Education Bill

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West says, this is a nudge with a loaded gun. Of course schools will focus on the English baccalaureate! If the Minister expects us to believe that that will not happen, he is taking us for mugs. The baccalaureate will obviously drive behaviour in our school system. The Ministers know that that is what they are doing, but they are trying to pretend that it will not happen. I am telling the Minister that it will.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some schools, including some in my constituency, have already moved existing year 10 pupils—generally the more able ones—off the subjects that they have chosen and on to the English baccalaureate subjects, because they are worried about the new accountability measure?

[Andy Burnham]

Where is student choice in this system? What are the rights of children, particularly those who have creative flair? How does the system look after the interests of those who are good at music or drama? In some schools in my constituency, around 30% are taking the English baccalaureate. Ministers tell us that it is supported by parents, yet when given the choice, many say, “This isn’t what we want for our children, because it’s too prescriptive and doesn’t recognise the breadth of experience that we want them to have.” We hear that music and RE teachers are being made redundant. It is time for another U-turn by the ministerial team that is famous for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Stuart]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and to see so many faces from the Public Bill Committee, as well as Select Committee members, including the stellar four or five Labour Back Benchers under the Gallery there.

I want to discuss my new clause 22 on home education. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) has made most of the key points about his new clause 2. This is not about extending selection in our schools; it is about taking existing institutions—in many cases, institutions originally set up to serve some of the poorest in our communities—and allowing them to serve those communities again. I must confess to having been torn before deciding that supporting new clause 2 was appropriate, although there will be differences of opinion on both sides of the House—the shadow Secretary of State failed to note that supporters of the new clause include Labour Members as well as Government Members.

[Stephen Twigg]

The Select Committee Chair says that new clause 2 would not extend selection, but it would involve its extension within the state system. Does he not acknowledge that a number of independent schools, including Belvedere school in Liverpool, have entered the state system and been willing and happy as a condition to become local comprehensive schools? Is that not a better approach, if we are to widen opportunities for as many young people as possible?

[Mr Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Where the institution feels that it best serves its mission to improve education by becoming a comprehensive, it would be free to do so. If I have read it correctly, which I hope that I have, the proposal does not insist that schools should retain their existing selection or non-selection criteria, so the tone of what the hon. Gentleman has said is perhaps unfair.

My new clause 22 would impose an obligation on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to local authorities on how they handle families who seek to home educate their children ahead of changes in the regulations. However, my new clause has been overtaken by events. The Government have let me know today that they have decided not to go ahead with those regulations, which would have changed the rules on what happens when a parent deregisters their child from a school in order to home educate.

The Badman review, which many hon. Members will remember, under the previous Government recommended a 20-day period in which a child’s name should remain on a school’s register, so that if the parents had been pushed into home education because of failures on the part of the school or local authority to meet the needs of their child, they would not automatically lose a place at school, but would have time to think through the implications of home education.

That recommendation by the Badman inquiry was accepted by the then Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families. I always thought that that was right, because it seemed to place no restrictions on the rights of parents and families, but seemed to restrict the rights of schools and local authorities, which, according to Badman, if I recollect correctly, were in some cases using home education to push away children whose needs they were failing to meet, finding it easier to push that responsibility on to parents who did not really wish to pursue it.

On the face of it, that recommendation seemed reasonable, which I am sure is why the Government came forward with proposals to implement it, having seen that both Badman and the Select Committee supported it. However, it was not recognised that the Government’s formal consultation on the Badman recommendations had shown that, far from being uncontroversial, the proposal had attracted opposition from 75% of those who responded, with only 13% agreeing. Why would that be the case? Why would families be concerned about having the power to return their children to school within 20 days, with no restriction whatever on their freedoms and no delay forced on the start of their home education? The answer lies in the behaviour of local authorities.

Many home educators expressed alarm and horror at the proposal when it came out recently—those home educators were not formally consulted by the Government, because the proposal was supposedly uncontroversial—because, they said, it would lead to bullying and intimidation of parents who had decided to home educate. Those home educators said that the proposal would serve as another excuse for local authorities to misinform parents and tell them that the local authority would decide on the quality of the education provided by parents and that it should sit in judgment on whether they were fit and proper people to educate their children. That would be an entire reversal of the long-standing legal settlement in this country, which says that it is the parents’ duty to educate their child. Most parents choose to delegate that to the state, through state schools, and some to private schools, with a small number choosing to carry it out themselves. It is a fundamental basis of education in this country that the parent remains the No. 1 decider of how their child is educated.

In case that response was just overly paranoid home educators who felt that properly caring local authorities would be asking them impertinent questions or who had misread or misunderstood what they were doing or saying, I can share with the House the fruits of my labour last night, which I spent on the internet looking at various local authority websites. A colleague texted me at 6 o’clock to say that we were going to be let go unusually early, and that a night of fun and frolics could lie ahead. I had to say, “No, my fun will involve looking at local authority websites.” Tameside metropolitan borough council’s elective home education guidelines say:

“It is up to parents to show the local education authority that they have a programme of work in place that is helping their child to develop according to his/her age, ability and aptitude and any special educational needs he/she may have.”

