Birmingham Schools

Michael Gove Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on schools in Birmingham.

Keeping our children safe and ensuring that our schools prepare them for life in modern Britain could not be more important; it is my Department’s central mission. Allegations made in what has become known as the Trojan horse letter suggested that children were not being kept safe in Birmingham schools. Ofsted and the Education Funding Agency have investigated those allegations. Their reports and other relevant documents have today been placed in the Library. Let me set out their findings and my actions.

Ofsted states that

“headteachers reported...an organised campaign to target…schools...in order to alter their character and ethos,”

with

“a culture of fear and intimidation.”

Head teachers who had

“a record of raising standards”

reported that they had been

“marginalised or forced out of their jobs.”

One school leader was so frightened about speaking to the authorities that a meeting had to be arranged in a supermarket car park.

Ofsted concluded that governors

“are trying to impose and promote a narrow faith-based ideology in what are non-faith schools”

specifically by narrowing the curriculum, manipulating staff appointments and using school funds inappropriately.

Overall, Ofsted inspected 21 schools. Three were good or outstanding; 12 were found to require improvement. The remaining six are inadequate, and are in special measures. Let me explain why. At one secular primary school, terms such as “white prostitute”, unsuitable for primary children’s ears, were used in Friday assemblies run exclusively by Muslim staff. The school organised visits to Saudi Arabia, open only to Muslim pupils, and senior leaders told inspectors that a madrassah had been established and paid for from the school’s budget. Ofsted concluded that the school was

“not adequately ensuring that pupils have opportunities to learn about faith in a way that promotes tolerance and harmony between different cultures”.

At one secular secondary school, staff told officials that the call to prayer was broadcast across the playground on loud speakers. Officials observed that lessons had been narrowed to comply with conservative Islamic teachings. In biology, students were told that

“evolution is not what we believe”.

The school invited the preacher Sheikh Shady al-Suleiman to speak, despite the fact that he is reported to have said: “Give victory to Muslims in Afghanistan... Give victory to all the mujaheddin all over the world. Oh Allah, prepare us for the jihad.” Ofsted concluded that

“governors have failed to ensure that safeguarding requirements and other statutory duties are met”.

At another secular secondary school, inspectors described “a state of crisis”, with governors reportedly using school funds to pay private investigators to read the e-mails of senior leaders, and Ofsted found that there was a lack of action to protect students from extremism. At a third secular secondary school, Ofsted found that students were

“vulnerable to the risk of marginalisation from wider British society and the associated risks which…include radicalisation”.

At a secular primary, Ofsted found that

“pupils have limited knowledge of religious beliefs other than Islam”

and

“subjects such as art and music have been removed—at the insistence of the governing body”.

Inspectors concluded that the school

“does not adequately prepare students for life in modern Britain”.

Ofsted also reported failures on the part of Birmingham city council. It found that the council did not deal adequately with repeated complaints from head teachers. School leaders expressed “very little confidence” in the local authority, and Ofsted concluded that Birmingham had not exercised adequate judgement. These findings demand a robust but considered response. It is important that no one allows concern about these findings to become a pretext for criticism of Islam itself—a great faith that brings spiritual nourishment to millions and daily inspires countless acts of generosity. The overwhelming majority of British Muslim parents want their children to grow up in schools that open doors rather than close minds. It is on their behalf that we have to act.

There are critical questions about whether warning signs were missed. There are questions for Birmingham council, Ofsted and the Department for Education. Today, I have asked Birmingham council to review its history on this issue, and the chief inspector has advised me that he will consider the lessons learned for Ofsted. I am also concerned that the DFE may not have acted when it should have done. I am asking the permanent secretary to investigate how my Department dealt with warnings since the formation of this Government in 2010, and before. We must all acknowledge that there has been a failure in the past to do everything possible to tackle non-violent extremism.

Let me make it clear that no Government and no Home Secretary have done more to tackle extremism than this Government and this Home Secretary. In the Prime Minister’s Munich speech of 2011, in the Home Secretary’s own review of the Prevent strategy, and in the conclusions of the Government’s extremism taskforce last year, this Government have made it clear that we need to deal with the dangers posed by extremism well before it becomes violent. Since 2010, the DFE has increased its capacity to deal with extremism. We set up Whitehall’s first ever unit to counter extremism in public services, with help from former intelligence and security professionals. That unit has developed since 2010, and we will continue to strengthen it.

Ofsted now trains inspectors to understand and counter extremist Islamist ideology, and inspections of schools at risk, like those in Birmingham, are carried out by the most senior inspectors, overseen by Michael Wilshaw himself.

There is, of course, more to do, and today’s reports make action urgent. First, we need to take action in the schools found to be inadequate. Academies will receive letters saying that I am minded to terminate funding agreements; in local authority schools, governors are being replaced. We have already spoken to successful academy providers who are ready to act as sponsors.

We need to strengthen our inspection regime even further. The requirement to give notice of inspections clearly makes it more difficult to identify and detect the danger signs. Sir Michael Wilshaw and I have argued in the past that no-notice inspections can help identify when pupils are at risk. I have asked him to consider the practicalities of moving to a situation where all schools know that they may receive an unannounced inspection. I will also work with Sir Michael Wilshaw to ensure, as he recommends, that we can provide greater public assurance that all schools in a locality discharge their full statutory responsibilities, and we will consider how Ofsted can better enforce the existing requirement that all schools teach a broad and balanced curriculum.

I have talked today to the leader of Birmingham council and requested that it set out an action plan to tackle extremism and keep children safe. We already require independent schools, academies and free schools to respect British values. Now we will consult on new rules that will strengthen this standard further, requiring all those schools actively to promote British values, and I will ask Ofsted to enforce an equivalent standard on maintained schools through changes to the Ofsted framework.

Several of the governors whose activities have been investigated by Ofsted have also been active in the Association of Muslim Schools UK, which has statutory responsibilities in relation to state Muslim faith schools. So we have asked AMS UK to satisfy us that it is doing enough to protect children from extremism, and we will take appropriate steps if its guarantees are insufficiently robust.

I have spoken to the National College for Teaching and Leadership, and we will further strengthen the rules so that from now on it is explicit that a teacher inviting an extremist speaker into a school can be banned from the profession.

I will, of course, report in July on progress in all the areas that I have announced, as well as publishing the findings of the report of Peter Clarke, who is investigating the background behind many of the broader allegations in the Trojan horse letter. The steps we are taking today are those we consider necessary to protect our children from extremism and to protect our nation’s traditions of tolerance and liberty.

The conclusions of the reports today are clear. Things that should not have happened in our schools were allowed to happen. Our children were exposed to things that they should not have been exposed to. As Education Secretary, I am taking decisive action to make sure that those children are protected. Schools that are proven to have failed will be taken over, put under new leadership and taken in a fresh new direction. Any school could now be subject to rigorous, on-the-spot inspections with no advance warning and no opportunities to conceal failure. And we will put the promotion of British values at the heart of what every school has to deliver for children. What we have found was unacceptable, and we will put it right. I commend this statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristram Hunt]

The Education Secretary speaks of requiring all schools to promote British values; all well and good. Among the greatest of British values is an education system that welcomes and integrates migrant communities, builds successful citizens in a multicultural society and secures safety and high standards for all, and the Education Secretary is failing to do so.

[Michael Gove]

I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) for his comments and I agree that we need to focus on successful futures for these schools. I also agree that we need a broader debate, to ensure that all schools—faith and non-faith—make sure that children are integrated into modern Britain. But I regret the fact that in his comments he was not able to let us know the Labour party’s position on no-notice inspections. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) for stressing that he believes that no-notice inspections are right; I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) for stressing that. But I am still none the wiser about the position of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central. I am afraid that I am also none the wiser about his position on whether or not it is right to promote British values in schools and right to take the other steps that we have taken.

The hon. Gentleman asks about meetings between the Department for Education and the Birmingham headmaster, Tim Boyes, in 2010. I can confirm that I was not at that meeting, nor was I informed about its content. That is why I have asked the permanent secretary to investigate, and I have also asked him to look at other occasions before 2010 when warnings were reportedly given. The hon. Gentleman has previously alleged that I was warned by Mr Boyes in 2010 and did not act; that is not the case and I hope that he will make it clear in the future, and withdraw that allegation.

The hon. Gentleman asks about local oversight of all these schools. It is important to stress that when Tim Boyes raised these issues in 2010 all these schools were facing local oversight from Birmingham city council, and as Sir Michael Wilshaw has concluded, Birmingham city council failed. As Ofsted makes clear, repeated warnings to those charged with local oversight were ignored. Indeed, it was only after my Department was informed about the allegations in the Trojan horse letter that action was taken, and I thank Birmingham city council for its co-operation since then.

The hon. Gentleman asks what action was taken overall since 2010. It would be quite wrong to allege, as he does, that the Department has taken no action on extremism since 2010; the opposite is the case. As the Home Secretary pointed out, we were the first Department outside her own to set up a counter-extremism unit. Unreported and under-appreciated, it has prevented a number of extremist or unsuitable organisations from securing access to public funds.

The hon. Gentleman asks about academies and free schools, and the autonomy that they enjoy. First, I must correct him: none of the schools that Ofsted inspected are free schools and all the evidence so far is that free schools in Birmingham are proving a success. I must also correct him on the matter of oversight of academies. Academies are subject to sharper and more rigorous accountability than local authority schools. They are inspected not just by Ofsted but by the Education Funding Agency.

The hon. Gentleman also asks about curriculum inspection. Let me stress that it is already a requirement that schools have a broad and balanced curriculum; the question is enforcement. That means giving Ofsted the tools it needs, such as no-notice inspections and suitably qualified inspectors.

The problems identified today are serious and long-standing. They require us all to take action against all forms of extremism. I have been encouraged throughout my career by support from Opposition Members—the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr, among others—for a non-partisan approach to fighting extremism. I hope that, after his comments today, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central will reflect on the seriousness of these charges and recognise that this is not an appropriate vehicle through which he should make wider criticisms of the school reforms with which he and his party disagree. I hope that, in the future, we can count on him and others working across party boundaries to keep our children safe.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Beneath all this froth of what letters were written, by whom and to whom, is not the essential point this: at last we have a Secretary of State—the first—who is prepared in our state secular schools to take on Muslim sensibilities, or the sensibilities of anybody else, to ensure that all religions and all people are treated with equal respect?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Let me stress again—his question gives me the opportunity to do so—that there are exemplary Muslim faith schools and that the contribution of Britain’s Muslim community is immeasurable, and immeasurably for the good. But one of the things that both the Home Secretary and I have sought to do is ensure that in schools or other civic institutions the dangers of extremism, violent or non-violent, are countered head-on.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

May I pick up on the Secretary of State’s previous point? Does he accept that in my constituency, where 30%-plus of the population are of the Muslim faith, there are plenty of schools—faith schools or secular schools—where 100% of pupils might be Muslim but that so far we have been able to avoid allegations of extremism of this kind? That is true elsewhere across the country. If we are to get the overwhelming majority of followers of the Muslim faith on board, it is crucial that we distinguish between those who are devout, but who embrace British values, and those who are extreme. We need to concentrate on those who are extreme and see them isolated.

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely agree. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the work he has done to ensure that state-funded schools can provide children and parents in Blackburn with an Islamic faith education that equips them for the 21st century. Let me emphasise that there is a key distinction, which this Government have drawn, between perfectly respectable religious conservatism, whatever the faith, and extremist activity. It is vital that that distinction be maintained. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s chuntering in the background is of no interest or relevance whatsoever.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Is not a key issue that might give rise to extremism and the rejection of British values a cultural one: namely, the unwillingness or inability among some communities to speak English? Is not it important, therefore, to give appropriate financial support in those areas where we need to tackle potential exclusion, and even ghettoisation, for the teaching of English at the earliest stage?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, absolutely right. A key element of the Prime Minister’s 2011 Munich speech was an insistence that we do everything possible to ensure that everyone who grows up in this country can speak English fluently, and that is one of the principal aims of our education programme.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

At times over the past month or two, I have thought that this day would never come. These reports have been kept under wraps, hidden in full from parents, while they have been leaked in part left, right and centre. Parents, who should have been the first to know, have been the last to know about the contents of these reports. I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to apologise to the House for the contempt with which parents have been treated in this debate. Secondly, he knows that I have been at the forefront in calling for this Ofsted process. I am glad that Sir Michael Wilshaw has today said that there is no evidence of an organised plot to radicalise our children or introduce extremism into schools, but four out of the six academies—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not know with what frequency the right hon. Gentleman contributes from the Back Benches—[Interruption.] Order. I recognise that these matters are of extreme salience to his constituents; I do not need him to tell me that. The simple fact is that his question, which is not yet a question, is far too long—[Interruption.] Order. We must leave it there for now.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the points he makes. It was vital that we ensured that the schools concerned had an opportunity to read the Ofsted reports before they were published and to let us know whether, in their view, there was any factual inaccuracy. It was vital—indeed, he made this point to me in a private meeting—that we did everything possible to ensure that these reports were bullet-proof against challenge. I absolutely share his desire to ensure that we do everything possible to reassure parents. The parents who have spoken out and have contacted Ofsted and the Department for Education want action to be taken, because, as is clear from the reports, the behaviour of certain governors, as reported, is unacceptable.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend’s statement is extremely important. His ability to find the right line in reassuring parents across the country that this is not happening everywhere and answering the question, “How did we get where we are?”, regarding some of these schools will be very important. Bearing in mind the possibility of any links outside the United Kingdom, will he assure me that if any information has come to light in the course of the investigations that might link with any other inquiry that has been held in the United Kingdom, or identifies any links to any organisations abroad that might, through their work, be threatening us, it will be made available to the appropriate authorities?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, whose knowledge of these issues as a former middle east Minister is unparalleled. Peter Clarke will use his expertise to marshal and gather all the information necessary to see whether there is any influence, untoward or otherwise, from outside this country.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that this inquiry will not tar all the Muslim community in Birmingham, other than a few individuals who took it on themselves to lead with this issue and try to wreck the whole community and its reputation? Will he also confirm that the schools will be put back to normal as soon as possible and that whatever structural changes are due are made quickly so that in September children return to a proper education?

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely: I can provide assurances on both those points. May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has been outstanding in his efforts to ensure community cohesion in Birmingham? He has been one of the first and clearest voices in this House warning us about the dangers of extremism, and his commitment to his constituents is second to none.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that there is uncertainty among many parents about what their children are entitled to be taught in school? Would it not reassure parents if the Government introduced a minimum curriculum entitlement that all state-funded schools would teach?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Schools are, of course, already required to teach a broad and balanced curriculum. I hope that in the weeks ahead we can have an informed debate about the correct balance between the autonomy that schools and head teachers properly enjoy in order to innovate and to have their professional expertise respected and a guarantee to parents that their children are being taught in a way that conforms with the values that we both share.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

British values, which the Secretary of State wants to promote, include the rule of law. I am therefore quite troubled by the part of his statement where he said that governors

“are trying to impose and promote a narrow faith-based ideology in what are non-faith schools”,

specifically by narrowing the curriculum, manipulating staff appointments and using school funds inappropriately. Surely that is unacceptable, whether the school is secular or a faith school. It needs to be made clear that these standards must apply to schools universally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Let me stress that prior to the publication of these reports and of Sir Michael Wilshaw’s covering letter, some questioned whether these investigations were worth while. I pay tribute to her for emphasising how important it is that we deal with the findings. I also pay tribute to the shadow Secretary of State for making it clear that Sir Michael Wilshaw’s integrity is unimpeachable.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the opportunity to see the papers in advance, there being two schools affected in my constituency. The National Association of Head Teachers has expressed concern that the system of investigation and inspection is rather inchoate and suggested that a more coherent system of investigation of allegations is needed. I agree—does the Secretary of State?

