Academies Bill [Lords]

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to correct two things that he said? The first relates to Burlington Danes, which has traditionally been a very good school. It got into special measures, and became an academy, but did not improve. It has now improved with a new, second, head. Will he accept that often it is not being an academy that makes the difference, but having a good head teacher and a good ethos in the school?

I come to the second point on which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to correct him. We have two outstanding schools with a very deprived intake in my constituency. Both have decided not to become academies. Privately, the schools’ governors have said to me that they believe that special educational needs children and non-teaching staff would be discriminated against if the schools became academies, because they have seen that happen in other academies. So will the Secretary of State not be quite so arrogant in pushing academies on every level?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. From now on, interventions need to get a bit shorter. The debate is very heavily subscribed, and interventions should be brief.

[Michael Gove]

On the second point made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), the Bill is permissive. If head teachers do not wish to go down the academy route, that is a matter for them. I trust head teachers, unlike the previous Government who told head teachers what was right for them. We believe in professional autonomy. On the first point, I agree. I agree that the current head teacher at Burlington Danes, Ms Sally Coates, is fantastic; that is why she supports the legislation, and why she appeared with me in public to say that more schools should embrace the academy status that allowed her to do so much for the disadvantaged children whom the hon. Gentleman represents, and who are our first care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend has listed a whole series of aspects of the amendment that show it contains many untruths. Would it be in order for the Opposition to be given the opportunity to walk away, rewrite it and come back with an amendment that might be worthy of the House?

[Mr Speaker]

First, that is an utterly specious point of order. Secondly, it is a waste of time.

[Michael Gove]

It is, of course, a point of debate, and I look forward to hearing the shadow Secretary of State shortly.

The reasoned amendment argues that we are not building on the success of the academies programme, but the Bill fulfils it. It makes it easier for failing schools to be placed in the hands of great sponsors to turn them round, for good schools to take faltering schools under their wing and for all children from disadvantaged backgrounds to benefit from academy status.

I refer those who argue that we are failing children with special educational needs to the remarks of Lord Adonis in the upper House when the Bill was making progress there. He said:

“On the contrary, in crucial areas of special educational needs, particularly EBD”—

emotional and behavioural difficulties—

“the dynamic innovation…that academies can bring could lead to significant improvements…in ways that enhance the overall quality of the state education system.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 June 2010; Vol. 719, c. 1399.]

The expansion of the academies programme will drive that improvement in state education. I know that some Opposition Members say, “Pause, gie canny, slow down, hesitate”, but that is the argument of the conservative throughout the ages when confronted with the radicalism that says we need to do better for our children. We cannot afford to wait. We cannot afford Labour’s failed approach any more, with teachers directed from the centre, regulations stifling innovation and our country falling behind other nations. We need reform and we need it now. We need the Bill.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stuart]

The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to be a leader, but he seeks leadership in the luddite tendency. He has always opposed reform: he opposed it from the Back Benches when he first came into Parliament, and he continues to oppose reform that will raise standards.

To return to the subject of Building Schools for the Future, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was absolutely right to intervene. He took a brave decision to intervene on a programme that is wasteful and that does not lead to results in our schools. We will now have a system that prioritises need, not political fixes, and that ensures that the money goes on school buildings—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me just say to the hon. Gentleman that even though he is the elected Chair of the Select Committee on Education, he must be economical in his interventions.

[Ed Balls]

The former Chair of the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families and I did not always see eye to eye, but he always had respect on both sides of the House for his independence. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) got some respect yesterday for saying that the Bill was being railroaded through Parliament, but he loses it for that ridiculous, partisan and stooge-like performance. Maybe he should call some witnesses and hear some evidence before he decides to write his Select Committee’s report—unless it is being written for him by Conservative Front Benchers. His credibility is very substantially undermined.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The shadow Secretary of State may be getting excited, but I ask him whether he might withdraw that remark, which brought into question the independence of a Select Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Frankly, that is not a point of order, but a point of debate. I have known the hon. Gentleman for a number of years, and I know that he will not want to become an unduly sensitive flower. That would be unwise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

The hon. Gentleman has obviously done a good job of whipping some colleagues, but it is a pity that he did not speak to the Liberal Democrat Education Association, which has condemned the very Bill that he is being asked to vote for today. We must wait and see whether the hon. Gentleman signs the association’s petition—I do not know whether he is thinking about leadership elections to come.

