Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Teather]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to be proud of the Sure Start children’s centres, which are an excellent programme. That is precisely why the Government have made sure that the money is there in the early intervention grant, and why we have built on that by providing extra money for health visitors, through the Department of Health, and more money for things such as the family-nurse partnerships, which we know work on the ground and are often delivered through children’s centres. I believe that localism is the right way forward. Good local councils are thinking creatively about, for example, how to ensure that they can cluster their centres and merge their back offices, and how to prioritise outcomes for children—it is outcomes that matter.

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

Does my hon. Friend envisage opening up the assets of these underused children’s centres to community groups to expand the big society?

[Sarah Teather]

In some areas, local authorities are very good at making full use of the assets, which are often fantastic buildings, but in other areas they are not as good. I hope that providing the flexible fund will mean that local authorities start to think more creatively about how they can join services together and perhaps provide support for older children. By providing that kind of flexibility we enable local authorities to make the right decisions for their areas.

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Performance)

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The shortness of time available means that I will not have the opportunity to refer to all Members in my summing up of this debate. It has become better humoured as it has progressed and although that is perhaps unusual, I hope that it will continue. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), the Chair of the Select Committee, for his contribution, which made mention of Sir Richard Lambert’s statement that the Government have “failed to articulate” their vision for growth. That was the case before his speech, but I regret that they have failed to articulate their vision for growth again today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) made a particularly valuable contribution, pointing out that £2.8 billion has come out of capital allowances for manufacturing industry and £2.7 billion has gone into the rest of the economy, including a tax cut for bankers. Bankers were mentioned regularly in the debate.

The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) made an interesting contribution, in which he referred to investment and the issue of visas. That continues to be a problem, notwithstanding the efforts that the Secretary of State has made. The important issue of foreign direct investment was also raised. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) made the valuable point about individuals and partnerships that do not pay corporation tax and therefore do not benefit from tax cuts of that nature. We need to examine ways in which those individuals and partnerships can benefit from support. Investment in business is very important indeed, a fact stressed by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) in a valuable contribution. I particularly enjoyed the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who introduced Bill Shankly into the debate. I have to say that the late, great Bill Shankly’s views on economic growth were much more coherent than the Secretary of State’s.

Last week’s growth figures were truly shocking. When Labour left office, growth was increasing and unemployment was falling. The net result of this Tory-led Government’s policies has been to create conditions where the economy has contracted and unemployment is rising. In 2008, the Labour Government faced the most severe world economic crisis since 1929. Their response was to introduce a number of policies to support industry and jobs, and they acted fast. They gave business more time to pay taxes. They introduced an enterprise finance guarantee scheme to assist lending to business, and a car scrappage scheme to support our automotive industry at its most difficult time. They also used Train to Gain to help businesses to invest in training. Not one of those initiatives was opposed at the time by any of the parties now on the Government Benches; on the contrary, the criticism that I received at the Dispatch Box was that our Government were not spending enough money fast enough. So all the tears that we see at the moment do not reflect the position of the parties now on the Government Benches when they were in opposition.

As well as providing effective help fast in the short term, Labour’s active industrial strategy helped to create the right conditions for industry to grow—that growth was the legacy of the Labour Government to this Tory-led Government. We married research with industry to create the right conditions for investment. We got investment from Nissan and Toyota in low-carbon vehicles, and from Clipper in offshore wind. We obtained investment and support for institutions such as the National Composites Centre in aerospace, with companies such as Airbus, AgustaWestland and GKN plc being involved. That response was led by a Business Department that was at the heart of government when it needed to be. Growth took place and the deficit, about which we have heard so much from those on the Government Benches, came in £20 billion less because of the action taken by business and by Government to reduce the crisis that faced this country in 2008.

Let us contrast that with the lack of urgency and complacency of this Government. In their hallowed coalition agreement, they said that they needed “to take urgent action”, but they have not done so. Nine months on, we have no major loan guarantee scheme and no effective proposals to ensure a flow of credit for SMEs. That point has been made across the House and it is about time Government Front Benchers started to listen. The only step that they have taken on finance is to extend the Labour enterprise finance guarantee scheme. We have had no growth White Paper, and the Maoist and chaotic establishment of local enterprise partnerships means that those who should be working to bring jobs to British industry are looking for jobs themselves. The university sector that is so crucial to our long-term future is, after a decade of increased investment, wrestling with the consequences of an 80% cut in its budget.