[Michael Gove]

It is absolutely right that we review how we investigate the problems that have been identified. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) pointed out, it is clear that Ofsted has uncovered a number of unacceptable practices. It is also clear that the Education Funding Agency has additional powers in relation to academies that have been incredibly useful in this regard as well. I am entirely open to considering how, in future, we can provide parents with guarantees that their children are safe.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

It is clear from the reports published today that the central charge that there has been an organised plot to import extremism that has radicalised children in Birmingham has not been met. What there has been is unacceptably poor and bad governance, which has let children, parents and staff down, and which must be tackled. Those two things are not the same. Does the Secretary of State therefore regret the tone of the debate, which has sent a clear message to Muslim parents in Birmingham and beyond that the education of their children will be viewed through the prism of national security?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to make two points. She is absolutely right. When the allegations were raised in the original Trojan horse letter, it was important that they were investigated, and the findings we have today are the findings that Ofsted and the Education Funding Agency are competent to deliver.

Peter Clarke is also looking into some of the broader allegations. One of the reasons he was chosen is that if people have been unfairly alleged to have taken part in activities of which they are entirely innocent, there can be no more effective figure to exonerate them than Peter Clarke.

I would also emphasise that Sheik Shady al-Suleiman spoke at one of these schools and his comments are now on the record of the House. I think that anyone listening to those comments would recognise that such a speaker in a school is exposing children to the dangers of extremism.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

When will we see the Secretary of State’s statement of British values, which I fully support, as I do his whole approach?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

We will consult on the statement of British values shortly.

[Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

Amid the general hysteria that has been whipped up over these anonymous allegations, does the Secretary of State accept that there are many decent, good, hard-working school governors in Birmingham who give up their time freely? One of the schools mentioned, Golden Hillock, is right on the edge of the adjoining constituency to mine and many of my constituents’ children go to it. They cannot understand the picture that has been painted of its governors, including the chairman, Mohammed Shafique, and others whom I know, who have been at the forefront of fighting radicalism and terrorism in local communities.

The Secretary of State has rightly said that it is important that there is community cohesion. Could he therefore explain why Ofsted removed the requirement in the Ofsted inspection to demonstrate what steps schools were taking to address community cohesion? Did Ofsted do that off its own back, did the Secretary of State give his approval, or did he tell Ofsted to remove the obligation?

[Michael Gove]

Ofsted clearly has the capacity to detect when schools are not adhering to the responsibility to deliver community cohesion, as the reports published today clearly demonstrate. I will not be drawn into the question of individual governors, but let me take this opportunity to underline the broader point the hon. Gentleman makes that there are many who are committed to state education in Birmingham who are doing a superb job, including governors, teachers and school leaders. I should add that maintained schools, faith schools, academies and free schools in Birmingham are all contributing to the renaissance of state education in that city. That only makes it more important that we deal with those schools that are failing to protect children and failing to prepare them for the 21st century.

[Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

I know at first hand how seriously my right hon. Friend takes the issue of extremism in our schools. Does he agree that there is a sharp contrast between the speed with which he and his Department took action to tackle failing schools and to investigate extremism and the lacklustre approach of Birmingham city council? Will he therefore investigate what oversight Birmingham had over Saltley science college, a community school where Ofsted has just reported the governors spent tens of thousands of pounds of school funds on private investigators, private solicitors and meals in restaurants, and where, according to Ofsted, governance is inadequate and staff are intimidated?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Department for Education has been faster to react to concerns expressed about schools and to deal with failure than many local authorities. The case of Saltley, a local authority maintained school, is shocking, but let me stress that Birmingham city council is now fully seized of the importance of dealing with this problem. Let me pay tribute to Sir Albert Bore, whom I met earlier today, who now understands fully the vital importance of working with central Government to deal with it. Local government has failed in the past. We need to ensure that central and local government work together to deal with this problem.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

May I first welcome the fact that we seem to be moving inexorably towards a national curriculum that is applied nationally? That is progress.

In the spirit of the Secretary of State’s last answer, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to delve into the Home Office archives for a research report of 10 years ago—funded by the Government—which examined the cultural isolation of, and the lessons to be learned from, schools in Burnley and adjoining Blackburn? The report was counter-intuitive, but it would now be extremely helpful in going forward.

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that he is referring to the Cantle report, which we have looked at in the past. Certainly, there is a body of work that helps us to understand some of the challenges of separate communities and of how to secure better integration.

On the question of the curriculum, the one thing I would say is that I am confused about Labour’s position on the national curriculum. Labour Members seem to want to extend it to all schools, but the shadow Secretary of State has said that all schools should have the ability to opt out completely from it. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has the benefit of experience and that the shadow Minister does not, but until we get a consensus view from the Labour party I will listen to Sir Michael Wilshaw.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, these findings would be unacceptable in any school—secular or faith, state or independent. This affront to British values may well extend to other schools outside the area that Ofsted has already inspected. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no hiding place in any part of the British education system for the misogyny and homophobia that underpin so much of the religious fundamentalism in some of our schools?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Inevitably, there was only so much I could say in the time allocated about the weaknesses in the schools identified. She homes in on one problem, which is that children who are at risk of being exposed to extremist views are often at risk of being exposed to views that are fundamentally offensive to those of us who believe in the equality of all human beings. Therefore, if there are concerns—anywhere in this House or outside—about children being exposed to those views or at danger of being exposed to those views, I hope that individuals will feel able to contact Ofsted using the new whistleblowing framework outlined by Sir Michael Wilshaw to ensure rapid investigation.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

All faiths should subscribe to universal human values and universal human rights, including equal treatment of men and women. Where there is clear evidence in our schools of unacceptable practices, as there is in the case of a small minority of schools in Birmingham, it should be dealt with decisively. However, does the Secretary of State accept that it is important for politicians to act responsibly, and that it is wrong to use inflammatory language or to take steps that send the wrong message? To that end, what were the grounds for appointing a former of head of counter-terrorism to investigate Birmingham’s schools, and was it wise to do so?

[Michael Gove]

It was absolutely wise to appoint Peter Clarke to his role as commissioner. It is important to stress that he is looking at some of the wider allegations that were raised in the Trojan horse letter. Some of the allegations in the letter appear to be unfounded; others appear to be supported by the evidence that we have gathered. We need to make sure that Birmingham city council and every agency have the capacity necessary to keep children safe.

It is important to recognise that Peter Clarke has not just the investigative capability but the experience of working with the Charity Commission to ensure that public funds are properly used and that the public are properly protected. If the hon. Gentleman has any concerns about the integrity, probity or authority of Peter Clarke, he should please bring them to me. The time has come to recognise that the situation in Birmingham is sufficiently serious that a public servant of Peter Clarke’s skill is exactly the right person to investigate.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

I listened intently to the lengthy contribution of the shadow Secretary of State. I worry that he has developed political amnesia. As we have heard, the roots of the issue in Birmingham run deep and include Birmingham city council. Will the Secretary of the State assure the House that Peter Clarke will look fully at the allegation that the previous Government failed to act on a report of an attempted hard-line Muslim takeover of a school in Birmingham as far back as 2008?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I will stress two things. First, the permanent secretary will look to see exactly how the Department responded to warnings before and after the formation of this Government. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out, before 2010, a number of individuals who were associated with extremist views and organisations were supported by public funds or invited to advise the last Government on anti-extremism. That does not happen under this Government as a result of her leadership. It would be gracious of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central to acknowledge the leadership that the Home Secretary has shown and the improvement in our counter-extremism strategy as a result.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I have no objection to no-notice inspections. They have worked in other areas. Will the Secretary of State confirm that there is no evidence before him of this kind of activity taking place in other areas of the country, and that his support of faith schools remains unshakeable? May I also put to him the question that the Home Secretary asked me to put to him? Has he replied to her letter of 3 June and answered the four important questions that she put to him?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I believe that my statement today provides a full response to all the concerns that were raised in the letter in respect of Birmingham city council’s failure in the past, on which Sir Michael Wilshaw has reported, and the warnings that my Department was given in 2010. I am also delighted to reinforce my support not just for faith schools, but for free schools that have a faith ethos, such as the outstanding Krishna Avanti primary school in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, which I had the pleasure of opening. I underline the request for him or any other Member of the House who has concerns about extremism in any part of the country to please bring them to my attention and the attention of Ofsted. The hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) has brought concerns to my attention about issues in Bradford. I am pleased to say that the Labour local authority in Bradford is currently dealing with those.

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

We are hearing about the despicable things that have happened in Birmingham and it is quite right that they should be investigated, but I have a slight concern. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have some of the best education in faith schools of all religions across this country, and that we must not condemn all faith schools just because of something that might have happened in one area?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is one of the pleasures of my job to visit voluntary aided schools and schools with a faith ethos that do an outstanding job of respecting the religious beliefs of children and making sure those children are fit for a life in modern Britain. It is important to stress that none of the schools that we are talking about are faith schools. One of the issues is that they are secular schools that governors have sought to turn into faith schools of a particular narrow kind in a way that is unacceptable.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Since the Secretary of State took on his job, he has limited local accountability and Ofsted oversight, and has fought attempts to publish the costs and funding agreements of schools and to reveal who is advising those schools and his Department, and on what basis. Given that he has fought openness and transparency from his Department tooth and nail, will he tell us, following the recent appalling events, whether he understands the importance of transparency to education and whether his Department will operate on a completely different basis from now on?

[Michael Gove]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. She has taken the opportunity of this statement to raise one or two other questions. I believe absolutely in the importance of openness and transparency. I also think that it is important that the advice that is given by officials in confidence to shape ministerial decisions is protected as a safe space. I also agree that it is vital that when we discover things that have gone wrong in the education system, as is shown by the reports today, we publish in full.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Islamophobia, may I say that we have heard time and again from the community about its desire to tackle extremism? We have also heard evidence that the news coverage of issues such as this one, if they are reported wrongly, can increase feelings of insecurity, suspicion and alienation. In some instances, the wrong type of language has been used. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to do everything we can to help the community, and that accurate reporting of the established facts is really important?

[Michael Gove]

I could not agree more. We must proceed on the basis of facts and evidence, and ensure that that evidence is rigorously assessed and judged fairly. My hon. Friend makes an important point about Islamophobia. I tried in my statement, and I will try on every platform I am given, to emphasise the fundamental difference between Islam as a great faith that brings spiritual nourishment to millions and inspires daily acts of generosity by thousands, and the narrow perversion of that religion, which is extremist Islamist ideology.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Government fund Prevent co-ordinators in 30 local authorities where there is a perceived view of extremism. What work does the Secretary of State expect those co-ordinators to do in local schools? Over the past year how many reports were made by those co-ordinators to his Department?

[Michael Gove]

I salute the work of Prevent co-ordinators. Immediately after these concerns were expressed, Birmingham city council sought funding from the Home Office for an additional Prevent co-ordinator to work with schools, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary authorised. A Prevent co-ordinator from east London has now joined Ofsted to ensure that all Ofsted inspectors who deal with issues of this kind are trained to deal with the signs of extremist, Islamist ideology. I am, of course, more than happy to work with the hon. Lady and others to ensure that we augment the good work of those Prevent co-ordinators who have been successful in dealing with problems of that kind.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

The Secretary of State began by describing keeping children safe and preparing them for life in modern Britain as his Department’s central mission. Is he satisfied that he has the means to ensure that that happens, whether or not their school is funded by the taxpayer?

[Michael Gove]

That is a very good point. Today we have outlined that we plan to consult on independent school standards, so that schools that are not funded by the taxpayer must meet basic standards of promoting British values, or the Education Secretary will have the capacity to close them down. We are also taking steps to work with the Association of Muslim Schools UK to see what more can be done.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Education Secretary either omitted or did not get the opportunity fully to respond to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) about Park View. For the sake of clarity, will he explain why Park View was not allowed to open a free school but was allowed to sponsor Golden Hillock to become an academy?

[Michael Gove]

Before any free school can be opened a very high bar must be cleared. A separate set of criteria were judged in this case, and the Minister responsible decided that for that specific free school application, the bar was not cleared.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, in particular his commitment to put the promotion of British values at the heart of what every school must deliver for children. Does he agree that the reason this country has been able to offer sanctuary to people from around the world of different races and faith for so long is precisely that of a simple covenant of citizenship: “Come here, speak our language, respect our heritage and values and you are welcome”?

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely agree. One strength of the United Kingdom is that it has provided a safe and warm home for people of every faith over hundreds of years. It is critical that we ensure that our traditions of liberty and tolerance are protected so that everyone, whatever their background, can feel that sense of pride in this nation and allegiance to other citizens, which all of us would want to celebrate as the best of British.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Thousands of schools report directly to the Secretary of State with no formal opportunity for local oversight. Will he accept that what happened in Birmingham shows how important it is to have full local oversight? That is the only way to look after the interests of all children and young people in our schools up and down the country.

[Michael Gove]

I agree that local representatives, whether in local authorities or as local MPs, should play a part in helping to ensure that children are safe. It is also important to recognise that the local authority in this case failed in the past, and that when the specific allegations in the Trojan horse letter were shared with the Department for Education, it was rapid in seeking to deal with those problems and ensuring that appropriate inspection and action was taken.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I welcome the decisive action taken by the Secretary of State today and the consultation on the promotion of British values. Does he agree that a very clear British value is that young girls and women should be seen and heard in the classroom, not relegated to the back of the room? Will he consult specifically on whether we will be teaching them the communication skills and confidence they need if they are hidden, in our schools and colleges, behind a niqab or burqa?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. One of the concerns raised in several reports was what appeared to be unacceptable segregation in the classroom. Another point I would make is that there are real questions about how sex and relationships education was taught in some of these schools. It is vital that schools should be places where young girls find their voices, rather than feeling that they are being silenced.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

As a former teacher, I welcome the Secretary of State’s defence of faith and faith-based schooling. However, I believe that the atomisation of our schooling system is a problem. Does he not concur that a greater form of solidarity between local schools would help to self-police this type of extremism?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. We are seeing a level of collaboration between schools—through teaching school alliances, academy chains and informal partnerships—that is a very powerful driver of improved standards. It ensures that individual teachers, who may have concerns about what is happening in their own school, have access to a wider network of professionals who can help them to deal with the challenges they face.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

Extremism in schools has, sadly, been going on for more than a decade. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that Peter Clarke will have unfettered access to all paperwork going back over that period?

