Use of Force in Schools

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Written Statements

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

The Secretary of State for Education has asked Charlie Taylor, the Government’s expert adviser on behaviour and an experienced and successful head teacher with a track record in radically improving behaviour in troubled schools, to review the implications for schools of the requirement to record and report the use of force in schools, as set out in section 246 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. In particular, Charlie Taylor has been asked to make sure that the accompanying guidance provides the best possible advice to schools on establishing “light touch” systems while still providing protection for pupils and staff. It remains our intention to commence this requirement from 1 September 2011, subject to the outcome of Charlie Taylor’s review.

Education Capital Programmes (Coventry)

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) on securing this debate. Like the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) and the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), he is no stranger to education provision in the Coventry area. He has assiduously raised the difficulties faced by schools in his area through questions and a number of debates in the House, and he and his colleagues met the Secretary of State last July.

I fully understand the difficulties in Coventry both in providing sufficient primary pupil places and in ensuring that repairs and desperately needed capital improvements are carried out in schools such as Richard Lee primary, which is again in the news because of maintenance problems. That school is in not the hon. Gentleman’s constituency but that of the right hon. Member for Coventry North East, who secured a debate on the subject on 15 March this year.

The Government are fully aware of the pressures that many local authorities face in the light of the very tight spending review capital settlement for the Department, but we must not forget why we find ourselves in this difficult position and why we have had to make difficult decisions. Because of the size of the budget deficit and the increasing caution of the capital markets to fund sovereign debt, our top priority in the medium term has to be to reduce the country’s budget deficit, which means that we need to prioritise a diminished level of capital funding for school projects, on the basis of need, primary places and deprivation.

In the context of what we are currently spending on debt interest payments alone, the action that we are taking is essential. Those interest payments could have been used to rebuild or refurbish 10 schools every single day of the year, but despite the difficulties we have been able to secure capital spending of £15.9 billion over the four years of the spending review period. We know only too well that there are schools in desperate need of refurbishment that have missed out on previous Governments’ capital programmes, and we fully appreciate that some people will feel that they have been treated unfairly, particularly if they fall just on the wrong side of the dividing line that had to be drawn. Despite the austerity of the capital programme, we will continue to spend significant capital on the school estate, at an average of almost £4 billion a year.

I know that schools and local authorities will experience difficulty in adjusting to these lower levels of funding. Nevertheless, they are historically high levels and, taking a wider perspective, they are still higher on average that those experienced in the 1997-98 and 2004-05 periods. Even when funding is tight, it is essential that buildings and equipment are properly maintained, to ensure that health and safety standards are met and to prevent an ever-increasing backlog of decaying buildings that will be difficult and more expensive to address in the long term.

By stopping the wasteful and bureaucratic Building Schools for the Future project, which the hon. Member for Coventry North West referred to as cumbersome and taking too long, we have been able to allocate £1.3 billion for capital maintenance for schools, with more than £1 billion being allocated to local authorities to prioritise their local maintenance needs. We have also been able to allocate £195 million directly to schools for their own capital repairs. It is clear that rising birth rates mean increased demand and pressure on primary places, with more parents unhappy with the lack of choice open to them. The education system has rationed places in good schools for too long, which is why our reforms are designed to allow more children to go to the best schools and to drive up standards in the weakest performers.

We are encouraging scores of new free schools to be set up, run by groups of teachers or educational charities, in places where parents want them, particularly in areas that have been failed educationally for generations.

[Mr Robinson]

I tried to intervene on the Minister when he mentioned BSF, but unfortunately I did not manage to catch his eye. I directly criticised BSF myself to the then Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood. One thing that happens whenever a big programme of that kind gets into the hands of civil servants and others who want to control it to the nth degree is criticism, which is fair enough. However, nobody recommended bringing BSF to a screeching halt, which has been to the great detriment of Coventry. We have two schools at the moment where there are problems. We have Woodlands school, where the scaffolding itself is falling down and there is a danger that it will bring the whole building down with it. We also have Richard Lee school. The Minister must have seen reports on that school. There are gaping holes in that school that people might fall through. These are urgent matters. What will he do about them?

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a good point, which I am about to come on to. We have allocated £800 million of basic need funding for 2011-12, which is actually twice the previous annual level of funding, to support the provision of increased places, particularly in primary schools, as a result of the increasing birth rate. In addition, we expect similar levels of funding to be allocated from 2012-13 until 2014-15, which will address some of the concerns that he has raised.

[Mr Cunningham]

How much of that £800 million will actually be allocated to Coventry? That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West were getting at when they talked about the two schools.

[Mr Gibb]

The capital allocation for 2011-12 for Coventry city council and its schools was announced on 13 December last year, and it was in excess of £13 million. It is now for the council to prioritise how it will spend the available funding, taking into account the building needs of its schools and its own responsibilities to fulfil its statutory duties.

[Mr Ainsworth]

The Minister has said that it is important for schools to maintain their buildings, even if they are in need of a rebuild. How on earth can Richard Lee school do that with a devolved capital programme of £9,000? How does a school maintain an ageing building with that size of devolved capital programme?

[Mr Gibb]

We took a decision about how we allocate scarce resources to schools and local authorities. It was our judgment that, because of the cut in the capital budget, it is better to allocate the bulk of the capital to local authorities for them to decide where the greatest need exists in their area, rather than to allocate more of that money down to the school level, because there are many schools that do not have the same need as Richard Lee school. It is better to divert that money to the local authority, which can allocate it to those schools, such as Richard Lee school, that are in greatest need.

I will now turn directly to the difficulties encountered by the Richard Lee primary school.

[Mr Robinson]

This issue is not about the devolution of the budget, which is entirely up to the Government. The point is that £9,000 will not go anywhere, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East has said.

[Mr Gibb]

I understand that, but £13 million, which is the amount of capital allocated to Coventry, is a very significant sum. It is not as high as we would like it to be, or indeed as high as it has been in recent years, but it is high historically compared with spending in other Parliaments in recent times. We face a difficult budget deficit, and we want to ensure that any capital available is spent where the greatest need exists. That applies to schools such as Richard Lee primary school in Coventry. That case is a classic example of how we are trying to target the funding at the schools that need it most.

[Mr Cunningham]

What the Minister is actually doing is asking the local authority to use the wisdom of Solomon, when it needs just more than £40 million to properly resource its schools. He is putting the local authority in a terrible position, so it is no good blaming the local authority.

[Mr Gibb]

I am not blaming the local authority. What I am saying is that we took a decision that it was better to give the bulk of the funds available for capital spending to local authorities to decide how to allocate them rather than to maintain the levels of the devolved grant formula to schools in this spending review period in which we are encountering these very difficult decisions on the budget deficit. That is because local authorities, rather than the man or woman in Whitehall, are best placed to decide which schools in their area have the greatest need for capital to be spent on them, and that applies to Coventry. That is the decision that we took.

Officials at the Department have been working—

Academies (Funding)

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement on funding for the academy programme.

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

The errors reported in the Financial Times today relate to mistakes made by local authorities in their returns to the Department for Education, which relies on local authorities to provide accurate information about their spending. Occasionally, individual local authorities make errors that can lead to academies getting too much, or indeed too little, funding. The system for funding academies, which was set up—I have to say—by the previous Government, is unclear, unwieldy and, in our view, unfair. It is no surprise, therefore, that some errors occur, which is why we are proposing changes to the school funding system to ensure that all schools and academies are fairly funded. We are proposing a system without the complexities that lead to these types of problems.

It is slightly odd for the right hon. Gentleman to ask these questions and attack us for the failings of a system created by the previous Labour Government, of which he was a member. We are the ones sorting it out, just as we are sorting out this country’s historic budget deficit. The question for him is: does he agree that we should raise the bar for secondary schools from 35% achieving five good GCSEs including English and maths, to 40% next year? Does he agree that we should further raise it to 50% by the end of this Parliament? Does he agree with our announcement today—[Interruption.] I do not know why the Opposition do not want to hear this. Does he agree with our announcement on extending the academies programme to underperforming primary schools, particularly the 200 worst-performing primary schools, many of which were in that state for a decade while his party was in government?

[Andy Burnham]

When will the Government learn that they cannot just bat away the question and always blame somebody else for the things that go wrong? Today’s Financial Times writes that the Department has given a large number of academies in England more money than they were entitled to. The news comes just days after the Secretary of State caved in to a legal claim from 23 councils that too much money was taken from their budgets to pay for academies. This raises a simple question: do the Secretary of State and the Minister have a grip on the budget?

But where is the Secretary of State? On a day when serious questions are being asked about whether the rapid expansion of his academy programme is backed up by a properly funded plan, only this Secretary of State could be in Birmingham announcing another major expansion of it. Why is he not here making that statement to the House of Commons? Should he not be here to reassure Members that he can proceed with his academies programme fairly and efficiently without penalising other schools in Members’ constituencies? Will the Minister tell the House how many schools have been overfunded, and what is the total amount paid in error? Will this money be clawed back from schools? It is not good enough for the Minister to stand there and blame everybody else. When will he take responsibility for the budget of his own Department? If it did not spot the mistake before the Financial Times reported it, why not? When will it put in place a proper accounting procedure?

Under threat of legal action, the Government have announced a U-turn on academy funding. Can the Minister set out the details and timetable for a review, and does he accept the need for urgency? Is it not the case that the Secretary of State repeatedly finds himself in these positions because he rushes ahead and fails to consult people on changes? We have been here before on school sport, education maintenance allowance and Building Schools for the Future. The only way people can make him listen to them is to launch a legal action. That is no way to run a Department. We hear that he will pay the councils’ legal costs. In the past year, he has spent more money on solicitors’ fees than Ryan Giggs and Fred Goodwin put together. How much has he spent on legal costs, and is this not a scandalous waste, when every penny is needed for children’s education?

The Secretary of State is today raising the floor targets for secondary schools and focusing the academy programme on struggling schools. These are Labour policies, and we are pleased at his dramatic conversion to them. We support raising standards in our schools; it is the standards of the Secretary of State we worry about. Perhaps the plan we needed to hear today was for poorly performing Departments to be taken over by successful ones. The only trouble is—there are no successful Departments. On the radio today, the Secretary of State tried pathetically to blame Labour for his latest blunder. Is it not time that he took responsibility for his own serial incompetence before people lose confidence in him altogether?

[Mr Gibb]

Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman overstates his case. First, the Secretary of State is in Birmingham today speaking to the National College for School Leadership, which is a very important part of our system of raising standards, and I am sure that his predecessors spoke every year to those conferences too. We are taking action to tackle the problems, although I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that the problem highlighted by the Financial Times occurred every year under the last Labour Government. The difference between the former Government—his Government—and this one is that we are taking action to sort it out. That is why we announced a fundamental review of the school funding system. That review is already taking place, and we will be making further announcements and holding a further consultation on the details later this year.

The right hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the LACSEG—the local authority central spend equivalent grant—which is about double funding, where central Government are funding both the local authority and the academy for the same central services. Again, that is something that occurred under the last Labour Government, and we are sorting it out. That is why the Department for Communities and Local Government top-sliced £148 million off the funding to local government—to deal with that double funding. We are now looking at the issue again, as a result of the action taken by the 23 local authorities, and sorting it out. I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he supports us in our review of the funding system, so that we can create a simpler and clearer system that all can understand, and one that is similar for schools and academies. We want to achieve a per-pupil funding system that is fair and that all can understand, rather than the system over which his Government presided where schools in some local authorities received some £4,000 more per pupil than other schools with the same problems. Those are the problems that this Government are seeking to sort out, and I hope that he will support us in those plans.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Is it not the case that this urgent question is a smokescreen for those who oppose academies, given that we have created more academies in 12 months than Labour created in 12 years? Is it not also the case that the last Government left 500,000 children illiterate, and that those who are creating obstacles to academies want to wallow in mediocrity rather than pursue excellence?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. It is not clear where the Opposition stand on, for example, free schools. Since the election, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has said that he opposes the establishment of free schools. However, since the news broke that one of Tony Blair’s closest aides is setting up his own free school, the right hon. Gentleman has told journalists that he now supports free schools. Which is it: does he support our academies programme and the free schools programme, or would he close down those schools if he came to power?

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

When I published the original policy paper on academies 10 years ago, it was never intended that they should be overpaid and that local authorities should be underpaid for doing the job of supporting pupils. Can the Minister confirm that the 2.25% that has been withdrawn from school funding generally and the overspend on academies have denied other children the key services that they need to raise standards and give them the life chances that all of us should want for every child?

[Mr Gibb]

I think it is rich when former Education Secretaries attack us for this policy. We are talking about a system that this Government inherited from the previous Government, and we are trying to sort it out. We will look at every instance of underfunding or overfunding of academies on a case-by-case basis. We want to reach a position where all schools and academies in this country are funded through a fair, simple and transparent process.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

We can all accept that the problems that have occurred are the fault of the regime in place under the last Labour Government, but can the Minister give me an assurance that he will put in place a replacement formula, so that the next tranche of academies will not suffer from the same inconsistencies, and local authorities, which will continue to service other schools, will not experience a detrimental cut in their allowance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those issues. That is precisely what we intend to introduce and what the current review of school funding is seeking to deliver. That review is taking place right now, and later in the year we hope to be able to announce a further consultation on the details of its outcome.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the Minister aware that he is in danger of alienating those of us on the Opposition Benches who believe in the academy model for underperforming schools and who welcome announcements that are made to this House? The question asked by Sarah Montague on Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning has to be answered: does the incompetence that we are talking about this morning emanate from local authorities, as the Secretary of State said time and time again, or from the Department?

[Mr Gibb]

As the Secretary of State made clear, we are talking about an error in the figures reported by local authorities to the Department, and these errors happen every year. We are determined to simplify the system, because it is the complexity of that system which results in local authorities making those errors when they report the numbers. The only way to tackle the problem is to simplify the system, which is what the school funding review is charged with delivering.

