Draft Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 General Committees

[Sarah Champion]

I thank both my hon. Friends for their interventions. That is the problem—even if section 20 of the 2006 Act could be interpreted as extending to a breach of the regulations, it appears that the EHRC does not believe it can enforce that.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

What my hon. Friend rightly says is compounded by the fact that although the Government have included a regulation allowing them to review the operation of the regulations and whether their objectives have been achieved, that review could be up to five years away. We need to encourage the Government to make that review quickly, to see whether the concerns we are raising have come to pass.

[Sarah Champion]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that specific point.

In the November 2015 autumn statement, the Government imposed a 25% cut to the EHRC’s budget. That followed a whopping—I am not sure whether that is a Parliamentary expression—69% funding cut since the beginning of the coalition Government, and has led to the budget being reduced from £70 million to £22 million. How does the Minister expect the EHRC to fulfil its enforcement duty? Do the Government plan to legislate to provide the EHRC with the powers it needs to enforce the regulations? Does she plan to provide the EHRC with extra, vital funding? If not, given what my hon. Friends have said, how will she ensure that the regulations are meaningfully enforced?

The Government have stated that they will run checks to assess non-compliance, but details on the Government website to which employers must upload their information have not yet been released. Can the Minister tell us today when those details will be released? Will the Government compile a public database of compliant employers? They have said that they will publish tables, by sector, of employers reporting gender pay gaps. Will they go further and publish an annual league table, ranking every company and public body by pay gap? Will they ensure that companies tackling or seeking to tackle the issue are rewarded with good publicity, for example?

The question of how the Government plan to use the data is key if we are to be assured that they have a strategy to address the chronic and pervasive factors that have led to the significant gender pay gap. Will they commit to bringing a report to Parliament annually rather than every five years, as has been recommended? That report should include broad data on responses, the EHRC analysis of those responses and—this is of fundamental importance—a Government action plan to narrow the gap in the following 12 months. Will the Government also publish their pay gap figures by Whitehall Department? I have not spoken to my Chief Whip about this, but perhaps the Minister will comment on whether political parties should publish their gender pay gaps.

Finally, will the Minister confirm that she has plans to publish a strategy to tackle the gender pay gap in small and medium-sized employers? How does she plan to assess that problem? The regulations will cover 10.47 million employees in the UK, so what she is doing today is hugely welcome, but those employees represent only 40% of employment.

The Government have been forced to implement the regulations, seven years later than required. They have watered them down to the extent that I have to question their commitment to tackling the gender pay gap, although I do not question the Minister’s commitment to that. Ahead of the spring statement, the Government should outline how they plan to tackle the wider issue of the economic inequality of women, rather than take away the teeth of the enforcement agency. They have refused, year after year, to conduct a cumulative gender impact analysis of their policies. Instead of bringing forward their own documentation, I am sorry to say that they chose to smear the research of the House of Commons Library and the women’s sector.

Almost every major piece of legislation that has improved the lives of working women has been introduced by a Labour Government, and all Opposition Members are proud of that. All the Government had to do on the mandatory reporting of the gender pay gap was bring the legislation into force and create a meaningful mechanism for tackling pay inequality. Unless the Minister can give us assurances today, I am sad to say that they might have failed on that.

[Vernon Coaker]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. It is a few years since I have been on one of these Committees, but I was keen to serve on it because it is important for me as a man to say how important the regulations are. Although they are about the gender pay gap, the issue concerns us all.

The situation is simply not good enough. Men should be demanding equal treatment for women and the closure of the pay gap as loudly as many of my colleagues have done, particularly my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham, who has campaigned on these issues for decades, including when the attitudes she was facing were even more difficult than they are today. We should recognise women who have done that throughout the ages, wherever they have come from. We would not have reached this point were it not for many women like my right hon. and learned Friend. She is here today, and she remains an influence.

It is important for us to lay out the fact that the pay gap, despite numerous attempts and numerous pieces of legislation, remains at 18.1%. For full-time equivalent roles, it is 9.4%. In my region, the east midlands, it is 12%, and that simply is not good enough. More urgency has to be injected into this issue to try to move things forward. Otherwise, there will be a Committee like this one in 10 years’ time berating the fact that whoever is in government at that time is presiding over a gender gap that is 8.9% instead of 9.4%. We have to do better, and the challenge is not just for Government but for all of us to demand better.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham asked an important question, and I reiterate it to the Minister. These pay gap regulations will affect larger private companies, but what exactly do the Government intend to do? What will the timescale be for reporting by Government Departments and larger public bodies? Given the number of people they employ, it would be interesting to hear about that.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I wonder whether any consideration has been given to different-sized employers. Women who work for a larger employer might have their pay gap monitored, but if they work for a smaller employer doing exactly the same job, they will not be monitored. Those will be people doing exactly the same job and still experiencing significant levels of inequality. Does my hon. Friend see that as an issue?

[Vernon Coaker]

That is a real issue. The Minister will be able to confirm this, but I think I am right in saying that the regulations will affect 34% of women. That will obviously leave a significant number of women outside the scope of the regulations, who might include some of the women my hon. Friend refers to.

People moving in and out of companies, going from one employing more than 250 to another that does not, is a real issue. I will come back in a couple of minutes—I do not want to speak for too long—to the review mechanism that the Government have built into the regulations. They should consider that point.

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that some of the issues we are discussing might be cultural problems. It is difficult to argue that we should change the culture by changing the law, but the law can be a signpost to the sort of cultural attitudes we wish to encourage. I am not saying that we should pass a law on this, but CHILDWISE published a report today about discrimination in pocket money. I confess an interest— I will need to check with my family, who are grown up now, to ensure that this did not happen for them. Apparently the gender pay gap begins early in childhood and at home, with boys receiving 20% more pocket money than girls. I hope I did not do that, but I cannot say I definitely did not. It would completely undermine what I am saying now.

The new report from CHILDWISE reveals that between the ages of 11 and 16 the gap grows to 30%, which mirrors what happens in the adult population, where the gender pay gap rises as women get older. Between those ages boys receive an average weekly income of £17.80, and girls of the same age lag behind on £12.50. I do not know how accurate those figures are; I am just quoting them. I do not think I gave my son £17.80—maybe a month, but not a week.

The serious point I am trying to make is that the cultural attitudes in our society are what we need to address, think about and challenge, but the law is a good place to start. I take my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham’s point that these regulations come seven years after the primary legislation, but the Government did try a voluntary approach. The explanatory memorandum shows the failure—not a catastrophic failure, but a very real one—of the voluntary approach. We are told on page 2 of the explanatory memorandum that according to the ONS:

“Whilst over 300 organisations signed up to this initiative, we are aware of only around 11 of those that have voluntarily published gender pay information.”

That initiative was set up in 2011, so the necessity of the regulations cannot be overestimated.

[Julie Elliott]

Does my hon. Friend agree that voluntary measures in these areas of employment law never work? That is why transparency is important, but it is essential that action follows from it to make it work and to make the average gender pay gap disappear. Is he as interested as I am to see which Departments the Minister thinks will be the worst when their transparency is revealed? Will they be the high-pay, high-value Departments rather than the smaller, more niche Departments?

[Vernon Coaker]

I am interested in that, and it takes me to my next point. Legislation is crucial, and to be fair, with our support, the Government have brought it forward. We can argue about whether it should have come sooner, but we support it. The lack of enforcement is a problem, though, and I am disappointed about it. The Government recognise that there may be an issue with enforcement, because a review mechanism is included in regulation 16. They say they will carry out a review of the regulations and publish a report, which must look at whether the objectives have been achieved and so on. However, that report must be produced before the end of a “period of five years.”

The Minister may want to address this point in her closing remarks, but does she really think that we ought to wait five years before we see whether we are achieving our objectives, or does she believe, as I do, that five years is too long? We should say today that, although the regulations specify five years, we will look at the first published results and see whether something needs to be changed. Certainly after the publication of two sets of results it will be clear whether the objectives have been reached. It is important that she addresses that point.

May I say that it is a privilege to speak in a debate such as this? I do not mean this in any way as a flippant remark, but it is really important that men speak in these debates and demand better treatment of women and their rights, not just as something we ought to give them but as something that they should have as of right. That is important, and I know that colleagues on the Committee will have no issue with that.

I say this as a criticism of my own gender: we should be louder in speaking up on these issues. I will not digress from the subject the Committee is considering, but on domestic violence, sexual violence and other such issues, men should be louder in demanding the proper treatment and the proper rights for women in our society.

I thought it was good—other people may disagree—that there were an estimated 20,000 men on the “Women Against Trump” march in London at the weekend. I am sure there were many in other cities, too, and I think it was a good thing.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a passionate speech. I was on that march, and I marched alongside many men. I have to draw his attention to one particular placard that struck me, which read, “Men of quality do not fear equality”. Does he agree that that is a statement that all men should operate under?

[Vernon Coaker]

Men of quality do not fear equality—of course, I absolutely agree. It should not be a rare occurrence that I and other men turn up and speak in debates such as this. We should be make continual demands to support women across the country—and across parties—in trying to achieve more.

Labour has a proud record in trying to tackle inequality and promoting women’s rights; my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham drew attention to some of our achievements. We recognise that the regulations are an important step forward and we are pleased that the Government have finally come forward with them, but we will continue to highlight the issue and demand better for women in society.

I point out to the Minister something that I found interesting. When the House of Commons Library assessed and analysed the impact of savings to the Treasury over the past few years, it found that 86% of the impact of tax and benefit changes had been on women. Whatever the rights and wrongs of austerity and the economic policies that the Government are pursuing, that cannot be right. I say to the Minister, given her wider ministerial responsibilities, that that is not a political point; it is just a point that women in general—and men such as myself who support what women are campaigning for and trying to achieve—would say needs to be made.

Finally, I say to the Government that we are pleased that the regulations are being introduced. I am pleased about it as a man and as a member of a modern society. However, we must all try to inject a bit more urgency into this process, so that we are not here in a few years’ time debating why the pay gap has only gone down by half a percentage point rather than being eliminated, as it really should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

I have to disagree, given that the last thing businesses need is unwieldy bureaucracy from a nosey, over-centralised, self-serving, self-satisfied Government. I speak as someone who, for 20 years, ran a business that had just under 20 employees. We were crippled by much of the legislation that came from the Labour Government. The bureaucracy and paperwork that I had to deal with on a daily basis, on all manner of things, became a real burden on my ability to employ people and create wealth and prosperity for this country. I therefore take increasing the burden of legislation on businesses seriously. If it is unnecessary, I am not prepared to do it, but we will keep the matter under review.

The regulations require employers to publish the relevant information on their own website in a manner accessible to employees and the public. Hon. Members have asked how it will be displayed, saying that it should not be squirreled away somewhere. The information will have to be accessible. All employers within the scope of the provisions will be expected to publish the required information annually, and no exemptions are envisaged. A written statement signed by a director or senior employee must also be published online. As well as confirming the accuracy of the required information, that will ensure that business leaders take ownership of tackling any identified gender pay gaps. We will also require the information to be published on a Government website.

[Vernon Coaker]

Just to be clear, because one or two of us are not sure—that may be our fault—does what the Minister has said today mean that the first time there will be publication relating to transparency on the gender pay gap will be 5 April 2018?

[Caroline Dinenage]

Yes; companies have to start collecting the data from April this year and publishing the information by April next year. That fully conforms to our manifesto commitment, which was for three years of publications before the next general election.

The Opposition spokeswoman raised the issue of the EHRC not having the necessary legal powers. We are clear that the EHRC does have them, as it has recognised. It may issue an unlawful act notice to any person who has committed an unlawful act, such as non-compliance with the regulations. The notice could include recommendations for an action plan to address the unlawful act and to ensure that it does not continue. As well as investigating whether a person has complied with an unlawful act notice, the EHRC may apply for a court order requiring them to take specified steps to comply with the notice. The EHRC has received, and will continue to receive, sufficient funds to be able to fulfil its statutory duties, of which this is one. It is for the EHRC as an independent body to determine the allocation of its overall funding across specific functions. We believe that the £20.4 million of taxpayers’ money that it receives is sufficient for it to carry out these important duties.

The regulations do not create any additional civil or criminal penalties, and failure to comply would be an unlawful act, as I said. Many consultation respondents felt that disproportionate sanctions would defeat the object of ensuring that a sufficient number of employers take direct responsibility for promoting gender equality in their workforce. We feel that competition in sectors, as well as the risk of brand and reputational damage, will drive compliance. Many employers will see this as an opportunity to put proactive strategies in place to tackle the barriers facing their female employees. Consultation responses highlighted that that approach should have much more of an impact, in terms of making a positive change, than a box-ticking exercise to avoid financial penalties would. Relying on fixed penalties from the outset could encourage some employers simply to pay fines rather than to undertake the necessary pay analysis and do the donkey work involved in making the proposals work.

Crucially, during a roundtable with women’s civil society and trade unions, there was broad agreement that compliance measures should not be so harsh that they risk incentivising employers to subcontract female employees. That is not only about being a friend of business, but because it is so important for women. Rather than just creating a low gender pay gap, we want to create the right type of low gender pay gap. Some industries—indeed, some countries—with low gender pay gaps have very low rates of female employment. That is not because they have a lot of women in high-paid jobs, but because they do not have women in work at all. That shows low workforce participation and high social inequality. The launch of the Government website allowing employers to publish the required gender pay gap information will coincide with the commencement of the regulations, which will allow us to monitor levels of compliance closely. So we will not just be looking at the data once every five years; we will monitor it.

[Vernon Coaker]

May I suggest to the Minister that the first time it is published on the Government website, she makes a written or oral statement, to signify to everyone how important this is, and to get it out there with a bit of urgency and excitement about it?

[Caroline Dinenage]

I cannot imagine anyone would need to encourage a politician to seek publicity. Of course, I will shout it from the rooftops if it will make the hon. Gentleman happy. We will keep our position on financial penalties under review, in the light of employers’ willingness to comply with the reporting requirements during the early years of implementation. The public will be able to search the Government’s website to check whether employers in the scope of the regulations have complied with them and to compare them with other employers in the same sector. We will consider the most effective way to present the published information, in discussion with a wide range of stakeholders.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the scope of the regulations. We calculate that they will affect about 8,000 employers, who between them have more than 11 million employees. An estimated 3.8 million employees will also be covered by separate gender pay gap regulations that will apply to public authorities. In total, the new gender pay gap regulations will cover nearly half of the total workforce.

I agree that we need to challenge gender stereotypes, from the division of unpaid work to the types of occupations that men and women pursue. The Government are looking really closely at that. The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head when he said that men need to act as agents of change. Men can be the most powerful agents of change. That is why the Government set up the Women’s Business Council, which has recently expanded to include more men. One of its key work strands is about men as agents of change, and it is about to issue awards recognising men who do fantastic work promoting women in the workplace across the UK.

On SME reporting, I have already spoken a lot about how it could impose too much of a burden on small businesses. At the moment, large employers alone are being required to report, but we will encourage small employers to analyse their pay data and take action where issues occur. I also think that, through the supply chains of big businesses, this will filter down to smaller companies anyway.

The regulations covering the public sector, including Government Departments, were laid last week, and public bodies will be required to publish gender pay gaps every year. The gender pay gap of the Department for Education in 2016 was 5.9%, I am pleased to say.

[Vernon Coaker]

I am sorry to keep asking questions, but is that timetable for public bodies the same as for private bodies?

[Caroline Dinenage]

Yes, it is exactly the same.

The female employment rate is currently the joint highest on record, at 69.8%. The female participation rate has increased by more since 2010 than during the three previous Parliaments combined. We agree, of course, that there is a wider gap for older women, as the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston described. That can be explained in part by age, but not completely. That is why we have introduced measures such as extended flexible working, shared parental leave and increased hours of paid-for childcare—working couples can expect 30 hours from September.

We are not requiring gender pay gap reporting by age, as workforce demographics vary significantly. Such reporting could also raise confidentiality issues, if a company had only a small number of employees in one age bracket. That was raised with us as a concern, and we do not want to betray anybody’s confidence. We agree that the data need to be owned across organisations, which is why we will require a senior director to sign off the data. We will closely monitor compliance on that.

I was asked about devolved approaches. Section 78 regulations cover England, Scotland and Wales. Scottish and Welsh public bodies are subject to their own specific duties in regulations under section 153 of the Equality Act, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission works across England, Scotland and Wales.

Technical and Further Education Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Robert Halfon]

I thank my hon. Friend. It is brilliant that her college is providing such training, and I would be pleased to come and see its training programme when I am next in the area. That it is doing this means that it will also be receiving significant funds. I congratulate the college on the work it is doing on apprenticeships.

Amendment 7 would limit the power to confer new functions on the institute to “state funded” apprenticeships and technical education. All the institute’s current functions in part 4 of, and schedule 4 to, the Enterprise Act 2016 and in schedule 1 to the Bill apply to all reformed apprenticeships and technical education qualifications, not just those that are state funded. We would therefore expect that any new functions the institute is required to carry out should also apply in the same way, to ensure that they are fully effective and do not treat some apprenticeships and technical education courses differently in accordance with how they are paid for. We want to ensure that as many people as possible can undertake an apprenticeship or technical education course, and we would not want this to be restricted to those that are state funded purely because the institute’s functions have been limited.