[Michael Gove]

I will do everything in my power—I hope every agency will—to help Peter Clarke in his job.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

One of the primary purposes of the investigation was to look at extremism, but what is the Secretary of State doing about extremism in places of education that do not fall within the responsibility of the Department for Education?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I infer from what he is saying that he is talking about further education colleges and perhaps even universities.

[Graham Jones]

Under-16s.

[Michael Gove]

On specific concerns about specific institutions for under-16s that do not fall within my remit, I infer from that that the hon. Gentleman is thinking about independent schools or even, possibly, supplementary schools. As far as independent schools are concerned, we are consulting on toughening independent school standards, as I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames). In respect of supplementary schools, sometimes known as madrassahs, we will shortly publish a code governing how madrassahs should operate. At the moment, the plan is that the code should be voluntary, but I am, of course, open to debate and contribution in the House on how to make it as effective as possible.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Yesterday I had the privilege of speaking at the opening of the new Langley Green mosque in my constituency, which was a multi-faith event. Does the Secretary of State agree that that illustrates the importance of inclusivity, which the vast majority of the Muslim community want in our education system, both in Birmingham and across the country?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the active role he plays in ensuring that all the faith communities in his constituency are effectively represented and can contribute to modern Britain.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

In an education landscape of university technical colleges, free schools and academies run directly from Whitehall, will the Secretary of State’s welcome review of what the Department has to learn include a thorough analysis of weaknesses in the current accountability system?

[Michael Gove]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I think one of the things that is clear from the action that has been taken in schools today is that academies, and, for that matter, free schools, are subject to a higher level of accountability than local authority schools. One of the things I will be looking at is how we can ensure that local authority schools are held to a similar level of accountability in the future, not least for the discharge of public money.

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

Will the Secretary of State tell us whether what has been discovered in Birmingham is confined to Birmingham? He will know of rumours of links between Birmingham schools and Bradford schools. Will he tell us whether it is sheer coincidence that Feversham college, a Muslim girls’ school that is one of the highest performing schools in the country, has been notified today that it will have an Ofsted inspection tomorrow?

[Michael Gove]

I would make two points. First, the original Trojan horse letter, which as we know contained a number of facts and allegations that proved to be unfounded, was allegedly a letter sent to individuals in Bradford. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support in alerting me to some potential concerns. I know that Bradford council has taken them seriously, and I look forward to remaining in touch with Bradford—and, indeed, any other local authority that has concerns. The Department for Education is there to support and help if, for example, governors need to be removed and an interim executive board put in place. Secondly, as for what he tells me about Feversham college, I have no prior warning of any Ofsted inspections, which are quite properly an operational matter for the chief inspector unless I specifically request an inspection because of information that has been passed to me.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s failure to pinpoint these problems sooner makes it absolutely clear that he cannot micro-manage schools from Westminster. Will he now consider adopting a policy akin to Labour’s proposal for local directors of school standards, which would enable schools to be more accountable locally and would help to flag up these types of problems a lot sooner?

[Michael Gove]

No.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Noting that Ofsted has already put the spotlight on the quality of school leadership and management as part of the inspection, and recognising the Government’s focus on the skills of governing bodies rather than just on stakeholder representation, does the Secretary of State agree that that, combined with further accountability to the regional commissioners, will strengthen the resolve of councils to get rid of failing governors and is a step in the right direction?

[Michael Gove]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who has shown brilliant leadership on the issue of improving governance. As well as all of his important points, there are some specific recommendations on strengthening governance from Sir Michael Wilshaw that recommend themselves to me.

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

The Secretary of State will have heard my earlier question to the Home Secretary—one of many questions that she failed to answer this afternoon, so I am going to ask him the same question. We know of the correspondence between his Department and other agencies about these issues in 2010. When did he become aware of it, and what has gone so wrong in his Department that it has taken an anonymous letter in 2014 to get action on something that it knew about in 2010?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. If she will share that correspondence with me, I will share it with the permanent secretary and write back to her.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has reported Ofsted’s concern that governors are trying to impose a narrow faith-based ideology on what are non-faith schools, but that is also not in the public interest in faith-based schools, and surely it is part of the purpose of faith schools to deliver a faith-based ideology. Since we have had three decades of unhappy experience of violent division in Northern Ireland being reinforced by state-funded, faith-based education, is it not now about time that we asked people, if they want to exercise the freedom to have a faith-based education for their children, not to expect the rest of us to pay for it because it is not in the public interest?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point. In the light of what has been revealed, it is important to have a debate about the proper place of faith in education, but I have to say that I respectfully disagree with him. I think that the role of a number of faith institutions from a variety of faiths in education has been all to the good.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Of course we must draw an important distinction between devout conservatism—whether it be Catholic, evangelical, Christian or Muslim—on the one hand, and extremism on the other hand. But has not all of this shown that the Achilles heel in the Secretary of State’s education policy is that there are more and more schools now in which there are fewer and fewer means of preventing fundamentalist indoctrination?

[Michael Gove]

I do not accept that that is the case. If we look at the problems identified, I believe that they arose well before this Government were formed, and that it is as a result of this Government—and, in particular, as a result of the higher level of accountability that exists in academies and free schools—that we were able to take the exemplary action that we did.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

In Birmingham and across the country, thousands of men and women are giving valuable voluntary service to act as school governors. Will my right hon. Friend explain what happens if there is a suspicion that a school governor is promoting extremism and what statutory powers there are in those circumstances to remove a school governor from an LEA-controlled school or an academy?

[Michael Gove]

We are consulting on how we can ensure that we can remove governors if there is any suggestion that they have been involved in extremist activity in independent schools, and also extend that power in order to bar them from serving as governors in any local authority schools in the future.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has provided a welcome clarification today by stating that he was not at the 2010 meeting at which Tim Boyes gave his presentation, and I am sure that he can extend the same clarification to any of his ministerial colleagues. However, as a former Minister, I know that action points will have been made at that meeting. Given the importance of this matter, will the Secretary of State now agree to publish those action points—without jeopardising the integrity and confidentiality of individual civil servants—and reveal what arose from them? Was any action taken?

[Michael Gove]

That is a fair question. Let me say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, I have asked the permanent secretary to look at our responses to all the warnings that the Department has received, and I think that it would be premature for me to release anything before he has finished his report. Secondly, I have described—both in my statement and in my response to what was said by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central—some of the actions taken by my Department which have provided it with a more robust set of tools to deal with extremism than have been available before.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has described some shocking behaviour—shocking not only to Muslim parents, but to all parents. Does he agree that the failure of Birmingham city council to deal with this problem over a long period demonstrates the importance of the academies programme, which takes powers away from politicians and bureaucrats and hands them to teachers?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend has made an important point. Some of the most outstanding schools in Birmingham are currently academies and free schools. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central has previously praised Liam Nolan, the head teacher of Perry Beeches school, who runs an academy chain and has opened free schools. I think that the hon. Gentleman’s attempt to conflate the growth of academies and free schools—and the consequent improvement in school standards—and a risk of extremism constitutes an attempt to jump on an opportunistic bandwagon, which, sadly, is becoming a characteristic of his approach to opposition.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

On 6 June, Labour’s police and crime commissioner for the west midlands, Bob Jones, issued a press release on Trojan horse which many believe ignores the dangers of extremist teaching in schools. Given that, under Mr Jones’s leadership, the West Midlands police have been criticised by Ofsted for consistently failing to attend more than 50% of child protection meetings—indeed, at one stage attendance was down to 9%—does my right hon. Friend agree that that is one example of local oversight and accountability that certainly needs to be improved?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend has made a very good point. I have been disappointed by some of the comments made by the west midlands police and crime commissioner. I hope that today, following the publication of the reports, the commissioner will have an opportunity to reflect, to think again, and to discharge his responsibilities more effectively.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

On Friday, in my constituency, I was approached by some Muslim parents and, indeed, Muslim teachers who were very concerned about the tone of this debate, and who felt that the Muslim community were being branded as extremists. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that all of us who are involved in the debate should be cool-headed and avoid using incendiary language such as “Islamist plots”—when such plots do not appear to exist—and “draining the swamp”? Does he also agree that many state schools with a high proportion of Muslim students, and indeed Muslim faith schools, offer a good, well-rounded education?

[Michael Gove]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a very fair point about faith schools that want to teach conservative religious values. How do the Government distinguish between such schools and schools in which extremism is happening?

[Michael Gove]

Clear requirements apply to all voluntarily aided faith schools. They are, of course, allowed to make provision for appropriate worship and for freedom of conscience, but they must also offer a broad and balanced curriculum, as has always been the case. They must also respect British values, and, as a result of the proposals on which I intend to consult from today, they will always be required to promote those values actively in the future as well.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

In the light of what we have learned today, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with what appears to be the Home Secretary’s view—that there is no real need to increase spending on anti-extremist programmes?

[Michael Gove]

I totally agree with the Home Secretary and I think that her leadership on counter-extremism has been exemplary.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the findings of these reports demonstrate the need to ensure that there is a breadth of views on school governing bodies? One way of achieving that is to ensure that there are governors of different faiths on governing bodies and that they are encouraged to take a proactive role so that pupils receive a balanced education.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a characteristically acute and pertinent point.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I welcome what the Secretary of State is doing in this area. I was appalled by some of the report’s findings, particularly the comment by Sheikh Shady al-Suleiman, where he distorted the concept of jihad and linked it to Afghanistan, which is often used by extremists to recruit people to radicalisation. Linked to that, does the Secretary of State agree that Sunday schools at places of worship should also be encouraged to teach British values and that sermons should be taught in English and not simply in Urdu or Arabic, to ensure that distortion is tackled?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a number of important points. He is right that the concept of jihad in Islam is a complex one and that it is possible to talk about it as a form of internal struggle. However, in the reported comments of Sheikh Shady al-Suleiman, it is clear that he is not using jihad in that context. My hon. Friend raises broader questions about how we deal with supplementary schools and Sunday schools in madrassahs. We will consult on how to deal with those.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I understand that my right hon. Friend has already introduced standards that allow the teaching of extremist views to be barred. Will he also advertise whistleblower lines more widely, so that teachers and parents can contact the Department for Education directly?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We want to ensure that whistleblowers and others who have concerns can contact Ofsted in particular, so that inspection can be swift and effective.

Free Schools (Funding)

Michael Gove Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement on the allocation of funding for the free school programme.

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

I am delighted to be able to update the House on progress in providing new school places. Just last week, the Public Accounts Committee congratulated the Department on the clear progress that had been made in delivering new school places through the free school programme, with costs significantly lower than under the last Government’s school building programme.

Free schools cost about half what schools built under Building Schools for the Future cost. Thanks to the savings we have made, and thanks to the success of our long-term economic plan, we have been able to invest far more than the last Government in creating new school places, especially in areas of need.

We are investing £5 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament in giving money to local authorities for new school places. That is more than twice what the last Government spent over the equivalent preceding period, despite repeated warnings that the population was increasing. We plan to invest even more in the new Parliament, with £7 billion allocated in the next Parliament for new school places. As a result, we have delivered 212,000 new primary school places between 2012 and 2013, and we are on course to deliver another 357,000. Thanks to the efforts of many great local authorities, we now have fewer pupils in overcrowded primary schools than we had in 2010.

As well as the expansion of existing local authority provision, we have also, on top of that, created 83,000 places in new free schools. The budget for these schools has been just under 10% of the Department’s total capital budget, but free schools are so far outperforming other schools inspected under our new and more rigorous Ofsted framework. Schools such as Dixons Trinity in Bradford and Canary Wharf free school in Tower Hamlets have been ranked outstanding within months of opening. Free schools are now over-subscribed, with three applications for every place. Indeed, the longer that free schools are in place, the more popular they are, with schools such as the West London free school and the London Academy of Excellence becoming the most over-subscribed schools in their area.

It is important to remember that while we have met the demand identified by local authorities for new school places, we have also set up seven out of 10 free schools in areas of significant population growth. Indeed, as the National Audit Office has pointed out, £700 million of the £950 million spent on free schools so far opened has actually augmented the money given to local authorities for new school places. Other free schools have been set up to provide quality provision where existing standards are too low, or school improvement has been too slow.

We should never be complacent about educational standards, but we should today take time to thank good local authorities and all our school leaders and teachers, because no child in this country is without a school place, fewer children are in overcrowded schools and Ofsted reports that more children are being taught good and outstanding lessons by more highly qualified teachers than ever before. In short, thanks to the rigour with which we have borne down on costs, the innovation unleashed by the academy and free schools programmes and the success of the Government’s economic strategy, we have been able both to provide all necessary school places and to drive quality up across the board. I commend the free school programme to the House.

[Tristram Hunt]

This afternoon, young people are sitting their exams, and we wish them the best of luck. They will be showing exactly the kind of self-control and focus so woefully lacking in Education Ministers. Indeed, the Minister for Schools has not even deigned to turn up.

The question today is: when we face enormous constraints on the public purse, how do we best prioritise spending for new school places? For every parent wondering why their child is taught in a class size of over 30 and for every parent angry that they cannot get their kid into a good local school, we now have the answer: the coalition—both parts—has raided the schools budget to pay for pet political projects in expensive, half-empty and underperforming free schools.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has reallocated £400 million from the targeted basic need programme to fill a black hole in the free school programme? Does he accept National Audit Office data showing that more than two thirds of the places created by the free school programme have been created outside areas of high and severe primary need? Why has the free school programme been so heavily weighted to secondary places during a time of national crisis in primary places? Does he agree with the Treasury that spending on this programme, like his leadership of the Department, is spiralling out of control?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He asks where responsibility lies for a shortage of school places. The responsibility lies with the previous Government, whose Chief Secretary to the Treasury left a note to his successor saying that there was no money left. The responsibility lies with the Labour Government who, when they were in power, cut primary places—cut them—by 200,000 between 2003 and 2010. The responsibility lies with the Labour Government who cut funding for new school places by £150 million, or by 26%, between 2004 and 2009. The responsibility lies with the previous Labour Government, whose primary capital programme told local authorities to cut primary places, not to increase them.

This coalition Government have increased spending on primary school places and local authority need and, at the same time, we have provided excellent new provision through the free school programme. I note that the hon. Gentleman was silent on Labour’s position on the free school programme. Where is the consistency of Labour’s position on this policy? In May 2010, he said that free schools were a

“vanity project for yummy mummies”.

In May 2013, he reversed his position, saying that he wanted to put “rocket boosters” under the programme. In October 2013, he reversed again, saying that free schools were a “dangerous ideological experiment”. Later the same month, he said, “If you are a parent interested in setting up a free school, we will be on your side.” He has had more contorted positions on free schools than some Indian sex manuals that I could name.

The truth is that the hon. Gentleman has betrayed his inconsistency on free schools and the inconsistency in his support for the additional money that we have put in to provide not just local authorities but free school sponsors with the places that our children need.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I wonder whether we can clear this matter up, because the Minister for Schools appeared before the Education Committee during the school places inquiry. He said:

“We have got £12.5 billion or more for basic need that we are going to spend over the 2010 to 2021 period, which is absolutely massive. The Treasury have been very clear with us and we have been clear with them that basic need is the top priority. If we thought jointly that we couldn’t fund the basic need because of the free school programme, we would have to reduce the free school programme. But the free school programme is additional; it does not compromise our basic need objectives.”

