School Funding (Wyre Forest)

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing this important debate. I thank him for his strong support for the coalition’s education reforms and his kind words about Lord Hill. My hon. Friend is an exceptionally committed campaigner on behalf of his constituency’s schools. As he has just proved in his speech, he is also a strong advocate of improving provision for all pupils, teachers and parents across the country.

As my hon. Friend knows, the coalition Government very much share that priority. That is why we have made it our mission from day one to make this country’s education system among the very best in the world by restoring confidence in our qualifications and exam system and by ensuring that school prepares every pupil for success. That ambition is based on the simple but profoundly important principles of giving teachers and heads greater freedom, giving parents greater choice, providing higher standards for pupils and reducing the amount of red tape in the system.

As I hope my hon. Friend will agree, the coalition Government have already taken important steps to achieve those aims in their first few months. We have, for instance, expanded the academies programme so that all schools can enjoy the greater freedoms that academy status brings. We are looking at the national curriculum, with the intention of restoring it to its intended purpose of setting out a minimum core entitlement beyond which teachers can tailor their tuition to meet the particular needs of their pupils. We are also allowing parents, teachers and other groups to set up free schools so that each local area has a good mix of provision, feels the responsibility to raise standards in every school and offers parents real choice for their children.

As my hon. Friend argued so persuasively, school buildings, teaching staff and pupils are also important as part of the continuing investment in our school system. The coalition Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that that remains the case, but it is nevertheless critical that future spending in Wyre Forest, and indeed the rest of the country, represent the best possible value for money during these exceptionally difficult economic times.

Building Schools for the Future was, of course, an important programme for the previous Government, who aimed to rebuild or refurbish every one of our 3,500 secondary schools by 2023. That was undoubtedly a bold and impressive ambition, but unfortunately it failed to live up to the hype. During the five years of the BSF programme, just 265 schools benefited. The figure for schools that were completely rebuilt was just 146.

Where BSF has delivered, it has been at an exorbitant cost. As has been pointed out, rebuilding a school under BSF has turned out to be three times more expensive than constructing a commercial building and twice as expensive as building a school in Ireland. While the BSF budget grew from £45 billion to £55 billion, the time scale also grew, from 10 years to a projected 18 years.

Some of the reasons behind that additional cost and delay were understandable, but the fact remains that BSF had become a vast and confusing morass of process and cost upon cost by the time that it was ended, representing extremely poor value for money, as my hon. Friend acknowledged. Indeed, £60 million of the £250 million spent on BSF was frittered away on consultants and advisory costs before a brick was even laid.

Nobody comes into politics to cut funding, least of all a new Government who have inherited a school system that has desperately short-changed so many of its students, and particularly those from poorer communities. We recognise that these things can be extremely frustrating for areas close to the cut-off point for BSF, of which my hon. Friend’s constituency was one. Five schools in his constituency have had to have their BSF programmes stopped, and that has understandably caused real dismay among students, teachers and parents. As my hon. Friend has said, things do not stop there; 11 schools in the area have been affected by the decision.

I am also aware that my hon. Friend has raised the issue of Wyre Forest Building Schools for the Future projects directly with the Department, pointing out the difficulty of operating primary and secondary schools in buildings that were designed for the three-tier system of first, middle and upper schools. He has been and remains a powerful and assiduous advocate of his constituency in the House. However, it is important to stress from the outset that every area in the country has been treated consistently and fairly, with no one authority or community singled out for cuts. In deciding which projects would be taken forward and which would end we developed a single set of criteria and applied it uniformly across the country. Those school projects that were part of their area’s initial BSF schemes and which had reached financial close were allowed to continue, as were the sample projects that were part of their area’s initial BSF schemes, where financial close had not been reached but where a preferred bidder had been appointed at the close of dialogue. Thirdly, a number of planned school projects, in addition to a local authority’s initial scheme, were allowed to continue.

As we have heard today, the BSF projects in my hon. Friend’s constituency were not, unfortunately, additional projects; nor had they appointed a preferred bidder, and therefore they had not reached financial close either. As none of the criteria applied, they could not go ahead, apart from the Tudor Grange academy, which will be unaffected.

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s excellent speech and one cannot help but be moved on hearing of the state of the fabric in some of the buildings, where a quarter of the pupils—in some schools half the pupils—are having lessons in temporary accommodation. I have seen the photographs that my hon. Friend brought to the meeting with Lord Hill and I share his concern about the state of the fabric of some buildings. My hon. Friend talked ably about Burlish Park primary school, where there is no accommodation for children on wet playtimes, and where classes are sometimes taken in the corridor, alongside gym and dance lessons. He also discussed Cookley primary school where, because classes are taking place in corridors, there was a risk that Ofsted would fail it on well-being grounds. He makes a powerful case about need in his area.

The end of BSF, however, does not mean the end of capital spending on schools. Money will be spent on school buildings in future, but it is imperative that it be spent on school infrastructure and the buildings themselves, and not on process, as my hon. Friend pointed out—particularly if we are to meet the increasing demand for school places in the coming years as the birth rate rises. That is why we appointed the group headed by Sebastian James, the group operations director of DSG International, to conduct a root and branch review of all capital investment in schools, sixth form colleges and other services for which the Department is responsible. The group is due to report back to us at the end of December, and will be looking at how best to meet parental demand; make design and procurement cost-effective and efficient; and overhaul the allocation and targeting of capital.

That will give us the means to ensure that future decisions on capital spending are based on actual need, which I know is one of my hon. Friend’s chief concerns, and on ensuring that all schools provide an environment that supports high-quality education. However, given the fact that the review is still in progress, I am sure my hon. Friend will forgive me and understand that I cannot make any specific commitments today about how much money will be allocated, or exactly when. I am sure that that will disappoint students at Stourport high school, and other young people who have campaigned so hard for their schools in his constituency. I would at least like to assure my hon. Friend, as well as parents, staff and students in Wyre Forest, that the Department will continue to make capital allocations on the basis of need—particularly dilapidation and deprivation—and that the end of BSF does not mean the end of school rebuilding.

I know that my hon. Friend is worried about the fairness of per pupil funding in Wyre Forest and Worcestershire, as well as about capital expenditure. I can assure him that we share those concerns. We recognise that the spend-plus methodology has provided some stability and predictability, which many schools and local authorities have welcomed, but we nevertheless intend to undertake a thorough review of the current system, which will consider how to fund schools for 2012 and beyond, and look at how we can ensure that each and every school in the country is fairly funded. In addition, I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes the Deputy Prime Minister’s announcement last week on the fairness premium, which will help disadvantaged students to receive the support they need to reach their potential. That is intended to tackle one of the failings of the past decade in schools, when the achievement gap between the richest and poorest children actually grew. The odds of a pupil on free school meals achieving five or more GCSEs at A to C, including English and maths, currently stand at less than one third of those for a pupil who is not on free school meals doing so.

In conclusion, I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the economic background to the matters that we are considering. No one comes into politics to cut public spending, but the Government face a £156 billion deficit—the largest among all the G20 countries—and it is our responsibility, difficult and painful as it may be, to do something about it. In the current financial climate, and with the announcement of the comprehensive spending review tomorrow, we have a particular duty to ensure that we continue to invest where investment is needed, to get the best possible value for taxpayers’ money, and to achieve the right balance between spending and other means of school improvement.

Change will not be effected just through spending decisions, but by the creation of a system that puts more trust in the professionals who work in it. The Government believe that head teachers should have more of a say in how money is spent, and that teachers should have more say in what and how they teach their students. We believe that parents should have a real choice about what school to send their child to. Future spending must support those aims and ensure that money is directed where it is really needed, to pupils, school and staff. Finally, I congratulate my hon. Friend on drawing the matters in question to the attention of the House, and on the conscientiousness with which he has pursued his constituents’ matters with the Department.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

2. If he will discuss with Ofsted its arrangements for measuring value added by schools.

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

The Department has regular discussions with Ofsted about its approach to school inspection, including its assessments of pupils’ educational attainment and achievement. That engagement will continue as Ofsted develops a new streamlined and refocused inspection framework built around the core areas of pupil achievement, teaching, leadership and behaviour and safety.

[Tony Baldry]

Can my hon. Friend assure me that the achievements of schools, such as Banbury school, which have challenging catchment areas will be fairly reflected in Ofsted inspection reports?

[Mr Gibb]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Ofsted takes into account not just raw attainment at schools but the progress of pupils. Between September 2009 and March 2010, of schools in challenging areas, 10% were awarded the outstanding grading, compared with 11% of all schools.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Two head teachers in Chesterfield told me how liberating it was for them when contextual value added measures were put in place and there was finally acknowledgement of the tough circumstances under which they performed their roles. Does the Minister agree that the CVA measures, as a key part of the inspection that assists parents, help parents to assess the strengths of teaching at a school, not just the strengths of an intake?

[Mr Gibb]

May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment? I look forward to working closely with him to achieve our shared objective, which is to close the attainment gap between those from wealthier and those from poorer backgrounds. I assure him that, in Ofsted inspections, the progress of pupils is as important as the absolute level of attainment. Value added figures, whether the current CVA figure or a review figure that measures progress, are important in all Ofsted inspections.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

4. What his policy is on the provision of support for children with special educational needs.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We have made clear our intention to review the national curriculum at both primary and secondary levels, to restore it to its original purpose—a core national entitlement organised around subject disciplines. We want to arrive at a simple core, informed by the best international practice, that will provide a minimum entitlement for pupils. We will announce more details about our plans later in the year.

[Liz Kendall]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Head teachers in my constituency are concerned that Government have still not come forward with their proposals for replacing the primary school curriculum, and that the delay is preventing them from properly planning for the future. Will he reassure the House that the Government’s plans will be published in time for primary school heads to get the staff, timetables and resources that they need to start the next financial year?

[Mr Gibb]

Yes, primary schools should continue with the current primary curriculum. The details and timings will be announced later in the year, but I assure the hon. Lady that there will be plenty of lead time available to schools to implement the new curriculum. We do not want what the previous Government had, which was “initiativitis”. Schools received new initiatives every two weeks, and lever arch files full of prescriptive instructions about how to teach were disseminated to all our schools.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

Will the Minister comment on the fact that many primary schools appear to be teaching multiple methods for basic mathematical problems, which has been set out through the national strategies, rather than achieving fluency in key methods, which enables those pupils to go on and achieve and where countries such as Flanders and Finland have proved so successful?

[Mr Gibb]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her passion about the way maths is taught in our schools. Of course, how children are taught is a pedagogical matter, which should be left to the professionalism of teachers, but what is taught and when will be matters for the national curriculum review.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

10. How many proposed play areas planned to be built under the playbuilders scheme after July 2010 will not proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

14. What estimate his Department has made of the number of children who will be eligible for free school meals in September 2010; and if he will make a statement.

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

The number of pupils of compulsory school age in maintained schools eligible for free school meals was 1,179,880 in January 2010. The Department has not produced an estimate of the number of pupils eligible for free school meals in September 2010; the figures are produced annually as part of the annual school census, completed by local authorities in January each year. Leaving time for compilation, the next set of figures will be available in May 2011.

[Nic Dakin]

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will note my interest as a former principal. Does he think it is fair that 16 to 18-year-olds attending colleges are ineligible for free school meals, when 16% in FE colleges and 10% in sixth-form colleges are from disadvantaged backgrounds, compared with only 7% in maintained schools?

[Mr Gibb]

I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I share his view. We have committed to maintaining spending on free school meals this year. Further announcements will be made after the spending review.

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

15. What progress has been made on his Department’s plans to help families with multiple problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

16. What his latest assessment is of levels of educational under-achievement among white working-class boys.

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

White boys in receipt of free school meals are among the lowest attaining groups of students. In 2009, just 19.4% of white boys eligible for free school meals achieved five or more good GCSEs including English and maths, compared to 50.7% of all pupils.

[David T. C. Davies]

I am grateful to the Minister, who obviously recognises the problem, which was first raised by the National Union of Teachers in a report about two years ago. Can he assure us that, unlike the previous Government, he will not, for reasons of political correctness, try to brush it under the carpet, and that he will do something about it?

[Mr Gibb]

It is a concern when any particular group is significantly underperforming compared with the national average. One big priority for the Government is to close the attainment gap between those from the wealthiest and the poorest backgrounds. We are focusing on that in a range of education policies from academies to free schools, and also in our focus on improving behaviour in schools and reviewing the curriculum.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

17. What recent assessment he has made of the merits of year 3 play pathfinder projects in Blackpool.

Secondary Schooling (Sevenoaks)

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) on securing the debate. As a former Education Minister, he has a passion for raising standards in our schools and ensuring that good schools have the autonomy and professional freedoms to deliver high-quality education. He was himself instrumental in the reforms that led to local management of schools: a seminal educational reform that has resulted in huge benefits to schools—I hesitate to say this—over the past 20 years. It is the coalition Government’s ambition to raise academic standards in our schools, particularly for children from poorer backgrounds. Education is the main route to social mobility, and closing the attainment gap between those from the wealthiest and poorest backgrounds is a key objective of this Government.

The Academies Act 2010 will enable us to expand the academies programme, and 100 new academies have opened over the past two weeks. It will also enable primary and special schools to become academies and enjoy the freedoms that that status brings. My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the Knole academy, which is one of the new academies that has opened this week. We are currently examining the national curriculum, with a view to restoring it to its original purpose—a core entitlement built around subject disciplines—and we are empowering parents, teachers and other educational institutions to establish free schools so that parents have a genuine choice for their children.

School buildings need continuing investment, of course, but it is vital that future spending represents the best possible value for the taxpayer. Building Schools for the Future was a flagship programme of the previous Government, set up for the purpose of rebuilding or refurbishing every secondary school in the country by 2023. Indeed, some impressive new buildings have been built, and it must be true that a good working environment can only help academic achievement and improve behaviour. However, the BSF programme was not the most cost-effective way to deliver new school buildings. Rebuilding a school under BSF was three times more expensive than constructing a commercial building and twice as expensive as building a school in Ireland.

During the five years of the BSF programme, out of 3,500 secondary schools just 211 benefited and only 112 were completely rebuilt. The budget rose from £45 billion to £55 billion for a variety of reasons, and the time scale of the programme from 10 years to 18 years. Of the £250 million spent before building began, £60 million was spent on consultants or advisory fees. In effect, BSF became hugely bureaucratic, with process within process and cost upon cost, and it represented poor value for money.

Nobody comes into politics to cut public spending, but the Government are faced with a £156 billion deficit, the largest among the G20 countries. It is our responsibility, difficult though it may be, to sort out the mess that we have inherited. Failure to do so, as my hon. Friend knows, would put our economic recovery in jeopardy. Although we have announced that the BSF programme will end, that does not mean the end of capital spending on schools.

I know that my hon. Friend is a tireless advocate for educational excellence in his constituency, and that he has invested a great deal of energy in the future funding of the Knole academy. As he said, the academy, which opened this month, was formed by the merger of the Bradbourne school and the Wildernesse school. It is sponsored by Gordon Phillips, chairman of the Glen Care Group, and co-sponsored by Sevenoaks school and Kent county council. It specialises in languages, and everyone is optimistic that it will increase opportunities for young people in the Sevenoaks area. I add my thanks to those of my hon. Friend to all those who have put in so much work to deliver the opening of the academy on time this September.

As my hon. Friend said, the academy is based in the existing premises of Bradbourne and Wildernesse, which means that it is currently operating on a split site. I know from experience in my own constituency that that is far from a satisfactory arrangement, with teachers and pupils having to travel between the two sites. In my constituency there is far less than a mile between the two sites, and I know how inconvenient that is. If the distance is as much as a mile in the Sevenoaks case, it must be hugely inconvenient and time-consuming.

As my hon. Friend said, the proposed new school building would be based on just one of the sites, the Wildernesse site, and it was hoped that it would be ready by 2012-13. I share his belief in the importance of high-quality school buildings, because although it is undoubtedly true that a school’s primary assets are its teaching and support staff and its educational ethos, it is equally true that it is vital to give children and teachers a well-maintained working environment.

The natural depredations of the climate, and the wear and tear suffered by any building that is used by hundreds of people on a daily basis, mean constant investment in our school infrastructure, so I am extremely sympathetic to my hon. Friend, and indeed to all hon. Members who have schools in their constituencies that are in need of rebuilding or repair, but the inefficiency of the BSF structure and the parlous state of the public finances meant that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State friend had no choice but to suspend the programme and announce an urgent review of schools capital spending.

In determining which projects would go ahead and which would cease, the Government developed a single set of criteria and applied it nationally. Projects that would continue would be those that were part of their area’s initial BSF schemes and that had reached financial close; the so-called sample projects that were part of their area’s initial BSF schemes where financial close had not been reached but where a preferred bidder had been appointed at close of dialogue; and some planned school projects in addition to a local authority’s initial scheme that had outline business cases approved before 1 January.

As part of the BSF announcement, the planned new build for the Knole academy was put on hold pending completion of the capital review. The Knole project was in the feasibility stage at the time that it was paused, and an outline business case had not at that point been approved. As my hon. Friend knows, capital builds were put on hold for five academies in Kent other than the Knole academy. However, capital was allocated for two: the Isle of Sheppey academy and the Skinners’ academy.

The Secretary of State announced a complete review of how capital will be allocated and spent in improving the fabric of school buildings. The review, which is now under way and led by Sebastian James, will look at how best to meet parental demand, make design and procurement cost-effective and efficient, and overhaul the allocation and targeting of capital. Over the next few months, officials will work with all 75 projects that are for decision after the spending review to discuss their capital needs. Those discussions will focus on the most appropriate and cost-effective way to deliver the sponsors’ educational vision. In the case of the Knole Academy, that will include a site visit involving partnerships for schools, the Department for Education and the Young People’s Learning Agency, as well as Kent county council and the academy trust.

We hope to be able to make final decisions on capital allocations towards the latter part of this year. I assure my hon. Friend that the Department will continue to make capital allocations on the basis of need, and in particular on the basis of the level of a building’s dilapidation and deprivation, and that his representations today and in recent weeks will be taken seriously by the capital review team. However, as I am sure he understands, I am unable to make any commitments today or until the review has completed its work.

In conclusion, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s energy and tireless work in promoting the case for the rebuilding of the Knole academy. He makes a compelling case on behalf of his constituents, which I have taken on board. I hope that in some measure he will be reassured by my promise that all future decisions on capital spending will be made in a transparent, straightforward and above all fair way, which puts the needs of children and parents first. In today’s economic climate, we have a duty to ensure that we continue to invest where investment is needed, to get the best possible value for taxpayers’ money, and to achieve a right balance between spending and other means of school improvement.

Change will not be delivered by spending decisions alone. It will be delivered by creating a system that places more trust in the professionals working within it. The Government believe that head teachers should have more control over how money is spent, that teachers should have more autonomy over how they teach their students, and that parents should have a real choice on which school they send their child to. Future spending must support those aims and ensure that money is directed at those who need it most.

Question put and agreed to.

