Carers: Young People
Mike Hancock Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mike Hancock
To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what support his Department has made available for young carers in each year since 2010;
Academies (Funding)
Mike Hancock Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Gibb
I think it is rich when former Education Secretaries attack us for this policy. We are talking about a system that this Government inherited from the previous Government, and we are trying to sort it out. We will look at every instance of underfunding or overfunding of academies on a case-by-case basis. We want to reach a position where all schools and academies in this country are funded through a fair, simple and transparent process.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
We can all accept that the problems that have occurred are the fault of the regime in place under the last Labour Government, but can the Minister give me an assurance that he will put in place a replacement formula, so that the next tranche of academies will not suffer from the same inconsistencies, and local authorities, which will continue to service other schools, will not experience a detrimental cut in their allowance?
Academies Bill [Lords]
Mike Hancock Excerpts(14 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend accept the suggestion that there are to be no ballots because most of them might be lost if parents knew all the facts? That situation is being avoided simply by not making provision for a ballot in the first place.
Dr Pugh
My hon. Friend suggests a cynical intention on the part of Ministers and I hesitate to endorse that. People must reach their own conclusions as to whether such an intention is present.
Is anyone going to give hon. Members a good reason to vote against my amendment, which would not even give parents the same rights as the parents of children at grammar schools but would be conditional on a governor objecting to proposals? I cannot for the life of me see why anyone would vote against it, but I suspect that nearly 300 will.
Let me be clear that I have no prejudice against grammar schools. I went to three of them—expelled from none, I hasten to add—and I taught happily at an ex-direct grant, independent school for 15 years. I am agnostic about educational structure and this is just a matter of logical consistency. In our debates on this issue, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) has called on the Opposition to
“acknowledge that parents should be the people who have the greatest say in their children's education”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 43.]
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) has accused Labour of not trusting people
“with the education of their own children.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 118.]
And the Minister has claimed that he wants to ensure that parents are “happy with the quality” of educational provision. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) has assured us that
“the Conservative Front-Bench team takes the view that parents should have more choice”.—[Official Report, 21 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 444.]
They are all wise and experienced politicians who must know, as we all do, that governing bodies can sometimes splinter, be out of touch or be monopolised or taken over by cliques, particularly given the current chronic shortage of governors nationally; it is quite difficult to get people to become governors. Governing bodies also can and might misread parental opinion.
There is a general concern, which I share, about people who are temporarily and contingently nominated as the governors of a state school being entitled unilaterally to change the status of an asset that is paid for and financed by the whole community without the consent of that community or its elected representatives. Setting that concern aside, however, changing the status of a school without allowing the parents of children at the school a decisive voice is extraordinarily hard to justify, especially given the discretionary and entirely unspecific nature of the consultation arrangements in the Bill. The only motive that I can see for opposing my amendment, other than the dishonourable motive that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) has suggested, is a relative indifference to parental wishes.
Mr Hancock
Does my hon. Friend agree that if the possibility of a ballot taking place arose, it should not be just the parents of children at the existing school who were allowed to vote? It would have to be wider than that and take in the parents of children in feeder schools, as they would be the major beneficiaries, and if not them, the wider community as a whole. As we have argued time and again in our debates on this issue, secondary schools are a focal point in many communities and offer more than the teaching of children.
Dr Pugh
I am arguing simply that we should be at least as permissive as Baroness Thatcher was in 1988. My hon. Friend argues that we should be more permissive, but the Government are arguing, and anyone who votes against my amendment will clearly be convinced by that argument, that we should be less permissive.
Amendment 9 would delete the words “an Academy order, or”, the effect of which would be to ensure that consultation on academy status would have to occur prior to the order being made. It is good common sense and, in essence, it is supported by the Chair of the Education Committee. As he said on Second Reading:
“The Government’s concession in clause 5 at least makes governing bodies consult those whom they deem appropriate, but it is blunted by the fact that they do not have to do so prior to applying to the Secretary of State and because they can do so even after they have been issued with an academy order. Those consulted in such circumstances would have good grounds for feeling that they were participating in a charade.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 49.]
I do not think that it is our business in this place to encourage charades.
I am aware that, from time to time, it suits Members to parody, simplify and stereotype their opponents. The last Government are characteristically portrayed by the current Government as an unmitigated disaster and, in return, Labour Members portray the Government as an unmitigated evil. If people want to live in a world of hyperbole, that is fine—if a little wearisome—but let us conduct a simple thought experiment. Let us imagine a Government—any Government—different from ours, who propose to allow a public institution to change its character. They agree that the institution must consult people about the change, but they allow consultation only after the irreversible change has happened. Would Members back such a Government? Would they applaud them? What would be the point of consultation? What would that process do for public cynicism about public service consultation—already significantly eroded by the pseudo and sham consultations organised by the previous Government? But on the coalition side of the Chamber, how many quotes—showing our previous attacks, time and again, on sham consultation—do we want dragged up and used against us? At least those consultations did not take place after the event. Why do we want to invite comparison with the twisted politics of a communist plebiscite?
Is the only reason why we support the provision that the Government are proposing it? I notice that no one has said that post-hoc consultation is a cracking idea. It cannot be a case of “my Government right or wrong”. That is not a good basis for a working democracy. It will not help the Government if we vote for indefensible nonsense. It will not help the Government if we vote, but compromise our beliefs in the process. Inconsistency and duff arguments will not help the coalition in the long or short term.
Amendment 10 is genuinely probing. It makes the obvious and, for me, slightly unkind point that the last time schools were given greater financial freedoms under local financial management, which I have always supported, nearly every governing body was presented with a paper from the headmaster showing that his salary should go up because the headmaster down the road would be getting a significant increase. We saw salary inflation across the headmaster class, so headmasters may have something to look forward to from new academy status. Of course, they may not think in those terms, and I am sure that the majority do not, but the point is pretty obvious to all of us—imagine asking MPs to consult on a change that might possibly result in improved salaries. The concept of declaration of interest has some relevance in these provisions, so it is important that consultation is led by those who have none.
I acknowledge that I have not shown a lot of enthusiasm for the Bill, but despite that and despite my doubts as to its cost and effects, I am not seeking to derail it. I do not wish to cause trouble. Free schools and academies are in the coalition agreement. All I hope I have done is to make a case for good sense, which I think most people are up for, the primacy of the Commons Chamber, which I think most of us support, and the right of parents to be taken seriously. I hope rational beings on both sides of the Committee will see their way to supporting the amendment.
Mr Redwood
That may well be the case generally, but not in this situation. Changing to an academy is a one-off event of some significance in a school’s life, so parents would be well aware of it and the school would communicate with them. If the parents were alarmed, I am sure they would make their views known. I know that parents of children in my local area are well attuned to what is happening in their local school, and if they are alarmed by something that is going on, they soon raise it. They can do so directly with their councillors, with their MP or with the school’s governors.
Mr Mike Hancock
I understand and accept entirely the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the checks and balances being in place once a school is created, but the amendment is about whether people should have a choice about such a school being set up. Is he saying that the parents of potential pupils at such a school should not have a say in whether it should change its status? He is perfectly right about what happens after the event, but this is about what happens before the change.
Mr Redwood
If an entirely new school is being set up, it is up to the people putting forward that proposition to make their own decisions and canvass the marketplace to see whether people are likely to go to it. If there is a proposal to change a school’s status, parental opinion is very important, but I suggest that under the system set out in the Bill, which develops the current system, there will be plenty of opportunity for parents to make their views known. They can do that directly by talking or writing to the head teacher or governors, or they can get different people on to the governing body if they are really worried.
My experience is that people care desperately about the education of their children, and if they thought that the head teacher and the small group in the governing body who were trying to steer a change through were getting it wrong, they would make their views known very strongly. I suspect that the head and the governing body would moderate their stance or back off if they felt they had lost the confidence of their pupils and parents.
Dan Rogerson
I should like to make a little progress, after which I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, who I hope will contribute to the debate on this group of amendments.
The key question is this: do we feel that there is enough consultation provision in the Bill? There is also an issue of timing, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southport and others referred when speaking to amendment 9. Is it possible to have meaningful consultation after an application has been made to the Secretary of State? In the debate in the other place this issue was addressed, and, as I recall, it is the signing of the funding agreement that makes things final. Therefore, should consultation reveal that everyone in the wider community is horrified by the idea of the school becoming an academy, there would be the option not to proceed. In other words, before the final funding agreement is signed, the application could be withdrawn and the process stopped at that point. There is a misunderstanding about when the point of no return is reached. It is not when the application is approved, but when the funding agreement is signed.
Mr Mike Hancock
I hope that my hon. Friend does not find my intervention unhelpful, although he might—[Laughter.] Does he agree that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) go to the heart of the old Liberal adage about giving people a choice and a chance to have their say? Anything short of support for that would fly in the face of many of the things that we have stood for over the years.
Lisa Nandy
I believe that we can always do better when it comes to consultation, but I also believe that the standard being set in the Committee today marks an extraordinarily low point in the history of consultation. I think that we should move on from what was done by the previous Government, and ensure that there is more consultation, not less.
Let me emphasise to the Minister that schools are at the heart of their local communities. If there is no consultation with the people who will be affected by the Bill, schools will drive a wedge between themselves and their communities, and I believe that we have an obligation to prevent that from happening. My amendment seeks to establish why the Government do not wish to ensure that the views of the community inform the decisions of schools. I should be grateful if the Minister could answer that question.
Mr Mike Hancock
You will be pleased to know, Ms Primarolo, that I spent most of the weekend trying to pronounce your name without embarrassing myself or you. That is as near to pronouncing it correctly as I can get. I apologise for my rudeness to you last week when I could not pronounce it.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). Is it Wigan? It was on the annunciator screen, but I missed it. It moved so quickly. You know how unaccustomed this place is to things moving quickly, Ms Primarolo, except on the annunciator screen. Anyway, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady, and I had more than a degree of sympathy for what she had to say.
I hope that Members will give serious consideration to some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) and others, including the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). She made a very good point. The only point on which I disagreed with her was the percentage business: I did not think that that was helpful to the debate.
I am disappointed that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) has left the Chamber. He seemed to be digging himself gradually into a deeper and deeper hole, and taking interventions to save himself from burying himself. He appeared to be saying that everyone else could be right, but parents would have to be wrong. Parents could not be trusted to make a decision as important as this, because they might simply get it wrong. Well, who is to say that anyone else is going to get it right?
I should be interested to know what is wrong with giving people an opportunity to discuss and to make a decision. I shall explain shortly why I think that is important, but let me deal first with the notion that the amendment, or something like it, cannot be accepted because there is not enough time. Nothing in the rules of the House suggests that the business cannot be changed. If the Government were minded to accept the amendment, a Report stage could, if necessary, be arranged for tomorrow afternoon. Nothing in the rules states that the summer Adjournment debates must take place at a particular time on the last day before the recess, as long as they do take place. The business could be changed so that both Report and Third Reading could take place tomorrow. There would be nothing to prevent that, if good will existed in relation to bringing parents into the debate about academy status.