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that this urgent question is an extraordinary own goal? Labour either knew about this structural, technical problem and did nothing about it, or else it had no idea. Which does the Minister think is worse: not knowing or ignoring?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which goes to how to handle opposition. That is why I asked the right hon. Member for Leigh the questions that I did. This is not about just jumping on the latest bandwagon of a Financial Times report; it is about working out where the Opposition stand on issues such as raising the bar on standards in secondary schools and how to tackle the 200 worst-performing primary schools.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Since the beginning of the year, at the request of parents in my constituency, I have been trying to find out the funding basis of the several free schools due to open there. I have with me correspondence from the Department giving every possible excuse for not giving that information—it even makes “The dog ate my homework” sound plausible. The last correspondence, from two months ago, concerned my appeal against the refusal under the Freedom of Information Act. I have had no response whatever from the Department, which is concealing the information either because it does not know it because it is incompetent, or because free schools are being treated in a preferential way. Will the Minister please now answer those questions?

[Mr Gibb]

Details of free schools will be published once they open, so the hon. Gentleman will be able to see all that information once that free school opens. We are concerned about disclosing details of proposals for free schools where they have been turned down, because that can cause embarrassment to the individuals who have made those proposals, who will sometimes be teachers who have existing jobs. There are all kinds of reasons why we have to maintain confidentiality for those proposals, but all those details will be made available for any free school that opens.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement about simplifying the system. I hope that he agrees that it is only fair that students in free schools or academies should receive the same amount of funding as that provided to those in LEA schools.

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. That is how the system is supposed to work, and how it does work. Academies are funded on the same basis as maintained schools; however, they have more control over that element of funding which is currently spent by the local authority on those central services provided by the academy. That is all that is meant to happen with the funding system. It is the complexity arising from that system and the fact that local authorities are funded by both the Department for Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government that has led to problems. However, this is an issue that we are tackling and sorting out.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Even though the Secretary of State is in Birmingham, just in case he does not get a chance to talk to Councillor Les Lawrence, who recently complained bitterly on the front page of The Birmingham Post about significant hidden costs in the academies programme that leave local education authorities out of pocket, can the Minister address those concerns and say what the Secretary of State’s answer to Les Lawrence would be if he has the chance to talk to him today?

[Mr Gibb]

We have talked to Les Lawrence on many occasions. He raises an important point, which is that when the top-sliced funding for local authority central services is taken away from local authorities, there is an issue about how we allocate those savings across local authorities. That is the issue on which there has been correspondence with those local authorities. We are reviewing the position to ensure that we do not leave local authorities in a position from which they cannot fund the central services that they continue to provide to maintained schools, as well as those that they continue to provide to pupils attending academies.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) that the Opposition do not like to listen to the success story that is the academies programme. Why does the Minister think that more than 1,200 schools have already applied for academy status?

[Mr Gibb]

Those schools are applying because of the autonomy and independence that academy status brings to them. My hon. Friend is right to cite the figure of 1,200. By now, 704 academies have opened, compared with 200 when this Government came into office. They are delivering a very high standard of education, and I hope that the Opposition will support not only our existing academy programme but our proposal to extend the programme to primary schools and, in particular, to the 218 worst performing primary schools.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I feel sorry for the Minister today, because he has clearly been sent here as the fall guy. Speaking as a parent and on behalf of the parents in my constituency, I should like to ask him a question. We have a Secretary of State who botched up the Building Schools for the Future programme, who had to do a U-turn on school sport partnerships and who cannot spot errors in the funding programmes of his own Department. Why should any parent have confidence in his running the education system when he cannot even run his own Department?

[Mr Gibb]

I know and like the hon. Lady; I have known her for many years. She is trying to create a theme here, but there is no theme. The problem that was reported in the Financial Times today occurs every year. It arises from the complexity of the funding system, which we are trying to simplify. It is as simple as that, and we will sort it out.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on moving the focus on to the 200 worst-performing primary schools. Does he agree with Nick Pearce, the head of the Institute for Public Policy Research and Tony Blair’s former policy adviser, that this is something that the previous Government did not focus on enough?

[Mr Gibb]

Yes, I do. When we were in opposition, we proposed extending academy status to primary schools. The schools Minister at the time thought it was an appalling idea. However, we have to do something about the 200 underperforming primary schools. Indeed, we have to do something about all the underperforming primary schools, because primary school is where children learn the basics of reading and arithmetic. If we do not get it right in those early years, the life chances of all those thousands of children attending those underperforming schools could be blighted. We intend to sort those schools out.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has made it plain that if schools do not buy a raffle ticket by going for academy status, they will not be able to get involved in the raffle to get capital out of the future school funding. He has already admitted to the House that 100 staff in his Department are engaged in the expansion of the free schools programme. How many staff are engaged in this botched expansion of the academies programme, and how much is that costing the Department?

[Mr Gibb]

This is an important part of raising standards in our school system; indeed, it is a crucial element. When 9% of boys leave primary school with a reading age of seven or under—they are basically unable to read—it cannot be said that applying staff in the Department to deliver the academies programme is a waste of taxpayers’ money. This is good money that is being diverted to a programme designed to raise standards in our least-performing schools, and I think that it is a good use of taxpayers’ money.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary for the Opposition to quibble about accounting errors? Is this not a smokescreen to distract attention from Tony Blair’s comments during the past two weeks supporting this Government’s policies on academies and primary schools?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend raises a point that I was too sensitive to raise with the Opposition spokesman—namely, that our policies were endorsed in The Sun yesterday by the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Furthermore, the former schools Minister, Lord Adonis, voted for our Academies Bill in the other place, supporting our expansion of the academies programme. I wish that the official Opposition would now support it too.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

Is the Minister familiar with the maxim that a Minister can delegate power but not responsibility? Why does he not just say sorry to parents and pupils?

[Mr Gibb]

We are not denying responsibility. We are taking action to simplify the over-complex funding system that we inherited, which led to problems such as these in previous years.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

In Great Yarmouth, we have seen the benefit and freedom resulting from the transformation of schools such as the Ormiston academy. Does the Minister agree that it is that freedom and the potential for transformation that are encouraging at least one in three secondary schools to apply for academy status?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know, as I am sure the Opposition do, that academies are improving at twice the pace of the rest of the schools system. That is why we are so determined to expedite the process of conversion to academy status.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Turning underperforming schools into academies in Bristol was, for the most part, a great success. Free schools, however, are not needed and, for the most part, not wanted there. When are the Government going to get their priorities right, get a grip on their finances and help Bristol to address the real problem that it is facing at the moment—namely, the chronic under-provision of primary school places?

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Lady seems to be contradicting herself. There is a shortage of primary school places, yet she says that there is no need for the free school programme, which could be used to create more school places. We want not only more school places but more high-quality school places, and that is what the free school programme, in particular, is designed to achieve.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

The Dukeries college in Ollerton and the Joseph Whitaker school in Rainworth are just two of the large number of schools that are applying for academy status. Is not the fact that the numbers have reached such a high level a ringing endorsement of the Minister’s policy?

[Mr Gibb]

Yes, and it demonstrates that the teaching profession values that autonomy and the trust that the Government are putting in them. That is in enormous contrast to the top-down, prescriptive approach taken by the previous Government. That is why I believe that our system will work. In contrast, Labour did not manage to achieve a significant rise in standards in the schools system during its 13 years in office.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell the House how many times the previous Labour Government were taken to court over their education policies?

[Mr Gibb]

The Sharon Shoesmith case springs to mind. I will write to the hon. Lady and let her have those figures.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Financial and accounting errors are a serious matter, and it is not surprising that the shadow Secretary of State for Education has raised the issue, given his direct experience of the catastrophic financial and accounting errors under the last Government. Does the Minister not agree that, on a day when this Government have thrown a lifeline to children trapped in underperforming primary schools, it is odd that Labour has once again turned its back on those children?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is right. The Secretary of State has announced that we are taking urgent action to convert the 200 least-performing primary schools in this country to academy status, transforming those schools and giving the youngsters who attend them a significantly better start to their education, and I would have thought that that should be the issue to be raised today.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Given the Department’s serial bungling, can the Minister tell us how much it has spent on defending legal challenges in the past year?

[Mr Gibb]

These issues are faced by all Governments and all Departments—[Hon. Members: “How much?”] I do not have those figures to hand, but if I am able to get them, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Three of the 704 new academies are in my constituency. We are seeing an education revolution, so why are we not discussing that and the success of our schools, rather than accounting errors that are a car crash left by the previous Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is enough. The hon. Gentleman has had a good outing and I am sure he has enjoyed it.

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and asked a good question. Many local authorities have been raising this issue for many years; they campaigned on it and lobbied the previous Government about the unfairness of the school funding system. That is what we are determined to sort out with the school funding review.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I visited Foxwood special school in my constituency on Friday and learned how keen it is to obtain academy status. Will the Minister help Foxwood and other special schools by encouraging them to apply for that status, and will he particularly assist Foxwood school?

[Mr Gibb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the changes proposed in the Education Bill is to allow academy status to apply to special schools as well. I would be very happy to help my hon. Friend; if she and the head teacher of that particular special school would like a meeting in the Department to discuss academy status, I would be delighted to arrange it.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The new academies in Kettering are hugely welcomed by local residents. Can the Minister confirm that the proportion of education funding that goes into teaching pupils will go up under this Government, with a lesser proportion being spent on bureaucracy in local town halls and in his Department?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about bureaucracy in the education system. We are devoting a huge amount of resources within the Department to clamping down on bureaucracy and removing bureaucratic burdens on schools. It is a large amount of work; it involves rewriting reams of guidance. The guidance on bullying runs to something like 400 or 500 pages, and I think it is rarely read in schools. We are streamlining it and slimming it down to about 25 pages, and we are doing the same thing with all the guidance so that it becomes efficient, quick to read and of high quality. Schools will then be able to use it without having to read through reams of lever arch files emanating from the Department. We are putting a stop to that.

School Places (Finchley)

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on securing the debate. Let me say at the outset that I will accede to one of his two requests, and that I will reveal which it is at the end of my speech.

I know that my hon. Friend is no stranger to the issues surrounding Finchley and Golders Green, as he has served the community well in local and national Government for a number of years. The Government are well aware of the pressures faced by many local authorities in London, including Barnet, in their attempt to provide enough suitable places to meet higher demand arising from the increase in birth rates and other demographic changes. I am also familiar with the argument advanced by London Councils—which my hon. Friend mentioned at the beginning of his speech—about the inequitable levels of funding received by London boroughs. The figures are not in line with our data, but I have asked officials to meet councils to discuss theirs in more detail.

The Government ascribe considerable importance to meeting the Department’s priority of ensuring that every child has a good school place. Responsibility for balancing supply and demand rests with individual local authorities. We look to members of those authorities —as the people with the best and most relevant local knowledge—to ensure that there are enough places and that local schools meet the needs of local communities. They are in the best position to know how many schools are needed, and where those schools should be located to serve local populations.

For its part, the Department for Education supplies capital funding directly to local authorities to help them to provide school places. Through the recent spending review and this year’s Budget, the Department secured £15.9 billion of capital funding over the four-year period starting in April this year. By taking early action to stop the wasteful Building Schools for the Future programme, the Secretary of State has been able to ensure that funding is available for the most pressing needs. He has allocated £800 million to local authorities for pupil places in 2011-12, and has indicated that he expects that level of support to continue for the other years of the spending review. That is twice the previous annual level of support that was given for those needs. It has been targeted on the areas of greatest demand, based on forecasts of pupil numbers provided by each local authority, and in addition to allocating the £800 million for additional pupil places the Secretary of State has informed local authorities of their overall share of capital funding for 2011-12.

Local authorities have been asked to prioritise spending to provide new places in areas experiencing severe demographic pressures, as well as to address the needs of the schools in the very worst condition. The London borough of Barnet and its schools have been allocated almost £17 million of capital funding for 2011-12, which includes £9.4 million for the provision of basic need places. Local authorities are also able to use money allocated to school maintenance to address basic need and vice versa. They have that flexibility. Barnet has also benefited from a substantial contribution from Government to JCOSS, or the Jewish Community secondary school, which will over time provide an additional 1,300 places in the area.

Forecasting future pupil numbers cannot be an exact science. That is why the Department has used the school census returns of the number on roll for 2010 as the starting point for basic need funding. As well as giving actual numbers on roll, the census collects information from each local authority on forecast growth areas for the three years to 2013-14. That information was used by the Department as the basis for the basic need funding calculation for 2011-12.

By using that informed approach, the Department has been able to target funding to where growth in demand has been forecast by the local authority. However, it must be stressed that, as a result of the actions taken, we have been able to allocate all of the basic need funding to the local authorities as the providers of places in their local area, and as a consequence I am afraid to say that no unallocated or additional funds are available for local authorities to call upon during 2011-12. Alas, we are therefore unable to make an exception for Finchley. I think I have now answered one of my hon. Friend’s two requests.

We are serious about getting education funding right in the future. I agree with my hon. Friend that the current capital allocation system is overly complex and unfair, which is why the Department is taking steps to ensure that future capital expenditure delivers greater value for money for everyone involved in the education sector, and that the maximum number of children benefit. We have already made changes to the allocation system to address one of my hon. Friend’s main concerns. I recognise that some local authorities were in practice unable to use supported borrowing. That is why for all schools we have allocated capital funding in 2011-12 as capital grant. That means authorities at the floor receive real funding to address their need for school places.

Last year, the Secretary of State commissioned Sebastian James to conduct a full and independent review of the Department’s capital programmes. That review has now been published, and the Secretary of State is currently considering its recommendations. They include the proposal that there should be a new approach to the future allocation and use of all the available capital funding. The Secretary of State hopes to respond to the recommendations shortly.

