Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

I am delighted to do so. Again, I was delighted to join my hon. Friend in visiting that school. It was impressive to see how rapidly that head teacher and his senior leadership team have turned around a school whose performance was previously extremely disappointing.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

T4. The Association of Colleges has said that young people from disadvantaged areas and black and minority ethnic groups will be hardest hit by the cut of 17.5% in the funding for 18-year-olds. That is borne out by the assessment that has been carried out by my local college, Greenwich community college. Why have the Government not issued an impact assessment on this proposal, given the severe impact that it will have on disadvantaged groups?

[Matthew Hancock]

As I said in my earlier answers, we will publish the impact assessment very soon. The crucial question is how, in the context of getting the country out of the budget deficit mess that was left by Opposition Members, we can make decisions that will have the best possible impact on the ground. Is it fair to fund 18-year-olds, who usually take fewer hours of education per week, at the same rate, or should we reduce the funding for all 16 to 19-year-olds instead?

School Sport

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Alan.

I congratulate the Select Committee on its excellent investigation into school sport. The report is important. It is very sad that we are having this debate. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), set out the case powerfully, and I pay tribute to him for his comments. There was a great festival of sport in 2012. After winning the bid in 2005, we talked a great deal about the need to build a legacy by using the opportunity to inspire a generation. Sadly, the foundation on which we should have been inspiring that generation—the structure through which we delivered school sport—was taken away. I commend the Select Committee on what it has done.

Modesty forbids me from commending the report published by the Smith Institute, which the Chair mentioned, because I edited it and wrote the foreword. A number of eminent people wrote essays in the report on how we should structure the future of school and community sport to try to put right what has clearly gone horribly wrong.

We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), and from the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), and there is broad consensus that school sport partnerships worked, that wider benefits come from people being involved in sport, and that there is a need for a long-term, coherent plan to take us forward on sports. That consensus is evident in the report and in the comments made today. It is worth considering the history, because the Government’s thinking has been inconsistent for some time.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

School sport partnerships were a characteristically very expensive and temporary arrangement by the previous Government, so it is not as if this Government have dismantled a long-term vision and framework. We have moved from one expensive and patchy system to another. Successive Governments have failed to provide the long-term framework and vision that we need.

[Clive Efford]

I am reluctant to differ with the hon. Gentleman, but school sport partnerships were in place for some time and had a major effect on participation in sport. I would accept his point if we had moved smoothly from one system to the other, but that is not what happened.

Prior to the general election, the then shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), who is now Health Secretary, and the then shadow Sports Minister, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), produced a document, “Extending Opportunities: A Conservative policy paper on sport.” Two things were mentioned in relation to school sports. First:

“The school environment provides the majority of children with their first experiences of sport. This experience is likely to govern their approach to sport for the rest of their lives.”

The document goes on to address the contribution of school sport partnerships. On the same page, the document states that the Conservative party would:

“Re-examine Building Schools for the Future to see how sports provision can be enhanced.”

I mention that document because the sad thing is that as soon as the Government came into office, both Building Schools for the Future, which, as the document recognises, improved school facilities, and the funding for school sport partnerships were taken away. That announcement was made in October 2010, and it was almost the kiss of death for two key elements of delivering sport in our schools. There is no doubt that Building Schools for the Future improved facilities in our schools; we could have used it to build a framework for delivering excellent sport provision, both competitive and non-competitive, in our schools. There was inconsistency between what the Government said before the election, and what they did after it.

It is also worth setting out what the school sport partnerships achieved, because in 2002 the PE and school sport survey highlighted that only one child in four was doing two hours of PE a week. Under the school sport partnerships, by 2007-08, the figure had increased to 90%. In fact, the success of school sport partnerships led in that year to steps being taken to introduce a target of three hours of PE a week, and the five-hour commitment meant that almost 55% of children were doing at least three hours of PE a week and were moving towards the five-hour commitment.