On amendment 8, it is important that the institute considers what apprenticeships might be appropriate for 16 to 24-year-olds. We know that apprenticeships are incredibly important to school leavers and are making sure that anyone from the age of 16 will have an offering of either an academic or technical education or an apprenticeship. The occupational maps that the institute will put together and which will guide apprenticeships and technical education qualifications will be based on information about the skills needs of the country. They will focus on occupations that can help to increase the UK’s productivity and meet the needs of employers. Putting any constraint around the development of the maps and the occupations included, such as by focusing on a particular group of the population, could damage this overall aim.

My Department runs a number of highly successfully promotional and advice services to help to ensure that young people access the right apprenticeship for them. A significant number of 16 to 18-year-olds take up STEM subjects.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

On STEM subjects and the advice given to young people, successive Governments have tried to effect change, and the Bill, which is well meaning, will make a positive difference in many respects, but is not the real problem the fact that successive Governments have failed to persuade people that the vocational route is as good as the academic route? Is this not a cultural problem that has bedevilled our country for decades?

[Robert Halfon]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right. When I talk about my priorities for skills and education, one of the first things I mention is transforming the prestige and the culture. As he says, this is regardless of what party is in government, and it is not just about Governments either; businesses have also underinvested. Vocational training has always been seen as a so-called—I hate the term—Cinderella sector. The whole purpose of the Sainsbury reforms and the levy is to change behaviours and give apprenticeships and skills and technical education the prestige they deserve.

[Vernon Coaker]

The question for the Minister, as it was for me and others here when we were schools Ministers, be we Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour, is this: why will it be different this time? The Minister is absolutely right in what he has said, but why will it be different this time from all the times that have gone before?

[Robert Halfon]

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I was not around for all the other times that have gone before. We have our differences, of course, but there is much cross-party consensus on the Sainsbury reforms, for example. Moreover, the apprenticeship levy is a fundamental reform to change behaviours—it is not just about raising money; it also changes behaviours. I believe that there is a new national conversation about apprenticeships and that things are changing, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I think we are on the tip of something special, but a lot more work needs to be done.

Because of time, I will speak only briefly on some of the other amendments. On amendment 9, the hon. Member for Blackpool South raised some important points, but we feel that the amendment is unnecessary. The important feature of approved English apprenticeship standards is the move away from a reliance on a series of small and pre-existing qualifications making up an apprenticeship and towards a single end-point assessment. By not mandating qualifications in standards unless they meet one of these criteria, we are ensuring that individual employers have the freedom and flexibility to determine how to train their own apprentices to ensure they gain full competency. It is expected that the institute will continue with this approach.

The provisions on education copyright are very complicated, and I understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised them, but we do not think that the proposed provisions are necessary. Some of the concerns are covered by existing legislation, but we believe that the institute should have the right of copyright, and the bodies working with the institute will know that. We do not agree with the word “route” either because it could be confusing for employers. I want this form of training to be prestigious, and so I want the words “technical education”. I do not like the term “tech levels” either because it dumbs down a very important qualification.

Amendment 17 is on the power to charge for technical education certificates, and I should say that we also have a duty of care to the taxpayer. The institute will not make money out of this provision. It is all about giving it the power to do so if it so chooses and about having a duty of care to the taxpayer. It is for that important reason that we do not support the amendment.

On the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and amendments 18 to 21, the organisations named in the provisions will all have an important role. The omission of the QAA reflects in part the changes being introduced in the Higher Education and Research Bill, which is currently in the other place. Amendment 20, which specifies that the term “apprenticeships” should include those offered by higher education institutions, is not required. I am clear that the term “apprenticeships” includes all apprenticeships offered at all levels, regardless of the training provider.

In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool South for his thoughtful new clauses and amendments on technical education and I thank other hon. Members for their contributions. I hope that my responses have reassured the hon. Gentleman and the House on their underlying concerns. I therefore ask that he withdraw new clause 1 and not press his other amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am sure the Minister is right in the majority of cases, but for some there is pressure to move on—for instance as a result of what is happening with house prices at the moment, as one can imagine. Certainly in Luton I know of companies, such as small motor repair firms, that employ apprentices who are under pressure to get a home, and if they can earn a few thousand pounds more at a larger company nearby to help them get on the housing ladder, they will do that. I agree that loyalty is important and many of them want to be loyal, but if the financial pressures on their lives are such that they have to move, they will in the end move.

I particularly want to support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South about the need for a strategy for improving career education and new clause 4. We must ensure that when young people are at school or in further education they are aware of the enormous range of opportunities out there and they do not just look at a narrow field. In Luton too high a proportion of students want to get into the legal profession, for example; they want to be professionals and do not appreciate that there are highly paid, highly skilled jobs in manufacturing industry.

Vauxhall Motors still has a plant in Luton, and almost all its senior executives started as apprentices, leaving school, doing apprenticeships and going up the ladder, eventually doing higher qualifications such as higher national certificates and higher national diplomas and becoming highly paid senior executives in the company. Those opportunities are out there, and young people must be made aware of them. We must have a careers strategy making sure that every young person knows about all the thousands of different roles they could assume in life, rather than just going into the professions, or, indeed, just going into a local company; there are lots of things young people can do.

Life can be very exciting, and it is important that all of us do something we enjoy. I am very fortunate in that I was fascinated by politics in my early life and I finished up in Parliament where I wanted to be; I do not regret a moment of it. But sometimes people are not aware of the enormous range of possibilities in life. Having a powerful careers advice strategy is vital not just for young people’s lives, but for the economy. If people are happy in their work, they will work better and the economy will work better, and the world will be a much better place.

I have one more story that explains something tragic that has happened in Luton. We were a town that trained thousands of apprentices, and I know many of them personally. Recently I visited a small manufacturing company that makes components for Formula 1 and Jaguar. It could not find one toolmaker; it wanted one toolmaker from a town of over 200,000 people that used to be dominated by manufacturing, but could not find one. It is a disgrace that we have failed to train sufficient numbers of people in these areas.

There are many other things I would like to say—I could speak for an hour unaided, I am sure—but as others want to contribute, I will leave it there. I hope the points I have made are of interest.

[Vernon Coaker]

I was not a member of the Committee, but I know that the Technical and Further Education Bill has generated a lot of really good debate and positive views on how we might achieve what we all want, which is an improvement in the technical and vocational education in this country and in apprenticeships. The fact that there is no division between us on that was illustrated by the contributions from the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden), among others.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I think it has worked fantastically well so far. Over the last two years, we have seen 131 teachers from England visiting Shanghai and 127 teachers from Shanghai visiting English schools, and through that exchange our teachers have observed Shanghai teaching methods. In the 48 schools participating in the study, the teachers have implemented changes, which have led to increased enthusiasm for mathematics—hopefully as strong as my hon. Friend’s was at school—deeper engagement, increased confidence and, critically, higher attainment.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

One of the best ways to support teachers in improving educational outcomes, particularly for children with special needs, is through the pupil premium. Will the Secretary of State therefore explain why the level of the pupil premium has been frozen at current levels through this Parliament?

[Justine Greening]

The pupil premium was introduced by the previous coalition Government and it is continuing to be supported throughout this Parliament precisely to make sure that funding gets to those children who need it most. Last week, I announced the national funding formula, which also prioritises resources going towards disadvantaged children.

National Funding Formula: Schools/High Needs

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

As part of the figures for deprivation we will be using IDACI—the income deprivation affecting children index—which essentially looks at how deprivation affects children in particular. It was last updated very recently, so it gives us a fresh database to use. In relation to broader pupil cohort characteristics, the census is updated in October every year and that feeds into the following academic year’s funding formula details. Those two things should mean that we have up-to-date data to feed in.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that this reform of the funding formula, which many of us agree needs to happen, would have been much easier had the Chancellor given some additional money to fund some of the changes? Also, notwithstanding what the Secretary of State has said, will not every single school in the country face real-terms cuts in their budget, including even those that gain, or think they gain, from the change to the funding formula? One way of tackling disadvantage is the pupil premium, so it would be interesting to hear what discussions took place about the pupil premium in making these changes. The Secretary of State said that the pupil premium “will be protected at current rates throughout the remainder of this Parliament”. Can she confirm whether that means rates as they are now or real-terms increases through the Parliament?

[Justine Greening]

We said that we will continue to put around £2.5 billion into the pupil premium, which is separate from the additional funding that will be uplifted on top of core basic funding rates, as part of the consultation that we are setting out today. Both those things underline the fact that this Government are determined to ensure that our schools funding really supports children in some of the toughest parts of the country who are most likely not to come out of the schools system with the outcomes that we want for them to be able to fulfil their potential.

New Grammar Schools

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My right hon. Friend raises the important point that local communities need to be intrinsically involved in how their school system develops, and I assure him that we are very seized of that. I should also take this opportunity to put on record how much I enjoyed working with him in our previous roles within the Department for International Development. He did an outstanding job and was a pleasure to have as a ministerial colleague.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

All of us want the best for our children, but in answering the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns)—although in my view she did not answer it—did not the Secretary of State understand the very real fear that reintroducing grammar schools also reintroduces secondary moderns? That will mean, in essence, recreating divisions when the consensus has been that we should not allow those divisions in our education system. How will proposing new grammar schools, which will bring in secondary moderns, improve attainment for all pupils in all our communities?

[Justine Greening]

The fundamental premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question is wrong. This is absolutely not about going back to the past. Secondary moderns for many years did not even put their children through a single exam. Our school system has, thankfully, been reformed beyond all recognition since then, so the premise of his question is wrong. This is about improving standards for all children. He asked how we can help to make that happen. One way is by having good and outstanding schools playing more of a role and lifting other schools that can benefit from their experience and knowledge.

SATs Results

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

No, I am not going to give way.

Let me also be clear about what this means for schools. Conservative Members believe that schools have to be held to account for the results that their pupils achieve. However, they need to be held to account fairly, which is why we are judging schools not just on the standards that they achieve, but on the progress that they make with every child, so that schools with challenging intakes get proper recognition for the achievement they are making by pushing their pupils to success. On top of that, in recognition of the fact that this is a transitional year, I have also announced that the proportion of schools judged to be below the floor when the new progress bar is set will be no more than one percentage point higher than last year. That progress bar will be released in September, and no school can be identified as being below the floor before then.

Having listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, I was struck by just how easily it could have been written by the NUT’s acting general secretary. It represented the final stage of the Labour party’s transformation into the parliamentary wing of the NUT.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Nicky Morgan]

No, not at the moment.

It was noticeable last week—this is noticeable today—that there was a greater presence on the Labour Benches for an urgent question about the NUT strike than there was for the previous day’s Education questions.

[Vernon Coaker]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Nicky Morgan]

No, I am not going to give way at the moment.

In our March White Paper, we set out plans to tackle areas of entrenched educational underperformance. What we did not expect was that one of those areas of entrenched underperformance would be the NUT itself. Its readiness to use the word “failure” about children, and to oppose every reform that is designed to recognise and reward great teaching and to enable schools to tackle the not so good, is yet a further example of the chronic underperformance by that union on behalf of its members. More importantly, it is a failure for the children with whom its members work.

We now see the same attitude from the Opposition. In my two years as Secretary of State for Education, I have seen the transformation of the Labour party’s attitude to our education reforms from the secret support of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) to the hedged bets of the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). We now have the outright hostility of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne to the raising of standards. I hope that the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) will forgive me for lacking the time to work out where she stood.

The Labour party has firmly chosen, as the motion indicates, to become the anti-standards party, devoid of ideas and determined to protect vested interests and union barons rather than putting children and parents first. It has gone from the party of education, education, education, to the party of low standards, low aspiration and low expectations.

I do not want to end this speech by focusing on the collapsing Labour party; I want to end it by saying thank you. Rather than doing down the achievements of schools, teachers and pupils, I want to celebrate them and commend their exceptional work.

[Vernon Coaker]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way, is she? No.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Although I defer to the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), who made such a fine speech, I would have to say that I did not agree with him about his use of the split infinitive and would prefer it was not used in this House, orally or otherwise; but that is because I am a bit of a pedant in that respect. There is a genuine argument to be had.

The hon. Member for Southport rightly started to unpick some of that grammar. How practically useful is it? What exactly is it designed for? Is it excessive in its extent and application, compared with what is sought from it? Those are legitimate questions and perhaps we do need to row back. I do not know. I have not studied it and I would like to hear more. Focusing on those practicalities might be a much more useful dialogue. Instead, the shadow Secretary of State moved on from her two contradictory positions to a rather crazed assessment that this was like the 11-plus. The whole point of the 11-plus was to divide children and select them. I do not think that anyone can suggest that that is what has happened with the SATs this year.

[Vernon Coaker]

To stop this becoming a sterile debate, let me say from the outset that I do not think there is anybody in this House who is in favour of not trying to improve standards in schools. I think there is also a consensus that testing is part of improving standards in schools. I was disappointed that the Secretary of State’s speech did not address the very real problems with the SATs tests this year. The hon. Gentleman has made that point, but we did not hear from the Secretary of State what she intends to do about those problems to put them right for next year.

[Graham Stuart]

As I said a few minutes ago, all new assessments and tests go through, and create, additional volatility. Members will remember the changes to the English GCSE. They were called a fiasco; I would call them a furore. The unions said they were a disaster and a disgrace, and the schools said it was nothing to do with them, but when they went to court they lost on every single count. It was a new test and it took time. The following year, with pretty much the same test, the schools that had done badly had learned how to do it better. They read the spec in a way that they had obviously failed to do previously, and other technical changes were made.

This is a new assessment. It is not a disaster. We need to unpick its components and look at them carefully to find out whether there is the right balance between raising standards, having high standards and not creating something that is negative in the way it is perceived by children and schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I want to make a couple of brief comments which I hope the Minister will be able to address when he winds up the debate. I very much agree with what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) has said on this subject, which is one of the reasons that I wanted to attend the debate today. I am sure that the Secretary of State would also agree that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the way in which SATs are currently administered, there can be no doubt that for many of our outstanding schools and dedicated headteachers and teachers, the harsh reality of the way in which the results have been presented to them has been a huge shock. Some have seen a huge drop in the standards that their schools have attained. In my view, the Secretary of State would have done well to address that point in her speech.

I am sure that we all have outstanding schools in our constituencies. Some of them, for reasons that they find difficult to understand, have seen their results almost collapse. That does not help them, it does not help the Secretary of State in her desire to raise standards, and it does not help any of us. In the end, it is the partnership between the Government, parents and schools that delivers the standards that we all want.

[Heidi Allen]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that when schools do better than expected, it might sometimes be because the children have been taught very closely in order to get them through the tests, with the breadth of education that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) mentioned being ignored?

[Vernon Coaker]

That is a good point. There has always been a danger of teaching to the test. The guidance for Ofsted during my time as a Minister—to be fair, it is the same under the present Government—was to look at the breadth of the curriculum and to see what emphasis was being placed on subjects outside those specifically designed for the SATs. The good schools have drama, history, sport and other things going on alongside the SAT subjects. In my view, the schools that do best in the tests—especially in relation to young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds—are often those that have that breadth of curriculum and that do drama and all those other things as well. Those subjects can give young people the self-esteem and confidence to achieve in the more academic subjects—for want of a better term—that they have to study.

Will the Minister tell us what he is going to do restore confidence among our teachers? Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, some people in my constituency have been absolutely distraught at the results they have been given. That cannot be right. I am not saying this to make a point; this is a statement of fact. Even in schools that are regarded as outstanding, headteachers have been crying. That cannot be what we want. Let us just reflect on all that. We know that 53% met the Government’s targets, while 47% did not. Perhaps we do not want to use the word “failure”. Is there something of particular concern in the three components? Is one area weaker than the others? Do we need to do something about maths? How are the Government, working with both sides of the House and the unions, going to ensure that we tackle the 47%?

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about partnership. Where the tone of this debate has gone wrong today is that we have had comments like “Tory bad, Labour good,” “Labour bad, Tory good,” “Unions right, Government wrong,” and “Government right, unions wrong.” However, we owe it to our schools and teachers to work in partnership, because we all want our children to succeed, standards to improve and the United Kingdom to rise in the global league tables.

[Vernon Coaker]

I agree. Standards have risen over the past couple of decades, but we want them to rise faster. There is still too much inequality and social background still determines educational attainment. We should not blame people; we should ask what is preventing this country from overcoming something that has bedevilled the education system for decades. No one would stand up and say that we want the situation to continue. The question is how we best meet the challenge.

Given the embarrassment of the leaked and abandoned tests, what will the Minister do to improve security in the future? What is his response to the criticism of how the new tests relate to the new curriculum? It was introduced in 2014 and tests are being set on it in 2016—two years for a four-year course. Will that be taken into account? What has been said to schools? Next year, we will be three years into a four-year programme, so will that mean anything for next year’s testing? We all want to hear about that. It would be ridiculous to pretend that this year’s SATS have been an unmitigated success given the real problems. What are the Government going to do about that? How will they improve things? That is what parents, schools and all of us want to hear.

What will the key stage 2 results mean for schools’ Ofsted categorisation? If a school has seen its results collapse, what will that mean when Ofsted go in in September? I do not know the answer, which is why I am asking. The Secretary of State is nodding her head, but I do not know the answer. People want clarity. What will the results mean for a school’s Ofsted categorisation? If the Government set a standard and large numbers of pupils fall below it, including those at schools currently categorised as outstanding, what will that mean when Ofsted inspectors go in? Will the school get cast out? Perhaps not, but that is what schools want to—[Interruption.] The Minister will respond to that to reassure people—thank you.