Education Expenditure (Coventry)

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Westminster Hall

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

It is always a sign of age when the Chairman is younger than oneself. Having celebrated a significant birthday last week, that has been brought home to me in stark terms, but it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) on securing this debate. On behalf of his constituents, he is an assiduous advocate on these issues in written questions, on the Floor of the House and in the debate.

The Government’s ambition is to raise academic standards in our schools and to ensure high-quality education for all children, particularly those from poorer backgrounds. Education is the key to social mobility and the Government's key objective is to close the attainment gap between those from the wealthiest and poorest backgrounds, so we put the Academies Act 2010 on to the statute book to enable us to expand the academies programme. During the past two weeks, 100 new academies have opened, one of which is the Sidney Stringer academy in Coventry, which is where the former Education Secretary, Lady Morris, was once deputy head.

The Academies Act 2010 enables primary and special schools, for the first time, to become academies and to enjoy the greater freedoms that academy status brings. We are considering the national curriculum with the intention of restoring it to its intended purpose—a minimum core entitlement built around subject disciplines. We are enabling parents, teachers and other education providers to set up free schools so that parents have a real choice for their children.

School buildings, of course, need continuing investment, but it is vital that future spending represents the best possible value for money. The Building Schools for the Future programme was a flagship programme of the previous Government, of which the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) was a prominent and distinguished member. The programme aimed to rebuild or to refurbish every secondary school in the country by 2023. Where it has delivered, some impressive new buildings have been built, and no one would deny that a good working environment can only aid achievement and help to improve behaviour. But the BSF programme was not the most effective way to deliver new school buildings.

Rebuilding a school under BSF is three times more expensive than constructing a commercial building and twice as expensive as building a school in Ireland. During the five years of the BSF programme, a scheme that was intended to improve the entire stock of the nation's 3,500 secondary schools benefited just a 175 schools.

[Mr Cunningham]

The important point for my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr. Robinson) and for me is what will replace BSF, because we badly need those schools.

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. If he will be patient for a few minutes I will come to exactly that point.

Just 103 schools have been completely rebuilt under BSF. The budget bulged from £45 billion to £55 billion for a variety of reasons, some of which were legitimate, but the projected time scale rose from 10 years to 18. Of the £250 million spent before building began, £60 million was spent on consultants or advisory costs. In short, because of its structure and the way in which it was put together, BSF became a vast and confusing edifice of process within process and cost upon cost. It represented poor value for money. No one comes into politics to cut public spending, but the Government were faced with a £156 billion deficit, and it is our responsibility, difficult and painful as it may be, to tackle that problem lest we delay our economic recovery and cause further economic problems. We announced that the BSF programme is ending, but that does not mean the end of capital spending on schools.

I come now to the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Coventry South. When determining which projects would go ahead and which would cease, the Government developed a single set of criteria and applied them nationally. Those school projects that were part of the initial BSF schemes and had reached financial close would go ahead. Of the so-called sample projects that were part of an area’s initial BSF schemes and where financial close had not been reached—the sample schools to which the hon. Gentleman referred—only those with a selected bidder after close of competitive dialogue in the relevant local authority went ahead. Coventry had not reached close of dialogue in those sample schools. Some planned school projects, in addition to a local authority's initial scheme, were all allowed to continue. Unfortunately, the BSF projects in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and in Coventry as a whole, were not additional projects, had not appointed a preferred bidder, and had not reached financial close. As none of the criteria applied, the projects in question could not go ahead, with the exception of the Sidney Stringer academy.

In a meeting during the summer with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, the Secretary of State indicated that he is keen for the Department to learn from Coventry's experience with BSF, and capital spending outside that review. The Secretary of State has made it clear that the end of BSF does not mean the end of capital spending on schools. Money will, of course, be invested in school buildings in the future, particularly with a rising birth rate and increasing demand for school places, but it is imperative that money is spent on buildings and not on process. To that end, a group headed by Sebastian James, and with other professionals, began a comprehensive review of all capital investment in schools—early years, colleges and sixth forms—and will consider how best to meet parental demand, to make design and procurement cost-effective and efficient, and to overhaul the allocation and targeting of capital.

The hon. Gentleman will know that officials working for the review team visited Coventry on 26 August and explored in depth the capital needs of the city's schools and the plans for tackling those needs. A further visit is planned for later this month when the capital review team will meet councillors, representatives of schools and city council officers to discuss the needs of the city’s schools including, in particular, the requirements of the city's special schools. I have taken on board the comments of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West about the state of those schools, particularly issues such as scaffolding holding up a building’s roof. Such issues will be taken into account by the capital review team, and I assure both hon. Members that the Department will continue to make capital allocations on the basis of need, particularly based on dilapidations and levels of deprivation. However, I am sure that both hon. Gentlemen will understand that I am unable to make any commitments today about how much money will be allocated, or exactly when. That will depend on the outcome of the spending review and the capital review.

[Mr Robinson]

I understand that the Minister cannot give a commitment, but will he at least say that by the comprehensive spending review on 20 October we will have a decision about those projects that have priority and can proceed, and to what extent?

[Mr Gibb]

The capital review will report by the end of December, so it will not coincide exactly with the end of the spending review. The hon. Gentleman will have to be a little more patient. There will be an interim review before that, but the answers to his specific question will not be available by that specific date.

[Mr Cunningham]

When the capital review has been completed, and when the Minister has met the councils and so on, will he meet the MPs again to discuss the outcome?

[Mr Gibb]

The capital review team will be delighted to hear from the hon. Gentleman—now is the opportunity to raise specific issues regarding the fabric of school buildings in his constituency and in Coventry—but it will not be able to report in public until it reports finally at the end of December.

In the time remaining, I want so speak briefly about the planned closure of the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, which employs some 446 staff in Coventry, with another 43 staff working from home. The QCDA's remit is inconsistent with our vision for school improvement driven by school leaders and teachers, with as much of the education budget as possible going to schools. That is why many of the QCDA's centralising functions will be stopped, and others will be made more clearly accountable to Ministers. We are considering how vital work such as the national curriculum tests can best continue when the QCDA has been abolished. It is too early to assess the scale of any job losses, but we are working with QCDA carefully to plan the winding down of its functions, and the proper and sensitive handling of the implications of those changes for QCDA's staff.

Schools: The Single Level Test Pilot

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Written Statements

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

Schools involved in piloting single level tests will today be informed of Ministers’ decision to end the pilot on completion of the June 2010 test round. The pilot has now provided sufficient evidence on single level tests to be considered as we review how key stage 2 tests operate in the future.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Monday 26th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I am quite sure that the previous Government were setting precise and specific standards for home education, because it is really important to ensure that children’s education is protected when they are being educated at home.

I shall return to amendment 4. It is important that time should be given to consulting all the relevant groups in an area that will be affected by a new academy. I find the Liberal Democrats’ position on this issue rather confusing. The academy that we were hoping to establish in my constituency has been stopped by the Government. It was supported by the local authority, in partnership, and backed by the university of Durham. It had huge support in the local community. It took some time to work through with the local community what the arrangements would mean, but once that had been adequately explained and they had asked their questions of the relevant partners and got the answers, everyone was clear about the way ahead. The parents and teachers were also very clear that they wanted an ongoing relationship with the local authority. If the Bill goes through unamended, as seems likely given the parliamentary process that is being adopted, it will be impossible for parents to have their points heard or to maintain their desired relationship with the local authority. I therefore urge hon. Members to support amendment 4 and amendment 78, so that proper consultation arrangements can be put in place.

I also want to speak to amendment 77, which relates to the timing of the consultation. When I first read clause 5, I thought that there must be something missing. Surely no one could be suggesting that it is appropriate to consult after an academy order has been made. That is clearly ludicrous. When I discussed this with people in my constituency at the weekend, they suggested that we should perhaps applaud the Government for being up front and honest about the fact that they were not going to hold consultations or pay any attention to any consultations that were held. Obviously, if a consultation takes place after an order has been made, they are not going to pay any attention to it. So perhaps the Government are just being honest in clause 5, and saying that, as they are not going to pay any attention to any consultation, it does not matter whether it takes place before or after an academy order is made.

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

Did the hon. Lady not hear the answer given my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), which is that the academy order is not the final moment in the conversion process? The final moment involves the funding agreement, which takes place after the academy order is made, so there will be plenty of time for the consultation to take place.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I did hear that answer, but many of us fear that, at that point, the process will already have gone too far in a particular direction for it to be stopped. In any case, the Government should adopt best practice, but it is not best practice to carry out a consultation when all but the very last stages of a decision process have already been completed. It would be more honest of the Government to admit that this clause had been inserted in the other place, that they did not want it in the Bill in the first place, and that there is no intention whatever to consult outside the governing bodies. Significantly, they should also admit that no attention will be paid to the outcome of any consultation exercise. This is not what the Government should be doing; it is not good practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

May I help the hon. Gentleman by saying that schools that do wish to convert this September must have submitted their applications by 30 June, so there will be time before the beginning of the schools’ summer recess for consultation to take place? In addition, the consultation is not required to terminate by September; it can go on through the autumn until the funding agreement is signed. So there is plenty of time, both before the summer and after it, for this important consultation to take place.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman is trying to put words into the mouths of many Members. I think he is talking a load of nonsense on that point, but it was a nice try.

One of my concerns about leaving it to governing bodies to decide about consultation is that they, understandably, feel that it is their duty to support head teachers. Sometimes, however, the head teacher gets their own way through strength of personality and the governing body may not apply the degree of scrutiny and challenge that it should, although I am not saying that is always true because many governing bodies work extremely well in genuine partnership with their head teacher. The reason I support the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) is that the situation I described, together with the potential for financial benefit for head teachers, could create the possibility for conflict of financial interest, which would be wholly undesirable. There is concern about the potential for financial gain for head teachers and the lack of scrutiny in some governing bodies, although by no means all—I stress that point. It is important that we get the legislation right at this point, before things go wrong, rather than rushing it through with the danger that such problems might arise.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) and the former Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), made important points about schools being a key part of their community. Although governing bodies are representative of certain parts of the community, they do not represent the wider community, which is why the provisions of the School Standards and Framework Act are a good guide. The fundamental problem with the Bill is that if consultation is not held until after the initial decision, it will be apparent to the local community that there has been a fait accompli. The danger is that once the train has left the station, it will be very difficult to put the brakes on.

[Mr Gibb]

This group of amendments deals with consultation. We have always made it clear that we expect schools to consult on their proposals for conversion to academy status, which is why we were happy to amend the Bill in the other place to put that provision on the face of the legislation. As Lord Adonis said, during the passage of the Bill in the other place,

“it is very unlikely that an academy proposal will be a success if it does not have a very wide measure of support from the parental body, the staff body and the wider community.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 2010; Vol. 719, c. 1230.]

As a result of persuasive arguments put in the other place, principally by Liberal Democrat peers, the Government tabled the amendment that led to clauses 5 and 10. I pay particular tribute to Baroness Walmsley for her determination to put consultation on the face of the Bill.

Amendment 8 would require that if any member of a school’s governing body objects to the school’s application for academy status, the parents of children at the school must be balloted. The purpose of the Bill is to allow schools that wish to do so to apply for academy status. The Bill is permissive rather than coercive. The arrangements for governing body decisions are set out in the School Governance (Procedures) (England) Regulations 2003, which state that every question to be decided at a governing body meeting must be determined by a majority of votes of those governors present and voting, and no decision can be taken without due discussion. Furthermore, at least a third of the membership of the governing bodies of all maintained schools is made up of parents. That means that the views of parents will clearly be considered during the governing body’s discussions. In addition, clause 5 requires a school’s governing body to consult on its proposals to convert to an academy. In practice, we believe that means that parents will be consulted and will have the chance to make representations about the proposals.

[Dan Rogerson]

The Minister is setting out his vision for the Bill and talking about the role of governing bodies. We did not have the opportunity to reach that clause last week because time defeated us. Is he able to confirm whether he has looked at the issue of how many parent governors there should be on future academy governing bodies?

[Mr Gibb]

I am happy to do so. We shall be coming to the relevant clause later in the debate, but I have been persuaded by my hon. Friend’s arguments, and as a result of his representations, and those of other people, we intend to amend the model funding agreement to raise the number of parents on governing bodies from one to a minimum of two.

Requiring a ballot of all parents of pupils at the school would unduly politicise the process.

[Vernon Coaker]

I welcome the concession the Minister just made. The Committee has run very well without being churlish about such things, and there are many other aspects we agree with, but that is an important step forward.

[Mr Gibb]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for that remark. He clearly takes the issue very seriously and has scrutinised the Bill thoroughly. It is a pleasure to debate the measure with him.

[Caroline Lucas]

At the risk of being churlish, why is the democracy such an issue? The point was made that if you were to—[Hon. Members: “He”]—if he were to have a proper election, it would—I am sorry. A moment ago, the Minister said that if you were to increase the governors—

[Mr Gibb]

I think I have taken the hon. Lady’s point. Requiring a ballot of all parents of pupils at the school would unduly politicise the process and would enable those who are ideologically opposed to academies—I do not accuse the hon. Lady of that—to use the process either to agitate against the proposals or to try to delay the implementation of the decision. That would place unnecessary burdens on the governing body of the school.

Amendment 10 relates to the financial interest of governors. I reassure the Committee that there are restrictions on people taking part in the proceedings of governing bodies of maintained schools. They are clearly set out in the well-known School Governance (Procedures) (England) Regulations 2003, which provide that where there is a conflict between the interests of any governor, associate member or head teacher and the interests of the governing body that person must disclose the interest, withdraw from the meeting and not vote. If one of those individuals has a financial interest in any matter, he or she must disclose it, withdraw from the meeting and not vote. If there is any dispute as to whether a person must withdraw, the other governors must decide on the matter.

There are important safeguards that apply both before and after conversion to academy status. They mean that there is no need for an amendment specifically to disallow a governor from leading the consultation, as under existing law governors cannot participate in decision making on issues that concern their remuneration or benefit. That is a fundamental principle of charity law, and all academies are charities. I can also confirm that the model articles of association ensure that no governor can make any financial gain in his or her role as a governor.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Will the Minister clarify that, by and large, these proceedings and procedures have worked very well and have presented very little difficulty in this regard?

[Mr Gibb]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. The type of people who become school governors are motivated by one issue only—the school of which they are governors; they want to raise standards and are concerned about that school.

Several amendments—including amendments 78, 77, 9 and 86—would require the governing body of a maintained school to consult on their proposals to become an academy before applying for an academy order. Clause 5 requires, as I have said, that the governing body of the school

“must consult such persons as they think appropriate”

on the proposed conversion. The consultation may take place before or after an application for an academy order has been made in respect of the school or after an academy order has been granted. This will allow each school to determine when it has sufficient information on which to consult and at what point during the application process it wishes to do so. Schools are, after all, in the best position to determine when and how consultation should best take place, and they may not want to approach parents or others until they have firm proposals.

The only requirement is that the consultation must be held before the funding agreement is signed, since at that point the school will be legally committed to the conversion process. Academy orders, though a step along the way, are not irreversible and we therefore believe that there is still value in a school consulting after an order has been made. At that point, the school is in no sense bound to convert, so it is not the case that any consultation of parents or others would either be not meaningful or too late, as the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) suggested it would be in last week’s debate.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

rose—

[Ian Mearns]

rose—

[Mr Gibb]

I give way to my hon. Friend first and then to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Leech]

I thank the Minister. I seek some clarification of the provision he cited, which makes reference to consulting “such persons”. Does he assume that “such persons” would include the parent body of the school?

[Mr Gibb]

Of course, and it is up to the school to decide. I was going to come on to the guidance later. It is published on the departmental website and it sets out precisely what guidance the governing bodies should adhere to. It states:

“It will be for the Governing Body of the school to determine who should be consulted, although schools should consider involving local bodies or groups who have strong links with the school.”

It sets out various elements such as: information on the school’s website, a letter to all parents explaining the proposal, a meeting for parents, a newsletter for parents and asking for views from parents to be sent in writing to the school.

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) pursued this issue earlier, when he spoke about the ability of schools in the list to go ahead and become academies in September. If the Bill is passed—we assume it will be, given the parliamentary numbers—orders will be made and consultation will have to take place before the funding agreement is in force. If schools are to become academies in September—assuming this idea has not been completely abandoned—it means that the consultation will happen all through August. Is my understanding correct?

[Mr Gibb]

It is possible for an academy order to be issued in September, while the details of the funding agreement are still being negotiated. These things are very complicated, and it might take several weeks after the academy order is issued before the funding agreement is signed, so the consultation process can continue after the academy order has been issued.

[Mr Iain Wright]

We really need clarity on this very important point. As I mentioned earlier, paragraph 7 of the explanatory notes states:

“The Secretary of State expects that a significant number of Academies will open in September 2010”.

Is the Minister now suggesting that academies will open without a funding agreement being in place?

[Mr Gibb]

The school can continue with an academy order made. That is the point. The academy order can be made in September, but the funding agreement might take several additional weeks afterwards—[Interruption.] No, the school will be open; children will be able to attend a school and an academy order will have been made.

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for his further clarification of the purpose and usefulness of consultation after the order has been made, but does he not accept that once an order has been made, many of those who might have had an interest in the consultation might well deem that there has been a done deal so that the consultation is meaningless? I say that despite the Minister’s assurances today, because the flag locally will be whether or not an order has been made to declare a school an academy.

[Mr Gibb]

I am grateful for that intervention, as it enables me to repeat that the deal is not done until the funding agreement is signed. That has always been the case: it was the case under the previous Administration and it is the case today. It is the funding agreement that is key.

Let me turn my attention to amendments 78, 4 and 18, which seek to prescribe with whom the school must consult. The Government believe that the individuals who lead schools—the governors and the head—are best placed to make decisions about their schools. They are the ones who know the local area, the local circumstances of the school and how it relates to other schools in the area. We do not intend to be prescriptive over whom schools should consult, as schools will have different views and the level of information they want or can make available at the time of consultation will depend on the point at which they do it. If they consult at the very beginning of the process, they may consult only on the principle of conversion itself. If they consult at a much later stage, they may want to consult on a wide range of additional matters—the curriculum, governance arrangements or a specialism for the academy, for example—on which they may by then have firmer views.

We trust the school to determine how to consult and whom to consult, and we do not intend to provide an inflexible checklist, which would not, in itself, ensure that consultation were any more meaningful. This includes consultation with the local authority, as amendment 18 would require. We do not intend to give local authorities a role that could, in some areas of the country, undermine the Government’s policy—as we know, this has been the case in the past. We do not want to provide local authorities with an opportunity to delay or frustrate applications via the consultation process. The Department’s website, as I mentioned earlier, includes guidance on good consultation practice.

New clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), would allow schools that have become academies to return to maintained status if 10% of the parents of the pupils at the academy vote in favour of it. Of course, the academies programme is about freedoms and lack of prescription, so an academy could choose, if it wished, to run itself like a maintained school. The academy could willingly act in such a way that for all intents and purposes, it would be a maintained school, operating with all the restrictions and requirements that apply to them—including the academy buying back services from the local authority and choosing not to use its curriculum or staffing freedoms. Therefore there would be no need for it to change its status for it to be run in a way that is equivalent to a maintained school.