But it is not up to parents to justify that to the local authority; all too often, it is the local authority that has let down that family and those children through its failure to provide proper education. The local authority should be the servant of the family; the family should not have to answer to the needs of the local authority.

Sure Start Children’s Centres

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

You do. So the Liberal Democrats all think that that is a correct representation and stand by it.

Let us consider Kingston upon Hull, where there is a 50% cut in the Sure Start budget. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) says that that is not true. Perhaps somebody has more up-to-date information and will beg to differ. Kingston upon Thames is another interesting and revealing example. Channel 4 FactCheck picked up the suggestion from the Deputy Prime Minister that the Lib Dems were not closing any centres and Cathy Newman went to Kingston upon Thames to look at whether any centres were being closed. Indeed, one was being closed in Hook. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Cornwall says that it is not a Sure Start centre. Well, when Cathy Newman went there, she found a plaque on the door that read, “children’s centre”. How can it not be a children’s centre, I ask the hon. Gentleman? I am struggling with this defence.

I acknowledge that Labour councils, too, are taking difficult decisions. We have heard coalition Ministers target Liverpool and Manchester. Liverpool is losing £90 per young person and Manchester £80. Both are working to keep service reductions to a minimum. Hampshire, by contrast, is losing just £30 per child and plans to close 28 centres. How does that work?

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

I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend said about Liverpool. Will he join me in congratulating Labour-led Liverpool city council, which has not closed any children’s centres and is desperately trying to keep them all open? I hope to intervene on the Secretary of State to ask for his support for that.

[Andy Burnham]

I do congratulate Labour-led Liverpool city council and its leader, Joe Anderson. Sure Start is clearly close to his heart, as he said when he set the budget. I am delighted that it is working to keep all its centres open.

Perhaps our calling this debate has led some people at local level to have a change of heart. Perhaps it has led to some U-turns at local level, of the kind we have become familiar with from the Government. The hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) mentioned Hampshire. [Laughter.] The Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) laughs, but only yesterday, Hampshire decided that its centres would remain open, but that the budget would be cut from £17 million to £11 million. [Interruption.] I do not read the Hampshire local press every day. Does the Under-Secretary? The council had a plan to close—

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is widespread concern that his national curriculum review might result in the removal of citizenship education from the core curriculum? Will he reassure the House that the Government remain committed to citizenship education in schools?

[Michael Gove]

Citizenship runs through everything we do at the Department for Education.

Sure Start Children’s Centres

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Sheerman]

Not for the moment.

Many of the responses to the Committee’s report have made much play of the big society. I must confess that I actually like the idea of a big society, but I am slightly resentful of it, because I think that the Conservatives stole it from Labour—[Interruption.] I say that in a good-natured way to ensure that Conservative Members are still awake. In fact, we all believe in the big society. I believed in it even when Mrs Thatcher said that there was no such thing as society, so I have a long-term commitment to it. Throughout my whole political life I have involved myself in starting social enterprises as part of that big society, because I think that that is how our society should develop.

My worry about the big society is that it is often linked to the idea that everything should be done by volunteers. I am a little suspicious when people argue that things can be done by volunteers, because the best analysis and professional research suggests some problems with that. I refer the Minister to an interesting article—she might already know it—published in 2006 by Professor Alison Wolf, who is about to publish a report produced for the Government on 14 to 19-year-olds. As the Minister will know, Professor Wolf’s daughter, Rachel Wolf, is in charge of the free schools movement and her son, Martin Wolf, is a senior influence at the Financial Times. I listen carefully to Alison Wolf, and her 2006 article stated that the real problem with volunteering in this country is that it has been dying—first, because of the decline of organised religion, and secondly, because women now work in demanding jobs. Both men and women work in our country.

Professor Wolf also noted that the research suggesting that there is a lot of volunteering left in our communities is poor because it is based on opinion polls, and people tell fibs about how much they put back into the community when they are asked in such polls. If members of a pilot group are asked to keep a diary, the results show that the average time a person gives to volunteering is four minutes a day. If we are to base children’s centres and the big society on all of us volunteering for four minutes a day, we will still need a hell of a lot of good professionals to provide quality health and children’s care.

I shall also briefly touch on something that was central to the Government’s critique of our inquiry—the idea that we would no longer need so many hours. One absolutely fantastic thing about children’s centres in the most deprived areas was that they had to stay open 10 hours a day, 48 weeks a year. The document before me clearly states that that is now finished as an obligation and does not need to delivered. We all know that that is true, because it is in the response to the Select Committee’s report, and, in the hard-pressed and most deprived communities throughout our land, it represents the withdrawal of a guarantee that really meant something and will be sorely missed.

I do not know what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, who wrote his own report, would say about that withdrawal. I do not remember hearing whether he was conscious of it when he wrote his report, and I do not know whether he thinks that the fairness premium will counter-balance it, but nobody knows how the premium will work, when people will receive it or who will benefit from it.