Future capital allocations and the management of funding for 2012-13 until 2014-15 will be informed by the outcome of the capital review. However, as I have said, the Secretary of State has already indicated that local authorities can expect that the headline amounts of capital available in future years will be in line with those of 2011-12. As well as providing funding to meet basic need pressures and radically reviewing the way in which capital funding is allocated and spent in future, the Government are pressing forward with their academy and free school programmes. I am aware that my hon. Friend’s constituency contains two open academies, the Wren academy and the Compton school, both of which he mentioned. By giving those involved in education the freedoms to shape the future of our schools and by opening up the opportunity for others to enter the education sector, we believe that we are offering an education system that will meet the needs of local communities.

I hope that the House will acknowledge that the steps the Government have taken and continue to take to ensure that future capital investment benefits those in most need represent the correct approach. By tackling the areas of greatest need first and then developing a new approach to future investment that delivers value for money, I believe that we are making the best use of limited taxpayers’ money to improve the fabric and quality of our schools. I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the very difficult fiscal situation faced by the country, but I would be pleased to meet him and his colleagues from Barnet council to discuss these issues further. On that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you and the House a very fruitful recess?

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to reduce the burden of administration on schools; and if he will make a statement.

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

The Government are committed to reducing the administrative burden on schools. We have already announced that the lengthy self-evaluation form will be removed, FMSiS—the financial management standard in schools—will be scrapped, and the inspection framework will be streamlined. All data collections are being reviewed and we have included measures in the Education Bill to remove unnecessary regulations. In addition, we are taking action to reduce dramatically the volume of guidance and advice issued to schools.

[Paul Uppal]

Free schools and academies reduce bureaucracy so that more time can be spent on education. Does the Minister agree that all those schools should be encouraged in all areas so that children from any background can have access to an environment that encourages aspiration and ambition?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is right. The recent Public Accounts Committee report on academies found that they have achieved rapid academic improvements and raised aspirations in some of the most challenging schools in some of the most deprived parts of the country. That is why we are expanding the academies programme and encouraging more providers to enter the free schools movement.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Although it is important to reduce the burden of administration, how will the Government make sure that free schools have the right management skills to deal with the issues they face? In Bradford, a number of free schools have been approved where the management have no proven skills in management techniques.

[Mr Gibb]

There is a rigorous approval procedure before any free school proposal is approved by the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman should be assured that we are accepting to business case only those proposals that can demonstrate to the Secretary of State that they have a rigorous approach to leadership and management and will provide high-quality education.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Too much administration, the overbearing nature of Ofsted inspections, and an almost evangelical approach to safeguarding make it almost impossible for many schools to take their kids out on school trips. Instead, our young people are penned up in fortress-like schools. May we have an assurance that the Department will do everything it can to ensure that children get out of the classroom and go to museums and other facilities where they learn better?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is right. That is why Ofsted inspections are being focused on teaching, leadership, attainment, behaviour and safety. We have taken into account the work of Lord Young in making sure that we do not over-regulate school trips, and that we make it much easier and safer for teachers to take children on school trips without the fear of prosecution.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

4. What estimate he has made of the number of young people who will opt to study English baccalaureate subjects in the 2011-12 academic year.

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

We do not currently collect systematic data on pupil choices, but anecdotal evidence suggests that the English baccalaureate measure is having a positive effect, with more schools making this combination of subjects open to more pupils. Our concern is that last year just 15.6% of pupils achieved a C grade or better in the English baccalaureate combination of subjects.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the Minister for that reply, but what would he say to a governor at Walbottle Campus in my constituency who raised with me the fact that that school and others like it have seen an impressive performance in GCSE results in the past few years, but saw only about 5% of its pupils achieving the E-bac? Does the Minister recognise the concern that E-bac by diktat will put at risk the hard work and commitment of staff, governors and pupils in creating a broad curriculum that enables all pupils to thrive?

[Mr Gibb]

The English baccalaureate is not prescriptive. It is just a measure—one of many measures—that this Government are putting forward as part of the transparency agenda. It is the next stage in that school’s improved performance. It is a concern to the Government that children, particularly in deprived areas, are not being offered that combination of choices. Only 8% of children who qualify for free school meals were even entered for the English baccalaureate subjects, and only 4% achieved them.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Does the Minister have any hard evidence that there has been a significant switch towards subjects in the English baccalaureate this year for this year’s results? Is he concerned that as a consequence cramming might have taken place in the switched-to subject?

[Mr Gibb]

It is always a concern if schools are not entering students for qualifications that best meet their interests. That is what is behind the introduction of the English baccalaureate measure. We want to undo some of the perverse incentives that already exist in the league table situation. We would not want to see pupils being transferred mid-course to English baccalaureate subjects simply for the league table position.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently appeal to the Minister of State to face the House when giving his replies so that we can all hear them?

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister has read the bishops’ e-alert which arrived from the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales at 2.18 pm this afternoon, in which the bishops say that they

“have serious reservations over the omission of Religious Education from the English Baccalaureate”

and

“urge the government to reconsider its decision”.

Given the state of rebellion on the Government Benches about this and the uncertainty across the country, will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that he is not planning another U-turn, this time about RE and the E-bac?

[Mr Gibb]

Unlike the Pope, the bishops are not infallible. We believe that there is plenty of room in the English baccalaureate curriculum to continue to study subjects such as RE, economics, music, art and vocational subjects, and we have deliberately kept the English baccalaureate small to enable that to happen. In addition, RE is a compulsory subject, and we have seen a very large rise in the proportion of the cohort taking religious studies to GCSE, whereas we have seen a fall in the numbers and the proportion taking geography and history to GCSE.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

6. What recent estimate he has made of the likely number of redundancies of school staff in 2011-12.

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

No such assessment has been made centrally. The funding settlement for 2011-12 protects school funding in the system at flat cash per pupil and provides funding for the pupil premium on top of that.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Is the Minister aware of the report in The Times Educational Supplement showing that almost four in 10 schools in England plan to reduce staff numbers in the next year, meaning a possible drop of almost 17,000 staff across England? With a reduction of that order, is it not the case that many schools will struggle, particularly when it is linked to reductions in school budgets, which will fall in real terms over the next three years, meaning that those pupils most in need will be disadvantaged the most?

[Mr Gibb]

It is very difficult to take Labour Members seriously on the issue of funding, because we inherited a record Budget deficit that had to be tackled, and despite tackling a £156 billion Budget deficit, we have managed to maintain funding for schools at flat cash per pupil over the spending review period. In addition, we have introduced the pupil premium, which will rise to £2.5 billion by 2014-15. Having said that, and although this is a good settlement in the context of what we inherited, schools will have to find efficiencies in procurement and other areas; we absolutely recognise that. Coming from the hon. Gentleman, the question is rich, given what we inherited from his Government.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

7. What recent progress he has made in establishing free schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

10. What plans he has for the future of citizenship teaching in schools.

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

We are currently reviewing the national curriculum with a view to slimming it down and focusing it on the essential knowledge that all children should acquire. Beyond that, it should be for individual schools to design a curriculum that best meets the needs of their pupils. The review is considering which subjects, beyond English, maths, science and physical education, should be part of the national curriculum in future, and we will announce our proposals early next year.

[Caroline Dinenage]

Fareport Training Organisation in Gosport has been nominated as a community champion for its amazing work in using citizenship education to help to engage post-16 students who have been disengaged with the traditional school system. Given what these classes have taught these students about their role in society and the value of democracy, does the Minister think that they would have enormous value in delivering the big society?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is right. Citizenship is an important subject, and schools have an important role to play in encouraging young people to become responsible citizens and active members of society. I welcome what she says about her school. The Government are fully committed to empowering young people to become active citizens. That is the intention behind the launch of the national citizenship service programme last year.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware of his own Government’s violence against women and girls strategy and the excellent report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs, both of which have highlighted the importance of education in schools in preventing violence against women and girls. What steps is he taking to make sure that that plan is delivered in our schools?

[Mr Gibb]

This is one issue that will be addressed in the national curriculum review. The issues that the hon. Lady raises are very important and have been given a very high priority by this Government. We share her concerns and we agree with the importance of raising these issues at school level. That is precisely what the national curriculum review will examine.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

The schools White Paper introduced an internal review of PSHE—personal, social and health education—teaching. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of that review?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we will shortly make an announcement on the details of the internal review.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

11. Whether the guidelines he plans to produce for the discretionary learner support fund will have a statutory basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

18. What steps he is taking to improve the standard of arts and culture education in schools.

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

We want all children and young people to be able to experience a strong cultural education. Following the review of music education, the Government have asked Darren Henley to carry out a review of cultural education, both in and out of school.

[Mr Foster]

The Minister will recognise, however, that the creative industries are crucial to the country’s economic recovery. Is he aware that many of the leaders of those industries remain to be convinced that sufficient is being done to include within the national curriculum the subjects that really matter to them—art, design, technology and so on? May we have a categorical assurance that guidance has been given to the national curriculum review to ensure that those subjects are included properly?

[Mr Gibb]

The national curriculum review is considering which subjects should be compulsory at which stages of a pupil’s education, and it will make its recommendations in due course. However, just because a subject is not in the national curriculum does not mean that it is not an important subject. It can be important but outside the national curriculum. We have to distinguish between the national curriculum and a school curriculum. We want to give schools more discretion in drawing up school curricula.

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

Given that academy schools have been among the worst offenders in putting pupils from poorer income families on to grade-inflating, semi-vocational courses, how will the expansion of academies further the take-up of English baccalaureate subjects?

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue on several occasions, and we share his concerns. In most instances, academies have taken over schools in deprived areas and in challenging circumstances, and mostly those schools have been badly underperforming. Academies are transforming the quality of education in those areas at twice the pace of mainstream schools across the system. We share his concerns, however, and the introduction of the English baccalaureate measure will go a long way to ensuring that schools in the most challenging parts of the country start to deliver academic education for children who have been denied those opportunities to date.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Religious Education

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing this debate and on her opening speech, which set out the argument extremely well. This issue has engendered a large volume of correspondence from hon. Members and the Churches. We believe that religious education is an important subject. In fact, it is the only subject that has been a compulsory part of the school curriculum since 1944. The Education Reform Act 1988 made religious education a fundamental part of the basic curriculum, as opposed to the national curriculum, in all maintained schools. Its unique status signifies the special position that religious education holds in reflecting the traditions and beliefs that underpin contemporary society.

RE is central to the aim of the school curriculum, which is to promote the spiritual, moral and cultural development of children and young people and to help prepare them for the responsibilities and experiences of adult life.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) appeared to be proposing the ending of compulsory RE in the curriculum, which is an argument that we will resist. As a Government, we are committed to retaining RE as a compulsory subject to the age of 16, notwithstanding the increasing volume of the secular lobby. Unlike the previous Government, this Administration are committed to faith schools. We value the enormous contribution that they make to our education system, which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has acknowledged.

I agree with the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who said that RE helps to promote community cohesion. RE, as part of a broad and balanced curriculum, should be relevant to all pupils’ background and beliefs. Crucially, the content of the RE syllabus is determined by the locally agreed syllabus conferences, which are appointed by the local standing advisory councils for religious education. Those councils know their communities and understand their needs. It is important that they have the freedom to design an RE curriculum that is relevant and valued by their community.

Less prescription in the curriculum will achieve better teaching. It will enable teachers to do what only they can, which is to engage and inspire their pupils. The national curriculum review aims to prescribe only the essential knowledge and concepts that children should know and be taught, and to leave the professionals to determine how to teach them. We must get away from the mentality that says that, just because a topic or subject is important, it has to be specified in the national curriculum. Moreover, just because something is not in the national curriculum does not mean that it is not important. That same principle applies to what is or is not incorporated into the English baccalaureate.

RE has a locally developed syllabus, which is based on the minimum prescription established in law, and we do not intend to change that. We want schools to have greater freedom because central prescription and the uniformity that it implies do not necessarily produce the best outcomes.

I can assure my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) that academies and free schools are required to teach RE as a condition of their funding agreement, which reflects the importance that the Government attach to the subject.

[Mrs Main]

How would it be read if the humanities and geography were dropped out of the baccalaureate? I am sure that people would think that they were being devalued or downgraded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

I will come on to why we have included history and geography in a moment, which relates to significant drops in the proportion of the cohort taking both history and geography.

I recognise that there are many concerns about the fact that the non-inclusion of religious studies in the humanities component of the English baccalaureate could have an adverse impact on the study of the subject. The E-bac recognises those pupils and those schools that succeed in securing achievement in the core subjects of English language, mathematics, the sciences, a language and history or geography, which reflects what happens in other high-performing countries. Singapore, for example, has compulsory O-levels in English language, mother tongue, maths, combined humanities and science. In France, the brevet is made up of exams in French, maths, history, geography and civics. In Japan, all students at the end of junior high school at the age of 15 are tested in Japanese, social studies, maths, science and English, depending on the prefecture. In Alberta, there are compulsory tests at 15 in maths, science, social studies, English and French. In Poland, 16-year-olds are tested in humanities, Polish, maths, science and a foreign language.

We deliberately kept the English baccalaureate small enough to enable pupils to study other subjects, such as music, art, RE, economics or vocational subjects. My concern is that the core academic subjects of the English baccalaureate—English, maths, science, a language, history or geography—are being denied to too many pupils, especially the more disadvantaged. In 2010, only 8% of pupils eligible for free school meals were entered for the English baccalaureate subjects, with only 4% achieving them. Of the 24% of non-free school meal pupils who took the E-bac, 17% achieved it.

In 719 maintained mainstream schools, no pupil entered any of the single award science GCSEs. No pupil was entered for French in 169 secondary schools. No pupil was entered for geography in 137 schools and no pupil was entered for history in 70 schools.