Mr Hancock
I see that the hon. Gentleman is itching to intervene. At our age, I think I should allow him to do so, so that he need not struggle to rise too often.
Mr Sheerman
The hon. Gentleman is more deeply rooted in his community and his constituency than almost anyone I know, but I hope he will not mind my saying that he is slightly missing one point. Under the last Government, Building Schools for the Future and academies were not just about improving schools, but about transforming the communities in which they sat. That was at the heart of what the last Government were doing, and that is what the present Government seem to be missing. Transforming the community is what a great school does.
Mr Hancock
I agree. As I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Southport, it is not just about the parents of children attending a school; it is about the wider community having a say. Academies were supposed to be at the very heart of the community, and they were supposed to be seven-days-a-week establishments offering a range of activities that the whole community could embrace. If that is what we will have, we should share it with the population and encourage them to become involved; but to suggest that we can create academies from scratch by September is pushing against a door that has already been slammed in our faces. It might be possible in the case of schools that have partly completed the process, but I think it highly unlikely that any academy created from scratch could succeed. I do not even know whether the governors would meet between the passing of the Bill and the time at which it would be possible to begin the process of setting up an academy.
How quickly will the Government be able to agree on the financial basis? What will happen to the role of local authorities that have already budgeted for the coming year? What will happen to the existing budgets in schools? That brings me to a point at which I have to declare an interest yet again, Ms Primarolo—Primarolo—[Laughter.] It is difficult for a person who has had a speech impediment for 60 years and then mastered it when someone comes along with a name that contains a P and an R too close together, with an O at the end. I am trying to fight this as best I can. I hope you will bear with me, Ms Primarolo. Are you looking for inspiration from above?
I was thinking about a problem that local authorities face. I must declare an interest at this point: I am a member of a local authority that is a local education authority. This morning we were discussing what to do now. We already have one academy and, as I have said, it is a pleasure to see the transformation that is taking place particularly in the parents, who were heavily consulted, and the pupils. Everyone is optimistic and looking for an improvement in the school’s academic record in one year. So even though I am against this measure, I have seen how it can start such a process.
As I said, this morning we on the Portsmouth executive were discussing what to do now in respect of the legislation before us. How will we deal with the other schools? Will we try to talk to them about having a federation? Should we think about helping one school? We have a very good single-sex girls’ school but it is sometimes difficult to see where its future will lie. I would very much like for it be maintained, but we also have a single-sex boys’ school that is not in such a good state of health, and the question therefore arises of how we work with them. I do not want local authorities to be left with a rump of schools that are difficult to manage.
We asked other questions, too. How do we cope with staff? How do we cope with low achievement in schools? How do we maintain parents’ confidence that their children will get an equal share of the resources? The Government did not address that problem during our discussions last week but it is fundamental, because if parents are not going to be involved in the creation of an academy they really ought to be told what the effects will be on those children who will not be fortunate enough to get into an academy.
I ask the Minister to talk about the confidence that the Government have to be able to give to parents in order to be sure that all of them believe their children will get equal opportunities at school. Under the Bill in its current form, there is a degree of unfairness that could easily and very quickly be exposed in cities such as mine—densely populated urban areas with schools very close together where it is difficult to regulate catchment areas fairly and properly because people live so close by. Where schools are located is also an issue in this respect. Some of them came into existence as secondary schools somewhat late in the day. We had to build two new secondary schools in our city in the last 10 years to cope with the rising numbers of children, and we had to build them where we could, rather than in the right place, so to speak. We had to build them on the available sites which were not necessarily in the right areas. That also makes the catchment areas issue very difficult.
Parents therefore rightly have a number of fears, and teachers certainly do too. The amendments before us are about making sure that parents have the opportunity to know both a lot more than is currently available about what an academy can achieve and the downsides of academies. The Minister would be foolish in the extreme if he were to suggest that some parents would not want the downsides of an academy to be explained. That is particularly the case in respect of parents of children who are not fortunate enough to get into them. What will happen to the rest of the children?
I hope the Minister will also respond to the points raised by the hon. Member for Wigan and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson). My hon. Friend asked two or three questions that are worthy of a specific on-the-record comment from the Minister, because this Committee needs and demands that. We cannot allow legislation to be passed so quickly without proper scrutiny and with questions left unanswered. The Government cannot have it both ways. If they are not prepared to give us the time to scrutinise the Bill properly, they should be able to put a sustainable and maintainable position on the record by saying, “This is the way it’s going to be.” Anything short of that should be seen by this House and the country as totally unacceptable.
Vernon Coaker
I am afraid that the Minister is just asserting things; there is no fact in what he just said. How many schools are going through this process? What are they actually doing to consult? Are they sending a letter to every parent? Are they holding parents’ meetings? Are they going out into the community? Are leaflets being sent round? Are other schools involved in this? Are other governing bodies involved? Is the local authority involved? What does what the Minister has just said mean? The reality is that none of us knows.
Mr Mike Hancock
In view of what the Minister has just said, is the hon. Gentleman not slightly mystified, as I am, why the Government cannot tell us the number of schools that have indicated since 30 June that they want to start this process? Surely the Department ought to be able to make that information available to the Committee.
Vernon Coaker
Absolutely. The point that the Minister missed was that the Secretary of State has made great play of the fact that some schools will become academies not by Christmas or through the autumn, when the consultation is going to be by, but by September 2010; the whole reason we are rushing this Bill through is that the Secretary of State was telling us that all these schools were queuing up to become academies by September 2010. The Minister may have been saying in his intervention that a lot of schools signed up by 30 June, because the process takes three months, and they have therefore started the consultation. We do not know what that involves, but it carries on in August and can go on “through the autumn”—those were the Minister’s own words. So why are we rushing this legislation if the consultation can go on for longer? We could have slowed down a bit and improved the Bill, accepting some amendments that hon. Members have proposed. The Government would have thus achieved their objective with a much-improved Bill that would have allayed some of the concerns that have been raised, notwithstanding the fact that Labour Members would have opposed it in any case.
I hope that the Minister will tell us the exact number of schools that have applied, not the number that have expressed an interest—I hope he will give the exact number for primary schools and secondary schools. I know that this is not going to happen in special schools until 2011 and I cannot remember whether that is also the case for primary schools, but it certainly will happen in secondary schools. How many schools are actually applying? How many of that number does the Minister expect to open in September 2010? I hope he will outline for us exactly what consultation process those schools will be expected to have gone through and that he will explain to the Committee how the Department is ensuring that that has taken place, so that when the Secretary of State decides whether to give an academy order he can say, “These are the criteria I used.” The Committee deserves to know that, but we have so far been given no answer..
Mr Gibb
The amendments would collectively have the effect of increasing the burden of regulation associated with the academy conversion process. They propose several sets of regulations as well as a requirement that academy orders be made by statutory instrument. Hon. Members will recognise that that would take the Government’s policy in the opposite direction from our proposals. We want to deregulate when regulatory burdens are not only stifling innovation, but costing time and therefore money to achieve compliance. We want to give schools freedoms to allow them to focus on raising standards. Adding bureaucracy to the process is the last thing that we want.
Amendments 81 and 82 would introduce regulations that prescribed the contents of applications for academy orders and the criteria that the Secretary of State applied when deciding whether to make them. We do not believe that it is appropriate to regulate the contents of applications for academy orders. The Department already provides clear guidance on its website about the conversion process and the various steps that a school needs to take. The website also includes an application pro forma, which covers all the necessary information to enable a decision to be made. The Government have made it clear that they will apply a rigorous fit and proper person test in approving any sponsors of an academy.
The Secretary of State will consider applications from schools that wish to become academies and, in each case, confirm whether he is content for the conversion proposal to proceed to the next stage. If he is, he will make an academy order. In doing that he will, of course, take account of the relevant information before him, but he expects to approve most applications from outstanding schools. Those schools will make up the first wave, and we will publish the criteria for other applicants—the next wave—on the Department’s website.
Before issuing an academy order, the Secretary of State will undertake checks to ensure that the school is in a position to become an academy. That is important because academies operate with greater autonomy than other schools and need to be in a secure position to do so. We will check whether there has been any significant change since the school’s last outstanding Ofsted rating.
Mr Mike Hancock
Does my hon. Friend anticipate the criteria being changed from those that are currently applied to the raft of academies that is going through the process and the academies that he expects to go through shortly? Will the basic criteria be changed for future academies? He suggested that they would be published, but how different will they be?
Mr Gibb
The criteria will be different because the fast-tracking is confined to schools that are graded outstanding. When they have gone through the process, we will relax the criteria to enable other schools to do so. My hon. Friend will recall that the Secretary of State sent letters to all schools in the country. The criteria that I just mentioned apply to fast-tracking. There will be different criteria for the process once the first wave has gone through.
Issues that the Secretary of State will check include whether the school has a substantial budget deficit, whether there are PFI arrangements relating to the school and whether the school is already part of reorganisation proposals. Depending on the outcome of discussions, that may have a bearing on whether and when the Secretary of State can approve an outstanding school’s progression to the next stage. When an academy order is made, the Secretary of State must give a copy to the governing body, the head teacher and the local authority. If the application is rejected, the Secretary of State is required to inform the governing body, the head teacher and the local authority of his decision and the reason for it. It will therefore be transparent and clear why and when a school will be permitted to convert and when it will not.
However, the first stage of the process—the academy order stage—is just that: it permits a school to convert, but does not require it to do so. We need to be clear that, for many proposals, the greater detail and the final stage of the process will come later, when the Secretary of State decides whether to enter into a funding agreement with a proposed academy. It is only on signing the funding agreement that the conversion becomes legally binding. We therefore believe that prescription of the form and content of academy orders in secondary legislation is unnecessary and too bureaucratic.
An academy order is the means whereby a school’s conversion into an academy is enabled. The intention behind amendment 83 is that an academy order be made by statutory instrument, which would have to be laid before Parliament. Academy orders are intended to be the legal means whereby an individual school converts to academy status. They will contain key pieces of information that are pertinent to the conversion, but are highly specific to the circumstances of each school. It would not be a good use of Parliament’s time to require each order for each and every school to be tabled. The use of the negative resolution procedure would also be highly disruptive to any school, since the period of 40 days during which the order could be prayed against in this House or the other place would leave the school with no certainty about whether the conversion could go ahead.
In any event, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) will be interested to know that the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee issued a report on the Bill, dated 17 June. I am sure that he knows it well, given that he has been so assiduous in scrutinising the Bill and all the accompanying documents. As he predicted, it states about the provision:
“this seems to us to be reasonable. Each order affects only one school and there is provision for those affected to be provided with copies. We agree… that these Orders are not really legislative in character and we see no reason why Parliament would want to have any control over them.”
For those reasons, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 54, in page 3, line 34, at end insert—
‘(3A) An Academy order must include provisions which make available for community use some or all of the school’s facilities.