At the heart of my concerns about the response to the Select Committee’s report is the fact that localism has become an excuse for saying, “We don’t have the confidence or the courage to say that we believe that there must be a reduction in the number of children’s centres or the services they provide, so we are going to pass it on to local authorities.” The Government must know, however, that local authorities, in straitened times with much smaller budgets, are going to cut back on children’s centres.

This Government—any Government—have a responsibility for knowing that some policies are so fundamental to the welfare of our people that we and they cannot afford to give up the guarantee and say, “Oh, I’m terribly sorry. We believe in children’s centres, in a full service and in the early stimulation of children, but unfortunately those naughty people up there in Oxford, down there in Surrey or up there in the north-east happen to be short of money and it is all their responsibility.” No one can shuffle away from such responsibility. If children’s centres are cut back or cease to exist as fully integrated models, the buck stops with the Government. I hope that all parties in the House recognise that.

There is a very real problem with the final piece of evidence in the Government’s response to the Select Committee report. I was very fond of evidence-based policy, as you know Madam Deputy Speaker. On page 3 of the Government’s response, they say:

“The Government agrees with the recommendation—high quality provision leads to better outcomes for children and families. Research evidence shows that it is the quality of support which makes the difference for children's outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged children. That is why, where children's centres are providing early education and care, it should be led by either an Early Years Professional or a Qualified Teacher to ensure quality and provide expert input to the activities and services on offer.”

Do we all agree with that? I am looking at the ministerial team. Do we agree? Can I have a nod? [Interruption.] I am not going to get a nod, because they know that page 6 says:

“It is crucial that children's centres in disadvantaged areas continue to offer high-quality early education and care to support vulnerable and disadvantaged families. However, since we have removed the requirement for children's centres in disadvantaged areas to provide full day care, we do not want to be as prescriptive as the previous Government in expecting them to employ both a Qualified Teacher and an Early Years Professional. Therefore, we have removed this requirement.”

The Minister responsible for schools became very fond of one little bit of evidence in Clackmannanshire, when he was converted to synthetic phonics, but all the evidence, not just one piece in a relatively obscure part of the United Kingdom—

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

Scotland!

[Mr Sheerman]

No, Clackmannanshire.

One inquiry swept the Minister away to the world of synthetic phonics, and he has been there ever since, but in fact much research shows that a qualified teacher or an early years professional in an early years setting makes a substantial difference to outcomes, and this Government are taking that away.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I give my apologies in advance in case the debate continues beyond 4 o’clock, because I am hoping to speak in Westminster Hall.

I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) about the importance of evaluation. There have been constructive speeches from Members from across the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, we have to start by looking at the evidence of what is working in our country and, as several hon. Members have said, what has and has not been successful in other parts of the world. Several hon. Members talked about the balance between having universal expectations of services in all parts of the country and local flexibility. I am a fan of local flexibility. The hon. Member for Stroud said that the situation must depend on the needs on the ground. I say to him gently that although that is true, meeting those needs on the ground depends on the resources being there. In the latter part of my speech, I will talk about the impact of the Government’s cuts to these grants on children’s centres and nursery provision in Liverpool.

I absolutely concur with the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) on the need to focus on those who are not in education, employment or training. Ultimately, the success or failure of Sure Start and other investment in early years will be assessed by whether we succeed in cracking the nut that all speakers have referred to: that so many people’s life chances are set before they go to primary school or even, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said, before they enter a Sure Start children’s centre.

Before 1997, I had the privilege of working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who is now Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. She was asked by the then Leader of the Opposition, Tony Blair, to develop a policy for early years. That ultimately became the Sure Start policy that was taken up in Government by my right hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell). Our approach then was very much the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield set out. We looked at the evidence and at the examples of excellence from our own country. They did exist, but they were individual cases rather than occurring nationwide. Perhaps more importantly, we looked at the head start programme in the United States, which seemed to be having such a big impact on the life chances of children and young people from poorer communities, and at similar programmes in European countries.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has had to leave the Chamber, but his speech was an important contribution to the debate. In the latter part of my remarks I will focus, as I am sure will other Labour Members, on the impact of Government cuts, and in doing so we are saying that not everything in the garden is rosy. Of course some children’s centres are doing better and are more effective than others, but we need a proper quantitative and qualitative analysis of what is working so that lessons can be shared across the country.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I believe it was the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) who had the courage to say that if one believes in early intervention, in the current financial situation one must reduce funding further up by taking money away from primary schools, secondary schools and colleges, and give it to early years. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore support the fact that two-year-olds will now have nursery education at a cost of more than £300 million, which perhaps reflects a redistribution from later school years by this Government?