At a Federation of Small Businesses dinner last night, I was asked, “What has happened to the one-in, one-out rule?” What are the Government doing about it? We have had the soundbite, but when is the policy going to be implemented? That is what businesses are asking me. The Secretary of State was at the dinner last night, so I hope he heard that, too. I was talking to people from the chemical industry yesterday and they told me about the negative impact on business of the Government’s new visa regulations. Similarly, research from the Federation of Master Builders tells us that the VAT increase will cost 7,500 jobs in the construction sector alone. That is the sort of contribution that the Government are making to industry at this time. As the Secretary of State has said today, increased taxes cost more jobs than cuts in expenditure. That is absolutely right, so why did he increase VAT?

To cap it all, responsibility for one of the most successful and important industrial sectors in the United Kingdom—telecommunications—has been transferred out of BIS because of the Secretary of State’s incompetence. This very morning, I was asked by telecoms representatives if the sector will be transferred back to BIS when the Secretary of State leaves. Perhaps he can answer that. There is no clearer symbol of the diminution of the Department than that transfer of responsibility for a major sector of the industrial economy. It is a disgrace and it will have a detrimental effect on British business and British industry as a whole.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Lucas]

No, I will not give way.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is at the margins at the very time when it needs to be at the centre of Government policy—and it loses battles. It has lost a battle with the Department for Communities and Local Government about planning, it has lost a battle with the Home Office over visas and it has lost a battle with the Treasury on banks. It is a Department diminished in influence and it is failing and letting down business. For the sake of British industry it needs to change and it needs to change fast.

Education Maintenance Allowance

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

The Government’s decision to abolish EMA will damage young people’s prospects throughout the country, but in a constituency such as mine in east London, the results will be frankly disastrous. Removing seven eighths of the money and establishing, possibly, a residual discretionary support fund will be no compensation. It will place colleges and schools in the impossible position of allocating resources thinly but fairly among many deserving students.

At present, more than 5,000 students in my local borough of Newham receive EMA—more than two in five of all of our 16 to 19-year-olds. It makes a real difference to them and to their families. Our 16-plus participation rate is up almost 13% since EMA came on-stream, from 81.4% in 2003-04 to 94.1% in 2008-09. Newham sixth-form college is the largest in London, and more than three quarters of students receive EMA. The vast majority are on the full £30 weekly allowance. Students I met reported giving the contribution to their parents for their keep, so let there be no mistake: this money will be sorely missed.

Newham’s average household income is £455 a week. Only three other English local authorities have higher levels of child poverty. Silver spoons are in short supply in Newham. For most of the students at Newham sixth-form college, EMA is not just nice-to-have pocket money but a financial necessity. It helps with the costs of travel, buying books and other course requirements, and contributes to household incomes. EMA is not a bribe, as has been claimed, but a pathway to further and higher education for young people in low-income families. EMA offers a lifeline to many against whom the odds are already stacked. But now, EMA recipients who are halfway through their courses say they do not know how they can carry on when their funding is withdrawn. Others worry about the motivation for younger brothers and sisters to keep attending school and doing their best.

Do we really want a country where young people have to worry about the significant sacrifices that their parents will have to make to allow them to undertake further education? Do we really want young people to have to forgo their lunches a couple of times a week, or walk miles to college because they cannot afford the bus fare? Do we really want them to spend every spare minute they have in part-time work?

Since its creation, EMA has sent a strong signal to teenagers that a positive future is available if they work hard and play by the rules. We can contrast that positive and inclusive message with the hugely discouraging signals we are now sending to our young people: the abolition of EMA alongside the cutting of Aimhigher, the trebling of tuition fees and the ending of the future jobs fund. It is obvious that we are storing up problems for the future, and the Government’s decision to slash the support for young people to stay on in education will be viewed by future generations as a betrayal—a costly mistake—as well as another broken promise.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lyn Brown]

I am sorry, but I promised not to give way.