(3B) Such provisions shall not be fewer and on less advantageous terms than those which have been available prior to the application being made for an Academy order.
(3C) Such provisions may be made by means of a contract or contracts with a local authority or other non-profit making or commercial body.
(3D) “Local authority” in this section means a county, district, unitary or parish council.’.
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Hoyle. I think that this is the first time I have served under your distinguished chairpersonship, to use a gender-neutral phrase. Notwithstanding the fact that you and I come from different sides of the Pennines, I am sure that you will exercise justice and mercy if I happen to cross the line from time to time—if that is possible between people from different sides of the Pennines.
Amendment 54 is a probing amendment, and a similar proposal was discussed, albeit briefly, in the House of Lords, where the Minister prompted more questions than he gave answers. I shall be brief because I know that we have other important matters to debate tonight.
We now know that the Government have effectively given the Secretary of State the power to change the status of schools by order—by fiat or administrative measures—notwithstanding the fact that we seek some form of accountability to local communities, which the Government have denied. Members of the House will know that I was against academies and that I voted against them when they were introduced by my own party. However, at least the previous Government had the merit of saying that schools should be accountable and responsible to local communities, and that their facilities should be as widely accessible as possible.
The concept of the extended school—a school that reaches out into the community, and a community that reaches into the school—was very much at the heart of Labour’s schools provisions. It occurred to me that I should like to know what will happen to schools’ assets that are associated with that community provision. The idea of the extended school is that the school is a facility for the whole community. After all, in the African phrase, it takes a whole village to educate a child—sometimes it takes a child to educate the village, too—so the interaction between the community and the school is important, and lies at the heart of modern educational thinking.
I am pleased that over the years of the Labour Government, many schools in my area developed a series of community activities, and I shall highlight two—I am sure that every hon. Member could talk about what happens in schools in their areas in the same way. At Minsthorpe community college, a gym provided by the Labour Government, the Labour council and the college is open to everybody. A brand new sports hall that was built at the cost of millions of pounds in 2009 is also open to the community at subsidised cost. The college might become part of the Olympic preparations, because it is an Olympic-recognised site, which is a very proud achievement for our whole community. The school also has AstroTurf, which is used by local football clubs, a training and conference centre, beauty training, adult education, and crèche facilities on site and in the local village of Upton. The youngest pupil at the college is three months old, and the oldest is 80 years old. That is the school’s range of provision.
Hemsworth arts and community college has also had millions of pounds spent on it, and it opens every single day in one form or another. Cherry Tree House, a multi-agency drop-in centre, is available to the whole community, the police, the health service and others, and an on-site sports centre is open all year. There is an Ofsted-registered day-care nursery, an adult education learning programme, and a programme of arts that works with all kinds of community groups, which use creative skills that were unimaginable even a few years ago in Hemsworth. There are outreach programmes with local Churches, the skills centre and so on and so forth. That is a description of two schools, but I am sure that every school in every community provides similar facilities.
By tabling amendment 54, I am asking the Government: what do they intend to happen to all that community outreach? I propose that there should effectively be two further aspects to the Bill. First, there should be no less provision to the community than there is on the day of transfer, and secondly, those provisions should be available on at least the same advantageous terms as they are now, meaning that there should be no increase in price or decrease in accessibility. It is a simple proposal.
Tens of thousands of people use community schools in my constituency and throughout the country. The question is: what will happen to those community facilities? After all, they were provided not by the school, but by the whole community, through council tax and central taxation. The Bill ought to make it clear that that community provision should continue—that should be the underlying philosophy of the nature of the relationship between educational institutions and the people who live in a community—and that the pricing should not change.
Paragraph 33(e) of the Government’s proposed model funding agreement allows the academy to
“charge persons who are not registered pupils at the Academy for education provided or for facilities used by them at the Academy”.
I guess that the Minister will say that that is simply a measure to give academies a legal power to charge. However, there are fears, including in the schools that I mentioned and among the people who use them, whom I represent, that fees will increase rapidly, and that the community will be seen as a cash cow. Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I represent many deprived communities. They, too, are seriously worried about the intentions of some academies.
I mentioned that a similar proposal was debated in the Lords. Lord Wallace of Saltaire, speaking for the Government, said:
“We therefore entirely agree with my noble friend”—
who moved the amendment—
“that it is important for a school to be at the heart of its community and that it should, as far as possible, encourage the community to make use of school facilities in the evenings and at weekends. The place to impose obligations on an academy is through the academy arrangements—either the funding agreement or the terms and conditions of grant. We therefore resist the imposition of this in the Bill but entirely sympathise with the intentions of the amendment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 June 2010; Vol. 719, c. 1620.]
I guess that the Minister will say the same thing.
There are two ways to deal with this community access issue. One would be for the thousands and thousands of academies—if that is how many are eventually created—to each have their own funding agreement, which would have to be policed separately. If constituents come to my surgery and say that the fees that they used to pay to do French or learn IT, or to use the sports or beauty facilities, have suddenly tripled or quadrupled, where will I turn if the amendment is not accepted? I will have to turn to the Minister and his civil servants, who will have to look at the funding agreement and make a separate enforcement order. This is not releasing schools from red tape, as was suggested a few moments ago by the Minister. It is nationalising the education system and the schools because, instead of schools being accountable to the local authority, or regulated under an amendment of the type that I propose, the Minister will have to take separate enforcement orders for every academy. How can that be the case for a Government who claim to believe in freeing up institutions and the education system?
If the Government are determined to go ahead with the system proposed in the Bill and if they agree with the philosophy that schools should be part of their communities, it would be simpler, more direct and cheaper to put something in the Bill so that each principal and governing body of an academy will understand from the beginning that they have taken over community facilities that the council helped to build, that they have inherited pricing structures, and that they have to honour them. The amendment is not an earth-shattering one, but I want to test the Government’s commitment to their expressed desire to release people rather than bind them up in red tape. The Minister’s answer in the other place opened up a Pandora’s box of national control over an education system that we have always been proud of it being administered locally. The Bill is a reversal of that trend.
Mr Mike Hancock
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hoyle. This is the first time that I have had the honour of speaking when you are in the Chair.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) because he makes a very important point. We have had a helpful debate on all the issues over the three or four days of consideration of the Bill, and it has been remarkable how much common ground has been found, even by those who are diametrically opposed to the idea of academies. Several of us have seen the merits of some of the issues, and the debate as a whole has been fair and frank. I suspect that the Minister has also found some of the comments helpful in framing the final form of the legislation and the detail that is provided to future academies.
I support the amendment, because the effect of a large secondary school on the social fabric of a community—with possibly an increased role in the future—is important for social cohesion. I had hoped that we would consider new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), because that talks specifically about the importance of social cohesion. If that obligation were in the Bill, there would be no going back on the school’s commitment to the community. I have been a governor of schools where the local authority put in money for community facilities—such as a nursery—and bit by bit those services, which were additional to the school, disappeared, because of the weight of numbers. First, we lost the community room, and then the nursery. Those community facilities are not paid for by the education budget, but by the general rate fund—and in large council estates by the housing revenue account—but the pressure of numbers at the school means that they are lost to the community.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)
He was talking to his wife.
Mr Hancock
Yes, I was a bit thrown by that. I do not know if there was a domestic going on—
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Hoyle)
Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could stick to the amendment.
Mr Hancock
The amendment is very important because it places pressure on the Minister to spell out exactly what he believes social cohesion should mean, how schools can be best used and whether any concession will be made by the Government in this area. I hope that there is, and I expect that the hon. Member for Hemsworth feels the same.
If academies come into being, the chances of local authorities—which may have “bought into” new schools in the past—to buy facilities in schools will be remote and will not happen very often. It will be important for academies to start to sell themselves to the wider communities, saying what is on offer and inviting people to use it. We do not want to start with the idea that the use of facilities will be restricted. I would hope that Ministers will give us a concession tonight that would lead people to believe that schools will have a newly awakened sense of their responsibility to make a greater effort to bring the community in.
Ed Balls
I am not running free, or even scared. I support new schools where we need new schools, but I have been to the Brunel academy and seen the huge boost to the aspirations of the children in that part of Bristol from the first ever BSF programme. I also went to Knowsley last year and opened a new BSF school. I asked two year 9 pupils what they thought of the school. They said that they never thought that anybody would think that they were sufficiently important to have a school like that built for them. That boost to aspiration, hope and expectation has been taken away from 700 schools and from 700,000 children all around the country, and that is why I am critical of this Bill and that decision. This is paving legislation for the new free market schools.
I wish to remind the House of the amendments that have been rejected by the Government in the few hours that we have had to debate this Bill because of the no amendment rule—
Mr Mike Hancock
Like the shadow Education Secretary, I think that this Bill is a threat to comprehensive education. But I thought that his Government’s Bill on academies was also a threat to comprehensive education. What is the difference now?
Ed Balls
The only similarity between our policy on academies and the new policy on academies is that the Secretary of State has pinched the word “academy” and attached it to the new schools he wishes to establish. Our academies were set up in the most disadvantaged areas, not the most affluent areas. They were set up with the agreement of local authorities rather than to avoid any role for local authorities. They taught the core parts of the national curriculum, including sex and relationship education, rather than opting out entirely from the curriculum. They had an obligation not just on looked-after children, but to co-operate to stop competitive exclusions in an area, and that has been entirely removed by this Bill. There was a requirement for our academies to have a sponsor, and that has been removed. We had a requirement for proper consultation with the community, also removed. Our academies programme was about tackling disadvantage. The new policy is about encouraging elitism and enabling the affluent to do better. That is why it is so deeply unfair.
Academies Bill [Lords]
Mike Hancock Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vernon Coaker
Frankly, the reality is that it is not possible. What we are getting from the Secretary of State is an explanation for what he has done on the grounds that the money was not there in the budget for the Building Schools for the Future programme, when the letter from the permanent secretary to the shadow Secretary of State quite clearly points out that the money for BSF was set aside in the proper way. The school rebuilding programme in my hon. Friend’s constituency has not been cut; it has been absolutely massacred. That money was there, and the permanent secretary—this is an extremely important point that will bear repeating on a number of occasions—said in the letter to the shadow Secretary of State that if the proper procedures had not been followed according to Treasury rules, the permanent secretary would have required a ministerial direction to proceed with the policy, as my hon. Friend knows. The permanent secretary at the Department for Education has confirmed that, in fact, no such ministerial direction was given, so my hon. Friend now knows the reality.
As for this £50 million, we are now being told, “Don’t worry, it’s not going to affect school budgets. It’s not going to be a problem with respect to school buildings.” However, free schools are already being affected across the country.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He was very generous yesterday too, and the Committee appreciated the answers to some of the questions. However, he is talking now as if, under Labour’s proposals, the money for Building Schools for the Future was already in the bank—that is, already in the Department. However, it was made clear time and again that the money for Building Schools for the Future would be made available from savings made elsewhere. He talks as if the money was already in existence and had been earmarked, but that is complete and utter nonsense. It is now being spread about that schools would have been assured of that money, but the previous Government gave no such assurance.