[Stephen Twigg]

I welcome that element of what the Government have done. On its own, it would represent something of a redistribution. The trouble is that it exists alongside other changes that work in the opposite direction—principally the removal of the ring fence. The hon. Gentleman referred to the debate on ring-fencing. It has always struck me in debates about education and other public services that people tend to be against ring-fencing in general, but in favour of it in particular. We all want our favourite thing to be ring-fenced, but we do not like the general idea. The principle of moving away from central Government saying, “You must spend this funding on this, regardless of local circumstances,” is good. However, it is concerning in this instance, not least because it is happening in the context of cuts in many areas. With the best will in the world, it is very difficult for local authorities to maintain expenditure on early years with the ring fence removed, when they are having to make such big cuts in other areas of their budgets. I will come back to that point, but I urge the Government to think again about the proposal to remove the ring fence for this area of spending.

I think that the case for investment in this area is now accepted across the House. It can make such a difference to the life chances of all children, and in particular those from the poorest and most deprived areas with the greatest need. The formulation set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead is right: we want a universal service, but within that, we must focus without relenting, and without any apology, on the needs of those from the very poorest communities.

That brings me to the financial predicament that is being faced by local authorities of all parties up and down the country. There is no quarrel about the need for cuts, or about the fact that some of the cuts will affect children’s services, but our concern is that the scale, speed and distribution of those cuts, combined with the removal of the ring fence, will cause enormous damage.

[Tracey Crouch]

In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, will he join me in congratulating Tory-led Medway council, which has had a difficult funding settlement, on keeping all its Sure Start centres open, including the All Saints centre in Chatham and the Kingfisher centre in Princes Park?

[Stephen Twigg]

It is very welcome to hear of any authority that has managed to keep all its centres open despite these financial circumstances. We heard earlier, during Prime Minister’s questions, about another Conservative authority, Bromley, which is closing the vast majority of its children’s centres. The impact is clearly being experienced in different ways in different parts of the country, so I welcome the fact that Medway has managed to keep its centres open. I am not sure whether my welcoming that will make much of a newspaper headline in the hon. Lady’s constituency, but her news is nevertheless welcome.

[Mrs Hodgson]

My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) has talked about the services that the centres will provide. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) not agree that it is all very well keeping the buildings open, but that that will not be much use if the services have been scaled back to a point at which they are unrecognisable?

[Stephen Twigg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am not familiar with the details of what has happened in Medway, so I do not know whether that has happened there, but that is precisely what is happening in other parts of the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) has said. In Liverpool, the day nurseries attached to two of the centres in my constituency, at Croxteth and Knotty Ash, are closing down. Keeping centres open is an important indicator, but it is not the only one. What matters is what goes on inside the centres and the services and outreach that they provide.

Liverpool city council is seeing the greatest cuts of any authority in England. Birmingham council, a Conservative-Liberal Democrat council, has produced a fascinating graph showing the relationship between the cuts in Government grant and the average level of need in an authority. There is a remarkable relationship between how deprived an area is and how big the grant cuts are. Liverpool is right up at the very top with the biggest cuts and the highest levels of deprivation. We accept the need for cuts, but we do not think that they need to go as far or as fast, and even if the quantum of cuts can be justified, their distribution between different authorities absolutely cannot be.

In that context, Liverpool city council, which has placed a strong emphasis on children’s services over the past decade under Liberal Democrat and now Labour control, is having to cut children’s centres. It is not cutting them on the same scale as Bromley, but, of our 26 centres, four are earmarked for closure, which is four more than I want to see. It is also four more than my hon. Friends the other Liverpool MPs want to see, and four more than all the parties on Liverpool city council want to see.

One of my first engagements as the new MP in West Derby last May was to attend the opening of the West Derby children’s centre. A week ago, I went back there to attend a meeting to discuss its proposed closure. It is heartbreaking for the children, the parents and the people working at the centre to see that fantastic new facility, which was created for that community, facing closure. Even at this late stage, I am working with people at the centre and councillors to consider every possible option for safeguarding it, even if it takes a different form in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield talked about mutualisation and social enterprise options. There might be options for at least some of the services at that children’s centre to be retained, but it would have been much better to keep the whole centre open. It opened only a year ago to provide all those services for the local community, and what is happening now is a direct consequence of Government cuts.

I also visited the Knotty Ash nursery last week, and I want to mention a woman whom I met there. Lisa Dempster is the mum of a child at the nursery, and she is happy for me to mention her. She left school when she was 16, which was 24 years ago. Throughout those 24 years, she has been in work. She has never claimed unemployment benefit, and she has paid her tax and her national insurance. She has two teenage children and a toddler. Both her teenagers want to go to university, so that they can get on in life. Her daughter, who is in the first year of the sixth form, is losing her education maintenance allowance this year, and her son, who starts sixth form this September, will not receive EMA at all. Her children are losing their bus passes, and they fear that they will face enormous debts in the future. On top of all that, her little one’s nursery place is going to be lost. She is a good example of someone who has been very badly let down by this combination of policies from the Government. The latest blow for her and her family is the closure of her local nursery.