[John Pugh]

May I disabuse the Minister of his view that I was arguing for a change in the legal status of RE? I was trying to explore whether there are good arguments that he could give that are rationales for making the subject compulsory, which would not be good arguments for making it an option within the baccalaureate.

[Mr Gibb]

The arguments would be the same except that it is unnecessary to make RE a component of the English baccalaureate, because it is already compulsory by law. That is the reasoning behind our decision not to include RE in the humanities component.

RE is clearly a popular and successful subject. Judging by the increasing proportion of students who take a GCSE, it is one that is taught to an academically rigorous standard. There has been an increase in RE GCSEs from 16% of the cohort in 2000 to 28% in 2010. In addition, 36% of the cohort was entered for the short course GCSE in religious studies. By contrast, there has been a decline in the numbers entered for GCSE in history, geography and languages.

[Mr Lammy]

rose—

[Mr Gibb]

I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because I am running out of time.

The proportion of young people attempting geography GCSE dropped from 37% in 2000 to 26% last year. Modern languages dropped from 79% in 2000 to 43% in 2010. Of course 79% of pupils in the independent sector attempted at least one foreign language in 2010. We are determined to close the attainment gap between those from wealthier and poorer backgrounds, and this is one tool in our toolbox to achieve that.

Our hope and expectation is that the English baccalaureate will encourage more students to study history, geography and languages. As it is compulsory to study RE until the age of 16, students will continue to take RS GCSEs in addition to the English baccalaureate subjects.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) proposed having a humanity component of two out of three options, including RE, in the humanities block. We have considered that, and we will continue to review it. The concern is that that will extend the size of the E-bac to seven or eight GCSEs, making it less small and therefore restricting the space for vocational education, music and the arts and for those who do not want to study RE to GCSE.

Education Bill

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Friday 13th May 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Gibb]

The example that the hon. Lady gives applies to one individual, but an objection to admission arrangements applies to an entire school, and therefore to a wider range of people, which means that consultation is necessary before those changes are made. That is the difference between the two examples.

[Official Report, 11 May 2011, Vol. 527, c. 1238.]

Letter of correction from Mr Nick Gibb:

An error has been identified in the answer given to the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) during the debate of the Education Bill. I meant to say that “more consideration is necessary”, not that “consultation is necessary”.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Gibb]

The example that the hon. Lady gives applies to one individual, but an objection to admission arrangements applies to an entire school, and therefore to a wider range of people, which means that more consideration is necessary before those changes are made. That is the difference between the two examples.

Education Performance

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mel Stride]

From one Oxbridge man to another, I accept that that certainly is the case with the 2003 figures, where the lack of information provided by UK and English schools meant we were not included in the league tables. Although there was a paucity of data in 2000, we were included, as the hon. Gentleman will know. Therefore, some level of comparison is justified if we go back to that year.

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

My hon. Friend is making a good point about the PISA surveys. Of course, Ministers and civil servants were not slow in coming forward in trumpeting the fact the 2000 PISA figures were so high.

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for helpfully reminding me of that. I am sure that the shadow Minister will address that comment in due course.

Whether we have gone up or down a bit in such surveys is not the main point, as a number of hon. Members have said. At the end of the day, as I shall demonstrate, being average or around average is simply not good enough—as I think the Opposition accept, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) who very much stressed that point. According to the 2009 league table, if we were to have achieved at the level of the best—for example, Finland—67% of students in this country would have obtained five A* to C grades, including English and mathematics. The actual figure is just 49.8%. That is a huge loss of human capital and is to the enormous detriment of students who did not achieve those grades as a consequence of us not being the best. Average performance is clearly changing through time because those countries with good education systems that consistently put them at the top of the table are good at adapting and innovating. Such countries are not standing still and they are getting better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) on securing this important debate. We have heard contributions from 11 Back-Bench Members, and it has been a useful opportunity for an extended discussion. The hon. Lady commenced the debate with a thoughtful and serious speech, and as the parent of a 17-year-old girl who is currently studying for AS-levels, I have a lot of sympathy with some of her comments about examinations. When I return home tonight, hopefully I will help my daughter to prepare for her English AS-level next Tuesday.

We also heard from the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who is no longer in her place as I think she is contributing in the main Chamber. She took us on a fascinating personal journey around her education, although I felt slightly upset when she did not mention economics as one of the core subjects that should be studied by everyone. We also heard a thoughtful and interesting speech by the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). Later I shall study it again as it will be worth reading on the page.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) pointed out—quite rightly as a former Schools Minister—the consequences of some of the policies that he set in train nearly 10 years ago, including the improvement in the numbers of those achieving five GCSEs, including English and maths, at grades A to C. He reminded us that that number rose from 32% in 1997 to 55% by 2010, and was even higher in his area of Liverpool. Despite the carping about that achievement, there is no evidence to suggest that a significant dumbing down of GCSEs took place during that period. Instead, it is evidence of real improvement in schools and of attainment by our young people.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) made a thoughtful contribution, and the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), who to the relief of us all pointed out that she is not an Oxford graduate, went on to make important points about looked-after children and children who are referred to pupil referral units. I am sure that the House can work together on such issues. I did not agree with her remark about competitive school sport and perhaps she might like to walk to another place at the other end of the building and talk to Baroness Sue Campbell about the improvements that have been made in competitive sport over the past 10 years. As a former Minister responsible for school sport, I recommend that conversation. The Baroness is a Cross Bencher and will not be parti pris.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) made an important contribution and provided the best pun of the debate when she told us that GCSE boxing was a great hook to get people on to studying other things. We heard contributions from the hon. Members for Central Devon (Mel Stride), for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and for Wells (Tessa Munt). The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) sounded as if he were supporting something akin to the report card proposed by the previous Government. Perhaps he should discuss his ideas with the Minister; I thought they were interesting and had some promise as a way of finding a more valid way to measure progress. He spoke a lot about the E-bac, which slightly contradicted what he said at the end of his speech. Perhaps I can ask all Government Members to raise their hands if they passed the E-bac.

[Mr Gibb]

indicated assent.

[Damian Hinds]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) on securing this very important debate, which has seen excellent contributions and consensus on the need to improve our education performance. Her excellent opening speech reiterated many of the points made in her CentreForum report published earlier in the year entitled “Academic rigour and social mobility: how low income students are being kept out of top jobs”. Both her speech today and that policy paper are worthy of much wider circulation, and I hope that they will receive that, because she has made very important points.

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend’s analysis and, in particular, with her forensic dissection of the UK’s educational performance in recent years: her insightful thesis, if I may describe it thus, that equivalence of qualifications has failed the poorest children; her conclusion that comprehensive reform of our education system is urgently required; and her suggestion that there is much more that we can learn from the best performing nations and regions of the world.

There have been excellent speeches from other hon. Members. It is heartening that a debate on education has been so dominated by my hon. Friends, almost all of whom are, as they say, fresh from the people, having been elected in 2010. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) spoke of her own educational journey and emphasised the importance of the foundation subjects of English and maths and the service that the Russell group provided in publishing details of the facilitating subjects, which just happened to match, if I may say so, the subjects in the English baccalaureate. It is a real concern, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, that only 4% of students on free school meals achieved the E-bac last year compared with 15.6% nationally. That figure itself—one in six—is lamentably low.

I wonder what the former Schools Minister, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), would have thought when he looked at the five GCSEs or more figures and the increase over the years—it is up to more than 50% today. I wonder whether he thought that most of those achievements would not be in the English baccalaureate subjects. Did he envisage that only 15.6% would achieve a C or more in the English baccalaureate subjects, compared with the more than 50% achieving five or more GCSEs?

[Stephen Twigg]

The Minister raises a serious point. As I said in my speech, I am passionate about the particular subjects involved—history, geography and modern foreign languages—but I think that I would have recognised that some people would be achieving five A* to C grades at GCSE with one of the subjects being religious studies or perhaps music. My concern is that in a laudable attempt to celebrate the subjects that he has added, other subjects will be crowded out.

[Mr Gibb]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but of course there is plenty of room outside the English baccalaureate to study RE, music and art and, indeed, for some pupils to take a vocational subject. We have deliberately kept the English baccalaureate small to enable that to happen.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) spoke of consistent application of school rules and pointed to how dramatically a school can improve its academic performance once behaviour is sorted out. He is absolutely right. He called for more flexibility in the movement of heads going back to teaching. The Government certainly intend to allow more flexibility in terms and conditions for our schools. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby was right to pay tribute to Teach First, and I welcome his support for its expansion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) said that the paucity of aspiration was a key characteristic of poorly performing schools. He is absolutely right. We must grapple with that in all our schools, to ensure that we do not sell children short, particularly those from homes where there is not much aspiration; we need to replicate that aspiration in school. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for synthetic phonics. I hope that young Master Field is already reading at the age of three and a half.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) is right to be concerned about the growing gap between the independent and state sectors. The OECD has commented on the fact that the gap in the UK is one of the widest among OECD countries. I assure her that we are committed to raising the standard of alternative provision, and to including the voluntary sector and other providers that have a proven record of helping children with challenging behavioural problems.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) said during her contribution that more widely based GCSEs, such as the pilot GCSE in boxing that she cited, can be valued without necessarily having to claim that they are the equivalent of academic GCSEs. That is an important point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) provided an important analysis of the PISA figures from 2000 to 2009. We are determined to address the long tail of underachievement, another factor that was found in many PISA surveys.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) quoted Andreas Schleicher. However, as politicians tend to do, he failed to give the full quotation. It is true that he said that there has been

“very little change over the last 10 years.”

But he went on to say that we are an average performer and that

“improvement on the equality front from a social perspective somewhat declined; performance is average.”

He meant that in a pejorative sense, not as something to be happy with.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire was right to point to the weakness of the figure for five or more A to C grades, and the inevitable focus on the border between grades C and D. We are considering the matter, but measures that look at the performance of the lowest quintile will help to address the problem. A column in the performance tables will show what schools have achieved for pupils qualifying for the pupil premium. Schools will not then be able to say, “Well, this is our intake and this is why we are performing poorly” if we consider GCSE results only of those children who qualify for the pupil premium.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) asked about school places. We are doing a significant amount to tackle the problem. There has been an increase in the birth rate since 2001, which is now feeding through into an increase in primary school numbers, and there is £800 million of basic need capital funding to cover shortages. Capital funding is a priority, albeit that it rather short in the current circumstances.

The hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) cited Australia. We are introducing a scholarship fund—an education endowment fund—of £125 million, to be administered by the Sutton Trust. Teachers will be able to bid for funds to allow them to undertake further study in their academic field, or to improve their teaching skills. That important initiative is on similar lines to the one that she mentioned.

I shall now address the debate more generally. The challenges that we face in the 21st century and the opportunities that we now enjoy are more global in scope than ever before, as many hon. Members have pointed out. The days are long gone when we could afford to educate a minority of our children well, while hoping that the rest would be okay. As we heard, China and India are already turning out more engineers, computer scientists and university graduates than the whole of Europe and America combined.

The success of other nations in educating more of their young people to a higher level is part of their resolute determination to secure their future prosperity. It is no longer good enough to say that we as a nation are doing better than we did in the past. What matters now is not so much how we are doing compared to the past, but how we are doing compared to the rest and, in particular, how we are doing compared to the best of the rest.

We need to ask ourselves how our 16-year-olds are doing when compared with those in the US, Singapore, China and Scandinavia. Sadly, the answer is that we are not doing anywhere near well enough. Across the globe, other nations are outpacing us, accelerating reforms, creating more innovation and pulling ahead in international comparisons.

As has been pointed out, in recent years the UK has slipped down the international league tables. Indeed, when the PISA tables were first published, to the disbelief of the German education establishment they demonstrated that its education system was nowhere near being the global leader it had always thought. In Germany, it became known as “PISA-shock”. Most important, it stimulated a furious debate about how Germany could catch up, and that is the approach that we should be taking. We should not be saying, “Now that the figures are low, this academic or that will not believe them.” That was not being said in the years after 2000 by Labour Ministers or civil servants when the figures showed us being fourth, seventh and eighth in science, literacy and maths.

Similarly, when the United States was confronted with evidence showing that that 15-year-olds in the far east were comfortably outperforming their pupils in maths and science, it was described as a “Sputnik moment”. Most important, it again prompted radical reform of science education in the US. The good news is that the coalition Government are determined to ensure that the latest PISA study leads to similar action here. We are doing so by using examples of what works in the best-performing education nations.

As well as the OECD’s findings, another invaluable contribution was made by Sir Michael Barber and McKinsey. The seminal 2007 report, “How the world’s best performing school systems come out on top”, provided a blueprint for all nations serious about reforming their education systems of what they needed to do to catch up. The 2010 report, “How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better”, provided further invaluable insights for all nations aspiring to improve their education system.

[Stella Creasy]

I am pleased to hear the Minister talking about science being an important subject and something on which the Government wish to measure progress. Will the Minister update us on what assessment his Department has made of the implications of the lack of science labs many schools will suffer as a result of cancelling the Building Schools for the Future fund projects and the lack of investment in science, particularly in areas such as mine?

[Mr Gibb]

We are concerned about science, of course, and we are concerned about science labs, but the state of our science laboratories came about over the 13 years of Labour Government. Of course there are problems, but we cannot debate now the Building Schools for the Future programme and the capital and funding problems that are the consequence of economic mismanagement over the past 13 years, which we are trying to tackle.

In the remaining minute, I wish to make a final point. If we dismiss what the OECD and McKinsey tell us, and fly in the face of the evidence of what works, we will not genuinely tackle the problems. Our recently published schools White Paper was deliberately designed to bring together policies that have worked in other high-performing nations.

I would have liked to talk about the academies movement. We have increased the number of academies from 203 to 658, and we have 1,000 applications to convert to academy status. Evidence of what works around the world shows that only by extending greater autonomy to schools, trusting professionals to get on with their jobs, providing stronger accountability to local communities and raising teacher quality can nations become among the best performing in the world. That is our objective.