The SATs have had real problems. Everybody in the House agrees that we need to improve standards. We will never reach a point at which we are all satisfied. Everyone will always want more, but what are we going to do about the problems? How will the tests that have been introduced allow us to build on any progress? What are we doing to reassure schools? What are we doing to reassure headteachers, teachers and parents? What will be different next year to prevent what has happened this year from happening again? Those are the sorts of questions that I was trying to intervene on the Secretary of State to ask. I was not trying to get up and say, “Tories wicked, Labour brilliant.” I just wanted to ask, because, with respect, I thought that people were not going to get answers to their detailed questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) will no doubt ask similar questions, but I will be grateful if the Minister answers some of them and makes some other points.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)]

This has been a good debate, if a short one, about how we ensure that children leave primary school fluent in the basic building blocks of an education. Over the past six years this Government have been determined to ensure that our education system is properly equipping the next generation of school leavers with the knowledge and skills that they need for life in the modern economy, and the ability to compete in an increasingly global jobs market.

Under the remarkable leadership of the Prime Minister and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), now the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, and my right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State for Education, we have introduced the most far-reaching education reforms for generations—reforms which are working.

Of course, it would have been easier not to have engaged with the reforms, and to have allowed the continued inflation of results—the year-on-year increases in GCSE grades and SAT test results—masking our decline in standards compared with the most successful education systems in the world. It would have been easier not to take on the vested interests; easier not to embark on raising the bar; easier not to demand phonics; easier not to look at better ways of teaching maths; easier not to challenge the publishers and demand better textbooks; easier not to insist on more pupils taking the core academic subjects that make up the EBacc; easier not to increase the numbers taking foreign languages; easier not to encourage more take-up of maths and physics A-levels.

But we were determined to halt Britain’s decline in the PISA international league tables, which showed the UK falling from seventh in reading in 2000 to 25th by 2009, and from eighth in maths to 28th, and we fell further still in the 2012 PISA survey. We therefore appointed a panel of experts, who examined the curricula of those countries that topped the PISA rankings. We produced a new primary national curriculum, which we consulted on in 2012 and finalised in 2013, and which came into force in 2014, with the first new SATs tests taken two years later, in May 2016.

The new curriculum requires fluency in reading, and it requires phonics in the early years of primary school, followed by a focus on developing a habit of reading. Spelling and handwriting techniques, and grammar and punctuation, which were neglected for decades, have been restored to the school curriculum.

In maths, we looked to the Singapore primary maths curriculum, ensuring fluency in calculation technique, long multiplication, long division and fractions. We reduced the age by which all children should know their times tables from 11 to nine. This year, we piloted a computer-based multiplication tables test. I visit schools up and down the country, and I see more and more pupils fluent in their times tables. That was not so six years ago.

The academic year 2015 was always going to be a challenge, with the new maths and English GCSEs being introduced for first teaching from September 2015. The new, revised GCSEs are on a par with the qualifications taught in the best-performing countries in the world. That is what the education reforms are about: raising academic standards in our schools, raising expectations and raising aspiration. And they are working. The focus on phonics has raised reading standards. In 2011, when we trialled the new phonics check—a short test to ensure six-year-olds are mastering the basic skill of reading simple words—just 32% passed. In 2012, 58% passed, and that rose to 69% in 2013, 74% in 2014 and 77% last year. That means that 120,000 more six-year-olds today are reading more effectively than they otherwise would, because of this Government’s reforms and the focus on phonics.

The new SATs in reading are designed to resist teaching to the test. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) hinted, the way for pupils to do well is to have read a lot during their time at primary school—to have read increasingly challenging books and to have developed the habit of reading regularly. That is why 88% of pupils at Harris Primary Academy Peckham Park reached the expected standard in the new reading test. It is why 88% at Elmhurst Primary School in Newham reached at least the expected standard in reading.

The new maths SATs are made up of one arithmetic paper and two maths reasoning papers. The only way to do well is to ensure that pupils are not only fluent in mathematical calculation, but have a deep, conceptual understanding that comes from practice and good teaching. That is why 94% of pupils at Elmhurst Primary School achieved at least the expected standard and 96% of pupils at Harris Junior Academy Carshalton reached at least the expected standard.

The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) read a letter from an experienced headteacher in his constituency to his pupils. However, the tests are designed, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, to hold schools to account, not pupils. We know we are asking more, but we are doing that because we are committed to giving young people the best start in life.

This year’s results are the first to be released following the introduction of a more rigorous national curriculum, which is on a par with the best in the world. The results show that there is no limit to our children’s potential, and that schools can rise to the challenge of ensuring that pupils meet the new, higher standards. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) pointed out, neither schools nor parents should try to compare this year’s results with those in previous years; they simply cannot be compared directly. We have published data to show the national averages for the number of pupils meeting the new expected standard. That allows schools to see how their pupils have performed against the national average, which is a much more useful comparison for schools and parents.

The hon. Member for Southport also raised the challenge of the new grammar test. I have to tell him that the national curriculum tests that were sat this May took over three years to develop. During that process, they go through three rounds of expert review, which includes teachers, curriculum experts, markers, special educational needs and disability experts, inclusion experts and cultural experts. The questions are also trialled twice with pupils at the appropriate age—once to check that the questions are functioning as required and that children give appropriate answers, and once to determine the difficulty of the questions, which are improved throughout the process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) asked the relevant questions about whether we, as a country, are doing a good enough job in educating our young people. As he said, too many children are not given enough knowledge and skills to flourish in secondary school. He is right to point out that there are always challenges when new tests are introduced, but as the tests bed down, teachers become more familiar with the curriculum.

The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) cited the headteacher at Christ the Saviour Church of England Primary School, an outstanding school in her constituency, as being worried about the floor standards. The Secretary of State has made it clear that given the greater challenge of the new SATs, the number of schools regarded as being below the floor will not be greater than 1 percentage point more than last year. In response to the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), we are publishing provisional progress figures early in September so that schools will know if they are below the floor. The December figure is the finalised figure after adjustments for errors.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle pointed out that there is more to education than English and maths, and that we need more time in primary school for science, for art, for history and for geography. I totally agree. A knowledge-rich curriculum is key, and that is what the best primary schools in this country are delivering.

The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) says he knows of too many schools that have seen a sharp drop in their results this year. He is right that the results will focus the minds of the schools that are struggling to deliver the results that other schools in similar circumstances are delivering, and we will help them with that challenge. The stage 1 national funding formula consultation shows that we are proposing to introduce a lower prior attainment factor that will provide extra support to help children catch up.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Ofsted and the impact that it will have through the new, more challenging assessments. I have acknowledged that point. I have already written to Sir Michael Wilshaw to ask Ofsted to take into account, when inspectors examine schools, the fact that this is the first year of much more challenging tests and a much more challenging curriculum.

[Vernon Coaker]

For me, this is one of the most fundamental points. What does the phrase “take into account” mean? Does it mean that Ofsted reads it and then does nothing about it? I appreciate its independence, but this is a fundamental point. I have been where the Minister is in taking these things into account and looking into them, and so on, but schools absolutely want reassurance about whether they are going to go from being outstanding to being at risk. It would be helpful if he said a little more about that.

[Mr Gibb]

Experience so far is that inspectors are already taking my letter into account and adjusting their judgments. They are not looking at raw data in an unintelligent way; they are looking at it intelligently, reflecting the concerns raised in my letter. We have also now introduced the progress measure, which means that progress will be a much more important part of determining whether a school falls below the floor.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South asked about Pearson. It has investigated the leak and taken a number of steps to ensure that rogue markers do not deliberately release marking schemes in future, and it is tightening up its contractual arrangements.

As a result of this Government’s education reform, 66% of secondary schools and 19% of primary schools now have academy status, with the professional autonomy that this brings. A total of 1.45 million more pupils are in schools rated “good” or “outstanding” by Ofsted than in 2010. More pupils are taking and securing good grades in the core academic subjects at GSCE that employers and universities most value. More pupils are studying foreign languages and taking A-levels in maths, physics and chemistry. As a result of our reforms more children are reading fluently, and doing so earlier.

I was saddened by the approach taken by the new shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). Yesterday, in a Westminster Hall debate on term-time holidays, she supported our reforms to improve school attendance. Today, she is reverting to the approach of her predecessor-but-one, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), in opposing the rise in academic standards and the rise in expectations that the new SATs reflect and assess. She is, alas, simply kowtowing to the NUT “line to take”. This Government are about raising standards, raising expectations and delivering successful and effective reform. I urge the House to reject Labour’s motion.

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I have always benefited not just from listening to the hon. Gentleman, but from reading his speeches in Hansard. I am thinking of having them bound and giving them as Christmas gifts to many of my friends. On this occasion, I will read with particular attention his contribution to that debate, which I am sure will make us all happier in the new year.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State or one of his ministerial colleagues agree to meet me to discuss Nottinghamshire county council’s proposed closure of Gedling school in my constituency? It is a well supported school and there has been a big campaign against its closure, but despite that, the county council is to continue with its proposals.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman was a distinguished schools Minister. I should be delighted to meet him at the earliest opportunity.

Speech Therapy Services (Children)

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on securing this debate. Debates that take place in Westminster Hall are often significant. This is one such debate and it deserves a huge audience. It is not only in Parliament that we do not get to debate certain topics that, despite being mainstream, never capture the headlines they deserve.

Sometimes, when we discuss policy, these sorts of issues do not have as high a profile as they should. We are talking about millions of children and adults who cannot communicate effectively. The service that we provide is often a Cinderella service in terms of the demand that it makes of the system, and the way in which the system responds with the money and resources that it receives. Whatever the size of the pot, and we may argue about that, the service does not get its fair share. That is because, for some reason or other, it does not make a loud enough noise, which is why the debate secured by the hon. Gentleman today is vital.

I want to say a couple of things and to raise a particular case that demonstrates some of the problems we have. The project to encourage and help children with their communication, referred to by the hon. Gentleman, is especially important. One of our problems is that sometimes we say, “We need to involve the family,” and of course that is important, but in some of those families the parents cannot communicate particularly well. Their vocabulary is limited.

I do not mean any disrespect to anyone and I am not decrying any particular families; I am making a statement of reality about our social situation. Many of us have experience of what we see in schools, and not just in schools: the limited amount of vocabulary that some children have at two, three, four or five, compared with others of the same age, is frankly astonishing. If we talk to some of the parents—do not get me wrong, they are loving parents, who care and so on—again, we find that the communication stimulus that many of us would recognise in our own homes is not there. Such things are important. I think one problem is the talk of involving the parents, which of course is crucial, when the parents have limited vocabulary to provide in support. We need to develop that.

I do not want to make a political point. We know that we are in difficult times and that there are differences between the parties about spending and so on, but I want to raise a particular case in my constituency, that of Dylan Scothern.

Dylan Scothern is six years old and he is autistic. He cannot communicate. The vocabulary he has now is thanks to the work of his loving parents. His mother, Rachel Scothern, has been at the forefront of the campaign about Dylan that I will come to in a moment. With the help of speech and language therapists, Dylan can communicate with about 20 words. Rachel has put something on Facebook in which they do “The wheels on the truck”—no, I mean, “The wheels on the bus go round and round”—he communicates with it better than I do. He has been brought to that point through the speech and language therapists.

Nottingham Community Health NHS Trust says that its funding for Dylan’s speech and language therapists will now stop because he has reached six years of age. The trust has changed its policy so that only children of five years and under will get speech and language therapy.

As I said, I do not want to make the issue political. I do not care what the budget is for Nottingham Community Health, because I am going back to the point I made before: why is it that such services are always the first that people look to when making savings? That is the importance of the debate secured by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys. There are easy hits when it comes to cutting money—often it is youth services, rather than services for pensioners—and here we have an example in health. Again, that is an important point made by the hon. Gentleman.

The Minister, who I know will take the issue forward, needs to talk to her colleagues in the Department of Health, because there is a young child at a school—he is going to school—who is having his speech and language therapy taken away, not because of the actions of her Department but because of the actions of the Department of Health through Nottingham Community Health.

The case simply has to be revisited, and I am using the debate to ask the Minister to do so. I know she will not know about the case—I do not expect her to know all the details, but I will write to her with them—but can she raise it with her Department of Health colleagues, Nottingham Community Health and others with responsibility? Can she say that in the debate all of us recognised the importance of speech and language therapy for some of the most difficult young people in terms of their learning challenges, and that it is simply not acceptable to cut speech and language therapy for an autistic child because he has reached the age of six? Frankly, that is not good enough. The policy needs to be changed and looked at again.

With that, I shall finish, but going back to the point I made at the beginning. Let the debate be a clarion call not just for the case of Dylan and Rachel Scothern, a family who live in my constituency, but to all of those who provide such services, whether through health or education. We need to recognise their importance and understand that, simply because they are not necessarily front-page news all of the time, they are of fundamental and significant importance to countless families and young people up and down this country. If we mean to provide equal opportunities, we should ensure that those people receive those services, which should not be the first port of call for people with difficult budget decisions to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Teather]

We need a mix; that is why I said that speech and language therapists can often offer good professional advice to teachers, who are then able to do some of that work during the week. The number of speech and language therapists is rising consistently. The question of whether we have enough depends on commissioning, and the way in which those therapists are employed. The White Paper on schools and the special educational needs Green Paper will set out plans for developing the knowledge, understanding and skills of the children’s work force and will specifically address continuing professional development.

A number of Members asked about commissioning. I realise that we need to be much better at integrating the commissioning of services for children with special educational needs, as in many other areas. As I said earlier, I hope that the rapid change experienced in many areas will provide us with the opportunity to do much better. We are creating more diverse school systems with more freedom for schools to innovate; and the NHS White Paper focuses on creating locally based opportunities to improve patient care.

Improving outcomes is exactly what Mr Speaker wanted to achieve for children with such difficulties through his review. The challenge is to design future arrangements that work much better together and that focus specifically on the needs of children and families. I am working closely with colleagues at the Department of Health on all these matters. I am determined to ensure that we are better able to streamline the assessment process.

[Vernon Coaker]

rose—

[Sarah Teather]

Only three minutes remain, and people are already arriving for the next debate. I still have five pages of notes, so I shall end up rushing.

The hon. Member for Gedling mentioned a constituent of his, and I will ensure that excerpts from his speech are passed to Ministers at the Department of Health so that the matter is drawn to their attention. Things falling between Departments is exactly what we want to address in the Green Paper.

There are a couple of other points that I shall not manage to answer, but the hon. Member for North West Durham raised the question of the differences in commissioning for high need with low incidence and low need with high incidence. I know that the Department of Health is aware of the communication champion’s views on commissioning, and those views will be taken into account in designing the system.

I shall finish with a few words about the Green Paper.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 26th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I think that the hon. Lady’s amendment puts forward a good point. However, does not the intervention from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) highlight the problem with the process that we have to go through in that the hon. Lady could have the most brilliant idea ever and be like Cicero in presenting it, but it would make no difference at all because there is no Report stage for the Government to consider her point and table appropriate amendments?

[Caroline Lucas]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for coming to the rescue. That was an exceedingly good point, which completely reinforces the fact that we are being forced to rush the Bill through at breakneck speed for no better reason than, presumably, the Secretary of State wanting to put a notch up and say that he has managed to achieve something before September. That is not a good way to make decisions. We should be going through the Bill line by line, making proposals and hearing the Government’s response so that we are able to create the best possible legislation. We are being railroaded into a charade that is not designed to get the best piece of legislation on to the statute book, and that is what we should be getting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I welcome you back to the Chair on the third day of our Committee proceedings, Ms Primarolo.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) presented a strong argument, which the Minister clearly needs to answer, on whether the Bill currently goes far enough in giving those who care about the future of their school the opportunity to be involved in determining it. My hon. Friend set out the case for a ballot and looked back to the previous Conservative Government’s decisions about grant-maintained status, which he looked to as a model. Like other hon. Members, he acknowledged that our noble Friends in another place debated consultation at length, hence the provision, which should have been included from the outset, for consultation. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) mentioned it, and it has improved the Bill a great deal.

My hon. Friend referred to the parents of children who currently attend the school as the electorate in such a ballot. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) pointed out, many other interested parties may wish to be part of it. I therefore think that amendment 8 is a very useful tool for prompting a discussion on who should be consulted and how.

We are considering a series of amendments, which examine consultation and votes in detail. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) tabled a new clause, which would allow for a reversion to maintained status if there were a trigger. She set out a 10% threshold on that. We could make some sort of hybrid amendment that sets out a 10% threshold of parents to trigger the kind of ballot that my hon. Friend the Member for Southport mentioned, or adopt a model based on the amendments tabled by the Opposition, which are more specific on who should be consulted and how that should happen. The debate is therefore important.

[Vernon Coaker]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point, but the problem is that we cannot amend the Bill unless we win a vote. That is the problem with this process. Frankly, we all feel immense frustration. His point is exactly right, but we cannot amend the Bill.

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Gentleman has made that point on a number of occasions—this afternoon and previously—but the fact remains that it is a question not just of whether we amend the Bill, but how we do so. That is what we are debating. When the Minister responds, he might say what the guidelines are for consultation on aspects of the Bill following debates in another place.

Amendment 8, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport, is quite specific about one group of people who will be affected and who may take an interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend is right that amendment 8 sets out such a procedure, but the question is whether we should adopt it and whether it will allow everybody who might want a ballot to trigger one.

[Vernon Coaker]

rose—

[Dan Rogerson]

I should like to make a little progress, after which I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, who I hope will contribute to the debate on this group of amendments.