We set very challenging, but achievable, targets as a measure of our ambition. We wanted to get 2 million more people active and, by 2012, we wanted 60% of children to do five hours of PE a week during curriculum time and after school. Before the election, the then shadow Sports Minister said on Radio 5 Live that he thought it would be wrong to dismantle school sport partnerships after 13 years of work, and that his party would build on the partnerships. The Conservative party’s “Sport in schools” policy briefing note stated that schools would be

“free to enter as many or as few sports as they want, and there would be preliminary city and county heats, perhaps using the School Sport Partnerships infrastructure”.

Again, we see what the party went on to do.

The Conservative policy also states:

“We will also publish data about schools’ sports facilities and their provision of competitive sporting opportunities”.

In opposition, the Conservative party committed to introducing competitive sport in schools and went on and did it. The current Government built on the school games introduced by the previous Government, which is an excellent example of what can be achieved for sport in our schools, and I support what they have achieved, but as has been pointed out, the funding has a limited time scale, which makes me question whether it will exist in the long term. A consistent criticism—of both the previous and current Governments, I grant—is that what we need is some form of long-term planning. If the Government are to produce figures for participation in competitive sport, surely it follows that they should provide statistics on non-competitive sport, too, so that parents may have a clear idea of exactly what they can expect from physical and recreational activity provided to their children at school.

In 2010, money was taken away from the school sport partnerships with no consultation and no planning whatever. We have heard what Jonathan Edwards thought about that, and at the time many others were highly critical of what the Secretary of State for Education did without considering the consequences or putting anything else in place. That is a key point. The Secretary of State wrote to Baroness Campbell of Loughborough:

“I can confirm therefore that the Department will not continue to provide ring-fenced funding for school sport partnerships. I am also announcing that the Department is lifting, immediately, the many requirements of the previous Government's PE and Sport Strategy, so giving schools the clarity and freedom to concentrate on competitive school sport.”

He continued with a list:

“I am removing the need for schools to:

Plan and implement their part of a ‘five hour offer’”—

so the five-hour offer was off the agenda—

“Collect information about every pupil for an annual survey;”—

so we had no idea what was going on in schools—

“Deliver a range of new Government sport initiatives each year;”—

if we are trying to get uniformity of delivery across schools, why would one want that?—and

“Report termly to the Youth Sport Trust on various performance indicators”.

I might actually sympathise with that last one, because the Youth Sport Trust was heavy on data collection, but that does not justify the Government taking away all its funding and that of school sport partnerships in the way that they did. Everyone has said that the partnerships were a foundation on which we could have built. If things were wrong, we could have altered or reformed them to make them more effective.

[Bill Esterson]

On my hon. Friend’s point about reform, it would have been a good idea—it is still possible—to measure how effective the programmes or projects were. That is what should have happened. Given that we are where we are, does he agree that we need to measure the effectiveness of the primary school sports premium? It is a long-term project, so it is important that the data have value.

[Clive Efford]

The Government have said that the scheme will be externally evaluated, and I would like to hear how that will be done, and what will be looked at.

This point goes back to the intervention from the Chair of the Education Committee. Following the Secretary of State’s announcement, and the decision to take money away from school sport partnerships on a whim, there was a hue and cry from people involved in sport and school sport in particular. If you check Hansard, Sir Alan, you will find that I was one of those angry people. I am sure that a sense of how shocked and angry I was at the sudden announcement just leaps out of the page. The Secretary of State was forced to come back to Parliament to make another announcement, in which he reinstated £65 million—£32.5 million a year for two years—for PE teacher release, whereby teachers would be released for a day a week to co-ordinate sports in their area. Through a series of freedom of information requests, I found out that that funding was resulting in 60% less time being spent organising school sport than was spent by school sport co-ordinators under school sport partnerships. Despite attempts to back-fill the hole, the damage had been done. There was a significant reduction in the amount of time being spent organising sport outside the classroom.

In addition—it really is a sorry pattern—the Government have watered down protections for school playing fields in the national planning framework. Schools are no longer required to provide a specified amount of playing field space; they merely have to provide suitable outdoor space. It also beggars belief that free schools can open up with absolutely no sport provision whatever. That cannot be right and is not consistent with the actions of a Government who value school sport and consider it deserving of higher priority in the curriculum. In August 2012, the Government abolished the two-hour target; without any means of monitoring what is going on, it is difficult to judge what the implications have been.