I apologise again that I might not be here to listen to the Minister’s response to the debate, but I shall read the Hansard record. I urge her to think again, in two respects. First, I really believe that the ideal would be for the Government to re-impose the ring fence for Sure Start children’s centres. That is the best way for us to ensure that there is a universal entitlement, which goes hand in hand with local decisions about how that entitlement is implemented in each community. If she cannot agree to that today, or thereafter, I ask that she, her colleagues in the Department for Education, and particularly her colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government look again at the unfairness of the distribution of the cuts, which are hitting children’s centres in some of the most deprived areas of the country much harder than those elsewhere. All those who have contributed to the debate agree that Sure Start has achieved some amazing things over the past decade. We also all agree that a focus on the areas of greatest deprivation must be at the heart of Sure Start in the future. I fear, however, that the broader picture of the cuts will undermine all the Minister’s personal good intentions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Rotheram]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. To address the hon. Lady’s point, Liverpool is the most deprived area in the country—I have said that before in the Chamber—and it is facing the biggest cuts not just in the policy area under discussion, but in all areas. I invite both the hon. Lady and the Secretary of State for Education to come and see my constituency. It is not only in the most deprived area in the country; it is one of the most deprived constituencies in the most deprived area in the country.

[Stephen Twigg]

As my hon. Friend has said, Liverpool is the authority with the greatest need. Does he agree that Liverpool city council is to be commended for focusing its cuts first and foremost on back-office functions, halving the number of senior managers, cutting the chief executive’s pay and reducing bureaucracy, yet even after that it has had to make service cuts?

[Steve Rotheram]

I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Liverpool Member of Parliament for the points he makes. I should perhaps put on record the fact that until May I am still a Liverpool city councillor, so I understand the difficult decisions those councillors are having to make. This is an open book: anybody can come to Liverpool and have a look at the situation we face—councillors’ unenviable task of going through the budget and trying to decide which services to cut.

We are often told by Government Members that we are “deficit deniers”. That is the mantra that everybody uses when they come to the Dispatch Box—the Prime Minister did it again today. If they do not think we should be cutting children’s centres or any other service in Liverpool, they should tell us what they think we should be cutting. It is their Government who have slashed funding to our city right across the board. We have been hit the hardest, yet we are the most deprived. [Interruption.] What was that? I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought somebody on the Government Back Benches said something.

Building Schools for the Future

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment made it clear that far too many of the designs were not up to scratch under the previous Government. We want to make sure that every young person has a school that is fit for purpose. That was not the case under the previous Government.

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

The priorities for BSF were set according to social and economic deprivation and educational underachievement. Is the Secretary of State really saying that those are the wrong priorities when deciding what educational investment should be? Liverpool schools have been hit hard by last year’s announcement. A month ago, I wrote to the Secretary of State inviting him to visit St John Bosco school in my constituency—one of the schools that was affected by the announcement. Will he, or one of his colleagues, visit that school at his earliest convenience?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the case. Initially, the Building Schools for the Future criteria were exactly as he described, but subsequently they were altered so that readiness to deliver became a factor. That meant that, for a variety of reasons, the money was not always targeted at the areas most in need. He has made the case for St John Bosco and for other schools in Liverpool very effectively. One of my ministerial colleagues or I will make good on the promise to visit Liverpool.

Education Maintenance Allowance

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

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

In his speech at the beginning of the debate, the Secretary of State suggested that the Opposition have only one answer to the questions that we are addressing in this discussion, and that that answer is the education maintenance allowance. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who is not in his place, suggested that we were arguing that that was a magic wand. Another Member on the Government Benches suggested that the Opposition’s view was that all we needed to do was to throw money at the problem.

The education maintenance allowance was one of a set of reforms that Labour introduced in government, with the objective of closing the achievement gap between the richest and poorest and supporting those who have not traditionally participated in education to do so. That is why we invested extra money in schools, including the academies programme, and it is why the Labour Government were the first to give support to the excellent Teach First programme, to which the Secretary of State referred. It is why we introduced the 14 to 19 diplomas, and why we focused on literacy and numeracy in primary schools. I could go on.

We are not talking only about money. We are talking also about reform and improvement in our schools, with a focus on teaching and learning. The argument has been made strongly from the Opposition Benches and by some Members on the Government Benches about the increased participation that EMA has enabled, particularly for those from the poorest backgrounds. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said, it was never just about increasing participation.

EMA was also about increasing the attendance of those in that age group attending school or in further education. It meant that people were not forced to work while they were studying, so that they would have more time to study. Importantly, it was about getting better qualifications while studying in that age group so that more young people from those backgrounds got the opportunity to go on to higher education. It remains the case that not enough young people are getting that chance, but the numbers doubled in the poorest cohort while Labour was in power. That progress was in large part due to the education maintenance allowance.

EMA is crucial in Liverpool. More than 7,000 young learners benefit from it. Shortly before Christmas I had the opportunity to visit Liverpool community college and meet young people, who told me that they would not be there studying both academic and vocational courses if it were not for the education maintenance allowance. Maureen Mellor, the principal of the college, has written to all the Liverpool MPs to say that there is now great uncertainty for next year. She wrote:

“It is difficult to plan . . . or to reassure current and prospective students.”