The Government, and even the Prime Minister earlier today, try to justify the abolition of EMA by relying on a single research study. But as ever with this Government, when it comes to their use of statistics it pays to read the small print. The research that they point to was carried out by the highly reputable National Foundation for Educational Research, but that study was not an evaluation of EMA; it was a much broader project, looking at barriers to learning for all 16 to 19-year-olds. The research sampled only year 11 students—students not in the sixth form, with no experience of the additional costs associated with further education—so the study cannot legitimately bear the conclusion that the Government want to draw from it. The research is an excuse for their decision to abolish EMA, not a reasoned explanation.

As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, other independent studies found that EMA does increase participation in post-16 learning, particularly among young people from families on low incomes. Members do not have to take my word for it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, the Institute for Fiscal Studies—that well-known left-wing organisation!—looked at the Government’s case and found it wanting, stating that it was based on selective assumptions. It concluded that EMA is an effective use of public money. I do not believe that cutting EMA is inevitable in the light of the financial situation. I am not a deficit denier; I simply believe that abolishing EMA is not economically sound. Bankers’ bonuses flourish, yet ordinary young people pay the price. There is no policy justification for the cut. Let there be no mistake: the abolition of EMA is a political choice.

Let me tell those who still think that the allowance is a bribe about Tom Chigbo, a London boy, and the first black president of Cambridge student union. He lives in my constituency. He tells me that he would not have got to Cambridge without EMA: he used it for travel and food and to attend additional lectures and seminars in London, which made his personal statement stand out and gave him something to talk about at interview. Members who will vote in the Government Lobby should remember Tom and the others up and down the country whose future they are blighting and whose potential they are capping.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

Yes, I know that this is an extremely important part of the British car industry; indeed, it is a highly productive and successful one. I have spoken to Mr Reilly about the issue, and I think that this part of the industry has a very good future.

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

T8. Does the Secretary of State agree that although the 50p rate of tax may be necessary in the short term, it will have a detrimental effect on economic growth in the UK in the medium to long term? It scares away foreign investors, acts as a disincentive for home-grown entrepreneurs to start businesses and offers a massive incentive for some of our brightest and best business brains to leave this country and pay less tax elsewhere.

[Vince Cable]

When I was in opposition I spent quite a lot of political energy arguing against a 50p tax rate. However, in the present context we have to understand that the burdens of the very difficult period through which we are passing have to be shared fairly, and that is why the tax remains in place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

There was a cost-benefit analysis under the previous Government of the EMA by the NFER—that is enough initials—which pointed out that it would be more beneficial and would cost less to target funds on the learners who are in the most need.

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

This Government are to increase the compulsory age of education to 18, thereby removing the need to incentivise 16 to 18-year-olds to stay in education. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will increase social mobility if we offer vocational and academic studies?

[Michael Gove]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes an impeccable point. We are committed to raising the participation age, and we have funded the raising of the participation age. The Opposition have not yet explained how they would pay for the maintenance of the EMA or any of their other spending cuts, but I look forward to hearing from hon. Members in the course of the next half hour how they would pay for their promises.

School Sports Funding

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

Did not the Labour Government have a record of selling off playing fields? Any mention of that is a complete own goal for the Opposition.

[Andy Burnham]

What I will enjoy today is educating Conservative Members. When we came into government, we introduced rules on the sale of playing fields, which was to be allowed only if the proceeds from a small patch of the land were to be reinvested in higher quality sports facilities on the same land. The hon. Gentleman should check his facts, because that is what happened.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am reassured by the fact that the New Schools Network has as its chairman the former editor of the Financial Times, who employed the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) before he became such a distinguished Member of Parliament. I am also reassured by the fact that among its advisers are Professor Julian Le Grand, who was an adviser to the former Prime Minister, and Sally Morgan, who was political secretary to the former Prime Minister. Those three distinguished figures, along with many others who support the New Schools Network, seem to be the sort of talented figures whom we should be encouraging to play a bigger role in state education, rather than, as was the case in the Brown years, saying to them that they are not wanted when it comes to improving education for the very poorest.