Vernon Coaker
The hon. Gentleman and I often agree on education matters, but on this particular matter I do not agree with him. He will know—not only from his experience in the House, but from his local authority experience, which he had on a local education authority, as he reminded us yesterday—that when we talk about money being available, that means money being accounted for in the proper way, so that proposals to do certain things in the future are made according to the rules laid down by the Treasury. The Treasury will not allow anyone to say that they will involve schools in various waves—for example, in Building Schools for the Future—unless they conform to certain rules. The point that I was making to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) is that the then Secretary of State—now the shadow Secretary of State—conformed to all the Treasury rules to ensure that when those schools became ready for rebuilding, the money was there in the proper way.
I was also making the point that free schools, which are the Secretary of State’s preferred route forward, are already saying they are feeling the consequences of the changes that the Government have made. In the Yorkshire Post on 9 July—I will not read out the headline, in order to save the Secretary of State from embarrassment—it was reported that free school pioneers are worried about the impact of the changes that the Government are making and feel that they have “dealt a blow” to their proposals to establish a free school in Kirklees. Whether it is right or wrong to have a free school in Kirklees, it is not just those on the Opposition Benches who are saying that the position with respect to Building Schools for the Future has caused problems for existing schools. People whom one would have expected to support the Government—indeed, to come out dancing on the streets about what they are doing—are now turning round and saying, “Actually, the route the Government are pursuing is causing a problem.”
One of the good things about being in Committee is that it gives us the opportunity to look at things in detail. When the Minister replies to this debate, I wonder whether he will comment on the terms of reference for the capital programme, which I want gently to share with the Committee. I do not know whether my hon. Friends or other members of the Committee have had a chance to look at the terms of reference for the allocation of capital funds—they might want to refer them to their constituents, because they are contained in one of those papers that gets tucked away, but which has huge significance—but there are five of them. The second is:
“To consider how to generate sufficient places to allow new providers to enter the state school system in response to parental demand”—
that refers to free schools or additional schools, or whatever we want to call them. The fifth is
“To enable the establishment of new schools.”
I do not know about my hon. Friends, but the Minister might need to tell us how the Government can reassure us on that. He has turned round and said, “Don’t worry, the Building Schools for the Future money has nothing to do with free schools or additional schools.” However, we then read in the terms of reference for the review group that the Department has established that two of the five criteria by which decisions on how to allocate capital funds are made refer to how capital funds are to be allocated to these new schools. Anybody looking at that would say, “What’s going on there?”
When we look at the criteria under the heading “Distribution of capital investment”, we read the following:
“To increase choice locally determined by parental demand”.
When we read more about the review, we see why amendment 70 is so important, especially as it talks about allocating capital money. At the moment, there will be no consultation with local parents, the local authority or anybody else about what will be done; it will just be the Secretary of State determining that a free school in an area would be a great thing to have. A few people will get together, write out a bit of an application—a few hundred words here, a few hundred words there—and then go the Secretary of State, who will say, “Oh, what a good idea! We’ll set the free school up.” However, I would again like to share with hon. Members what the document that I have quoted says. I look at this with incredulity, especially after the great fanfare with which the Secretary of State made his announcement. In that document, the Secretary of State says:
“To review and reform the requirements on schools including the building/School Premises Regulations”.
What that actually means is as follows—and this is why amendment 70 is so vital.
When the Secretary of State and the Schools Minister talk to parents about establishing schools and so on, they should make things clear. Perhaps the Schools Minister’s constituents are different from mine, but I do not get many parents coming to me and saying, “Can I be on the fifth floor of a tower block?”, “Can I be in a disused Tesco?”, or, “Those portakabins are pretty good—can I pop round there?” Most people I speak to want to get rid of the portakabins. However, the Secretary of State’s vision of this new school world—this free school nirvana—is this: “It doesn’t matter where you establish schools; it’s fine.”
We all know—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) often makes this point, and quite rightly so—that, at the end of the day, what really turns a school around is not its structure, and often not the buildings, but the quality of teaching and learning, and the quality of leadership. However, there is no one here who would not also point out to each and every one of us—there was a survey about this a couple of days ago—that the quality of school buildings is an essential part of how we, as a civilised society, provide the standard of education that we would want in our schools, for ourselves, our teachers and our children.
Vernon Coaker
Not now! This is one of the good things about being in Committee—we can get excited and nobody really minds.
The hon. Gentleman can oppose the Building Schools for the Future programme and say that what the Government have done over the past few years has been a waste of time, but I would say to him that we have a tremendous record and that Building Schools for the Future would have delivered that transformation.
Returning to the point about playing fields, it was our Government who introduced regulations to ensure that there was agreement, including from sporting bodies, on any such land that was sold, and that the money was reinvested in the school. In one or two instances, I supported the sale of playing fields in my area when schools were being rebuilt with gyms and all-weather courts as a consequence of the money that was realised from the sale. Often, land that was labelled as playing fields was nothing more than waste ground. Numerous Members from across the country asked whether it would be possible to sell off such land as long as the money was reinvested in sports facilities in the local area. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Burnley would have supported the amendment because it would introduce consultation with local people, the local authority, parents and children on any activities where capital expenditure is moved to fund the free schools.
However, my point is that tucked away inside “Reducing the burden on schools” is the fact that the capital review will cover not only school premises regulations and design requirements but also playing fields. Does the Minister therefore envisage some free schools being set up with no access to playing fields or other outdoor sports facilities? I have heard him quite rightly highlighting the essential role in the curriculum played by sport. How on earth is that to be delivered in the light of these regulations? I know that he will get up and say that they do not mean that at all, but I can tell him that that is exactly what they mean. This is exactly what the Secretary of State said when he was talking about capital moneys being made available for free schools. He wanted the schools to be able to be set up very quickly and cheaply, and that would involve changing the regulations that local authorities would normally have had to abide by. He wanted to reduce the central requirements so that a huge number of free schools could be set up as quickly as possible, funded by moving money from one departmental pot to another. Our amendment would ensure that that choice was made apparent to local people, and I know what their decision would be if they were asked those questions.
Vernon Coaker
I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies).
Vernon Coaker
That is certainly a possibility. If we change the regulations, anything is possible. The Minister will no doubt say that that will not happen, but the thrust of our argument is our desire to place certain statutory requirements in the Bill to protect the quality of educational provision, including the provision of playing fields. Any weakening of the regulations or of the findings of the capital funding review could be very damaging.
Mr Mike Hancock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. With your indulgence, Dawn—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] I have a problem saying your surname, because I have a problem with Ps and Rs. Sometimes when I have addressed you in Committee, it has disturbed the Hansard writers. They wondered who the hell I was talking about. With your indulgence, I would like to make a couple of points. The first is about private finance initiatives in schools. Any local authority that has a PFI school building programme will know of the huge impediment that that brings, as well as the restrictions on developing anything in the school without enormous knock-on costs. I hope that no one is running away with the idea that everything about PFI is perfect, because that is far from the truth.
My second point is the more important, however. I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but so far he has not raised the question of what happens if a local authority is forced into the invidious position of allocating certain resources from LEA funding, limited though it is, and one of the schools then fails. Who will pick up the pieces? Nothing in the Bill suggests the existence of a fail-safe system enabling those pieces to be put back together once the whole has been torn apart by the establishment of a free school.
Vernon Coaker
I was not trying to suggest that PFI was a panacea for all ills, and I know that it has sometimes led to problems. I was merely suggesting that it was one of the options that had allowed some local authorities to build new schools that might not have been built otherwise.
I was going to deal with the question of what will happen if a school fails, but the hon. Gentleman has made the point well enough to save me the trouble of making it myself. I entirely agree with him. As we discovered yesterday, one of the main drawbacks of the Bill is the huge amount of detail that it contains. In relation to one clause, we were told not to worry because a committee—I cannot remember what it was called—would be set up to examine all the issues that had been raised, as the Government did not know the answers yet. We as a Parliament, however, are being asked to pass the Bill.
Some of the problems with the Bill were illustrated very effectively by the comments of the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), and other Members will doubtless make similar comments later. Moreover—let me make this point again to the Schools Minister—we cannot amend it. We can table amendments, but for a number of reasons the Government do not want it to be amended.
Does the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) wish to intervene?
Derek Twigg
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) will recall that we both made our maiden speeches on Labour’s flagship Bill in 1997. He will also recall the optimism that existed in the country then for education and for the incoming Government. How different the mood is today. My constituency, which has been devastated—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) might laugh, but he is laughing at the fact that 11 schools have been taken out of the project, with three under review, and at the impact that that has had on more than 7,000 children in my constituency. Frankly, I say to him that this is no laughing matter and I shall ensure that my constituents understand that the coalition thinks that it is.
As the shadow Minister said, what has happened in constituencies such as mine has resulted in absolute devastation. The amendment is very interesting because it allows us to discuss the capital programme and how we should see that in relation to what has happened to the BSF programme and how we spend capital in the future. What is also interesting is that this Government are having a review of capital expenditure, yet they are pressing ahead with the Bill. Both have an impact on each other, so this is a remarkable situation.
Let me deal with what is being done and what is being spent. In yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Education talked about lavish expenditure on schools. I think that our schools deserve lavish expenditure. When he tried to say that somehow this was inefficient, I pointed out to him that last year’s National Audit Office report said that the cost of BSF schools was no more than any other programme and, in fact, was cheaper than the original academies that were built. It is not the case that these schools were in any way inefficient or that the money was not available.
Mr Hancock
I am slightly curious about the hon. Gentleman’s comment that our schools deserve lavish expenditure. What on earth was going on during the past 13 years, when so many schools were allowed to be neglected and none of the resources that were needed were coming from the Government?
Derek Twigg
I am surprised at that intervention, although I suppose I should not be. In the past 13 years, £24 million has been spent on schools in Halton. Let me give the hon. Gentleman one example. Ditton primary school waited years for a new school building, and once Labour came into power it got one built. A number of schools have had major building programmes and major improvements made, so it is not the case—it is plain incorrect—to say that Labour did nothing until the BSF programme. In fact, significantly more was done under Labour than was done in 18 years of a Tory Government. His party now supports such a Government.
Mr Mike Hancock
I am sorry, Mr Caton; I was rather taken aback. It must be something to do with men with beards.
I hope that the amendment is pushed to a vote because I, for one, will support it, and for a number of reasons. First, however, I shall address some of the comments made by Labour Members. In the past 13 years, one or two Bills went through the House for which no amendments were taken.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), the former Minister, said that the futures of Conservative and Lib Dem Members who tabled amendments might be harmed because people with the position in this Government that the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) held in the last Government would be emotionally attached to them for some time, trying to persuade them not to do it. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Leeds East made an intervention on that point; I could see a smirk on his face that broke out into a full grin. It brought back those lovely moments when he was able to exercise his persuasive powers; Members might have weakened, taken the advice of the Labour Front Benchers and tabled amendments.