The announcement of the £150 million scheme was welcome, but as I pointed out to the Chair of the Education Committee, it came after the dismantling of the structures put in place for school sport. The emphasis on primary schools has been welcomed, and I echo that to some degree, and will return to the subject. The funding is ring-fenced, which is another U-turn, because we have been told that ring-fencing was out of favour under this Government, and that schools should use money as they wish. How will the Government monitor the scheme? We welcome the specialist PE training of 120 primary teachers, but it is a drop in the ocean across 17,000 primary schools. There are also questions about Ofsted’s capability. Can we be sure that Ofsted personnel are properly trained and equipped to evaluate what is going on? The issue is not just the two hours, but what happens during those two hours. We want to ensure that school sport is evaluated in the right way.

When the Government announced the school games, which I welcome, it was an excuse to cover up the loss of school sport partnerships. That was an attack on people who value increasing participation. In a blog on the “ConservativeHome” website in 2011, the then Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey, said that the Government were

“banishing once and for all the left-wing orthodoxy that promotes ‘prizes for all’ and derides competition”.

That is a classic example of accusing one’s opponent of being in favour of something and then abolishing it. The previous Government introduced school games and certainly were not at all opposed to competitive sport. In fact, we said that where people were motivated, and wanted to excel and to participate in competitive sport, they should be able to do so. School sport partnerships were successful at increasing participation in competitive sport.

[Craig Whittaker]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but only to a point. It was clear from evidence heard by the Education Committee that where school sport partnerships worked well, they worked very well, but they did not work well in many areas. Another piece of evidence made it clear that, given the £2.5 billion cost, they were perhaps not the most effective way of spending the money.

[Clive Efford]

Rolling up all the money to £2.5 billion makes the programme sound very expensive. It was actually £162 million a year, and this Government have put £150 million into the primary school sports premium. I do accept, however, that school sport partnerships did not work so well in some areas, but that does not justify getting rid of the whole scheme. They were a good foundation on which we should have been building.

I must start to draw my comments to a close. In the Government’s response to the Education Committee’s point about competitive sport, I notice that they mention dance as an activity that they want to be encouraged in schools. I assume that that means that there is a difference of opinion with the Prime Minister, who was being critical when he said that the

“two hours that is laid down is often met through sort of Indian dancing classes.”

I assume that that policy is no longer being followed.

I will conclude, because I want to give the Minister a fair go at coming back at me. I think that I have been going for nearly 20 minutes, Sir Alan—the speech timer seems to have stopped.

What do we want in the future? What are we looking for? I welcome the point about core physical literacy and the investment in primary schools. Investment in specialist teaching in primary schools is not to replace PE, but in addition to it. We must not have teachers feeling that they have somehow abdicated responsibility for teaching PE because that money is going into our primary schools. It is important for PE to be part of the curriculum, and I support the Select Committee recommendation that teacher training be altered to cover that. We also want co-ordinators for PE in every primary school, as we have for maths and literacy, so that it has similar status, and so that someone takes responsibility for ensuring not only that a decent amount of PE is taught—we would restore the two-hour minimum requirement—but that it is taught at a decent standard.

On physical literacy, we need to get it right from day one, which means starting when children are at pre-school. We need to talk to carers, parents and the health service—health visitors and such people—to ensure that everyone understands that developing core physical literacy from day one is important. From an early age, if children feel inadequate, they may start to use avoidance tactics, so that they do not get into a situation in which they feel challenged, and we see that behaviour in relation to physical activity. It is therefore important that we encourage everyone to instil the idea of physical activity in the right way, and that we develop physical literacy and core physical strength in children from the earliest age.

I support the primary premium money, so that children, in particular at key stage 2, get the broadest experience of as vast a range of sports as we can achieve at that stage of their education. When they go to secondary school, they can then make informed choices about the sports and physical activities that they might want to get involved in. I agree with points made earlier: this is not only about competition. It has to be about getting people active and instilling that habit in them for a lifetime.