My point is that visits to metropolitan areas and apologies are not enough. That is not what people want. Parents, teachers and children do not want the Secretary of State to say sorry; they want him to change his mind, to throw out this Bill and to let them build the new schools that they were promised. The people I spoke to today also said to me, “Can’t you get an answer from the Secretary of State?” I wrote to him two weeks ago to ask whether the money was being diverted away from Building Schools for the Future to fund the proposals in this Bill, but I have had no reply so far. I am going to ask him the question again, because a lot of taxpayers’ money rides on the answer. During the weekend before he announced the cancellation of Building Schools for the Future, did he at any point receive written or oral advice from departmental officials or from Partnerships for Schools urging him not to publish a list of schools until after he had consulted local authorities to ensure that his criteria were sound and that his facts were right? I would be very happy to take an intervention from him. Would he like to answer the question? No.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We do not have forced interventions.

[Ed Balls]

After two weeks of waiting for an answer, my expectations were not very high.

Let me try another question. Is it not the case that the Secretary of State was also advised of the risk of legal challenges from private contractors, and did he not personally decide to ignore that advice? He can set the record straight now, or we can keep on asking these questions. People want to know the answers. This is about the cack-handed way in which he did this, and about whether there will be legal challenges from the authorities and contractors who will have been left out of pocket by hundreds of millions of pounds as a result of his decision.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend also comment on the potential for challenges from some of the tens of thousands of workers who will be affected by this decision? They do not know whether they are going to be made redundant, or what their terms and conditions will be. Surely there is a legal imperative for them to be consulted properly, but that consultation will take place while most of them are on their summer holidays.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The debate is starting to broaden somewhat. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will want to focus his reply in a way that relates to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Would you say that the shadow Secretary of State is going back 20 years and coming back with the same arguments and fears that the Labour party put out about grant-maintained schools, when there was absolutely nothing wrong with them? They did a very good job for schools, raised standards and raised attainment for many pupils. They did a really good job, but, like then, you are just coming back and trying to bully people into saying that the Bill will not work and should not go ahead.

[Mr Speaker]

May I gently say that I am not coming back to bully anyone? I have never done that before and I would not do it in future. I know that Members will not want to use the word “you” again.

[Ed Balls]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we have been here before. We have had freedoms and resources given to higher-performing schools in more affluent areas, and we all know what resulted from it. The academies policy that we introduced was the exact opposite of that, but our policy is being undermined.

The reality is that this Bill gives extra resources to higher-performing schools in more affluent areas while at the same time removing any obligation for consultation with parents, local authorities or external sponsors. Indeed, the requirement for a sponsor is removed entirely under this legislation. We have talked about consultation, but the fact is that the only consultation any school need have about how it proceeds and how it teaches its curriculum is with the Secretary of State. The role of the local authority is entirely removed. This is the biggest centralisation in education policy in the post-war period.

Although the Bill makes clear that the academies will be accountable to the Secretary of State, it is interesting to note that the model funding agreement circulated by the Government contains no requirement for teachers to have qualified-teacher status. It also contains no requirement for co-operation in regard to behaviour and exclusion: schools can go their own way and exclude at will. There will be no independent appeals panels for excluded children, which will hit children with special needs disproportionately. There is no requirement for a named member of staff to be responsible for children in care. There is no requirement for careers education. There is no requirement for academies to observe nutritional standards, or to provide sex and relationship education. We will address all those issues in our amendments, and I urge Members to vote for them so that we can put the Bill on to the straight and narrow.