I say to my coalition colleagues, particularly those in the Cabinet, how sad it is that these two debates have been so intertwined and what a mistake it was to link the Building Schools for the Future fiasco and its associated problems with an idea that might have got greater support if the two issues had been divorced. Nearly every contribution during yesterday’s and today’s debates has linked both issues.
Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Earlier, I was listening carefully to the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who suggested that a school could not henceforth get capital funding unless it was prepared to be an academy. Under the last Government, it was known that if the local authority was not interested in having an academy, there would not be much in the way of BSF funding. The issues have always been connected, by both parties.
Mr Hancock
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is strange how things can change and memories can lapse in a short time. I am disappointed that Labour Members have not been more forthright in apologising. The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) suggested that we were laughing at what he was saying, but that could not have been further from the truth. Certainly nobody on these Benches was laughing; we were nearly in tears over what was happening.
Derek Twigg
It was the Member sitting behind the hon. Gentleman who was laughing, but he has now left the Chamber.
Mr Hancock
If any Member laughed, I would be angry. I feel that in the past 13 years we have wasted opportunity after opportunity. Like the hon. Gentleman, I was full of enthusiasm when we heard the words “Education, education, education” coming from No. 10 —not once, but umpteen times. What did that really mean? Why did it all go so manifestly wrong? Why were schools in my constituency that were desperately in need of help not given it? Why did the city council go cap in hand to Ministers on three occasions begging for the resources to build a new King Richard school—not in my constituency but in that of the then Labour Minister? It was not given the resources that the school desperately needed.
I am sad that this debate is intertwined with the awfulness over what has happened to our schools as regards Building Schools for the Future. I agree with the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) and others who have spoken that this is not just about the quality of education. Schools provide a cocktail for children. As well as a good education, they provide a safe haven and a structure and buildings which give a community a sense of being. That is particularly true of large comprehensives. I have comprehensives in my city with close to 2,000 children in some of the most densely populated areas of Europe, let alone Great Britain. A school is seen very much as a focal point and an important aspect of community life, and it is very sad not to have the resources to rekindle its ability to serve several more generations.
The amendment is correct because it does more than probe. It spells out the inadequacies of the Bill, which does not talk about failure, but about taking resources from other areas. It presents a threat. If the idea of free schools gets off the ground, then fine—if that is what people want, let people choose to have it. I do not support it, and I cannot believe I ever will. However, I do not want to see resources taken from the schools I represent, which are desperately in need of new buildings and more equipment. I do not want those kids or those parents to be persuaded to go to a school that will not have science labs or outside space, and will not allow children to develop to their full potential. There is nothing in the Bill that says a free school will have to ensure that every child who goes there will have every opportunity to fulfil their potential in whatever direction they want to go in educational terms. That is a fundamental failure of the Bill.
I admire the Secretary of State enormously for his gung-ho approach to things. It was long overdue that we had Ministers who were prepared to fight their corner in the way that he does. Even when he is wrong, he comes out fighting. He is prepared to take a few blows, but he also likes to deliver a couple back. His deputy Minister, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), has done an excellent job on this Bill, despite the fact that he must understand, like many of us, that the extreme frustrations felt in this House are mirrored a million times over around the country. There is a lot of uncertainty in the education family, whether teachers, governors or whoever, about where the proposals will lead. In many ways, it is a mistake. That is why I will be supporting the amendment, which I commend to the whole Committee.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I strongly echo the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), and I welcome the amendment.
The Government’s announcements on Building Schools for the Future and the progress of this Bill, which have happened roughly at the same time, are very much related to each other. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) said, Building Schools for the Future was not just about new buildings— it was about school improvement and educational transformation. I understand that that is the Government’s thinking on the Bill.
These developments are having significant impacts in schools in communities up and down the country. On Second Reading, I mentioned three examples of schools in my constituency in Liverpool. De La Salle Catholic boys’ school in Croxteth, an outstanding school that was due to become an academy under the Building Schools for the Future programme, now does not know whether it is going to get the extra investment, which it desperately needs. Another school, St John Bosco, also in Croxteth, and also an outstanding school that was due to be rebuilt under Building Schools for the Future, also needs that investment. Last weekend the head teacher asked me, “Should we now apply for academy status?” That is not because those at the school have a new plan in addition to their previous plans on educational transformation, but simply because they think that might be the way to secure the extra investment that they were going to get under Building Schools for the Future.
Vernon Coaker
I do not disagree with the Minister, but I think we would all agree that statementing has not always taken place when it should have. It is always necessary to examine the process and see how it can be improved. Ultimately, irrespective of the severity of a child’s need, we must ensure that that need is met. For some that will require through statements, for some it will require special school education, and for some it will require inclusion in mainstream schools. The inclusion in mainstream education of as many young people as appropriate—which was supported by the last Government and the last Conservative Government and, I believe, by the present Government—is absolutely right, as long as it does not cause us to conclude that it must take place irrespective of the wishes of parents or the needs of the young people themselves.
Mr Mike Hancock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. I entirely agree about the fallacy that will be perpetuated if the Bill leaves the House without a clear definition of low incidence special educational needs. The lack of clarity has been used as an excuse all along, which is why so many children have not received proper assessments or statements. It has been too easy to find a way around the wording, because it has been so vague. If the Bill leaves the House without a refinement of that definition, the lack of clarity will once more be used as an excuse, and those who are on the edge or the cusp of special educational needs will once more be left adrift. That will be the case not only during the first stage of their education, but throughout their educational career. I am with the hon. Gentleman 100 per cent. in trying to get clarification, but does he agree that it would be wrong for the Bill to leave the House without such clarification being written into it?
Vernon Coaker
I very much agree and it is important, given that the Government will not amend the Bill, for the Minister to read into the record the criterion that will be used to assess whether a young person has low incidence special needs. I say this as someone who thinks that it is very brave of the Government to propose the measure. But as the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) said, if there is no defining criterion, we will have a well-intentioned measure, but what will it mean? That is extremely important.
There was a big discussion in the House of Lords and the measure was included in the Bill. A large number of Lords spoke about it and said that it was important. The Government accepted that but the situation has moved on. The hon. Member for Portsmouth South is right; for a local authority or school to be obliged to support a young person with low incidence special needs, do they need a statement? If not, there is no legal obligation—I am not an expert on these laws—on the school or authority to provide anything for that child. Yet everybody, including the Government—they have included it in the clause—thinks that there are young people with low incidence special needs who need additional support that they are not getting through the system.
This is a real problem for the Government to address; it is crucial. I am not trying to be smart or trying to attack; I am just saying that if we want to improve the Bill and we want to make a difference to those with low incidence special needs, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth South said, we have to try to define that, at the very least by the Minister reading it into the record.
Mr Mike Hancock
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on the way in which he presented his maiden speech. He made an offer that a dozen or so Members may find hard to refuse. An offer of hospitality at his house for a weekend, just as the recess is starting, is one that think many Members should be persuaded to take him up on. He will be able to show them round his wonderful constituency. Let me also say how right he was to pay tribute to his predecessors. Making a maiden speech is never easy, and it is a pleasure to be the first to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) spared a few moments in his speech to remember David Maclean. Those of us who knew him here will have respected him not only as a parliamentarian, but as a man of enormous courage who bore the injustice of the illness that beset him with great fortitude and—I genuinely believe—real courage. I saw the way in which he battled with his illness over a number of years. I had very little in common with him, but I always admired the formidable way in which he coped with it, up until his very last days in the House. It was a great pleasure to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say about David Maclean, and he was right to remind the House of his commitment to his constituency.
It is not often that we feel humbled both by a Member’s commitment to the issue being discussed and by the amount of knowledge that the Member brings to the discussion. It was a pleasure to witness the forthright and passionate way in which the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) presented her case. I was opposed to the idea of the Bill’s being dealt with by a Committee of the whole House, but if ever there was a reason for such an arrangement, it was the hon. Lady’s speech today. If it had been made in a Public Bill Committee, it would have been lost to the wider world. That is a tribute to her, and perhaps to the system that has allowed a larger audience to appreciate the words that she uttered, and has allowed her to bring her experience of these matters to bear. We should be grateful.
Nevertheless, I have a niggling anxiety that the Bill has not received the scrutiny that it ought to have received. The debate that we have had, splendid though it has been, is unlikely to prove helpful, because some members of the coalition will see it as a formula for future legislation. I hope that that will not come about, and that this will prove to be the exception rather than the rule. I do not think that allowing the whole House to deal with legislation is helpful to Back Benchers in particular, or to the substance of the debate. The issue of special educational needs, for instance, is fundamentally important.
The Minister told us, courteously and properly, that he would make helpful statements that would address some of the issues in the amendment. Nevertheless, the amendment poses significant questions. If a Committee had considered it over a number of weeks, and a number of days in each of those weeks, it could have been dealt with properly before being returned to the House on Report, and could have been agreed to. We could have had a much better Bill. Like everyone else, I am delighted that the Bill has improved enormously.
I spent 10 of the happiest years of my working life working with young people with extraordinary personal difficulties—children and adults with extreme special needs, ranging from those who had been institutionalised for their whole lives—some had spent 50 or more years in an institution—to babies whose parents had recently been told of the problems that they faced and the lifetime of care and devotion they would have to show to someone with severe disabilities of one form or another. When I was doing that job, people used to ask me what I did. I said, “I bully for people who cannot bully for themselves.”
The one thing I learned at the beginning of my work with children, and with parents in particular, was that they expected so little from society. They did not ask for the earth or for things that could not be obtained. They simply asked for a fair share of resources when they were needed, whether that was in nursery, primary or secondary education, or in proper health care. Every single part of that was a struggle and continues to be. That goes back to the Education Act 1944 and to the formulation of the national health service. People with learning disabilities and those with mental health problems were neglected. They were ignored. They were put aside. They were institutionalised and forgotten. It has taken us 70 years to draw that system towards reality.
The hon. Member for North West Durham was right; the striking anomaly is that parents have not been mentioned. The parents need to be consulted and will need to be convinced. I used to try to convince parents of young people aged between 20 and 30 that they had to let those young people go. They had cosseted them with all their love and care but they had to let them go. Those parents were starting to realise that their children would outlive them and would need to experience some risks. Young people, particularly those with acute needs, must experience such situations at the youngest possible age. I want to be convinced by the Bill that free schools will accept their part of the obligation. I am not convinced by the way in which the Bill is formulated that it will give the certainty of care that people want.
I am disturbed by the fact that there seems to be some ambiguity about the interpretation of some of the words. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said that there was clarity in terms of subsection (8)(a), which addressed the issue. It does not. Who will challenge the provision? Who will have the right to say whether the proper provision is being provided? Who will step in? Where will the Secretary of State put suitable alternative arrangements if those arrangements do not exist because resources have been siphoned off elsewhere? Will he put new money in?
