Schools Update

Angela Smith Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I confirm that the pupil premium will be maintained. The pupil premium is important, and it has been a significant driver of how we have managed to begin steadily reducing the attainment gap between children in our country.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Before the election, the Secretary of State would only commit to two years’ implementation of the funding formula and would give no commitment to implementing the rest of the formula post-2020. Today’s statement refers to a longer transition period. How long will it take to implement the full spending formula changes?

[Justine Greening]

I will set out our response to the consultation more fully in the autumn. As the hon. Lady says, we will need to come forward with more details. Today I am being clear about the overall level of funding going into schools while also, I hope, giving colleagues reassurance on specific elements before we set out our full plans in September.

Children and Social Work Bill [Lords]

Angela Smith Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman concluded his speech with commendable succinctness, which allows me to call Angela Smith.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I rise to speak on amendment 12, which is in my name. It seeks to ensure that the proposed child safeguarding practice review panel includes an independent domestic abuse expert.

The recent Women’s Aid report “Nineteen Child Homicides” outlined the depth of the challenge of child protection in families where one parent is abusive. It identified strong evidence that, when arrangements for child contact are being made where there is a history of domestic violence, the current workings of the family justice system support a pro-contact approach, which can undermine the best interests of the child or children.

On average, only 1% of applications for contact are refused, but domestic abuse is identified as an issue in up to 70% of family proceedings cases. In three quarters of cases where courts have ordered contact with an abusive parent, the children have suffered further abuse. Clearly, therefore, significant safeguarding concerns result from the management of child contact arrangements. Indeed, the report I referred to highlighted the cases of 19 children in 12 families who were killed by perpetrators of domestic abuse in circumstances related to unsafe contact.

Research has identified a range of key lessons for the child protection system in relation to child contact in families where one parent is abusive. Those lessons are critical to the Bill’s aim of improving local safeguarding. In particular, understanding abusive partners’ coercive control of women and children is critical to improving child safeguarding.

On the proposed role of the child safeguarding practice review panel, my amendment would ensure that the concerns I have outlined are heard, by making sure the panel included at least one recognised independent specialist domestic abuse expert. In Committee, the Minister seemed to agree with that proposal when he stated that the panel would bring a more systematic and comprehensive approach to pulling together knowledge and understanding for cases involving an issue of national importance and relevance, and as far as I am concerned, domestic violence is an issue of national importance. By putting such an expert on the panel, the Government would also address their stated desire for it to provide social work practitioners with specialist advice and the best available research and evidence on domestic abuse and children.

I will push the issue to a vote if you allow me to, Mr Speaker, because the Government could act on it very easily and very quickly, and it would benefit women and children up and down the country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

As the hon. Lady knows, a full review of business rates is being undertaken. She can be absolutely assured that I and other Ministers make the case for businesses. My views are very much on the record—I think that we really do need to look at investment in plant and machinery. Everybody can be absolutely assured that we do not hesitate in putting forward our very strong views about business rates on behalf of all businesses.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

4. What recent steps he has taken to support the steel industry.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What recent steps he has taken to support the steel industry.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)]

We are taking clear action to help the steel industry. We are cutting electricity costs, tackling unfair trade, updating procurement guidance, introducing flexibility in emissions regulations and reviewing business rates. That is what the steel industry has asked for and what we are delivering.

[Angela Smith]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. The Foreign Secretary said of China the other week in this Chamber that

“it is through the prism of steel that their claims to be treated as a market economy are likely to be judged in the European Union.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 694.]

Equally, the Ministry of Defence has recognised the strategic importance of the steel industry with the support that it has given to Sheffield Forgemasters. When will the Secretary of State follow suit? In particular, when will he pull his finger out and start battling for British steel with companies such as EDF?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady may be interested to know that it was the Secretary of State who asked for an emergency meeting of the European Council to discuss this issue of unfair trade for the first time and to make sure that when the EU takes action, it does so appropriately and in a speedy fashion. The EU is considering the issue of market economy status. When it puts forward a proposal, we will take a careful look at it. Even if a country does have market economy status, that does not stop the EU taking action, as is shown by the examples of Russia and the US.

Onshore Oil and Gas

Angela Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing this important debate on the role that manufacturing can play in the unconventional gas extraction industry.

This is not really a debate about whether the UK should develop a shale gas capability. The House has rightly focused on the need for a robust regulatory framework for such an industry, and it will no doubt continue to debate such important issues, but this morning’s debate is much more pragmatic. The question before us is clear: if the shale gas industry is going to develop within the clear regulatory framework agreed by the House, how do we best ensure that UK manufacturing can exploit to the maximum the supply-chain opportunities made available by that nascent industry? That pragmatic point is what is important to people up and down the country who have traditionally depended on manufacturing jobs to maintain their prosperity, living standards and family life. At its heart, this is about a debate that understands the importance of manufacturing to the UK economy.

In the US, which has had a shale gas industry for some time, one of the biggest winners has been the chemicals industry. Shale gas production in the US has seen feedstock costs reduce significantly, giving the chemicals sector a major competitive advantage over manufacturers in the EU and Asia. Shale gas ethane from the US is much cheaper than that from the EU, which is produced from naphtha, a refined form of crude oil. Cheaper energy, combined with cheaper feedstock, has kick-started investment in the US chemicals industry, attracting $138 billion of investment so far and funding 225 new projects.

In the UK, the chemicals industry is already a major exporter, with about £25 billion of exports. Yearly, it adds almost £9 billion to the UK’s GDP, as well as underpinning much of the manufacturing sector, including steel. In terms of competition, the chemicals sector could benefit greatly from a new source of domestic feedstock. It would benefit from lowers costs and, importantly, from shorter, more secure supply lines.

There should also be opportunities for many UK-based manufacturers in other sectors to supply an emerging shale gas industry. A report by Ernst and Young estimates that more than 39,000 indirect jobs could be created by UK shale gas extraction. It also suggests that the total spend involved in bringing UK shale wells into production would be £33 billion by 2032, which would include £17 billion on specialised equipment, such as high-pressure pumps and mixers. I note with interest that EEF has said that, although the majority of pumps are currently manufactured outside the UK, with some assembly done here, there is significant potential to increase UK production. However, if UK manufacturing is to benefit, it will be necessary to build the case for investment in those things, and that is my first ask to the Minister.

This is, however, not just about pumps; it is also about the sand that will be required for the fracking process. That will come from existing quarries and could generate a £2 billion spend in the UK from 2016 to 2032. This is also about the cement, for which there could be a nearly £1 billion market, and that cement could come from the UK’s four cement manufacturers. We cannot afford to dismiss that potential.