Education Bill

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 21—Charges at boarding Academies.

New clause 1—Tackling educational underachievement—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may, by order, in circumstances where an existing school has for the preceding two years or for three of the preceding five years failed to meet or exceed the “National Floor Standards”, disapply any provisions of the Academies Act 2010 to facilitate the making of an academy under section 4 of the Academies Act 2010 (Academy orders).

(2) For the purposes of this clause the term “National Floor Standards” means standards of educational attainment and progress of pupils established from time to time by the Secretary of State and in place at the time of the order and which may be applied retrospectively for the purposes of this section.’.

New clause 13—Schools Causing Concern and disapplication of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006—

‘(1) The Academies Act 2010 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 4, at end insert— “The Secretary of State may by order disapply the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 when making an academy order under this section if the school is eligible for intervention (within the meaning of Part 4 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006).”’.

New clause 19—Purchase by academies of places for pupils aged 14 at a private school—

‘(1) An Academy may apply its funds for the purpose of purchasing a place at a private school for a relevant pupil for the whole or part of the pupil’s remaining school career.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a relevant pupil—

(a) is a pupil on the school roll of the Academy; and

(b) is aged 14.’.

Government amendments 34, 35, 38 and 39.

[Mr Gibb]

I shall also speak to Government new clause 21 and Government amendments 34, 35, 38 and 39.

It is a delight to return to scrutinising the Education Bill after 22 pleasurable Committee sittings.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

And innovative ones.

[Mr Gibb]

Yes, and innovative sittings.

New clause 20 seeks to give pupil referral units in England greater autonomy, to enable them to provide vulnerable children with high-quality education and support. In the schools White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”, we announced that we would give PRUs control over their budgets and staffing. We had intended to use PRU regulations to achieve the financial control aspect of that objective, but although we could do that, the regulations would become very complex and difficult to understand and use. The easiest and clearest way to achieve the objective is to amend section 45 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, so that the provisions on school finances apply to PRU management committees. That is what new clause 20 does.

This is a small change, but its effect will be significant, and we believe that it will be an important driver for further improvement in the PRU sector. In common with our other education reforms, it is based on the trust that we place in the teaching profession and our desire to give schools of all kinds the freedom and autonomy to run their own affairs.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Will the Minister explain how each PRU’s budget share will be calculated?

[Mr Gibb]

The finance regulations will apply to PRUs in the same way that they apply to maintained schools, and, of course, we are currently consulting on the entire school funding arrangements.

The purpose of new clause 21 is to ensure that rights enjoyed by pupils in boarding academies are the same as those in maintained state boarding schools. Under section 458 of the Education Act 1996, local authorities are required to remit boarding fees for pupils from their area who are attending state boarding schools in certain circumstances. Those provisions apply solely to maintained schools. When section 458 was enacted, there were no academies, and as a number of boarding schools are taking the opportunity to convert to become academies, we want to ensure that the pupils at those boarding academies continue to have their right to be considered for a remission of boarding fees safeguarded. So the new clause mirrors the provisions in section 458, with the exception that we are not mirroring subsection (1), which enables local authorities to charge fees for boarding. That provision is unnecessary in the case of academies, because the funding agreement allows academies to charge boarding fees. It must be right that on the remission of boarding fees we have a level playing field in our treatment of pupils at maintained and academy boarding schools.

Government amendments 34 and 35 are being introduced so that some of the pupils who would most benefit from good alternative provision—AP—can be referred to AP academies.

[Kevin Brennan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gibb]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful, again, to the Minister, and I think that it sometimes saves us time if we do things in this way.

On new clause 21 and amendment 38, what safeguards are in place to ensure that excessive fees cannot be charged to the state in relation to independent boarding schools that become academies?

[Mr Gibb]

Ultimately, it is up to the local authority as to whether it remits boarding fees. These powers are rarely used and apply only in two very limited circumstances. The first is where no other educational provision that is needed for the particular pupil is available in the area. The second, as an alternative, is where the parent is suffering financial hardship, and in those circumstances the local authority can take into account how much it remits. So it is very much up to the local authority to make the decision, and of course it would not be persuaded to pay unreasonable figures in those circumstances.

On Government amendments 34 and 35, the current wording of clause 51 means that an AP academy would be restricted to taking a majority of its pupils as referrals by local authorities under section 19 of the Education Act 1996, which places a duty on local authorities to make arrangements to provide education for children who, because of illness, exclusion or otherwise, would not receive suitable education unless those arrangements were made. That restriction arises because of the definition of “alternative provision”, which is why there is a restriction on the amount of children that can be taken as a result of other referrals.

We know that, in addition to those children, the AP sector also provides education and support for pupils referred to it by schools for early intervention to tackle behavioural problems. We want to encourage greater use of early intervention, which can re-engage a child and address behavioural problems at an early stage and, thus, reduce the risk of permanent exclusion. That type of intervention benefits both the child, whose education is less disrupted, and the school, which can ensure that other pupils’ education is not disrupted by poor classroom behaviour. The trial that we will run of a new approach to exclusions will help us to understand how schools can most effectively use early intervention in this way.

We want AP academies to be responsive, and it makes no sense to restrict the proportion of children that they can take from school referrals. Alternative provision academies will be assessed against rigorous criteria in order to obtain academy status, and they will be accountable through their funding agreements or grant arrangements, and through Ofsted inspections. The high level of accountability should mean that they are among the best providers, and we want them to be able to accept the children who most need their provision, regardless of whether they are referred by schools or by local authorities.

[Kevin Brennan]

Will the Minister confirm that full data and statistics will be kept on the number of pupils being referred in this way, just as they are for exclusions?

[Mr Gibb]

Local authorities will, of course, keep records. Our trial is being run precisely to tackle the problem that the hon. Gentleman is hinting at. We want to make sure that the responsibility for what happens to pupils once they are excluded is retained in the system, which is why we are running the trial from this year to see whether we can move that responsibility to the schools where the pupils are originally registered.

[Kevin Brennan]

Clearly, if pupils are no longer being excluded as an alternative provision referral is being made, it is important that that is properly monitored and followed. Will the Minister confirm that we will have a clear picture, across the board, of what is happening on referrals to alternative provision, just as we do on exclusions?

[Mr Gibb]

I will write to the hon. Gentleman to make sure that I am giving him an accurate response on the data collection issues to which he is referring. Of course the funding for places at an AP academy will come through the system, where a record will be kept to make sure that that funding is properly allocated. He is referring to the national collection of data, and I will write to him about that to make sure that we have the case precisely summarised.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

This discussion is important. The Minister will know that many Labour Committee members were particularly concerned about vulnerable children, so will he explain why we are discussing this now, why these provisions were not introduced earlier and why we have not had a proper chance to debate at length these fundamental issues, which he knows to be of great concern to Committee members?

[Mr Gibb]

The issues were raised in Committee, and these are technical amendments—they are about getting the wording of the provisions right. These things could have been done in a more cumbersome way, but we decided to deal with them in the Bill, so that the provisions are made simpler for people who read it. There is no policy difference between what we discussed in Committee and what is set out clearly in the White Paper.

Government amendment 39 is even more technical. It seeks to correct a missed consequential amendment in the Bill. It removes a reference in section 77(3) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to section 77(4) because, if the Bill is passed, paragraph 17(4) of schedule 14 to the Bill will remove subsection (4) from section 77, so we do not want any references to section 77(4) in the Bill. I urge hon. Members to support the Government amendments and new clauses.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Mr Andy Burnham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

Of course, boarding academies will not be permitted to make a profit on the boarding elements of their provision, so there are double safeguards in place.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful to the Schools Minister for that answer, which is very helpful.

On amendments 34 and 35, I would be grateful if we could have an assurance that there is no risk that pupils will be referred unnecessarily under these provisions or that there will be a huge increase in the volume and therefore the cost of alternative provision. What safeguards are in place to ensure that pupils are not simply referred out of mainstream schools and into alternative provision because, for example, their academic performance is not up to scratch as regards hitting their English baccalaureate targets or because schools want a way of dealing with pupils with special educational needs? I would be grateful if the Minister could assure us that strict safeguards will be in place to ensure that the new alternative provision approach cannot be abused in such a way by any schools that are seeking to hit any particular targets on special educational needs and academic achievement. Who will pick up the bill in such cases? Will it be the referring school or the local authority?

Finally, the Minister mentioned the technical Government amendments, and I am grateful for his explanation of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)]

I wish to speak to new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), which I wholly support. It suggests that we should be able to disapply the provisions of the Bill, especially when we are trying to help very disadvantaged children. I think that all Government Members, including those who were involved in Committee, agree that that is ultimately our purpose, although we may not always agree on the means.

The arguments that my hon. Friend has put forward are right. On being radical, I think that the Government can go forward in helping poor and disadvantaged children. Currently, there are more than 1,000 failing schools across the country. Less than 35% of children get five GCSEs at grades A* to C, including in English and maths. Less than 55% of primary school children reach the expected level at key stage 2. All we can say—most Government Members agree—is that too many children are being let down.

If we are serious about reforming our education system so that it has a bright future—and most politicians talk about that in their election literature when they say that they are committed to education—we have to do it now. We have the opportunity and we must take it now. That is why I urge the Minister in my new clause 13 to consider disapplying the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations in the case of failing schools. Some might consider that an unusual new clause. I firmly believe in employment rights, for people who work in the private sector as much as for people who work in the public sector, but when a school fails, it is often because the teachers have let the children down. We should consider whether all those terms and conditions should be transferred across.

I wish to make two further points. First, we must consider the cost involved in transferring across all the terms and conditions, which can add up to about £100,000 for the local authority and the Government. Secondly, we must also consider the bureaucracy involved in doing that. Of course we have to go through a consultation process, unless that has been agreed with all the staff before the academy opens, but I think that it is important that we give the Secretary of State the power to disapply those provisions when they think it necessary to do so. That is because there is only one objective here: we want to ensure that our duty is not to the teachers who may have failed the students, but primarily to the children. This is a probing new clause, and I urge the Minister to consider it seriously.

[Mr Gibb]

I will speak first to new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), and new clause 13, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), who both served, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), on the Bill Committee. I welcome the strong support for the Government’s expansion of the academies programme that lies behind both new clauses. There are now more than 650 academies, more than two thirds of which have opened since September 2010, and that is equivalent to more than two every working day. I am proud that the coalition has achieved this pace of expansion in its first year in office. I believe that it is vital to ensure that the benefits of academy status are used to address underperformance in our education system.

As my hon. Friends will know from their scrutiny in Committee, the Bill includes measures to strengthen the Secretary of State’s power to intervene in underperforming schools. We are strengthening those powers to ensure that we can take the necessary action to invite an effective academy sponsor to transform a school where children are receiving an unacceptably low standard of education and the governing body and the local authority are reluctant to intervene.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford mentioned exclusions, special educational needs and, in particular, children with autism. I welcome his support for the Green Paper on special educational needs and disability. He is right to raise those issues. I, along with officials, recently met the Special Educational Consortium to discuss the matter. I look forward to continued discussion with it on the Bill as it progresses through the House and another place. He rightly highlighted the fact that even with the Bill’s new provisions, many schools will still not be eligible for intervention, despite performing below the minimum floor standard. Ofsted’s inspection judgments in recent years have not always paid sufficient attention to the quality of teaching when identifying schools that require special measures or a notice to improve. I welcome the fact that the changes to the inspection framework proposed by Ofsted start to address that issue.

I share my hon. Friend’s concern that no excuses should be made for low standards. He may be right that the current proposals do not go far enough in allowing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to intervene swiftly in schools that perform below the minimum floor standard. However, we need to be sure that, in any changes we make, there are appropriate safeguards in place for schools to ensure that the Secretary of State is not left open to legal challenge that might continue to frustrate the conversion process.

On new clauses 1 and 13, I sympathise with my hon. Friends’ desire to ensure that unnecessary hurdles do not get in the way of the efficient transformation of poorly performing schools. However, there is a need to ensure appropriate safeguards. We have been convinced by the weight of opinion across both Houses that appropriate local consultation should inform conversion to academy status. The ability to disapply such requirements when converting poorly performing schools, as proposed in new clause 1, is not something we are seeking. For those reasons I cannot accept the new clause.

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

Does the Minister not recognise some of the concerns felt by Government Members? One of the fundamental problems is that often there are not articulate parents who can make the difference in those failing schools and provide the safeguard to ensure that children’s need are properly looked after. It is for that reason alone that we would like some additional powers in the hands of the Secretary of State, along the lines of those outlined new clause 1.

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am not unsympathetic to the views he expresses. I know how concerned he is about educational standards, and the Government are committed to raising standards throughout the system, particularly in inner-city districts, such as those he represents, where there are areas of deprivation that are not well served by schools.

We believe, however, that we do have significant powers. It is always open to argument that more are needed, but we believe that there are sufficient powers, and the Department, headed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is determined to raise standards and is actively seeking sponsors to take over the leadership of schools that do not provide the necessary quality of education. The pressure, help and assistance coming from the Department means that people will be able to make proposals—more articulately than I am being at the moment—locally, but that does not mean that, at the same time as an academy proposal is going forward, there should not be a consultation process enabling all local people to put their views forward.

[Richard Fuller]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a consultation process that requires and comprises a public meeting for local parents, but which the teaching unions, the Anti Academies Alliance and the Local Schools Network flood with activists who have little or, in many cases, no adherence to the community in which that school would be located, is hardly public consultation?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is no requirement to conduct a consultation in a specified way, and we have been careful not to introduce one, because every consultation should be adapted to local circumstances. We want to be flexible about how local consultation takes place and, before reaching a decision, the Secretary of State will look realistically at the local extent of that consultation in order to ensure that it has been genuine.