Mr Hayes
As usual, the hon. Gentleman is speaking with insight and I want to be clear with him. The Bill and the Government have no intention of diminishing the status of special educational needs or of the people who endure that, including the parents. There will be no relaxation of the statutory responsibilities in respect of admissions and statementing. Pupils with SEN statements must be monitored by local authorities; that is a statutory responsibility and there is no diminution of that. The hon. Gentleman is right; we must be determined to redistribute advantage in society, and we will.
Mr Hancock
I am delighted, and it was remiss of me not to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his ministerial position. I apologise to him. It is not often that an MP makes a point here and not only gets a Minister to put him right but also hears the Minister state for the record what the Government will do. That is to be welcomed. I only hope the eating is as good as the preparation seems to have been. I have some doubts about that, however, because I know from experience, from my lifetime of 40-odd years in local government and a working career that involved spending a lot of time addressing this subject, that promises have been made but so many of them have failed to be kept.
Mr Hancock
I 100% agree. Sadly, I have seen that so many times—somebody who has devoted their whole life to their child, but to caring for them in their home environment so that they have never really tried to develop their true potential. Mencap’s slogan was about everyone having the opportunity to achieve their true potential, and all aspects of SEN education must always involve offering every child the opportunity to fulfil their potential.
I think there is a problem for existing schools that have a very good record of trying to facilitate proper care and to provide suitable and proper education for people with SEN. Some of them might find that because of the establishment of an academy or free school and the attractive way in which they are promoted as being something better, parents will take their children away from their old school and move them into the new academy or free school simply because they have been told that it is the thing to do and that that is the way the future will emerge. That will cause damage to the fabric and set-up of the existing school, and some of them will suffer greatly.
Mel Stride
Does not that argument suggest that parents cannot be trusted—that they do not have good judgment when it comes to looking after the future of their own children? Should we not put more trust than that in parents?
Mr Hancock
I am wholly in favour of trusting parents; it is the silver-tongued politicians I am worried about, who make the suggestions to people that this is like manna from heaven and that the whole world will be changed. Politicians have more than once talked with forked tongue and parents have been misled into believing that a certain direction was the way to go only to fall foul of a politician’s promise, which was usually made before or during, rather than after, an election campaign. Very seldom have such promises been made after an election campaign, and very seldom have they been fulfilled.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
I can talk from the experience of being a parent of a child with special educational needs, and also as an MP representing lots of children from disadvantaged backgrounds. My eldest child had trouble with his arithmetic; he would get 3s and 7s the wrong way round. I was told by the teachers that it would be okay and he would work his way out of that, but I became concerned as he got older and reached the ages of eight, nine and 10. I therefore asked about getting the SEN specialists and an educational psychologist to take a look. That did not happen; the school refused to do that because they said there was nothing wrong with him. After another academic year went by and nothing happened, I decided to employ an educational psychologist myself, and it was clear that my son had SEN issues. The local school and local authority were quite happy to take and run with the document from the independent educational psychologist —for whose services I and my family had to pay several hundred pounds—and the SEN statement was therefore put in place.
The Bill will change the way things happen, and they did not work in the past, certainly in my area. I hear what the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) says about his concerns and the remarks of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), but I believe this Bill will put checks and balances in place to prevent what they fear from happening. The system does not work now and it did not work in the past, and this Bill is an opportunity to sort it out.
Mr Hancock
I have nothing but admiration for the hon. Gentleman for having both the ability and the courage to take on the system on behalf of his children. Parents get worn down by the system, having been frustrated by it time after time. They are physically worn out—as young people, in some instances—because of the struggles they have had to make. He was lucky that he had both the courage and the resources to take on the system, because so many parents do not have that and are always relying on somebody else to fight their battles for them.
Charlotte Leslie
I realise that this does not directly relate to the amendment, but part of the Bill deals with additional schools or free schools. There are parents of children with autism who are very much looking forward to setting up a free autistic school. That will benefit other parents of children with autism in their area who would wish to send their children to a particular school but whose local authority has not recognised that need until now. They have had their ambitions stifled by a local authority system that may not be working.
Mr Hancock
I would love it if we had an autistic school in the heart of Portsmouth. However, what happens if the autistic school is on the other side of Dorset and suddenly somebody has to pick up the bill for sending a child there? It simply will not happen and this provision will not be there. This approach is okay in London, where travelling is not a problem. Setting up specialist schools for autistic children would be great in closely defined neighbourhoods, but if these schools have to cover a large area, they will be very expensive to set up, extraordinarily expensive to staff and expensive for local authorities to fund places for or for parents to have to pay for.
Andrew Bridgen
I must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), because on Friday I had a meeting with two teachers, both of whom have children with special educational needs, and they are very keen to set up a free school to provide for children with such needs. Such a school would help not only their children, but others in the local area. So this situation is not uncommon.
Mr Hancock
I can understand that. I share the frustration of those parents with the current system, but this problem will not be solved by one or two people, or a group, believing that they can solve it by setting up a free school. That is because such a school will not help the greater number of children, for example, the increasing number of children with autism.
The hon. Member for North West Durham took an intervention about autism when she was explaining how difficult it had been to make progress on dealing with it, and she was asked what she thought about the Bill. I think that it will retard the benefits that have been introduced, particularly in respect of autism. It is difficult to get resources for people with autism into schools; lots of schools simply cannot cope with it.
One hon. Member, who is no longer in his place, intervened to talk about his own experience; he discussed the role of child psychologists, and how it was very difficult to get them and for schools to have them. Once again, that shows one of the flaws that we must address. I was delighted that the Minister said that we would have a Green Paper and an opportunity to discuss, in some detail, the fuller implications of special educational needs. We have to protect and serve these young people now and in future generations.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the problems with provision caused by an increase in the number of diagnoses, and he also said that the Bill will retard the situation. Is not the fundamental problem relating to the diagnosis of autism the patchwork delivery across the country and a lack of specialism in certain areas? I can cite a part of the country where that applies. In Cardiff, until recently, there was no such thing as a “female child with autism”. That was not because there were no female children with autism, but because the specialism was not available in the first place. That is a question of medical and other provision, and is surely not germane to this Bill.
Mr Mike Hancock
Once again, in all the years that I have been here I have seldom been in the House on an occasion where so much common cause has been put by people who care so passionately about the issue. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right. There is a widespread lack of clarity about who diagnoses, about who is prepared to do it and about who is really suffering. For years, autism was seen as something that kids would grow out of. It goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) about his son’s failure to be able to do his maths properly. The old adage of, “He or she’ll grow out of it”, was used for years as an excuse to people whose children had autism. That was a complete failure of the medical and educational systems in this country.
Charlotte Leslie
Will the hon. Gentleman get rid of my confusion on one issue? There seems to be inconsistency in the attitude towards parents. On the one hand, there has been concern that parents are not key in the Bill and that they have not been consulted enough, but on the other hand, when it comes to empowering parents the same enthusiasm is not shown. Speaking from my experience, I find that parents do not want to be consulted so much as to get what they want. The measures in the Bill to enable parents to do that are, according to my experience of what parents want, far more important to parents than just being listened to and not having what they want happen after that.
Mr Hancock
That is the story of the past 60 years. Parents were spoken to but they were not listened to, so they ended up not getting what they wanted. When parents are consulted, particularly parents who have children in this situation, they are only too aware of what they would like to see happen. They would like to see services without having to arm wrestle for them and without having to fight the system and to appeal. That has happened with the failure of many local authorities properly to carry out assessments and to provide statements for children. Why should parents have to struggle to get a statement for their child, as they have to, simply because they disagree? I have been to statement conferences on children where none of the officials in the room had met the child. They were all talking from somebody else’s notes, which had been provided by people who had met the child. The parents were sitting there in total disbelief and I just told them, “Let’s get up and go,” and we walked out.
Charlotte Leslie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. I find that the debate is again moving towards a general complaint about the whole system of SEN provision and I want to thank the Minister for his announcement today that there will be a Green Paper to look into this matter. Once we have the whole system of SEN sorted out, the issues that we are facing with this Bill will become much clearer and much less problematic.
Mr Hancock
The hon. Lady is a formidable supporter for the Minister, and one that the House will have to learn to deal with. She is fighting his corner and that of the coalition very well, and I would probably be grateful for it except on this occasion I do not agree with one word of what the coalition has come up with.
Rory Stewart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. What is the relevance of this to amendment 71? I do not understand how it is relevant.
Mr Hancock
That is perhaps more of a question for you, Mr Evans, than for the hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.] I give way.
Pat Glass
How do I follow that? On the issue of parents, I said earlier that I am someone who has been humbled and that I have made mistakes. That is why I am saying to the Minister that there is an important role for parents. It is always harrowing to listen to the stories of parents when they know that there is an issue and that their child has needs but those needs are not being addressed. There is always a dilemma. We hear a lot about how hard up we are, about how there is very little money and so on, but there is not enough money in the world for SEN. We must face that. It becomes about priorities.
I have never met a parent who did not want the best for their child. Sometimes they have not always been able to display that in the best way—sometimes they have been very aggressive—but they still want the best for their child. In all my years of experience, however, I have never once been approached by a parent who said, “I want to open my own school”—never once. That is not to say that it does not happen because, as I said earlier, there are good local authorities and poor local authorities. I sympathise with parents who live in those areas where there is a lack of provision, particularly for autism.
Mr Hancock
I am grateful for that intervention, and for your patience, Mr Evans, in allowing two interventions on the jump, so to speak. The hon. Lady makes a valid point. She is honest enough to say that she has made mistakes. There have been some big mistakes—I have made some very bad judgments in cases that I have fought. I remember a particularly harrowing case that we did not win because of cost: one child’s care would have cost more than £120,000 a year, which is a formidable sum of money in any circumstances. Everyone agreed that the placement was right, but the local authority simply could not contemplate spending more than £1 million over 10 years on one child. As we walked out, I asked the parents what they wanted to do and the father said, “Well, Mike, it’s about time you and I decided to rob banks to get the money for these kids to have the care they really need.” No parent should have to think that the help their child needs will not be there. I wish Ministers all the very best, because I believe that they are well intentioned, but this is a big issue.
I shall come back to amendment 71 for the benefit of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who could become a bit difficult if he pulls that trick too often in Committee; he will not be very popular if he starts asking about the relevance of comments to amendments. The importance of amendment 71 is that it poses questions that are not answered in the Bill. People want the reassurance of having those measures in the Bill because this is about laws and the way they are interpreted. The amendment would make it clear that parents have a right to be properly consulted and would make clear where the various aspects addressed in the amendment would be delivered.
Mr Hayes
I know that my hon. Friend is reaching the exciting peroration to his speech and I do not want to interrupt the seminar that he and the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) are offering us, but it is important to point out that we take autism seriously and that academies do not prevent appropriate planned provision, including for autism. He might know that Haberdashers’ Aske’s Hatcham College academy has an autism unit that provides not only for pupils there but for those in the wider community. I want to give an absolute assurance that the Government take autism seriously and that they will look at it in the context of the Green Paper I have mentioned.