For me, as a south Yorkshire MP, however, the most exciting prospect lies in the opportunities the shale gas industry could create for steel manufacturing. Steel is in crisis. A global slump in demand, contractions in the oil and gas industry and the dumping of cheap, subsidised steel on global markets by the Chinese have combined with high energy costs and unsustainable business rates to create a debilitating sense of volatility in the industry. I acknowledge entirely that the industry must respond positively to the challenges it faces, but if UK steel is to develop a positive way out of its difficulties, it needs Government support.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a good case in relation to the UK steel industry, but the shale industry could help other integrated industrial sectors in the wider economy to develop, and one of those is carbon capture and storage. In a world where fossil fuels are getting cheaper, we should be using pots of funds originally used for renewables for CCS, and the Government should review their decision to get rid of it. In addition, non-conventional gas such as syngas, which comes from coal gasification—there are still tons of coal in the Durham coalfield under the North sea—could be less than 50% of the price of conventional gas. Those two pillars could lead to an industrial renaissance in some areas.

[Angela Smith]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend on both those points. On CCS, it is difficult for the Government to make progress on gaining public acceptance for the shale gas industry, and part of the argument against the industry has always been the emissions and the problem of using fossil fuels into the foreseeable future. CCS is one of the key ways we can deal with that issue and that argument. If there is to be a long-term future for any fossil fuel, the Government must think again about their abandonment of CCS technology.

We need to understand that the nascent shale gas industry offers one of those rare opportunities to create new demand for steel—something we badly need at the moment—and a new sense of hope that there is a positive future for one of our foundation industries. As United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas points out, the crisis that the industry faces will not be solved just by dealing with issues relating to energy and business rates, important though those issues are. It needs to be addressed by supporting UK steel to play a bigger role in manufacturing supply chains domestically and globally. This is about the Government supporting the development of a wider range of steel capabilities, by building the business case for the development of a UK shale gas supply chain.

What we do not need, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said, is a repeat of what has happened with the UK’s offshore wind industry, where we have missed opportunities to build a robust supply chain, despite our strength in the wind energy market. This time, the Government can get things right by working with industry and by supporting the building of a business case for developing shale gas. They can encourage confidence among investors and supply-chain companies and prevent the industry from meeting the fate that has befallen the green energy sector.

Steel’s opportunities as part of the shale gas supply chain focus on two main capabilities. First, as was pointed out earlier, the shale gas industry could need more than 12,000 km of high-quality steel casing, costing £2.3 billion. It could also need 50 drilling rigs, which would cost £1.6 billion to manufacture. So how do we make sure that we make the best of British, in meeting that potential demand? I suggest that we need first to identify the best means of making the UK contribution to the rigging requirements of the shale gas industry. That may or may not mean the domestic manufacturing of the rig components; but at the very least there is great potential for exploiting domestically the need to upgrade rig components to UK standards and to provide ancillary equipment. According to EEF, that market could be worth £1.2 billion. That is a good, practical, pragmatic way forward, which the Government could help to deliver.

As to the steel casing, the problem is, of course, that the UK manufactures welded tubing—not the seamless tubing required by the industry. UKOOG points out, however, that a significant amount of work is required on seamless pipes before they are ready to be used by the shale gas industry and that that could and should be done in the UK. That position is supported by EEF. I would prefer it if the necessary investment could be made to give a UK home to such a manufacturing capability once again; but, however we look at the issue, the Government have a role to play in supporting the steel industry to exploit the opportunities available and thereby to secure a better future for itself.

The Government need to support the establishment of the business case for all aspects of the shale gas supply chain, with particular urgency in relation to the steel aspects of that supply chain. As UKOOG points out,

“We are at the start of the shale journey and the steel industry needs help now.”

UKOOG has pledged to work with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to see whether any support can be given. That is incredibly helpful. What we want from the Minister today is a commitment to ensuring that that offer of collaboration from an industry that in a sense is new to the UK—shale gas extraction is new—is taken up enthusiastically by the Government; we want it to be translated into a supply chain strategy that guarantees that the best of British will lie at the heart of a successful, safe and environmentally sustainable British shale gas industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but we have to ensure that the people who will be living around the mouths of the wells, where the shale gas comes up to the surface, feel that there is a direct benefit to them. It is good to appeal to the greater good, but it is also good to appeal to those who will see the fracking most. That is the particular point I am making.

[Angela Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there are already plans on the table to return to local communities some of the investment and profit from the shale gas industry—something like 6% of the value of the gas extracted?

[Neil Parish]

I think there are such plans. There are various ideas, such as sovereign funds, but again, we need to explain to the local residents that they will get that money. One problem in the past with many such schemes has been that the money has not filtered down to the local people who have to live right next to the entrance to a shale gas resource. That is what I want to see.

We need to ensure that we explain the situation to local people and that they know there will be something in it for them—I know that may sound basic—and that they are doing something for the greater good. I will go on to talk about industry, but the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) made a really good point: fossil fuel extraction is necessary. We need only take the agricultural industry, in which natural gas creates ammonium nitrate, to see that it is hugely necessary.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton made a point about having a single regulator, which is a good idea. It is about reassuring the public. The fracking will take place far underground and there is little or no chance of any problems with groundwater supply, but people are talking about those things. Those who are against fracking make much of them, so they need to be reassured. We must ensure that someone goes to the areas in question and presents the case strongly, so that people feel reassured about the safety of fracking. People can always cite problems in certain parts of the world, which makes it doubly important that we reassure people.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for leading the charge on this. It seems that the key word in this debate is “manufacturing”, and it is good to have a discussion that focuses on that. I thought that the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), in particular, made an extremely good speech, not only about the shale industry and manufacturing in that area, but the impact on manufacturing generally. It is very hard to have a march of the makers when we have higher electricity and feedstock costs, and generally a higher cost environment than our competitors, particularly those on the eastern seaboard of the US. Those points were well made.

I support the shale industry, which I have spoken about in the past. I completely agree that the concerns of local MPs—I have a fracking site in my constituency—need to be listened to. The industry needs to be well regulated and safe. I will come on to—what did we hear?—the “pragmatic and responsible” position apparently taken by the SNP.

I completely support the need for good regulation and local involvement, but I also have to say that sadly, in my view, the shale industry in the UK is not going to take off with the current prices of oil and gas. At $28 a barrel, the US shale industry is closing down and it has much more significant economies of scale than we have—the cost is something like $50 or $60 a barrel over there, and the gas price is linked. There will have to be closures. Frankly, in Aberdeen, we are seeing the impact of $28 a barrel. That is only just starting to hit Aberdeen, because $28 is higher than the operating cost in the North sea, let alone development and exploration.

I will put that caveat to one side and turn to the manufacturing potential of the industry—I hope I am wrong, however, and that perhaps prices will increase. We do not know.

[Angela Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. Is it not also the case that the shale gas industry is much more fluid, dynamic and has much lower start-up costs than the oil industry, for instance, and that, in the long term, shale gas probably has a better future?