I share the view of my hon. Friend that, when meetings are packed with political activists who are not necessarily even from the local community but there to deliver their own ideological message, that is not genuine consultation. When a meeting is held and the overwhelming opinion expressed by those people gives the impression of one view, the Secretary of State will look through that to see what the genuine view is of local people in the community. He wants to ensure that the consultation has been extensive and has included local people, so, when local people have in effect been excluded by such activity, he will take that into account before reaching a decision. There is a need for appropriate safeguards, however, and we have been persuaded by the weight of opinion across both Houses to ensure that there is proper consultation.

New clause 13, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), explores the possibility of disapplying the TUPE regulations in schools that are eligible for intervention and that the Secretary of State wishes to transform through conversion to academy status. My hon. Friend will know that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, which the new clause seeks to disapply, were implemented in response to the European acquired rights directive. In line with European legislation, they set out the circumstances in which they must be applied, preserving an employee’s statutory duty and contractual employment rights through any transfer process. Disapplying those regulations for staff in converting schools would mean that such staff were unprotected when compared with other employees whose employment is transferred from the public sector.

I gave assurances in Committee that the rights of staff when transferring from the employment of a maintained school to an academy trust are protected by TUPE, but the application of TUPE at conversion does not mean that staffing cannot be reviewed and restructured after conversion—just as it can be before. We are clear about the need for school work force reform to improve the quality of teaching. We want to make it easier for schools to tackle poor performance by helping underperforming teachers to address their professional weaknesses or by enabling head teachers to deal more quickly with entrenched underperformance.

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s argument, and he will have some support for the views that he expresses.

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

I share the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) about the need to put the interests of the children first, but, as he said that it was a probing new clause, it would not be right to weaken the protection of those who teach and work in some of our toughest and most challenging schools. We have to send out the message—I think my hon. Friend the Minister has just done so—that, although we will protect and support the rights of the people who work in the toughest schools, we will ensure that we have a performance management framework that challenges underperformance, and we will not be afraid to restructure when putting new measures in place.

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is right, and the Government are committed to protecting those employment rights.

The underperformance of teachers is not necessarily the only reason why schools underperform; there is a whole host of reasons, one of which is that schools are burdened by bureaucracy. One key measure that we implemented in the opening months of the Administration was a reduction in the amount of bureaucracy and prescription that has been heaped on teachers over the past 10 years. With those few comments, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey will not press his probing new clause any further.

I turn to the new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). We welcome the many initiatives in the independent schools sector, assisted by the schools themselves through bursaries and scholarships and by many charities, to support children who would not otherwise be able to receive an independent school education. The right hon. Gentleman may have seen the article in The Times today by Lord Adonis and Anthony Seldon, the headmaster of Wellington college, urging the independent sector to sponsor more academies, and we share the views of those two contributors. That should be happening, and we want to see more independent schools sponsoring academies, but the Government’s priority is to transform the state education system so that all children are able to access a good-quality education regardless of their background.

Our independent schools provide some of the best education in the world, according to the OECD and other commentators, and we are keen to encourage greater collaboration between the sectors so that best practice can be shared and schools can work more effectively together in the best interests of pupils and staff, but the right hon. Gentleman’s new clause is neither desirable nor necessary.

An academy is free to further its education objectives by using any funds it is able to raise through charitable donations or other similar sources, but academy funding agreements regulate the way in which such schools can use taxpayer funding. The general annual grant paid by the Secretary of State can be spent by an academy only on its normal running costs, and we have no intention of changing that. That does not mean academies cannot buy in additional support from independent schools or collaborate with them on joint provision, but the bulk of state funding should rightly be used to raise educational attainment and standards for the benefit of all pupils in the academy.

[Mr Frank Field]

rose—

[Mr Gibb]

I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Field]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I am not too grateful for his comments. Supposing the Government allowed a free vote on my new clause, does he think that we would run him close tonight?

[Mr Gibb]

I have no idea what the view of the House would be. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have huge support from Opposition Members, or that all elements of the coalition would necessarily support his proposal. I am not sure what the outcome of such a vote would be, but I am not convinced that his proposal is the right thing on which to use scarce taxpayers’ money.

[Stephen Phillips]

The Minister has quite rightly stressed the importance of using the funding for academies to raise academic standards and to deliver the best education for all pupils in them, but the new clause that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to introduce, at least in a probing way, does not detract from that. It says that the most able pupils should be able, at a marginal cost, to go to what the Minister himself has said the OECD describes as some of the best schools in the country. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not press his new clause, which is a probing measure, but will the Minister keep an open mind? At the moment, he has given no principled reason why the proposed change should be rejected.

[Mr Gibb]

I have listened to my hon. and learned Friend with great care, and he makes his case persuasively, but our principled view is that we want to see standards raised across the state sector. With 93% of pupils in our education system attending schools in the state sector, we want to ensure that every school in that sector caters for pupils of the kind that he and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead are talking about. Mossbourne community academy in Hackney serves one of the most deprived parts of this country; 50% of its pupils qualify for free school meals. More than 80%—I think nearer to 85%—of students at that school achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, including English and maths, and this year they have had 10 offers of Oxbridge places. How many comprehensive schools of which hon. Members are aware have had 10 Oxbridge places offered in one year?

[Mr Frank Field]

I make one last plea to the Minister. My constituents are not interested in a sectarian Government saying that they wish to raise standards in the state sector. My constituents wish to see standards raised, and they are not concerned about which sector is used to achieve that objective.

[Mr Gibb]

I share that view. There is too much sectarianism in education. There should be more working between the independent sector and the state sector. I should like us to look at the methods that are used in the independent sector to see what can be learned from it. Indeed, many of those in the independent sector tell me that they want to learn from what is happening in some of the best schools in the state sector. There should be greater movement between the two sectors, and we are committed to that. We share the views of Lord Adonis and Anthony Seldon in the article that they jointly wrote for today’s edition of The Times.

[Mr Mark Field]

The Minister refers to principles. Does he accept my view that an important academic and educational principle is that it is as important to look after the special educational needs of the most gifted academic children as it is to look after the needs of those who are less gifted? The concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) in his new clause is that all too often the special educational needs of some of the most gifted are ignored.

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is right. We need to ensure that our comprehensive schools are genuinely catering for children of all abilities, and that those able children are as well catered for in comprehensive schools as they are in schools that specialise in children of that ability, whether in the independent sector or the state sector. The point I was making to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) is that the state sector has many examples of where such children are extremely well catered for, and that is why some schools in the state sector have very high levels of entrance to Oxbridge and to Russell group universities. It is our view that if it can be done in those schools, it can be done throughout the state sector. We are determined to have a state education system that can deliver a high-quality education for children of all abilities, including the children that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) mentioned.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) asked about unnecessary referrals to alternative provision academies or to pupil referral units generally. There are three routes by which pupils can be referred to a PRU: first, through section 19 of the Education Act 1996 on placements by local authorities; secondly, through section 100 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which was introduced by the Government of whom he was a member, under a duty on schools and academies to provide education for pupils on fixed-term exclusions of more than five days; and thirdly, through section 29A of the Education Act 2002, under which a maintained school can direct a pupil to be educated off-site for the purpose of improving behaviour. Each of those routes carries its own safeguards, which will remain in place. That will ensure that alternative provision academies will provide for pupils who can most benefit from that provision.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham talked about the need to ensure that there are sufficient places in primary schools, particularly in rural areas. We recognise that the large increase in the number of children of primary school age means that more schools are needed. We have made the funding available to meet that increase, and the academy free schools programme will add to that provision. We are very well aware of these issues. The birth rate has been increasing since 2001, and we are absolutely determined to ensure that there are sufficient places.

With those few comments, I commend new clause 20 to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 20 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21

Charges at boarding Academies

‘After section 10 of AA 2010 insert—

“10A Charges at boarding Academies

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a registered pupil at an Academy is provided with board and lodging at the Academy, and

(b) the local authority for the pupil’s area is satisfied that either condition A or condition B is met.

(2) Condition A is that education suitable to the pupil’s age, ability and aptitude, and to any special educational needs the pupil may have, cannot otherwise be provided for the pupil.

(3) Condition B is that payment of the full amount of the charges in respect of the board and lodging would involve financial hardship to the pupil’s parent.

(4) If the authority is satisfied that condition A is met, the authority must pay the full amount of the charges in respect of the board and lodging to the proprietor of the Academy.

(5) If the authority is satisfied that condition B is met, the authority must pay to the proprietor of the Academy so much of the charges in respect of the board and lodging as, in the opinion of the authority, is needed to avoid financial hardship to the pupil’s parent.

(6) The proprietor of the Academy must remit the charges that would otherwise be payable by the pupil’s parent, to the extent that it receives a payment from the local authority in respect of those charges under subsection (4) or (5).”’.—(Mr Gibb.)

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

[Mr Frank Field]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not pressing my new clause, even though the Minister could have had his speech written for him by old Labour, which I think will be noted. I wish for the proceedings to go forward as expeditiously as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

Take two. I will speak to new clause 10 and amendments 9, 10, 11 and 13, which are in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Our main objection to the Bill is that it takes power away from parents and pupils, particularly at crucial moments in the education journey. Decisions about admissions and exclusions can be life-changing for children, and giving parents the power to challenge them is an essential part of any fair school system. Over the past decade, improvements have been made to ensure fair admissions in English schools, and the Bill will take those safeguards away. It will severely weaken parents’ rights in respect of admissions at both local and national level, and it will limit their ability to seek redress both for their own children and for others who come after them. That would be bad in any event, but when we consider that weakening of accountability in the wider context of the education system that the Government are building—a highly competitive free market—we see that it represents a real danger to the life chances of our children, particularly those with the least support.

Let us put the Government’s changes to admissions in that wider context. First, in time, there could be more than 20,000 separate admissions authorities operating in a free market, accountable only to the Secretary of State and able to bypass local checks and balances. Secondly, on top of that free-for-all we will have the polarising effect of the narrow, academic English baccalaureate. In the competitive education market, schools will desperately try to raise their bac scores, and we can see how the risk will emerge of admissions policies being constructed to support that attempt. Now is emphatically not the time to weaken the powers of the schools adjudicator to rectify non-compliance with the admissions code. With the checks and balances gone, there is a real and present danger that there could be more unfairness in the system and that parents will find it harder to get fair access to good schools.

[Mr Gibb]

Does the right hon. Gentleman support, then, our measure in the Bill to extend the right to complain to the schools adjudicator to parents of children in academies? That right did not exist before.

[Andy Burnham]

Yes, we do, but that is not the central point. In making that move, the Minister is weakening the overall powers of the Office of the Schools Adjudicator and taking away its teeth. We hear that he is also about to weaken the admissions code—I will come on to that in a moment.

My greatest fear is that in Gove’s world, less academic children, those with less parental support and those with special educational needs will be the biggest losers. The Secretary of State is creating by the back door what, as we have just heard, his own Back Benchers are today enticing him to create by the front door—an elitist, two-tier system that is good for some children and some families, not all children and all families. We need safeguards for all parents, and I implore the House to vote to keep them. Otherwise, we will leave uncorrected the real flaw that lies at the heart of the Government’s vision for the reform of public services.

In education and in health, if the Government plan more freedom and autonomy for providers, it is absolutely essential that the change is accompanied by a corresponding empowerment of the public and a greater ability for the users of services to hold providers to account. If the Government do not increase people’s voice, they will create a provider’s market, a free-for-all with an accountability deficit. If primary care trusts or local authorities are no longer there to ensure fairness for all, it is crucial that we keep and strengthen the mechanisms that protect the rights of patients and parents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

I sympathise with the Chairman of the Education Committee. I am reading into what he says the impression that he fears the effect of the English baccalaureate on the proposed free-for-all system, in which there is no power at local level to challenge what schools are doing, and in which the adjudicator does not have the teeth to rewrite admissions policies. I am sensing that the hon. Gentleman has real worries about that, and I ask him to urge those on the Government Front Bench to sort it out, before we drive real unfairness into our school system.

Yes, we should have a system that measures every child’s progress in the important things such as maths and English—that will be the bedrock of any system—but I fear that the English baccalaureate is a highly divisive tool that will set some children against others and give schools the wrong incentive.

[Mr Gibb]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that English, maths and double science are already compulsory up to the age of 16, and that until 2004 a modern language was compulsory up to 16? Therefore, only history or geography are added in the English baccalaureate—and they are compulsory up to 14. What is it about history or geography that he so opposes?

[Andy Burnham]

That is utter nonsense from the Minister, who made, with his Secretary of State, great play of autonomy for schools and teachers when in opposition. They complained about top-down prescription from the previous Labour Government, but will he accept that the English baccalaureate is far more prescriptive than anything we ever did? If so, how does he square that with his previous statements?

[Mr Gibb]

The English baccalaureate is not compulsory or prescriptive. It is also not an accountability measure; the accountability measure remains five or more A to C GCSEs including English and Maths, and the floor standard is 35% of those in a school achieving that. This is not a compulsory combination of GCSEs, but one of many measures that our transparency agenda ensures will be put into the public domain.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

Several amendments from right hon. and hon. Members relate to fair access to schools, and I propose briefly to take them in turn.

New clause 2 would allow independent schools to enter the state-funded sector while remaining academically selective. The independent sector provides high-quality education for its pupils. We recognise this, as does the OECD; it is recognised throughout the country and, indeed, throughout the world. That is why the Academies Act 2010 enables good independent schools to become free schools so that more pupils can benefit from attending them. Independent schools wishing to become free schools will need to adopt non-selective admission arrangements that comply with the school admissions code. They may, of course, remain selective within the independent sector.