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

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to reassure all those hon. Members who are anxious about the decline in the standards of education under the previous Government that two steps forward have been taken in the past week. First, we have reversed the policy, which was initiated under the previous Government, whereby marks for spelling, punctuation and grammar were removed from GCSEs. In future, GCSEs, according to Ofqual, will be marked in a way that pays proper attention to the need to spell, punctuate and write a grammatical sentence. Secondly, as I am sure the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) will be relieved to know, we will ensure that every child has a proper sense of the connected narrative of British history, and Professor Simon Schama has agreed to advise the coalition Government in order to ensure that every child grows up knowing the glories of our island story.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I have a case in my constituency, where the three mile limit rule for free school transport is so strictly applied, using new software mapping techniques, that half the local housing estate has lost its access to free bus passes. Owing to the two-tier secondary education system that operates in parts of Leicestershire, we have the ludicrous situation in which 11-year-olds are expected to walk three miles to school along a main road, whereas 16-year-olds travelling to the upper school, only 300 metres further on, have access to a free bus pass. Will the Secretary of State look urgently into the guidance notes for local authorities on that matter?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case, and I shall certainly look into it. I know that Leicestershire is an F40 local authority, one of the least well funded in the country; I know, notwithstanding that, that Ivan Ould, the lead member for children’s services, does a fantastic job, as does my hon. Friend. I shall make sure that I talk to Mr Ould and my hon. Friend about how we can resolve that situation for his constituents.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass]

Sadly, that happens far too often. Unfortunately, when children are diagnosed with ASD or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, whether they are put through the behaviour system or the autism system greatly depends on family background and the clinical specialist they see.

[Andrew Bridgen]

What does the hon. Lady believe to be the underlying level of SEN in the pupil population?

[Pat Glass]

That is a difficult question. The more severe and complex end of SEN is growing quickly, for all sorts of reasons. For example, we are the binge capital of Europe, so why are we surprised when there is an impact on complex and severe needs? I think that the figure is approximately 0.06% of the school population. It is a small proportion. The figure for children who experience some special educational need during their education is between 18 and 20%. That does not mean that all those children have SEN throughout their career. However, vulnerable children who under-achieve are a much greater proportion of the population—approximately 30%.

Let me revert to low incidence SEN. Special educational needs and admissions are the biggest parts of the ombudsman’s work. Local authorities sometimes get them right and sometimes get them wrong. They are the most contentious areas in education. I predict that the only people who will get anything out of this measure will be lawyers. Defining low incidence SEN is a lawyer’s dream. If we do not get that right now, the House will end up returning to the issue later in the year, as someone rightly said, but in the meantime, parents and children will lose out.

Educational psychology is not defined as a service for low incidence SEN pupils. Given the degree of cuts that my local authority needs to make, it is currently looking at what percentage of the educational psychology service it can reasonably cut without damaging front-line services. Low incidence SEN services do not necessarily cover autism—depending on the local authority—educational psychology services, or children with physical or medical difficulties. The Bill mentions “low incidence…disabilities”. I worked in children’s services for most of my adult life, but I have no idea what that means. I guess we must leave it to a lawyer to decide.

One thing that I am very concerned about is that parents are not involved. I have learned over the years to my cost—I have done things wrong in the past that I have learned from—that the most important people in such procedures are parents, but they will not be consulted under the Bill, which is being rushed through the House without any consultation with the organisations that support parents or with parents themselves. Frankly, the Government will come to regret that.

The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) talked about the code of practice being an administrative issue. If he had a child with SEN, he would not see it that way. The code of practice is about children’s lives and chances, and if we lose it, it will not come back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hancock]

I would love it if we had an autistic school in the heart of Portsmouth. However, what happens if the autistic school is on the other side of Dorset and suddenly somebody has to pick up the bill for sending a child there? It simply will not happen and this provision will not be there. This approach is okay in London, where travelling is not a problem. Setting up specialist schools for autistic children would be great in closely defined neighbourhoods, but if these schools have to cover a large area, they will be very expensive to set up, extraordinarily expensive to staff and expensive for local authorities to fund places for or for parents to have to pay for.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), because on Friday I had a meeting with two teachers, both of whom have children with special educational needs, and they are very keen to set up a free school to provide for children with such needs. Such a school would help not only their children, but others in the local area. So this situation is not uncommon.

[Mr Hancock]

I can understand that. I share the frustration of those parents with the current system, but this problem will not be solved by one or two people, or a group, believing that they can solve it by setting up a free school. That is because such a school will not help the greater number of children, for example, the increasing number of children with autism.

The hon. Member for North West Durham took an intervention about autism when she was explaining how difficult it had been to make progress on dealing with it, and she was asked what she thought about the Bill. I think that it will retard the benefits that have been introduced, particularly in respect of autism. It is difficult to get resources for people with autism into schools; lots of schools simply cannot cope with it.