We expect all schools that apply to become an academy to be fully committed to the academies programme. Before becoming an academy, the governing body of the predecessor school will have taken account, as I have said on numerous occasions, of the views of the parents and pupils at the academy.

Let me deal briefly with some of the comments made during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) raised the issue of the new politics, which he said that he, like me, supports. I believe that the coalition involves discussion, concessions and change, which we have seen during the passage of the Bill. The coalition is delivering the kind of politics demanded by the public. Today, the coalition has delivered its promise to introduce a pupil premium. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) has today tabled a written ministerial statement announcing a consultation process on the implementation of the pupil premium.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) took us back to the halcyon days of Lady Thatcher, which I know he likes to do from time to time, as do we all. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to trust teachers and head teachers and that we need to give parents a genuine choice that will serve as a powerful force to raise standards.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) is right to point out that it is the funding agreement that is the key and the binding moment in the conversion process towards academy status. Schools wishing to convert in September had to apply by 30 June and we expect that those schools most keen to convert in September will already have embarked on consultation. That is what the Department has advised. There is nothing to stop such enthusiastic governing bodies from continuing to consult through July and the summer holidays, and it is inconceivable that they will have kept such matters from parents, when parents are represented to the tune of one third of governors on such bodies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) is absolutely right that the governors of a school, particularly the parent governors, take their responsibilities very seriously. They care deeply about the school and would not take forward the process of acquiring academy status without taking into account the views of the community, whether or not a particular part of the community were represented on the governing body.

The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) made the important point that schools are at the heart of the local community, and we agree that they should be, which is why the funding agreement specifically states that academies should be at the heart of the community and share facilities with it. She also raised the issue of the risk to governing bodies of a legal challenge, but clause 5(1) requires them to consult those people whom they think appropriate, and to a large extent, therefore, it is up to the body to decide whom it should consult. Provided that its decision is reasonable, it is unlikely to face a legal challenge.

The hon. Member for Gedling asked for the number of schools that have applied. Those that want to convert in September must have applied to do so by 30 June, but that does not mean that others will not also have applied by that date, and we do not believe that all those that have applied will necessarily be in a position to convert by September. We want to ensure that the process is right, and we will not allow conversions until all issues have been resolved.

The hon. Gentleman also asked where we are with the TUPE negotiations. Employers of staff at schools seeking to convert will be at different stages, depending on when they intend to convert, but TUPE requires the consultation on the transfer of employment to be sufficient, and it will apply outside the Bill in any event. Any proposed September convertors will have been advised to begin a TUPE consultation some time ago, at the outset of their consideration of the application.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the details of the academy order. It will state that a named school will convert to an academy on such date as is specified in the funding agreement. It is a very short document, and with those few remarks I urge hon. Members and my hon. Friends, when asked, to withdraw their amendments.

[Dr Pugh]

I shall say a few words before putting amendment 8 to the vote. Ministers have been fairly quiet throughout the large part of this debate, and I cannot be alone in sensing a certain embarrassment about some aspects of this legislation and the manner in which it has been pressed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mr. Hancock) said to me during my earlier contribution that the real reason for weak consultation and no balloting is that it is all about making the establishment of academies easier, and at the time I said that that was uncharitable. Having listened to the counter-arguments, however, I am not sure that he was not after all right and me a little naive.

The ministerial argument against ballots was that they would politicise, but one does not need to be very bright to realise that that is a general argument against any ballot, any time, any place. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) suggested that we would know the parental view from informal soundings, and to some extent that is correct, but he was unable to explain how that could happen before September, when schools are closed for the holiday. Indeed, if that is such a good, sure-fire method, why do we persist with ballots before changing a grammar school’s status? People were completely unable to answer that, or why primary, secondary and special schools should not have the same privileged legal position.

No one answered the comments from the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), the Chair of the Education Committee, even though they were repeated. I shall repeat them again: he described the consultation arrangements as appearing like a charade. I recall working for a boss who used to listen to his heads of department, gather them all around, very carefully solicit their views and conclude by saying, “I hear what you say.” After that, he would do precisely what he wanted to do in the first place.

The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) suggested that parents will be able to vote not necessarily by ballot but with their feet. I describe that as the Burmese school of democracy: “If you don’t like it, you can get out and go somewhere else.” He was quite right that governors generally and usually have a good awareness of and good contact with parents, and that they are likely to know quite a lot about how they might feel and react, but the clear point is that that is not invariably the case. Were it invariably the case, every grant-maintained ballot would have been won, but many were lost. Indeed, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and I come from an area where all the grant-maintained ballots were lost.

If Members wish to disempower parents, if people in this Chamber genuinely believe in post hoc consultation, and if they object to rational amendment in the Commons, they should vote against my amendment. I can do nothing about that, but if they think differently I should like them to agree to amendment 8.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

I will be interested to hear why the Minister thinks that the amendments are unacceptable. Before that, it is important to say that, in the previous debate, there was a massive change in Government hope and expectation for their flagship academies policy. They have retreated from claiming that hundreds of new academies will open in September to saying that hundreds or a large number of academy orders will be agreed. The Secretary of State did not outline that as part of a flagship Government policy, which was for significant numbers of new academies to open. The policy is chaos, confusion and a complete shambles. Hon. Members of all parties will find it unbelievable that we now have a Government commitment to a significant number of academy orders, with consultation to follow. Significant progress has therefore been made as we have exposed the flaws in many aspects of the Bill. However, a Minister coming to the Dispatch Box and admitting that the Government’s aims and objectives will not be realised is astonishing.

I do not want to take up too much of the Committee’s time on the amendments. I should simply be grateful if the Minister explained why he thinks that they are unacceptable.

[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.

[Vernon Coaker]

It is a very good job that the Minister has persuaded me that statutory instruments of any sort—negative or affirmative—are unnecessary, otherwise he would not be able to announce academy orders in September. I intend to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I return to a point I made earlier. I provoked the Minister at the beginning of this debate, but in both this debate and the debate on the previous group of amendments, I note that he has not put any figure at all on the number of schools that he expects to become academies. That now seems to have gone down to almost nought, because the aspiration now is to introduce large numbers of academy orders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain Wright]

May I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hoyle?

I will be brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and the hon. Members for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) and for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) have said all that needs to be said about amendment 54. I welcome the amendment, which was tabled by my hon. Friend. He has rightly expressed the concern about the risk that community facilities—provision that could and should be used by partnering schools or the wider community—could be stopped as a result of an academy order. All three hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have said how important such facilities are to social cohesion.

A further point is that in times when public finances are tight, the potential saving from having extended schools with those provisions is immense. There could be savings to the NHS, from having that social network in place, to the Home Office and police budgets, from early intervention, or to the social care budget. Those savings could be huge, and they all stem from the idea of an extended school that opens out into the community, providing an open and collaborative range of offers. However, there is nothing in the Bill that might safeguard that. I am concerned about that, which is why I welcome the amendment. I know that it is a probing amendment, as my hon. Friend said. However, I hope that the Minister can reassure the Committee that what is in the Bill will safeguard what is available for the community, because the whole of society can benefit as a result.

[Mr Gibb]

Amendment 54 seeks to ensure that each academy order contains provisions that make the school’s facilities available for community use once the school has converted to an academy. We agree on the importance of schools being at the heart of their communities. We would want to encourage the community use of school facilities. That is why the model funding agreement, which has been made available in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Department’s website, requires academies

“to be at the heart of their communities and to share their facilities with other schools and the wider community”.

That could include a wide range of initiatives—for example, making the school’s sports facilities available for local groups to use, offering adult education after hours, and engaging staff in outreach work across other local schools. It is clear from the provisions in academy arrangements that we are committed to academies being a central resource to their local communities. That is also borne out by our expectation that all outstanding schools commit in principle to working in partnership with a weaker school, as part of their applications to become academies.

However, it would not be appropriate for every academy order to make such provision. Academy orders are intended to be the documents that confirm a school’s conversion, and will contain key pieces of information pertinent to the conversion, depending on the circumstances of each school. We believe that the place to impose obligations on an academy is through the academy arrangements, in either the funding agreement or the terms and conditions of grant. That is consistent with the approach of the previous Government.

The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) talked about the gym and the sports facilities in his local school, and asked whether it could be made a requirement that there should be no less provision to the community than existed at the date of the transfer. He wanted to put that in the Bill, which I have explained would be excessive. He also raised the issue of the fees charged for those sports facilities. Again, his fear is that an academy would raise those fees in order to raise further funds for the academy or the school. However, all the issues that he has raised are issues for the funding agreement. There is no reason why those facilities cannot continue. If the issue is shared facilities between the school and the local authority, these will be subject to discussion as part of the conversion process. On the wider issue of charging, charging that is allowed is limited, as he knows, and will be equivalent to the money that maintained schools are also entitled to raise for out-of-hours-type activities.

I suppose that the issue at the back of the hon. Gentleman’s mind is the concern that somehow academies will be less community-minded than the maintained schools that they replace—that somehow they will gouge out those facilities used by local residents or the out-of-hours evening classes that they attend. I see no evidence from the academies that I have visited around the country that that is their attitude. They are just as much a part of the community as the maintained schools that they are replacing.

The hon. Gentleman should be assured, certainly on the basis of the statements that I am now making to the Committee, that it is not the Government’s intention that academies should become islands unto themselves, charging the maximum that they can to raise funds for their facilities. They will continue to be part of the community, concerned about the community, and wanting to share their facilities with the community.

I want to turn now to the points raised tangentially by my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) and for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson). They both raised the issue of community cohesion. It is our view that the funding agreement will already include that requirement, using the phrase that I have just read out about being at the heart of the community and sharing facilities with the community. I am also able to help my hon. Friends by adding to the funding agreement an explicit requirement that academies will be required to be at the heart of their communities, to promote community cohesion and to share their facilities with other schools and the wider community. I hope that, in the light of those few words and the arguments that I put forward earlier, the hon. Member for Hemsworth will withdraw his amendment, which he described as a probing amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. He has intervened on both the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and me, and he will no doubt want to raise his question with the Minister when he responds—indeed, the Minister may well wish to do address it in any case. When talking about fears being allayed, the particular point I was addressing was to do with community cohesion, which is very important. It is about the way in which the existing maintained schools, the new academies that have transferred over and other new school provision that is offered will interact and relate to the surrounding community. There has been a bit of progress on that, which I welcome.

On the tempting invitation from the hon. Member for Hartlepool to support the Labour amendment, I must say that their conversion comes a little late on some of these issues. As my party colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for Redcar (Ian Swales), have already said in this brief debate, in respect of how the relationships emerge most of the provisions were in existence and operation under the previous academies programme. I do not think there is any huge difference therefore. The only difference is that this is someone else’s academy programme, not that of the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Gibb]

Amendment 79 would require the Secretary of State to consult all those listed in the amendment before making an academy order in respect of a maintained school. As I have mentioned a number of times, clause 5 already requires the governing body of a maintained school wishing to convert to academy status to consult on its proposals. That provision was included in the Bill in response to concerns raised in the other place and in order to demonstrate the importance that this Government attach to consultation. I believe, therefore, that it is unnecessary and inappropriate, not to mention impractical, for the Secretary of State to consult on those same proposals. It should be the school’s decision to become an academy, except in those cases where the school is eligible for intervention. It is our aim to reduce any unnecessary bureaucracy surrounding the academy conversion process, and I believe that potentially duplicating consultation would fall into that category.

We have made it very clear that we believe that schools are in the best position to determine how best consultation should take place. That includes deciding who should be consulted, although some guidance is provided on the website as to who is consulted, and when and how that should be done. We do not intend to provide an inflexible checklist, such as that proposed in this amendment, which would not, in itself, ensure that consultation was any more meaningful.

New clause 7 would mean that before a school makes an application for an academy order or an academy arrangement with an additional school, a local authority must be asked to assess the impact of academy status on admissions, on funding between all publicly funded schools and on social cohesion in the local authority area where the school is situated. It would also mean that before making an academy order or an academy arrangement with an additional school, the Secretary of State would be required to have regard to the impact assessment.

Clause 9 requires the Secretary of State, when deciding whether to enter into academy arrangements with an additional school—an entirely new or “free” school—to take into account the impact of such a school on the existing schools and colleges in the area. We believe that requiring the local authority to consider the impact of an additional school as well is unnecessary and will simply result, again, in the duplication of work. The clause does not include provisions for the Secretary of State to assess the impact of schools that convert into academies. We are clear that schools should convert “as is”; in most cases, it will be the same head, the same staff, the same parents and the same children in the school, but with additional freedoms to innovate and raise standards. Furthermore, the requirement for converting schools to consult means that those other schools in the area may have the chance to make representations on the proposed conversion. Where schools convert “as is” we do not believe, therefore, that the nature of the change is such that there is any need for an impact assessment.

[Andrew George]

The Minister will have heard my two interventions about the availability of an appeals process where an admissions policy excludes potential pupils from a school before they have been able to gain admission to the school. Under the current arrangements, in most areas the parents can appeal to the local authority if they feel that the decision is unacceptable. What arrangements will apply where an academy has been set up?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend will know that the admissions code will apply just as much to academies as to maintained schools, that the admissions appeals code will also apply just as much to academies as to maintained schools and that the co-ordination arrangements will apply too. So the local authorities will hold the ring on admissions in the same way as they do at the moment.

[Mr Iain Wright]

I may be pre-empting what the Minister is going to say. He has been talking about existing maintained schools converting to an academy, using the phrase “as is” and he mentioned that schools would have the same head, the same estate and so on. New clause 7(1) states:

“Before a school makes an application for an Academy order or”—

this is the point on which I seek clarification—

“an Academy arrangement with an additional school”.

That refers to a free school. Will the existing arrangements still apply in respect of a free school too? Could the Minister provide clarity on that?

[Mr Gibb]

I shall seek to do that during the rest of my speech. If I do not get round to the hon. Gentleman’s point, I shall write to him.

We believe that the impact of an increase in academies and the freedoms they provide will lead to improvements in standards across the education sector as the best heads and the best schools drive improvements and expertise. The noble Lords were concerned about schools changing their age range and the Bill was amended to allay those concerns. Subsection (4) of clause 9 makes it clear than when a maintained school becomes an academy under the current school closure processes, further to the Education and Inspections Act 2006 and not further to an academy order, when the age range is not like-for-like, the school would be classed as an additional school, so the Secretary of State would be required to evaluate the impact. That would include, for example, an academy created as a result of the amalgamation of two or more schools or an 11-to-18 academy that replaced an 11-to-16 maintained school, if that involved a closure rather than a conversion. Any school wishing to add a sixth form would need to follow the relevant statutory provisions.

The answer to the question whether the admissions code and the appeals code will apply to free schools, too, is yes, it will. The problem with the Minister’s opening remarks—

[Mr Wright]

I’m not the Minister any more.

[Mr Gibb]

Sorry, the shadow Minister. It is all very new.

The problem with the shadow Minister’s speech in moving the amendment was that it was written, I think, before he heard of the Government’s intention to put in the funding agreement an explicit requirement to promote community cohesion. On top of that, it already requires academies to be at the heart of the community. He cited the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment that local authorities will not run schools. That is a view common throughout the coalition and we also agree that local authorities should be the champion of parents and pupils, championing school improvement and challenging rather than defending underperforming schools. In an old politics kind of way, he is trying to drive a wedge into fissures in the coalition where no fissures exist—and he is doing so unsuccessfully.

The point made by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about excluded pupils is wrong. He alleged that the funding for an excluded pupil stays with the academy. The funding follows the pupil when the pupil is excluded and that is a requirement in the academy agreement.

With those few words, I hope that I have persuaded Opposition Members and those elsewhere to withdraw their amendments.

[Mr Iain Wright]

I apologise to the Minister on the subject of the concession that he has made on social cohesion and community cohesion in the funding agreement. I had meant to mention that, but I was wrapped up in helping Liberal Democrats. I apologise; that is a welcome concession.

The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) went so far in tempting me to think that he does not agree with academies, but then he pulled back considerably. He mentioned, rightly, that coalition—like all politics—is a question of compromise and negotiation, but I think that the Liberal Democrats are getting a bit of a raw deal in the coalition agreement when it comes to education policy. I will readily admit that today there has been the announcement on school funding and the pupil premium and I am pleased to see the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), on the Treasury Bench. I pay tribute to her for pushing that forward.

In every other sense, the emphasis has been on Conservative party policy, with an emphasis on free markets. There has been a rush to the markets and a lack of consultation with and consideration for the wider community that is at odds with what the Liberal Democrats want. I shall still provide the hon. Member for North Cornwall and his hon. Friends, who seem readily poised to join us in the appropriate Lobby, with the opportunity to ensure that the commitments that were made in the Liberal Democrat manifesto in the general election, only a matter of weeks ago, can still be fulfilled.

I am not content with the Minister’s explanations in terms of new clause 7. I think it is very important and I will want to press that to a vote, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Pre-commencement applications etc

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

We have had an interesting week of debates on the Bill, and I thank all hon. Members who took part, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), who made their maiden speeches during these debates. I should also like to thank the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), for her help, and the right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench for their careful and thorough scrutiny of the Bill.

I thank officials in the Department for the long hours that they have spent on the Bill during its passage through the other place and this House, and for their support of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We should also thank the Chairs of the Committee: Mr Evans, Mr Caton, you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and Ms Primarolo, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) lovingly referred to as “Miss P”. I am grateful to my noble Friend Lord Hill, who skilfully steered the Bill through the other place just days after being appointed a Minister, and to my hon. Friends and noble Friends who have improved the Bill and the model funding agreement in both the other place and this House.

Throughout the process we have been keen to listen to concerns, particularly, though not exclusively, those of our partners in the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition. Amendments in the other place have given children with special educational needs greater rights to admission to academies than existed in previous academies legislation, and new requirements for funding for low-incidence special needs have been added. New duties to consult have been included in clauses 5 and 10, and the Secretary of State will now be obliged by statute to take into account the impact on other schools of any new school established under the Bill. That is now in clause 9.

My noble Friends have added greater parliamentary accountability through an annual report to Parliament, which will also enable us to analyse issues of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), such as the viability of primary schools that opt for academy status. He made a compelling case for increasing the number of parent governors, so as I mentioned earlier, the model funding agreement will be changed to increase the number from one to two. Opposition Members have successfully ensured that the funding agreement includes a requirement for looked-after children to have a designated member of staff.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Will the two parent governors be elected by other parents or appointed?

[Mr Gibb]

My understanding is that they will be elected, but if I am proved wrong I will write to my hon. Friend.

After 22 hours in Committee and nine hours on Report in the other place between 7 June and 13 July, and after 19 and a half hours of Second Reading and Committee in this House, not including this afternoon and evening, we finally reach Third Reading of a Bill that, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State,

“grants greater autonomy to individual schools…gives more freedom to teachers and…injects a new level of dynamism into a programme that has been proven to raise standards for all children and for the disadvantaged most of all.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 24.]

I shall start by saying what the Bill is not about. It is not about a “full-scale assault” on comprehensive education—a ludicrous claim by the shadow Secretary of State in The Guardian on Saturday. We believe in comprehensive education and are committed to it, and the Bill will strengthen it. Nor is it about scrapping the admissions code, another spurious claim about the Government’s education policies by the shadow Secretary of State. We are committed to fair admissions through the code, and all academies will be bound by it through the model funding agreement.