I understand the sentiments and motivation behind the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady). He wants more good school places to be available in the state sector; that is the driving force behind the Government’s free school policy. As he said, independent schools came into the state sector under the previous Government, not least Belvedere school in Liverpool and William Hulme’s grammar school in Manchester. However, I suspect that selection is not as paramount an issue for independent schools coming into the state sector as he believes. I give him this assurance: the Secretary of State and I will talk to any independent school, whether selective or otherwise, about moving into the state sector so that we can increase the number of good school places. Selective independent schools are required to open up their admissions if they come into the state sector, and we have no plans to change that. I would expect that my hon. Friend, in his principled way, will continue to argue his case as effectively as he has today.

[Mr Brady]

I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to argue the case in a principled way if I can. I take it from his remarks that there is no principled objection to the existence of selective academies, because several of the new academies are selective schools, and no principled objection to independent schools becoming academies. He has kindly said that he and the Secretary of State will be prepared to meet the heads of selective independent schools that may wish to become academies. Perhaps he could help me a little further by indicating that he sees no immovable reason why in future the Department might not change its policy and allow good schools from the independent sector to become academies, opening up places to children regardless of the ability to pay, even if they are selective schools.

[Mr Gibb]

I thought that I had made the position clear. There are no plans to change that approach. We made it clear before the election that there will be no increase in the number of selective schools, and that remains the policy. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to argue his case very effectively.

[Mr Brady]

I would hate good people involved in education to waste their time, so I want to be clear about whether it is worth good independent selective schools having the conversations that the Minister has generously offered with himself and the Secretary of State. Do they have open minds on whether those schools might be able to join the academies sector in future without changing their ethos?

[Mr Gibb]

I really cannot add anything to what I have said. We will talk to good independent schools, selective or otherwise, that wish to come into the state sector. However, the admissions code is there, it is clear, the legal position is clear, and there are no proposals to change that position.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The Minister said that there was an objection to increasing the number of selective schools. Of course, the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) would not increase the number of selective schools, but merely transfer them from the independent sector to the state sector, meaning that more people from a wide variety of backgrounds would have the opportunity to go to them. I would have thought that that was wholly admirable. The two most popular schools in my area are grammar schools in Reading. Parents want to get their children into those schools, but some of those who do not get in are extremely bright and able, and they get to elite universities from comprehensives, despite the creaming of the grammars. That is a perfectly stable and good system, and I cannot understand why the Minister does not back it.

[Mr Gibb]

I cannot say more than I have said. We gave a commitment that we would not increase the number of selective schools in the state sector. If we were to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) wished, it would contravene that commitment, which we gave before the election.

[Kevin Brennan]

In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), surely such schools would be wasting their time, given that the coalition agreement says that all new academies will have “an inclusive admissions policy”.

[Mr Gibb]

No, they would not be wasting their time, because I am not convinced that these issues are deterring good independent selective schools from coming into the state sector. That is certainly not the case with Batley grammar school, and I am sure that it is not the case for other good independent schools, selective or otherwise, that wish to come into the state sector.

New clause 10 would amend the general duty on the Secretary of State to promote the education of the people of England and Wales to include a duty to

“ensure fair access to opportunity for education and training.”

Equity coupled with excellence is at the heart of the schools White Paper, the Green Paper on special educational needs and this Bill. Fair access is about more than admissions; it is about ensuring that every school is worthy of parents’ consideration, that every school is able to raise standards free from red tape, and that every school supports the most vulnerable children. Everything we are doing in the Department is geared to support that aim: the pupil premium allows funding to follow disadvantaged pupils, we are spending £800 million in 2011-12 to meet the pressure for places at good schools, and our behaviour reforms are intended to make every classroom a safe place to learn.

It should be absolutely clear that we do not disagree with the thrust of new clause 10. Of course it is the job of all those involved in education to ensure that all children have the opportunities they need to succeed, but local authorities already have that duty, and that is where the duty is most appropriate. Local authorities have the duty to secure the provision of education for people in their area, and they have the levers to achieve that. Localism is about ensuring that powers are given at the right level, and it is right that duties go alongside that. Fair access is and should be driven locally, not by a Whitehall-focused duty. I therefore urge hon. Members not to press new clause 10.

[Pat Glass]

Surely localism is about supporting parents and their rights. Anything that weakens parents’ rights, such as not allowing them access to the adjudicator or the ombudsman, is not about raising standards in schools.

[Mr Gibb]

I think the hon. Lady and, in particular, the shadow Secretary of State overstate their case. We are not just extending the right to access the adjudicator to parents of children attending academies, who can now complain to the adjudicator about admissions arrangements, we are also changing the rules on which parents and members of the public can complain to the adjudicator about a school’s admissions arrangements. We are saying that any parent from anywhere can make such a complaint. We are widening the ability of parents and members of the public to complain to the adjudicator.

I turn to amendment 9. Although, again, I agree with the aim of ensuring fair access, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The admissions code is entirely about fairness, which is why we have an admissions system for schools. I can assure hon. Members that in our work to revise the admissions code and make it more straightforward, we have not in any way removed the focus on fairness.

[Andy Burnham]

The Minister has just mentioned the work to change the admissions code. Will he tell us today why he has not fulfilled his commitment to produce the code in advance of this debate? Will he be honest about the reason for the delay? Is it because there is a row going on about the content of the admissions code, so he cannot bring the issue to a conclusion?

[Mr Gibb]

As I said in Committee, the revision of the admissions and appeals codes is a huge undertaking, and we need to ensure that we produce an admissions system that is fit for purpose and puts trust back in schools and head teachers. We are determined to get the codes right, not just push them out quickly. We will consult on them shortly, and they will free schools of the burden and bureaucracy of the current system.

Sometimes I feel that the right hon. Gentleman overstates his case. If he looks at the Bill, he will see that there is one clause about admissions, clause 34, and it relates to admission forums and one or two of the powers and duties of the schools adjudicator. There is nothing in it about the admissions code, it just happens that at the same time as we are bringing the Bill through, we are revising the code. I would have liked to bring it before the Committee, but the work on it is extensive. As I said, we are ensuring that it is right before it is published for consultation.

[Andy Burnham]

That is just not an acceptable answer. The Minister gave a commitment that the code would be ready for the remaining stages of the Bill’s passage, and he has not delivered on that commitment. I ask him again: why has he been unable to publish a code for the House to consider? What is holding it up?

[Mr Gibb]

It is not right yet. When it is right, it will be published. I want to ensure that the code is right so that it is ready for consultation.

[Andy Burnham]

And we don’t get any chance to look at it?

[Mr Gibb]

Well, frankly, it does not affect the issues in the Bill. There is one clause related to admissions, which is about admission forums and the adjudicator, and as I will explain, the changes that it makes are not as radical as the right hon. Gentleman claimed in his speech. Again, I thought he overstated his case.

Although I agree with the aim behind amendment 9, I cannot agree to it. Admissions policies must be consulted upon with the local community, and every state-funded school and academy in an area signs up to the fair access protocols to ensure that the most vulnerable children are placed without delay. Failing local resolution, objection can be made to the independent schools adjudicator for a binding decision that must be complied with. I therefore feel that we must resist the amendment, which would add little to the practice of admissions or the accountability that is already in place.

I turn to amendments 10 and 11, on admission forums. As I said in Committee, local authorities and the communities that they serve must be allowed to make their own decisions on what systems will work for them. It cannot be right to assume a need in every area, and at considerable cost. Last year, a mere 14 out of 152 admission forums wrote a report, seven of which were too late to be considered by the adjudicator. Only five objections out of the 151 received by the adjudicator were made by a forum, and four of those were from one particularly active forum.

Where they are valued, those admission forums can continue. Seeking to impose a one-size-fits-all system, as proposed in the Opposition amendment, is the wrong approach. In taking the line that he has taken, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has overstated his case about what the Government are doing in the Bill. All we are doing is making admission forums non-mandatory. They can of course continue where they are wanted.

[Pat Glass]

However much the Minister values schools forums, they are the only mechanisms through which parents have any input into their local admissions agreements. Surely it cannot be right that parents in one local authority have access to a forum when parents in the neighbouring authority do not. That will create a postcode lottery. The local authority can effectively cut out the parents whose needs are greatest by not having a forum. Surely that cannot be right.

[Mr Gibb]

There is a philosophical difference between the Government and Opposition. We do not believe that the Whitehall-constructed approach, which means that things are identical throughout the country, is right about how to deal with anomalies that might occur. We think that a more localised approach is better. Of course, parents can object to admissions arrangements via many avenues. They can take part in the consultation or lodge an objection with the independent schools adjudicator, for example. In addition, as I said earlier, we are expanding parents’ right to object via the schools adjudicator to schools that are not within their area. That, rather than the top-down, prescriptive, bureaucratic approach, is the right approach. Those are very real problems, and we want to address them. We want to ensure that parents can comment on admissions arrangements and that those arrangements are fair, but we also want to reduce bureaucratic burdens.

On amendment 13, one perceived problem with making admission forums non-mandatory is that concerns about admissions will go uninvestigated. However, that is not true. In fact, admission forums never had a power to make decisions on admissions. That role remains with the Office of the Schools Adjudicator, and the Bill will extend his role so that in future, he can investigate and adjudicate on complaints about admissions at academies and free schools. The Bill also gives power to schools and local authorities to put things right for themselves when the adjudicator judges that their admissions arrangements are non-compliant.

Amendment 13 would provide for a wide-ranging local authority power of scrutiny and direction over admissions authorities following a binding decision by the adjudicator, and offer a mere two weeks’ grace in which such authorities can act to comply with the decision. When I first read that proposal, which was tabled by Opposition Front Benchers, I was in two minds about it. On the one hand, I was reassured by their acceptance of the principle of allowing schools the freedom to implement decisions—although they would have to do so within two weeks. On the other hand, the amendment completely misses the point about the purpose of that freedom.

I sought in Committee to reassure hon. Members that schools cannot simply ignore the decision of the adjudicator: he is a statutory post holder, and his decisions have the force of law. Schools must implement change to comply with the adjudicator’s decision. Although at first glance a fortnight seems reasonable, on closer examination it looks less reasonable. Admissions policies must be locally consulted on for at least eight weeks to allow all parties to consider proposals or amendments. Many changes subsequent to an adjudicator’s decision can be swift and simple, but others take time, because they are inherently complex or because they seek to address coherently a number of issues.

More often than not, the timing of decisions means that they cannot easily be adopted for the coming admissions round without risking frustrating parents and others. That is why adjudicators try to ensure that their changes can be included when appropriate, and not just immediately.

[Pat Glass]

Local authorities have 14 days in which to comply with the decision of a special educational needs tribunal. Therefore, why is it unreasonable for schools to have 14 days to comply with the decision of the schools adjudicator, who is also a statutory body?

[Mr Gibb]

The example that the hon. Lady gives applies to one individual, but an objection to admission arrangements applies to an entire school, and therefore to a wider range of people, which means that consultation is necessary before those changes are made. That is the difference between the two examples.[Official Report, 13 May 2011, Vol. 527, c. 11MC.]

There is something else wrong with Opposition Front Benchers’ amendment 13. It would give the 152 local authorities a power to direct, but those local authorities are themselves the admissions authorities for about 19,000 schools in England, and it cannot make sense to give them the power to direct themselves, which in essence is what the amendment would do. Nor is the amendment consistent with our general thrust to allow schools the flexibility to put matters right themselves. Adjudicator decisions carry the full weight of law, and any attempt to thwart them through undue delay risks further legal challenge and possible direction from either the Secretary of State or the courts. All admissions authorities, including academies and voluntary-aided schools, must comply with binding decisions, and we believe that exactly how they do so is best judged by the schools themselves. However, when they do so will be just as important in ensuring that we do not create chaos in our admissions system. I believe that we have struck the right balance between national parameters and local pragmatism, so I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

I turn to amendment 40, in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). She and, through an intervention, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) explained that they were seeking to ensure that the impact of the changes made by the Bill to the exclusions process were clearly understood. I agree that it is important to understand what is happening in schools on such an important issue, and as I set out in Committee, extensive statistics have already been published on the number of permanent and fixed-period exclusions, including for each local authority and ethnic group, as too have national and local authority-level statistics on SEN exclusions, both statemented and non-statemented. In collecting information, however, it is important to eliminate the risk of revealing the identities of individual children, and in some instances, numbers are likely to be far too low to deliver the level of detail sought by the amendment. If there are fewer than five exclusions in a local authority area, the numbers are not published.

We collect information on the review panels, and will continue to do so for the new panels, including on how many cases are reviewed, the outcome of a panel’s decision and whether the pupil is reinstated by the school. I can confirm that we will also have details of when an adjustment of a school’s budget share is directed. However, I am happy to meet the hon. Member for Walthamstow to discuss the precise data that she seeks to see whether we can accommodate her request, bearing in mind the fact that we have to ensure that we do not inadvertently publish very small numbers, which could inadvertently reveal the identities of individual children.

[Stella Creasy]

I gladly take up the Minister’s offer of a meeting. But will he still put on the record a commitment to a qualitative review of what happens to young pupils with special educational needs in the next 18 months, to ensure that the exclusion powers are not used by schools to bypass their commitments? Will he also clarify the referral process? I asked him to clarify how young people will be referred for statementing. We need to ensure that schools do not think, “Either we could go through the difficult process of statementing, or we could just exclude the pupil.” Obviously the powers that the Bill gives head teachers will allow precisely that to happen. Ensuring that it does not happen to young people is a key concern for Labour Members.

[Mr Gibb]

We can talk about those qualitative issues when we discuss the quantitative ones in the meeting that I just offered. I am happy to do that.

On assessment, the hon. Lady referred to the special educational needs Green Paper, which states clearly in paragraph 3.55:

“We know that there is a group of children with SEN who are currently excluded on multiple occasions on a fixed-term basis, and there may be other excluded pupils whose SEN have not yet been identified.”

That paragraph also states:

“we will recommend in exclusion guidance that children are assessed through an effective multi-agency assessment for any underlying causal factors. We will suggest that schools trigger this assessment in instances in which a pupil displays poor behaviour that does not improve despite effective behaviour management by the school.”