One hon. Member, who is no longer in his place, intervened to talk about his own experience; he discussed the role of child psychologists, and how it was very difficult to get them and for schools to have them. Once again, that shows one of the flaws that we must address. I was delighted that the Minister said that we would have a Green Paper and an opportunity to discuss, in some detail, the fuller implications of special educational needs. We have to protect and serve these young people now and in future generations.

--- Later in debate ---

That brings me to the role of the local education authority. The shadow Minister has admitted during the course of this afternoon that SEN provision has a mixed record across local authorities, and that has been a theme throughout the debate.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does my hon. Friend agree that pupils with special educational needs are very vulnerable to disruption, and that little is more disruptive than moving school? In my constituency, we have a three-tier education system, which adds an extra complication for all pupils, especially those with special educational needs because they have to move again at 14. I would like that to be reduced to a two-tier system. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to those concerns.

[Neil Carmichael]

That is a good point. Three-tier systems are not particularly common, but where they exist I am sure that that is a difficulty. They do not occur in Gloucestershire, but they do, or did, in Northumberland, where I hail from.

I often find in my postbag complaints about statementing. For many parents, getting a statement is something of a struggle. Local authorities tend to take a long time over these decisions, partly because it is a budget issue, partly because it is a question of understanding why a statement should be issued, and partly because it depends on the resources available within the appropriate department. Many parents find it difficult to get the statement that they think they require for their children, whom they clearly want to look after.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

The Academies Bill raises many issues, but I want to focus my comments on three key questions: will the Bill help pupils and schools with the greatest needs, will it improve outcomes in education, and does it represent the best use of taxpayers’ money?

The Government say that their Bill is a continuation or fulfilment of the previous Government’s approach, but there is a fundamental and crucial difference that many hon. Members have cited. Labour’s academy policy gave extra help and support to struggling schools in deprived areas, and sought to break the link between social and economic disadvantage and low achievement and aspiration, which still damage the lives of too many children, including in my constituency. However, this Government are offering academy status to schools that are already rated outstanding.

The Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics recently analysed the 1,560 schools that have expressed an interest in becoming academies. It found that those schools had very different characteristics from the 203 existing academies. Pupils in the schools that have expressed an interest in becoming academies are less likely to be eligible for free school meals, to have special educational needs, or to come from an ethnic minority, and are more likely to get five good GCSEs. For example, around 30% of pupils in academies are eligible for free school meals, compared with only 9% of pupils in schools that have expressed an interest in becoming an academy and are rated outstanding. Just under 28% of pupils in academies have special educational needs but do not have a statement, compared with around 14% of pupils in schools that have expressed an interest and are rated outstanding. That evidence led the Centre for Economic Performance to conclude that

“the new coalition government’s policy on Academy Schools is not, like the previous government’s policy, targeted on schools with more disadvantaged pupils. The serious worry that follows is that this will exacerbate already existing educational inequalities.”

On the radio this morning, the Secretary of State said that every new academy will help a school that is struggling, but the Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill estimates that only a third of new academies are likely to help weaker schools. It also estimates that the cost of providing help to a struggling school will be around £50,000 for each new academy. First, £50,000 is very little money to help a genuinely challenged school. Secondly, it is not clear whether the Government will provide that extra money to help struggling schools, or whether the new academies will have to find the money from their own budgets.

Many schools offer help and support to other schools in their area, but I question whether new academies will voluntarily give their own money to help a struggling school, especially when we are likely to face cuts of 10% to 20% in the education budget. I hope that the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), in his concluding comments, will say whether every new academy will be required to help a struggling school, as the Secretary of State implied. If so, will the Government provide the extra funding that the help will genuinely cost?

Government Members will, I am sure, argue that the pupil premium will play a key role in helping children in disadvantaged areas. I welcome the pupil premium, and I will support it—if it provides resources over and above the extra money that schools already get for deprivation under the existing funding formula, if it focuses on genuinely disadvantaged children, and, crucially, if it is funded without cutting help and support from other programmes that help vulnerable groups. But as yet we have no details about how the pupil premium will work—which pupils it will benefit, how much will be provided, or where the funds will come from.