We need long-term planning. I have been all over the country, talking to people involved at all levels of sport, including PE teachers and co-ordinators, and they want long-term planning from Government. They also want politicians to co-operate with one another. I would welcome the opportunity to sit down and talk across Government about a long-term plan for sport and recreational activity in our schools and communities, so that we can give people the consistency and therefore the confidence to plan ahead for the sorts of sports that they are delivering in their communities. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. Before I move into the body of my contribution to the debate, I take the opportunity to thank the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for his closing remarks. I was a little worried, when he was about seven eighths of the way through his speech, that we were not going to hear his views of and visions for the future. He is hugely passionate about this subject—

[Clive Efford]

I have written a book.

[Mr Timpson]

The hon. Gentleman has written books about the subject and spoken at length about it, so to hear him say that he wants to find a way in which we can demonstrate a cross-party, co-ordinated response to an issue that we both have such passion for is music to my ears. I hope that this is the dawn of a new approach to what should, fundamentally, not be a political football, as the Select Committee indicated in the title of its report. I hugely welcome his closing remarks.

Some excellent points have been made in the debate by both Government and Opposition Members, in particular those on the Select Committee itself. I add my thanks to the Committee and its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), for their report, which offers an informative analysis of the provision of PE and sport in schools, as well as a good and interesting range of suggestions as to how we can make further improvements. The Government response to the report, published on 16 October, provided a clear understanding of our recognition of the wide range of benefits from sport—as the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) also identified—which can be ensured by children taking part in physical activity and sport from an early age.

I know from my own love of sport and how it has helped to widen my opportunities that we must be committed to ensuring that all children and young people have the opportunity to lead healthy, active lifestyles, to participate in sport and physical activity both in and outside school and to compete against their peers. We are clear that improving PE and sport provision in schools is a top priority—I think that I said that five times in the first eight minutes of my evidence to the Committee.

We can all agree, as the Chair of the Committee said in his excellent opening contribution, that the 2012 Olympics were an inspiration to the whole country and something of which we can be hugely proud. We must have a determined and consensual commitment, as far as we can, to secure a lasting legacy for children and young people.

Our overarching strategy covers a wide range of areas, designed to provide significant long-term benefits derived from instilling an early enthusiasm for sport and physical activity. There was agreement during the debate that we have to get in early, as with many other aspects of children’s lives. I was interested in the points made by the hon. Member for Eltham about pre-school, as well as where else in and around the school environment we could improve opportunity and participation. In due course, it will be good to hear his views on extending the school day or the role of schools in providing a wider range of opportunities before the compulsory school age, to see whether they are ways in which we could help to improve access to sport and PE.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I certainly will. Local enterprise partnerships are led by local businesses and, in large part, respond extremely effectively to the needs of local businesses. In some areas of the country, they are almost wholly reflective of the rural economy—that is true of East Anglia, which is largely rural. I take on board the point that that does not always happen everywhere, and I will ensure that it does.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

13. What assessment he has made of the value for money for the public purse of the recent sale of shares in Royal Mail.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

Our overarching objective is to put Royal Mail in a position to be able to deliver the universal service on a long-term and sustainable basis. When considering value for money, we will assess the sale proceeds together with the long-term value of the taxpayers’ retained stake in the business and the reduced risk to the taxpayer of a stable company with access to private sources of capital.

[Clive Efford]

The shares were sold at £3.30 each and this morning they are selling at £5.32. Does the Minister agree that the taxpayer got a raw deal in the share sale, and does he accept full responsibility?

[Michael Fallon]

It is not unusual to see some share price volatility in the immediate aftermath of a sale. Let us be clear: this sale was popular, oversubscribed and successful. When the Labour Government tried to sell Royal Mail, they failed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Timpson]

I am happy to look at the particular situation that the hon. Lady has articulated, but it is up to local councils to make those decisions. Many councils are opening swimming pools around the country, and swimming will be a compulsory activity in the new curriculum, as we have seen the benefits that it can bring to a healthy lifestyle for many children across the country.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Government were warned when they cut the money for school sport partnerships in 2010 that there would be fewer children in schools doing sport. Survey after survey has shown just that. The Taking Part survey, which was published last month, showed that there had been a 10% cut since 2009 in the number of children aged five to 10 doing sport in school. What are the Government going to do to turn that around?

