lady will know that the Chancellor announced another £310 million in the autumn statement, and 85% of the projects in rounds 1 and 2 have now started, but I hope to tell the House how we will apply the additional money early in the new year. I hope that Stoke will be one of the areas to benefit. The allegation about anti-dumping is a very serious one, and I am happy to meet her and her colleagues to discuss it further.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Do the Government believe in the right of each individual and business to choose the bank they wish to have operating on their behalf, and if so will the Government guarantee that no existing customer of Lloyds bank, whether a business or an individual, will be forced to transfer their account to the Co-op without their express consent?

[Vince Cable]

The general principle of account portability and its being voluntary is absolutely right. I am aware that some banks are currently discharging their customers against their will, which is bad business practice but not something we can stop. I am not sure what particular objection the hon. Gentleman has to the Co-op. It is one of the new challenger banks that we welcome.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

The national careers service is the first all-age service, and the previous Government could have introduced such a service; there were calls for them to do so on many occasions. We estimate that its website will get 20 million hits a year, and that its telephone helpline will get 1 million calls a year. I expect 700,000-plus people to benefit from the face-to-face guidance that the hon. Gentleman describes. New professional standards will also be set out for the careers industry for the first time. That is progress by any measure, and he should acknowledge that.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

3. What steps he is taking to reduce regulatory burdens on schools.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

The Government are committed to reducing regulatory burdens on schools. We have already removed a range of unnecessary duties via the Education Act 2011 and, subject to parliamentary process, we will remove further burdens in September. In addition to reducing regulations, we have cut the volume of guidance issued to schools by more than half, removed the lengthy self-evaluation form and the financial management standard in schools, and introduced a streamlined inspection framework. We have also made it clear that neither the Department nor Ofsted expects teachers to produce written lesson plans for every lesson.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response, but does he think it fair to describe his Department’s performance as meriting a capital alpha for effort while it is still getting only a gamma minus for achievement? In particular, will he look again at the deregulation of admissions criteria, at the pupil numbers that schools can have, and at the whole issue of grammar schools and free schools that are still calling for more freedoms?

[Mr Gibb]

That sounds like Greek to me! The Department deserves an A* for what it has achieved. We have already removed statutory burdens. Performance targets have gone. Changes have been made to consultation on the school day, and it is no longer necessary to appoint a school improvement partner or to prepare and publish a school profile. We have also abolished the absurd rule requiring parents to be given 24 hours’ notice of a detention. We have abolished the requirement to join behaviour and attendance partnerships, and we have removed 20,000 pages of guidance from schools. We have more than halved the guidance going to schools—