One of the schools in my constituency, St John Bosco, is an outstanding school. It is in Croxteth, one of the most deprived wards in Liverpool. Two thirds of the sixth-formers at this outstanding girls’ Catholic school are on EMA. Anne Pontifex, the head of the school, said to me this week:

“The removal of EMA may also mean students having to take up additional part-time employment. This will result in many students not giving studies the time and energy required.”

I have no problem with an evidence-based review of EMA. The problem is that the Government have already decided to make an 85% cut in the funds that are available. All of the wonderful alternatives that Government Members have referred to would be funded out of 15% of the money that is currently available. The Government have decided to abolish EMA first and then have a discussion about the alternatives. Yes, let us have a discussion about what the alternatives might be, but let us make that decision first and then see where we go, rather than in the order that the Government propose.

The Government have talked about all of us being in this together. They have talked about deficit reduction and the need for fairness. There is no fairness in this 85% cut represented by the abolition of EMA. It will hit the poorest parts of the country hardest. It will hit the poorest people in the poorest parts of the country hardest, and once again it is another cut from the Government that will hit young people and children harder than the rest of the population.

We have heard some thoughtful speeches from some Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members. I would appeal to them to follow the logic of their speeches and join us in the Lobby, and I would appeal to the Government to think again because the cut could cause great social and economic damage, undermine their stated intent to promote social mobility, and further widen the achievement gap between the poorest and the richest in this country.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Funding and Schools Reform

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). I welcome the measured tone of his remarks, particularly his final comments on the education maintenance allowance and school sports partnerships.

It is incumbent on Members in all parts of the House, but particularly Labour Members, to respond to the Secretary of State’s challenge on continued inequality in education. It is clearly a scar on our society and our economy that someone’s social background is still such a key determinant of how well they will do later on in life. However, I would appreciate it if he would acknowledge the serious efforts that Labour in power made to enact reforms that would make a difference to the situation, not least the academies programme. The Labour version of the academies programme was very much about dealing with deprivation and struggling and failing schools in some of the poorest communities. The record in those academies since they were established over the past decade has been overwhelmingly positive and successful.

The education maintenance allowance also provides an excellent example of a Labour programme that has made a real difference, with more young people from poorer backgrounds achieving higher qualifications as a result of it and, crucially, more young people from those backgrounds staying on into higher education than happened previously. There is no question of Labour Members abandoning reform, and we now have an opportunity to consider the reforms that best take forward our principles in seeking a more equal society in future.

I want to address a couple of the specifics in the motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). Labour’s record on capital investment is an overwhelmingly positive one. It is a matter of concern that while the average cut in capital investment by Government Departments over the next period in the comprehensive spending review is 28%, the average cut for schools is more than double that, at 60%. That has real implications in constituencies such as mine. Schools that were going to benefit from wave 6 of Building Schools for the Future were let down in the summer and are still waiting to see what will happen in future. Liverpool city council has taken the sensible approach of trying to devise a plan B, and I urge the Secretary of State and his officials to work closely with Liverpool so that we can have such a plan. In the summer he gave an undertaking that he or one of his Ministers would come to Liverpool, and I repeat the invitation so that we can work together to secure the very best capital support for schools in my constituency and across the rest of Liverpool.

The principle behind the pupil premium is good. There is a genuine problem, which the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) mentioned, with pockets of deprivation in otherwise affluent areas. Sometimes, local government fails to redistribute funds to ensure that the affected schools get the money that they deserve. Our concern, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State set out, is whether the pupil premium is to be additional money, and particularly whether schools in constituencies such as mine will directly lose out as a consequence of its introduction. Liverpool has the highest level of deprivation in England, and we need to ensure that our funding is properly protected so that we can build on the remarkable improvement in standards in Liverpool’s schools since 1997.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is discussing the pupil premium eloquently. Would he like to comment on a situation in my constituency? During the general election campaign the Liberal Democrat candidate was championing the pupil premium, at the same time as the Liberal Democrat council was closing schools in the most deprived areas.

[Stephen Twigg]

It is obviously shocking and unprecedented to hear an example of the Liberal Democrats saying one thing in one place and doing the opposite elsewhere. I am certainly very concerned by the example that my hon. Friend gives.

My concern is that there will be a triple blow for the poorest communities, including the one that I now represent: the loss of capital investment through Building Schools for the Future, potential revenue cuts because of the creation of the pupil premium, and the abolition of the EMA.

I wish to address two other specific matters in my remaining time. The first is the impact of the Government’s decisions on sports, to which my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State referred. There has been fantastic work by the Youth Sport Trust and school sports partnerships in the recent period. Moving away from specialist sports colleges is a fundamental error. It is wrong for the academic chances of the kids who go to those schools, bad for participation in sport and physical education and bad for health and the campaign against obesity.