Nor is this Bill about the creation of a two-tier education system. Two tiers are what we have today—the best performing state schools and the worst. The independent sector, which educates just 8% of children, is responsible for 44% of all A* grades in GCSE French. It educates just 10% of 16-18 year olds, but is responsible for 35% of all A grades in A-level physics.

The Bill offers all schools the opportunity to acquire the kind of professional freedoms that have proved so successful not only in the independent sector, but in the city technology colleges and in academies. After 20 years of independence, CTCs are among the most successful schools in the country. On average, in those schools, 82% achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, including English and maths. In those academies that have been open long enough to have had GCSE results in 2008 and 2009, a third have GCSE results that improved by 15 percentage points compared with their predecessor schools.

There have been 1,958 expressions of interest from schools in all parts of the country. Of those 1,071 are from schools graded outstanding by Ofsted. Many of the heads and governing bodies of those schools are hungry for the freedoms in the academies legislation that the previous Administration introduced. They are in a hurry to have them by September and, for those schools that are ready and able, so are we.

We are in a hurry because we do not think that it is right that 40% of 11-year-olds leave primary school still struggling with reading, writing and maths. It is not acceptable that nearly three quarters of pupils eligible for free school meals fail to get five or more GCSEs or equivalents at grades A* to C, including English and maths, or that 42% of those eligible for free school meals fail to achieve a single GCSE above grade D.

I know that there are some concerns among hon. Members of all parties about the future role of local authorities if all schools become academies. However, I should point out that there are 203 academies out of 3,300 secondary schools and some 17,000 primary schools. It will be many years, if at all, before all those schools acquire academy status. The Bill is permissive, not prescriptive or mandatory. We see a new and stronger role for local authorities emerging over the years as champions of parents and pupils, challenging rather than defending underperforming schools. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has established a ministerial advisory group to take that forward and written to all education authorities seeking views.

The Bill is the first step in the coalition’s ambitious plans to raise standards in all our schools. We want parents not to have to worry about the quality of education that their children will receive at their local school. We want behaviour in all schools to be as good as in the best. That is why we are clarifying and strengthening teachers’ powers and abolishing the statutory requirement for 24 hours’ notice for detentions. We want a teaching profession with renewed morale and confidence, no longer struggling under the yoke of monthly Government initiatives and ever-demanding bureaucratic requirements.

The Bill is about trusting the professionalism of teachers and head teachers. It is about innovation and excellence, about giving parents a genuine choice and children the opportunity for a better future. It is a short Bill, but its impact will be long lasting. I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

The fact is that our academies were disproportionately set up in disadvantaged communities. They disproportionately took in more children on free school meals than the catchment area required, and they achieved faster-rising results than the average. That was social justice in action; what we are seeing with this Bill is the opposite. The freedoms and the extra resources in the Bill are going to outstanding schools, not schools that need extra help. They are going to schools that have more children from more affluent areas, fewer children with free school meals, and fewer children with special needs and disabilities, even though they will get pro rata funding. That is not social justice being put into action; it is social injustice. That is why the Bill is deeply offensive to people on the Opposition Benches and, I think, probably to many on the Government Benches as well.

[Mr Gibb]

But why is the legacy of the right hon. Gentleman’s Government the fact that outstanding schools are disproportionately in areas of affluence?

[Ed Balls]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the facts over the past decade, he will see that of the 20 local authorities that had the biggest increase in results, half were in the poorest 10% of boroughs in the country, all of which were in London. The London Challenge programme and our academies focused on tackling disadvantage. Of course there is a long legacy of social division and inequality in our education system. We were addressing it; the Government are going to re-entrench it. That is the difference.

Let us look at the amendments that—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State, who chose not to participate in this Third Reading debate—[Interruption.]

Academies Bill [Lords]

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker]

That is exactly the point. If free schools are to be built, the money must be found somewhere, and the Government are struggling at the moment. They have raised £50 million by scrapping a few computer projects, which were described as low-capacity but would have been important to the people who would have benefited from them, but where will the money come from after that?

A week or two before the election, the Secretary of State said that funding the free schools programme would require cuts of 15% in the Building Schools for the Future programme. That is a direct quotation. It has not been corrected, and I have not heard it claimed that it was taken out of context. As I have said, that is really where the money will come from.

I am trying to be helpful to the Government and the Committee. We oppose the Bill, but we recognise that the Government will probably push it through. Even if that is the case, however, the whole point of the Committee stage is to try to improve the Bill by amending it, and to raise issues of great importance. That is why it is so disappointing that Members—on both sides of the Committee—cannot amend the Bill. I recognise that the Bill has come from the Lords, but it is astonishing that we will have spent three days debating it on the Floor of the House and not one amendment will have been allowed. I am not a political or legislative historian, but I cannot imagine that many other Bills can have spent three days on the Floor of the House without amendment. I say in all honesty to the Minister that I will not be surprised if we find sneaked into the Bill that will be coming in the autumn a couple of little measures tweaking and putting right one or two things in this Bill, because that is what usually happens when Governments rush through legislation—afterwards they think, “Oh dear, there is a problem.”

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

The hon. Gentleman will know that there are 75 amendments and five new clauses on the amendment paper, and the Committee is perfectly entitled to pass any of them.

[Vernon Coaker]

The hon. Gentleman and I have debated other Bills—indeed, we have served on Bill Committees together—and on those occasions he has made one or two good points to which I have said, “That’s quite a good point, and I’ll come back to it on Report,” and then a Government amendment is introduced. That is the usual process in the House, and when it happens everyone tells this joke: “If it was such a good amendment and the Government have come back with their version of exactly the same proposal, why did you not accept it when it was moved by the Opposition?”

The situation with this Bill is totally different from how the Minister has just described it. Not all the amendments on the amendment paper are in my name—some have been tabled by his hon. Friends, and comments have been made by other Members as well—but we are totally unable to amend the Bill. Let me say to any new Members on the Government Benches who might be tempted to strike out in a spirit of independence by organising to make a change to the Bill through proposing an amendment and seeking to press it to a Division that it would not be very long before those who traditionally sit on the far end of the Treasury Bench came to see them to explain that that was probably not the best thing to do. I just say in all honesty to the Minister that I think it is deeply disappointing that we cannot amend the Bill in the way that many of us would want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

The hon. Gentleman ought to see that the answer to his question has been given in the debate. The Government are already indicating that there will be extra money for free schools. They could have said, “We don’t think Building Schools for the Future can be afforded, so we’re going to do this in a different way over a longer period.” They could have gone ahead in the form that we had proposed, but spread over a longer time. That would have meant that the type of work that we had done in Liverpool, and that had been done in Durham and elsewhere, would not have been wasted, and we could have moved forward on that basis.

I was making a point about where we can go next. It would be useful if the Minister could inform the Committee of what the key factors will be when the capital review team considers the criteria for schools such as Holly Lodge, St John Bosco and De La Salle in my constituency. Will it be to the advantage of a school if it is willing to seek academy status? Will deprivation be a factor in whether a school is given priority, and will educational improvement be a significant factor, as it was under BSF? Will the Government consider links to the wider economic policy in a region? If Liverpool is to get the private sector growth that is crucial to our economic future, we need investment in our education. Will the capital review team consider that factor?

I urge the Committee to support this sensible amendment, which would enable local voices to be heard as important decisions are taken about the spending of large amounts of public money.

[Mr Gibb]

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult local parents and children, local authorities and others before making payments in respect of capital funding for any additional free school.

We have been clear that we want to improve choice in education. A free school proposal will be required to demonstrate parental demand and support, and where there is such demand for a free school in an area, we will not turn down a proposal simply to protect other local schools. However, I reassure hon. Members who are concerned that money from BSF will be used to fund free schools that that is not the case. We have reallocated £50 million from the harnessing technology fund to restart the standards and diversity fund established by the previous Government in 2008 to promote new schools. That fund will provide capital funding for free schools until the end of next March. Any free school projects that require up-front capital outlay will have to demonstrate a compelling and strong value-for-money case to support the investment and provide evidence of genuine parental demand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain Wright]

I beg to move amendment 65, page 6, line 38, at end add—

‘(11) The Secretary of State before making a property transfer scheme shall consult with—

(a) the local authority;

(b) the current owner, if not the local authority;

(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.’.

An identical amendment was tabled in the other place by the noble Baroness Sharp of Guildford, and the rationale behind the proposal remains sound. The clause allows the Secretary of State to “make” a property transfer scheme, which might involve the transfer of IT equipment and other assets. I mentioned last night the weakness in the Bill regarding consultation, and amendment 65 would improve the consultative process. It seems perfectly reasonable to the Opposition that the local authority and the current owner—if that is not the local authority—are consulted to ascertain what should happen to other property or assets, and whether they could be used elsewhere in the area for alternative educational provision.

In speaking to the identical amendment in the other place, Baroness Sharp also said the clause does not mention consultation with interested parties that might be affected by such a transfer, such as catering contractors. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and I made a similar point last night about proper consultation with hard-working staff within the estate, such as catering and cleaning staff, as well as consultation on other assets such as IT equipment.

The amendment would mean a much smoother transfer from the existing school when it converts to academy status. The Minister in the other place said that he would reflect on the matter, and I believe that clause 10 arose as a result of that reflection. However, what should happen to other property, because that too should be subject to wider consultation? There should be proper consideration on important assets, of which the most important are the people who will be affected by the transfer. By doing so, we would ensure a much smoother, less painful and more considered transfer.

[Mr Gibb]

Clause 8 gives the Secretary of State the power to make a scheme to transfer the property of a maintained school in respect of which an academy order has been made. Amendment No. 65, ably moved by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), would require the Secretary of State to consult the local authority or other owner or any other appropriate persons before making a property transfer scheme that would affect, among other things, desks, computers and the assets of any existing school.

In the case of converting academies, we intend that there should be a seamless transfer between the existing maintained school and the academy, as part of which the school will clearly need to be able to continue to use its property, and to take advantage of contracts into which it may have entered, such as those for cleaning, catering and insurance. It may also need to transfer the benefit of trust funds left in trust for pupils or the school. The trust—say, a bursary for art left to the school many years ago in the will of a benefactor—may well mention the name of the predecessor school, and clause 8 would enable it to be transferred to the new entity of the academy.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North)]

In this consultation, is there a specific undertaking given by the Government that in any transfer they would consult the staff or staff organisations of those employed by contractors in one building, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) pointed out in his contribution?

[Mr Gibb]

In earlier debates we talked about TUPE. If staff are subject to the TUPE regulations, all the relevant consultation processes would apply. But if the hon. Gentleman is talking about a contractor who works neither for the previous maintained school or the local authority, and who will not become an employee of the academy, his or her employment rights continue to lie with the contracting company, not with the predecessor school or the academy.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My point is that if there is a contract for, say, computer maintenance, with clear employment implications, and it is transferred, the employment requirement also carries on. If it is not transferred, there would be employment implications to which the Secretary of State might be blind because he is looking only at the transfer of property.

[Mr Gibb]

In those circumstances, the contract would transfer under this clause, but the employment rights would be between the company that is the subject of the contract and the employee, who is not employed either by the predecessor school or the successor academy. The employment rights would not change because the contract would continue with the employer, who would not change.

I should say that we anticipate that the making of any scheme under the provisions of this legislation will be rare. We hope that, in most cases, the transfer of property in connection with a school converting to an academy would be, as now, by agreement among the parties. In most circumstances, a transfer of contract would take place by agreement. That would be our starting point for any property transfer, and this would ensure that all those with an interest in the transfer of such property would be involved in negotiations about their potential transfer. Therefore, we would not get to the point of considering making a scheme under this clause until such discussions were exhausted. It is therefore inconceivable that anyone with an interest in the property to be transferred would not be consulted on a possible transfer in advance of any scheme being made. There is no reason why the Secretary of State would go to the trouble or expense of making a scheme if matters could be resolved amicably. There might be some contracts though, where the other party might try to use a transfer to obtain further financial benefit. The possibility of the making of a scheme would remove that incentive. The provision is an attempt to prevent the possibility that someone might be able to leverage financial compensation, knowing that the transfer has to take place. It is to avoid that possibility that this clause is in place, so that the Secretary of State can make a transfer against the wishes of people who are party to the contract.

The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I ask the hon. Member for Hartlepool to withdraw it.

[Mr Iain Wright]

In the large amount of time I have available, I would like to say that the Minister has explained a lot, and to be fair he has gone some way further than the Minister in the other place—

Academies Bill [Lords]

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker]

I will give way to the Minister first, and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). May I make one point first, Mr Hoyle?

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

It’s your speech.

[Vernon Coaker]

It is my speech; I thank my hon. Friend—for he is my friend—the Minister of State. I will always give way to Members. However, I do not want to hear a point of order at 10 pm about how the Minister went on—[Interruption.] I mean the shadow Minister.

[Mr Gibb]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. He was a very effective schools Minister, and, along with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he presided over 200 academies. Did he find that those 200 academies were not involved in their communities, and did not participate in local plans to raise standards across the board? Were they the islands unto themselves that he now claims the new academies will be?

[Vernon Coaker]

The point is that the whole of that system was based on local consensus. Local authorities and local communities were involved, and difficult and tough decisions were sometimes made in the face of significant opposition. The academies programme was developed on the basis of local agreement, which meant the local community telling schools that they must take part in all the partnerships.

Those were secondary schools, but, as the Minister knows, the amendment deals with the possible extension of academy status to special schools and primary schools, which would involve a massive expansion. A managed expansion is one thing, but, as both Ministers of State will probably point out, the Bill is permissive—permissive, that is, to the extent that it allows almost everything to be done by means of the funding agreement or the direct grant arrangements. Regardless of ideological differences, even Government Back Benchers draw attention to the lack of a statutory requirement for things to be done that people consider necessary, which I think is a serious weakness, particularly as a funding agreement, which is a contract, would ultimately have to be tested in the courts.

Let me say this to the Minister: in all honesty. I am not making a point about the Bill being rushed through; that was dealt with when we debated the programme motion. If I were in charge of the Bill, I would think that, notwithstanding some of the improvements made by the House of Lords—such as the provision for low-incidence special needs, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), and the application to academies of section 4 of the Education Act 1996—when it comes to exclusions, admissions and, in particular, special schools, it is no use talking about things that people “should” do. It is no use saying, “These are important matters on which parents should be consulted. These people should be consulted, and those people should be consulted.” The Bill should lay down an absolute requirement, especially in relation to those with the most profound learning difficulties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

I was going to make the same point, but it has been very well made by my hon. Friend, who brings her own expertise, knowledge and experience to the debate. Her valuable point is now on the record, and no doubt the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) will respond to it.

[Mr Gibb]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous. He mentioned the insertion in the House of Lords of part 4 of the 1996 Act, which requires an academy to accept a child with special educational needs. His party could have introduced that measure, but did not do so. It is this Bill that is making the change in the law relating to children with special needs.

[Vernon Coaker]

Changes in policy always improve as they go through Parliament, particularly when, as was the case in the House of Lords, amendment is possible. Now a hugely important Bill is being dealt with on the Floor of the House of Commons, but unless something remarkable happens, no amendments will be made. Members, not only Labour Members but Members on the Government Benches, may well propose equally important amendments to the Bill as it stands, but it will not be possible for them to be accepted.

We have our ideological differences and our views about what is right and what is wrong about the academies programme, but—I know I am repeating myself—although four or five important points have been made about academies and consultation, unless Members wish to make problems for themselves, it will not be possible for the Bill in its current form to be amended. The Minister mentioned one amendment that was made in the House of Lords, and other good amendments were made there but, notwithstanding what we may feel about special schools becoming academies, no amendments can be made in this place to improve the position.

The ability of special schools to become academies is not only highly problematic, but very dangerous to their status as a whole local authority resource. At present, local authority-maintained special schools play a critical role in the provision of support for pupils whose circumstances mean that attendance at a mainstream school is not appropriate. In that respect, special schools are a key feature of a genuinely inclusive education system that seeks to provide additional support on the basis of objective assessments of pupils’ needs, and of the settings in which those needs might best be met. We all accept that not all pupils can function effectively and access the most appropriate support in a mainstream setting. Maintained special schools are settings managed and administered directly by local authorities and they are in place for the benefit of all local pupils. In that respect, they demonstrate the value of a local authority-provided, commonly accessible educational resource upon which all settings can draw when necessary. The ability of local authorities to act in this way in respect of special schools means that additional support for pupils can be delivered on the basis of both a comprehensive and coherent assessment of local needs and best value for money. The Minister needs to address some of the concerns on this matter, and must explain to us how this coherence of provision will be maintained when special schools become academies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

Let me finish the point, and then I will, of course, give way.

It is the same with the equality impact assessments. They relate to existing academies, which are all secondary schools, so there is nothing in them about primary schools. Yet this is supposed to be the evidence base for the Bill. Frankly—although I am going to say this gently to the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, as we get along—this is not good enough. For all of us to look at the evidence for or against this Bill and to analyse, discuss, debate or disagree with it, and to say what has been missed out of it or what should have been included in it, we require an evidence base—but there is no evidence in it. We are told that if conversion to academies goes ahead, the GCSE results will be 1.5% what might have been expected if the schools had not converted. What on earth has that got to do with primary schools? This is a very serious point and at some stage the Minister will have to answer it.

[Mr Gibb]

rose—

[Gavin Barwell]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

The evidence came from the local people, the local authority and local schools discussing with each other the best way forward for educational provision in their area. That was our academy model, not the model that the hon. Gentleman supports, whereby local authorities are completely missed out of the equation, and there is not even a statutory right to ensure that parents are consulted. It was sometimes difficult, but we ensured that local people and local authorities were involved in those decisions.

[Mr Gibb]

That is an opinion, not evidence. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about opinion, but the evidence is clearly set out in the impact assessment, headed “evidence base”. It describes the huge success of the city technology colleges and their increasingly good academic results over the years since they were established. Cannot the shadow Minister extrapolate evidence from that to special schools and primary schools? That is what policy making is all about—taking the existing evidence and applying it to other forms of schooling.

[Vernon Coaker]

It is not for me to extrapolate, but for the Government to demonstrate through evidence. I am no longer in government: the Minister is. He, in his new role, should present the evidence. The Secretary of State signed off the impact assessment. If he wanted to do what the Minister claims, why did he not amend it? I am sure that he read it carefully, word for word. Why did he not notice that primary schools were not mentioned, go back to his officials and say, “We haven’t mentioned primary schools in this. Do you know what? The shadow Minister will get up and say that, because it’s in the Library notes—the House of Commons Library has noticed, too.” I repeat that it is not for me to extrapolate.

[Mr Gibb]

The evidence base is the same one that the shadow Minister used when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) said, he signed off all-through academies. Consulting local opinion is not evidence for the early years sections of all-through academies. The evidence that the hon. Gentleman looked at will have been the success of the academies movement as a whole. We have based our policy on that.