Mr Hancock
I never doubted for a minute the Minister’s sincerity or his commitment to it. What I do doubt is the ability of any Government to deliver properly the provisions we want, and I do not want to be seen to be supporting something that I think falls short of what all the parents we have been talking about expect from us. They want to see clarity of thought, a clear direction of travel and a means by which academies and free schools can provide this education without detriment to other schools in their area or to other young people with similar difficulties. That is why amendment 71 should be pursued. I hope that it is not withdrawn; I hope that it is voted on and that the House gives it a fair wind, because it would substantially help the Bill.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on making his maiden speech. I have been to his constituency and I used regularly to visit a secondary school there in Pitsea. I recommend that he should go and visit it. I am not sure if it still has the same head, but he used to sing in a famous pop group in the 1960s. I cannot remember the name of the group but it was very famous at the time—
Academies Bill [Lords]
Mike Hancock Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vernon Coaker
I apologise to you, Mr Evans and to the Committee. I was trying to answer the hon. Gentleman fully, but perhaps my reply was too full.
The Local Government Association, along with many charities, says that a provision that academies must comply with the admissions code should be in the Bill, hence proposed amendment 23.
Amendment 14 would effectively prevent grammar schools from becoming academies. We are worried that grammar schools becoming academies will lead to an increase in selection in the academies arena. Will the Minister explain whether it would be possible for a grammar school with 1,000 places that had become an academy to expand to 1,500 or 2,000 places? Will he also explain what, if any, influence in terms of selection a grammar school that had become an academy would have if it were to link up with a weaker school? What effect would its selection policy have on that other school?
Will the Minister also explain what Lord Hill meant when he wrote that the Government intended to allow selective academies to expand where there was a strong case for doing so and where there had been local consultation? It is important that we understand what he meant by that.
On exclusions, amendment 27 seeks to ensure that the current legal framework would apply to the new academies, to the extent that they would have to conform to the existing codes that schools have to conform to at the moment. One piece of evidence from the equalities impact assessment shows that the overall rate of exclusions is higher in academies than in local authority-maintained secondary schools. How does the Minister expect to keep track of that and understand how it is all working? How can we ensure that pupils with special educational needs, and pupils who are less academic or who are difficult, are not excluded from a school simply to preserve the school’s examination standing?
In annex D, we can see that changes have been made to the model funding agreement. Paragraph 3 used to state:
“Subject to the exceptions in paragraph 4, the Academy Trust shall ensure that in carrying out their functions the Principal, the Governing Body and the Independent Appeal Panel (established in accordance with paragraph 5) have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance on exclusions, as if the Academy were a maintained school.”
That has been changed to:
“Subject to the exceptions in paragraph 4, the Academy Trust shall ensure that in carrying out their functions the Principal and the Governing Body have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance on exclusions including in relation to any appeals process as if the Academy were a maintained school.”
Can the Minister explain why the independent appeal panel has been removed from the model funding agreement? Or is that of no consequence?
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is quoting the statistics of the exclusion rates in the 200-odd academies set up under Labour. What was his plan to bring those academies back into line? Why were they excluding so many pupils, and what action was his Department planning to take?
Vernon Coaker
The Department was planning to have discussions with all those academies, and with their sponsors, to try to understand why those exclusions figures were as they were, to see what we could do to reduce the numbers, and to accept it as a difficulty. The Bill proposes a massive expansion of academies to include outstanding schools, and they will only be asked—not required—to partner schools that are in difficulty. Given that the Government refuse to put these issues on the face of the Bill, one can only wonder what this will mean for exclusions and admissions. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that they should be included in the Bill, how does he expect them to be monitored and academies to be held to account?
Mr Hancock
I do not have a problem with what is in the Bill because I will be voting against it anyway. However, given all that the hon. Gentleman said the previous Government were doing to encourage schools to be more understanding about exclusions, why did the number of exclusions continue to rise?
Vernon Coaker
As I said, what happens is that a problem is identified and an attempt is made to deal with it. It became apparent that there were a number of exclusions, and I could have stood here and not drawn attention to that, opening myself up to exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman has, correctly, made. The rate of exclusions in academies was too high, and we wanted to do something about it.
It is clear that one way to deal with that issue is to include in the Bill a requirement to conform to measures such as admissions codes and the legal frameworks laid out on exclusions. In doing so, we would give much more legislative clout to achieving the things we want to achieve. I have given examples—the changes to the model funding agreements on admissions and on exclusions—that demonstrate that the Government are saying, “Trust us, we will do all this through the model funding agreement.” Through these amendments, I and my party are saying that we do not believe that that is sufficient and that such a provision needs to be included in the Bill, which is why we tabled these amendments.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. It may be helpful to remind the Committee that the Chair is not obliged to call Members who have not been in their place for the majority of the debate.
Mr Mike Hancock
I apologise for not being here for the whole debate, but I was at a Defence Committee meeting for most of it. I apologise to the Minister and the Opposition spokesman.
I am concerned by this Bill. I am disappointed that Labour has not thrown its weight behind the coalition’s proposals for academy schools, because that would have been a more honest approach, given that the Labour Government started this. I am still opposed to the proposals: I opposed Labour’s proposals and I oppose these ones.
I declare an interest in that I am still a member of Portsmouth city council and I have been a member of the LEA in one way or another for the past 40 years. I never personally felt that there was too much wrong with the LEA having responsibility for schools. In my experience, in the old county borough before the 1974 reorganisation, Portsmouth did a good job. Hampshire county council, of which I was the leader, also did a very good job for education, and now that the city council has the responsibility again it is doing its best.
Mr Hancock
The point I was trying to make was about the unfairness of a policy that is so loosely written and can so easily be misinterpreted to the detriment of children who will be refused places in academies, particularly the successful ones. I am concerned about, and frustrated by, the idea that people can vote for this legislation believing that it will provide equal opportunities for all children to go to the academy of their choice. It manifestly will not do that, and there is nothing to safeguard their interests if they fail to get a place. That is the real concern and why I cannot find it in my make-up to support the Bill. I will be supporting the amendments, because they go some way to improving what I consider to be a bad Bill. Otherwise, I would simply ignore the amendments, and vote against them and the Bill. However, if the Bill is going to be carried, I would like it carried with at least some amendments that actually improve it.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
. Having listened to the whole debate, I wanted to make just one or two comments on the issue of selection. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) for the consistency that he has shown, and to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) and other Conservative Members who were at least clear in saying that they believe in selection. The attitude that I find most difficult to deal with is that of Opposition Members, whether Liberal Democrat or Conservative, who are pretending that the Bill does not aim to produce exactly the kind of division and increase in selection and exclusivity that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) so eloquently described.
Indeed, what my hon. Friend described is already happening. For example, this morning I met the head teacher of a new academy that is being built in my constituency. I have always had an ambivalent attitude to academies, in the sense that I do not have an ideological opposition to them—hon. Members might be surprised to hear that—if they work. The project of producing schools in deprived areas to increase the level of attainment in those areas is one that I have supported, and I do not really care whether they are called academies or not. However, I can say one thing. The two academies in my constituency, which are Hammersmith academy in Shepherds Bush, which is under construction—at a cost of £30 million—and Burlington Danes academy, which was praised by the Secretary of State earlier this week, at least have the benefit of £50 million of capital investment, which is something that none of the other schools in my constituency will have.
However, even with just those academies, which were built under the previous regime, the aim of my Conservative local authority is already to increase selection and exclusivity. The question put to the head teacher this morning by a group of Muslim community leaders with whom I met him was why, when the boundaries of the admissions area for the new academy were drawn, the line stopped only a few yards north of the academy, excluding the most deprived parts of my constituency and most of the black and minority ethnic population, but extended a couple of miles south, to include the most prosperous and least ethnically diverse parts of my constituency.
If that is the type of manipulation that is already happening under the current system, when we have that extra ability to affect intake, in the many ways that it can be affected, whether through existing selective schools or not—and we will have that ability, if the Bill is passed with the haste in which we are taking it—we will have a recipe for divisiveness, particularly in areas of inner London such as the one that I represent.
Mr Mike Hancock
The hon. Gentleman says that he has two academies in his area—one already there, and one under construction—but I would be grateful if he could tell us what the admission policies of the existing schools in his area are. Are those schools full to the gunwales? Do they have a problem now? What does he estimate the situation will be in a year or so, when the second academy comes on stream? What will that do for the other schools and their problems of attracting pupils?
Mr Slaughter
The hon. Gentleman anticipates the point that I was just about to make. The new academy is not opening until next September, but one of the things that the prospective head told me this morning was that there will be a special form. In addition to selecting priority places, which will be limited for that school—and that school only—to a primary admissions area, there will be an additional form to fill in, because the anticipated demand will be so great.
I should say that most schools are now over-subscribed. There is a shortage of schools, although two other factors bear down on the increasing stratification—if not selection—of schools in areas of inner London. One is the profusion of voluntary-aided schools. In response to a point made earlier, let me say that three of the voluntary-aided schools in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham have intakes eligible for free school meals of 2%, 2% and 6% respectively, whereas the figures for the community schools are 30%, 40% and 50%. That degree of division has now become institutionalised.
The other factor relates to the choices that schools make. The point was wrongly made—by the Government Front-Bench team, I believe—that there are too many outstanding schools in affluent areas. Well, the two community secondary schools in my constituency—the Phoenix high school, which has one of the most deprived intakes of any school in the country; and the William Morris academy, a sixth-form college of which I am a founder and governor—both have a hugely deprived intake. Both those schools are outstanding—and there are many more such outstanding schools with deprived intakes—and they have chosen not to go down the academy path. Other than one primary school, no school in my constituency has chosen that path. The reason why the heads, the governors and the teachers of those schools have made that decision is that they wish to maintain their open outlook and their inclusivity. They do not wish to be browbeaten or driven into becoming this new type of academy.
Whether it be through choice, types of selection, religion, geography or the ease or difficulty of application, inner London already has many problems achieving what other hon. Members have identified as a wonderful balance, control and integration of diverse communities. The proposals in a Bill such as this will have only one effect: they will create social divisions, class divisions and racial divisions within communities. I believe that in putting this Bill forward, the Liberal Democrats—with some exceptions—and the Conservatives well know that they will achieve exactly that.
Mr Mike Hancock
Will the Minister explain the position on excluded children? He has intimated that academies will be expected to take a quota of excluded children. Does that mean excluded or difficult-to-place children in the school’s normal catchment area, or a general quota of children who are difficult to place in the local education authority area?
Mr Gibb
They will be subject to the same fair access protocols that have been agreed by other schools in the area. The position will be no different from the one that existed before the school became an academy.