[David Mowat]

All that is true—and it is much more tactical, quicker and goes on from one to another. It does not have the big up-front development costs of, for example, North sea platforms. That is true, but it is also true that the wells do not last as long. The fact is that in the US, the shale industry is a $50-a-barrel industry, and at $28 dollars, that industry is in trouble. That is the whole strategy that the Saudis are taking and is what they are trying to achieve. They are going to be successful unless other things make them stop.

The title of the debate, however, is “Onshore Oil and Gas”—not shale. I say that because it is worth remembering that we have an onshore oil and gas industry. We have drilling and have had it for the past 30 years in places such as the New Forest, without the level of controversy that appears to surround this industry.

Other Members have talked about this, but let us examine briefly what has happened in the US shale industry. The industry has reduced the cost of gas by two thirds and has been converting—unfortunately, this also might stop—liquefied natural gas import ports to become LNG export ports. Equally important, the US has met any climate change target that anyone has given it. It did not sign up to Kyoto, but it would have met it by miles because of the displacement of coal by gas in its carbon emissions.

I want the House fully to understand that if the world were capable of taking out all coal and replacing it with gas, which is a big ask, it would be equivalent to increasing the amount of renewables in the world by a factor of six. That would be real progress in emissions. When political parties talk about carbon emissions—we heard about that earlier—without giving cognisance to that fact, it is frankly disingenuous at best.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat]

I am not sure whether that was a request for me to talk about coal gasification. I will not because I have been talking for 10 minutes, but I agree that it is a complex market and an opportunity for Teesside. Our country’s industry base in Teesside is extremely important to all constituents there, and I completely agree with that.

On Wednesday, I had dinner with the head of Ernst and Young in the UK and I said that one thing that annoys me about parliamentary debates is that we quote reports from people like Ernst and Young as though they are some sort of gospel. We all say, “That’s what they say, so it is true and I will go with that.” It said in its recent report that it estimates that 64,000 jobs will be created in the shale industry alone, 6,000 direct and the rest in the supply chain, steel and so on. I return to the US experience where more jobs were created in the industries that benefited from the lower feedstocks than in the direct industry—the chemicals industry and so on.

[Angela Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that important point. Does he recognise that the steel industry unions are one of the biggest supporters of the shale gas industry in the US?

[David Mowat]

I think the steel industry unions are right, as are the chemicals and aluminium industry unions. The US, unlike the UK, still has an aluminium industry, principally because energy prices there allow it to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I have never received any misleading information from Friends of the Earth, so I cannot answer that point.

I want to make a few points about fracking. I do not understand what the hurry is. As the hon. Member for Warrington South mentioned, the gas price is pretty low at this point. The risks are not that well known yet. Fracking has been undertaken on an industrial scale really only since the very late 1990s and early 2000s. It does not have a body of evidence behind it. In terms of the rush to do this, the UK Government are trying to paint this as a gas versus coal debate—looking at our energy needs in terms of gas versus coal—but we have been shouting about other things. We have been making the case for things such as renewables and putting them front and centre. I do not think that this is a gas versus coal debate, no matter how much the UK Government try to paint it as such.

[Angela Smith]

For the record, the term “fracking” is not that helpful to the debate, but surely the key point of today’s debate is the importance to the future of UK manufacturing of giving this industry the support that it needs to get going. On that basis, there is surely a sense of urgency around all this. UK manufacturing needs new industries and new activity in order to grow.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate that point and I will come on to manufacturing; I just wanted to answer first a few of the points that had been brought up throughout the debate. “Fracking” is the term that my constituents use and the term that is recognised throughout the UK. That is why I was using it.

It has been mentioned a lot that we should ensure that controls are in place and there is proper regulation. The Scottish Government’s point of view and the direction that we are taking is that we want to prove the safety first and, if we do decide to do this, ensure that the controls are in place after that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Blenkinsop]

rose—

[Angela Smith]

rose—

[Kirsty Blackman]

I do not want to give way again.

I am concerned about the rush to fracking. The UK Government will not get a major tax take from it, because of the current position with the prices. We should not be rushing to do it. In terms of my constituency and protecting jobs in the north-east of Scotland, we need to be looking at supporting the conventional, established offshore oil and gas industry, as well as supporting renewables. The Government need to rethink their renewables obligation changes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sing, but no Member of this House can match David Bowie—highly relevant as far as ground control is concerned.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Rolls-Royce is of strategic importance to our aerospace industry, not just in Derby but in Sheffield and Bristol. What are the Government prepared to do to safeguard that capacity, which is increasingly in the news at the moment, in order to ensure that we not just invest in but safeguard the future of the industry so that the UK stays at the forefront of aerospace manufacturing globally?

[Anna Soubry]

We should of course mention the importance of Rolls-Royce to a great city like Derby; I say that, obviously, as a Nottinghamshire MP. In all seriousness, we are monitoring the situation carefully. We recognise the huge importance of the role that Rolls-Royce plays in our economy. It is really important that we do not talk things down. [Interruption.] Forgive me, but there is too often a tendency among Labour Members, not necessarily the hon. Lady, to talk things down. It is really important that we do not do that and that we continue to support Rolls-Royce.

Further Education

Angela Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

Absolutely.

I know we will hear from the Conservatives that these spending decisions are all necessary to deliver what they like to refer to—I hope this will get me some brownie points—as their long-term economic plan—[Hon. Members: “Hooray.”]—and a strong economy, but, as the Prime Minister agrees, investing in education and skills helps our economy to grow and reduces the deficit. Indeed, the reverse is also true: slashing and burning education, whether in schools, sixth-forms or further education, will lead to greater reliance on the state for unqualified young people and lower tax returns for those in lower paid jobs. Cutting education spending at the altar of deficit reduction is a false choice, and it is economic stupidity.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some very important points about the impact on the economy of short-sighted cuts to the post-16 education budget. In the north, of course, we have our part to play in delivering the Chancellor’s northern powerhouse—[Hon. Members: “Hooray.”]—brownie points, again. What does my hon. Friend think the impact will be on progressing the northern powerhouse if we cut back significantly on the investments we need to see in productivity in places like Barnsley in south Yorkshire?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If we speak to anybody overseeing some of the big infrastructure projects under way at the moment, they will say their biggest problem is bridging the skills gap they face in delivering those infrastructure projects, so this is a very serious issue.

If the Conservative party, from the Prime Minister down, truly believes in the principle that education is a public good, it is baffling why provision for 16 to 19-year-olds is wholly unprotected and facing further massive reductions.

Let us look now in more detail at what is really happening on the ground and the potential impact of the forthcoming comprehensive spending review.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)]

I thought at one point in the speech made by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) that we were in danger of having cross-party consensus break out, but she veered away from that when confronted by good news stories about the post-16 sector. I also liked the way she mentioned the long-term economic plan, even though she probably did so through gritted teeth.