I quoted that in Committee and I quote it again today, to show that it is the Government’s intention to ensure that those assessments take place.

I think people have heard enough of me—

[Mr Iain Wright]

No!

[Mr Gibb]

Thank you.

Finally, let me turn to new clause 22, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education. I fully understand his concerns about the proposed change to the pupil registration regulations that apply when parents choose to remove their children from school to home educate them. My hon. Friend now knows that we shall not proceed with the change in its present form, and I hope that I can further reassure him by explaining the thinking that led us to propose the regulation change in the first place, and what we intend to do now. As he said, the change would have required schools to retain pupils on the roll for 20 school days following a parent’s decision to remove their child from school for home education. If the parents change their minds, the child could be re-admitted to the school. I was attracted by that proposition, as was my hon. Friend.

The Government’s policy remains that parents are responsible for their children’s education. They have the right to choose to fulfil that responsibility by educating their children themselves, rather than by sending them to school, and we have no desire to interfere with that right. The proposed change in the regulations was intended to protect any children whose parents had reluctantly decided to home educate against their own better judgment—for example, those who would rather their child went to school, but who have concerns about the school that they feel it has not addressed. That group is not typical of the majority of home educators, who in my experience are determined, committed and passionate people. Having considered the issue further and taken into account the views of home educators and those of my hon. Friend, I am not yet convinced that the proposed change is the best way to address the concern. Therefore, we are considering other policy options. However, I am grateful to the Chairman of the Education Committee for tabling new clause 22, which has enabled me to put that on the record.

[Mr Sheerman]

I think the Minister was here listening to the debate earlier, but the Select Committee’s report on the matter ranged pretty broadly and made some reasonably positive suggestions for change. When home educators were good they were very good indeed, but the Committee received evidence that some people who did not want to send their children to school could legally refrain from sending them—they would not be prosecuted—by saying that they were home educating them, when there was very little evidence that those children were being educated at all.

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Those are concerns to which we are giving careful consideration, but there are strong opinions on all sides of the debate. We want to ensure that we consider the issues carefully and take all those strong opinions into account.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

May I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend for listening to the representations from me and from home educators? That is precisely the way in which the Government should operate, and I know that there is great gratitude out there among home educators who are afraid that there will always be malign forces at work whenever the Government come anywhere near them. As for the local authorities that misrepresent their powers and are, according to home educators, overstepping the mark, can the Minister give any reassurances about what can be done to protect the rights of home educators? Where there is evidence that children are not receiving a suitable education, local authorities should act, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, but outwith that they should respect the right of home educators to direct their children’s education.

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, just as he made a good speech on those issues. Local authorities are public authorities. They should provide accurate information about their powers and duties, and they are open to challenge if they fail to do so. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.

[Mr Stuart]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. If, with the help of home educators, I compiled a dossier of evidence about local authorities, would it be possible for me to meet the Minister and talk further with him about ways to ensure both that local authorities are aware of the law and that they observe it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

I am happy to accept my hon. Friend’s invitation. As he knows, I always take his views on education in general very seriously, and I am always particularly interested in his very well-informed views on home education. He is probably the most well-informed Member of the House on that issue—

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

He is.

[Mr Gibb]

There you are; you heard it from the Secretary of State himself. My hon. Friend is the best-informed Member of the House on home education, and I will happily have that meeting with him in the near future.

After those rather lengthy remarks, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West will withdraw his amendment so that we can press on to the next group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Let me begin by thanking all Members on both sides of the House who served on the Bill Committee. As with all the best Bill Committees, it was always good-humoured and good-natured, and it included thorough scrutiny of each of the Bill’s 79 clauses and 17 or 18 schedules. In barely a month we had 22 sittings, even more than the Committee considering the mammoth Bill that became the last Government’s Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, which, with 270 clauses, was well over three times the size. We also reached the final clause with time left over to debate new clauses as well, which is rare for any Bill Committee. It is therefore only right and proper for me to pay tribute to the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, as well to officials in the two Departments and officials of the House.

Having spent 13 years in opposition, I know from first-hand experience how demanding a Committee stage can be for Opposition spokesmen, so let me also thank the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for the professional way in which they fulfilled their responsibilities.

The Education Bill has four principal aims: to help schools improve behaviour in the classroom, to remove bureaucratic burdens from schools and, in particular, from teachers by restoring trust in professionals, to ensure that schools are properly accountable to parents and local communities for what they do, and to ensure that the resources that we have are distributed fairly and targeted towards those pupils that need them the most.

[Kevin Brennan]

May I ask whether the Secretary of State’s absence is authorised or unauthorised?

[Mr Gibb]

I find it upsetting when people complain about my presence in debates. Frankly, I think that the hon. Gentleman has secured a very good deal.

There is no bigger barrier to the recruitment and retention of good teachers than poor pupil behaviour. Figures published last month showed that in nearly one in five secondary schools, behaviour is judged as being no better than satisfactory. In the latest year for which we have figures there were over 363,000 fixed-period exclusions, of which 80,000 were issued for threatening behaviour or verbal abuse against an adult. Recent polls by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers found that two in five teachers had dealt with physical aggression during that year, and that a quarter had been subjected to a false allegation by a pupil. That underlines the fact that too many teachers have been hindered in doing their jobs because of poor behaviour. I fully understand why teachers have felt that the system, and the Government, have not always been on their side. The Education Bill will ensure that the pendulum swings back in their favour by strengthening teachers’ powers. They will be able to issue same-day detentions, and to search for, and confiscate, items such as mobile phones and video cameras. We considered these measures in detail in Committee. I hope they are used only very rarely, but I would rather teachers were able to decide for themselves whether to use them and I am confident that they will help protect the rights of all children to learn in an environment free from disruption and bullying.

Just as importantly, the Bill will also extend better protection to teachers from false and malicious allegations. Teachers will now have pre-charge anonymity when faced with an allegation of an offence by a pupil, to prevent false accusations being used to undermine teachers’ authority. Teachers have campaigned for that for years, and it has been delivered by this Government in our first year. Of course, we will continue to listen to those who seek to extend these provisions to other staff in schools and colleges, but we also need to tread carefully in relation to cherished rights of free speech in a free society.

Discipline is just one area in which teachers have not been afforded the trust and respect they deserve. Over the past decade, for every step forward, there have been three steps backwards as yet more targets and diktats were issued to schools from the centre. Understandably, much of the debate in Committee was about whether to retain the legislation that piled up under the previous Government. I do not doubt that much of that was well-intentioned, but it has clearly failed to address the performance gap this country faces, especially for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

We are determined to raise the professional status of teachers by giving them the space and flexibility they need. Since the Academies Act 2010 the number of academies has more than trebled, from 203 to 658. All those schools are able to decide what is best to raise standards for their pupils, free from red tape and political interference. That is why it has attracted not only Toby Young, but Peter Hyman, Tony Blair’s former director of strategy and author of the autobiographical book, “1 out of 10: from Downing street vision to classroom reality”. Peter Hyman is setting up a free school in Newham. Newham School 21 will teach children between the ages of four and 18 and aims to be open in September 2012. The Bill provides for two new types of academies: alternative provision academies, and 16-to-19 academies, which will extend the benefits of the programme even further.

The Opposition have complained that the Bill centralises power, yet at the same time they complain when we strip back the layers of instruction and guidance telling schools and colleges how to co-operate, which they put in place. Similarly, they protest when we end the requirement on every local authority to set up forums, irrespective of their actual needs or unique circumstances. The Bill will help us bring an end to the perpetual revolution that has been inflicted upon schools, by allowing professionals—not the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency or the General Teaching Council—to do what is best for them.

Just as we are liberating professionals from bureaucracy, so we are ensuring that there is stronger accountability to parents. The Bill will sharpen school accountability by reducing the number of areas in which Ofsted inspects to just four—pupil achievement, quality of teaching, leadership and management, and behaviour and safety—with outstanding schools and colleges also being freed from routine inspection, so that more focus can be diverted towards those that need it most.

The independent regulator, Ofqual, will ensure that our qualifications stand comparison with the best in the world by measuring our relative performance. Because we are prepared to take action where schools and local authorities fail to give children their one chance of a good education, the Bill strengthens the Government’s power to intervene in poorly performing schools, which often have higher proportions of disadvantaged pupils. The Minister for children, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), is introducing an entitlement to free early-years provision for 130,000 disadvantaged two-year-olds across the country. The scrutiny in Committee has allowed us to set out clearly that we will maintain the free entitlement for all three and four-year-olds at 15 hours, and that we will ask Ofsted to review the impact of the two-year entitlement.

We are also ensuring that more resources are targeted at the education of the poorest through the pupil premium, which will be worth £2.5 billion every year by 2014-15, and the Bill will ensure that funding for apprenticeship training takes priority when young people have a place, so that we deliver on our ambitions to expand the programme and make it the primary work-based learning route for raising the participation age. Thanks to the vigilance and scrutiny of the Chairman of the Education Committee, we have now removed a reserve power to suspend this offer, which underlines our commitment further. In addition, the scrutiny provided and arguments put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and for Wells (Tessa Munt) on the issue of school governors and the proposals in clause 37 have allowed us to improve our policy in this area. We have retained the principle of governor appointments based primarily on skills, while also meeting their desire to reflect stakeholder groups with an interest in schools, in particular staff and local authorities.

The schools White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”, set out a pathway to close the attainment gap between those from the poorest and wealthiest backgrounds, and to reverse this country’s decline in international performance tables, so that all who are educated in our state schools have the opportunity to compete with the school leavers and graduates of countries with the best-performing education systems. This Education Bill will allow us to take important steps on that journey, and I commend it to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

May I gently point out to the shadow Secretary of State, as I equally could to the Minister, that there are Back Benchers who would also like to contribute and that would help the House?

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

The Bill abolishes a number of bodies—the General Teaching Council for England, the Training and Development Agency for Schools, the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency and the Young People’s Learning Agency.

In the past the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations were applied when bodies were abolished and staff were transferred from the public sector to the private sector. They would be protected, together with their conditions of work, the recognition of their trade union and their basic employment rights. Because that does not apply to transfers of staff within the public sector, the Cabinet Office introduced the Cabinet Office statement of practice—COSOP—which in the past has been included in legislation so that TUPE principles applied to staff as if they were being transferred out of the public sector. The previous Government stated on the face of the Bill that that was the situation when the Learning and Skills Council was abolished. The present Government have done the same thing in the Localism Bill, but not in the Education Bill. As a result, the staff are feeling insecure about their future. That affects morale and recruitment and retention—

[Mr Gibb]

We are committed to applying the principles of the Cabinet Office statement of practice, which has been agreed with the trade unions. I hope that helps the hon. Gentleman.

[John McDonnell]

It is incredibly helpful to have that on the record. It would be valuable if the Minister could see whether it could be put on the face of the Bill when it goes to another place.

Year 1 Phonics Screening Check

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Written Statements

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

It is vital that all children learn how to read early in their education. Despite the efforts of teachers and parents, 15% of pupils did not reach the expected level in reading at the end of key stage 1 last year. At the end of key stage 2, 16% of pupils were below level 4 in reading, and 8% of pupils were below level 3. These figures show that we need to do more to ensure that our children have the skills as early as possible, to develop into confident, enthusiastic readers.

Research evidence shows that systematic teaching of synthetic phonics is the best way of teaching reading. All children should benefit from high-quality phonics teaching, which will give them the tools to read widely and deeply. Phonics is a prerequisite for children to become effective readers, but it is not an end in itself. Phonics should always be taught alongside comprehension and other wider reading skills. The goal is for children to read fluently for comprehension and pleasure so that they can access the rest of the curriculum and develop a lifelong love of reading.

The Government’s intention to introduce a simple, light-touch assessment of phonic decoding was included in the recent schools White Paper “The Importance of Teaching”. The Government have been consulting on plans to introduce a year 1 phonics screening check. The consultation document proposed the check should be designed to confirm that children are able to decode using phonics by the end of year 1, and to identify those pupils who need additional support.

Over 1,000 responses to the year 1 phonics screening check public consultation were submitted. Having considered all these responses, alongside other evidence such as the pre-trialling of sample assessment materials and reviews of academic research, the Government will develop the phonics screening check for this purpose. The check will provide parents and teachers with the reassurance they need that each child has grasped the basic code of the language. In a recent Nation Council for Parent Teacher Associations survey, 73% of parents, from a representative sample of 460, supported the policy.

The phonics check will contain some non-words. Non-words are already used in many schools, and they are the quickest and fairest way to assess phonic decoding. Non-words are new to all children, and their inclusion in the phonics check is designed to ensure children have the skill to read any new word, rather than simply a good sight memory for whole words.

The responses to the consultation repeatedly emphasised that the check must be manageable for schools to administer, and appropriate for children in year 1. We have therefore made a number of adjustments to our proposals to give schools and teachers greater flexibility, including allowing a week long window for the screening check to take place across the whole year group, and allowing more than one teacher in each school to administer the check. We intend to include the data from the check in RAISEOnline for use by schools, to monitor their own performance, local authorities and Ofsted. Although schools and other education professionals will consider their pupils’ performance on this check in light of national benchmarks, this is not a “high stakes” test. We will therefore not be publishing school by school results in performance tables.

In November and December last year, the Department pre-trialled sample screening check materials in 16 schools. Pupils and teachers responded well to the materials. Pupils were not confused by the use of non-words, and the check of 20 real words and 20 non-words took an average of just 2-3 minutes to administer.

The screening check will be piloted in a representative sample of approximately 300 schools this June. We will continue to gather evidence and take advice from schools about the policy during the pilot stage before finalising the assessment arrangements. Subject to the pilot’s success, the year 1 phonics screening check will become a statutory assessment from 2012.