The key question is this: do we feel that there is enough consultation provision in the Bill? There is also an issue of timing, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southport and others referred when speaking to amendment 9. Is it possible to have meaningful consultation after an application has been made to the Secretary of State? In the debate in the other place this issue was addressed, and, as I recall, it is the signing of the funding agreement that makes things final. Therefore, should consultation reveal that everyone in the wider community is horrified by the idea of the school becoming an academy, there would be the option not to proceed. In other words, before the final funding agreement is signed, the application could be withdrawn and the process stopped at that point. There is a misunderstanding about when the point of no return is reached. It is not when the application is approved, but when the funding agreement is signed.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

I call Vernon Coaker.

[Vernon Coaker]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Ms Primarolo. It has been an interesting debate so far and, clearly, more Members wish to contribute to it.

The Government are in a mess on consultation. There are all sorts of worries and concerns on both sides of the Committee about consultation and what it actually means in practice for both local communities and individual schools across the country. This is a live issue for the Government, because we are supposed to be in an era of new politics, which is about localism—involving, talking to and empowering local people and communities—yet the Government are unclear about what that means in respect of schools.

Under the Bill in its current form, a governing body and head teacher can, effectively, apply to become an academy and be fast-tracked through that process if they are outstanding, and it is the Secretary of State who makes the final decision. This is therefore a hugely centralising measure that completely bypasses the local community, the local authority and anyone of influence in a local area. The Government can state clearly in the Bill that that is not their intention and they do not wish that to happen.

I take on board the point that there are many good governing bodies and that we should not impinge on individual governors and head teachers who work extremely hard, but they operate on the basis of what they consider to be best for their individual school whereas it is incumbent upon us here to pass laws that not only look towards the interests of individual schools but address such issues within the context of the education system as a whole. The Government’s intention is that thousands of schools will become academies and hundreds will be fast-tracked through the process but, as I said last week, I think we will simply be taking a leap in the dark, with no real idea where this will end up.

The Minister must tell us how many schools have applied to become academies and how many he anticipates will be academies in September 2010. The press release that the Department for Education sent out at the beginning of this process on 2 June told us 1,000 schools had applied for academy freedoms, but that is not what it meant to say. It meant that 1,000 schools had expressed an interest in that, but where are we now in this regard? Where have those schools got to in respect of consultation? Who will they be talking to in August? Which governors are consulting which local authorities? Which governors are talking to which parents? Which governing bodies are talking to which communities? What consultation is going on, given that the Secretary of State has expressly told this House that he wants as many outstanding schools as possible to be fast-tracked to academy status in September? “Not a clue,” is the answer from the Government. Any reasonable and rational person would say it is difficult to have such consultations when schools are on holiday. I accept that—we all accept that—but in that case the Government should not set out as one of the Bill’s policy objectives that large numbers of schools will become academies.

The Government have not stated what consultation they expect the schools that are being fast-tracked to academy status to be involved in. They have not set before the Committee what the process will be by which they as a Government monitor that, other than to say that there is a point of contact at the Department for Education. What on earth does that mean—a phone call, perhaps, or the odd letter, or a couple of e-mail exchanges? What evidence will be collected to ensure that the measures in the Bill—even the measure on this limited consultation—are followed? The issue of legal challenge was rightly raised. There will be a legal challenge if the Department cannot give adequate explanations—other than what it has given so far, which is extremely woolly—in respect of even the limited consultative process in the Bill, with the pre-commencement later on in it. If it cannot do that, there is a real problem.

[Pat Glass]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees with me about what is happening in a school that is outside but close to my constituency, which may affect children in my constituency. The head teacher and a small number of governors have made an application for academy status and it is being fast-tracked, but the head teacher is retiring on 31 August. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is contemptuous, not only to children and to parents and to the local community, but to the new head teacher who is due to take over a school which is going to change in character and is not going to be the school to which he applied? That is what is happening as a result of this Bill being rushed through this House.

[Vernon Coaker]

I agree with that. The point that we have made on numerous occasions is that even if the Government think that this is a good Bill—they clearly do—and are determined to push forward with it, the rush to put the legislation in place will have unintended consequences of exactly the sort that my hon. Friend describes. I am not trying to be smart when I predict that individual Members from across the House will have individual schools coming to them about problems with this process and the adverse consequences that it is having for their area, and that will be as a result of having rushed this legislation through.

[Mr Gibb]

May I help the hon. Gentleman by saying that schools that do wish to convert this September must have submitted their applications by 30 June, so there will be time before the beginning of the schools’ summer recess for consultation to take place? In addition, the consultation is not required to terminate by September; it can go on through the autumn until the funding agreement is signed. So there is plenty of time, both before the summer and after it, for this important consultation to take place.

[Vernon Coaker]

I am afraid that the Minister is just asserting things; there is no fact in what he just said. How many schools are going through this process? What are they actually doing to consult? Are they sending a letter to every parent? Are they holding parents’ meetings? Are they going out into the community? Are leaflets being sent round? Are other schools involved in this? Are other governing bodies involved? Is the local authority involved? What does what the Minister has just said mean? The reality is that none of us knows.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

In view of what the Minister has just said, is the hon. Gentleman not slightly mystified, as I am, why the Government cannot tell us the number of schools that have indicated since 30 June that they want to start this process? Surely the Department ought to be able to make that information available to the Committee.

[Vernon Coaker]

Absolutely. The point that the Minister missed was that the Secretary of State has made great play of the fact that some schools will become academies not by Christmas or through the autumn, when the consultation is going to be by, but by September 2010; the whole reason we are rushing this Bill through is that the Secretary of State was telling us that all these schools were queuing up to become academies by September 2010. The Minister may have been saying in his intervention that a lot of schools signed up by 30 June, because the process takes three months, and they have therefore started the consultation. We do not know what that involves, but it carries on in August and can go on “through the autumn”—those were the Minister’s own words. So why are we rushing this legislation if the consultation can go on for longer? We could have slowed down a bit and improved the Bill, accepting some amendments that hon. Members have proposed. The Government would have thus achieved their objective with a much-improved Bill that would have allayed some of the concerns that have been raised, notwithstanding the fact that Labour Members would have opposed it in any case.

I hope that the Minister will tell us the exact number of schools that have applied, not the number that have expressed an interest—I hope he will give the exact number for primary schools and secondary schools. I know that this is not going to happen in special schools until 2011 and I cannot remember whether that is also the case for primary schools, but it certainly will happen in secondary schools. How many schools are actually applying? How many of that number does the Minister expect to open in September 2010? I hope he will outline for us exactly what consultation process those schools will be expected to have gone through and that he will explain to the Committee how the Department is ensuring that that has taken place, so that when the Secretary of State decides whether to give an academy order he can say, “These are the criteria I used.” The Committee deserves to know that, but we have so far been given no answer..

[Mr Redwood]

Can the shadow Minister explain why he thinks so many head teachers and governing bodies might want to drive something like this through against the wishes of the local community and parents or without bothering to find out what their views were? I would have thought that the first thing any head teacher would do when considering this would have been to ensure that they had support.

[Vernon Coaker]

What we are saying is that we are legislating for a process and we expect it to set out exactly what should happen. It is for the Government to determine what that process is. At the moment, they have no real idea about it. I also say to the right hon. Gentleman that what we are also trying to do—this is the point made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock)—is find out how many of the 1,000 schools that the press release says have applied will become academies in September. The Minister has failed last week and this to give a categorical answer to the question of how many academies the Department expects to open in September. I, too, will be interested to hear that answer.

[Mr Redwood]

I am sure that we will all be interested in that answer. However, the shadow Minister has given me no answer on the point that I asked. He is not saying that he knows of lots of head teachers and governing bodies foolish enough to try to drive this through against local opinion. Can he not understand that the whole idea of localism is that we need to trust these people more and give them more scope to act? They will decide how to consult and how widely they need to consult depending on the mood.

[Vernon Coaker]

But who will decide? It will be the head teacher and the governing body of the school. The right hon. Gentleman tells us not to worry because some consultation will take place, and he asks what head teacher would drive this through against local opposition. I just say to him that if parents—if all of them—are so important, why does the word “parents” not appear in the Bill? I ask him that to test him, because none of us can find a reference to them and I find that astonishing. He asks what head teacher would possibly go against the wishes of parents and against the wishes of anybody, but why is the word “parents”, which the right hon. Gentleman has just prayed in aid when he said that the Government were all for localism and for people empowering the local neighbourhood, not contained in this Bill? There may be one or two such references but I cannot find them.

[Mr Redwood]

Sometimes things are so obvious that when one trusts people they will do the obvious thing. Of course these people will want to carry the local parents with them because otherwise they will lose their school.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

I make a prediction to the right hon. Gentleman and to some of the hon. Members on the Government Benches who are saying “Hear, hear”. I predict that the Government will produce amendments in the Bill that they are introducing in the autumn to clarify the situation and that hon. Members will, at some point, be writing to the Minister asking whether he could intervene in respect of particular schools in their community where it looks as though the consultation has not taken place and other schools start complaining about the schools that have been fast-tracked to academy status. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, because he has been here longer than I have, when we legislate in this House, we do so in a way that lays out the process that we expect to be followed in order for a process to happen. The process in this Bill is confused, and people do not know what it is supposed to be. He knows as well as I do that confused legislation provides the opportunity for judicial review. All I am saying is that the fact that this reference is not in the Bill is astonishing.

[Mr Ward]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is as concerned as I am about the proposals on consulting parents. Unless we receive some advice to the contrary, it appears that under clause 1(6)(d) up to 49% of the pupils in a new school do not have to be

“drawn from the area in which the school is situated.”

[Vernon Coaker]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that. Of course what Lord Hill said in another place was that if we were to consider the grammar schools that become academies, we might find that that area is significantly broader. What that “area” meant was very difficult to define.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), the former Chair of the Select Committee, drew attention to the fact that the Government are not averse to ballots because they have introduced them for local planning decisions. Of course, the Minister will know, as we heard in the statement that took place before our discussions in Committee started today, the Government are introducing ballots for locally elected police commissioners. The principle of ballots, such as that proposed by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr Pugh), is something to which the Government are not opposed.

We think that we should lay out the details that are set out in amendment 78 rather simply leaving it to people to do what is appropriate. Parents should be consulted and, as many people have said, it is essential that the pupil voice should be heard. In answer to an earlier question from a Member on the Government Benches, of course that would be done in a way that is appropriate. The amendment refers to guidance that should be given to schools on how they should consult pupils.

What are the teachers and non-teaching staff going to come back to in September? The Minister needs to answer the question about what is happening with the TUPE negotiations about the transfer of teaching and non-teaching staff for those schools that want to become academies.

[Sammy Wilson]

The shadow Minister is making a point about the form of the consultation. In fact, if he examines the remarks he is making now he will see just how difficult it will be to be prescriptive about the form of consultation, even though that is what he seems to be seeking. One would consult pupils in a different way to teachers, and parents in a different way to teachers, too. It might not be possible to get them all under one roof. Is he seeking a prescriptive method of consultation or is the fact that the Bill makes it clear there should be consultation on a question mentioned in the Bill and that it must take place with the appropriate people not sufficient detail for him?

[Vernon Coaker]

I do not think that it is sufficient. The hon. Gentleman is right: of course one would consult teachers, non-teaching staff and pupils differently. That is why our amendment states:

“The Secretary of State shall issue guidance as to how”

that is done. Of course the consultation will be carried out in different ways, and that is why we have included the word “guidance”.

On the need for consultation with neighbouring schools, the Bill does not require good and outstanding schools that become academies to partner schools that are in difficulty or need support. I know that in the other place it was believed—many of my hon. Friends believe it too—that such a provision should be on the face of the Bill. Merely stating that they should engage in such consultation is not sufficient. Many of us have made the point time and again that the complete elimination of local authorities from this situation is not acceptable at all.

Let me talk about amendment 77. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), was quoted by the hon. Member for Southport. If hon. Members think that I am making too much of the idea that a consultation should take place before, not after, the giving of an academy order, they should listen to what the Chair of the Select Committee said during one of the debates last week—it bears repeating. On the subject of consultations that took place after an academy order was made, and not before, he said:

“Those consulted in such circumstances would have good grounds for feeling that they were participating in a charade. I ask those on the Government Front Bench to consider that.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 49.]

In his reply, the Minister needs to explain why it is not a charade and why the Chair of the Select Committee is wrong or misguided in making that comment. Is he wrong? Has he got it wrong? Does he not understand the process? Of course he understands that the making of an academy order comes before an academy agreement is signed—everybody understands that, and we have all read the Bill. We are saying that the discussion of, and consultation on, an academy order—by the way, I can find no example of what an academy order would actually be—should take place before it is made and not afterwards. Perhaps the Minister—in answer to the Chair of the Select Committee, if not to me—can tell us what an academy order will contain. What will it look like? What will be in it? Will we have the opportunity for some sort of consultation on what an academy order should be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

I agree with the shadow Minister that there should always be a way back, but I fail to understand the following fact. When his party were in government, there were plenty of forced mergers and forced school closures through the transforming our primary schools programme and the surplus places legislation. There were thousands of names on petitions against irreversible school closures. Where were the democracy and localism in those decisions?

[Vernon Coaker]

There are two points. I shall come back to the local point in the moment, but all the way through these discussions—the hon. Gentleman, to his credit, has been in the Chamber for many hours of the debate on the Bill—I have pointed out significant and substantial differences between the academies programme pursued under the last Government and the academies programme and model proposed by the Bill. Our model concentrated on areas of educational underperformance and social disadvantage. That was the key driver for the use of the academy model. The Bill turns that on its head and says we will allow schools that are doing well under the current system to become academies, with all the worries and concerns that have arisen.

I know that the hon. Gentleman has been involved in this area and has worked hard in his constituency on the issue of school reorganisation. However, in virtually every circumstance in which academies have been agreed—that includes the 200 that were agreed and the number that were to go forward in September with secondary school reorganisation attached to educational transformation—the local authorities were key partners in those decisions. Some of those decisions were difficult. We have not tabled the amendments to say that any of this is easy, that there is a panacea or that someone can wave a magic wand to bring about school reorganisation in way that is never controversial or painful. We are saying that under our model, local authorities and local partners were specifically included. There were still difficulties, and sometimes tough decisions had to be made, but local authorities and local decision makers were involved. The way that the Bill is drafted specifically excludes those people from being involved other than in the way that a wish list of good practice would say that they should be involved.

[Ian Mearns]

Does my hon. Friend accept that under the previous Government’s academy proposals, the local consultation that took place was subject to an adjudicator’s ruling in the last instance if that was necessary?

[Vernon Coaker]

I was going to make that point: schools adjudicators have been involved almost as a final route of appeal. I know from my experience as a Minister—if the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) becomes a Minister he will find this out—that even when one thinks a decision is right, it can be completely thrown out of the window because the schools adjudicator prevents something from going ahead. That happened to me a couple of times in relation to the closure of a school.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that there have been examples of Labour-held local authorities being given the opportunity to set up academies but rejecting it without consulting parents at all? I refer specifically to the offer by Goldman Sachs several years ago to set up an academy in Tower Hamlets. The local authority there gave parents not a jot of consultation.

[Vernon Coaker]

Some local authorities have been a problem, but not just Labour authorities—Conservative local authorities have also stood in the way of academy development. One pays a price for local democracy and involving local authorities: sometimes it means that people pursue educational options in their area that one does not agree with. That is the point I was making when I asked the Minister whether localism is fine only as long as it goes along with the Government’s policy objectives.

There are all sorts of unanswered questions about consultation, many of which the hon. Member for Portsmouth South has laid out. What happens to local authorities? What happens to the money? What happens regarding special needs? Who is vetting the consultation that takes place? Who knows what is going on? How will the school funding proposals that have been published today affect what is going on? There are all sorts of issues to be discussed.

[Bill Esterson]

May I take my hon. Friend back to the primary capital programme and the democracy in that process, which the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) asked about? In the Tory-run authority in which I was the opposition spokesman on children’s services, there was a lot of opposition to some proposals and only a thorough consultation process brought up that opposition and showed the flaws in the plan. The council rejected them and the adjudicator, whose role my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) has mentioned, had to get involved. The checks and balances were in place in that process as they were in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.

[Vernon Coaker]

My hon. Friend makes a self-evident and good point, and identifies some of the problems regarding the difference between what happened before and what will happen under the Bill’s measures. There are a huge number of questions that the Minister needs to answer.

On consultation, it would help if the Government and the Minister answered named day written questions, including a large number that are specifically relevant to this whole process and our discussions on consultation. I have 11 named-day questions for last Monday that have not yet been answered by the Department. Not all of them are relevant to this debate—[Interruption.] The Front Benchers are now debating who is responsible; I am afraid that it involves both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers. Some of those questions are specific to today’s debate on consultation, so for the Department to talk about consultation, procedure and correct processes when I still have not received the answers to questions for which the named day was last Monday—[Interruption.] The Minister says that I have had a holding response: on Monday 19 July, for 11 of my questions, I received the reply, “I will reply as soon as possible,” from him and his colleagues. I do not know whether anyone else has experienced this problem, but given that the measures are being pushed through Parliament at significant speed, all hon. Members need the answers to their named day questions so that information that might inform our discussions is available.

With that, I shall simply say that we will support amendment 8 if the hon. Member for Southport pushes it to a vote, and I give notice that we would like to put amendment 78 to a vote.

[Bill Esterson]

I want to talk about consultation in relation to my experience as an opposition spokesman for children’s services, particularly in relation to pre and post-decision consultation and three academies that the council pushed through. The Tory-run council in Medway decided not to consult until decisions had been taken, which caused consternation and all sorts of problems with the wider community, not just parents. I think that was a precursor to what is happening with this legislation. It was only the involvement of the then Ministers with responsibility for schools standards, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), that enabled us to have proper consultation before decisions were finally taken and to ensure that the assurances that the local community sought were addressed. My concern is that the proposed measures will cause what happened in Medway to be repeated across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

I am happy to do so. We shall be coming to the relevant clause later in the debate, but I have been persuaded by my hon. Friend’s arguments, and as a result of his representations, and those of other people, we intend to amend the model funding agreement to raise the number of parents on governing bodies from one to a minimum of two.