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate on such an important area—we can genuinely all agree on that. A vibrant post-16 education sector gives young people the skills they need to succeed in life, and it is a key part of this Government’s commitment to governing as one nation and extending opportunity throughout the country. I am sad to say, however, that it seems to be becoming an unfortunate habit of the hon. Lady to use all her public appearances to talk down the significant achievements and good things that are happening in our education system: first, we had the undermining of the achievements of academies, including one in her constituency; secondly, we had the scaremongering on teacher recruitment; and now the Opposition are trying to create a sense of panic in the post-16 sector. Yet again, an Opposition day motion reveals that, as we heard from the Labour leader at Prime Minister’ questions, they still believe in the existence of the Labour party’s magic money tree.

[Angela Smith]

I speak as somebody who got to university from FE as a mature student and who worked for 10 years as a lecturer in FE. Barnsley college in my constituency is outstanding—it is an excellent institution. Given what the Secretary of State has just said, can she guarantee that the services that it provides for local people will not be damaged in any way by Government cuts to the institution over the forthcoming period?

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Lady was doing a great and valiant job of talking about the excellence of a college in her constituency, but then immediately tipped off into the word “cuts”. She ought to wait to see what is in next week’s spending review.

Millhouse Green Post Office

Angela Smith Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have secured this debate on a topic of great importance to my constituency. I would like to highlight to the Minister a matter of grave concern to my constituents that could lead to the loss of a vital service that many rely on in an isolated rural area.

For the benefit of those not acquainted with my constituency, it is formed from the north of Sheffield and the west of Barnsley and is made up of a series of small towns and villages. Located in the north-western fringe of my constituency is the market town of Penistone and the small villages of Thurlstone and Millhouse Green. Administratively, Millhouse Green forms part of the metropolitan borough of Barnsley and the Penistone parish. The village lies on the A628, which runs to Manchester and is better known, as it runs across the national park, as the Woodhead pass.

Millhouse Green is home to the expected amenities of a village of its size nowadays. Besides the small post office, which is the subject of this debate, there is another small shop nearby. There is also the Millhouse Institute, a village hall that plays host to small events and boasts a crown green bowling lawn at the rear. There is also a pub called the Blacksmiths and, further out from the centre of the village, we have Windmill Nurseries and a farm shop, both of which host cafés. The village manages to maintain a small, mixed primary school, with around 100 pupils on the roll. A new development of around 200 homes was recently completed on the site of the old garage, adding a significant number of new households to the village. The nearest village to Millhouse Green is Thurlstone, again a small community with little in the way of facilities. The nearest large area of habitation is the market town of Penistone, some three miles away, where a large supermarket, a post office and the other facilities one would expect of small market town can be found.

Around this time last year, Wendy Marsh, the owner and sub-postmistress of the Millhouse Green post office, attended one of my surgeries to ask for help with an issue she had with Post Office Counters Ltd. In late 2013, Post Office Counters wrote to her to inform her that in future, as part of its network transformation programme, the post office she had been running for some years would no longer be classed as a community post office but as a local post office. The explanation Post Office Counters gave for the decision was that there is another suitable retail outlet for hosting post office services within half a mile: a small store that could take over the service if she did not wish to carry on.

The key change to the status of Mrs Marsh’s post office relates not just to the name, however, but to the payment she receives for delivering Post Office services on behalf of the village, as re-categorisation of the branch to “local” involves the loss of the core tier payment, as the Minister will be aware. However, the payment covers the lease of the property housing the post office and makes the business just about viable. The business struggles to run at a profit, having to sell many other items, and opens long hours to make ends meet. Removing the salary could push the business over the edge, forcing it to close. This would effectively mean the village losing not only post office services, but the sale of daily papers, as Mrs Marsh trades as the only newsagent in the village. Indeed, she has stated repeatedly to me that if the post office is re-designated, she will be forced to close the business and with it the post office service available to the village.

Having raised that prospect with Post Office Counters, I was frankly astonished to find that the company does not appear to be overly concerned, because post office services could, in its view, be transferred to an alternative retail outlet in the village. However, that would seem an unlikely prospect, as it is my understanding that the small shop nearby is not a suitable location for post office services and does not open the hours needed to offer post office services. It is also clear that the owner of the alternative business is not interested in taking on responsibility for the delivery of postal services to the village. Thus, we are in a difficult situation in Millhouse Green, which by Post Office Counters Ltd’s own admission offers no suitable location for the delivery of its services, other than the one alternative it has earmarked—but which, as I have established, is not available for the delivery of those services.

In summary, a redesignation is threatening the viability of Millhouse Green post office, on the grounds that there is an alternative provider within half a mile of the existing provision, but the alternative provider is not interested. Despite that, Post Office Counters continues to insist that it will press ahead with redesignation because there is another suitable retail business nearby. If ever we had a bureaucracy with a jobsworth attitude, this is it; you really could not make it up. A premises that wants to offer post office services will close if the core tier payment and its community status is removed; and an alternative location does not want to offer those services if the present post office ceases to operate. The consequence of all of that could be that Millhouse Green loses the service altogether.

At the end of this sorry process, the people who will really suffer are my constituents—not just Mrs Marsh, but all my constituents in Millhouse Green. They will have lost a vital service that many of them need and rely on. On top of that, my constituents will no longer be able to buy even a paper in the village, meaning a bus ride to the nearest shop that sells newspapers.

The cynic might think that behind all this is a ploy not only to remove the core tier payment from the sub-postmistress, but to close the post office altogether and to force customers to use the alternative facilities in the town of Penistone. Indeed, I have heard murmurings—I put it no stronger than that—that this problem is emerging elsewhere across my region as a result of the network transformation programme.

The last Labour Government laid down specific conditions to make sure that local people, especially in rural areas, did not lose services that were vital to rural communities. In this case, it looks like Post Office Counters Ltd is dancing around these conditions to rationalise its operations, to my constituents’ cost. Worse still, it seems there is very little my constituents can do to influence or change the minds of the management of Post Office Counters Ltd. That is extremely frustrating both to me and my constituents.

I ask the Minister, whom I know is a reasonable person, to respond to the situation I have outlined, which indicates stubbornly bureaucratic attitudes on the part of Post Office Counters, and to give my constituents in Millhouse Green the assurance that she will knock heads together and make it clear to the company that its network transformation programme must be rolled out sensibly and pragmatically. In other words, there is no point in redesignating a post office in a small village on the grounds that another retail business is close by if that alternative provider is just not interested. Millhouse Green, a lovely village right on the edge of the Peak District national park, will want to hear from the Minister a robust response to this idiotic situation. I look forward to hearing what she has to say.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on securing this debate on the future of Millhouse Green post office and the proposals for the changes we are seeing within our post office network. The hon. Lady asked whether I am familiar with her constituency. It was certainly helpful to have the geography set out. I am not sure that I have an exact picture of the roads in my mind, but when I lived in east Yorkshire I greatly enjoyed walking in the Peak district, and I know some of the country roads between Sheffield and Manchester. I recall being most familiar with what was called “the snake pass”, which I think was a slightly different place. I can picture the beauty of the area about which the hon. Lady talks. She has set out her concerns clearly, and I hope to be able to provide her with some reassurance about continuity of service for her constituents who rely on the post office network.