[Mr Timpson]

It is disappointing to see the results of the Taking Part survey, but the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman have to make a decision soon about where they stand on school sport, and whether they are going to join the consensus that recognises that intervening early in a child’s life and making sport, through the work that we are doing with primary schools, an integral part of their life is the way forward. I am happy to discuss with him how he can join us to make sure that the huge amount of investment that we have made in school sports, which is ring-fenced and will be inspected by Ofsted, will have a real impact in the long term. I am open to those conversations, but he has to make a choice as to whether he is going to continue to carp from the sidelines or engage in the real debate.

GCSEs

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Few people know more about the chalk face than he does, given that his partner is a primary school teacher. He is absolutely right that we need to change our examination system, to restore confidence that has unfortunately been dented.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s entire statement is about the importance of qualifications, and I am sure parents will appreciate that, but can he give parents an assurance that no unqualified teachers will be teaching these GCSE courses?

[Michael Gove]

One thing I can say is that teachers are better qualified than ever, and the new head of the Teaching Agency and the national college, Charlie Taylor, has been responsible for changes that ensure that we have more highly qualified young people, teaching to a higher standard than ever before.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

There is much more scope in the new national curriculum for schools to develop programmes involving design, technology and computing to prepare students for high-tech roles, as well as improving their maths and English core skills. The computing curriculum now focuses on programming and understanding how computers work, and has been developed with the British Computer Society. We are also introducing a new technical baccalaureate that will provide a high level of technical training, including maths for students up to the age of 18.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Flexibility for schools is welcome, but what is the minimum time parents should expect their children to spend on sport and physical activity under the new national curriculum?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We are ensuring that physical education is a core part of the curriculum for children aged up to 16, and we have introduced new topics to the subject.

Curriculum and Exam Reform

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. One of the changes that the English baccalaureate has helped to cement is that students will be clearer about the subjects that they need to take in order to get on to a particular course or into a particular university or college. Given how fast the world is changing, it is vital that we ensure that the advice is tailored to every student in the right way. It is also important that students recognise the potential of new subjects, such as computing, to offer them an even richer range of chances to succeed.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

We can only live in hope that Hong Kong, Massachusetts and Singapore do sport in their schools. The Secretary of State has presided over a reduction in the number of hours that PE teachers spend outside the classroom organising sport, and the children in our schools are spending less time on PE and physical recreation on his watch. What is the position of sport in his new, strengthened national curriculum?

[Michael Gove]

Sport is stronger than ever in the national curriculum, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to feed back on the draft, which shows a renewed emphasis on competitive and team sports. I hope that he will welcome that. I am grateful to The Observer newspaper for showing in a recent poll that a majority of parents believe that school sport is being either protected or enhanced under this Government, rather than diminished. It is great to see that parents know that, on the ground, our commitment to sport is stronger than ever.

Offshore Gambling Bill

Clive Efford Excerpts

Friday 25th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss McIntosh]

Let me make the case, and then perhaps I will satisfy my hon. Friend’s request. Importantly, the levy was created and enforced prior to our entry in 1973 into the Common Market, as the European Union was then called. Let me state clearly and graphically that the levy enjoys grandfather rights—that is the big difference between the Bill under consideration and the remote gambling Bill—and cannot therefore be said in any shape or form to constitute a state aid.