Requiring a ballot of all parents of pupils at the school would unduly politicise the process.

[Vernon Coaker]

I welcome the concession the Minister just made. The Committee has run very well without being churlish about such things, and there are many other aspects we agree with, but that is an important step forward.

[Mr Gibb]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for that remark. He clearly takes the issue very seriously and has scrutinised the Bill thoroughly. It is a pleasure to debate the measure with him.

--- Later in debate ---

19:39

Division 46

Ayes: 227

---

Labour: 218
Liberal Democrat: 5
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 310

---

Conservative: 268
Liberal Democrat: 39
Democratic Unionist Party: 2

[Vernon Coaker]

I beg to move amendment 82, page 3, line 11, at end insert—

‘(1A) An application under subsection (1) shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed in regulations.’.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]

With this we may take the following: amendment 81, in clause 4, page 3, line 34, at end insert—

‘(3A) The Secretary of State shall publish criteria which he will apply in deciding whether to make Academy orders, which shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed in regulations.’.

Amendment 83, in clause 4, page 4, line 3, leave out subsection (6).

[Vernon Coaker]

I will be interested to hear why the Minister thinks that the amendments are unacceptable. Before that, it is important to say that, in the previous debate, there was a massive change in Government hope and expectation for their flagship academies policy. They have retreated from claiming that hundreds of new academies will open in September to saying that hundreds or a large number of academy orders will be agreed. The Secretary of State did not outline that as part of a flagship Government policy, which was for significant numbers of new academies to open. The policy is chaos, confusion and a complete shambles. Hon. Members of all parties will find it unbelievable that we now have a Government commitment to a significant number of academy orders, with consultation to follow. Significant progress has therefore been made as we have exposed the flaws in many aspects of the Bill. However, a Minister coming to the Dispatch Box and admitting that the Government’s aims and objectives will not be realised is astonishing.

I do not want to take up too much of the Committee’s time on the amendments. I should simply be grateful if the Minister explained why he thinks that they are unacceptable.

[Mr Gibb]

The amendments would collectively have the effect of increasing the burden of regulation associated with the academy conversion process. They propose several sets of regulations as well as a requirement that academy orders be made by statutory instrument. Hon. Members will recognise that that would take the Government’s policy in the opposite direction from our proposals. We want to deregulate when regulatory burdens are not only stifling innovation, but costing time and therefore money to achieve compliance. We want to give schools freedoms to allow them to focus on raising standards. Adding bureaucracy to the process is the last thing that we want.

Amendments 81 and 82 would introduce regulations that prescribed the contents of applications for academy orders and the criteria that the Secretary of State applied when deciding whether to make them. We do not believe that it is appropriate to regulate the contents of applications for academy orders. The Department already provides clear guidance on its website about the conversion process and the various steps that a school needs to take. The website also includes an application pro forma, which covers all the necessary information to enable a decision to be made. The Government have made it clear that they will apply a rigorous fit and proper person test in approving any sponsors of an academy.

The Secretary of State will consider applications from schools that wish to become academies and, in each case, confirm whether he is content for the conversion proposal to proceed to the next stage. If he is, he will make an academy order. In doing that he will, of course, take account of the relevant information before him, but he expects to approve most applications from outstanding schools. Those schools will make up the first wave, and we will publish the criteria for other applicants—the next wave—on the Department’s website.

Before issuing an academy order, the Secretary of State will undertake checks to ensure that the school is in a position to become an academy. That is important because academies operate with greater autonomy than other schools and need to be in a secure position to do so. We will check whether there has been any significant change since the school’s last outstanding Ofsted rating.

[Mr Gibb]

The criteria will be different because the fast-tracking is confined to schools that are graded outstanding. When they have gone through the process, we will relax the criteria to enable other schools to do so. My hon. Friend will recall that the Secretary of State sent letters to all schools in the country. The criteria that I just mentioned apply to fast-tracking. There will be different criteria for the process once the first wave has gone through.

Issues that the Secretary of State will check include whether the school has a substantial budget deficit, whether there are PFI arrangements relating to the school and whether the school is already part of reorganisation proposals. Depending on the outcome of discussions, that may have a bearing on whether and when the Secretary of State can approve an outstanding school’s progression to the next stage. When an academy order is made, the Secretary of State must give a copy to the governing body, the head teacher and the local authority. If the application is rejected, the Secretary of State is required to inform the governing body, the head teacher and the local authority of his decision and the reason for it. It will therefore be transparent and clear why and when a school will be permitted to convert and when it will not.

However, the first stage of the process—the academy order stage—is just that: it permits a school to convert, but does not require it to do so. We need to be clear that, for many proposals, the greater detail and the final stage of the process will come later, when the Secretary of State decides whether to enter into a funding agreement with a proposed academy. It is only on signing the funding agreement that the conversion becomes legally binding. We therefore believe that prescription of the form and content of academy orders in secondary legislation is unnecessary and too bureaucratic.

An academy order is the means whereby a school’s conversion into an academy is enabled. The intention behind amendment 83 is that an academy order be made by statutory instrument, which would have to be laid before Parliament. Academy orders are intended to be the legal means whereby an individual school converts to academy status. They will contain key pieces of information that are pertinent to the conversion, but are highly specific to the circumstances of each school. It would not be a good use of Parliament’s time to require each order for each and every school to be tabled. The use of the negative resolution procedure would also be highly disruptive to any school, since the period of 40 days during which the order could be prayed against in this House or the other place would leave the school with no certainty about whether the conversion could go ahead.

In any event, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) will be interested to know that the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee issued a report on the Bill, dated 17 June. I am sure that he knows it well, given that he has been so assiduous in scrutinising the Bill and all the accompanying documents. As he predicted, it states about the provision:

“this seems to us to be reasonable. Each order affects only one school and there is provision for those affected to be provided with copies. We agree… that these Orders are not really legislative in character and we see no reason why Parliament would want to have any control over them.”

For those reasons, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Vernon Coaker]

It is a very good job that the Minister has persuaded me that statutory instruments of any sort—negative or affirmative—are unnecessary, otherwise he would not be able to announce academy orders in September. I intend to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I return to a point I made earlier. I provoked the Minister at the beginning of this debate, but in both this debate and the debate on the previous group of amendments, I note that he has not put any figure at all on the number of schools that he expects to become academies. That now seems to have gone down to almost nought, because the aspiration now is to introduce large numbers of academy orders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

How could I resist the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who has thrown his glove across the Floor of the House to land at my feet?

The hon. Gentleman is obviously pining for the day on which there is a Liberal Democrat majority Government—[Interruption.] I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman. Given the way in which his party has conducted itself in opposition, he and his hon. Friends may well be working towards such an arrangement even now.

Let me say, in all seriousness, that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to suggest that if the Liberal Democrats had been the majority party, we would have proceeded with the sponsor-managed schools option. However, we are not in that position. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we are in a coalition Government with a coalition agreement, and it is clear that some policies emanate from one partner in the coalition and some from the other. That is the way it works in coalition agreements all over the world, in countries where arrangements such as this are far more common than they have been in the United Kingdom, at least for several decades.

I do not think that academies are the answer. I did not think that they were the answer when the hon. Gentleman’s party was in charge of the policy, and I do not think that they will necessarily be the answer for all schools now. However, following the coalition agreement, the Bill contains a series of provisions enabling communities, where there is a will, to allow schools to adopt academy status. It remains to be seen how many will take up the option and what use they will make of it. Amendments were made in another place, notably with regard to the provision of additional schools—which I know concerned the hon. Gentleman in earlier debates—and assessments of the impact on the surrounding area.

Consultation is vital. We have already engaged in a full debate on that issue, and I shall not go over the ground again. I will say, however, that the hon. Gentleman spoke of commitments by a political party in a set of circumstances prior to a coalition agreement which has been published and is available for everyone to examine and discuss. Believe me, people in my constituency and others have been discussing it, and we have had many debates on it. That should not come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman.

I had the honour of serving in the last Parliament, when the hon. Gentleman stood at the Government Dispatch Box ably standing up for—it must be said—the sometimes slightly dodgy policies that his party was producing. He must have seen us sitting on the Opposition Benches below the Gangway—where his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) is sitting now—talking to some of his hon. Friends who were then sitting on this side of the Committee. They were sorely tempted to join us. Lord McAvoy, as he now is, would have been there, casting his eye over Labour Members and making sure that that did not happen.

It could be said that we are now in similar circumstances in terms of the way in which this place works, but it can only work, and a Government can only work, when there is an agreed programme. We have an agreed programme, and the Government are proceeding with it. However, I am pleased that the Minister was willing to listen—as was his noble Friend Lord Hill—to Members of our party and our side of the coalition, and to other noble Lords and hon. Members, and to make provision to allay some of the concerns that have been raised.

[Vernon Coaker]

Let me explain why we consider new clause 7 so important. Subsection (1)(c) refers to

“social cohesion in the local authority area where the school is situated.”

Under the Bill, as part of the funding agreement, if a pupil is excluded from an academy during the year, the academy will keep the funding as if the pupil had not been excluded, but the local authority—or someone else—will have to provide the funding for that excluded pupil somewhere else. It is because of such provisions in the Bill that some of us consider an impact assessment to be vital. Otherwise, when a pupil is excluded, the academy will keep the money and the pupil will become the responsibility of the local authority, which will have no funds with which to carry out that responsibility.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 70, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

‘(1A) Payments may be made in respect of capital expenditure under an Academy agreement to an additional school only where the Secretary of State has first consulted with—

(a) local parents and children,

(b) the relevant local authority,

(c) any other persons deemed appropriate.

(1B) The purpose of the consultation under (1A) shall be to establish whether there are outstanding requirements for capital investment for existing schools in the area where the school is (or is proposed to be) situated.

(1C) Where a need is demonstrated the Secretary of State may not make payments with respect of capital expenditure under subsection (1).

(1D) A school is an “additional school” for the purposes of this section if—

(a) it does not replace a maintained school that has been or is to be discontinued, and

(b) it is not a school in respect of which an Academy order has effect.

(1E) For the purposes of subsection (1D)(a) a school does not replace a maintained school if it provides education for pupils of a wider range of ages than the maintained school.’.

It is a privilege to be back standing here as the hon. Member for Gedling—

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

We will never look at the shadow Minister in the same way again.

[Vernon Coaker]

I know. Perhaps it is the way I speak. Anyway, it is a delight to be back here. It does not seem long ago that we were finishing the debate last night—[Interruption.] No, it was not long ago. I am sure we have all had plenty of opportunity to enjoy ourselves in the intervening period and not think of anything but the Academies Bill and all the other relevant papers and documents.

Amendment 70 is an important amendment, particularly given the fiasco—frankly—of the past few weeks with respect to the Building Schools for the Future programme, the cuts to it, the reassessments and the other problems with the list. I will not rehearse those problems, but the relevance of and the need for the amendment are even more acute than they would have been had it not been for what has happened over the past few weeks. Schools up and down the country were expecting capital moneys to be provided for them to improve schools and tackle problems with school buildings. Many of those proposals were developed by local authorities, and many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will have helped to work up those plans over a number of months and, sometimes, one or two years, because the school-building programme was linked to school reorganisation for school improvement. But of course that was all dashed by the lists published and the review announced by the Secretary of State for Education in order to prove that he could cut budgets.

The Government are now looking to create new schools using money from their budgets. Their defence is: “Don’t worry, this isn’t coming from Building Schools for the Future money. It’s actually coming from cuts to low-priority computer programmes”, and they talk about £50 million. However, neither the Secretary of State nor the Schools Minister ever add that the £50 million is up until March 2011 only; and neither do they mention that there have been, I understand, 38 expressions of interest to the New Schools Network, which has since sought to talk to the Department. Is it 38? When he replies to the amendment, will the Minister tell us how many free schools he expects to open? I understand that the first is due to open in September 2011. How many such expressions of interest have there been so far? How many of those have changed from expressions of interest to applications? How many does he expect to open in 2011? Alongside that, how many does he expect £50 million will pay for? What will that £50 million mean for those 38 schools?

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Has my hon. Friend seen the podcast on the Department for Education website by the Secretary of State, where he says that all schools will get more money, more efficiently and more cheaply? How is that possible, given that he has just cut the BSF programme?

[Vernon Coaker]

Frankly, the reality is that it is not possible. What we are getting from the Secretary of State is an explanation for what he has done on the grounds that the money was not there in the budget for the Building Schools for the Future programme, when the letter from the permanent secretary to the shadow Secretary of State quite clearly points out that the money for BSF was set aside in the proper way. The school rebuilding programme in my hon. Friend’s constituency has not been cut; it has been absolutely massacred. That money was there, and the permanent secretary—this is an extremely important point that will bear repeating on a number of occasions—said in the letter to the shadow Secretary of State that if the proper procedures had not been followed according to Treasury rules, the permanent secretary would have required a ministerial direction to proceed with the policy, as my hon. Friend knows. The permanent secretary at the Department for Education has confirmed that, in fact, no such ministerial direction was given, so my hon. Friend now knows the reality.

As for this £50 million, we are now being told, “Don’t worry, it’s not going to affect school budgets. It’s not going to be a problem with respect to school buildings.” However, free schools are already being affected across the country.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He was very generous yesterday too, and the Committee appreciated the answers to some of the questions. However, he is talking now as if, under Labour’s proposals, the money for Building Schools for the Future was already in the bank—that is, already in the Department. However, it was made clear time and again that the money for Building Schools for the Future would be made available from savings made elsewhere. He talks as if the money was already in existence and had been earmarked, but that is complete and utter nonsense. It is now being spread about that schools would have been assured of that money, but the previous Government gave no such assurance.

[Vernon Coaker]

The hon. Gentleman and I often agree on education matters, but on this particular matter I do not agree with him. He will know—not only from his experience in the House, but from his local authority experience, which he had on a local education authority, as he reminded us yesterday—that when we talk about money being available, that means money being accounted for in the proper way, so that proposals to do certain things in the future are made according to the rules laid down by the Treasury. The Treasury will not allow anyone to say that they will involve schools in various waves—for example, in Building Schools for the Future—unless they conform to certain rules. The point that I was making to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) is that the then Secretary of State—now the shadow Secretary of State—conformed to all the Treasury rules to ensure that when those schools became ready for rebuilding, the money was there in the proper way.

I was also making the point that free schools, which are the Secretary of State’s preferred route forward, are already saying they are feeling the consequences of the changes that the Government have made. In the Yorkshire Post on 9 July—I will not read out the headline, in order to save the Secretary of State from embarrassment—it was reported that free school pioneers are worried about the impact of the changes that the Government are making and feel that they have “dealt a blow” to their proposals to establish a free school in Kirklees. Whether it is right or wrong to have a free school in Kirklees, it is not just those on the Opposition Benches who are saying that the position with respect to Building Schools for the Future has caused problems for existing schools. People whom one would have expected to support the Government—indeed, to come out dancing on the streets about what they are doing—are now turning round and saying, “Actually, the route the Government are pursuing is causing a problem.”

One of the good things about being in Committee is that it gives us the opportunity to look at things in detail. When the Minister replies to this debate, I wonder whether he will comment on the terms of reference for the capital programme, which I want gently to share with the Committee. I do not know whether my hon. Friends or other members of the Committee have had a chance to look at the terms of reference for the allocation of capital funds—they might want to refer them to their constituents, because they are contained in one of those papers that gets tucked away, but which has huge significance—but there are five of them. The second is:

“To consider how to generate sufficient places to allow new providers to enter the state school system in response to parental demand”—

that refers to free schools or additional schools, or whatever we want to call them. The fifth is

“To enable the establishment of new schools.”

I do not know about my hon. Friends, but the Minister might need to tell us how the Government can reassure us on that. He has turned round and said, “Don’t worry, the Building Schools for the Future money has nothing to do with free schools or additional schools.” However, we then read in the terms of reference for the review group that the Department has established that two of the five criteria by which decisions on how to allocate capital funds are made refer to how capital funds are to be allocated to these new schools. Anybody looking at that would say, “What’s going on there?”

When we look at the criteria under the heading “Distribution of capital investment”, we read the following:

“To increase choice locally determined by parental demand”.

When we read more about the review, we see why amendment 70 is so important, especially as it talks about allocating capital money. At the moment, there will be no consultation with local parents, the local authority or anybody else about what will be done; it will just be the Secretary of State determining that a free school in an area would be a great thing to have. A few people will get together, write out a bit of an application—a few hundred words here, a few hundred words there—and then go the Secretary of State, who will say, “Oh, what a good idea! We’ll set the free school up.” However, I would again like to share with hon. Members what the document that I have quoted says. I look at this with incredulity, especially after the great fanfare with which the Secretary of State made his announcement. In that document, the Secretary of State says:

“To review and reform the requirements on schools including the building/School Premises Regulations”.

What that actually means is as follows—and this is why amendment 70 is so vital.

When the Secretary of State and the Schools Minister talk to parents about establishing schools and so on, they should make things clear. Perhaps the Schools Minister’s constituents are different from mine, but I do not get many parents coming to me and saying, “Can I be on the fifth floor of a tower block?”, “Can I be in a disused Tesco?”, or, “Those portakabins are pretty good—can I pop round there?” Most people I speak to want to get rid of the portakabins. However, the Secretary of State’s vision of this new school world—this free school nirvana—is this: “It doesn’t matter where you establish schools; it’s fine.”