[Vernon Coaker]

The Minister has not set the evidence out. The impact assessments mention CTCs, but not primary schools. The Minister makes a good debating point when he says that CTCs have primary sections, and they are therefore covered. I think that if the Government could rewind the clock three, four or five weeks—whenever the assessments were prepared—the Minister would ensure that primary schools and special schools were included, particularly in the equality impact assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glenda Jackson]

I have not been quite so hyperbolic in my choice of verbs as the hon. Gentleman, but it seems to me that in this Bill his Government are attempting to replicate precisely what he is accusing my Government of attempting to do with regard to home-educated children.

Put in the simplest terms, the Government are ignoring parents’ opinions. That is why the arguments that they have advanced on primary schools, and will advance with regard to secondary schools, should be fiercely opposed, and I am delighted to see that Labour Members are continuing to do that.

[Mr Gibb]

May I add my welcome to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) to the Opposition Front-Bench role? In some ways, it is as tough as being a Minister. He has no support and has to draft all the amendments himself, so I am sympathetic to his position. I am grateful to him for the kind words that he passed on at the beginning of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ward]

On the Minister’s defence of the Bill as being of a permissive nature, does he believe we should also have permissive legislation without a full impact assessment to allow everybody to walk around naked, on the basis that they would not have to do it if they did not want to?

[Mr Gibb]

That is an argument taken ad absurdum, and I do not think it is very effective.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) made an important point about the need to ensure that communities, parents and schools feel that they are in control and making decisions, which is why the power is properly permissive.

What consideration did the Minister give to whether a school that becomes an academy could reverse that process? I bring that up, I hope in order, because smaller primary schools might find that the academy freedoms do not work for them. It is important that the system makes communities and schools feel in control, not forced down a particular channel. We will get much further with the policy if people feel that way.

[Mr Gibb]

No primary school is being forced down any channel, that is the whole essence of the proposals. We will not let academies fail, and if they are struggling intervention measures and monitoring will take place to ensure that different sponsors can take them over.

We want all schools that want academy status to be able to apply for it, and we do not intend to deny certain schools that option. Nor do we believe that a delay of two years before primary schools can apply to convert is necessary or appropriate. However, we will see whether any lessons can be learned from the primaries that convert this September. Furthermore, we encourage federations or partnership arrangements that wish to convert, as well as proposals for all-through academies.

I should also point out that when there are challenges with primaries—for example, with shared or co-located services such as children’s centres—we intend to work through them with all the relevant partners to ensure that services are maintained without interruption. That may mean that the process of conversion takes a little longer, but it is important to do things correctly.

The hon. Member for Gedling seemed to express no principle objection. He cited all-through academies, but said that things were different for stand-alone primaries owing to their size and the fact that their location communities could be at risk, but why? In another place, the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Hill of Oareford, said:

“The local primary school is very much part of the village where I live and I know that that is true throughout the country…If an outstanding local primary were to become an academy, it is not clear why it should automatically become less of a part of the local community, village or town life. It will have the same head, staff, parents and children with some additional freedoms. I am not clear why the change of status should suddenly make those people in their villages, towns and communities suddenly start to behave differently.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2010; Vol. 720, c. 125.]

That is a very well expressed answer to the questions asked throughout the debate on the Bill on whether academies will continue to be part of the community. Of course they will. There is no evidence from the 203 academies, other than the one cited by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), that they are any more or less involved in their communities than maintained schools. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gedling did not preside over the 203 academies with a view to them being islands unto themselves and isolated from the community.

[Vernon Coaker]

Of the 203 schools to which the Minister refers, how many are primary schools?

[Mr Gibb]

They were not permitted to become academies under the hon. Gentleman’s tutelage and stewardship. The Bill is permissive legislation to allow more schools to acquire the academy status that he extolled as a Minister.

[Stephen Pound]

I am not entirely opposed to academies—we have an extremely good one in Ealing North—but there is a problem with governance and involvement with local communities. When an academy sets up, it does not need local education governors or even parent governors—it can select governors. The link with the community is crucial, so what would the Minister say to those who remain to be convinced when it comes to the establishment of an academy within their local community but who would also like that governance link?

[Mr Gibb]

An academy can, of course, have the local authority represented on its governing body, but it is up to the academy trust to decide its structure. The hon. Gentleman praised his local academy in Ealing, but there are different models for schools. The academy model gives schools more independence from the local authority and indeed from the Government, and it has worked in his constituency and up and down the country. There is ample evidence in the impact assessment that the model is very effective here and in other countries. We need not have a one-size-fits-all approach to the governance of schools. The community school is one model, and the academy is another. We believe that the latter needs to be boosted and given a chance to extend into other forms of school.

[Stephen Pound]

I do not want to trespass on the Minister’s good nature or generosity. I quite rightly praised West London academy because it maintains the link with the local community. What is his personal preference? Is it for a school governing body to be drawn from the local community or for it to be completely separate?

[Mr Gibb]

I do not think that it matters. What matters is that the academy is engaged with the local community. Any academy that wants to attract parents and pupils will engage with the local community. That is my preference.

[Glenda Jackson]

The Minister rightly says that he does not believe that there will be a one-size-fits-all approach. However, he said earlier that no academy would be allowed to fail. How can he guarantee that? Will there be a wide range of failure prevention measures?

[Mr Gibb]

Any Government face such challenges, but the Government whom the hon. Lady supported for 13 years were not that effective in dealing with them. Under the previous Government, a considerable number of schools were in special measures for a long period, and the results in some schools were very poor. This is going to be a challenge for this Government, as it was for the previous Government. It will also be a challenge for the organisation that monitors the quangos—the Young People’s Learning Agency.

[Ian Mearns]

The way in which the legislation has been framed seems to have built in a mechanism under which that scrutiny will not need to be carried out in the first instance, because only outstanding schools will be allowed to go forward. The whole point of the previous Government’s academies programme was to lift standards in schools that were performing below the level that we all want for our children. This Government’s programme is for outstanding schools only—[Hon. Members: “No, it’s not.”] Well, that is certainly the way the legislation seems to be framed.

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friends have just made the point from a sedentary position that that is not the case. It is not only outstanding schools that are being invited to acquire academy status; it is all schools. We are also continuing to address the problems at the other end of the scale, to ensure that schools that are in special measures and that are struggling can acquire academy status and have a sponsor that can raise standards in those schools. Those projects, and that approach to policy, will continue.

I am surprised at the opposition to these proposals, given that they build on the legislation of the previous Government. They do not represent a major departure from the previous approach. The Bill has only 20 clauses, and the reason for that is that it builds on the legislation introduced by the previous Government.

[Dr Pugh]

I want to test my understanding of what the Minister is saying. In response to the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), he said that he would be perfectly happy for a governing body to spend a fair amount of money on behalf of local children, even though there might not be anyone on that governing body who had any connection to local children. Surely there is an issue of accountability there—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. This is not a wide-ranging debate on academies in general. We are debating the amendment, so perhaps the Minister could now direct his comments to that.

[Mr Gibb]

Thank you very much, Mr Evans. I will seek to do so.

There will be parent governors on the governing bodies of the schools, so they will not be divorced from them. We are trying to be permissive and to allow academies to draw up their own arrangements, and to select their own directors for the academy trusts and governors for the school. That is the approach that we want to take; we do not want to take a top-down approach to the governance of schools.

The hon. Member for Gedling mentioned the figure of 200 in the impact assessment. That is an illustrative figure to show the costs and the benefits that would arise if that number of schools were to convert annually. Given that this is permissive legislation, we cannot say that we will require x number of schools to convert annually and that the cost will therefore be y. He also asked for the number of primary schools that had expressed an interest. I can give him a figure, but with all the caveats that my fellow Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) expressed earlier. Of the 1,900 expressions of interest, 862 have been from primary schools, and 529 of the 862 have been judged by Ofsted to be outstanding.

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the Minister for that information. How many primary schools does he expect to become academies in September? He has talked about expressions of interest, but how many does he expect actually to convert?

[Mr Gibb]

It is very hard to say at the moment. I cannot anticipate what the number will be. For every application that has been submitted, there is a named official working with the school. That process is happening right now, and I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait until we are able to announce the figure. I think that he will be very pleased with the figure.

[Vernon Coaker]

But what will happen in counties such as Leicestershire, where the schools are now on holiday? How will the negotiations carry on there?

[Mr Gibb]

The discussions will carry on through August; not everyone is rushing away. Those schools that are determined to open as academies in September will be working throughout August to achieve that.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the costs of insurance and VAT. Those will be covered by the general annual grant paid to academies. He asked about federations, a question also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson).

[Vernon Coaker]

I appreciate that the Minister may not know the answer to this, but what is his estimate of the VAT cost? Is it an additional cost, as I think it might be, for the academies? Is it factored in at 17.5%, and is the increase to 20% in January taken into account?

[Mr Gibb]

I will happily respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. As he knows, having been a Minister, there is a VAT cost because academies, as independent schools, cannot reclaim it, whereas when they were maintained schools the local authority had a reclaim procedure that enabled them to reclaim it. The VAT that academies cannot reclaim at the moment will form part of their funding and does not present a cost to Government; it is simply an internal accounting issue.

There are hard federations and soft federations. A hard federation has one governing body that is shared by the number of schools within it; that governing body can of course apply to become an academy. Soft federations, which have a number of governing bodies, can also apply, regardless of whether one or two of the schools are outstanding. If there are no outstanding schools in the federation, things will take a little longer than if there were.

Primaries with a nursery school will be able to convert to an academy, notwithstanding the fact that the nursery school is within the school. In those circumstances, therefore, the nursery school will become an academy.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the early years foundation stage, which does of course apply to independent schools. Academies are independent schools and the early years foundation stage is statutory, so it will also apply to academies.

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) talked about her constituents being unable to get their children into their first choice of primary school. This is absolutely the issue we are debating. We want to raise standards across all schools and to invite new providers into the system, particularly in areas such as those she described, in which there is parental dissatisfaction with existing provision. That is where the focus of our efforts will be.

[Glenda Jackson]

The issue is not standards but capacity. There are insufficient places, and for the majority of primary schools in my constituency there is no possibility of extending their existing sites. As I said before the general election, we were promised a new primary school. Where has that gone? Why are the hon. Gentleman’s Government not meeting that promise?

[Mr Gibb]

That is a different issue, and capital will be available to deal with the increasing population of young children. The birth rate is increasing, which means that new capacity will be required in some areas, and those capital costs will be met. I thought that the hon. Lady was making a slightly different point—that some very popular schools are over-subscribed because parents from a wider area try to get their children in, crowding out local children in some circumstances. We want to ensure that parents are happy with the quality, as well as the quantity, of provision.

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that there are specific issues in inner London, particularly given the massive increase in population mobility and local authorities’ policy of encouraging families in. There are therefore some issues specific to central London that the Minister needs to be aware of as he puts this policy in place.

[Mr Gibb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue on behalf of his constituents, which he has raised before in Westminster Hall debates. I am aware of it, we are concerned about it and I can assure him it will be dealt with.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall raised a number of issues. In particular, he talked about monitoring schools and asked about the Young People’s Learning Agency. I reassure him that it will have the capacity to monitor academies’ performance as the number of academies increases over the years. He also asked about buying back services from local authorities. That is very much part of the model. Just because a school opts to become an academy, it does not mean that it will sever its links with the local authority, or will not continue to use local authority services. Local authorities that provide high-quality services are more likely to be able to sell them to academies.

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s comments, and will continue to reflect on his arguments, but I make three points, which are best summed up by the Minister in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Hill:

“First…we believe that the number of primaries that will convert in the very first wave is likely to be very modest. Secondly, the Secretary of State has made it clear that he will keep the situation under review and learn any lessons from the first primary converters.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2010; Vol. 720, c. 127.]

His third point was that there will be an annual report to Parliament on the progress of academies policy. Noble Lords from my hon. Friend’s party managed to persuade the Minister in the other place to put that requirement on the statute book. That report is precisely the vehicle through which to consider the impact of academies policy on primary schools.

Having made those few remarks, I very much hope that I have persuaded the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend not to press their amendments.

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the Minister for his response and the information that he gave us in answer to some of our questions. The issue of VAT is interesting; I am not quite sure of the mechanism involved, but if the Department for Education reimburses schools, hopefully the Treasury will reimburse the Department. I am not quite sure which way round that goes, but I leave the issue with the Minister and will see whether he is more successful with that argument about money than the Department was in its argument about Building Schools for the Future money.

Some of the answers to questions posed by Members from across the Chamber demonstrate that the Bill has been rushed, and demonstrate problems with what the policy will mean in practice. It is interesting that in many respects—this is not so much the case for primaries as for special schools—the Minister is saying, “Trust us. This is permissive legislation; we will sort out some of the detail after we’ve legislated, hopefully in the next education and schools Bill, in the autumn.” That is not particularly appropriate. I understand why the Government want to rush through this legislation—they see it as flagship—but the Minister himself said, in answer to various questions, that issues are being worked on.

Let me give the Minister one example. If I were trying to be nasty to him, I would ask him to explain to the Committee how the ready reckoner on the DFE website works. I am sure that he understands, but nobody else knows how it works. The point is not whether he understands it, but whether anybody out there does. It is telling that large numbers of primary—and, indeed, secondary—schools trying to work out what becoming an academy would mean for them find it difficult to make the ready reckoner work. Some local authorities have been astonished to find that when they put their figures in, it seems that they would pay out more money than they receive. There is some work to be done on that, and no doubt that issue is one that will be looked at when the detail is sorted.

--- Later in debate ---

I know that the Secretary of State has been keen to placate local government representatives on these issues. Indeed, in a speech at the Local Government Association annual conference in Bournemouth, he confirmed that he sees councils continuing to play a strong, strategic role in the school system. However, local government is very disappointed that there has been no opportunity for formal consultation on these proposals, which has left little chance to discuss in detail some of the potential issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) referred to the ready reckoner implications earlier. In my local authority, some of the ready reckoner calculations done by finance officers have resulted in horrendous—

[Mr Gibb]

The ready reckoner is used to give an indication to prospective academies of what their funding might be. It is not to be used by local authorities to calculate the claw-back, because they are different figures. Academies are funded through two different routes, so the figures would not match.

[Ian Mearns]

Nevertheless, local authorities are uncertain about the financial implications and their capacity to improve schools in the future. Indeed, education cannot be delivered in isolation from the wider range of local public services used by children and young people—or by the local community. Within education, if the role of local authorities as commissioners was recognised and strengthened, the children’s services budget could be more efficiently used by delivering a wider range of services through schools.

It is important to ensure that all children have fair access to a place in a local school, and that academies operate a fair admissions procedure. Similarly, it is imperative that all schools operate a fair exclusions policy. I was pleased that the Secretary of State gave a reassurance on Second Reading when he said that academies

“have to abide by the admissions code and subscribe to fair access protocols, so that those hard-to-place children are placed appropriately.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 31.]

However, I would like to see an inclusion in the Bill that all academies must comply with admissions law and codes and fair access protocols, as well as regulations relating to pupil exclusions. That would ensure that they were on the same footing as other schools, requiring a change to primary legislation to amend and making them truly equal partners. I therefore ask the Committee to accept amendment No. 19 in my name because it would achieve exactly that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

Is it not an indictment of 13 years of Labour Government that outstanding schools are disproportionately in areas of affluence? That is the best example of that Government’s track record that could be revealed, and the hon. Gentleman has revealed it to the Committee.

[Vernon Coaker]

That could be a debate that the hon. Gentleman will want to have another time. The context for this debate, though, is to consider the changed profile of schools that wish to become academies as opposed to the profile of schools that are already academies. We are debating a different situation in which those academies, through a funding agreement rather than through statutory legislation, now have to abide by various things such as admissions codes, exclusions and so on. That is the point that we are making about the genuine difference between these two sets of the schools and the need for some of the amendments that we have before us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

That is absolutely the case, and people are concerned that schools that are already fairly exclusive in many respects may not wish to admit pupils of that type.

I shall give an example of how difficult the matter is, and I hope that the Minister will comment specifically on it. The Government’s view is that none of our suggestions needs to be on the face of the Bill. We fundamentally disagree, hence the amendments that we have tabled. We do not believe it is enough for the admissions provisions to be set out simply in the funding agreements. One of the most fundamental changes that I can find in annexe A of the draft funding agreement, on admissions—I am sure there are many others—relates to the annual procedures for determining admissions arrangements. In the current model agreement, the relevant annexe contains detailed provisions with which an academy has to comply in order to remain within the terms of the funding agreement. The proposed draft completely removes those provisions.

Somebody cynical would ask why, when the Government are seeking to reassure Members throughout the House who want a fair admissions process, the Minister or the Department has signed off a model funding agreement that removes some of the detailed provisions on admissions.

[Mr Gibb]

What we are trying to do across government at the moment is reduce the bureaucratic burdens faced by the public services. However, the model funding agreement still applies the law on admissions, as well as the admissions code and admissions appeal code, to all converting academies. It achieves exactly the same effect as before, and academies will be on exactly the same basis as maintained schools when it comes to admissions. We can achieve that with fewer words.

[Vernon Coaker]

The question to the Minister is therefore why he does not put that in the Bill.

[Mr Gibb]

For the same reason the hon. Gentleman did not put such measures in legislation for the 200 academies over which he presided—it is not the model that we are working to.

[Vernon Coaker]

The model that the Minister is working to is one that will lead to a massive expansion in academies right across the country, not just 200 at secondary schools in areas of social disadvantage and educational underperformance. The new academies will be outstanding schools that are already doing well and are socially advantaged, and that have a totally different profile from existing academies. At the same time as Members throughout the Committee are raising concerns about what the impact of that will be on admissions to the new academies, the Minister weakens the model funding agreement. Those things are tucked away—they are not deliberately hidden—in model funding agreements. We need to compare funding agreements, as I will with respect to exclusions, but significant changes in provisions are included in them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

This has been a wide-ranging debate, touching on the education shibboleths in all political parties. The amendments cover issues relating to admissions, selection, faith and exclusions. The majority of these amendments would place in the Bill requirements that have been regulated by funding agreements since the inception of the academies programme—in other words, they would increase regulation for academies.

It was the position of the previous Government that academies should not be regulated directly by legislation, but through their funding agreements. We agree. The whole focus of the Bill is to allow more schools to take on academy freedoms and we simply do not agree that it is appropriate to undermine that intention by incorporating into the legislation a host of additional requirements to which academies have not previously been subject.

Amendments 11, 12, 13, 19 and 23 would build into the Bill a duty for academies to comply with the school admissions code. Amendments 19 and 27 would place on the face of the Bill requirements in relation to exclusions and behaviour, including participation in behaviour partnerships. The previous Labour Administration did not deem that necessary for the 203 academies they opened. Why should we do so in expanding the programme?

Academies must already comply with admissions law and the codes through their funding agreements. Their funding agreements also require them to act in accordance with the law on exclusions as if the academy were a maintained school, and to have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance on exclusions. This is the same wording that applies to all maintained schools. The new model funding agreement is in the House Library and it is clear from it that academies are required to adopt admissions policies and arrangements that will be

“in accordance with admissions law and the DfE Codes of Practice as they apply to maintained schools.”