It seems unreasonable to deny existing selective schools freedoms, or to require them to change their nature fundamentally before being granted those freedoms. For clarification, we are not allowing non-selective schools to begin selecting by ability; we are merely facilitating a change in status for existing maintained schools, including those with academic selection.
Mr Gibb
I will deal with that, but I want to respond to all the points in order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) tabled amendment 49. I pay tribute to him, not just because he is chairman of the 1922 committee, and therefore chief of the men in suits, but because of his highly principled support for grammar schools in his constituency and elsewhere in the country. I was hugely impressed by the quality of education in Trafford. I visited Wellington high school, which has GCSE results that many comprehensive schools throughout the country would envy. From memory—I visited the school a few years ago—67% of pupils gained five or more GCSEs including English and maths, and that school had experienced 40% of the most able children going elsewhere. I also visited Ashton on Mersey school, which is exemplary, as well as Trafford grammar school for girls, which impressed me.
Amendment 49 would directly apply sections 105 to 109 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to wholly selective academies. That legislation governs the mechanisms for removing selection from maintained grammar schools either through parental ballot or by the governing body introducing proposals to remove selection. Neither the grammar school ballots legislation nor current provisions that allow governing bodies of grammar schools to introduce proposals to remove selection apply to academies. We do not believe that that means that academies have fewer protections than maintained schools when removing selection is an issue. Indeed, one could argue that the ballot mechanism gives parents a route to removing selection in maintained selective schools. I listened to my hon. Friend carefully, and although the amendment might protect selection when that is the wish of parents, we do not believe that it could necessarily frustrate statutory proposals to remove selection that the governing body of a maintained selective school made. He knows that the ballot process has a high trigger threshold, requiring a petition from at least 20% of the eligible electorate.
The Government’s arrangements for academies are a more significant protection of the ethos of any school, including selective schools. I want to go into some detail about that because it is important. Outstanding schools that convert will essentially be self-sponsoring. That means that existing governors will become the new academy trust. In the case of a foundation school with a foundation—a grammar school with an ancient foundation—that converts to academy status, the foundation will be responsible for appointing the majority of governors on the governing body of an academy, a greater proportion than currently exists in a maintained school. That will make it possible for the foundation to maintain the academy’s ethos, including its selective ethos, over an extended period.
Mr Gibb
I will in a moment. This section of my speech is fairly technical, and I want to finish it before I give way again.
A similar arrangement would apply in the case of a foundation school without a foundation—in other words, a grammar school that is essentially a community school. The current governors would decide on the members of the academy trust. The members would be responsible for appointing a majority of the governors to the governing body by electing members who are committed to a selective ethos. That ethos would be maintained over time, because—in theory and, I suspect, in practice—they would appoint a majority of governors who were similarly committed. We are nevertheless committed to ensuring that the same rights are afforded to parents, and the same rights and protections are afforded to grammar schools on conversion, as were enjoyed while the school was a maintained school.
I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend to some extent. No doubt he will intervene, either now or later, if he needs further reassurance.
Mr Gibb
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that I can be equally successful with other hon. Members.
Amendment 24 has a similar intention, in that it seeks to make it a statutory duty for academies to take part in their local in-year fair access protocol. Fair access protocols are established by the local authority, and the requirement to take part in them is set out in the school admissions code. Since participation is a requirement of the admissions code, it is applied to academies in the same way as other aspects of the code, through the funding agreement. That means that academies, along with all maintained schools in a local area, will take their fair share of hard-to-place pupils, including those who have previously been excluded from other schools. The funding agreement is crystal clear about the compliance requirements, and the amendments are therefore unnecessary.
Mr Mike Hancock
I am fascinated by the concept that certain processes will enable a grammar school that becomes an academy to manoeuvre around the selection rules. According to the Bill, the majority of pupils will come
“wholly or mainly… from the area in which the school is situated.”
That could be a very successful grammar school currently drawing its pupils from a wide area. Would the criteria be the same for an existing grammar school that becomes an academy, or would there be a specific designation? Would they be treated the same as any other school, consequently losing quite a number of pupils because it will undoubtedly be the case that when a grammar school becomes an academy without the prerequisite of being able to select under this system, it will be inundated with pupils and a lot of existing pupils will probably be forced to leave the school? I therefore ask the Minister to explain how this will work.
Mr Gibb
There is no change from the current situation. The catchment area of a grammar school after conversion to an academy will be the same as it was before. [Interruption.] Yes, this Bill does not seek to change any of the admissions arrangements or admissions appeal arrangements for schools, including selective schools. All it is allowing is successful schools—or, indeed, any school—to convert to academy status. We have been very clear about, and very conscious of, wanting to apply all the admissions arrangements. Therefore the code, the fair access protocols and the co-ordinated admissions systems will all still apply in the same way as when the school was a maintained school.
The final amendments in this group relate to faith admissions and faith designation. The Bill seeks to maintain the status quo on faith schools. There is nothing in this Bill that will make it easier for there to be an increase in the number of faith schools, or that seeks to change their character, but we do believe that faith schools should have the same chance to become an academy as any other maintained school.
Amendment 42 would require that no academy could select pupils on the basis of their faith, and it would effectively bar academy status for faith schools. As many Members on both sides of the House are aware, faith schools play an important role in this country’s education system, often providing high-quality education for their children, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) explained so well. Parents value the role that faith schools play and many parents actively seek out a place at such a school so they can obtain an education for their children in accordance with their religious beliefs, which is one of the principal tenets of the Education Act 1944, as my hon. Friend also pointed out. Although many schools maintain a faith ethos without giving priority for admission based on a child’s faith, others maintain their strong religious ethos by ensuring that a significant proportion of their children are faith adherents. While we wish to ensure that new faith academies serve their broader communities, forcing existing schools to change admissions arrangements that may have been operating successfully for a number of years just because a school converts to become an academy would be unfair to those parents who chose the school on the basis of its religious character and ethos.
Amendment 43 also seeks to cap faith admissions by limiting the proportion of faith admissions in an academy that was previously a voluntary controlled school to the level prior to conversion. Voluntary controlled schools generally have a religious character. That means that although many do not prioritise children based on their faith, they are permitted to have faith-based over-subscription criteria. As maintained schools, they can increase the proportion of faith places through a local process of consultation and determination of admission arrangements. We wish to maintain the status quo in this respect, rather than be more restrictive. Therefore, academies that were previously maintained faith schools, including voluntary controlled schools, will be able to consult local people on changing their admission arrangements. Consultees will, however, retain their current rights of objection if they disagree with those changes.
Finally, we do not believe that amendment 44 is necessary or appropriate. We do not agree with its proposal that faith schools seeking to convert should have to go through an additional application simply to stay as they are, nor do we agree with its proposal that any non-faith maintained school should be barred from obtaining a faith designation as an academy. Any academy can currently apply to the Secretary of State for a faith designation provided that the relevant tests set out in existing legislation are met. Again, we want to retain the current provisions. I can, however, give the assurance that entirely new faith academies—by that I mean those that do not have a predecessor maintained school with a religious character—will be required to offer 50% of places to pupils from the community with no test of faith. I hope that provides some reassurance. I believe that the existing procedures for designating faith schools and the role of the funding agreement in regulating academies should provide sufficient safeguards for parents.
Education Funding
Mike Hancock Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady asks about the two academies. In my statement I made it clear that Consett and Stanley academies—[Interruption.] I will have to write to the hon. Lady about Belmont in due course, but Consett and Stanley form part of our review.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
May I first congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement today? I might add that he was far too generous about the bureaucracy, because anybody in local government or schools who has been involved would have been far more attacking than he was. Will he look especially at the two cases in my city—the Priory school and King Richard—both of which are just weeks away from financial closure? If there is a review, may I ask that it take place speedily, so that such schools can get a clear answer? That will prevent several more hundreds of thousands of pounds from being spent, by both the local authority and the bidders for the two projects concerned.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point. I know that the leader of Portsmouth council, Mr Gerald Vernon-Jackson, has also suffered at the hands of the bureaucracy associated with BSF, and I will look as closely as I can to try to help.
Low Educational Attainment
Mike Hancock Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this important issue. Perhaps I may add a slight complication into the mix regarding the problem that he has elegantly identified: an urban-rural divide. He was careful not to characterise the problem as an urban phenomenon, and I am sure that he will agree that there is also a challenge for rural areas, where often it is difficult to measure at the base the problems of social exclusion because of the dispersal of rural households and the frequent proximity of deprived families to apparent affluence. That has an effect on educational achievement and the capacity of authorities to deliver responsive measures to the children in question.
The problem is not just urban but rural, so there are particular challenges for hon. Members who represent rural areas. However, I appreciate that as the debate covers England, the Minister cannot respond specifically to my Cardiganshire concerns.
Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)
Order. That intervention was very close to being a speech.
Mr Ward
Deprivation, of course, knows no geographic boundaries, and is everywhere we look. It needs to be dealt with wherever it is located.
A great deal is being done in many settings, but it is all really amelioration and compensation or, in more prosaic terms, catching up. We clearly need to focus more on the pre-school and pre-early years settings. As we know, many children are already at a disadvantage in the womb. This debate is intended to identify a problem of which many people are already aware, to show that I know a little about it and feel strongly about it, and most of all to send out a clear message that I am extremely keen to work with other organisations and politicians to address the problem.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way. In the past 10 or 15 years, organisations and national strategies have resulted in our becoming the most data-rich nation in Europe and possibly the world. Those data tell us that the attainment of our highest-achieving pupils is as good as, if not better than, that of those in Europe or the USA; we are pipped only by a specific group of countries. However, the attainment of our lowest-achieving pupils is almost an international disgrace. Over the past three or four years, Government policy has shifted towards narrowing the gap between the highest and lowest attaining pupils—between pupils living in poverty and the rest, looked-after children and their peers, and pupils with special educational needs and others.
People who, like me, have spent 25 years working at all levels with the worst-attaining pupils, disadvantaged children and children living in poverty were mentally running around the country punching the air because such children were suddenly at the forefront of Government policy. I seek a reassurance from the Minister that the spotlight of the inspection framework and considering not only raw attainment—
Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)
Order. We will have to shorten that intervention a bit. It is more like a speech.
Mr Ward
I thank the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) for her interventions. I have already googled you and seen that you have made solid contributions to the subject over many years. Indeed, you have contributed to education, which I was not aware of before. I am not criticising anybody in this debate, because I am aware of the tremendous efforts that are being made by professionals and volunteers to raise the life chances of young people. As the chair of governors of a school in a deprived community, I am really frustrated by the fact that although we have an extremely impressive value added score—our achievement is high—our attainment is very low because of the level at which the children come into the school. However much we do, and we try to do more and more, we continually face the problem of children coming into the school with low attainment.
Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)
Order. That was very close to another speech. Let me remind Members that when addressing other colleagues in the Chamber, we do not use the word “you”; we use their constituency title. I am not being pernickety; that is the custom of the House. Moreover, when a Member refers to someone who is still a Member, they should do so not by their name, but by their constituency.