Let me spend a short time setting out some of the changes we are making in the Post Office and indeed the reasons and the thinking behind what we are doing. We are investing nearly £2 billion in the post office network, particularly to modernise that network of at least 11,500 branches. That maintains a scenario whereby 99% of the UK population live within three miles of a post office outlet. We are incredibly committed to the post office network and we are looking even to see whether it can be expanded. In October 2014, for example, we saw a pilot of the Post Office’s home shopping returns service in approximately 150 new postal access points across the UK, which means that the network is growing for the first time in more than 50 years.

We all know how important post offices are to our constituencies. We need to ensure that they can be modernised and put on a sound, sustainable financial footing. Of course, post offices are changing. The way in which people interact with mail services poses challenges, but it also presents opportunities. The parcels business, for example, has expanded as a result of the increase in online shopping. It is vital for post offices to be transformed for the 21st century, which is the reason for our network transformation programme.

Since 2010 more than 4,650 sub-postmasters have signed contracts to modernise their branches, and more than 3,500 have reopened following Government investment. The demand is clear. The revamped branches are more welcoming and accessible, and they are also open for longer, which is important. Since 2010 there have been more than 100,000 additional opening hours per week, which is equivalent to more than 2,000 additional post offices offering traditional hours. That is particularly helpful. Moreover, the modernised branches consistently receive customer satisfaction ratings of more than 95%. I understand that three branches that have received Government investment have opened in the hon. Lady’s constituency. No doubt her constituents are benefiting from those—and, of course, sub-postmasters can also benefit.

Let me explain our programme of change. There is a “main” model, and there is a “local” model. The main model will often be stand-alone, while the local model will be attached to an existing retailer, which will commonly be a convenience store or newsagent, although about 100 branches will be attached to pubs. That arrangement will enable the cost base to be shared. The “fortress” position that exists in a traditional post office will no longer be necessary. There will be a post office point alongside a typical retail space, with the same member of staff providing both services, which will make things easier and will also help to create the longer opening hours.

We recognise that in many communities a post office is the “last shop in the village”, which cannot operate as a “main” or “local” model, and we accept that such branches should not be made to change. I think that the definitions and criteria may be causing difficulty. If there are no alternative retail outlets within half a mile of a post office, it will be possible to designate it as a community branch. The current status is not changing, but, as part of our transformation programme, each branch has been assessed according to such criteria. We have protected 3,400 “last shop in the village” branches by designating them community post offices. They will benefit from new investment in the same way as the “mains” and “locals”. We are providing a £20 million community branch fund, which will secure their future and enable them to invest in renovations.

We also recognise that if we are to put post offices on to a stronger financial footing, enabling a branch to operate as one of the new models such as a “main” or a “local”, either on the existing premises or in premises nearby, will benefit customers, communities and the taxpayer. We are trying to work closely with branches in communities where such an arrangement is possible in order to identify the best long-term future.

The position of Millhouse Green is obviously of great concern to the hon. Lady. The Post Office has been engaging with the sub-postmistress on the issue of network transformation since last September. I understand that she is keen to retire at some stage and wishes to sell the retail and post office business together, but does not wish to receive investment to convert to a local model. I also understand that she has applied to have the branch classified as a community branch, but that has been rejected because—as the hon. Lady explained—there is a suitable alternative retailer 130 metres from the branch.

Three solutions are being considered. The current process being followed is to sell the branch as a “post office local.” If successful, this will result in the sub-postmistress receiving the sale value of her business plus a payment from Post Office Ltd equal to the last 12 months of remuneration earned. The incoming operator would receive investment from POL to convert the branch.

[Angela Smith]

I have spoken to the sub-postmistress about selling the business, and I do know that she will look to retire very soon. The point is that there is very little interest. She has already looked at this and talked to a potential buyer. There is very little to no interest in buying the business, particularly if the core tier payment disappears. That is the key point in this debate. The core tier payment disappears on the basis that there is an alternative provider, but the key point again is that the alternative provider is not interested, and the risk is to the community, not particularly to the sub-postmistress in the long term, who will, of course, retire.

[Jo Swinson]

I recognise that point, and I want to reassure the hon. Lady about the potential scenario if that were to unfold, but my understanding is that at this point the Post Office, with the agreement of the sub-postmistress, is advertising the branch on its website as a commercial transfer opportunity, and that runs for three months. They are looking to find a buyer who would be able to operate it as a local post office. That advertisement runs until February, and it is important to follow that process and to try, on an official basis, to see if someone can be found to take it on, because if that is possible, that is the best potential outcome for the community and the sub-postmistress and the long-term future of the service.

The second option would be for the branch to convert to a “post office local”. If that were to happen, the sub-postmistress would receive financial support during that phase of transition, but I recognise she may not be keen to do that. Alternatively, the branch could move to the nearby retailer that has been mentioned, who would then host a local post office branch. In that scenario, the existing sub-postmistress would receive a leaver’s payment equal to 26 months remuneration and the new sub-postmaster would receive investment to set up their branch.

I recognise that some of these options might not be the sub-postmistress’s preferred course of action, but the Post Office is committed to working alongside her to ensure that service provision can be maintained.

One possible scenario is that the current search for a buyer is not successful. If so, the Post Office confirms it would review the situation and discuss what alternative options would be available. There is a commitment to continuing the service, of course, which could mean the sub-postmistress continuing on her current contract for at least a period of 12 months, when the situation could be reviewed again. The community would not then be left without a post office because there is that commitment to make sure there is continuity of service.

The business is currently being marketed for sale, so the Post Office has not approached other retail providers in the area or looked at alternative plans, as that would be inappropriate at this time. The Post Office would, of course, engage in that, however, if the sale route did not prove fruitful.

I reiterate that commitment, because although we want to get the Post Office on to a secure and sustainable footing, and therefore, where possible, not having the additional subsidy that we want to reserve for those branches with no other option and that therefore have to continue with the core tier payment, none the less we are determined to make sure communities retain their services. That is a clear commitment from the Post Office as part of the network transformation, which is in stark contrast with what happened under the last Government, when there were two closure programmes and 5,000 branches were lost as a result. We want to learn the lessons from those programmes and make sure community services are able to remain.