The exclusions annexe to the funding agreement also requires academies to

“act in accordance with the law on exclusions as if the Academy were a maintained school”

and to

“have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance on exclusions”.

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 code, it is applied to academies in the same way as other aspects of the admissions code, through the funding agreement. This means that academies, along with all maintained schools in a local area, will take their fair share of hard-to-place pupils, including those previously excluded from other schools. The funding agreement is crystal clear about the compliance requirements. The amendments are, therefore, unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Vernon Coaker]

Will the Minister comment on Lord Hill’s letter, in which he says that grammar schools will have the ability to extend 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 Mike Hancock]

Will the Minister give way?

[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 Brady]

I am greatly reassured by the tone of what my hon. Friend has said, but it is not entirely clear whether he is giving me an assurance that the ballot arrangements will be introduced at a later date, or whether he is suggesting that other protections might be introduced.

[Mr Gibb]

What I am suggesting now—it is as far as I can go at this stage—is that we will include the provisions in the funding agreements of academies. That will provide strong protection—as strong, in effect, as it would be if the measures were on the statute book.

[Mr Brady]

Is my hon. Friend saying that if a grammar school transferred to academy status, it would not be able to vary its selective admissions under the terms of the funding agreement without the support of a parental ballot?

[Mr Gibb]

According to my understanding, that is correct. All the protections that currently apply under the ballot procedure would still apply. If for some reason the governing body of a selective academy sought to change its status as a selective school, the funding agreement would require a ballot of parents to be held before that provision took effect.

[Mr Brady]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way a third time. He has been immensely helpful, and I think that that final reassurance will be of great help to the many excellent grammar schools—including many in the borough of Trafford—that are keen to proceed with seeking academy status. It is certainly sufficient to persuade me not to press amendment 49 to a vote.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

Well, it can do, because even under the previous Government, when the hon. Gentleman presided over this, it was the case that grammar schools could expand by up to 25% without publishing statutory proposals. Under that code, and under his Administration, grammar schools were permitted to expand by up to 25%, so we are not changing the fundamentals behind the expansion of grammar schools. They still have to demonstrate that there is a fundamental need and that consultation has taken place.

[Vernon Coaker]

What I was asking, even if we were wrong, is how what he has just said squares with the exclusion of grammar schools in paragraph 1.22 of the admissions code.

[Mr Gibb]

The provision is consistent in the same way that it was consistent with the arrangement under the hon. Gentleman’s Administration, and under current law on maintained grammar schools—[Interruption.] Well, the hon. Gentleman was the Minister who presided over the introduction of these regulations, so he should know why these schools are currently allowed to expand by 25% and that that provision is still consistent with the admissions code.

[Vernon Coaker]

I do not have a problem with these things; if I was wrong, I was wrong. The hon. Gentleman is the Minister now. It is no good blaming me; he has responsibility for it now. All I am asking is how what he has just said corresponds to that aspect of the school admissions code.

[Mr Gibb]

By the same mechanism that currently allows maintained grammar schools to expand by 25%. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that response, I am happy to respond to any parliamentary question that he tables.

[Vernon Coaker]

He could write to me.

[Mr Gibb]

I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman if he would prefer that.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the exclusion of children with special educational needs. As he will know, the current 203 academies have a higher proportion of children with SEN and they exclude such children disproportionately less than maintained schools.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) raised the concern that freeing faith schools from the national curriculum would create a risk of their teaching creationism, but there is no risk of that because they will still be required to teach a broad and balanced curriculum. The funding agreement will continue to require academies to teach religious education. For non-faith delegated academies, that means teaching the locally agreed syllabus; for faith schools it means teaching a curriculum in accordance with the tenets of the relevant faith. That is the same requirement as applies to voluntary-aided schools.

My hon. Friend also raised the issue of schools converting to academy status. As I have just said, the same rules apply as for maintained schools that want to convert to faith schools: they have to go through the whole process of re-designation, which requires the permission of the Secretary of State.

My hon. Friend asked where provision on the 50% rule is. It is not in the funding agreement, but we would not enter into a funding agreement that included admissions arrangements that allowed faith selection of more than 50%. That is a policy position, but it has been confirmed in both Houses and I confirm again that we will not sign funding agreements with new faith schools that intend to select more than half their intake on the basis of faith.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) asked about co-ordinated admissions arrangements. I am happy to assure her that they will apply. She also asked about levers for enforcing the admissions code. The Young People’s Learning Agency will ensure compliance with funding agreements on behalf of the Secretary of State. If an academy breached an obligation in its funding agreement, the YPLA would seek to enforce the obligation and the Secretary of State could ultimately do so through the courts. The Secretary of State has a specific power within the funding agreement to direct the admission of an individual pupil or to direct the amendment of an academy’s admissions arrangements if they do not comply with the code.

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson), who is not in her place, asserted that the new academies will increase social division, but they will not. The Bill states at clause 1(6)(c) that academies must provide

“education for pupils of different abilities”,

and at clause 1(6)(d) that they must provide

“education for pupils who are wholly or mainly drawn from the area in which the school is situated.”

In response to the queries of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), the admissions code requires fair and inclusive admission arrangements and outlaws any notion of cherry-picking. Of course, the academies will be bound by the code. Academies must be part of local fair access protocols, which require them to admit their fair share of challenging pupils, some of whom are likely to have been permanently excluded from other schools.

This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I have spoken for long enough and I hope that I have managed to reassure my hon. Friends in both parts of the coalition and Opposition Members. I hope that on the basis of the assurances I have given, hon. Members will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

[Ian Mearns]

With your leave, Ms Primarolo, I am happy to withdraw the amendment and to defer to the amendments that are put at the appropriate time later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

In any normal consultation process—I have had long experience in six to 10 years of working for a local authority—under both the last Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government, even at the hardest of times, when there were real issues and really dogma-driven changes, people were still allowed the right to consult and to have their questions answered. There is no way, in six weeks, even if the staff were still at work, that these questions could be answered, and to say that this is the right way forward and to pretend that somehow it fits into the concept of the big society is clearly and utterly wrong. Staff will be going back to work in six weeks’ time and they will be told by the head, by the board of governors, “You either take it or leave it.” That has to be wrong.

[Mr Gibb]

I start by wishing Hattie a very happy eighth birthday on behalf of all Government Members. Happy birthday, Hattie.

Amendment 20 would require any proposal for an additional school or a free school to demonstrate a need for additional capacity within the local area. We have made it clear that we want to improve choice in education. A free school proposal will be required to demonstrate parental demand and support. Where there is such demand, we will not turn down the proposal simply to protect other local schools. As my noble Friend Lady Perry said in the other place:

“Why can we not trust the people who run our schools and education services to behave in a sensible and honourable way? That is how they have always behaved…To be prescriptive, to write down as a rule that we are consulting only because it is the law, would be alien to the way in which good schools operate—and only good schools will come this way.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 July 2010; Vol. 720, c. 623.]

All schools will need to drive up standards to retain their pupils and remain viable. Any proposer of an academy that does not replace a maintained school, including a free school, must consult such people as they think appropriate before entering into funding arrangements with the Secretary of State on the principle of whether to enter into such arrangements. That will allow for representations to be made regarding any concerns that appropriate people may have over such proposals.

[Charlotte Leslie]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be utter lunacy and madness for either an additional school or a school seeking to apply for academy status not to meet the needs of the local community around it, because then it would not succeed as a school? It would be part of the process of its change that it would seek to meet the needs of the entire community around it.

[Mr Gibb]

Absolutely. That is the whole point. It is in the Bill. Any school that sought to establish itself without talking to and consulting local people would not fare well in trying to attract pupils.

Furthermore, clause 9 requires the Secretary of State, when deciding whether to enter into academy arrangements with an additional school, an entirely new or free school, to take into account the impact of such a school on the existing schools and colleges in the area. That will ensure that in making decisions on any free school proposal due consideration will always be given to its wider implications. Clause 9 is included in the Bill following helpful debates in the other place where noble Lords expressed concerns over the impact that any brand new academies—free schools—would have on other schools and colleges in the area. We agreed that in making decisions on any free school proposal, due consideration should always be given to its wider implications. That was our intention even before we tabled that amendment in the other place. We were happy to place that duty in the Bill.

Amendment No. 50 seeks to define “impact”, which the Secretary of State would be required to take account of when considering entering into arrangements for an additional free school. I fully understand hon. Members’ concerns, but we do not wish to prescribe the matters to be considered in each case. Every school is different and its case should be considered on its merits. The problem with a list is that people tend to focus on what is not on it, and that risks other considerations that are not included being considered irrelevant and unimportant. In fact, they could well be quite important.

Lord Adonis said:

“The idea that parents should not be able to access new or additional school places in areas where the schools are not providing good quality places simply because the provision of those places will cause detriment to other schools fundamentally ignores the interests of parents and their right to have a decent quality school to send their children to. If there is not such a decent quality school and someone is prepared to do something substantive about it, they should be applauded”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 2010; Vol. 719, c. 1264.]

We agree with Lord Adonis’s sentiments.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Although I agree with my hon. Friend that the amendment should be rejected, may we expect the Secretary of State to come forward with an explanation of the approach that he will take to the assessment of this impact? Otherwise it could appear that the Secretary of State was making such decisions without a framework that the public in a local area could expect to understand.

[Mr Gibb]

We need to try to get away from reams of guidance and secondary legislation. The wording of clause 9 is clear. It states:

“The Secretary of State must take into account what the impact of establishing the additional school would be likely to be on maintained schools, Academies and institutions within the further education sector in the area in which the additional school is (or is proposed to be) situated.”

It is clear what is intended, and what has always been intended by the Secretary of State because he is under a duty to act reasonably. The clause just reinforces the duty that already exists.

[Mr Stuart]

If the Secretary of State will not produce a framework to show how he will approach such cases, will he publish the assessment that he makes in order to come to a conclusion? People deserve to be able to understand the logic behind a decision, even if it is just precedent and looking at different schools in different places at different times. That might also help people who want to come forward with proposals. If they do not understand the Secretary of State’s thinking, they will not know whether or not to make a proposal.

[Mr Gibb]

I will ponder my hon. Friend’s point. I personally think that it is clear what sort of issues the Secretary of State will take into account when deciding whether to accept a proposal for an additional school in an area. To be too specific in setting out guidance would be a mistake, because it could end up luring future providers into not considering issues that they should take into account when assessing the impact that their proposal would have on the local area. As I say, I will ponder my hon. Friend’s points and perhaps write to him on this issue.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Surely it is a matter for both natural justice and judicial review? I am sure that the Minister has taken very good advice, but if he does not open the process up and give people the opportunity to make representations on it, he will lay himself open to many more problems in the future.

[Mr Gibb]

I will ponder the points that both my hon. Friends have made and I will write to them shortly to set out our position with greater clarity.

In the letter to lead Members sent on 26 May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that the Government see strong local authorities as central to our plans to improve education. We want to see a smooth transition to the new school system and want a genuine dialogue with local government—and other partners—to that end. There are important questions about the role of local authorities in school improvement, how to ensure that local provision meets the needs of all children in an area, including the most vulnerable, and how we help schools to understand the opportunities, freedoms and responsibilities of the new system.

Over the next weeks and months, we want a further dialogue with local government on those and related matters, and we do not think it would be right to pre-empt those discussions by accepting the amendment, which would clearly place a bureaucratic burden on local authorities ahead of a wider discussion about their continuing role. As I have already explained, additional schools are required to consult locally on their proposals, and the Secretary of State has a duty to consider the wider impact of any school on its local area, so a requirement for him to take account of an annual report provided by the local authority would, in our view, be unnecessary.

On new clause 5, we share the commitment of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) to promoting fair and proper processes when establishing all new schools, including free schools, which is why we have put in place a rigorous approval process and are requiring that groups comply with every aspect of it before being allowed to open a new school. As part of the process to establish a free school, groups will have to demonstrate that there is genuine, robust demand for places at the school they are proposing, both at the proposal stage and in completing their business case and plan. To meet this requirement, we expect groups to provide evidence of this demand, perhaps through a petition or a declaration from interested parties, but in every case demonstrating clear evidence of unmet local need, not just expressions of support.

The new clause would prevent organisations or groups from offering financial inducements to parents and pupils to encourage them to attend or support new free schools. It is, of course, right that we would not wish to see any organisation trying to manipulate public opinion or to give financial incentives to any person to obtain their support. However, it shows a marked lack of trust in parents, if I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, to suggest that they would send their child to any school on the back of a financial incentive. They will obviously want to send their child to the best school possible.

[Mr Iain Wright]

Will the Minister address the point I made on this subject? Parents might quite rightly be disappointed about Building Schools for the Future capital being scrapped, but are the Secretary of State or the Minister saying, “We’re trying to look for additional school capital programmes, and if you set up a new school, you’ll be first in line, regardless of what the wider community requires”? Can he say that that will definitely not be the case?

[Mr Gibb]

We have allocated £50 million of funding from the harnessing technology fund to restart the standards and diversity fund, which was established in 2008 by the hon. Gentleman’s Government to promote new schools. That is the fund that will provide capital for free schools until 31 March 2011. It is quite clear that it does not come from the Building Schools for the Future fund.

New clause 5 would have an unintended consequence as a result of its wide scope. For example, it would prevent a school from being able to offer subsidies for the provision of school uniforms to pupils from low-income families, which I am sure is not something that Labour Members would want.

[Chris Skidmore]

New clause 5 mentions inducements to pupils, as my hon. Friend mentioned. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) also made a point on this subject. However, would the new clause not also affect the education maintenance allowance, which was a financial inducement introduced by the previous Government? I am sure he does not oppose that.

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend makes his point in his own way, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Hartlepool will respond to it when he decides whether to press his amendment to a vote.

I want to clarify one point about the approval of new schools. A very strong evidential basis must be demonstrated, not one based on offering rewards. In order to ensure that places are of sufficient long-term quality and sustainability, not all applicants to this process will be successful. However, it is right that, where cases are properly made, we strongly support communities that want to establish new schools in order to improve choice for their own and other young people in their areas and to drive up standards across them.

Amendment 29 would amend the definition of what amounts to an additional school and the circumstances in which the Secretary of State would be required to take account of the impact of an additional school. Noble Lords in the other place raised concerns about circumstances in which a free school was partially new, but partially replacing an existing school—for example, where a school had a broader age range than the school that it had replaced. I can confirm that it is our policy to expect convertors to convert “as is”. Therefore, any school wishing to change its age range would need to follow either the relevant statutory procedures for prescribed alterations before conversion or the relevant administrative processes after conversion, rather than as part of the conversion process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

Does the Minister also think it correct that the professionals who deliver the education of our children have the right to be consulted and that that should be set out in the Bill?

[Mr Gibb]

I do not think that it needs to be set out in the Bill, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: of course staff should be consulted, and they would be. TUPE––the transfer of undertakings (protection of employment) regulations—will govern the contracts of all the employees of the school and the transfer of employment on the same terms. He should feel assured that the necessary statutory consultation, by the employer and with the employee, will take place as part of the process.

[Caroline Lucas]

Why do we just have to take the hon. Gentleman’s word for it? No disrespect, but if it is so self-evidently clear that the consultation will take place with all the relevant parties, why could that not be set down in the Bill? For a lot of us, that would be a way of putting our minds at rest.

[Mr Gibb]

Well, no disrespect right back at you. The point is that the TUPE regulations are already in statute and they have to be followed. Whenever there is a transfer of undertakings, those procedures are followed, and there is no need to set that out in the Bill. However, we are simply adopting the same approach that the previous Government took to academies, which is that we regulate through the funding agreement. The hon. Lady can also be assured that the things said in this House are on the record for her to hold us to account against, so the more she can get me to say now, the more reassured she can be.

This Government’s approach is to let the people who have the experience and knowledge in their areas of work make the decisions that will affect them. The promoter of a free school will know who the interested parties are in their local area. Any proposal for a free school must be able to demonstrate genuine, robust demand for places at the proposed school—for example, through a petition or a declaration from interested parties. As I said, clause 9 requires the Secretary of State, when deciding whether to enter into academy arrangements with a free school, to take into account the impact of such a school on existing schools and colleges in the area. That will ensure that when decisions on any free school proposal are made, due consideration will always be given to its wider implications.

I want to run through some of the other points that the hon. Member for Hartlepool made. I made the point about consultation, but he also talked about academies being disconnected from their surrounding areas. However, the model funding agreement for academies, which hon. Members will have seen, explicitly says that

“the school will be at the heart of its community, sharing facilities with other schools and the wider community”.

That is a key provision of the model funding agreement.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about TUPE. Consultation can take place after the academy order has been made. The key issue for staff transferring—he also mentioned the discussions taking place in August—is the signing of the funding agreement. These consultations can take place well into September and October before the funding agreement is signed.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the disapplication of sections 15 and 17 of the Education Inspections Act 2006 for schools converting under clause 4. This is relevant because under those arrangements the school is not closing, but converting, so there is no need for provisions to govern all the steps that have to be gone through when a school is closed. Consultations are provided for, as I said, under clause 5. He also asked about the impact on the further education sector. Clause 9(2) requires the Secretary of State to take into account the impact on colleges as well as on other schools.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) asked about the facilities at free schools. Health and safety law will, of course, apply. Ofsted will continue to inspect, and there are detailed provisions about fire, safety, security and structure, food hygiene and so forth in the Education (Independent School Standards) (England) Regulations 2003, which will now apply to academies. Those regulations are very detailed; if they were not detailed, many independent schools around the country would have the same worries as my hon. Friend.

With those few remarks, I hope that I have assured hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, and I urge them not to press their amendments.

[Mr Iain Wright]

I begin by thanking the Minister for his usual courtesy and kindness in wishing my daughter Hattie a very happy birthday. The whole Committee is welcome to join us for “Toy Story 3” on Sunday, if it so wishes.

The Minister has reassured me to some extent on clauses 9 and 10 and on the model funding agreement. That goes some way to addressing my concerns and I also thank him for clarifying some points about the FE sector. However, he has not gone far enough. As I said, there are fundamental weaknesses at the heart of the Bill, as seen in this group of amendments. Those weaknesses are on capacity and on consultation. With great respect to the Minister, he has not reassured me on those matters.

More to the point, some comments by the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman), and the excellent comments by the Chair of the Select Committee, showed that there is concern about the gap in the appropriate level of consultation. I understand that the Minister hopes to ponder on that issue, but I would suggest that he table a Government amendment on Report, which we could consider. I would be more than happy to discuss any such amendment with him. I suspect, however, that he will not do that.

I repeat that there are fundamental weaknesses on capacity, which amendment 20 would address, and on consultation, which amendment 33 would address. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the Committee on those amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana R. Johnson]

I, too, was not party to those negotiations, but I understand that that was not possible.

I intend to press amendment 26 to a Division to test the opinion of the Committee on that very important proposal.

[Mr Gibb]

Amendment 1 would require all academies established in future to follow the national curriculum rather than one that satisfied

“the requirements of section 78 of the EA 2002”,

which is that academies must provide a

“balanced and broadly based curriculum”.

Amendment 25 would mean that new academies would be required to teach the national curriculum in

“science, mathematics, information technology and English”.