What authority do I have to make this case? I hesitate to say this, but as a mere youth in 1978 I spent six months on a stagiaire placement as a trainee with the Commission in the Directorate General for Competition, then known as DG 4. The House will be familiar with the competition rules—originally articles 85 and 86 of the treaty of Rome, and now known as articles 105 and 106 of the snappily entitled treaty on the functioning of the European Union—that set out the common rules on competition, taxation and approximation of laws. As the levy existed prior to 1973, and because it has grandfather rights, it cannot be deemed to constitute a state aid, and the fact that we have not been pursued by the European Commission emphasises that. I hope the Minister will listen closely to and support those arguments, and that he will either give the whole Offshore Gambling Bill a fair passage today, or say that when the remote gambling Bill is brought forward, clause 4—or its equivalent relating to the levy—will be included.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I suspect that the hon. Lady is coming to a conclusion, but I was expecting her to refer to discussions she has had with the Government about her Bill. I cannot help noticing that the clauses in her Bill are—with one exception—almost identical to those in the Government’s Bill, which suggests some form of dialogue between the hon. Lady and the Government. It would be desirable for that part of the Bill to make progress. Has she discussed with the Government when they intend their Bill to complete its progress? Perhaps we could succeed in that and deal with the levy separately. Has she considered that?

[Miss McIntosh]

I am not concluding quite yet, but I have always considered myself to be particularly close to the Government having served for nine years as a shadow Minister. I have had loose discussions on that issue; I am sure the Minister will elaborate in summing up and—hopefully—accepting this Bill, and we will then have a space in the legislative programme from May for another Bill such as the water Bill. I am sure the whole House joins me in looking forward to that.

We are seeking reassurances about when the Government will bring forward their remote gambling Bill. It is not sufficient for the Minister simply to say that it will be in the next Session, which will start in May 2013 and end in May 2014. I think that would be unacceptable, and I hope that the Minister will comment not only on when the Bill will be presented but, as the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) said, on what the timetable will be and when the legislative stages will conclude. I hope he will also respond to the point about the levy, which, as I have said several times, is the main point of contention when comparing the Offshore Gambling Bill and the Government’s remote gambling Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I feel like I have been under starter’s orders for four and a half hours and I have finally got out of the traps. I congratulate the hon. Members for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) and for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing this debate. It has been an interesting debate, although it has been heavy going at times. I feel like I have been waiting for a taxi: you wait for a Bill, then you get two at once.

I will leave the Dispatch Box after asking the Minister if he can clarify where we are. We have two identical Bills: the only thing that is different about the Offshore Gambling Bill is clause 4—where have we been before on clause IV?—which deals with the levy. The levy is important, as it provides essential funds for an important industry, particularly in rural areas, but will the Minister explain how he intends to proceed with the Bills? Will we see legislation in this Session? It is shame that his draft Bill was not submitted to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport any earlier, given that there has been a paucity of Government business to fill the time. We could have completed scrutiny of this piece of legislation had it been introduced earlier. In the time remaining today, the Minister will want to contribute to the debate as much as possible, so I shall leave it to him to answer those points.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Ofsted does not require written lesson plans for every lesson. Michael Wilshaw, Her Majesty’s chief inspector, has made that absolutely clear.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

One of the most demanding tasks that teachers do outside the classroom is marking books, which allows them to monitor the progress of pupils. The applications for free schools that I have seen have an average of 25 pupils per class. If we value teachers in all sections of our education system, should they not all be teaching classes of 25 pupils? If the Government are serious about reducing the work load of teachers, they should take that on board.

[Mr Gibb]

I would encourage schools that want to have smaller class sizes and more control over how they are run to adopt academy status.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

The short answer is, yes we will. The long answer is that there has not yet been an application from Dorset county council to dispose of the Wareham school playing field. If such an application is made, the Secretary of State’s approval to dispose of the playing field will be required, and he will take advice from the independent school playing fields advisory panel.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that from 1979 until 1997 the Conservative Government sold off 10,000 school playing fields. After the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the number went down to just 226 between 1998 and 2010. The national planning policy framework intends to water down restrictions on the disposal of school playing fields, which is like a burglar returning to the scene of the crime. Will the Minister ensure that there is no watering down of the restrictions on the sale of school playing fields in the future?

[Mr Gibb]

I have just explained that section 77 of the Act is still in force and there is no intention to change that legislation. In fact, in 2011 just eight applications for the sale of school playing fields were allowed.