Is the evidence that was given to the Committee correct or is what we heard in anonymous whispers over the weekend correct?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Education Committee. I absolutely confirm that the evidence shared with him was 100% correct.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Surely the point of this urgent question is to ask the Secretary of State to clear up the unholy row not with the Opposition, but between members of the coalition. What is being lost is the right of children to have a decent education. Primary school places must be delivered where they are needed, not where they are not.

[Michael Gove]

I have enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman and he makes three important points. First, as we have just heard from the Chairman of the Education Committee, the Minister for Schools has confirmed to the Committee that the hon. Gentleman once chaired that spending on free schools augments basic need funding. Secondly, he is absolutely right that we both share a desire to ensure that there are more good school places where they are needed across the country. Free schools are playing a part in that. As I pointed out in my statement and as I know he welcomes, free schools, academies and communities are all contributing to the fact that our teachers are delivering more good and outstanding lessons than ever before, and that no child is without a primary school place.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

The Secretary of State will be as aware as I am—it has been communicated to me over the weekend—that many areas of greatest need are not getting free schools and need places to be provided. What is he going to do to ensure that the areas that have the need but no free schools get the places that they need?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes a characteristically good point. I should declare an interest because at one point, he and my mother served on the governing body of the same school in Aberdeen. His point about the need to ensure that we have more good free school applications in those parts of the country that need school places is a very good one. Unfortunately, some local authorities—they tend to be Labour—are standing in the way of good new free schools. I am encouraged by the support that I have had from a number of Liberal Democrat colleagues, including the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), who have backed free school applications when Labour local authorities have stood in their way.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has confirmed that the evidence that was given to the Education Committee by the Minister for Schools was accurate. Would the Minister for Schools, had he bothered to attend today, agree with that statement and confirm that he still holds the same position?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman is asking whether the Minister for Schools agrees with the Minister for Schools. I can confirm that he does. I can also confirm that there is good news for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. Under the last Labour Government, only £33 million was spent on providing new primary school places in his constituency. Under this coalition Government, £40 million is being spent. I am sure that he will welcome that additional investment, which has been secured by this coalition Government.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Clive Glover is leading a group of parents who hope to have a free school on the Harperbury hospital site. A feasibility study is happening now. What worries me, given that this might happen in 2015, is the lack of clarity about the position of the Labour party. It does not seem to have the same commitments. With local elections happening, I think that residents should know what the Labour party thinks about free schools.

[Michael Gove]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Although I understand the concern of the hon. Lady and the possible concern of her constituents on this matter, the terms of the question do not engage ministerial responsibility, which is the issue for the House of Commons.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State uses the phrase “quality and rigour” in relation to free schools. Will he look at the recent Ofsted report on Hartsbrook E-ACT free school in my constituency? It found inadequate reading, writing and mathematics, that it was inadequate in all classes, a school body that needed improving, inadequate safeguarding, and that it was inadequately and poorly organised. Is that quality and rigour, and does the Schools Minister agree with that report, and does the Secretary of State as well?

[Michael Gove]

Obviously, we both agree with that report because it is an Ofsted report and we place an enormous amount of weight and confidence in the chief inspector’s scrutiny of underperforming schools. While there are free schools that underperform, it is only fair to say that there are also local authority maintained schools that are underperforming. It is sad that even as standards increase overall, every day that schools are open two local authority schools go into special measures. If we put that in the frame, we can recognise the context in which school improvement work is taking place.

Although Hartsbrook E-ACT free school was underperforming, in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency the Harris academy, which took over from the failing Downhills school—the right hon. Gentleman, of course, was sceptical about that takeover and forced academisation—is now flourishing. That shows that after initial teething problems, school reform under this Government has worked. I hope that we can work together to ensure that Lord Harris and other high-quality sponsors continue to create the academies and free schools that will help to bring young people in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency additional hope for the future.

[Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am obviously a keen supporter of free schools. The Secretary of State will know that some free schools are keen to adopt approaches commonly found in the most successful independent schools, but some fear Ofsted inspectors brought up in progressive education. Will the Secretary of State ensure that Sir Michael Wilshaw’s statement that there are no Ofsted prescribed forms of teaching is adhered to by the thousands of inspectors engaged on the ground?

[Michael Gove]

I take my hon. Friend’s point, and I read with interest and appreciation his article in The Daily Telegraph today. Sir Michael Wilshaw is an outstanding chief inspector—the best ever to hold that post—and he inspects without fear or favour. He has also been responsible for ensuring that the quality of inspection during his time has increased. He has led an academy and seen the benefits that academies and free schools can bring to parts of London, so I know that Sir Michael will bear in mind my hon. Friend’s words and ensure that Ofsted continues to do a highly effective job inspecting all schools and holding them to the highest standards.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I am surprised by the Secretary of State’s description of this report as “praising” his free school programme, because it raises more questions about that programme than he implies. I represent a town with many free schools. I have welcomed them because, as mums who were visiting Parliament said to me today, what we need is enough school places. The problem with the free school programme in a town as diverse as Slough is that it lacks planning and a community cohesive approach to free school places, to ensure that every community in my town has sufficient educational places. What will the Secretary of State do about that?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and she is right to say that Slough is one of the hot spots in the country where a significant increase in the population has placed pressures on the local authority. We have been able to fund the local authority’s school provision, and augment it with the provision of free school places. It is also striking that many of the applications for free schools in and around Slough have come from different communities, who at last have an ethos and a level of aspiration for the schools that they felt had not existed before. If the hon. Lady wants to bring me any specific examples of inconsistencies of provision, I will of course look at them. I am grateful to her for pointing out that she, like many Labour MPs, welcomes free schools in her constituency and is prepared to work with the Department for Education in the interests of young people.

[Mr Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Stour Valley community college, a first-wave free school in my constituency, is achieving outstanding academic and other results, while pursuing a very inclusive admissions policy? Not surprisingly it is heavily over-subscribed, and the view of people in Suffolk is that the best possible use of the Department’s money is spending on free schools, and we look forward to the day when private as well as public money can be invested in those schools.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point that in Stour Valley we have a school that is providing education of outstanding quality. He has been a consistent champion of providing new provision in the local authority of Suffolk, which has not always had the best schools in the past. The new schools provide not just choice but challenge, and have helped to drive up standards in Suffolk overall. I am grateful that Suffolk local authority has taken an enlightened approach to driving up school standards.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

May I gently remind the Secretary of State that he has not answered the question put to him by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State? The National Audit Office report suggests that two thirds of the places provided under the free schools programme were diverted away from areas of high and severe primary need. Does the Secretary of State reject those findings or not?

[Michael Gove]

The first point is that no money was diverted away. It is clear that free school spending augments spending on providing local authority school places. It is clear also that local authorities have sufficient funds. Under the previous Labour Government, the hon. Gentleman’s own local authority of Birmingham received £45 million to provide additional school places. Under this coalition Government, it has received £65 million. Some 87% of new primary school places through the free schools programme are in high or severe areas of need, so they are augmenting—adding to—the provision that those areas need. I should also point out that the hon. Gentleman is fortunate enough to be in a city that enjoys, in the Perry Beeches chain, one of the best performing chains of academies and free schools anywhere in the country. Thanks to the success of head teachers such as Liam Nolan, children in Birmingham are at last enjoying a high quality of comprehensive education of the kind that I know he and I want to see spread across the country.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

As I am sure you will be aware, Mr Speaker, when I was elected to be the Member of Parliament for Watford at least half of the initial constituency inquiries and complaints were about the shortage of school places in the west Watford area. Since then, the excellent Reach Free school, which I have visited, has opened. Parents are impressed with it and so are the students, and there are two more in the pipeline. Given that this is clearly an area of need and that free schools are cheap and easy to operate, what possible complaint can the Opposition have?

[Michael Gove]

Once again my hon. Friend makes a very fair and reasonable point. He also provides me with the opportunity to remind the House that in Hertfordshire, under the previous Government, £25 million was allocated for new school places. Under this coalition Government, £122 million has been allocated for new school places, and that is in addition to the free schools programme. This Government’s approach to fiscal discipline and greater efficiency, with school places costing less than half what they cost under the previous Government, means that we are able to meet need and to raise standards in every part of the country.

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State may already be aware that Croydon has the biggest shortage of school places in the country. Before he quotes figures at me, the Tory council’s own papers say that funding

“only partially meets the costs…of places needed.”

Is it not perverse to deny places to children in Croydon, while funding new schools in areas with no shortage of places?

[Michael Gove]

Again, I have to emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that it was the previous Government—I know he was not part of it—who cut spending on new school places and told local authorities to cut surplus places at primary. It is this coalition Government who have increased spending in Croydon on new school places: under the previous Government it was £17 million and under this Government it is £142 million—eight times as much. Before the hon. Gentleman asks for more funding, he should apologise to his constituents for the reckless profligacy and inefficiency of the previous Labour Government.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

In September, for every place in a free school there will be three applicants. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should trust parents and pupils? They clearly like free schools and we should fund them accordingly.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is important that we do not just ensure sufficient school places everywhere in the country; we need to ensure that they are high-quality school places. One of the reasons why the free schools programme is succeeding is that it is both adding to the number of quality school places and providing an appropriate challenge and support to existing schools to raise their game.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

When the Secretary of State came to office, he often quoted Sweden as a great example to follow because of their free schools programme. Now that Sweden is in flight from free schools, what lessons is he learning from that experience?

[Michael Gove]

One of the things I have learned from Sweden is that their free schools outperform other schools in Sweden; the more free schools there are in the municipality, the stronger the educational performance of it. Sadly, Sweden has not benefited as we have from the full panoply of educational reforms needed to drive up standards. Sweden does not have an independent and authoritative inspectorate like our Ofsted under Sir Michael Wilshaw’s leadership; and Sweden does not have the programme of externally set and externally marked assessments such as those we have at the ages of 11 and 16 in order to ensure that all schools are held accountable.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

Given that eight out of 10 new free schools have opened in areas where there is a shortage of places or areas of deprivation, does the Secretary of State disagree with the shadow Secretary of State’s view that these are simply a

“vanity project for yummy mummies”?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and he is not alone in backing free schools. Andrew Adonis has pointed out that free schools are actually a Labour invention. He, a genuine reformer, said that

“the issue for Labour is how we take them forward, not whether we are for or against them.”

The problem is that when we listen to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), we do not know from one day to the next whether Labour is for or against free schools, taking us backwards, not forwards.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The four non-executive directors of the Department for Education board demonstrated to the Education Select Committee their total lack of knowledge about children’s services and about the transfer of vast sums of money from children’s services to other education budget headings—even admitting that they had not even discussed our questions on the matter. In the light of their lack of understanding and failure properly to scrutinise the executive, will he review their appointments and find some people who do have the necessary knowledge and know what is expected of them?

[Michael Gove]

I notice that the hon. Gentleman, recognising that the previous line of inquiry about free schools and basic need has been exhausted, has changed the subject to children’s services. Let me say that the non-executive directors of the Department for Education include Mr Paul Marshall, the founder of the Lib-Dem think-tank CentreForum; David Mellor, one of Britain’s most successful businessmen; Jim O’Neill, one of the most authoritative economists in this country; and Dame Sue John, an outstanding school leader. If one looks at their record and compares it with the hon. Gentleman’s, I know who I would prefer to have with me in the Department for Education pushing reform forward.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

May I encourage the Secretary of State in his zeal for free schools? They are, after all, hugely popular with Conservative voters and they are all about Conservative thinking. If some Liberal Minister does not want them, he can always resign.

[Michael Gove]

I am always grateful for my hon. Friend’s interventions. He, of course, was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee when it pointed out that, under the last Government’s Building Schools for the Future programme, we had a degree of profligacy and waste that was a genuine scandal. My hon. Friend will know that it is not just Conservative voters who find free schools attractive. Like so many free schools opening in Labour areas, the Derby Pride free school, an alternative provision free school backed by Derby County football club—congratulations to them on making it to the play-offs—is outstanding in its provision for disadvantaged children in a Labour area, despite the fact that the Labour local authority did not want it to open. The truth about free schools is that they provide high standards for children who have been failed in the past.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

May I take the Secretary of State back to the answer he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)? If a free school is lamentably not performing—failing its children and failing the community—does he agree that it would be much better if that free school were within the orbit of the local authority, which could observe and spot what was going on, give the necessary support and bring the school back into the accountable public sector?

[Michael Gove]

First, there is an area of consensus between the hon. Gentleman and me about the fact that there are good local authority schools and good local authorities that provide appropriate support and challenge for their schools. I absolutely accept that, but it is important to recognise that there are many underperforming local authority schools, and local authority oversight is very far from a panacea for school failure. As I pointed out earlier, every day that schools are open, two local authority schools and others go into special measures. It is also the case that so far, according to the tough new Ofsted criteria that we have set up, free schools outperform other schools. Furthermore, my Department has I think been faster in dealing with school failure, whether it be in Derby or Crawley, than many local authorities have, and I think it right to bear down on failure wherever it occurs.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I note that basic funding for schools in Gloucestershire will provide an additional 1,680 places over the next two years. Does the Secretary of State agree that the purpose of the additional funding for free schools is to provide choice for parents, and that the need for parents to have that choice is behind the drive for higher standards?

[Michael Gove]

That is a very good point, and it is the point that was made by Tony Blair, the former Member of Parliament for Sedgefield, when he was Prime Minister. The purpose of new school provision is not simply to provide additional places where they are needed, but to provide a choice for parents when standards are low. It is critically important to recognise that the Government are both funding local authorities to ensure that there is a school place for every child and providing choice and quality in great schools such as the Krishna Avanti free school in Leicester, which I had the honour of opening alongside the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—another Labour supporter of the free schools programme.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

A number of schools in my constituency have told me that the Government have stopped funding vital basic needs services, which has meant a real-terms cut in their budgets. We now know why. Is not the truth that when it comes to free schools, the Secretary of State is diverting much needed resources from teaching and learning for those most in need in order to benefit a few?

[Michael Gove]

In fact, we are increasing funding for additional school places in Sefton by nearly 50%. We are doing that because, thanks to the reforms that we have made, we are in a position to provide school places more cheaply than the last Government. Of course I am always happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about ensuring that high-quality provision continues, but the fact remains that there is more funding under this Government than there was under the last.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the 1,950 extra school places that he has provided in Thurrock, including places at the Harris primary academy free school, which is due to open. After years of severe need in the Chafford Hundred area in my constituency, a free school is now delivering much needed provision, and is making a real contribution to under-privileged children as well as offering choice.