In my constituency is the excellent Cardinal Heenan school, which is a specialist sports college. My right hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that it works closely with Everton football club to promote sport and PE not just in that school but in local primary schools. We need to learn from the positive examples of such schools. I recognise that removing ring-fencing can often be popular with schools in principle, but there is always a fear that if we move away from a national strategy and a targeted approach completely, the original objective of that strategy will be lost and we might see a reduction in participation in sport and PE. That would come at a time when, for health reasons, we need more participation, not less.

My final point is about citizenship education. As a Minister, I was proud to launch that as part of the core national curriculum. I know that the Government are reconsidering the national curriculum, and I should like to make a plea for citizenship to remain a core part of it. Members of all parties can unite in sharing concern about the decline in active involvement in communities and political literacy among young people.

The evidence suggests that the impact of citizenship education has been patchy, without any doubt, but Ofsted has shown that the best citizenship lessons are those taught by teachers with a specialist subject knowledge. My fear is that if citizenship education ceases to be part of the core national curriculum, fewer teachers will train in it and there will be a decline in its quality in our schools. I hope that the Minister who responds to the debate will be able to provide some reassurance that this Government, like the previous one, see citizenship education as a very important part of the curriculum.

All parties can agree that education is important for social justice and for our economic future. There is a real fear that the Government’s policies could further widen the gap between the deprived and less deprived parts of the country through cuts in capital investment, the loss of the EMA and the impact of the pupil premium. I urge them to think again in those key policy areas.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hancock]

If any Member laughed, I would be angry. I feel that in the past 13 years we have wasted opportunity after opportunity. Like the hon. Gentleman, I was full of enthusiasm when we heard the words “Education, education, education” coming from No. 10 —not once, but umpteen times. What did that really mean? Why did it all go so manifestly wrong? Why were schools in my constituency that were desperately in need of help not given it? Why did the city council go cap in hand to Ministers on three occasions begging for the resources to build a new King Richard school—not in my constituency but in that of the then Labour Minister? It was not given the resources that the school desperately needed.

I am sad that this debate is intertwined with the awfulness over what has happened to our schools as regards Building Schools for the Future. I agree with the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) and others who have spoken that this is not just about the quality of education. Schools provide a cocktail for children. As well as a good education, they provide a safe haven and a structure and buildings which give a community a sense of being. That is particularly true of large comprehensives. I have comprehensives in my city with close to 2,000 children in some of the most densely populated areas of Europe, let alone Great Britain. A school is seen very much as a focal point and an important aspect of community life, and it is very sad not to have the resources to rekindle its ability to serve several more generations.

The amendment is correct because it does more than probe. It spells out the inadequacies of the Bill, which does not talk about failure, but about taking resources from other areas. It presents a threat. If the idea of free schools gets off the ground, then fine—if that is what people want, let people choose to have it. I do not support it, and I cannot believe I ever will. However, I do not want to see resources taken from the schools I represent, which are desperately in need of new buildings and more equipment. I do not want those kids or those parents to be persuaded to go to a school that will not have science labs or outside space, and will not allow children to develop to their full potential. There is nothing in the Bill that says a free school will have to ensure that every child who goes there will have every opportunity to fulfil their potential in whatever direction they want to go in educational terms. That is a fundamental failure of the Bill.

I admire the Secretary of State enormously for his gung-ho approach to things. It was long overdue that we had Ministers who were prepared to fight their corner in the way that he does. Even when he is wrong, he comes out fighting. He is prepared to take a few blows, but he also likes to deliver a couple back. His deputy Minister, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), has done an excellent job on this Bill, despite the fact that he must understand, like many of us, that the extreme frustrations felt in this House are mirrored a million times over around the country. There is a lot of uncertainty in the education family, whether teachers, governors or whoever, about where the proposals will lead. In many ways, it is a mistake. That is why I will be supporting the amendment, which I commend to the whole Committee.

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

I strongly echo the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), and I welcome the amendment.

The Government’s announcements on Building Schools for the Future and the progress of this Bill, which have happened roughly at the same time, are very much related to each other. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) said, Building Schools for the Future was not just about new buildings— it was about school improvement and educational transformation. I understand that that is the Government’s thinking on the Bill.

These developments are having significant impacts in schools in communities up and down the country. On Second Reading, I mentioned three examples of schools in my constituency in Liverpool. De La Salle Catholic boys’ school in Croxteth, an outstanding school that was due to become an academy under the Building Schools for the Future programme, now does not know whether it is going to get the extra investment, which it desperately needs. Another school, St John Bosco, also in Croxteth, and also an outstanding school that was due to be rebuilt under Building Schools for the Future, also needs that investment. Last weekend the head teacher asked me, “Should we now apply for academy status?” That is not because those at the school have a new plan in addition to their previous plans on educational transformation, but simply because they think that might be the way to secure the extra investment that they were going to get under Building Schools for the Future.