I know that Post Office Ltd has offered to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this issue further and I hope she will be happy to take up that offer, and in February we will be able to see what interest there has been in buying the post office. The Post Office will continue to work closely with the sub-postmistress and the hon. Lady to make sure that the future provision of post office services for the community in Millhouse Green is secure and sustainable for the long term.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laws]

I shall certainly follow up that issue on behalf of my hon. Friend. I am pleased to tell him that earlier this month the Department announced it was making available almost £25 million in additional capital to schools to support this policy. This money has come from an underspend in the existing free school meals budget.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

17. How many free schools for 16 to 18-year-olds have opened in the last four years.

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

A total of 14 16-to-18 free schools have opened in the last four years, including the highly innovative King’s college London mathematics school and Exeter maths school, which aim to increase the levels of mathematical attainment by the most able students to enable them to study at top-rated universities, and Chapeltown academy, a new 16-to-18 sixth form committed to high-quality academic A-levels.

[Angela Smith]

The academy in Chapeltown that the Minister has just referred to opened in September and has been funded for 90 places, but the numbers recruited fall significantly short of that—I understand that the figure is something like 55. Why are the Government funding institutions that are not recruiting to full capacity while cutting the funding available to 16 to 18-year-olds already in education or training in existing institutions?

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Lady raised her opposition to the establishment of the Chapeltown academy in an Adjournment debate in April, when she said that

“there is no evidence whatsoever that there is demand for these additional sixth-form places.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 964.]

In fact, 58 places have been taken up. Free schools often have smaller numbers in the first year than their maximum, but numbers tend to increase in the years ahead. To quote its website, the school wants to

“Increase aspirations to attend the world’s best universities, and boost attainment at A-Level”.

Why can the hon. Lady not support such a school, with such great ambitions for young people?

Free Schools (Funding)

Angela Smith Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the last Government cannot say they were not warned. The Office for National Statistics repeatedly pointed out that the population was increasing; we were living through an unprecedented baby boom, and many new Britons were arriving on our shores. All these trends should have been anticipated by the last Government, but they were not. It fell to us to increase spending on primary school places; unfortunately, the last Government did not take the action that was required in time.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Chapeltown academy, the proposed 16-to-19 free school in my constituency is being developed in the context of cuts in funding for FE, growing pressure on primary school places in Sheffield and Barnsley, and no demonstrable need for these proposed new sixth-form places—a point underlined by the fact that just 12 Sheffield youngsters have taken an offer from the academy as a first preference. The Secretary of State can surely see the need to redirect the resources being wasted on Chapeltown Academy to better use elsewhere.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that point. My understanding is that significantly more have applied—a significantly higher number—but it is the case that this new provision will help raise standards in Sheffield and that we are providing this new school alongside having increased the amount of money available for primary school places in Sheffield. Under the previous Government, £22 million was provided; over the equivalent funding period, we are providing £36 million.

Free Schools (Chapeltown, Sheffield)

Angela Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have secured this Adjournment debate on a topic that is very important to the people of Chapeltown and the surrounding area.

Chapeltown, and Sheffield generally, is an area that enjoys a rich legacy when it comes to providing educational opportunities, whether for young or old. I emphasise that that legacy has always been very locally driven by pioneers such as Lady Mabel Smith, who was—believe it or not—the sister of the seventh Earl Fitzwilliam but was a Labour councillor who worked very hard over a number of years to provide education for local people in the 20th century. She was the driving force behind the establishment of Ecclesfield grammar school, which is now the local comprehensive serving the Chapeltown area. She was the chair of governors for 20 years until her death in 1951. Even now, Ecclesfield comprehensive, which is a very successful academy, has its assembly hall named after her—Lady Mabel hall. We are all very proud of the legacy that she has left us. The school goes from strength to strength under the inspired leadership of Joel Wirth, the head teacher.

That tradition—that legacy—has continued in recent years. We have seen the development of a sixth-form college in one of the most deprived parts of the city—Longley Park. We have seen Hillsborough college go from strength to strength. Only recently, it has enjoyed an £8.8 million investment from the Government because it is considered successful and has been judged by Ofsted to be a good college. Very recently, we have had a university technical college—a brand-new institution that is already going down very well in the city and which was driven absolutely by local employers and local educationists.

We have also seen the recent development of three new sixth forms, approved by the Secretary of State. They are all in the north of the city, as indeed is Chapeltown. They have already provided 188 additional places, and that number will grow to 460 by September 2014. However, one of those institutions—Parkwood—has had to postpone its recruitment of sixth formers because of a lack of demand for places. In addition, Bradfield school, which is just six miles from Chapeltown in the north of the city, has failed in its first year to meet its initial allocation of 50 places.

Bradfield is the most popular school in the north of the city. Places in its years 7 to 11 are oversubscribed every single year, and its reputation drives that popularity. I am confident that it will fill its sixth form in the end, but at the moment it is failing to do so. The underlying reason is the demographic decline, which is beginning to bite in Sheffield and, based on birth rates from years ago, is forecast to continue until 2020. In the seven-year period from last year to 2020, we will suffer a 12% decline in the post-16 population, and the cohort will not be restored to 2012 levels until after 2023. The fact that attainment levels are going up all the time should lead to greater demand for sixth-form places, but that demand will not sufficiently replace the lack of demand produced by the demographic decline.

That all calls into question the establishment of the new, post-16 free school—Chapeltown academy—which hopes to open this September. For a start, the academy is not locally driven: it was not initiated or suggested by local people, educationists or employers. Moreover, based on the demographic decline and the fact that our new sixth forms are not being filled, the demand just is not there, despite the assertions of the academy’s proposers to the contrary. My statistics are based on those provided by the local authority of Sheffield city council, which does all the measuring, and there is no evidence whatsoever that there is demand for these additional sixth-form places. The increasing demand that does exist in the city, in common with other boroughs in the area, such as Barnsley, is for primary school places.

We also need to continue the work of building the skill set of young people in the region, given that our city, and the Sheffield city region more generally, is still broadly an engineering-based economy. On top of that, we need to ensure that we develop more fully the whole range of post-16 opportunities, because we want to develop the talent of all our young people, not just those who want to be professionals or academics. That is important, but all the evidence shows that, if we need to provide extra post-16 opportunities, the emphasis has to be on further investment in vocational training and skills.

That point is underlined by the fact that 1,200 young people in Sheffield are not in education, employment or training—the awful acronym NEETs is overused nowadays and I prefer to use the full term. That is clearly where the city needs to place its emphasis. We need more provision to help meet the needs of those 1,200 young people, who have fallen behind and need extra support to get themselves work-ready and skilled for the workplace. Clearly, there is no statistical base for opening the new academy.

There are also problems with the proposed location of the new academy. I visited the site at the weekend—I knew where it was, but I just wanted to have a good look at it. It is in the middle of an industrial park. It is a big warehouse, with office space attached to it. It is not possible to enter the area at present, because it is gated by an electronic barrier, which has a gatehouse attached to it. It is surrounded by other businesses, including a repair garage that seems to specialise in repairing heavy goods vehicles. When we visited on Sunday, a host of container-type lorries were parked in the area around the garage, which is adjacent to the proposed academy building.