[Michael Gove]

Education standards are rising in Chafford, thanks to the academy and free school programme. It was an absolute pleasure for me to visit a studio school in my hon. Friend’s constituency last week, when I had an opportunity to see how our school reforms are helping children in a disadvantaged part of Essex to achieve everything of which they are capable. I pay tribute to the energetic work that my hon. Friend has done in supporting that school and the many others which are raising standards in Thurrock.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Despite the best efforts of Lewisham council, many parents in my constituency are struggling to get their children into local schools because the local authority does not have enough money to fund an adequate expansion of primary places. What justification would the Secretary of State give to those parents, who see him spending money on free schools in parts of the country where demand for places is small, if not non-existent?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful for that question, because it gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to Frankie Sulke, the director of children’s services and leading local official in charge of schools in Lewisham, who has been doing a great job in helping to raise standards in the local authority. However, I also think it fair to point out that whereas the last Labour Government spent £25 million on new school places in Lewisham, the present Government are spending £78 million, triple that amount. I hope that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that that has been the result of the careful economic management in which this coalition Government have engaged.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend understand the confusion felt by working parents who have striven so hard to establish a free school for five-to-18-year-olds at Heyford Park in my constituency when they hear the shadow Secretary of State for Education describe free schools as a

“vanity project for yummy mummies”?

Indeed, is not the very phrase “yummy mummy” the sort of patronising terminology that we now expect from so many members of the metropolitan elite that currently occupies the Labour Front Bench?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend has made a very good point. Last week I had an opportunity to talk to a group of parents in Ealing, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray). Those parents were dedicated individuals from every social background and ethnicity who wanted to improve their children’s education. They were not “yummy mummies”; they were parents who cared, and we on this side of the House stand up for them.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

The free school in Durham will be lucky if it achieves a total roll of 80 students next year at a cost of £30,000 per pupil. Does the Secretary of State think this is good value for money in an area of surplus places, and where local successful schools like St Leonard’s that are crying out for investment from his Department, have been told by his Schools Minister, strangely absent today, that no money is available?

[Michael Gove]

The first thing to acknowledge is that the amount of money we are giving to Durham local authority for basic need is increasing under this Government, and the second is that the Durham free school will add to the quality of education that children in Durham enjoy. In the city of Durham there are some outstanding schools, like Durham Johnston school which has succeeded over generations, but across the north-east the level of educational ambition has been too low for too long, and we need new providers to help augment the quality of education, not just in County Durham but elsewhere.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his visit to Ealing last week when he met parents setting up Ealing Fields free school, and I gather that later this week he will also be visiting another free school, William Perkin, in another part of Ealing. Does he agree that the point about these free schools is that they are providing extra school places in areas where they are much needed, like Ealing? What’s not to like about that?

[Michael Gove]

I am afraid that the last Government, even though they were warned that population figures were increasing, spent only £18 million on new school places in Ealing. We are spending £72 million on new school places in Ealing, and on top of that this Thursday I will be delighted to open a new free school, the William Perkin free school, which has been founded by Alice Hudson, an outstanding head teacher who does a brilliant job. I look forward to being joined there by the Labour Member of Parliament for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who has been a consistent supporter of this school right from the very beginning: yet another Labour party member and Labour MP who supports our free school programme.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Parents in Dudley are spending this week in appeals once again because their children have been allocated places in schools they do not want to send them to. Why should pupils be denied places in popular and successful schools because those schools just do not have the space needed to accommodate them? Why will the Secretary of State not promote competition and expand the market by enabling well-run, oversubscribed, financially sound schools to borrow the resources needed to provide those extra facilities and be able to pay them back with the revenue the extra pupils would bring?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I read with interest and appreciation the article he wrote in The Independent on Sunday outlining a similar case, and I have asked officials in the Department to see what we can do to give effect to his suggestion. If he would like to come to the Department and share his thinking with officials, I shall be delighted to see what we can do to take this forward.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

In my constituency there are three free schools destined, of which two are open, offering 80 places, yet this is in an area in the top 10% of the country for childhood deprivation. I understand the Secretary of State has been accused, with results like this, of being an educational zealot. May I suggest he wears that as a badge of honour for the results he has produced for us in Enfield?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the point he makes. It is of course the case that there has been pressure on school places in Enfield. That is why we have been pleased to increase the amount we spend from £20 million under the last Government to £77 million under this Government. It is also why I am delighted that Patricia Sowter, an outstanding head teacher, has been able to increase the number of school places on top of that by expanding her wonderful chain of free schools. When the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) was shadow education spokesman, he paid tribute to Patricia Sowter for her fantastic work. I hope the current shadow spokesman will associate himself with those words.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I represent a constituency in the north-east that, as the Secretary of State knows, is consistently complimented by Ofsted on the standard of its education, and I would like him to bear that in mind when he writes off my region in the way he just did. I want to ask him about private schools converting to free-school status. Although it is welcome to see these private schools become non-fee paying, it seems that a sizeable debt is being written off when they convert. Will the Secretary of State say how much his Department is spending on settling the debts of private schools converting to free schools?

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely shall. The first thing to bear in mind is that, as the hon. Lady rightly points out, Darlington is an exceptionally high-performing local authority. One of the reasons for that is that many of its schools have converted to academy status with the support of the local authority, and Darlington shines out as an enlightened Labour local authority. I will share the exact figures with the hon. Lady, but I should stress that many of the independent schools that have changed to become free schools are now open to all and an excellent standard of education is available to children on a comprehensive basis. Many of those arguing for independent schools to become free schools are Labour MPs such as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), and I am delighted to have been able to work with two more Labour MPs supporting our free schools programme.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

How many new places have been created by the free schools policy, and how does the demand compare with that for local authority schools?

[Michael Gove]

So far, some 83,000 places have been created, and as I pointed out earlier, these schools are overwhelmingly over-subscribed.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

In 2010, the Secretary of State cut Coventry’s schools programme. How much of that programme has now been reinstated?

[Michael Gove]

It is important to bear in mind that the Building Schools for the Future programme was not the most effective way of allocating resources to local authority schools. We have increased provision for additional school places in Coventry, compared with the last Government: they spent £25 million and we are spending £41 million. Coventry is also the area that has benefited fastest from our new Priority School Building programme. Whitmore Park primary school was one of the first to open, just a couple of weeks ago, and there are other schools in Coventry in desperate need of maintenance money which we are now helping at a lower cost and faster than under Building Schools for the Future.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Was not the real vanity project the Building Schools for the Future programme that my right hon. Friend has just alluded to, which was hugely costly? Are not this Government now picking up the pieces of the last Government’s unbelievable lack of planning at primary level, and in a way that guarantees quality, diversity and choice to parents?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Again, it is important that the House recall that under the last Government the provision of primary school places was cut, and under this Government it has expanded. At the same time as increasing the quantity of school places, we have raised the quality.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has allocated public funds to subsidise surplus places in under-subscribed free schools, while there is a shortage of school places in other areas. Will he now consider putting on hold plans for prospective free schools to open in September that still do not have applications for half their first cohort of places, and putting the money saved towards providing places where they are genuinely needed?

[Michael Gove]

It is important to acknowledge that money is going to providing places where they are genuinely needed. One thing I did not have an opportunity to point out earlier—[Interruption.] Let me give the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) these figures, which have been audited nationally. In Stoke-on-Trent under the last Government, £2.4 million went to new primary school places; under this Government, the figure is £12.4 million—three times as much. The hon. Gentleman is benefiting, not for the first time, from a Conservative Government being in place. I am confident that in due course we will find that all the free schools opening this year will be popular, and if for any reason they fail or falter, we will be quick to close them down or put them under new management.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

My wife is a teacher in a primary school in Stevenage that Hertfordshire county council is expanding, along with many others. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real root cause of the problem is the previous Government’s decision to cut 200,000 primary school places and remove surplus places?

[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.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Nothing matches the anger of parents denied a place in a good local school. In stark contrast to when Labour cut 200,000 places in the midst of a baby boom, the proposed New College free school in my constituency is the best opportunity to meet the shortfall in secondary school places. I hope that the Minister will fully support the bid, in stark contrast to Labour’s opposition.

[Michael Gove]

I am sorry to hear that Labour is opposing that excellent additional provision. Swindon, in particular under Conservative leadership, has seen schools improve consistently over recent years. I hope that we see great additional state school provision in Swindon. I will do everything that I can to support the parents who are behind that bid.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he reallocated £400 million from the targeted basic need programme to fill a black hole in the free schools programme? It is a simple question. He did not answer my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). Yes or no?

[Michael Gove]

We are actually spending more on basic need and on free schools as a result of the wise decisions that we have taken. It was interesting, in the hon. Gentleman’s question, that he did not take the opportunity—but I shall—to praise Corby technical school, which is the wonderful new free school that has been opened in his constituency. It is providing an outstanding standard of education for young people in his area. I hope he will take the opportunity the next time that he speaks on education to praise those who have provided such an outstanding quality of education.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

A moment ago, the Secretary of State mentioned a football club that is supporting alternative provision in a free school. Will he join me in congratulating the Worcester Warriors in its support of the Aspire academy, a free school soon to be opening in Worcester? I thank him for the fact that, along with that free school in one of the areas of highest need in my constituency, the Government are also investing in 500 more primary places in Worcestershire.

[Michael Gove]

I am delighted to hear that. We are very grateful for the role that football clubs and other charities play in supporting free schools. One of the best free school applications that I have seen came from Everton football club and was enthusiastically supported by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), another predecessor of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central and another Labour supporter of free schools—

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Oh yeah?

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Gentleman wrote to support that bid. I am glad that there is growing consensus behind free schools. I am disappointed that the dwindling band on the Opposition Front Bench hold out against it.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State referred to the Priority School Building programme and the speed with which schools are being built under it, but is it not the case that only 10% of schools in the programme will even have been started on by 2015?

[Michael Gove]

It is the case that the Priority School Building programme has had to have a number of individual projects rescoped, and some have encountered delays that we would not have wanted to see, but the programme has delivered more school places, at a lower cost and faster than the previous Building Schools for the Future programme.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

In my part of Northumberland, we have neither the benefits nor the perceived burden of a free school. We have focused on more primary places; the rebuild, authorised by the Secretary of State, of Prudhoe community high school; the creation of the Haltwhistle academy, the first in my constituency; and the changes to the fairer funding formula, which will for the first time produce enhanced funding for Northumberland. I welcome the changes, I welcome his direction of travel and, in particular, I welcome the changes to the fairer funding formula.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Part of the progressive changes that have been introduced by my Department and which have been championed and designed by the Minister for Schools has been an increase in funding for the parts of the country that have suffered in the past. In particular, the delivery of the pupil premium ensures that disadvantaged children, wherever they are, enjoy not only a high quality of education but additional investment in a better future.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Why has £62 million been spent on nine 16-to-18 free schools, with little evidence of need and at a time when sixth-form colleges are experiencing very deep funding cuts?

[Michael Gove]

I take funding for 16 to 18-year-olds seriously. That is why I am delighted that the London Academy of Excellence in east London, which was visited and indeed praised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, has helped to ensure that children in a part of east London who did not always have access to a high-quality academic education now enjoy it. Of course, my door is always open to the Association of Colleges and others to ensure that the great work that sixth-form colleges and that sixth-formers throughout the country do remains supported properly.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of Churchill free school in Haverhill, which makes provision for children with autism. I hope that the application in Ipswich will be similarly successful. He will be aware of the school in Saxmundham that was requested by parents and opened by the Seckford Foundation, because unfortunately the alternative was a school that was rated “inadequate”. Is it not right that free schools give parents and children a real educational opportunity at a time they desperately need it?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Free schools are providing parents with choice, not just in mainstream education but in ensuring high-quality provision for children with special educational needs. I am delighted that the Seckford Foundation is one of a number of charitable organisations seeking to augment the public money that comes to the taxpayer to improve our educational system.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

The previous Labour Government’s overspending and my local education authority’s failure to plan ahead meant that Reading was left in 2010 with huge pressure on places. I thank the Secretary of State for the millions of pounds poured into extending existing primary schools, as well as three new free schools and a new Reading university technical college. The new schools are providing new opportunities and raising standards across the area. Should we not all welcome choice and diversity as part of driving up standards and delivering long-term success in the education system?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have increased the amount available for new primary school places in Reading from £8.3 million under the previous Government to £34.7 million under this Government. He also gives me the opportunity to say that in addition to the new school provision offered by free schools, university technical colleges are providing parents with high-quality options and choice at the age of 14. Let me take this opportunity to thank Lord Adonis and Lord Baker for the leadership they have shown at the head of the university technical college programme.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May I thank the Secretary of State for his role in securing the provision of an extra 2,660 primary school places in Northamptonshire since 2010 and congratulate him on securing the funding massively to increase this programme so that an additional 4,490 primary school places will be provided by 2016?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He, like me, is a hawk on public expenditure, but by making savings elsewhere we can invest more in primary school places where they are needed. He is right that investment in primary school places in Northamptonshire has increased: it was £29 million under the previous Government and in the equivalent period under this Government it has gone up to £55 million.

Qualifications Reform

Michael Gove Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Written Statements

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

The Government are today announcing the next steps in the reform of GCSEs and A-levels.

We are introducing more rigorous content into reformed GCSEs and A-levels to be taught from September 2016 and 2015 respectively.

Our changes will make these qualifications more ambitious, with greater stretch for the most able; will prepare young people better for the demands of employment and further study; will address the pernicious damage caused by grade inflation and dumbing down, which have undermined students’ achievements for far too long; and will give pupils, parents, teachers, universities and employers greater confidence in the integrity and reliability of our qualifications system.

GCSEs

In November of last year, the Department for Education published details of revised content for GCSEs in English and mathematics, for first teaching from September 2015.

Today, I am publishing revised content for GCSEs in science, history, geography and languages, which will be taught in schools from September 2016.

These GCSEs set higher expectations. They demand more from all students and specifically provide further challenge to those aiming to achieve top grades.

In science, the level of detail and scientific knowledge required has increased significantly, and there are clearer mathematical requirements for each topic. New content has been added, including the study of the human genome, gene technology, life cycle analysis, nanoparticles and space physics.

In history, every student will be able to cover medieval, early modern and modern history—rather than focusing only on modern world history, as too many students do now. Greater emphasis has been placed on British history, which will account for 40% of GCSE rather than 25%, as now; balanced by an increase in the number of geographical areas studied, and an explicit expectation that students will study the wider world. The new GCSE is also clearer about the range of historical knowledge and methods students will need to develop, from critical assessment of sources to understanding of chronology, individuals, events and developments.

In geography, the balance between physical and human geography has been improved—developing students’ locational and contextual knowledge of the world’s continents, countries and regions and their physical, environmental and human features—alongside a requirement that all students study the geography of the UK in depth. Students will also need to use a wide range of investigative skills and approaches, including mathematics and statistics, and we have introduced a requirement for at least two examples of field work outside school.

In modern languages, greater emphasis has been placed on speaking and writing in the foreign language, thorough understanding of grammar and translation of sentences and short texts from English into the language. Most exam questions will be set in the language itself, rather than in English; and there will be a sharper focus on using the language appropriately in different contexts, from personal travel to employment or study abroad.

Finally, ancient languages have been given a separate set of criteria for the first time, reflecting their specific requirements. Students will now need to translate unseen passages into English, and will have the option to translate short English sentences into the ancient language. We have also provided greater detail about the range and type of literature and sources to be studied, without specifying particular set texts.

A-levels

I am also publishing revised content for A-levels in English literature, English language, English literature and language, biology, chemistry, physics, psychology, history, economics, business, computer science, art and design and sociology, for first teaching from September 2015.