Academies have been regulated since their inception by funding agreements. The previous Government took the stance—for many years—that that was the appropriate mechanism, and we agree with them. We intend to retain the funding agreement as the principle regulatory mechanism for academies. Via the new model funding agreement, academies will be required to teach English, maths and science as part of a broad and balanced curriculum. Beyond that, they can choose a curriculum that both engages and meets the needs of their pupils.

The freedoms in the academy system allow school leaders and teachers to be innovative in their approaches to raising standards and improving pupil engagement by tailoring the curriculum to the needs of their students in response to the type and quality of education demanded by parents. We trust teachers to use their professional judgment. They are the people who are best-placed to make such decisions. We want more freedom and flexibility for schools, not less.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am listening to the Minister with interest, but I am somewhat astonished. I remember him when he was in opposition speaking strongly in favour of using synthetic phonics in teaching, with which I entirely agree, and advocating imposing requirements on teachers as to how they teach. However, now he is taking a Maoist approach—let a thousand flowers bloom—and giving teachers the freedom to do what they like. That is something of a contradiction.

[Mr Gibb]

The Conservatives have never said, either in opposition or in government, that we will pass a law requiring teachers to teach in that way, although it is the law—as introduced by the previous Government—that phonics should be the method used to teach children to read. I believe, as does the hon. Gentleman, that that method raises standards. We believe that schools should use best practice and we will not countenance schools that use methods that do not result in young people being able to read early in their school careers, which is why we are introducing a test of children’s reading skills for six-year-olds. We will say more about that in the weeks and months ahead.

The hon. Gentleman will also wish to know that we are planning a review of the national curriculum that will inform our proposals for a set of core knowledge. We expect that each academy will want to incorporate that into its curriculum and that there will be parental pressure for them to do so. However, that will be an expectation, not a requirement. We believe that the freedom to be imaginative with curriculum design within a broad and balanced context is a core freedom at the heart of the academies programme that will underpin the improvement in standards that we all want for our schools.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Again, I am listening with interest to what the Minister is saying, but he will know, as I do, that there is a wide range of teaching philosophies among teachers, some of which are successful and some of which are not. We have suffered from this for the past couple of generations. There are apparently 1 million people in London who cannot read because of mistaken teaching techniques. Is it not time that we started to require successful teaching methods to be adopted in all our schools?

[Mr Gibb]

I would hate to be on the opposite side of this argument with the hon. Gentleman. He will have to wait until we make our announcements on this, but there are going to be reforms to initial teacher training, to the tests at age six, and to the training of teachers through continued professional development to ensure that they all use best practice in teaching children to read.

Evidence from the National Reading Panel in the United States and elsewhere overwhelmingly suggests that using early systematic synthetic phonics in the teaching of reading is the most effective way of teaching young children to read. That is my personal view, too. In particular, it closes the gap between boys and girls and between children from poorer backgrounds and others. I have to say, however, that there might well be other methods that the hon. Gentleman and I have not come across that could be even more effective than systematic synthetic phonics. I would like to see what they are, but we cannot rule out teachers being innovative and using such methods, if that results in children learning to read sooner and more effectively.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

May I take the Minister back to the subject of PSHE teaching? If an academy does not include it in its curriculum because the governors do not believe it to be appropriate, but groups of parents want it to be taught in the school, who will decide whether the parents’ wishes should be granted? Might they be prevented from allowing their children to receive PSHE education?

[Mr Gibb]

That is the position in every school at the moment. PSHE is not a statutory requirement in any maintained school or academy. The essence of our reforms is to give parents greater choice—a genuine choice, not the faux choice that parents in many areas now face when they have been denied their first choice of school. The thrust of the Bill, and of the Government’s education policy more generally, is to give parents more choice by providing a diverse range of schools to which they can send their children. They will then be able to find a school with the education orthodoxy and philosophy that they agree with, and that could also involve subjects such as PSHE.

Amendment 30 seeks clarity about the arrangements for the very youngest in our schools. I hope that I can reassure hon. Members that the amendment is not needed, because the requirements it seeks are already in place. It seeks to ensure that the provisions in the Childcare Act 2006 relating to learning and development, welfare and assessment will apply to every academy that provides for the very youngest children. However, the Act already provides for that. Section 40 requires all schools to deliver the early years foundation stage if they provide for pupils aged three to the end of the academic year in which they turn five. That includes independent schools. The Act does not use the word “academy”, but academies are legally categorised as independent schools, and all schools providing for the under-threes—academies, independent and maintained schools—are required to register with Ofsted and to deliver the early years foundation stage. There is a limited number of exemptions from that requirement, such as when the provision is for a very short amount of time per day, but the requirement applies to all providers, and there is no difference for academies.

I should also point out that the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) announced on 6 July an independent review of the early years foundation stage, which will report in the spring of 2011. It will look at precisely the areas that hon. Members—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana R. Johnson) in particular—wish to deal with in the amendment. I hope that that provides further reassurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana R. Johnson]

Is it now the coalition Government’s position that they are not going to proceed with making PSHE statutory in maintained schools or academies?

[Mr Gibb]

The coalition’s position is that we are having a curriculum review and all these issues will be addressed in it.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I commend the position that my hon. Friend is taking on amendment 26. Does that amendment not highlight the seeming lack of respect for the fact that governors, in conjunction with parents and teachers, take PSHE seriously, are concerned about its quality and want it to be properly taught with proper values-based teaching underlying it?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is the sort of issue we will look at when the review takes place. The curriculum review that is taking place later this year must be the right place to look at PSHE, to ensure that this important subject is debated properly. Members will have every opportunity to contribute to that debate, but at this point it makes sense to ensure that academies’ policy on PSHE does not go further than PSHE policy in maintained schools.

Clause 28 of the model funding agreement already states:

“The Academy Trust shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State on sex and relationship education to ensure that children at the Academy are protected from inappropriate teaching materials and they learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and for bringing up children.”

I hope that that provision reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who raised the question of why the national curriculum is not on the statute book for academies. As I mentioned before, there is statutory provision in section 78 of the Education Act 2002 for a broad and balanced curriculum. Creationism cannot be taught as fact in academies or in maintained schools, and it cannot be taught as part of science lessons. The hon. Lady’s notion of the purpose of education—enabling the potential of any individual to be fulfilled, whether that is academic or vocational—I agree with 100%. She is absolutely right: fulfilling the potential of every child to the best of their ability, in whatever field that is, is the purpose of education.

The hon. Lady referred to the Manchester academies, which are jointly sponsored by the local authorities and by business. Their ethos is built around this partnership and is not solely related to the skills needs of those businesses. As I said before, the Bill requires academies to have a broad and balanced curriculum, so she can be reassured that the things she described as happening at those academies are not happening.

[Dan Rogerson]

Earlier, I talked about monitoring the meeting of the criteria. On ensuring that academies deliver a broad-based curriculum, would there be a number of triggers—things that would concern Ofsted and encourage it to take an interest in an academy, if reports of them reached it?

[Mr Gibb]

Ofsted will, of course, continue to inspect academies. It will conduct those inspections against the independent school standards, which are rigorous, and against section 78 of the 2002 Act. If it discovers that a school is not teaching a broadly balanced curriculum, the school will be put into special measures, so I think that my hon. Friend can be reassured. The reports will, of course, be monitored on behalf of the Secretary of State by the Young People’s Learning Agency. I hope that with those few remarks I have reassured all hon. Members on both sides of the House—

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Not me.

[Mr Gibb]

Apart from the hon. Gentleman, who is rarely reassured by any Front Bencher on either side of the House. On the basis of my remarks, I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but he will not be surprised to hear me say that I do not think that he goes far enough. Nothing in what he said reassures me that academies will teach a genuinely objective and balanced curriculum. Perhaps part of the problem is in the language, because what might feel objective and balanced to one person is patently not to another. There are not sufficient safeguards in the Bill to prevent the real risks that other hon. Members and I discussed; they are just not there. However, reluctantly, I have decided not to push the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I hope very much that this debate means that the Government will give more thought to those particular concerns.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 26, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

( ) the school has a curriculum which includes personal, social and health education as a statutory entitlement for all pupils;’.—(Diana R. Johnson.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Pat Glass]

I entirely agree that part of the exclusion problem is the formalisation of the curriculum, which in many cases happens far too early. However, my experience of academies does not give me hope. I do not expect that vast numbers of academies will amend the curriculum to meet the needs of SEN children. Which children are failing? The gap between those who achieve the most and those at the bottom is greatest at outstanding or high-achieving schools. Although I welcome freedom in the curriculum, I have no hope that it will be used for SEN children.

The proposals in the Bill are not well thought out and they are likely to affect adversely the education and life chances of children with SEN. They will make the already difficult lives of children and parents harder, and they will become part of the problem, not part of the solution. I ask simply that we take the time to look at the Bill in relation to the most vulnerable children in our society. If we take that time, the chances are that we will make the Bill that much better for that many more children.

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

May I refer the hon. Lady to clause 1(7), which strengthens the position of children with special educational needs compared with what it was when the previous Government were in power? Under the Bill, academies are on the same footing as maintained schools.

[Pat Glass]

They are on the same footing in terms of funding, but we have no guarantees about what that funding means. That is what I meant by the problem with the detail. The Bill talks about funding without going into the details and saying what it means. What is the pupil premium and does it affect additional educational needs funding? Who will be responsible for non-statemented pupils? All those details are simply not in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), who made a constructive and reflective speech.

The starting point when thinking about the Second Reading of this Bill is to consider what are the keys to success for schools reform. We must consider the impact of reform on the following: the quality of leadership in our schools; the standards of teaching and learning in our schools; and the achievement gaps that we know still scar our system both within schools and between schools.

I want to set out six areas of concern. The first of them echoes a concern raised by the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who described himself as a “structural change sceptic”. I agree with him: it is wrong that structures are so often put first. We on the Labour Benches sometimes did that when we were in government, and I think this Bill repeats the error. I think the key to success in education is the quality of the people involved—the quality of the head teacher and of the rest of the leadership team in a school, the quality of parental engagement, and, of course, the quality of the learning of the young people themselves.

The example of Mossbourne community academy in Hackney is rightly often cited. It is a wonderful, brilliant school and a great advertisement for academies. One of the main reasons for its success is its principal, Michael Wilshaw, who was previously at St Bonaventure’s, a Roman Catholic school in Newham, where he achieved a similarly remarkable transformation. I make that point to emphasise that, first and foremost, it is about the individuals and the personal skills that they bring, rather than the structures.

In Labour’s academy programme—as others, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), have said—our starting point was schools that serve some of the most deprived communities in our country. I had the privilege to serve as Minister for Schools for three years in Tony Blair’s second term, and one of the things I was responsible for was the London challenge, which addressed disadvantage and the failure of schools in some parts of our capital city. Academies were absolutely central to strategy that we pursued in London. However, it was about not just academies but strengthening school leadership, Teach First—the hon. Member for Bristol North West referred to that—and effective networks between schools sharing professional best practice.

In most cases the academies have so far been very positive, and for a number of reasons: their freedom to innovate, the positive involvement of their sponsors, and their focus on good leadership in our schools. I do not accept the argument of the hon. Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) that it was just about the funding, although that was certainly a factor. There is a big difference between autonomy for schools, which I absolutely support, and isolation of individual schools. We need to achieve a combination of autonomy and partnership between different schools if we are to produce a high-quality system, and that is not just about structures.

My second concern, freedom, was eloquently discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). If these freedoms do work—by and large, they do—why do we not apply them to all schools? I have not heard a convincing argument from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats as to why this legislation applies first and foremost to schools that are already outstanding, rather than seeking to apply some of these freedoms to all schools.

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman will of course remember that the Secretary of State wrote to all schools inviting them to apply for academy status.

[Stephen Twigg]

Indeed he did, but my understanding is that there will be a fast track for schools that are already outstanding. In responding to me earlier, the Secretary of State rightly said—I will return to this point—that there are many outstanding schools in deprived communities, but we know that on average, most outstanding schools have lower levels of children with free school meals and of children with special educational needs. I therefore want the Government to consider whether it is right to give this fast-track prioritisation to outstanding schools.

The provision in the Bill dealing with schools in special measures leads me to worry about the schools in the middle. If we have academies that are aimed at the outstanding schools, and academies—the Labour academies and those that fit into the second category in the Bill—aimed at schools in the most challenging circumstances, what about the schools in neither of those categories? We need to consider that issue in more detail in Committee.

My third concern, which has already been set out by other Members, is the speed—the haste—with which this proposal is being taken forward. In the excellent debates on the Bill in the other place, Lord Turnbull, who chairs Dulwich college, an academy sponsor in Kent, made a strong case for that view, and I hope the House will bear with me if I quote him:

“The granting of academy status should be seen not just as a reward for past achievement but as an opportunity for future improvement. Candidates should not be invited to write a ‘Yes please, me too’ letter, of which we have had a thousand already; they should be required to reflect on how they can turn these freedoms to advantage. They should think about their governance structures rather than simply carrying on with existing boards that were created in a different regime. The opportunity to bring in new sponsors with new ideas must not be skipped…An aspiring academy…needs to think through afresh its ethos, the curriculum that it offers, its policies on a huge range of issues…A school cannot do a thorough job of preparing its prospectus in that time, let alone get it approved by the department and the as yet non-existent regulator. We should not be encouraging schools to skimp on this important work.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 June 2010; Vol. 719, c. 537.]

I echo those words of Lord Turnbull, and I want to illustrate the point further with three examples from my own constituency. Schools feel that they are being rushed into a decision without all the information being available to them, and this links to the earlier decision to end the Building Schools for the Future programme. De La Salle is a Catholic boys’ school in Croxteth, in a very deprived part of my constituency. It is an outstanding school, according to Ofsted, and was due to become an academy under BSF, so its BSF money is currently under review. It wants to know whether it is going to get its investment.

Just next door to that school is St John Bosco, a Catholic girls’ school that was a sample school under BSF. It, too, is an outstanding school in a deprived community. Its head, whom I saw on Saturday, is wondering whether she should apply for academy status in order to get the money the school was going to get under BSF.

A third example, Holly Lodge school, in West Derby—a good, well-respected school with an outstanding curriculum —has lost its BSF funding. Its chair and head of governors do not want it to be an academy, but they are nervous that their school may end up at a disadvantage as these proposals go forward.

All this says to me that the Government should have taken a more considered approach to this legislation. There is a real danger of harm being done, and I am not at all clear—hopefully, the Minister can enlighten me in his closing remarks—how the Secretary of State intends to prioritise schools that are going to become academies. The role that sponsors and partners have played in supporting existing academy schools and trust schools has been absolutely crucial, but if many hundreds of schools become academies straight away, I cannot see how those effective partnerships can be put in place. Therefore, those academies will not be as effective as the existing ones have been.

My fourth concern is fairness—fairness in admissions, funding and exclusions. Autonomy, which I support, must not mean academies avoiding their responsibilities on key issues such as the local behaviour partnerships and how they treat children with special educational needs.

That brings me to my fifth, penultimate concern: the treatment of children with special educational needs and disabilities. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) made the case on this issue very strongly. We know that many SEN children are being failed now—not only by academies but by other schools. In Liverpool, many parents of children with autism have come to see me in the two and a half months since I have been their MP to talk about how they feel the system is failing them. Some special schools becoming academies could be a very positive thing for the education of SEN children, but we need to ensure that the mainstream schools are also meeting the needs of all those children.

My final concern is one that other Members have referred to: the role of local government and the balance between the local and the centre. When I was the Minister for Schools, I had to make decisions affecting academies on quite detailed issues. I often felt rather uncomfortable that I, a Minister in London, was making decisions about schools across the country on limited information—and that was when there were fewer than 200 academies. I am concerned that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood said, this Bill could massively centralise power over schools in the hands of the Secretary of State. We need to look at a renewed role for local government in education, but without turning the clock back to the days of local authorities running schools; I do not think anyone is arguing for that.

In the other place, Lord Baker made the case for local authorities taking a lead role on special educational needs. That is important. Local authorities can have a strategic role, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood said, in commissioning places. The local behaviour partnerships that are due to come in this year should go ahead, and local authorities have a key strategic role to play in that regard.

Over-hasty legislation is rarely good legislation. This Bill potentially takes the excellent academies programme in the wrong direction. More freedom is a positive thing, but it should be for all schools—unless there are good reasons not to give it—rather than just for the outstanding schools first. There is a real danger, as I said, for schools in the middle, and for those reasons I am certainly not persuaded that the Bill meets the tests I set out at the beginning of my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

The main issue before us in the Bill is whether we should have more independent state schools. I wish to consider the international evidence, the national evidence and a local example from my constituency.

Internationally, the charter schools in New York have narrowed the rich-poor achievement gap by 86% in maths and 66% in English, thus addressing the point made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) about who would benefit from these reforms. In particular, the Harlem children’s zone charters have completely closed the black-white achievement gap at both elementary and middle school level. My constituency in south London has a very diverse population and I am very conscious of how many black boys have been let down by our education system in the past. I accept that the proposals are not a panacea and that there are counter-examples, but the evidence from New York is very encouraging.

At national level, a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that the average annual increase in GCSE five A*-C passes was twice as quick in academies as in equivalent schools in the maintained sector.

In my constituency, I have the example of Ashburton school. The previous Labour administration of Croydon council rebuilt the school, but that had failed to solve the problem of low performance. I give credit to the previous Government for providing the funding to rebuild the school. The Conservative administration that took over the council in 2006 decided to close the school and replace it with a new academy. My Labour opponent at the general election opposed that decision, calling Ashburton “a good community school”, despite the facts that fewer than 13% of pupils achieved five A*-C passes including English and maths, that hardly any local parents chose to send their children to the school and that the behaviour of the children on their way to and from school was a massive issue in the local community.

The new Oasis academy, Shirley Park, opened in September. Under the inspirational leadership of its head, Glen Denham, there is already a marked difference in the attitudes of the local community towards pupils at the school. Last year, 94 parents chose that school as their first preference, but this year it was 142. We wait to see this summer what the GCSE results will show, but the most powerful case for the school is made by talking to the pupils. I guess all Members visit schools in their constituencies, and one of the most positive signs is when the head teacher allows you to go around the school with pupils and no staff present. I heard from the pupils themselves what they think of the school. They told me clearly that, under the previous regime, there were no boundaries, that discipline was incredibly poor and that it was impossible to learn. Now they have clear boundaries, supportive teachers and the school has been transformed.

Selsdon high school in my constituency is to become an academy in September. It was caught up in the Building Schools for the Future announcement, because it was due to get funding for a rebuild, but it is one of those schools that Ministers are now considering. I shall not say any more because I have spoken to the Minister and he is aware of the issues at stake.

Why do academies make a difference? The presumption by some hon. Members is that the issue is money, but the principle is solely that academies should get their share of what the council is spending on central services. In actual fact, two main factors drive improvement. In relation to the academies set up by the previous Government, in which underperforming schools were taken over, what made the difference was the change in perception of that school in the local community, the chance for a fresh start and the bringing in of new management. However, head teachers in my constituency tell me that freedoms are also part of it, not so much freedom from the council—the only freedom from the council is having the chance to spend money that it now spends on the school’s behalf—but freedom from central Government control on pay and conditions, curriculum, term dates and lesson length.