We all know—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) often makes this point, and quite rightly so—that, at the end of the day, what really turns a school around is not its structure, and often not the buildings, but the quality of teaching and learning, and the quality of leadership. However, there is no one here who would not also point out to each and every one of us—there was a survey about this a couple of days ago—that the quality of school buildings is an essential part of how we, as a civilised society, provide the standard of education that we would want in our schools, for ourselves, our teachers and our children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

The Labour party was famous for selling off school playing fields. To return to Building Schools for the Future, the majority of those building programmes were carried out under private finance initiative schemes. They were never put on the Government’s balance sheets. They are all off the capital account, and are being paid for out of the revenue of the next 25 years. So how can the hon. Gentleman say that he had the money for those programmes, when he did not know whether he would have that money over the next 25 years to pay the rent on the schools that he built?

[Vernon Coaker]

I have already answered the point about money for schools. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes round to the schools being built through PFI schemes and tells them, “We don’t want you in here building a school through PFI.” The programmes delivered through PFI, through local authority funding or through Building Schools for the Future have transformed the quality of school buildings, and over the next decade they would have transformed the whole of the secondary school estate, either through rebuilding or refurbishment. This is a choice that we have to make: the hon. Gentleman can oppose the programme, and that is absolutely fine. He can stand up and oppose it—

[Gordon Birtwistle]

rose—

[Vernon Coaker]

Not now! This is one of the good things about being in Committee—we can get excited and nobody really minds.

The hon. Gentleman can oppose the Building Schools for the Future programme and say that what the Government have done over the past few years has been a waste of time, but I would say to him that we have a tremendous record and that Building Schools for the Future would have delivered that transformation.

Returning to the point about playing fields, it was our Government who introduced regulations to ensure that there was agreement, including from sporting bodies, on any such land that was sold, and that the money was reinvested in the school. In one or two instances, I supported the sale of playing fields in my area when schools were being rebuilt with gyms and all-weather courts as a consequence of the money that was realised from the sale. Often, land that was labelled as playing fields was nothing more than waste ground. Numerous Members from across the country asked whether it would be possible to sell off such land as long as the money was reinvested in sports facilities in the local area. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Burnley would have supported the amendment because it would introduce consultation with local people, the local authority, parents and children on any activities where capital expenditure is moved to fund the free schools.

However, my point is that tucked away inside “Reducing the burden on schools” is the fact that the capital review will cover not only school premises regulations and design requirements but also playing fields. Does the Minister therefore envisage some free schools being set up with no access to playing fields or other outdoor sports facilities? I have heard him quite rightly highlighting the essential role in the curriculum played by sport. How on earth is that to be delivered in the light of these regulations? I know that he will get up and say that they do not mean that at all, but I can tell him that that is exactly what they mean. This is exactly what the Secretary of State said when he was talking about capital moneys being made available for free schools. He wanted the schools to be able to be set up very quickly and cheaply, and that would involve changing the regulations that local authorities would normally have had to abide by. He wanted to reduce the central requirements so that a huge number of free schools could be set up as quickly as possible, funded by moving money from one departmental pot to another. Our amendment would ensure that that choice was made apparent to local people, and I know what their decision would be if they were asked those questions.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

rose—

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Vernon Coaker]

I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies).

[Mr Hancock]

rose—

[Vernon Coaker]

Oh, okay, that’s fine—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. This is an interesting and important debate, but it would help the Speaker and the Hansard writers enormously if we knew who was rising and who the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) was giving way to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

I apologise. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West.

[Geraint Davies]

Given the Government’s strategy for the use of disused sites, does my hon. Friend agree that there will now be a perverse incentive to let schools on valuable sites fail, so that they can sell off their land and use the funds to set up other schools in disused premises? Under Labour, certain schools on good sites had difficulties, but their infrastructure was supported. They might now be asset-stripped to pursue the new strategy involving free schools on disused sites.

[Vernon Coaker]

That is certainly a possibility. If we change the regulations, anything is possible. The Minister will no doubt say that that will not happen, but the thrust of our argument is our desire to place certain statutory requirements in the Bill to protect the quality of educational provision, including the provision of playing fields. Any weakening of the regulations or of the findings of the capital funding review could be very damaging.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. With your indulgence, Dawn—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] I have a problem saying your surname, because I have a problem with Ps and Rs. Sometimes when I have addressed you in Committee, it has disturbed the Hansard writers. They wondered who the hell I was talking about. With your indulgence, I would like to make a couple of points. The first is about private finance initiatives in schools. Any local authority that has a PFI school building programme will know of the huge impediment that that brings, as well as the restrictions on developing anything in the school without enormous knock-on costs. I hope that no one is running away with the idea that everything about PFI is perfect, because that is far from the truth.

My second point is the more important, however. I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but so far he has not raised the question of what happens if a local authority is forced into the invidious position of allocating certain resources from LEA funding, limited though it is, and one of the schools then fails. Who will pick up the pieces? Nothing in the Bill suggests the existence of a fail-safe system enabling those pieces to be put back together once the whole has been torn apart by the establishment of a free school.

[Vernon Coaker]

I was not trying to suggest that PFI was a panacea for all ills, and I know that it has sometimes led to problems. I was merely suggesting that it was one of the options that had allowed some local authorities to build new schools that might not have been built otherwise.

I was going to deal with the question of what will happen if a school fails, but the hon. Gentleman has made the point well enough to save me the trouble of making it myself. I entirely agree with him. As we discovered yesterday, one of the main drawbacks of the Bill is the huge amount of detail that it contains. In relation to one clause, we were told not to worry because a committee—I cannot remember what it was called—would be set up to examine all the issues that had been raised, as the Government did not know the answers yet. We as a Parliament, however, are being asked to pass the Bill.

Some of the problems with the Bill were illustrated very effectively by the comments of the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), and other Members will doubtless make similar comments later. Moreover—let me make this point again to the Schools Minister—we cannot amend it. We can table amendments, but for a number of reasons the Government do not want it to be amended.

Does the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) wish to intervene?

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

I am sorry. I was simply trying to catch Miss P’s eye.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I do not think that my name is all that difficult to pronounce. It is Pri-mar-olo. “Dawn” or “Miss P” will not do, I am afraid. I call Mr Coaker.

[Vernon Coaker]

Thank you, Ms Primarolo. [Laughter.]

The Government are seeking to save money by cutting the Building Schools for the Future programme, but they say that this expenditure is nothing to do with those cuts. They say that they are economising on low-priority IT projects. That will provide £50 million, and they have already received 38 expressions of interest.

I do not think any of us believe that that really adds up. The £50 million is only until March 2011, and because of the comprehensive spending review, no one has any idea what will happen after that. On 20 April 2010—apparently everything has changed since then, but I think it useful to draw attention to this—The Independent quoted the Secretary of State as saying:

“The capital cost”—

of new free schools, that is—

“will come from reducing spending on the government’s extremely wasteful Building Schools for the Future programme by 15 per cent.”

I know that when a party gets into power things change a little, but the Secretary of State cannot really have believed that there was not a budget for him to use if he wanted to fund his free school experiment. He did not say that last year; he said it on 20 April 2010.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Is not one of the saddest aspects of the debate on Building Schools for the Future the fact that it is being portrayed as simply a capital programme? It was never intended to be that. It was intended to bring about a transformation of secondary education. It was intended to improve the curriculum, improve inclusion and raise standards. Nothing that I have seen suggests to me that that will happen as a result of the free school programme. The Bill is being pushed through the House at great speed, and we are being given no evidence or details.

[Vernon Coaker]

My hon. Friend made a number of valuable contributions yesterday, and she is absolutely right to remind us of those facts. As I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, Building Schools for the Future was not just about school buildings; it was about transforming opportunities for young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luciana Berger]

May I ask my hon. Friend, very briefly, whether he agrees with what was said the other day by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes)? The hon. Gentleman said:

“It would be a nonsense to take money that could be used for improving existing schools to create new schools where, on the ground, the will of the local community is for the existing schools to continue.”

[Vernon Coaker]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the devastating impact of the cuts in the Building Schools for the Future programme on Liverpool, although, of course, it can be seen throughout the country. She is also right to draw attention to the comments of the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, who asked why money should be withheld from perfectly adequate existing schools to create new schools. That is a question that the Minister responsible for schools will have to answer.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The budgets of three schools in my constituency—among others—have been cut: Stopsley, Putteridge and Denbigh. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a question not just of new school buildings, but of capacity? In the Luton local authority area, 11 new schools have been cancelled—and, unlike the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), my constituency does need more schools. Is not the free schools policy a perfect storm for areas such as mine which need new capacity? The building of free schools is the only option for us now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

That is exactly the point. If free schools are to be built, the money must be found somewhere, and the Government are struggling at the moment. They have raised £50 million by scrapping a few computer projects, which were described as low-capacity but would have been important to the people who would have benefited from them, but where will the money come from after that?

A week or two before the election, the Secretary of State said that funding the free schools programme would require cuts of 15% in the Building Schools for the Future programme. That is a direct quotation. It has not been corrected, and I have not heard it claimed that it was taken out of context. As I have said, that is really where the money will come from.

I am trying to be helpful to the Government and the Committee. We oppose the Bill, but we recognise that the Government will probably push it through. Even if that is the case, however, the whole point of the Committee stage is to try to improve the Bill by amending it, and to raise issues of great importance. That is why it is so disappointing that Members—on both sides of the Committee—cannot amend the Bill. I recognise that the Bill has come from the Lords, but it is astonishing that we will have spent three days debating it on the Floor of the House and not one amendment will have been allowed. I am not a political or legislative historian, but I cannot imagine that many other Bills can have spent three days on the Floor of the House without amendment. I say in all honesty to the Minister that I will not be surprised if we find sneaked into the Bill that will be coming in the autumn a couple of little measures tweaking and putting right one or two things in this Bill, because that is what usually happens when Governments rush through legislation—afterwards they think, “Oh dear, there is a problem.”

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

The hon. Gentleman will know that there are 75 amendments and five new clauses on the amendment paper, and the Committee is perfectly entitled to pass any of them.

[Vernon Coaker]

The hon. Gentleman and I have debated other Bills—indeed, we have served on Bill Committees together—and on those occasions he has made one or two good points to which I have said, “That’s quite a good point, and I’ll come back to it on Report,” and then a Government amendment is introduced. That is the usual process in the House, and when it happens everyone tells this joke: “If it was such a good amendment and the Government have come back with their version of exactly the same proposal, why did you not accept it when it was moved by the Opposition?”

The situation with this Bill is totally different from how the Minister has just described it. Not all the amendments on the amendment paper are in my name—some have been tabled by his hon. Friends, and comments have been made by other Members as well—but we are totally unable to amend the Bill. Let me say to any new Members on the Government Benches who might be tempted to strike out in a spirit of independence by organising to make a change to the Bill through proposing an amendment and seeking to press it to a Division that it would not be very long before those who traditionally sit on the far end of the Treasury Bench came to see them to explain that that was probably not the best thing to do. I just say in all honesty to the Minister that I think it is deeply disappointing that we cannot amend the Bill in the way that many of us would want.

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I understand my hon. Friend’s surprise, but the Government have form on this. We have just completed our debates on the Finance Bill, all of which were taken on the Floor of the House, which never happens, and not one amendment was accepted—although, to respond to what the Minister has just said, there were many proposed amendments to the Finance Bill as well. There are two major Bills, therefore, that did not go upstairs to Committee for detailed scrutiny and to which not one amendment was made, because the Government are determined to steamroller both through the House.

[Vernon Coaker]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I was going to say that what is happening in respect of the Academies Bill is a one-off, but he has pointed out that this happened in respect of the Finance Bill as well. One would hope, however, that it is not a precedent of how other Bills will be dealt with.

I have tabled amendment 70 in order to try to be helpful. The amendment does not say that no capital moneys can be paid to free schools. In fact, it says capital moneys can be paid to free schools, but before that money is paid there has to be the agreement of “local parents and children”, the “local authority” and

“any other persons deemed appropriate.”

I thought that we were all in favour of the new localism and local decision making, and the point of the amendment is to allow the local people and communities along with the local authority to determine whether the capital moneys proposed to be used to set up a free school—that will be agreed by the Secretary of State—should be spent in that way, when it might have been used for the benefit of other schools in, for example, Liverpool, Halton and Luton.

I am trying to be helpful to the Government, therefore. I am saying to the Government, “You establish the free schools—the ‘additional schools’ as the Bill calls them—but if you’re going to take capital moneys away from other schools in the community to establish the free schools, then let’s see whether the local people and the local authority agree.” Given the furore we have seen over the cuts to Building Schools for the Future, with communities throughout the country seeing their new school buildings taken away from them, I wonder what they would say when asked whether they would wish to see their new school buildings sacrificed on the altar of a school experiment that is unproven and supported by no evidence one way or the other. I know why the Government will not accept this amendment, therefore: because they would be frightened of the answer they would get from local communities, who would turn around and say, “We want capital moneys spent for the benefit of the whole community, not for the benefit of a few.”

I have some questions linked to the amendment for the Minister. How many free schools does he expect there will be? How much money does he expect to spend on each free school? What do the changes in the review of capital expenditure actually mean? Are there going to be any regulations or are we going to allow children to go on the 13th floor, let us say? I note that the head of Tesco property offices is one of the advisers to the capital review group, and we will see what happens there. Can the Minister confirm that he expects the first free schools to open in 2011? Does he expect to spend all of the £50 million? Does he expect that to be enough money to develop the 38 schools in September 2011?

While we are talking about Building Schools for the Future, may I also ask the Minister to confirm how many academies have been affected by the BSF cuts? Looking at the list, it appears that while many local authority-maintained schools have had their BSF money stopped, lots of the academies are listed as under review. Will the Minister take this opportunity to explain to us exactly what is happening in that regard?

How much does the Minister expect the free schools to cost not only over the next six months or year, but over the next five years? How much money will the Department for Education be trying to get from the Treasury in the next spending review? What evidence does he have that the moneys to be invested in free schools is a policy worth pursuing and that it is worth taking money from the vast majority of schools to fund what I regard as an educational experiment?

We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and the comments of other Members who may also want to contribute to this important debate. At the heart of the debate on all the amendments, including amendment 70, is the fact that there are those of us who wish to try to ensure that opportunity and excellence for all is made a reality in every single community. There is a difference between the Government and the Opposition on this. Sometimes we are characterised as wanting to pull down those who can excel. Far from it: we want all children to achieve, including those who have talents and ability. We want all children to have school buildings of which they can be proud. The amendment before us seeks to ensure that, where the Government want to divert capital moneys from one set of priorities to another, that is done on the basis of local support—the support of local parents and the local authority—and not done at the whim of the Secretary of State.

[Mr Ward]

May I say how much I, as a new boy, have enjoyed the Committee stage and how useful I have found it as a mechanism for at least asking questions and trying to clarify points? Yesterday’s proceedings were long, but very useful to me in trying to understand how this process works.

There is value in this amendment. It is always important to spend public money as wisely as we possibly can. There will be disputes about policy initiatives and priorities, but whatever the priority, we need always to get the best value for the money we spend. If that was ever important, it certainly is now. In the spirit of the Committee, I shall not go into why we are in the difficulties that we are in, but most people accept that we are in a time of great austerity where we face cuts, tax increases and spending decisions that require careful thought.

--- Later in debate ---

I remind the hon. Member for Gedling that clauses 9 and 10 deal with consultation and the impact of the proposals on neighbouring schools. With those few words, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Vernon Coaker]

I will be very brief, because I know that other things are taking place this afternoon. I will press amendment 70 to a Division to test the Committee’s opinion, and I thank those who have contributed to the debate on it, including my hon. Friends the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), and for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). The Minister will know that it is not just my hon. Friends and I who believe in the necessity for more local consultation on the Department’s capital spending priorities, because we also heard the concerns of the hon. Members for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) about the Government’s proposals.

Amendment 70 seeks only to allow local people to determine their priorities for the spending of capital moneys. As I said, the new politics and the new Government were supposed to be about localism, but at one of the very first hurdles they have come to, they are clearly failing that test.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair]

Things have now been clarified, and I would like to move on to amendment 71.

[Vernon Coaker]

I beg to move amendment 71, page 3, line 7, at end add—

‘(7) Before making any payments under an Academy agreement the Secretary of State shall make an assessment of the extent of centrally-provided SEN provisions that, were the school to operate as a maintained school—

(a) would be required by a school with the likely pupil profile of the proposed additional school, or

(b) is currently called upon by the maintained school which is converting to Academy status.

(8) Before making any payments under an Academy agreement the Secretary of State shall make an assessment of the likely disruption to centrally-provided SEN services that might result from equivalent reductions in local authority budgets.

(9) Payments made under an Academy agreement must reflect the assessment made according to subsections (7) and (8).’.

We come to another important amendment. However, before I start, I should like to welcome the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) to his new post. He has just been allocated a ministerial post in the Department for Education, as the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning. I congratulate him on that appointment, which I gather will involve shared ministerial responsibilities with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I very much welcome his appointment to that position, and I know that he will work with diligence and determination. He and I have known each other for a long time. We go back over a number of years, in our various roles in Nottinghamshire, so I sincerely hope that he does well. I wish him the best and wish him good luck with things over the next few months, years or whatever it turns out to be. [Interruption.] Well, maybe not decades—I certainly will not be here if it is, but that is another story.

