Academies Bill [Lords]

My hon. Friend suggests a cynical intention on the part of Ministers and I hesitate to endorse that. People must reach their own conclusions as to whether such an intention is present. Is anyone going to give hon. Members a good reason to vote against my amendment, which would not even give parents the same rights as the parents of children at grammar schools but would be conditional on a governor objecting to proposals? I cannot for the life of me see why anyone would vote against it, but I suspect that nearly 300 will. Let me be clear that I have no prejudice against grammar schools. I went to three of them—expelled from none, I hasten to add—and I taught happily at an ex-direct grant, independent school for 15 years. I am agnostic about educational structure and this is just a matter of logical consistency. In our debates on this issue, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) has called on the Opposition to"““acknowledge that parents should be the people who have the greatest say in their children's education””.—[Official Report, 19 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 43.]" The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) has accused Labour of not trusting people"““with the education of their own children.””—[Official Report, 19 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 118.]" And the Minister has claimed that he wants to ensure that parents are ““happy with the quality”” of educational provision. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) has assured us that"““the Conservative Front-Bench team takes the view that parents should have more choice””.—[Official Report, 21 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 444.]" They are all wise and experienced politicians who must know, as we all do, that governing bodies can sometimes splinter, be out of touch or be monopolised or taken over by cliques, particularly given the current chronic shortage of governors nationally; it is quite difficult to get people to become governors. Governing bodies also can and might misread parental opinion. There is a general concern, which I share, about people who are temporarily and contingently nominated as the governors of a state school being entitled unilaterally to change the status of an asset that is paid for and financed by the whole community without the consent of that community or its elected representatives. Setting that concern aside, however, changing the status of a school without allowing the parents of children at the school a decisive voice is extraordinarily hard to justify, especially given the discretionary and entirely unspecific nature of the consultation arrangements in the Bill. The only motive that I can see for opposing my amendment, other than the dishonourable motive that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) has suggested, is a relative indifference to parental wishes.