Academies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Mike Hancock and John Pugh

Monday 26th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Dr Pugh]

That was very quick off the mark. I anticipated that point being made, but a change in governance is quite as significant as a change in admissions, and most parents would think so.

[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.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Mike Hancock and John Pugh

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Commons Chamber

[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.