Rising star Greg leads the fight against Education Bill

And he has entered the arena in his new role during what he describes as interesting times.

The Second Reading of the controversial Education Bill was top of the list on the Leeds North West MP's first day in his new role last week.

The Bill, which will give schools the freedom to become independent trusts, faced its first vote in the House of Commons last week and it was passed after Conservatives voted with the Government in the face of a rebellion by 51 backbench Labour MPs.

If the bill becomes law every school will be given the ability to opt out of Council control and have the freedom to develop their own ethos, curriculum and admissions policy.

Opponents of the radical shake-up argue that it could lead to a two-tier education system with the result that some schools could be forced to close.

But Education Secretary Ruth Kelly told the house the creation of trust schools would not lead to pupils being selected on ability. She argued that anyone voting in favour of the Bill which she described as progressive and reforming -- would be voting for less academic selection.

But far from being progressive the bill is actually backward-looking and will lead to further inequality, according to Mr Mulholland.

He said: "These are interesting times for Education. The Government's Education Bill only just scraped through because of support from the Tories. This illustrates the fact the New Labour and the Tories are an unholy alliance which will make inequality worse and will do nothing to help children and parents from disadvantaged backgrounds.

"Instead of presenting fresh ideas with reforms fit for the 21st century, this Bill looks back 20 years for its ideas. The heart of the problem is that the government doesn't really know whether it wants to pursue competition or collaboration as the best method to raise standards in education.

"The freedom that schools really want devolved from government is freedom on the curriculum. They want more flexibility to teach what young people want to learn. Extending powers over admissions will entrench existing inequalities and decrease choice for parents."

He said: "Instead of addressing standards, which is the issue that worries parents and future employers most, this Bill focuses far too much on structures. This will be a huge disappointment for many parents and educational professionals and will reintroduce more selection by the back door.

Mr Mulholland pointed to an Otley school which he believes is already a great success.

"A good example is Prince Henry's in Otley. This is an excellent school achieving very high standards across the board, taking pupils from all backgrounds. Prince Henry's shows that excellent management and teaching can get the best out of students of different abilities without the need for a change of status or undermining the commitment to good all round, comprehensive education.

"However, Prince Henry's is over-subscribed, therefore making it difficult for many parents to get their children into the school. Making Prince Henry's a Trust School would make the situation worse. Establishing Trust Schools is not about giving schools more power to choose pupils, but giving more opportunity for parents to choose which schools they want their children to go to.

"Tony Blair's flagship Education Bill is going through Parliament at a time when Prince Henry's accommodation is of an inadequate standard and yet staff still manage to do a great job.

"It is not structural changes that the education system needs but properly directed investment. Instead of focusing on structural changes, education reform should be about giving schools like Prince Henry's more freedom to use their own experience and expertise to continue to get the best out of pupils of all levels of ability."

The bill also failed to gain support from the Conservative MP for Shipley Philip Davies, who felt he would be letting his constituents down if he voted in favour of the proposals.

Mr Davies said: "I did defy my party whip and I abstained."

Although there are parts of the bill he agrees with he believes other aspects are a long way from satisfactory.

"In my opinion it took one step forward in terms of the setting up of trust schools and the freedom that gives - which is welcome. But that step forward was eliminated by steps back in terms of changes to admission to stop schools selecting by interview -- which is a step in the wrong direction."

He said under the proposals schools would also be subject to unwelcome interference from a number of bodies, including local education authorities which would still be able to "stick their noses into things." Mr Davies said although the setting up of trust schools was to be welcomed the Bill contained a lot of other elements which he could only see as backwards steps.

"I couldn't possibly support it," he said. "The test is that when I speak to my constituents can I look them in the eye and say this bill would make schools better"

Mr Davies said he knew in all honesty he would not be able to do that, and could therefore not support the bill.

He added: "I wish we hadn't supported it -- but I understand why we did because the setting up of trust schools was a step in the right direction. But I think the advantages are eliminated by the disadvantages in the bill."

The bill has to go to a third and final vote, but in the meantime Mr Davies says Labour and Conservative members will undoubtedly seek to amend it.

"Unless it is improved on I shall probably vote against it again," he said.

Horsforth and Aireborough MP Paul Truswell, (Lab) who voted against the Second Reading, said that while it contained many good aspects, there were elements that he remained concerned about.

"There is always a danger that debates on important issues like education end up on party lines.

"I view education as a parent and a governor for 15 years, as well as an MP. As such, I welcomed the overwhelming majority of the White Paper and the Bill, and I am delighted that some of the concerns we had about admissions polices, for example, have been addressed. But I am disappointed at some key aspects that I feel go in the wrong direction.

"Structures do not ensure achievement in education, people do. Dedicated staff, supportive governors and parents are more important than tinkering around with structures and governance.

"But there is always a difficult balance to strike between allowing schools to get on with the job, while ensuring that pupils, parents and communities are getting a good service and intervening incisively when there are concerns.

"The Government is clearly committed to improving the education system after the previous years of neglect and underfunding, and to ensure that extra funding is used effectively to improve standards. Unfortunately, that has led to too many well-meaning initiatives over too short a time scale, which can sap the energies and morale of schools.

"We have seen locally the positive results of this commitment in terms of school building, such as the five new primary schools in my constituency, and major building projects in others.

"My constituency has 120 extra teachers, and 260 teaching assistants and other support staff compared to 1997. Standards have risen, which is testimony to the work of staff, pupils, and parents, even though it is trendy to talk these achievements down.

"There are many good elements in the Bill, including the emphasis on personalised learning, tackling coasting and failing schools, creating effective discipline, engaging parents, and improving nutritional standards.

"It also requires all local authorities to provide good quality youth services with a requirement to involve young people in shaping the service.

"I am, however, unhappy with those aspects that might lead now or in the future under another Government to more fragmentation of the school system, and reduce local accountability, or allow some schools to operate in a way that disadvantages neighbouring communities and schools.

"I would also be concerned if schools grew beyond a size that parents and communities were comfortable with, and how this would affect the viability of neighbouring schools.

"We need to make all schools good schools, so that parents do not feel they have to send their youngsters to other areas."

Labour MP for Ilkley Ann Cryer said: "I abstained because I have reservations about the bill. I am not sure what it is hoping to achieve.

"The sort of school that possibly will be helped if any are the schools like Ilkley Grammar. But I'm not sure if Ilkley Grammar needs much help they are doing very well already."

She stressed: "What I am concerned about is the sort of school that I have in Keighley where only 11 per cent of the students are actually achieving five or more GCSEs. I think at Ilkley Grammar it is standing at something like 85 per cent.

"I am not sure that there is anything in this Bill that is going to address problems at that school."

She argues that measures such as reducing class sizes would be more likely to help these non-achieving students. And she said whereas it was easy to attract high quality teachers to schools such as Ilkley Grammar it was not so easy at lower achieving schools.

Mrs Cryer believes the lack of English at home is a crucial bar to success for many Asian children growing up in Northern cities. And she believes this is an issue which needs focussing on.

She said the majority of children at the low achieving in Keighley don't speak a word of English until they start formal education and she stressed that this put them at a disadvantage.

Mrs Cryer believes parents have a crucial role to play in helping their children in situations such as these.

"It is just unfortunate that parents are not getting the fact that they can enhance their children's progress in life by simply speaking English at least some of the time at home."