The final point that I want to make about whether the Bill will support schools that need help most relates to those schools that are neither outstanding nor in special measures, but in the middle—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). There are a substantial number of schools in that category, many of which still need to improve, but the Bill offers them nothing. Labour’s national challenge programme supports a range of schools and challenges them to improve or face intervention, including the possibility of being converted into an academy or a national challenge trust school.

A number of schools in my constituency became national challenge trust schools on 1 June this year, and as part of the process they were promised additional funding—for example to employ extra teachers to provide more one-to-one tuition, to support existing teachers in getting new skills, and to work with parents such as those with English as a second language. However, the schools in my constituency have still not received the money they were promised. As a result, at least one of the schools, Babington college, had to cancel its plans to appoint extra teachers in time for the new term in September. I ask the Minister: will national challenge trust schools such as Babington in my constituency get the extra resources that they have been promised, and if so, when?

Let me move on to the second, and arguably most important, issue that I want to address.

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

Does the hon. Lady think it is fair that in her constituency in Leicester, education is valued at £600 a year more per pupil than in my constituency, despite the fact that I have areas of severe deprivation in mine? Surely she will welcome the pupil premium, as it will rectify the problem.

[Liz Kendall]

I want all children to have the funding that is appropriate to their needs. In my constituency, we have very challenging areas, and we want and need support. I want it for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, too.

On the radio this morning, the Secretary of State said that the Bill will

“transform the educational achievements of pupils in this country.”

However, the impact assessment states:

“While there will still be benefits to new academies…these benefits are likely to be much lower given that they”—

the new schools—

“will have less scope for improvement than existing Academies, and will receive less start-up funding.”

The Bill also removes the requirement for new academies to have a sponsor or a partner, which we know from the contributions of other Members has been a key factor in improving standards in existing academies and trust schools.

There are also very real concerns that the Bill could have a negative impact on educational outcomes for specific groups of children. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) highlighted concerns about children with special educational needs, and the Government’s equalities impact assessment sets out clear evidence that such children in existing academies are not improving as quickly as those in other schools and may end up doing worse in some situations.

There are also concerns that children with special educational needs in schools that do not become academies could be affected by the Bill. Like existing academies, new academies will receive all their per-pupil funding and their share of funding for local authority-provided services, such as SEN provision, and that could create a shortfall in funding for the remaining local authority-maintained schools, which are more likely to need special educational needs services. I very much welcome the Government’s review of special educational needs, but the Bill is likely to have been passed before the review has reported, so I ask the Minister to consider the legislation’s impact on other schools and groups of children.

I turn to the evidence on free schools, because some Members have said that the Bill paves the way for them. There has been a huge debate about what the evidence shows, particularly the evidence from Sweden, and the highly respected Institute of Education, which the Secretary of State cited in his speech, recently assessed the data from that country. It found that more free schools were established in urban, affluent and gentrified areas, that the biggest beneficiaries were children from already highly educated families, and that the impact on less well educated and migrant families was “close to zero”. Even where Swedish free schools appear to have had a moderately positive impact on the academic performance of better-off children at 15 to 16 years old, the IOE finds that those advantages do not persist by the time children take their high school exit tests aged 18 or 19. They are also no more likely to participate in higher education than those who are schooled in areas without free schools.

We need to consider all sorts of other issues, such as community cohesion, which my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) cited. That is a key issue in a constituency as diverse as mine, but I must move on to my third and final question, about whether the Bill represents the best use of taxpayers’ money.

The impact assessment states that the cost of implementation will be £462 million over four years, and the Government say that much of that money is not additional funding, because they will simply transfer to new academy schools the money that would have gone to local authorities. However, there will be additional start-up costs of £68 million as well as the money that new academies will spend if they support weaker schools.

I agree that we need to achieve the best value for taxpayers’ money. I therefore hope that the Minister will explain in his closing statement how spending additional money on schools that have more advantaged pupils and are already doing well, and on a policy that is of questionable benefit in terms of improving educational outcomes and could lead to worse outcomes for children with the greatest needs, provides value for taxpayers’ money.

I also ask why Liberal Democrat MPs support a Bill that experts predict will exacerbate inequalities, worsen local accountability and usher in a free market in education. Those Members are risking a great deal, on issues that I know they hold dear, for very little proof of what they will gain in return. For those reasons, I shall oppose the Bill.