The local authority planners, who are professionals, have raised serious concerns about the site’s sustainability. They are also concerned about the highways implications of the proposed site and the associated safety of students. One of the problems is that the planning process is abandoned—it is not applied—when it comes to new free schools. That does not prevent Sheffield planners from having a view and their view is absolutely clear.

The site is approximately 2 acres. The academy’s proposers suggest that there will be very minor amendments in the office space part of the building for the first year 12 intake in September. During the first year of the new institution, phase 2 site development will take place, which be in the huge warehouse—the industrial unit—attached to the office space. The proposers claim on their website that the building works will not affect or disrupt existing classroom space, which I find very hard to believe, indeed.

The industrial park is off the road that takes traffic from junction 35a of the M1 down into Ecclesfield. It is a very busy road. The travel route for many students getting to the academy from Elsecar and the rest of Barnsley will involve going to Chapeltown railway station. The website for Chapeltown academy claims that Barnsley to Chapeltown on the Penistone line takes six minutes, which is great, but it does not say that there is a further 1.7 mile walk to get from Chapeltown railway station to the academy. That walk involves going up the busy road to which I have just referred, which is not safe. Alternatively, there is a slightly shorter route up Cowley lane in Chapeltown, but that is equally busy and will involve crossing the road twice as the footpath runs out on either side. I can absolutely understand why the planners in Sheffield have serious concerns about the safety of students in accessing the site, which is entirely unsuitable.

My final point about the location is that the site has no green space around it whatsoever. The website claims that there is recreational space in front of the building for students and staff alike. At the moment, that recreational space is a car park. Where recreational space and opportunities for sport will come from is absolutely unimaginable. I know that Ecclesfield park is down the hill in the centre of Ecclesfield village, which is what the academy claims on its website, but if that is the best it can do for green space, I am sorry to say that that is just not sufficient, and many local parents and young people will feel the same.

We have concerns about the transparency of Chapeltown Academy Ltd’s development of the proposal. Of course, the planning process does not apply in relation to getting planning permission for the site, but a consultation has to take place instead. The consultation, which was online, is now closed. There were a few questions asking for all people’s details and their e-mail address, but the consultation consisted of one question: “Do you agree with the premises chosen for Chapeltown academy—yes or no?” There was also a little box for additional comments. If the local authority tried to undertake a consultation as shabby and inadequate as that, it would rightly be pilloried by elected representatives, such as me, and by local media, parents, young people and the local community. It is absolutely astounding that the academy can think that that constitutes a proper consultation on a site as controversial as this one.

In addition, at the moment there is a shadow governing body, but the details of the permanent governing body have had to be extracted from the academy bit by bit. In the end, I had to write to the Minister to start to get any kind of detail at all. Even now, the detail of how the permanent governing body will look is not complete. We have the details of only four or five of the individuals involved, which is just not acceptable. On top of that, we have very few details about the staff. The names of just three members of staff and the principal-designate have been announced.

Yet we expect young people and their parents to put their faith in this venture. It is untried, untested and unknown—and it may never happen. I quote from a letter dated 25 March that I received from Lord Nash:

“I will carefully consider before entering into a funding agreement with the Chapeltown Academy Trust. Making certain that there is sufficient demand from students and that the institution will be financially viable are two of the factors that I will look at when making my decision.”

I come to the most important point of all. My understanding is that only 12 Sheffield students have accepted a place at Chapeltown academy as their first preference. Given that just 12 young people have taken a place at the academy, there is a strong possibility that the funding agreement will not go through. It is absolutely immoral to encourage young people to take up offers of places at an institution that might never open. What will happen if it does not open? Those young people will be left without a sixth-form place and will have limited choices from what is left. They will have the crumbs from the table when trying to find another sixth form to attend in September. Is that acceptable? I do not think so.

In summary, Chapeltown academy is not needed, it is not locally driven, it is in an inappropriate location, there is very little transparency in the development of the venture and it is risky. It threatens to let down the young people who have put their faith in the institution. Even though there are only 12 of them from the city of Sheffield, that is 12 too many as far as I am concerned. Chapeltown Academy Trust has no track record. It has come from nowhere. It is not a chain or a charity. It has no background whatever. It is untested, untried and unknown. I ask the Minister to make a commitment tonight seriously to consider backing out of the venture before it is too late and young people are left adrift in September, not knowing where to go to further their education.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on securing what is an important debate not just for the students, but for the communities that she represents in Sheffield, and on ensuring that the proposed free school at Chapeltown in Sheffield is scrutinised properly. It is right to acknowledge that she has made a long and distinguished contribution to education in the House and in her constituency. I believe that she was also a teacher of English at Dearne Valley college until 2003, so she speaks with authority on this subject.

I will endeavour to respond to as many of the points she has raised as possible in the short time that we are allowed for this debate. If I do not manage to do so, I will ensure that she gets the answers in writing from either myself or the Minister who is responsible for this area of policy, my noble Friend Lord Nash.

I begin with a statement on which I hope we can all agree: every child and young person should have the opportunity and choice to go to an excellent local school. That is why we are committed to providing all parents with a diverse choice of high quality provision, including free schools. One hundred and seventy-four free schools have opened and another 120 are in the pre-opening phase and are due to open in 2014 and beyond. Once they are all approved, open and full, those free schools will offer 150,000 pupil places.

Before free schools are allowed to open, the free school proposers receive a significant period of support and challenge from the Department for Education. There is a rigorous application process that involves a paper assessment and an interview with the proposer group. Where required, there are specific conditions for the approval. There is then the pre-opening period when groups such as Chapeltown are supported by officials as they develop their proposal further, consult the local community and work towards signing a funding agreement with the Department.

Quite rightly, as they are brand new schools, there is greater oversight of open free schools than other academies, at least until their first successful Ofsted inspection. It is worth noting that most free schools are performing well. For example, recently in Yorkshire and the Humber, Dixons Trinity academy was rated outstanding by Ofsted, despite opening only 20 months ago.

There are already six free schools open in England that cater for 16 to 19-year-olds. The first of those to open was the London Academy of Excellence, which has been rated as good by Ofsted. The others, including Chapeltown academy, are looking to open in September 2014 and beyond. Chapeltown academy will be the first purely academic 16-to-19 free school—should it be accepted—for 300 students in the north of the city.

The trust’s vision as it is laid out is to provide young people in the area with the dedicated A-level provision and support that it believes is currently lacking in the north of Sheffield. That type of provision is needed by students who have aspirations to attend some of the top universities in the country. The academy aims to open in September this year with 150 students, and it will cater for a total of 300 students when running at full capacity.

[Angela Smith]

The Minister has just claimed that there is demand for high-quality sixth-form places in the north of the city, yet Bradfield school—one of the highest performing and most popular schools in the city—cannot fill its sixth form.