I have tried to be conciliatory and reasonable in the debates on amendments that we have had so far in this Committee stage on the Floor of the House. The debate, on a whole series of issues, has so far been of a high standard, with contributions by Members from all parts of the House, as is appropriate for the Committee stage, which in many respects is different from the full debates that we often have on motions. The Committee stage is about trying to ascertain what the real meanings of clauses are and what the consequences of different parts of the Bill will be, and to see whether we can adapt, change and improve the legislation, or at least the guidance that goes alongside it.

Nowhere is that more important than in special educational needs. I do not doubt for one minute that Members from all parts of the Committee will have at the front of their minds how we can ensure that the provision that we make for special educational needs—particularly through the changed arrangements, with the academy model proposed in the Bill—protects those with special educational needs. Again to be reasonable, we also know that the Government made some amendments in the House of Lords that significantly improved the Bill. If I might say so, those changes—made as a consequence of the debate and discussion in the other place—have made a significant difference to the Bill, a point that is also worth putting on record.

The point of amendment 71 is to try to understand in more detail the consequences for special educational needs provision of the changed arrangements for schools, with more schools opting out, becoming academies—or free schools—and being independent of local authorities. We want to know what that will mean for the provision of services for those young people who we would all want to ensure received the quality of education and support that we would want them to receive.

There is no doubt—I am sure that this would be true whatever the challenges that existed—that we can all point to the quite exceptional services provided by local authorities to support young people with special educational needs, either in school or through their families. Often, the important thing is not just the support that the child receives in the school, but the support that the family receive to support their child in that school. Clearly, the local authority’s role in that is crucial. I am sure that we can point to many excellent examples, but I know that we could all identify instances where things have not worked out so well, and where a local authority has not provided the standard of service that we would want. Overall, however, the role of the local authority in co-ordinating support is extremely important.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there are far too many young people across the country who still have not even gone through the assessment process with their local authority and been identified as having special educational needs?

[Vernon Coaker]

That is a very good point. I mentioned yesterday that this is not simply a question of young people being assessed by a local authority and not receiving a statement, even though most people think that they should have received one. I have no professional expertise in that area, however.

To be fair to the Government, the inclusion in clause 2 of proposed new subsection 8A, which deals with low incidence special needs, is important and significant. We are talking not only about the young people who everyone would expect to have statements for their special needs, and for the first time the Government have put into the legislation the term

“low incidence special educational needs or disabilities”.

That represents a significant improvement to the Bill. I know from my own experience that young people with low incidence special needs often do not receive the support that they deserve, and neither do their families. They often do not receive the kind of educational or social support that they need.

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Vernon Coaker]

I will in a moment.

Proposed new subsection 8A is very well intentioned, but clause 2(6) also states that the Secretary of State may intervene when

“a local authority fails to secure satisfactory provision for pupils with low incidence special educational needs or disabilities”.

What does that actually mean? It is all very well to put that proposal into the Bill, but how will it be funded, organised and co-ordinated? How are we going to decide in a meaningful way what

“low incidence special educational needs or disabilities”

means? This is a huge problem. I am not criticising the Government; I think the inclusion of those words is very good. I would rather have the problem of trying to identify what they mean than not have them in the Bill, which would risk people not having those needs met.

The inclusion of the provision raises the serious question of how it is to be funded. Where will the funding come from? How much is it expected to be? Who will co-ordinate the arrangements if, instead of the local authority, we have lots of independent academies, special schools and free schools? How is this part of the Bill going to be achieved?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

We discussed special schools and the number of special school places yesterday, but let me say this. I approve of the policy objective—which has been shared across the House for a number of years—that, when appropriate and given the proper safeguards in regard to such matters as parental choice, we should include as many young people as possible in mainstream education. It is clear that, if that objective is implemented, the number of special school places will fall. A more difficult question is whether we are all certain that, in every single case, a young person has been placed in mainstream education rather than being given the opportunity of going to a special school, and I think that the answer to that is probably no.

The hon. Lady is right to suggest that this raises questions about special schools and about inclusion. I think that the policy of inclusion is right, but that does not mean we should not ensure that the process by which it is decided where a child should be educated is a matter for discussion and agreement, involving the child’s parents, rather than diktat.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr John Hayes)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome. As he says, we go back a long way, and as he knows, I have a great deal of respect for him.

We will discuss inclusion when I have a chance to speak at greater length. As I know that, rightly, you will not allow me to do that now, Mr Caton, let me simply say that the statementing process is critical to all this. A statement must be clear about the detail of needs, because the specificity of its analysis bears a direct relationship to the extent to which we can quantify and deal with those needs. Historically the standard has not been good enough, but the Government will consider it carefully in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

[Vernon Coaker]

That is a fair comment, like the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) about the number of special schools, special school places and statements in process. All that needs to be kept under review.

The Minister should bear in mind—he may wish to discuss this when he winds up the debate—that new paragraph 8A and subparagraph (6) do not necessarily concern young people for whom a statement would be thought appropriate. They concern young people with low incidence special educational needs, which can involve a multiplicity of conditions and which will, I think, prove difficult to define. Certainly the criteria to be employed in the making of a judgment will be a matter for considerable debate. However, as I have said, I would rather have a debate about the meaning of the subsection than see it excluded from the Bill. It constitutes a good and brave step forward. However, as my amendment makes clear, it also raises questions about local authority co-ordination and funding.

[Mr Hayes]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. My own points are, first, that that should not be used as an excuse for not statementing children who would benefit from a statement for the reasons that I gave earlier, and secondly, that we should be as determined to help children with low incidence special educational needs as we are to help those facing more profound challenges. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, we need to be clear about the mechanisms that will be required, but I do not consider that to be incompatible with any of the provisions in the Bill.

[Vernon Coaker]

I do not disagree with the Minister, but I think we would all agree that statementing has not always taken place when it should have. It is always necessary to examine the process and see how it can be improved. Ultimately, irrespective of the severity of a child’s need, we must ensure that that need is met. For some that will require through statements, for some it will require special school education, and for some it will require inclusion in mainstream schools. The inclusion in mainstream education of as many young people as appropriate—which was supported by the last Government and the last Conservative Government and, I believe, by the present Government—is absolutely right, as long as it does not cause us to conclude that it must take place irrespective of the wishes of parents or the needs of the young people themselves.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. I entirely agree about the fallacy that will be perpetuated if the Bill leaves the House without a clear definition of low incidence special educational needs. The lack of clarity has been used as an excuse all along, which is why so many children have not received proper assessments or statements. It has been too easy to find a way around the wording, because it has been so vague. If the Bill leaves the House without a refinement of that definition, the lack of clarity will once more be used as an excuse, and those who are on the edge or the cusp of special educational needs will once more be left adrift. That will be the case not only during the first stage of their education, but throughout their educational career. I am with the hon. Gentleman 100 per cent. in trying to get clarification, but does he agree that it would be wrong for the Bill to leave the House without such clarification being written into it?

[Vernon Coaker]

I very much agree and it is important, given that the Government will not amend the Bill, for the Minister to read into the record the criterion that will be used to assess whether a young person has low incidence special needs. I say this as someone who thinks that it is very brave of the Government to propose the measure. But as the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) said, if there is no defining criterion, we will have a well-intentioned measure, but what will it mean? That is extremely important.

There was a big discussion in the House of Lords and the measure was included in the Bill. A large number of Lords spoke about it and said that it was important. The Government accepted that but the situation has moved on. The hon. Member for Portsmouth South is right; for a local authority or school to be obliged to support a young person with low incidence special needs, do they need a statement? If not, there is no legal obligation—I am not an expert on these laws—on the school or authority to provide anything for that child. Yet everybody, including the Government—they have included it in the clause—thinks that there are young people with low incidence special needs who need additional support that they are not getting through the system.

This is a real problem for the Government to address; it is crucial. I am not trying to be smart or trying to attack; I am just saying that if we want to improve the Bill and we want to make a difference to those with low incidence special needs, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth South said, we have to try to define that, at the very least by the Minister reading it into the record.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I wanted to add to the points about low incidence special needs, as there are other reasons why it is important to spell out the protection of services provided centrally. In those councils where the cancellation of centrally provided services has taken place on the assumption that schools would buy services back in, there has been a failure to take up that buy-back option, which affects SEN in particular but also other services. That is an important reason why we need that protection to be in the Bill. If not, as my hon. Friend says, Ministers need to take the matter on board so that there is robust protection for centrally provided services. Otherwise, those services will disappear.

[Vernon Coaker]

I agree with my hon. Friend who re-emphasises my point. This is part of the tension within the Bill; independence is to be given to schools. Some may agree with that; we have difficulties with the haste with which it is being done. But what mechanism is there to ensure that local authorities provide for these young people in a way that gives them the support they need?

[Mr Hayes]

Following the Education Act 1993, we have had codes of practice for SEN whose provisions are important in ensuring good practice. In the halcyon days when I was shadow Schools Minister, I was able to debate those codes of practice and the Government listened to some of the Opposition’s arguments. That is one important aspect of protecting SEN students and their parents. But also if the Secretary of State were unhappy with the provision, he retains the powers to intervene.

[Vernon Coaker]

That is true, and it is stated in the Bill that where a local authority fails to secure satisfactory provision the Secretary of State may intervene and make “alternative arrangements”. The problem is what does “low incidence special educational needs or disabilities” mean? How will a local authority or a school—an academy or special school—know whether they are meeting the expectations of the Secretary of State without a definition of what that actually is? Without that, the response will just be subjective, with people saying, “That isn’t very good” or “That isn’t working,” which is clearly unacceptable.

The Minister might not be able to do this today, but it is extremely important that at some point—even late on Monday—something is read into the record that defines what that term means. Other Members may disagree, but it is my view that for that to be done otherwise through guidance or a letter will not be sufficient. The force of Parliament needs to be behind some definition and criteria for the term, over and above its mere mention in the Bill and, even with the best intentions, something in a code of practice. I cannot say how important that is to making this bit of the Bill work.

[Robert Flello]

What I say will to some extent reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). For a host of reasons, not the least of them financial, local authorities will already decide how well to staff the team who go out and make the assessments, and if there is any wriggle room whatever they will wriggle: they will avoid putting resources into that team or department. It is therefore crucial for the future of some of the most vulnerable children in this country that we get something on the record today so that local authorities—of whatever colour—cannot wriggle out of their responsibilities.

[Vernon Coaker]

That is right, and my hon. Friend’s comments highlight that we are not trying to make a party political point. We want to ensure that that is the case for local authorities of all political colours and types; that is fundamental and crucial. As I have said, however, I accept that it may not be possible to do this today, as the lawyers will, no doubt, need to check it.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I think that I share some of the shadow Minister’s concerns. Low incidence is not about the acuteness of the need; it is about the fact that it is pretty rare. One of the risks of having funds devolved to the individual academies is that they may see this rare condition only once every five years, when suddenly a pupil turns up out of the blue with that need. That is why there is an issue about the difference between where the resource lies and who has the incentive to deliver the service. We need reassurance as to how we will have the system and incentives in place to ensure that, without the Secretary of State having to intervene at a local authority level to assess the whole authority’s failing, the needs of the parents and child concerned are met and there is not a big fuss in doing that.

[Vernon Coaker]

I totally agree, and the hon. Gentleman makes his point very well. However, I am unclear about the legislative mechanism that we will use to try to stop bad situations arising. I cannot be sure what it will be without there being something either in the Bill or, perhaps, in statutory guidance.

[Mr Hayes]

Such is the silky charm of the hon. Gentleman and the persuasiveness of his argument that even in these few minutes he has already extracted the following from me. He is right that that needs to be set out clearly on the record. He is absolutely right about the code of practice in respect of SEN reflecting the fact that we now have reference to low incidence special needs in the Bill, as he has acknowledged, and about the funding agreement that was put in place for an academy reflecting not only the obligations in the Education Act 1996 but that code of practice. I make that commitment today, and he can claim that in this useful debate he has encouraged me to that end—although it may be an end that would have been reached in any case in my discussions with my fellow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), who, of course, takes the lead in these matters. However, I would not want in any way to understate the hon. Gentleman’s contribution to that process.

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the Minister for that. Perhaps he could clarify in his winding up exactly what he meant. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I am not trying to be rude. Is he saying that an existing code of practice is to be amended? If he is saying that, I gently say, again, that that illustrates one of the problems with the Bill, because most of us would like to see what amendment he is proposing to the code of practice.

There is a huge debate—the Chair of the Select Committee mentioned this—about what the term means. Does it mean a rare condition? This debate is not only about low incidence SEN, because the Bill also refers to low incidence disabilities. All I am saying is that this is a difficult area.

[Mr Hayes]

I complimented the hon. Gentleman—it was not flattery—but I do not want him to get too insistent as a result. I will, however, give him the assurance that I will deal with this matter when I sum up and that we are absolutely clear that the code of practice is salient. I do not want to tease him too much, but he will know that when he was the Minister, and when his predecessors were Ministers, the codes of practice were always published separately and debated in this House separately—indeed he and I have both participated in such debates. Of course I will speak about this again when I sum up.

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the Minister for that. We will all wait to see what is said in the wind-up, because we are all motivated by a desire to see how we can make a brave amendment in the Lords a reality. We must not create something that is extremely difficult for ourselves. For too long, many of us, from across the country, have seen special educational needs not met, including those of people with profound difficulties. If we are making provision in respect of low incidence needs, we need to address how we ensure that we meet them.

[Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

We seem to be having an outbreak of cordial co-operation in the Committee. Paragraph 8A is an improvement on where we were at the beginning of the Bill’s proceedings, and it deals with low incidence SEN and disabilities. Has the hon. Gentleman considered whether it ought also to include looked-after children, to ensure that the provision of services for them in any academy means that they are getting the expenditure and support that they need?

[Vernon Coaker]

That is an extremely interesting and good point. As I say, the problem is that there are a number of points like that. That one would be worth testing with an amendment to see where it is catered for in the Bill or, if the Bill does not cater for it, where it is catered for in any document relating to the Bill. For example, I think I am right in saying that the new model funding agreement does not contain a requirement for there to be a teacher responsible for children in care, whereas the old funding agreement did contain one. If I have got that wrong, I will correct it. All sorts of little changes sometimes take place in the documents, letters and guidance that go along with such Bills. The changes are sometimes not debated to the extent that they need to be and they then turn out to be crucial. Even Ministers get to the point where they try to do something and are then told, “You can’t do that because section (c) on page 48 of the guidance that you passed says you cannot.” They find that a little change that they had not properly noticed, which may have been implemented with good intent, has unintended consequences.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) was right to make the point that he did. One of the organisations that I shall refer to in a minute has made representations to us about how we ensure that the needs of children in care and of children with other associated needs are met within the new academy model arrangements that the Bill proposes. All sorts of questions like this arise, particularly if we strip out, as the Bill does in essence, the role of the local authority and devolve the funding to individual school. One unanswered question goes to the heart of the Bill: what is the co-ordinating mechanism at a local level to try to ensure that some of these things happen? That is not in place, and that is a real problem.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

On a slightly different track, is the shadow Minister aware of evidence that, despite the vast increase in the number of learning support assistants, the more time children with special educational needs spend with learning support assistants and the less time they spend with a teacher, the worse is their learning experience? One of the dangers of a centrally co-ordinated system is that schools that challenge a child’s being taken off for special support might deprive that child of being in the classroom with the teacher and, perhaps, having a better opportunity to learn. We must get the balance right between ensuring provision and not having a monolithic delivery that stops innovation, particularly for the most vulnerable in our society who are too often failed.

[Vernon Coaker]

I do not disagree with that. Again, the freedom for a school to determine the appropriate mix between teachers, teaching assistants and other staff as well as the appropriate delivery method is a matter for the school. The Chair of the Select Committee is right to say that. However, it does not negate the fact—I think he was making this point, too—that alongside that there is a need for some sort of co-ordinating mechanism. He is quite right that there is a need for balance and there will be debate and discussion about where that balance should be and where the line should be drawn. However, part of the problem is that, as I said yesterday, this is a bit of a leap in the dark. We are almost being asked to take a leap in the dark and being told, “Don’t worry, it will be okay.” There are some fundamental questions that Ministers have been unable to answer, even though they have the best of intentions, because the Bill is permissive and just says, “Well, we’ll allow this to happen but we are not quite sure where it will go.”

A number of concerns were raised by different organisations. We have heard concerns from the Adolescent and Children’s Trust about children in care and about how these services will be met. It is seeking assurances about looked-after children and young people in academies, and it says that it wants recognition from the Government that there is a need for a local agency to assess need and to plan and cost education support services and that necessary resources must be not only identified but ring-fenced.

The Association of Educational Psychologists has also written to us, extremely concerned about some of the changes to local education funding and about how we can ensure the protection of educational psychologists if all the money goes to the schools. The National Autistic Society has made many of the same points about protecting young people in schools. TreeHouse, another charity for autism, is concerned about what it will mean if funds and resources are devolved to individual schools.

Then we come to funding. The Local Government Association states in its briefing, which all Members will have received, that

“90% of funding for schools goes, via the local authority, directly to schools with the remainder allocated back to schools following consultation with schools through the local Schools Forum…Around 20% of this ‘central spending’ goes to private, voluntary or independent nurseries, and the majority of the rest (60%) is used to provide services for pupils with special educational needs, and those who are excluded from mainstream education…In the debate around the advantages to schools of seeking academy status much has been made of the advantage to schools of retaining this 10% of ‘central spending’. However, it is important to understand that this is funding to meet the need of the pupils with the greatest needs. It is crucial that this funding is distributed in a way that does not unfairly benefit academies over maintained schools.”