[Dan Rogerson]

Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that there were people who thought exactly the same when the previous Government were in office? There were conversations such as that. I know that the current Government will be listening closely to what he says, and I am sure they will want to underline the fact that there will be a wider capital programme but, as other Members have said, what the hon. Gentleman describes was surely sometimes the perception under the last Government.

[Stephen Twigg]

The difference on this occasion is that the schools affected have worked for years on a programme for their own improvement, and they came together in Building Schools for the Future. Now that has all been stopped, except for schools that will potentially have academy status. The problem is the uncertainty. I want schools to make the decisions that are best for them. The head of De La Salle wants his school to be an academy and sees the educational advantages, whereas the head teacher and chair of governors of Holly Lodge, another school that was due to be rebuilt under Building Schools for the Future, have decided that they do not want that for their school. I do not want schools to make such decisions simply on the basis of whether the extra money is available.

I wish briefly to make a point about where we go from here. Although there is a real sense of loss and devastation in Liverpool that we are not getting Building Schools for the Future funding, there is also a hard-headed pragmatism. We recognise that there will be a new show in town, and we are starting to consider what the alternatives might be for securing the much-needed capital funding for the city.

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

Is it the hon. Gentleman’s understanding that Building Schools for the Future would have carried on precisely as originally envisaged had Labour been in power, and that the 50% reduction in capital spending that the last Government had pencilled in, in broad terms and with no details given, would not have had an impact on it?

[Stephen Twigg]

That is absolutely my understanding, and the figures that the Department for Children, Schools and Families gave under the previous Government were those signed off by the Treasury.

[Dr Pugh]

rose—

[Stephen Twigg]

I am being tempted to take a lot of interventions, but I understand that Members of all parties may want an early vote because they need to be somewhere else a little later this afternoon. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this will be the final intervention that I take.

[Dr Pugh]

The hon. Gentleman is not naturally credulous, but did he not see what happened to Building Colleges for the Future under the last Government? Why does he think anything different would have happened with Building Schools for the Future?

[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.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Teather]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. A lot of straw men have been built up in order to knock them down.

If we think that it is a good thing for special schools to have access to freedoms to run their school in the way that is best for the children in their care, I cannot see why we would say that they should not do that. A prime example is that academies will have flexibility around the school day and how they organise the school calendar. I have found that many parents of disabled children and people who work with disabled children say that the most difficult period of the year is the long summer holiday. If we can provide special schools with flexibility, they may or may not choose to rearrange their calendar so that they break up the terms and holidays in a different way and run the school day differently to lessen the pressures on parents. That seems a sensible thing to do.

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

The hon. Lady is making a good case, but I struggle to understand why schools should have to apply for those freedoms. Why cannot the Bill simply give them to all schools?

[Sarah Teather]

This is a permissive power and not all schools will choose that route. In response to the concerns of many of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues—I recognise that he was very much in favour of the academies programme when he was a Minister—I say that we are not forcing schools down that route.

[Stephen Twigg]

On a related point, I am unclear as to what the process will be for schools becoming academies under the new scheme. Say, for example, that 500 schools apply. The impact assessment seems to suggest that just 200 a year will be successful. On what basis will Ministers decide which schools become academies and which do not? Within that, will special schools have priority for the reasons that she has set out, or will they have a lower priority than secondary and primary schools?

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. May I point out that the Minister should not respond to that intervention, because it was totally of order?

Academies Bill [Lords]

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The number is zero, which is just about right. It has often been alleged that, for example, Gateshead Emmanuel CTC teaches creationism as part of the science curriculum. Having visited that school, I know that it does not. I can tell anyone who is a critic of CTCs or academies that the cure for such cynicism is to visit them. It used to be said that the cure for anyone who admired the House of Lords too much was to visit it. Having visited the House of Lords during its deliberations on the Bill, I am full of admiration for the way in which it was debated there and for the many Liberal Democrat colleagues who helped to improve it. To anyone who wants to see how our schools can be improved, I recommend visiting academies such as Mossbourne community academy in Hackney, with 84% of children getting five good GCSEs; Burlington Danes academy in Hammersmith, where a school that was in special measures now has more than half its children getting five good GCSEs; Manchester academy, where Kathy August, on behalf of the United Learning Trust, has taken a school in which only 6% of students got five good GCSEs to a point where 35% do so now—all great successes, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to applaud.

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

I do indeed applaud all those successes. Surely the difference between the CTCs and academies that Labour introduced and the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal is that the CTCs and academies deliberately focused on areas of disadvantage, but his proposal is to give first priority to outstanding schools, which are disproportionately in areas of affluence and advantage.

[Michael Gove]

First, outstanding schools can be found in any area, including areas of disadvantage. Secondly, if most of our outstanding schools are in areas of advantage, is it not a telling indictment of 13 years of Labour rule that all the best schools are in the richest areas? The hon. Gentleman lost his seat just five years ago; if only he had stayed in the Department for Education, perhaps the situation would not have been so bad. We will ensure that every school that acquires academy freedom takes an underperforming school under its wing to ensure that all schools improve as a result.

--- 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.