The content for these A-levels was reviewed and recommended by Professor Mark E. Smith, vice-chancellor of Lancaster university, drawing on advice from subject experts from higher education establishments and subject associations.

By placing responsibility for the content of A-levels in the hands of university academics, we hope that these new exams will be more rigorous and will provide students with the skills and knowledge needed for progression to undergraduate study.

I thank Professor Smith and all of those involved for their conscientious work and thoughtful suggestions—and I have accepted all of their recommendations for A-level content.

In the sciences, computer science, economics and business, mathematical and quantitative content has been strengthened: for example, understanding standard deviation in biology and the concepts underlying calculus in physics.

In computer science, basic ICT content has been removed and emphasis has been placed instead on programming and far more detailed content on algorithms.

In the sciences, there will also be a new requirement that students must carry out a minimum of 12 practical activities, ensuring that they develop vital scientific techniques and become comfortable using key apparatus. This will make sure that all A-level scientists develop the experimental and practical skills essential for further study.

In history, as well as covering the history of more than one country or state beyond the British isles, A-level students will also now be required to study topics across a chronological range of at least 200 years increasing breadth of focus.

In English literature, to ensure a broad and balanced curriculum, specified texts will include three works from before 1900—including at least one play by Shakespeare—and at least one work from after 2000. In addition, we have reintroduced the requirement for A-level students to be examined on an “unseen” literary text, to encourage wide and critical reading.

Finally, in economics, content has been updated to include the latest issues and topics—for example, financial regulation and the role of central banks.

Copies of the content for these reformed GCSEs and A-levels will be available later today at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications

Alongside these announcements, Ofqual is today setting out its decisions on how these new GCSEs and A-levels should be assessed—with linear assessment rather than modules, and a greater focus on exams rather than controlled assessment.

All of these reformed A-levels will be ready for first teaching in schools from September 2015, and reformed GCSEs from September 2016.

Awarding organisations will publish their detailed specifications for these A-levels this autumn, and for these GCSEs next autumn giving schools plenty of time to prepare.

New A-levels and GCSEs from 2016

Based on the advice of the A-level content advisory board established by the Russell group of leading universities, I have also already announced that A-levels in mathematics, languages and geography will be reformed for first teaching from September 2016.

I can announce today that GCSEs and A-levels in religious studies, design and technology, drama, dance, music and PE—and GCSEs in art and design, computer science and citizenship—will also be reformed and brought up to these new, higher standards for first teaching at the same time, in September 2016.

Awarding organisations and subject experts will draft content for these new A-levels and GCSEs over the coming months, and we will consult on their recommendations for content—while Ofqual consults on its recommendations for assessment later in the year.

All our reforms to GCSEs and A-levels complement the changes we have already made to technical and vocational qualifications, removing those which are not endorsed by businesses or employer bodies from league tables, and leaving only those which represent real achievement.

Taken together, these changes mean that every young person in this country will have the opportunity to study high-quality, rigorous, demanding qualifications across the academic and vocational curriculum from September 2016 onwards.

These changes will increase the rigour of qualifications, strengthening the respect in which they are held by employers and universities alike.

Young people in England deserve world-class qualifications and a world-class education—and that is what our reforms will deliver.

Statutory Guidance for Schools

Michael Gove Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Written Statements

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

Today I am publishing updated statutory safeguarding guidance for schools and colleges “Keeping Children Safe in Education”. Effective immediately, it has been sent to all schools and colleges and replaces “Safeguarding children and safer recruitment in education (2006)”.

“Keeping Children Safe in Education” provides guidance on: safeguarding systems including schools’ child protection policies and the appointment of a designated safeguarding lead; the checks necessary to carry out recruitment safely; and dealing with allegations of abuse made against staff members.

The guidance informs those working in schools and colleges about: types of abuse and neglect; where to find further information about the signs that a child may be being abused; how to refer a child about whom they have concerns; and signposts them to further, detailed information on specific safeguarding issues including female genital mutilation, child sexual exploitation, cyber-bullying, mental health, and radicalisation.

The publication of the new guidance follows a public consultation last year. I have also brought forward an amendment to the school staffing regulations (2009) to enable schools to choose the obligatory safe recruitment training that best suits their particular circumstances.

These changes will ensure school and college staff are clear about their statutory responsibilities and able to exercise their professional judgment with confidence in keeping children safe.

The new guidance will be available will be available on the Government website www.gov.uk.

Historical Child Protection Investigations

Michael Gove Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Written Statements

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

I wish to inform the House that the Department for Education has received information about Jimmy Savile relating to several children’s homes and schools in England, dating back to the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. This information was uncovered as part of the document review process undertaken by the Metropolitan Police Service on behalf of the Department of Health.

Having reviewed the information I have decided that the Department for Education should pass the information to the appropriate organisations for further investigation. In most cases the work will be conducted by the relevant local authority; in others the relevant institution or a legacy organisation will take the lead.

In order to ensure consistency of approach with the NHS Savile investigations, I am replicating the arrangements adopted by the Department of Health to quality assure the work. I have appointed Lucy Scott-Moncrieff to provide independent oversight and quality assurance of the process, undertaking a similar role to that of Kate Lampard in the NHS trust investigations. I have asked Lucy Scott-Moncrieff to ensure that investigating organisations take all practicable steps to establish what happened and why at the time of the incidents and any lessons there might be to inform current safeguarding practice in our schools and children’s homes.

I will inform the House of the outcome of this work.

Information has been provided to responsible organisations as set out in the table below:

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Gove Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

4. What guidance his Department has issued to head teachers on what constitutes the exceptional circumstances in which children may be granted leave of absence for holidays during school term time.

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

My Department has not issued any specific guidance on this matter.

[Mr Turner]

There have been examples on the Isle of Wight, and I am sure elsewhere, of parents being told that the Government have banned all term-time holidays, which is particularly difficult for those who work during the holidays. Will the Minister confirm that the definition of exceptional circumstances is made by the head teachers, and not the Government, the council or even the governing body, and that the normal use of language should be sufficiently clear for heads to make those decisions?

[Michael Gove]

As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely right: the decision as to what constitutes exceptional circumstances is a matter for the head teacher. It is important, however, to stress that children wherever possible should be in school and learning, and a drive to reduce truancy and push up the number of days and hours that children spend in school is at the heart of our long-term plan to raise standards in our state schools.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

In 2013, Ofsted estimated that more than 10,000 children were missing from education—children more likely to have special educational needs and to be more vulnerable to child sexual exploitation. Will the Secretary of State look at ways in which the extent of the problem and the risk to the children involved can be better monitored, such as asking local safeguarding children boards to include in their annual reports information on children missing from school?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. The work that she has done on emphasising how much better a job we can do to help vulnerable children and young people has been exemplary, and I very much take her point to heart. I stress that local safeguarding children boards have had a bad press recently but it is important that we use all the agencies at our disposal to try to ensure that the most vulnerable are in school, where they can benefit from great education and appropriate pastoral support.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to improve mathematics education.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

6. What progress has been made on the Shakespeare schools festival.

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

I am delighted to be able to support and fund the Shakespeare schools festival. We have provided nearly £500,000 to give students the opportunity to prepare and perform an abridged version of a Shakespeare play. More than 1,000 schools—over 62,000 students—have already benefited, and 50,000 more students should benefit this year.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

In this special anniversary year, the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust’s fantastic Shakespeare week has brought the works of the great bard to thousands of children across the country. Will the Secretary of State join me on 29 April to watch the talented students of Stratford-on-Avon mark the 450th anniversary of the bard’s birth in a special performance in the Speaker’s state apartments?

[Michael Gove]

Mr Speaker, to visit your apartments,

“Let me not to the marriage of true minds

Admit impediments.”

Yes is the short answer to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

There is evidence that Shakespeare poorly taught can put children off English literature for a very long time. Do our children not need a broad diet, which might even include our famous poet John Clare this year, the 150th anniversary of his death?

[Michael Gove]

Any author poorly taught can put children off for life, but more and more lessons are being taught well in our schools. As the chief inspector has pointed out, we have more good and outstanding schools than ever before. I had the opportunity recently to see children from a special school, a primary school and a secondary school—Burlington Danes academy—all perform Shakespeare productions in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s flat. I was blown away by the quality of their verse speaking. I believe that Shakespeare has the power to move and touch every child, and I know that John Clare would have thought exactly the same. That peasant poet understood that he stood in a tradition of great literary figures, of whom Shakespeare was another grammar school boy made good.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to ensure more employers offer apprenticeships to 16 to 18-year-olds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What plans he has for regional school commissioners.

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

Regional schools commissioners will act on my behalf to support the national schools commissioner.

[Mr Thomas]

The Secretary of State will recognise that Al-Madinah and IES UK Breckland schools have not been the greatest advert for his policy agenda. How will these rather Soviet-sounding commissioners help to ensure that academy chains and free schools are properly overseen so that no more children have their education damaged in future?

[Michael Gove]

I have nothing against anything that is redolent of a better past in Russia. In fact, the Office of the Schools Commissioner was introduced by the previous Labour Government. We are merely building on it to ensure that we have great head teachers and others who can ensure that the superb innovation that is occurring in academies, free schools and community schools across the country is supported, and that wherever school failure occurs we can take swift and rapid action.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

13. What steps he plans to take to improve vocational education.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I regularly enjoy meeting the heads of our leading independent schools.

[Mr Chope]

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the important role that independent schools play in raising education standards in this country, and does he applaud the enormous contribution that fee-paying parents make in investing in our education system?

[Michael Gove]

I take a close interest in the success of England’s independent schools. In particular, I reinforce the point that my hon. Friend makes. Those parents who support independent schools are supporting not just a great education for their own children. In many cases—for example, with schools such as Wellington and Eton college—they are also supporting improved state education by sponsoring free schools, which would not exist if Labour came to power. I stress that the head teachers of independent schools appreciate the changes being made to the state sector. Only this weekend the headmaster of King’s College school in Wimbledon pointed out that the state sector “has really improved” under this Government—so much so that it is totally different from the situation that prevailed 10 years ago under Labour.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a governor of an independent school. Will my right hon. Friend in his various discussions promote the placing of looked-after and vulnerable children in boarding-school education, not least because this produces better results for them in examinations and better outcomes in life, and it is also considerably cheaper than the alternative?

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely agree. The role that independent schools play in making sure that children from vulnerable backgrounds have access to boarding education is to be applauded, but it is vital that we stress that there are superb state boarding schools as well, and that there are a growing number of state schools providing excellent facilities for children from the most fragile of circumstances to flourish. It is important that we should recognise that whatever the type of school helping a vulnerable child, the actions of those who lead it should be applauded.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to encourage girls aged 16 to 18 to consider taking up engineering apprenticeships.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

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

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

Thanks to the success of our long-term economic plan, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister were able last week to announce not just an extension of tax-free child care, but the extension of the pupil premium to the early years, marking a step forward in making this country not only more economically efficient, but more socially just.

[Lorely Burt]

I warmly welcome the additional money announced in the Budget to support early education for children from low-income families. What will that mean for nursery providers in Solihull?

[Michael Gove]

We are consulting on exactly how we should distribute the additional cash in order to ensure that it goes to the very poorest families, but I am aware that in the west midlands generally—and in Solihull particularly—there are families in desperate need of support, and I hope we will be able to extend that to them as quickly as possible.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

More and more research shows the importance of early-years development in a child’s education. The Labour party’s Sure Start programme was focused on supporting those vital infant years—a policy of prevention, rather than cure. We know that the Tories do not support Sure Start, but in 2010, the Secretary of State pledged to create 4,200 new health visitors. Can he tell the House how far he is from meeting that target?

[Michael Gove]

We extravagantly support Sure Start and I am a great advocate of the great work that Sure Start children’s centres do, but the provision of additional health visitors is a matter for the Secretary of State for Health.

[Tristram Hunt]

That is exactly the problem with this Government—no cross-departmental thinking about having health visitors focus on early-years development. [Laughter.] The Tories may laugh at the impact that health visitors have on early-years education, but the Opposition think that the early years are vital. As the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) suggested, research published by the Sutton Trust on Friday reiterated the impact that good parenting has on school readiness, educational attainment and progression into continued education and work. Will the Government’s commitment to 4,200 new health visitors be matched this Parliament, or is it another broken promise, like Sure Start centres?

[Michael Gove]

The early years are indeed very important. That is when children often learn to spell. It is important that the Secretary of State can tell the difference between education, e-d-u-c-a-t-i-o-n, and health, h-e-a-l-t-h. Responsibility for health visitors, like responsibility for doctors and nurses, is for the Secretary of State for Health, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman address those questions to my right hon. Friend.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

T3. Last summer the Minister visited Northumberland, where schoolchildren have, historically, been chronically underfunded, compared with those in other areas, by central Government. May I welcome the 6.4% increase in early 2015 and the ongoing consultation, and observe that the case for fairer funding is absolutely overwhelming? The Minister should prepare for a lot of representations from my head teachers.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

T2. Following a special educational needs tribunal ruling that children were unsafe in January 2013, at a ministerial meeting in March 2013 parents of abuse victims told a Minister that Stanbridge Earls independent school remained unsafe. I wrote to the Secretary of State in the same month to warn him that the situation was urgent. Despite this, a further child was sexually abused in July 2013. The school has now closed. Ofsted has apologised for its failures. Will Ministers now urgently consider adequate research into the funding of mandatory reporting in regulated settings?

[Michael Gove]

I take these issues incredibly seriously and I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising them. I have had the opportunity, in a different context, to talk to one victim of abuse who, I have to say, made a compelling case for mandatory reporting in a regulated setting. I had hitherto been concerned that mandatory reporting might create more work for children’s services departments than it would generate safety for children, but the specific case for reporting in regulated settings is one that we are actively reviewing.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

T4. Ministers are to be commended for their work to drive up educational standards for pupils in receipt of free school meals, and in particular for the appointment of John Dunford as pupil premium champion, whom we saw on his recent visit to Peterborough. What further work are Ministers doing to focus on this area of work with children in receipt of free school meals?

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

T5. The Minister is, I hope, concerned about the literacy levels of prisoners, 40% of whom have an average reading age of 11. Does he think that the policy of the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice to ban sending books to prisoners will make that better or worse?

[Michael Gove]

I take a close interest in ensuring that we deal with the problem of literacy. I am hoping to visit the prison education programme in Wormwood Scrubs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency next week. We should do everything possible to support literacy in prisons and in the justice system. If he looks closely at the work the Justice Secretary is undertaking to ensure that in secure settings for young people an appropriate emphasis is placed on education, he will appreciate that the Justice Secretary is more committed than anyone to ensuring that those who are incarcerated have the chance to educate themselves out of the path they have taken.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

T8. Does my right hon. Friend agree that academies turn around some of the worst-performing schools in our country? Will the Government redouble their efforts to create the conditions to allow academies to thrive in Lancashire?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. It is incumbent on the Labour leadership of Lancashire county council to do as other enlightened Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat local authorities have done and support academy providers in turning around underperforming schools.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

T6. In a reply slipped out on Budget day, Ministers confirmed the hitherto secret list of 14 academy chains that have been barred from taking on further schools, and other unnamed chains are causing concern. Does the Secretary of State agree that such secrecy not only wasted months of work by Woodlands school in Southampton in abortive discussions with Academies Enterprise Trust, but is damaging public confidence? Is it not time to allow Ofsted to inspect academy chains, as it does local authorities?