[Mr Timpson]

That is not my claim; that is the trust’s own vision that it has set out. I will come on to explain how we must take into consideration—along with a number of other factors—the demand in the city for this provision before deciding whether to go ahead with the project.

As the hon. Lady knows, the Department assesses the proposal for the Chapeltown academy, and it must approve it to proceed into the pre-opening phase, which it did in June last year. There has been significant progress throughout that phase, and we envisage that the Department will soon consider whether the Secretary of State for Education should enter into a funding agreement with Chapeltown Academy Trust. I emphasise that the Department places great importance on that decision, and it is also aware of the need to do it as soon as reasonably practicable if it does go forward, so as to provide increased certainty of a sixth-form place for potential students in the local area.

The hon. Lady alluded to the fact that she has already written to my colleagues, the Secretary of State for Education and the Schools Minister, on a number of occasions, to express her concerns about this academy, which she has also articulated extremely forcefully this evening. She has helpfully laid out some valid points before the House, and the Minister responsible for the decision will carefully consider such issues before entering into any funding agreement with the Chapeltown Academy Trust. I will also take this opportunity to address some of the specific points the hon. Lady has raised.

On evidence of demand, in its original proposal the Chapeltown academy had—as with all free school projects—to produce robust evidence of demand for its proposed provision from parents and prospective students, and make a strong case for its proposal, citing contextual factors including the breadth and quality of the local post-16 offer. The Chapeltown academy received more than 300 expressions of interest in spring last year from students who stated that they would choose to attend the academy were it to open in 2014. As I have said, the academy will have 150 places available in the first year, and even with the delays to the announcement of the site for the academy—I will come to that in due course—the trust has already made more than 130 offers, 81 of which have been accepted to date. That figure will obviously change in due course.

We are aware that some students may potentially hold a place at another post-16 establishment—a point raised by the hon. Lady—so it is difficult to predict precisely at this stage the number of students who will arrive should the Chapeltown academy open in September. However, the academy has a robust student retention plan in place that has been shared with the Department for Education, and it will continue to recruit students to ensure that sufficient numbers are achieved.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the decreasing demographic of the 16-to-19 cohort in Sheffield and the impact on existing providers. I understand that the 16-to-19 cohort in Sheffield overall may decrease in the coming years, and that all post-16 providers in the north of Sheffield will therefore be looking to attract potential students. Chapeltown academy will have a dedicated academic provision focus and will attract students who aspire to go on to attend some of the top universities in the country. Currently, if students in the local area wish to attend a purely academic education option they must either attend provision that provides both academic and vocational courses, or travel substantial distances across the city to seek it elsewhere.

Unfortunately, time does not allow me to elaborate on the various institutions available to students in the city, although the hon. Lady referred to some of them. Part of the whole ethos of the free schools programme is to provide competition for existing providers with the aim of driving education standards across the whole sector. That is something that the Chapeltown academy will want to be able to offer to the academic students in the area.

The hon. Lady also raised concerns about the capacity and experience of the proposer group for the Chapeltown academy. We are fully aware that the skills and attributes that are valuable in writing a proposal or successfully delivering a project are very different from the skill set required to govern an academy effectively. I totally agree that a strong and effective governing body is a crucial element in the success of any educational institution. As is the case with all free schools, we expect to see a strong governing body in which any conflicts of interest are identified and addressed. That is why we have asked the trust to consider its governance arrangements to ensure that its membership has both the skills and the experience to drive through any necessary improvements. That was reiterated to the hon. Lady in a letter from the Minister for Schools. To that end, the revised governing body now consists of two former head teachers—one being the chair of governors, who has post-16 leadership experience—a chief executive of a local charity, a senior human resources consultant, a former director of education and skills, and a chartered accountant. We are now satisfied that the governance structure has the capability to deliver an outstanding education to its students. I understand that full details of the governing body are available on the Chapeltown academy website.

[Angela Smith]

Will the Minister acknowledge that that is only five members of the permanent governing body? The rest of the governing body will not be announced until towards the end of the year.

[Mr Timpson]

I cannot contradict the hon. Lady’s comment, but I will look carefully at the point she has made. It will need to be considered as part of the process as it continues.

The Department is aware that some of the local post-16 providers in the north of Sheffield and across the city are not in favour of the proposed Chapeltown academy. Clearly, we would not necessarily expect that to be the case, for obvious reasons. We are also aware that some of those providers have liaised directly with the Chapeltown academy to request further information about its proposal. It is for the academy trust to determine what information or financial data it is appropriate to release at any given time. I understand that the Chapeltown academy has discussed its proposal with some existing colleges and has provided as much information as it feels is possible without releasing confidential information.

As for the financial viability of the Chapeltown academy, it has supplied financial plans as required at each stage of the project, along with a business model that further demonstrates the viability of the free school. The trust will produce revised financial plans again before we consider entering into a funding agreement. Rightly, those financial plans are rigorously assessed by the Department to ensure that they are viable both from a financial and educational perspective.

The hon. Lady raised concerns about the consultation carried out by the free school trust. That is something it has to do to establish whether it should enter into a funding agreement with the Department. The Department also consults local authorities in considering a free school proposal. The trust has worked to ensure that it consults as many stakeholders as possible, and I understand it wrote to the hon. Lady, inviting her to attend a consultation event, along with giving her a hard copy of the consultation document.

At the time of planning and launching the public consultation, the negotiations for the Chapeltown academy’s premises were commercially sensitive, so the trust was unable therefore to release the details of the proposed premises at that stage. Respondents to the consultation were informed that the trust would consult the public again regarding premises in due course. It has now run a separate public consultation regarding the premises, which opened on 12 March and closed on 2 April. The trustees are considering the responses received and will publish a supplementary report. I know that the hon. Lady will be interested in its contents.

Officials from the Department also sought the views of local authorities in Sheffield, Rotherham and Barnsley. As with all free school proposals, the responses from this consultation, along with the consultation undertaken by the trust, will be duly considered before we decide whether to enter into a funding agreement with the trust. The next steps are for officials to collate all the evidence in relation to the Chapeltown academy proposal, and for Ministers to consider whether to enter into a funding agreement with the academy trust.

I know that the Chapeltown academy has taken the approach of sharing as much information as it can publicly regarding the new academy. As the hon. Lady said, it is proposed that the free school will be located in an industrial unit on the Hydra business park. It is intended that temporary permitted development rights will shortly be applied for to enable the school to use part of the existing office space for one academic year. A full planning application for change of use and external alterations will also be submitted for the permanent building, so there will be some planning oversight of the facility.

As with all free schools, a wide range of factors is considered before entering into a funding agreement. We remain confident that the Chapeltown Academy Trust has produced the material necessary, but it remains for it to make its case.

Question put and agreed to.