Academies Bill [Lords]
Debate between Lord Coaker and Mike Hancock(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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..
Academies Bill [Lords]
Debate between Lord Coaker and Mike Hancock(13 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
Vernon Coaker
I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies).
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?
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.
Academies Bill [Lords]
Debate between Lord Coaker and Mike Hancock(13 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vernon Coaker
I apologise to you, Mr Evans and to the Committee. I was trying to answer the hon. Gentleman fully, but perhaps my reply was too full.
The Local Government Association, along with many charities, says that a provision that academies must comply with the admissions code should be in the Bill, hence proposed amendment 23.
Amendment 14 would effectively prevent grammar schools from becoming academies. We are worried that grammar schools becoming academies will lead to an increase in selection in the academies arena. Will the Minister explain whether it would be possible for a grammar school with 1,000 places that had become an academy to expand to 1,500 or 2,000 places? Will he also explain what, if any, influence in terms of selection a grammar school that had become an academy would have if it were to link up with a weaker school? What effect would its selection policy have on that other school?
Will the Minister also explain what Lord Hill meant when he wrote that the Government intended to allow selective academies to expand where there was a strong case for doing so and where there had been local consultation? It is important that we understand what he meant by that.
On exclusions, amendment 27 seeks to ensure that the current legal framework would apply to the new academies, to the extent that they would have to conform to the existing codes that schools have to conform to at the moment. One piece of evidence from the equalities impact assessment shows that the overall rate of exclusions is higher in academies than in local authority-maintained secondary schools. How does the Minister expect to keep track of that and understand how it is all working? How can we ensure that pupils with special educational needs, and pupils who are less academic or who are difficult, are not excluded from a school simply to preserve the school’s examination standing?
In annex D, we can see that changes have been made to the model funding agreement. Paragraph 3 used to state:
“Subject to the exceptions in paragraph 4, the Academy Trust shall ensure that in carrying out their functions the Principal, the Governing Body and the Independent Appeal Panel (established in accordance with paragraph 5) have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance on exclusions, as if the Academy were a maintained school.”
That has been changed to:
“Subject to the exceptions in paragraph 4, the Academy Trust shall ensure that in carrying out their functions the Principal and the Governing Body have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance on exclusions including in relation to any appeals process as if the Academy were a maintained school.”
Can the Minister explain why the independent appeal panel has been removed from the model funding agreement? Or is that of no consequence?
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is quoting the statistics of the exclusion rates in the 200-odd academies set up under Labour. What was his plan to bring those academies back into line? Why were they excluding so many pupils, and what action was his Department planning to take?
Vernon Coaker
The Department was planning to have discussions with all those academies, and with their sponsors, to try to understand why those exclusions figures were as they were, to see what we could do to reduce the numbers, and to accept it as a difficulty. The Bill proposes a massive expansion of academies to include outstanding schools, and they will only be asked—not required—to partner schools that are in difficulty. Given that the Government refuse to put these issues on the face of the Bill, one can only wonder what this will mean for exclusions and admissions. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that they should be included in the Bill, how does he expect them to be monitored and academies to be held to account?
Mr Hancock
I do not have a problem with what is in the Bill because I will be voting against it anyway. However, given all that the hon. Gentleman said the previous Government were doing to encourage schools to be more understanding about exclusions, why did the number of exclusions continue to rise?
Vernon Coaker
As I said, what happens is that a problem is identified and an attempt is made to deal with it. It became apparent that there were a number of exclusions, and I could have stood here and not drawn attention to that, opening myself up to exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman has, correctly, made. The rate of exclusions in academies was too high, and we wanted to do something about it.
It is clear that one way to deal with that issue is to include in the Bill a requirement to conform to measures such as admissions codes and the legal frameworks laid out on exclusions. In doing so, we would give much more legislative clout to achieving the things we want to achieve. I have given examples—the changes to the model funding agreements on admissions and on exclusions—that demonstrate that the Government are saying, “Trust us, we will do all this through the model funding agreement.” Through these amendments, I and my party are saying that we do not believe that that is sufficient and that such a provision needs to be included in the Bill, which is why we tabled these amendments.