[Michael Gove]

Ofsted already inspects academy chains. It has inspected both E-ACT and AET.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

T9. Is my right hon. Friend aware that a very important event will take place in September 2014, namely the opening of Harlow’s Sir Charles Kao university technical college following millions of pounds of Government investment? Is he aware that the UTC is proving to be incredibly popular among pupils and their parents, and that it will increase the choice that is available to many people in Harlow? Will he come to Harlow to visit it, and to see for himself how it will improve the quality of education?

[Michael Gove]

Any opportunity to visit Harlow is always welcome, any opportunity to visit a UTC is always a joy, and the chance to combine both with the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend again is an offer that is simply too good to be true.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

T7. Does the Secretary of State agree that every classroom in every school should contain a qualified teacher who is able to provide the best possible education for children, and that to deliver anything else is to deliver education on the cheap?

[Michael Gove]

I agree that every classroom in every school should guarantee that children are receiving high-quality teaching, but I think it instructive to note that the hon. Lady’s attempts to breathe new life into the policy of her party’s Front Benchers has come a little too late. Nowadays, when the shadow Education Secretary is interviewed on the BBC, he is reduced to saying that our policies are a success, and when it comes to Question Time he cannot think of any education questions, and has to ask some health questions instead.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

T10. This morning I attended the launch of “Get Tiptree Reading” at Tiptree Heath primary school in my constituency. This local reading initiative is led by some outstanding head teachers in the constituency, and is intended to inspire a love of reading among schoolchildren. Will the Secretary of State commend the leadership of that school and other local schools which are going the extra mile to support reading and literacy among the young?

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. I had the opportunity to visit Essex twice last week; sadly, I did not manage to make it to my hon. Friend’s constituency, but I hope to do so before too long.

The leadership being shown by primary head teachers, and teachers across the country, in helping us to eliminate illiteracy is inspiring. The introduction of the phonics check, which was the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), has really raised the level of ambition, and the new primary curriculum which will be introduced in September will help to reinforce that.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said a moment ago that Ofsted could inspect academy chains. If that is the case, why is the head of Ofsted asking for the power to inspect them?

[Michael Gove]

The chief inspector of Ofsted said some lovely things about me on the radio on Friday, and now I have an opportunity to say some great things about him. I think that the recent changes in Ofsted inspections that he had a chance to announce on Friday, in a wholly independent way, are wise and right, as he is himself in relation to every issue.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

I welcomed last week’s announcement of an early-years pupil premium. Schools have benefited from access to the Education Endowment Foundation toolkit to use the pupil premium to best effect. Will the Department consider how best to make early-years pupil premium research available to providers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

The Secretary of State recently saw basketball being taught in Mandarin at Bohunt school in my constituency. Will he join me in commending Bohunt on its immersion programme, and how can we get more people studying this strategically important language?

[Michael Gove]

I hugely enjoyed my visit to Bohunt school, an absolutely outstanding school. When the Financial Times visited it, it said that it was easily better—like so many state schools—than independent schools. One of the great things I saw today when I visited Chobham academy in Newham was a year 7 class being taught Mandarin through total immersion. The transformation of modern foreign language teaching over the last couple of years is a wonder to behold, and the commitment of so many of our modern foreign language teachers to extending Mandarin, Spanish and French teaching is vital to ensure that this country escapes the insularity that, sadly, afflicted us in the Labour years.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State referred earlier to the reforms in Ofsted announced by the chief inspector last week. Does that mean he is now prepared to call the dogs off and reaffirm his support for a genuinely independent national inspectorate completely free from political interference?

[Michael Gove]

As the Secretary of State who was delighted to appoint a Labour baroness to chair Ofsted, I think my commitment to the independence of the inspectorate is beyond question.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

In Bedford the transition from three-tier to two-tier education remains stalled, and there is still no coherent strategy to resolve it. In the circumstances, will my right hon. Friend take a particular interest in applications for funding from schools seeking to achieve coherent change for their pupils?

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely will.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Earlier the children Minister talked about the increase in places at school nurseries. Is she aware of the challenge that faces many working parents who cannot secure more than the 15 hours a week they are guaranteed and cannot buy extra hours in a school nursery, which reduces the choices for working parents?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Many people in east Northamptonshire are worried by a council consultation on a move from the three-tier system to a two-tier system. May I ask the Secretary of State to impress it on the county council that any changes, especially the disruptive closure of schools, must be driven by compelling evidence that they will lead to a better education for local children?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful for the point the hon. Gentleman makes. Education standards in Northamptonshire have been low in the past. Reform is necessary, but reform always needs to be driven by evidence. That principle governs every single decision the coalition Government make.

Community Primary Schools

Michael Gove Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

15. How many applications for academy status from community primary schools have been declined by his Department.

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

Eighty.

[Official Report, 10 February 2014, Vol. 575, c. 552-3.]

Letter of correction from Michael Gove:

The correct answer should have been:

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

Twenty-six.

School Teachers Review Body (23rd Report)

Michael Gove Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Written Statements

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

The 23rd report of the School Teachers Review Body (STRB) is being published today. Its recommendations cover the issues that were referred to it in April 2013—leadership pay; allowances; provisions relating to safeguarding; and teachers’ non-pay terms and conditions. The recommendations seek to continue the process of reform that had begun with the STRB’s 23rd report on classroom teachers’ pay with a view to producing a framework of pay and conditions that will raise the status of the teaching profession, and support the recruitment and retention of high-quality teachers and school leaders.

I am grateful for the consideration which the STRB has given to these important matters and fully support the guiding principle of increased flexibility for schools within a simplified and consistent national framework that it has used as the basis for its recommendations. Copies of the STRB’s 23rd report are available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of both Houses, and online at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education

The STRB has made recommendations that seek to build on the reforms to teachers’ pay and provide a framework for leadership pay that is consistent with that for classroom teachers. It proposes greater autonomy for schools to determine the appropriate level of pay depending on the circumstances of each post and additional flexibility within the national pay framework to reflect the changing nature of school leadership, including recognition of the most demanding roles. It also proposes greater freedom in setting the levels of allowances, the simplification of salary safeguarding provisions and the removal of unnecessary detailed guidance on non-pay conditions.

I am grateful to the STRB for these recommendations and, subject to the views of consultees, I intend to accept all the key recommendations.

My detailed response contains further information on these matters.

Annex to written ministerial statement

School Teachers Review Body’s (STRB’s) recommendations and response from the Secretary of State for Education.

[The following sets out the full set of recommendations from the STRB as published in the 23rd report (CM 8813) on 13 February 2014, together with the response from the Secretary of State for Education.]

The 23rd report of the STRB is being published today. It covers matters referred to the STRB in April 2013. Copies are available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and in the Libraries of both Houses and online at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education

In making its recommendations, the STRB was asked to consider:

how to provide a simplified and flexible framework for ensuring school leaders’ pay is appropriate to the challenge of the post and their contribution to their school or schools;

how the current detailed provisions for allowances, other pay flexibilities and safeguarding could be reformed to allow a simpler and more flexible STPCD; and

how the framework for teachers’ non-pay conditions of service could be reformed to raise the status of the profession and support the recruitment and retention of high-quality teachers, and raise standards of education for all children.

I am grateful for the in-depth consideration which the STRB has given to these important matters. I am inviting comments on the STRB’s report and my response to its recommendations by 13 March 2014.

The STRB has recommended:

Leadership pay framework

A simple three-stage process to guide governing bodies in setting pay for heads and wider leadership group, taking account of challenge of the role.

Relevant allowances to be subsumed into the pay setting arrangements for base pay.

The removal of unnecessary rigidities in form of spine points and differentials.

Pay progression that better reflects individual performance, for the leadership group.

Continuing scope for governing body discretion to set pay 25% above the broad bands, and exceptionally beyond if supported by a business case.

Providing formal headroom above the current leadership range for the biggest leadership roles in large multiple schools.

Scope for fixed-term contracts in limited circumstances with provision for reward linked to delivery of specified outcomes.

Allowances

The existing broad framework of TLR payments be retained, with removal of the current provisions relating to differential levels of TLR payments within schools.

The SEN allowance be retained unchanged.

The chartered London teacher scheme be abolished with transitional arrangements for teachers already registered.

The unqualified teachers’ allowance, acting allowance and performance payments to seconded teachers and payments for residential duties and additional payments be retained, with amendment as necessary consequential on the changes to leadership pay.

Recruitment and retention benefits and incentives to be retained as a separate allowance for teachers, but be limited to housing/relocation allowances for head teachers and other members of the leadership group where pay has been set under the new arrangements.

A discretionary payment may only be made to head teachers for additional responsibilities undertaken on a temporary or irregular basis.

The General Teaching Council for Wales’ fee allowance be retained.

The Department consider simplification of the presentation of allowances in a revised STPCD.

Safeguarding

The Department should bring together the current safeguarding provisions into one simplified section of the STPCD.

Non-pay recommendations

The core provisions in section 2 be retained, but the list of 21 administrative and clerical tasks at annex 3 to section 2 be removed from the STPCD.

The section 4 guidance be removed from the STPCD.

The existing statements of professional responsibilities for teachers be retained.

I am grateful to the STRB for its consideration of the issues and, subject to consultees’ views, I intend to accept all these recommendations. I regard them as providing the framework to move towards a more flexible and simpler system, where the emphasis is on less unnecessary detailed prescription and greater autonomy for schools in deciding how to reward their head teachers.

The recommendations to remove the list of 21 administrative and clerical tasks and the section 4 guidance are particularly welcome. They will not only contribute towards the Government’s objective of reducing unnecessary guidance and of simplifying and shortening the overall STPCD, but they will also provide greater flexibility for teachers and school leaders to use their professional judgement in exercising their professional responsibilities and as such represent an important step in the reform of teachers’ conditions of employment.

In addition to its recommendations, the STRB has made a number of suggestions about the timing and handling of the implementation of changes to leadership pay and to TLRs, including that these changes should be applied by schools as and when appointments are made or when responsibilities change. It has also made a number of observations about governance. I will want to ensure that alongside greater flexibilities there are sensible controls to avoid excessive payments and wage inflation. I would welcome consultees’ views on all these points.

Finally I will want to ensure that we have had due regard to equalities considerations before confirming the Government’s response. I would welcome consultees’ views on these matters also.

Sir Martin Narey's Report (Children's Social Workers Training)

Michael Gove Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Written Statements

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

Children’s social work is one of the most demanding careers a person can pursue, with the power to transform the lives of deeply disadvantaged children. It requires a unique and highly complex set of skills and knowledge. When those skills and that knowledge are not present, lives which might have been transformed immeasurably for the better can be left damaged instead.

Today we publish an independent report, by former Barnardo’s chief executive Sir Martin Narey, which reveals a training system which in too many universities is not fit for purpose. He concludes that entry demands are not high enough, the system of endorsement of courses is insufficiently rigorous, and the content of those courses too generic. The result is a failure to protect the most vulnerable children in our society.

While Sir Martin stresses that some fine social work courses do exist, in too many universities and in many social work texts, social work training can be dominated by an emphasis on inequality, empowerment and anti-oppressive practice. As Sir Martin Narey says,

“Sometimes, parents and other carers neglect and harm children. In such circumstances, viewing those parents as victims, seeking to treat them non oppressively, empowering them or working in partnership with them can divert the practitioner’s focus from where it should be: on the child.”

Sir Martin argues that there is too much theory, not enough good practical experience. Training for children’s social work ought to include: recognition of the signs of abuse; understanding of the impact of child abuse and neglect in very early years and beyond; assessment and analytical skills; training in how to question and engage parents and children; a sound knowledge of the evidence base around parental capacity and effective intervention including how to prepare a child to move home, either in an emergency or to a new permanent family; management of risk; the legal framework; and child development. To learn how to apply this knowledge in practice, training must always include a placement in a statutory setting.

Sir Martin reveals there are some good undergraduate courses, and there are many better Masters-based entry routes—but too many social workers are leaving university today ill-prepared for their vital role working to protect at-risk children.

Children’s social work requires a uniquely fine balance of moral, legal, practical and psychological considerations; challenge as well as support; a hard intellect as well as a generous heart.

Too many prospective social workers, as Sir Martin also reports, are entering university ill-equipped to meet those demands. Between 2003 and 2012, no fewer than 307 social work degree courses at 83 institutions were formally approved, with a rapid increase in the number of entrants and worryingly low entry standards: less than a third of those on undergraduate courses had one or more A-levels. The failure rate on these courses was just 2.5%. We want to see universities demand more of prospective social workers.

We accept Sir Martin’s recommendation to set out, in one place, what a newly qualified children’s social worker needs to understand, based first on a definition of what a children’s social worker is—work which is being led by the chief social worker for children, Isabelle Trowler. And we want to see university students committed to working with children specialise in children’s issues both academically and in their practice placements.

The chief social worker is also developing plans for the introduction of a more rigorous testing regime for children’s social workers, including a license to practise examination, continuing professional development and compulsory revalidation; and I am personally supportive of this work.

The Frontline and Step Up to Social Work programmes are leading the way in increasing the ambition of children’s social work; more traditional entry routes must, at all universities, have similar aspiration. We want to do for social work what has been done so successfully for teaching: raise the status of the profession and the quality of those wishing to join it through higher-quality entry routes and training.

The cluttered landscape of standards and university endorsement criteria should be cleared, and the criteria sharpened. We shall consider Sir Martin’s recommendations for a single body to approve and audit children’s social work training; and further consider how to strengthen regulation of the profession.

The fundamental reform of social work training recommended by Sir Martin sits alongside our existing reform programme in children’s social work: a swifter and surer adoption system; sharper intervention in inadequate authorities; diversification in delivery; and an innovation programme to encourage a wider range of partners, greater creativity, and more intelligent and supportive practice systems. What we would want for our own children, we should aim to deliver for all children.

Copies of Sir Martin’s report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Gove Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

16. What plans he has to extend the school day.

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

I would like to see state schools offer a school day that is nine or even 10 hours long, enabling schools to provide character building, extra-curricular activities and homework sessions. I look forward to working with schools to ensure that they have access to the resources necessary to provide these activities.

[Damian Collins]

Does the Secretary of State agree that lengthening the school day in this way will give more children the chance to benefit from a greater breadth of studies—an opportunity that too often has fallen only to those who can afford to pay for it?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we need to do is close the unacceptable gap in attainment between those who are fortunate enough to have parents who can pay for them to be educated privately and those in the state sector. The very best state schools recognise that a longer school day with additional extra-curricular activities is just one way of ensuring that all our children can succeed.

[Mr Raab]

These plans would strengthen children’s education, ensure time for music, sport and other extra-curricular activities, ease the time pressure on teachers and help out working parents. I urge the Secretary of State not to allow the narrow vested interests of the unions to block the delivery of these plans.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These plans will ensure that a broader range of culturally enriching activities are available to young people. I am sure that the teaching unions will recognise that this is in their interests, and I hope they will embrace and support these changes.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I know the Secretary of State sees himself as a big beast at the Cabinet table championing educational reform, but is he aware that most of us who wish well for our education system want the big beast to be controlled by good information, good research and good evidence? What is the evidence for the longer school day?