I have given examples of what my local council is doing, but sadly not all councils are as progressive as the Conservative administration in Croydon. One crucial element of the Bill, therefore, is the removal of the monopoly on setting up new schools from local authorities. In our country, thousands of parents are told every year that the inn is full—that the schools they want to send their children to do not have any places, and they must either send them to a school they do not want to send them to or educate them at home. That is unacceptable.

The shadow Secretary of State quoted Professor David Wood’s findings about a potential new school in Kirklees. Professor Wood said that a new school would

“have a negative impact on other schools in the area in the form of surplus places”.

I find it incredible that the shadow Secretary of State does not seem to understand that unless the system has some surplus places, there is no choice for parents. It is inevitable that some parents will have to send their children to a school that they do not want to send them to.

Labour Members seem to think that the Government are talking about giving these freedoms only to outstanding schools. In fact, the Bill is about allowing all schools to apply for academy status. Outstanding schools will not require a sponsor, so they can be fast-tracked, but all schools will have that freedom. Will the Minister give some idea of the timescale for other schools? In my area, Coloma convent, Archbishop Tenison’s and Wolsey infant school are all outstanding and have expressed an interest. Other schools, such as Shirley high and St Mary’s, are not rated outstanding, but have also expressed interest.

[Mr Gibb]

I may be able to help my hon. Friend by saying that the fast-track process is to enable schools to be ready to open as academies from this September, but other schools can open beyond that in November, January, April or September next year. The fast track is just about this September.

[Gavin Barwell]

That is a helpful clarification and answers some of the points that have been made by Labour Members suggesting a bias in favour of outstanding schools.

The shadow Secretary of State tried to give the impression that the entire system of state education was being ripped up. If he really believed that, it is strange that we have not seen more Labour Members in the Chamber during this debate. He tried to claim that the Bill was a perversion of the Labour party’s approach to academies. In an earlier intervention, I cited remarks by Tony Blair on 24 October 2005, when he said:

“We want every school to be able quickly and easily to become a self-governing independent…school”.

What the Government are doing may be a departure from what the previous Secretary of State was doing, but it certainly is not a departure from what the Labour Government under Tony Blair were planning to do. Indeed, the Government are fulfilling the promise that he made.

The shadow Secretary of State’s main objection was that the proposals would create a two-tier system, but some of my hon. Friends have already made the point that that is what we have at the moment. Some schools are academies and some are not. If parents have the money to move into the catchment area of a good school, their children will get a good education. If parents are locked into a particular area by lack of money, they have to put up with the school in that area. There is huge so-called social segregation in our schools. One school has just 4.2% of families on income-related benefits, but at the other end of the spectrum there are schools with nearly 70% of families on income-related benefits.

The shadow Secretary of State claimed that the Bill would widen the gap—that somehow allowing outstanding, good and satisfactory schools to get better is a bad thing. That is the classic Labour argument of trying to hold the good down in order to narrow the gap. Surely what we should do is try to get everybody to improve. The Secretary of State confirmed that these schools will partner with a good school, and that is an important element. I would not want a free-for-all. I want to see schools collaborating and working together. Even when it comes to outstanding or good schools, there are too many parents who do not have confidence in those schools and choose to move out of the area or to the independent sector, and we want those schools to improve. We want parents to have confidence in their local schools, but they can have concerns even about some of the schools that we class as good or outstanding. The Government’s policy on the pupil premium should give schools an incentive to take pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds.

My final point in response to Labour Members is that they seem to lack confidence in the teachers and parents of children from deprived areas. In my experience, the vast majority of teachers are motivated by the desire to help the least well-off kids. Rather than hearing a lot of publicity about parents setting up these new free schools, I hope that we will see teacher groups going into some of my most deprived communities and using this legislation to drive up standards in those areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

This has been an interesting debate to which many Members on both sides of the House contributed. The number of Members who wanted to speak shows clearly the importance of the Bill, and there are clear divisions of principle between Government and Opposition Members. I am happy to be called a dinosaur or labelled old-fashioned simply because I want to defend this country’s comprehensive system to ensure that there is excellence for all, that every single school has the resources that it deserves, and that we do not pit one school or one community against another.

Many hon. Members spoke of the rush to take this legislation through. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) suggested that we perhaps need to look at one or two aspects, and many Government Members said that we should consider amendments to improve the Bill. On cue, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chair of the Education Committee, has come into the Chamber—he too thinks that the Bill is being rushed through. However, he understands that, should the House of Commons choose to amend any clause, schedule or subsection, it would cause the Leader of the House, who is in the Chamber, great difficulty. As he, I and everybody in the House knows, there is no Report stage, and the Bill could go straight from Committee to Third Reading. That works on the presumption that there will be no amendment in Committee and that business will be finished by a certain time. We know not only that there is no Report, but that if an amendment is made in Committee, the Bill must to go back to the House of Lords, which would be a problem.

The Secretary of State’s Bill may be radical—his view is that it is a flagship Bill and a really important piece of educational reform—but he should not rush it through the House in an unprecedented way. Such procedure is usually reserved for anti-terror measures or legislation in an extreme emergency. The Bill is about the future of education. As was witnessed in numerous speeches by Members on both sides of the House, there are big issues of principle to be debated, and they deserve proper consideration. We should have the opportunity to table amendments and the Government should have the opportunity to choose whether to accept them.

My hon. Friends the Members for North West Durham (Pat Glass), for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) laid out their concerns about the rush. Indeed, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) said that he too was concerned. The Chair of the Select Committee pointed out the difficulty with the way in which the Bill is being handled.

Several concerns were raised by hon. Members on both sides. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) talked about structures being placed above the quality of teachers. The lack of consultation and the supersession of the role of local authorities was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). The need for greater fairness for children was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for North West Durham. The problem of the Bill creating a two-tier education system and the way in which it will undermine social justice were mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson), for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi).

[Mr Gibb]

This Bill has 20 clauses, to be debated in Committee over three days. That is between six and seven clauses a day. Compare that with the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill with which the hon. Gentleman was involved, where we debated 42 clauses in each day in Committee.

[Vernon Coaker]

The hon. Gentleman needs to explain why it will be impossible to amend the Bill, why it will have no Report stage, and—if it is not impossible to amend the Bill—whether he would welcome amendments. Some of his Back Benchers have serious concerns about the Bill, but if he accepted amendments, we would have to have a Report stage and the Bill would have to go back to the House of Lords.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) mentioned the differences in the profiles of the new academies as opposed to those of existing academies. That set out for us clearly the difference between the academies programme as pursued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood and the previous Government in which academies were designed to tackle social disadvantage and educational underperformance in some of our poorest communities and the schools that have applied for academy status under this Government, which have lower proportions of children with special needs and are in much more socially advantaged areas.

To be fair to Government Members, we heard some good contributions, which were not all supportive of the Government. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) seemed to suggest that amendments were needed, but was unsure about how he could achieve them. I suggest that the Minister of State consider that point.

I thought that the speech by the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) was excellent. He explained why the Academies Bill is unnecessary and will in fact undermine the education system. I very much agreed with him. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East, whom I cannot see her in her place, also made some good points about special needs.

We all thought that the speech by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) about the need to ensure that the Bill in no way disadvantages those with special needs was an important contribution and we all learnt from his comments. Other hon. Members also made important contributions.

Apart from the name, this Government’s academies policy could not be further removed from the values and goals that underpinned the introduction of academies under Labour. We believed in practical, targeted intervention to help struggling schools, not a free-market free-for-all. We believed that if a school was already judged outstanding, it was clearly succeeding within the existing framework and could only be damaged by centralised, ideologically driven policy experiments. We believed in local accountability, not unwieldy powers for a Secretary of State far removed from the realities of local circumstances. We believed in local co-operation and mutual support, not isolation, competition and division. We believed in fair funding and fair admissions, not the introduction of unfair advantages and resources to be exploited at the expense of those already most vulnerable within the education system. We believed in evidence over ideology. We believed in listening to educationalists, teachers, head teachers and other professionals who understand better than anyone what does and does not work on the ground.

--- Later in debate ---

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

That was somewhat overstated, if I may say so.

This has been an interesting and constructive debate, covering a wide range of educational issues. The Academies Bill is not simply about the nuts and bolts of the conversion process for maintained schools to become academies or for groups of teachers or parents to establish new free schools. It is about changing the deeply unsatisfactory and, for many parents, highly distressing situation where schools in an area are not of the standard and quality they want for their children.

This year in England, nearly one in five parents saw their child denied their first choice of secondary school, and in some boroughs the situation was much worse, with nearly half of parents failing to get a place for their child in their preferred school. These figures do not take account of the fact that many parents have already ruled out applying to the school they really want because they live too far away and know they would not stand a chance.

Sometimes this is discussed, particularly by Labour Members and left-leaning commentators, as if it were just a matter of middle-class angst. This is simply not the case. As the former Labour Cabinet Minister Alan Milburn said in a recent speech to the National Education Trust:

“It is sometimes argued that parents in the most disadvantaged areas are less aspirational for their children than those in better off areas. The figures on school appeals repudiate such assumptions, with a large number of parents in disadvantaged parts of the country using the appeals system to try to get their children out of poorly performing schools and into better ones.”

The problem is that there are simply not enough good schools. Some parents can work their way around the problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) pointed out. The wealthy can move their children to a private school and the socially mobile can move into the catchment area of a high-performing state school—I cannot and will not say how many left-wing journalists I know who have used both methods for themselves—but for the vast majority of parents who care just as deeply about the education of their children, there is often no choice and they learn to suppress their worries and put up with what is on offer. This Bill seeks to change that.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I agree 100% with the Minister that parents in deprived communities care just as deeply about their children’s future as do those in other areas, but given that he is saying that the problem is that there are not enough good schools, would it not be better to focus his policy on making poorer schools better rather than creating an educational elite?

[Mr Gibb]

That is precisely what this Bill and this Government’s policy are all about. It is part of a comprehensive approach to driving up standards. This Government are determined to raise academic standards in all our schools, as the hon. Gentleman says. We will do it by improving the teaching of reading so that we no longer have the appalling situation whereby after seven years of primary education, one in five 11-year-olds still struggles with reading. We will do it by improving standards of behaviour in schools, which is why we are strengthening and clarifying teachers’ powers to search for and confiscate items such as mobile phones and iPods, as well as alcohol, drugs and weapons. It is why we are removing the statutory requirement for 24 hours’ notice of detentions and giving teachers protection from false accusations. It is also why we intend to restore rigour to our public examinations and qualifications and restore the national curriculum to a slimmed-down core of the knowledge and concepts we expect every child to know, built around subject disciplines and based on the experience of the best-performing education systems in the world.

Central to our drive, however, is liberating professionals to drive improvement across the system. We want all our schools to be run by professionals rather than by bureaucrats or by bureaucratic diktat. We want good schools to flourish, with the autonomy and independence that academy status brings. I am thinking of schools such as Mossbourne academy in Hackney, where half the pupils qualify for free school meals but where 86% achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C including English and maths, and Harris city academy in Crystal Palace, where 82% achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C including English and maths. Harris city academy was the first school to be awarded a perfect Ofsted score under the new inspection regime, and it now attracts about 2,000 applicants for its 180 annual places. Those schools are delivering what parents want for their children, and the Bill will deliver hundreds more such schools.

Opposition Members have raised concerns about the impact that the new free schools will have on neighbouring schools. Of course the Secretary of State will take those issues into account when assessing the validity of a new free school. However, Lord Adonis said in another place:

“The idea that parents should not be able to access new or additional school places in areas where the schools are not providing good quality places simply because the provision of those places will cause detriment to other schools fundamentally ignores the interests of parents and their right to have a decent quality school to send their children to. If there is not such a decent quality school and someone is prepared to do something substantive about it, they should be applauded”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 2010; Vol. 719, c. 1264.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) made the important point that the Bill builds on the academy legislation of the last Government. However, the new model agreement gives greater protection to children with special educational needs by mirroring all the requirements that apply to maintained schools. That was not the position in the funding agreement signed by the Secretary of State in the last Government.

My hon. Friend also raised the important issue of exclusions, which, he said, were running at twice the national average rate in existing academies. Many early academies that were established in very challenging areas and inherited very challenging pupils did need to exclude some children to bring about good behaviour and a new ethos, but as they became established, exclusion rates tended to fall. Many open academies have exclusion rates that are no higher than those in the rest of the local authority that they serve. Academies are required to participate in their local fair access protocols. The truth is that they have a higher proportion of children with SEN, and tend to exclude such children proportionately less.

Academies are subject to the same admission requirements as maintained schools. They must comply with admissions law and the admissions code, and are required by the funding agreement to be at the heart of their communities. Many Opposition Members raised the issue of social and community cohesion. Academies are required to be at the heart of their communities, sharing facilities with other schools and the wider community.

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) asked why we were starting with outstanding schools. In fact, all schools have been invited to apply for academy status, not just outstanding schools. Outstanding schools will be fast-tracked because of their outstanding leadership, but we are continuing to tackle the worst-performing schools by converting them to sponsor-supported academies. All outstanding schools will be expected to help a weaker school to raise standards.

[Bill Esterson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gibb]

I will not, because there is very little time left.

The hon. Member for Huddersfield also raised the issue of free schools and faith schools, as did the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop). Although existing faith schools will retain their faith designation on conversion to academies, new faith schools will be able to select only 50% of their intake on the basis of faith.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) for his support for the Bill, largely because many of the policies in it were built on his work as shadow schools Minister in days of yore. He has visited a KIPP—Knowledge Is Power programme—school in Washington DC, which he described as “one of the most exciting schools I have ever visited.” He said, “I want these schools in this country”—as do we all.

The hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) is concerned about children with special educational needs in academies, but academies take a significantly higher proportion of children with SEN, and the evidence suggests they are less likely to exclude. I refer her to clause 1(7) of the Bill, which strengthens the position of children with SEN and imposes on new academies all the obligations on admissions and exclusions that apply to maintained schools.

The hon. Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) raised some concerns about the Bill and I would remind him that charter schools in New York have dramatically closed the gap between the poorest and those from neighbouring wealthy boroughs—by 86% in maths and 66% in English. A third of academies in this country with GCSE results in 2008 and 2009 have achieved a 15% increase in results compared with the results of their predecessor schools.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) is passionate about education, and she made an excellent and thoughtful speech highlighting the enormous and widening attainment gap in this country. She is right to welcome the expectation that outstanding schools opting for academy status will help weaker schools.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) brings to the House all her experience of, and passion for, education. She pointed out how millions of children have been let down by 13 years of failed education policies. She also pointed to millions of pounds being wasted and consumed by quangos, strategies and initiatives that dictated a prescriptive approach to teaching that demoralised the profession and forced teachers to teach to the test and to fit the system. She is right to say that the new freedoms, and our plans to sweep away many of the bureaucratic burdens that are piled on to teachers and schools, will help to rejuvenate the teaching profession. This is a Government who trust the professionalism of teachers. She is also right to point out that there are extensive concerns about standards.

We are not prepared to continue with the system we inherited. We are a Government in a hurry. Head teachers are in a hurry. Every year and every month that passes by is a month or a year of a child’s education. It is a disgrace that, in 2008, of the 80,000 young people qualifying for free school meals just 45 got into Oxbridge. It is wrong that 42% of those qualifying for free school meals failed to achieve a single GCSE above a grade D. It is unacceptable that just one quarter of GCSE students achieve five or more GCSEs, including in English, maths, science and a foreign language. The coalition agreement says:

“We will promote the reform of schools in order to ensure that new providers can enter the state school system in response to parental demand”.

This Bill delivers on that agreement.

Despite some of the rhetoric from Opposition Members today, support for the Bill’s proposals goes wider than the coalition partners in this Government. There is, in fact, a broad progressive consensus that includes my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Benches and that extends to the liberal wing of the Labour party. In 2005 Tony Blair said:

“We need to make it easier for every school to acquire the drive and essential freedoms of academies…We want every school to be able quickly and easily to become a self-governing independent state school…All schools will be able to have academy style freedoms.”

This Bill delivers on the former Prime Minister’s aspiration. The coalition even extends to the Democratic party in the United States.

The Bill will deliver more excellent schools in the most deprived parts of our country. So far, more than 1,900 schools have expressed an interest in academy status. The Government are determined to raise standards and the Bill is part of that strategy. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

3. How many expressions of interest in academy status have been received from schools in (a) Skipton and Ripon constituency and (b) North Yorkshire.

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

So far five expressions of interest in academy status have been received from schools in Skipton and Ripon. Fifteen expressions of interest have been received from schools in North Yorkshire.

[Julian Smith]

Does the Minister agree that schools with foundation trust status should be given credit for the work they have already done in moving along the path to independence, and can their path to academy status therefore be made slightly easier?

[Mr Gibb]

May I welcome my hon. Friend to the House and congratulate him on his election? I understand his point. Trust status was a useful form of independence, which is why it surprises me that Labour Members are so critical of our moves to boost the academies programme and to give more schools the independence and the trust in professionals that is inherent in the trust school system. Our concern about the trust school basis is that it did not give sufficient freedoms to schools; we want to ensure that schools have those extra freedoms.

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

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

8. What his most recent assessment is of the level of discipline in schools.

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

The latest Ofsted reports tell us that in 95% of primary schools and 80% of secondary schools inspected in 2008-09 pupils’ behaviour was good or outstanding, but that means that behaviour in one out of five secondary schools is still no better than satisfactory. To address this, I announced to the House on 7 July a series of measures that will give head teachers and teachers the powers they need to ensure discipline in the classroom and to promote good behaviour.

[Margot James]

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Two teachers from a primary school came to my surgery in despair over school discipline. They and others have advised me that schools are deterred from excluding pupils because they believe that doing so would have a negative impact on their Ofsted score and budgets. Does he agree that discipline and a head teacher’s ability to exclude pupils is being undermined by that and other aspects of schools policy that prevailed under the previous Government?

[Mr Gibb]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I welcome her to the House and congratulate her on her election. She is right: head teacher authority must be absolute in the classroom and we will remove deterrents that may prevent schools from properly exercising their powers to exclude pupils. The vast majority of head teachers intervene early to prevent exclusions becoming necessary, but when they are necessary we need to be sure that any deterrent is removed.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

9. How many expressions of interest in academy status his Department has received from schools in (a) Nuneaton constituency, (b) Warwickshire and (c) England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

11. How many expressions of interest in academy status his Department has received from schools in the Kent and Medway local authority area.

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

Ninety-five expressions of interest in academy status have been received from schools in Kent, and nine expressions of interest have been received from schools in Medway.

[Tracey Crouch]

I thank the Minister for his reply, and I am sure that he will be reassured to hear that many of the head teachers I have spoken to are genuinely very enthusiastic about the programme. The Minister will be aware that many of the schools in Kent and Medway that have expressed an interest are grammar schools. Can he assure the House that if they were to become academies they would retain their selective status?

[Mr Gibb]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

12. What steps he is taking to reform early-years provision.