I do not know whether hon. Members have had a chance to look at the Government’s impact assessment, but tucked away, where it states that local authorities will face a reduction in the moneys that they receive for the provision of such services as it will be distributed to schools, it states the assumption that the savings to local authorities in administration costs will be negligible. So, although they will have fewer resources to provide for special educational needs in an area, they will not make any savings from an administrative point of view either.

It is also totally unclear exactly how all this will be worked out. What will a school that chooses to become an academy receive? I know there is a ready reckoner on the Department’s website, but will the Minister explain how it works? [Interruption.] That was not done yesterday: we asked, but there was no time to do it, so I am asking again today because I think we would all like to know how the ready reckoner works so that schools can understand what they will receive.

What proportion of the money that those schools receive would have gone to local authorities to provide, centrally, services for children with special educational needs? What proportion of the additional money they receive will go to schools and will not be retained centrally by local authorities? How will that be worked out given that every school that is fast-tracked to academy status is outstanding and has, as the Centre for Economic Performance has said, lower numbers of pupils with SEN?

How will schools that have a lower incidence of SEN and that apply to become academies be funded? Will it be on a per pupil basis or a needs basis? If schools are funded on a per pupil basis rather than on a needs basis, big schools with a low incidence of SEN that convert to academies will receive exceptionally high amounts of money that would previously have been retained centrally to provide SEN services to the pupils and children across the local education area who needed them. Why did The Times publish an article on 12 June saying that there was considerable confusion among local authorities and schools about how much money schools would receive? Why are some local authorities saying that when they add together all the amounts that the ready reckoner comes up with as being distributed to schools on the basis of centrally provided services the total is sometimes more than they receive? We need some explanation from the Minister about that.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

Are not the SEN requirements on the new academies more stringent than those for the academies that were opened under the previous Government?

[Vernon Coaker]

The hon. Lady will know that I praised the Government at the beginning of my speech for making some amendments in the House of Lords. The amendment that applied measures in the Education Act 1996 to academies was a good one, as were the amendments that introduced paragraph 8A and subsection (6). I shall not argue with her about that.

[Elizabeth Truss]

Is not the hon. Gentleman essentially saying that the previous arrangements worked for the existing academies and that the new arrangements are even better?

[Vernon Coaker]

I am saying that the existing state of play is not good enough and that the amendment that was made in the House of Lords to apply the 1996 Act to academies was a good one. We are debating the further changes that the Bill will make to delegate funding straight to schools rather than via local authorities—money that would have been retained centrally to provide services. Government Members—not only Front Benchers, but Members such as the hon. Lady—need to explain how SEN services that are currently provided centrally will be protected if all that money is delegated out to schools. How will that work? The point of this Committee is to understand the Government’s thinking about how that will happen.

[Robert Flello]

rose—

[Vernon Coaker]

Before I give way, let me say what we did yesterday, very successfully. I gave way a lot, and nobody complained at the end that we did not get anywhere, so I will keep giving way, if it means that nobody complains.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

I agree with that, and it goes to the heart of the debate. To be fair, that is the point that the Chair of the Education Committee made about where we draw the line. Where do we draw the line between a school innovating, and a school having the ability to use its budget to provide for children with SEN?

I know that this is not being suggested, but we would not want the Secretary of State to make thousands of individual decisions about the right mix of teachers and teaching assistants, the curriculum, and so on; that would be a matter for the individual school. However, my hon. Friend is quite right: alongside that consideration, where do we draw the line to ensure that there is money for the central provision of services—local authority provision—so that we can ensure that the support that is sometimes needed is available? That is a difficult balance. The point of this Committee is to try to test the Government’s thinking on where they draw the line, and on what the funding amounts are. At the moment, we have a ready reckoner, but nowhere in the impact assessment, or anywhere, do the Government lay out exactly what they think the cost will be.

[Mr Hayes]

It is absolutely right that the central provision that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) mentioned will continue, but the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) should not underestimate the capacity of academies to purchase that provision. He will know that that already occurs; I think that it happens in Walsall, for example. The peripatetic services that a school will require can be purchased, and I do not underestimate their calibre and their appeal to academies. I do not think that he does either, does he?

[Vernon Coaker]

I am not trying to make the point that there are not perfectly reasonable people in academies, or in schools that may become academies, who would be able to purchase services. I do not disagree on that, but it does not answer the questions. Where do we draw the line between what we provide individually for schools, so that they have the freedom to innovate and take forward their provision for SEN, and what should be centrally provided? What is the estimated cost of all that? Is it all funded, particularly given that the Government have now included low incidence special needs and low incidence disabilities? Where is the extra money for that, and how much will it cost? How will it be co-ordinated? What does it actually mean? What are the criteria? How does that relate to the statementing process? The problem for the Government is that that has not been thought through.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

The shadow Minister seems to be making a strong argument for reintroducing special schools, which is the opposite of the policy of the previous Government.

[Vernon Coaker]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken that tone, because that was not the policy intention of the last Government or the previous Conservative Government. I am sorry to bore people who have sat through Committee proceedings for the past day and a half, because I have said this twice, but the policy objective—he may disagree with this—was not to close special schools. It was to ensure that people had the choice of being included in mainstream schools, if that was appropriate for them. That was the policy of the previous Conservative Government in the ’90s, as was absolutely right, and of the Labour Government until 2010, as was also absolutely right. I hope that it will be the policy of this Government.

Of course, that will mean that the number of special school places will sometimes go up, and sometimes go down. As long as that is done on the basis of having determined what is in the interests of the child, it should not matter, because it is the policy objective that is important. I tell the hon. Gentleman this: if there are 10,000 places in special schools—I do not know how many there are—and it was properly, and with parental agreement, felt that 3,000 of those 10,000 places should be in mainstream schools, I would be happy to stand at this Dispatch Box and say, “I support the reduction of special school places from 10,000 to 7,000,” but that is on the basis of need and individual choice, not on the basis of ideological diktat.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he was also generous yesterday. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), he acknowledged and paid tribute to the fact that the Government have strengthened the law so that academies will have the same SEN obligations as maintained schools. Will he also pay tribute to how the new model funding agreement also strengthens provision? It provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct academies to comply with any SEN obligations that were not in the previous funding agreements.

[Vernon Coaker]

I tried to make that point at the beginning; otherwise, we would not make any progress. I said that there had been improvements to the Bill and that there would have been improvements in some of the documentation associated with academies. That does not change the fact that, when it comes down to it, the Government are not clear on what the funding arrangements will be, how they will work and the correct balance between centrally provided services and the academies.

As the Chair of the Education Committee asked, where do we draw the line and what is the balance between those issues? The Government have not given us any definition of what they mean by

“low incidence special educational needs or disabilities.”

In Committee, we have to tease out those sorts of issues from the Government, to ensure that the legislation that we pass in this Parliament is as robust and effective as it can be.

[Mr Ward]

May I introduce one other aspect? The discussion is seemingly taking place on the basis that there is an abundant supply of learning support services and professionals. That is simply not the case. In many cases, the authority has to carry out a difficult rationing role. A good example is educational psychologists, of whom there is not an abundant supply. It is worrying that that rationing process, which most local authorities treat in a fair way, may now face a situation in which schools can simply buy in precious resources to the detriment of other schools in the district.

[Vernon Coaker]

That is right. The issue is not only the quantity of support services for children with special educational needs, but their quality. There is also the issue of the effectiveness of some interventions. This big area of debate is no doubt outside the scope of what we are discussing at the moment, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the provision of quality.

[Bill Esterson]

Whether we are talking about SEN provision, looked-after children, educational psychologists, behavioural support or other issues, what concerns me and many other Members is how we guarantee that the support will be there when it is needed, whether at school or centrally. There is also the matter of whether that can be legislated for or not. The Minister was beginning to drive at that point in his last intervention. That is what I want to hear about and I am sure that other Members are thinking the same thing.

[Vernon Coaker]

I agree with my hon. Friend; no doubt the Minister will try to pick up that issue in his remarks.

How will special educational needs be monitored? What is the role of the Young People’s Learning Agency? How will schools get help? How effective is the YPLA in respect of the quality of local, centrally provided services? What experience and expertise does the agency have? How will we ensure that all these things are effectively fulfilled? How much will it all cost? Who will be responsible for intervening if a school is not offering effective provision? How will the Secretary of State know that something is not being done? Who would make the decision about any of these failures? There is a huge raft of questions that I hope the Minister can begin to address.

Our amendment is simple. It tries to ensure that a decision is made about the effect on the provision of centrally provided services of decisions about what money should go to individual schools. At the heart of that is the need for better information from the Government about where the balance should be. The amendment seeks to clarify the situation by saying that we must retain sufficient resources at a central level within the local authority to provide the necessary level of support and help for children with special educational needs, notwithstanding that the Bill will delegate large sums to them. What will be the impact of that? It is a leap in the dark—we simply do not know. Frankly, the Government have not provided the level of detail that the Committee requires because they have not had time to do so.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

A man may not make a maiden speech twice. Due to a misunderstanding in Westminster Hall, I appear to have lost my maidenhood, so I apologise to the House. I would like to speak about amendment 71, but very briefly, with your permission, Mr Caton, I would like first to pay tribute to my predecessor, David Maclean of Penrith and The Border, and then bring my remarks back to this important amendment.

In Westminster Hall, I was unable to recognise the extraordinary service that David Maclean paid to this House over 27 years. I thought that I was stepping into big shoes, but I had no idea how large. I remember climbing up a snowdrift in December last year feeling like Scott of the Antarctic reaching an isolated farmstead to find that David Maclean, like Amundsen, had already been there before me, and repeatedly. As I have moved around over the past few weeks, I have seen the incredible care that he paid to his constituents. Every time I pick up a sheaf of documents, I can see that he has written no fewer than 11 letters of astonishing energy and specificity. During the debate over the past two days, I have often heard the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) ask people to answer the question. On the basis of the letters that I have seen, Mr Maclean answered the question repeatedly, and with vigour and honour. When asked, for example, about windmills, he did not simply say, like an ex-civil servant such as myself, “On the one hand, but then on the other,” but instead attacked the technology and the proposal and ensured that people organised as a social committee to oppose it.

Let me conclude on the subject of my predecessor by saying that his greatest moment was during the foot and mouth crisis, when, with his staff, which he and I would call a cromach, in his hand, he moved across our landscape, denuded of livestock, with funeral pyres burning on the border, and defended his constituency—the ancient constituency of the Western March, that ancient mediaeval frontier—like a warden of the Western March.

In relation to amendment 71, I have been charmed by the reasonableness of the hon. Member for Gedling. I entirely agree with him about the importance of special educational needs provision; I have personal reasons to do so. I agree also about some of the dangers that he has mentioned, such as the potential confusion between funding arrangements and the responsibilities defined within the Bill. He and the bodies that he cited are absolutely right to be concerned about special educational needs provision. I am no expert on the subject, so these comments are meant respectfully to him.

As I say, I am not an expert on education, nor am I a lawyer, but it seems to me, as the hon. Gentleman has already accepted, that many of the things for which he is pressing have already happened under clause 1(8)(a). Some of this—again, I am not a lawyer—seems declaratory in nature rather than necessary. The focus on recognition of the condition and the right of appeal is central, but with respect I would say that there is some confusion about the amendment, and that it would not achieve the purposes that he wishes. He has talked at immense length about his concerns over funding, quality, and the definition of low incidence special educational needs. Amendment 71, to my non-lawyerly eye, would not achieve any of those objectives.

In fact, if one listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, one heard him focus repeatedly on the word “mechanism”. He is very interested in process, and on that we have a philosophical disagreement. Instead of beginning from where we are and what academies are actually doing, and accepting that the Bill will improve rather than decrease the performance of academies in relation to special educational needs, he is obsessed with central processes. He seems to believe that local authorities are the ideal mechanism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) for his excellent maiden speech. I am from the north and I know his beautiful constituency extraordinarily well. I also know David Maclean, who was a fantastic MP, and I pay tribute to him, too. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), whose constituency I know slightly less well, although I think that it is somewhere near where “Dad’s Army” used to be filmed.

One thing that I have picked up from this debate is that Members on both sides are concerned about special educational needs. The hon. Member for Gelding, the shadow Minister, made that clear. [Laughter.]

[Vernon Coaker]

On a point of order, Mr Evans. Is there any way of sending out a notice that would enable hon. Members to get right the name of my constituency, which is Gedling? Otherwise, as I keep saying, I am going to have to change my voice.

[Neil Carmichael]

I am sorry about that. I am deaf in my left ear, and I always assume that that is some excuse. Very many apologies. I am from Stroud, and that sometimes gets mispronounced, although not as significantly as the hon. Gentleman’s constituency can be.

Amendment 71 has a couple of problems. Funnily enough, the shadow Minister—I shall not make my mistake again—emphasised that. It is too much about assessment rather than provision. Assessing things raises the question of how long it will take and what the implications are. The problem with the amendment is that it will delay the arrival of academies. I believe that a step is being taken in the direction of improving special educational needs provision, and that is one of the points that I want to make. We need to talk a little about history.

--- Later in debate ---

On that basis I assume that because we have been so reasonable and generous, the hon. Gentleman will rush to his feet in a moment and beg to ask leave to withdraw his amendment.

[Vernon Coaker]

I agree very much with the Minister that this has been an excellent, high-quality debate. There were many contributions, and may I begin by apologising to the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) for not being present for his maiden speech? I understand, however, that it was excellent, and I am sure he will be a worthy replacement for a friend of ours, Angela Smith. I wish him well in Parliament, and we look forward to hearing further contributions from him.

I was not quite sure whether the contribution of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) was a second maiden speech or a maiden, but although he did not agree with me, I still thought it was a reasonable speech, if that makes sense. [Interruption.] No, I say in all sincerity that it was a good speech. Tribute was paid to his predecessor, David Maclean, by the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), and we all had great admiration for the way in which he battled against some of the difficulties he faced. I am sure the new hon. Member for Penrith and The Border will be a worthy addition to the House and I wish him well.

I want to pay tribute to some of the other speeches made, particularly that by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass). Many Members have paid tribute to her contribution. Her speech was not only very well informed, but very moving. The power of the stories that Members can bring to the House from our experience as professionals outside it makes a huge difference, and there was great credibility in what she said and we all learned from her remarks. I am sure we will continue to benefit from her contributions as she pursues her parliamentary career. I also thank the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) for his generous remarks about my approach and for the conversations we have had about many of the matters we have been discussing today.

I am also very grateful to the Minister for his reply. It is clear that the Government are thinking of making a number of significant changes—I do not want to use the word “concessions” as that makes it sound as if there was a battle—on the issue under discussion as a consequence not only of this debate, but of contributions outside the Chamber. I have to say that some of the concessions—the changes—that are now being made ought to have been made before. I am not trying to be churlish; I am saying that because these are such important matters. As the Chair of the Select Committee said, the evidence base for the Bill—the impact assessment and the equalities impact assessment—really is not good enough, given the Bill’s importance. These are essential documents that go alongside a Government Bill. I say to the Minister and his colleagues that they are extremely important documents because they are the evidence base on which Government legislation is supposed to be based. The Chair of the Select Committee was harsher than I was, but I must say that those documents did leave quite a bit to be desired.

We are all pleased to hear about the Green Paper, the welcome review of SEN funding for academies, and the Minister’s commitment to examine the role of local authorities and to ensure that their role is properly recognised in the system as things progress. There was also a specific recognition of one of the points raised. I am not saying that this happened because of the point I raised, but I did say that the model funding agreement that had been published did not contain a requirement for a teacher in the academies to be responsible for children in care, and the Minister responded by saying that that will be changed. That, too, is very welcome.

It would be churlish of me not to say that significant change has been made as we have progressed through our consideration of the Bill, and that is very welcome. The amendment seeks to push the Government to recognise that important problems remain in how this structure has been set up. The definition of low incidence SEN and low incidence disability is fundamental to the Bill, but we are passing a piece of legislation that contains no definition of that.

As Members from across the House have said, that is a recipe for confusion, litigation and lawyers, because how is a local authority, an academy or whoever supposed to know whether they are meeting the requirements of the legislation, given that we currently have no criteria for determining that? I know that the Minister has given a commitment for this to be contained in codes of practice and in other places. In the spirit of trying to be helpful, may I say that it is essential that that kind of clarity is provided in respect of legislation, particularly with something that is such a key part of the Bill? I know that he will take that on board and take it forward.

The Minister has tried to address the other aspect of what our amendment was trying to ensure, but confusion remains as to what the funding will mean for individual schools and what it will mean for the amount of funding that is left for local authorities in terms of that central provision, which will be essential. Confusion also remains about the co-ordinating role in order to ensure that all of our young people get the support that they need. How the Secretary of State is supposed to do that from the centre right down to school level is a real problem, given that the Young People’s Learning Agency is supposed to be the vehicle by which academies are held to account. The YPLA is a new body, and it has no experience of dealing with special needs or of this provision. So to rely upon it as the vehicle or body that will try to ensure that the Secretary of State is informed about whether an academy is appropriately using the money that it gets to support children with SEN is simply a wish rather than something that the Government have evidence to demonstrate will actually work.

This has been a hugely important debate, and the Government have made some significant concessions. It is a shame that we cannot amend the Bill to give it the legislative and statutory force necessary to give all of us the reassurance that we need. However, given the Minister’s concessions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 7

Transfer of school surpluses

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 61, page 5, line 22, leave out from ‘proprietor’ to end of line 23 and insert ‘to appeal to a Local Commissioner’.