[Michael Gove]

The evidence is there in the gap between, for example, the performance of independent fee-paying schools and state schools. If one looks at those children who get the best results at the end of primary school and what happens to those who go on to independent schools and those who stay in the state sector, one sees that at the moment those who go on to independent schools are more likely to get good GCSEs and A-levels. A longer school day is one of the ingredients that we believe will make a difference. Great state school heads—for example, Greg Martin at Durand academy—have already come out and explained why, in their schools, a longer school day definitely helps children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to catch up with their peers.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I support the Secretary of State’s wish that school nurseries extend hours beyond the statutory 15 hours a week. Is he aware, however, that 21 local authorities, including my own in Manchester, already provide full-time nursery provision, but that this is being put at risk by funding changes from his Department? Is this not another example of his actions failing to match his words?

[Michael Gove]

I am delighted that so many schools and local authorities provide additional hours, and I work with schools to ensure that more can do so. Where local authorities experience difficulties in ensuring that parents receive the support they need, I want to ask tough questions about the leadership of those local authorities to make sure that they devote the same amount of care, attention and resource to helping disadvantaged children as my Department does.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

On the basis that there is more to education than the classroom, will the Secretary of State tell the House what discussions he has had with various organisations—scouts, guides, cadets and so on—on how a longer school day would impact on the out-of-school activities that our young people undertake?

[Michael Gove]

I would hope that our voluntary organisations will play a part in making sure that more young people can enjoy the sort of character-building activities that those organisations believe in. Many scout troops already work closely with schools, and cadets certainly are an integral part of the success of schools in the independent and state sectors. I want to do everything possible to ensure that children can enjoy those activities, and, in particular, that children from disadvantaged backgrounds, who have not had the chance in the past, now have that opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the performance of pupils in academies and free schools.

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

Results continue to improve more quickly in sponsored academies than in local authority maintained schools, at both primary and secondary level. Converter academies continue to outperform other schools and to achieve better inspection outcomes than maintained schools. Of the first wave of 24 free schools, three quarters have been rated outstanding or good.

[Mr Wilson]

The introduction of academies, free schools and university technical colleges into challenging areas in my constituency is lifting the performance of all secondary schools in those areas. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these schools perform well precisely because they have autonomy from local education authority control? Will he condemn any attempt to remove those freedoms?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is right. It is the case that education outcomes are improving in Reading as a result of this Government’s changes. That is why it is so worrying that the spokesman for the Opposition told The Sunday Times this weekend that they would halt the free school programme. It would be a terrible reversal of the improvement in our children’s education.

[John Howell]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds in academies and free schools make better progress than their peers in local authority maintained schools?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is right. The statistics bear him out. It is important, of course, to acknowledge that across the board our schools are improving—local authority schools, academies and free schools—but it is critically important to recognise at the same time that, particularly for disadvantaged children, academies are seeing fantastic results.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me and the many Brighton teachers who have been in touch with me that all sorts of things affect performance in our schools, including pupil-teacher ratios, selection and financial resources? Following his recent announcement that state schools should be more like private schools, if he will not or cannot even up the resources, will he at least summon up the academic rigour to compare like with like? There is plenty of evidence that state schools outperform private schools in many cases.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and had she been fortunate enough to join me at the London Academy of Excellence last week she would have seen a free school that is outperforming an independent school. The next time I have the opportunity to visit an outstanding academy or free school, I hope she will come with me to see what the state sector is capable of achieving to outpace and outperform the private sector.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

The Lyndale school in south Wirral is a very small but excellent school. It is not currently an academy and it is under threat of closure. One of the options for saving it involves it becoming an academy, so if parents and I can find a way to keep the school sustainable, will the Secretary of State stand ready to help us?

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely; I very much enjoyed visiting the Wirral just two weeks ago, and I will do anything I can to work with the hon. Lady to help the children and teachers in that school.

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

I wonder whether the Secretary of State read the article in The Times Educational Supplement last week which challenged the PISA evidence about the relationship between greater autonomy and educational improvement.

[Michael Gove]

I have not caught up with last week’s Times Educational Supplement, but I enjoy reading it and I will look at that article. The evidence from PISA—both the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) and I agree on this—is very powerful in favour of greater autonomy for schools, but I shall look at any critique of that evidence in order to weigh it appropriately.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Given that he has previously been chastised by the UK Statistics Authority for abusing data, how confident is the Secretary of State that his claims about the improved performance of converter academies will stand up to independent scrutiny in future?

[Michael Gove]

I rely on the evidence with which I am presented by Ofsted, by league tables and by every possible measure, so I look forward to having the chance, whenever the hon. Gentleman wants to ask me again, to demonstrate how well these schools are doing. However, I note that when he came to the Dispatch Box, he did not disabuse the House of the view that it will have taken following the shadow Secretary of State’s statement to The Sunday Times—that Labour would halt the free school programme. I hope the hon. Gentleman will do so when he has the chance again.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the effects of changes to work experience on employability.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Eighty.

[Mr Slaughter]

I thank the Secretary of State for that succinct answer. The reason I ask is that tonight Hammersmith and Fulham’s Conservative council is set to vote for the closure of Sulivan primary school in Fulham, which is rated in the top 2% in the country, in order to give its site to a free school. Sulivan’s last hope is the Secretary of State, so will he agree with the London Diocesan Board for Schools, which wants to take Sulivan into its family of schools as an academy, that it is

“unusual to close successful schools with growing rolls”,

and save Sulivan school?

[Michael Gove]

I admire good local authorities, and Hammersmith and Fulham’s is one of the best, so the decisions it quite properly takes outside the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) I would entirely support. As for creating a free school in Hammersmith and Fulham, why should a former public schoolboy such as the hon. Gentleman, who benefited from the independence of a great school such as Latymer upper, wish to deny such high standards to others? Is it that the hypocrisy—forgive me, the double standards—of the Labour Front-Bench team now extends to the Back Benchers, too?

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

17. What steps he is taking to ensure that academies and free schools are accountable for their leadership and corporate governance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

19. What recent discussions he has had with the head of Ofsted on leadership in schools.

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

Leadership and management are integral to the success of a school and, as such, feature regularly in my discussions with Her Majesty’s chief inspector.

[Derek Twigg]

What was it that brought the Secretary of State to the view that it was time to “refresh” the person in charge of Ofsted, Baroness Morgan, and to bring in a fresh perspective? What specifically concerned him about performance on school improvement to lead him to that conclusion?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to do in this House what I have done on other platforms and underline my debt to Baroness Morgan, who has led the Ofsted board in a superlative fashion. However, it is good corporate practice to ensure that the chair of any body—whether the Surrey Heath Conservative association or Ofsted—is refreshed from time to time.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

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

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

I had the opportunity last week to congratulate the nation’s teachers on the fantastic GCSE performance recorded in our league tables, which show that the number of students being educated in schools below floor standards at secondary level has diminished dramatically under this Government. I would like to take the opportunity once more to thank the nation’s teachers for the superb work that they do.

[Annette Brooke]

I echo the Secretary of State’s comment.

Following a unilateral decision by an academy upper school in my constituency to change the age of transfer from 13 to 11, assuming that the local authorities carry out a feasibility study and full consultation, and demonstrate that pupil outcomes will be improved, what assistance can the Government give towards capital expenditure for any reorganisation of the feeder schools, as that clearly is not in any plans?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend raises a very specific case, although I understand why she has brought it to my attention. I hope that we will have the opportunity to talk afterwards so that I can ensure that the Dorset local authority is provided with all the support it needs to make sure that children’s educational standards improve.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Halton (Derek Twigg) have shown, the Opposition recognise the essential role that Ofsted plays in driving up standards in schools. I want to place on the record our continued support for Sir Michael Wilshaw. However, since we last met, the Secretary of State has, in the words of Sir Michael, unleashed a “smear campaign” against the chief inspector. He has also sacked Baroness Morgan as chair of Ofsted, despite the fact that the Minister for Schools thinks that she has done a “fantastic job”. Why is the Secretary of State so intent on undermining England’s independent school inspectorate system?

[Michael Gove]

I am sure that the chief inspector will be touched to hear the hon. Gentleman’s words of support, but I think that he will also be disturbed to hear that he is alleged to have uttered words that he did not utter. This is not the first time that the hon. Gentleman has sallied forth without being in secure possession of the facts. It has been the case beforehand that his facts have been wrong about the situation in the South Leeds academy, and it has been the case that his facts have been wrong, on broadcast, about the number of unqualified teachers in our schools. His facts are wrong again in the allegations he makes about the chief inspector. I hope that he will take this opportunity to ensure that the House knows that he has unfairly and wrongly put words in the chief inspector’s mouth that he did not utter.

[Tristram Hunt]

We see that the Secretary of State has refused to condemn the campaign against the chief inspector. Is not the truth of the matter this: Ofsted is inspecting his free schools without fear or favour, and he does not like it? The chief inspector wants to inspect academy chains, and he does not like it. On Friday the Al-Madinah secondary school closed, and on Sunday we learned of a new Ofsted purge. Surely the Secretary of State should focus on raising standards, not politicising our school inspectorate system.

[Michael Gove]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to be taken seriously, he must pay close attention to the facts. The facts are these: I have been zealous in ensuring that we apply a tighter and more rigorous inspection framework to all schools—free schools, academies and maintained schools—and in so doing I appointed Sir Michael Wilshaw and I appointed Sally Morgan. I have been the person who has been leading change in our schools. I have been the person who has been insistent that we hold our education system to the highest standards. I am the person now demanding once again that the hon. Gentleman withdraw his earlier statement when he put words into the mouth of Sir Michael Wilshaw that he did not utter. If he does not, we will draw the appropriate conclusion, as the New Statesman already has, which is that his policies are both “timid” and “incoherent”.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

T3. I recently visited Havering college in my constituency and Barking and Dagenham college just outside it. The Secretary of State will be pleased to know that we have excellent standards there, but one thing that is lacking is the importance of teaching our young people about the British constitution, our history, political affairs and so on. What do the Government intend to do to ensure greater awareness of those subjects among young people?

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

T2. Given the well documented problems that whistle- blowers encountered in reporting their experiences at Barnfield Federation to the Department for Education, will the Secretary of State commit to publishing all inquiry reports in full, including all the versions that have circulated outside the Departments involved?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that case. As we both know, very serious allegations have been made in connection with the Barnfield Federation. They are currently being investigated, and nothing I say, do or publish should prejudice those investigations. However, as has always been the case, whenever there is information that it is right we should share with those affected and with the public, we will share it in due course.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

T4. What action is the Minister taking to support parents and children in deprived areas, particular those in temporary accommodation and without access to IT facilities, to access and retain permanent school places, and is he willing to look at the system in place at Barnfield primary school in my constituency, with a view to seeing how the Government might encourage effective support in other schools?

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

T5. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your earlier kind comments, and the Children’s Minister for the same. Given such warmth towards me today, perhaps the Secretary of State will tell me why, given that in 2007 the Prime Minister spoke of a new generation of Co-operative schools and said that they had been welcomed across the board, not one of the Ministers will agree to meet me to discuss these issues and the Bill that I put forward which would put Co-operative schools on a firmer footing.

[Michael Gove]

Any opportunity to spend time with the hon. Lady is one that I would rush to take. The cause of the Co-operative movement is very close to my heart, so I would be delighted to talk to her, perhaps over a cup of tea, before too long.

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

T6. Will the Secretary of State make it 100% clear that he is totally supportive of teachers who want to use their judgment and common sense to apply discipline and punishments that are sensible and proportionate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

T8. I have recently had to deal with a number of bullying cases in my local schools. The root cause of that bullying appears to be very poor discipline. Too often, this indiscipline is caused not by bad teaching but by bad parenting. Will my right hon. Friend do something to improve the situation?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that parents and teachers need to work together in order to ensure very high standards of behaviour. It is often the case that what happens before children ever attend school—in the earliest years—matters. That is why the programme of work that the Government are undertaking, led by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions and for Communities and Local Government to help troubled families is so important.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm his support for the ban on smoking in cars with children present?

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

University technical colleges are an increasingly important and positive part of our education system. Do Ministers share my dismay that, despite the Baker Dearing Trust making it very clear that one would be welcome in Leeds, Leeds city council refused to put one together for the important West Park centre site, which is now a pile of rubble?

[Michael Gove]

I am genuinely sorry to hear that and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman in order to make sure that opportunities for children in Leeds are not thwarted by the Labour council.

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

Contrary to the information given earlier, the Secretary of State is well aware that the attainment gap between the wealthiest and the poorest children in this country grew in every region apart from London last year. Does he accept any responsibility for that?

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely do, but I think the hon. Lady is in error. As has been pointed out by Dr Becky Francis, among others, the attainment gap actually narrowed in primary schools, where our reforms have had more of an opportunity to have an effect on a percentage of children’s lives. At secondary level, of course the problem remains. That is why it is so disappointing that the Labour party is opposed to initiatives such as the free schools programme, which Andrew Adonis has greeted so warmly, but which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) would halt.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

I and parents, teachers and local councils in my constituency are supporting a bid for a studio school at the site of the Grange school in Warmley. Will departmental representatives agree to meet me and a delegation to discuss the bid, which will be absolutely vital for raising standards in my constituency?

[Michael Gove]

I would be delighted to do everything I can to support that bid, not least given the fact that new school provision, studio schools and free schools are threatened by the Labour party’s ideological opposition to new provision.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

At a time when there is overwhelming evidence about the value of physical activity to improving health outcomes and learning in classrooms, why on earth is the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), defending the right of teachers to use running around the playground as a punishment, rather than using the bully pulpit of the Dispatch Box to condemn such outmoded practices?

[Michael Gove]

As a great admirer of Teddy Roosevelt, I am happy to use whatever bully pulpits are available. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), on securing a sports premium in our primary schools, which ensures that more physical activity is available than ever before. I also thank the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for the work he has undertaken with me to bring an independent school into the state sector—using the free school programme—in order to give more children opportunities I am afraid his Front-Bench colleagues would, for ideological reasons, deny them. He is a good Blairite; they are the bad ones.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

School holidays are an important time when families can spend time together, but does the Secretary of State agree that there is a difference between legitimate travel companies making a profit and profiteering?

[Michael Gove]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes a very acute point. One of the flexibilities we have given—not least to academies and free schools—is the ability to vary school holidays in order to make sure that holidays can be cheaper and parents can take them off-peak. That is another school freedom that, for ideological reasons, I am afraid Labour Front Benchers would deny. I do not understand why they are so keen to make holidays more expensive for hard-working families.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I am rather perplexed. Are Government Front Benchers able to help me? A written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said that there was no idea how much it cost to create 138 new sixth forms in schools. Given that we want value for money, I found that very difficult to understand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and Mr Perry for their leadership on this issue. I would like to invite him to the Department to discuss exactly what we can do in the future to ensure that this sort of horrific abuse does not happen again.