---

Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (Con): I am grateful to the Secretary of State, not only for his customary courtesy in letting me have early sight of his statement, but for ensuring that every Member of the House could thoroughly familiarise themselves with its contents by reading the papers in recent days.

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, in which case Conservatives should feel really flattered today. There is much in what the Secretary of State has said that we can and do welcome: making it easier for good schools to expand; putting choice at the heart of the drive to raise standards for all; giving schools new independence; redefining the role of local authorities; and sharply increasing spending on schools. That all sounds rather familiar. Indeed, all of it was lifted from the Conservative policy document that was launched last week. Much of today's announcement is a tribute to the power of the photocopier; it is a product not so much of Blair or Clarke as of Xerox.

We welcome the Secretary of State's renewed commitment to early-years education and the concept of the extended school. A three-year budget for schools, geared to pupil numbers, is getting towards the idea of funding following parental preference, which we also welcome, and I certainly support what the right hon. Gentleman said about our wish to play our part in finding consensus on vocational education, in particular for 14 to 19-year-olds.

The Secretary of State said that parents must have more choice. Does he accept, however, that such a statement is meaningless without a commitment to create more capacity in the system? Why did he say this morning,

"we haven't got a new places figure"?

Why will he not match the Conservative pledge to create 600,000 extra school places to ensure that at least 100,000 additional parents can gain their first choice of school within four years? He also said this morning,

"we will encourage new providers to come in",

but he will not, will he? He will not match our pledge to pay for any child at any school a parent chooses, so long as everyone there is charged the basic state rate, so he is not really offering choice at all, is he?

The Secretary of State says that he wants to create more city academies, which are a rebranding of the Conservatives' city technology colleges. Will he confirm, however, that future waves of city academies will receive far less funding from the state than those being set up at the moment? He says that he wants to create more sixth forms, which is an astonishing statement given that, under this Government, learning and skills councils up and down the country are driving through plans to close existing excellent sixth forms. Will he tell the LSCs to call off their attacks on sixth forms, or is his affection for sixth forms only skin deep?
 
8 Jul 2004 : Column 1015
 

In his statement, the right hon. Gentleman made great play of saying

"we will not allow any extension of selection by ability."

However, he also said this morning that

"specialist schools are allowed to select up to 10 per cent. of their children by aptitude".

That means that all the schools that he now intends to turn into specialist schools—all secondary schools—will be able to select. Or does he seriously expect us to believe that there is a real difference between selection by ability and selection by aptitude? If selection is such a bad idea, why was the BBC briefed this morning to say that under the Government's plans

"comprehensive schools will be swept away"?

Is not the truth that he wants to be able to tell the middle classes that selection will come back, while telling his Back Benchers that selection will be kept out?

Will the Secretary of State's proposals require primary legislation? If so, when will we see it?

The Secretary of State said this morning that his main theme was that

"we want to give more independence to schools."

Therefore, does he agree with the unnamed Cabinet Minister who told a newspaper this weekend that

"if you want to say these are like grant-maintained schools, I couldn't disagree"?

That is the big idea: new Labour, new grant-maintained schools. They will seek a mandate for a third term promising to do the exact opposite of what they did in their first term. It is not much of an election slogan: "Vote Labour to reverse everything that the dreadful Labour Government have been doing."

Will not teachers and parents recognise that if even Labour now admits that only choice, diversity and deregulation can raise standards, they should have a Government who believe in such ideas in their bones, not in their focus groups? Will not everyone know that the only way to get real choice and a real lift in standards is to vote Conservative?

Mr. Clarke: Let me address those points one by one.

First, on the question of mechanisms and capacity, let me remind the House that this Government are increasing investment in schools and school places by massive numbers. We are building the new schools, we are putting in the places, and we are offering the capacity to take the choice forward, on the back of a position of cuts, cuts, cuts during the Tory years.

Secondly, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has clarified that his policy is to put more money from the state sector into private schools. When that is quantified, which his noble Friend in the other place has done, we realise that between £1 billion and £1.5 billion a year would be taken from state schools and put into private schools.

Thirdly, on future waves of city academies, the commitment is to ensure that city academies reach 21st century world-class standards. It is not a commitment to a particular amount of money—some can be refurbished, some can be built, and that is the position. But they will reach those top-quality standards.
 
8 Jul 2004 : Column 1016
 

Fourthly, it is completely untrue to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman does, that learning and skills councils are launching an assault on sixth forms, to use his words. Learning and skills councils in every part of the country have a programme to consider what is the best provision locally, to widen choice and to widen opportunities. That is what they are doing.

As I think the hon. Gentleman will know, 94 per cent. of specialist schools offer no selection whatever on aptitude or anything else. The aptitude tests that we are talking about relate to sport, music and such directly related issues. I am glad, however, that he raised the issue of selection as he did. The truth is that that is the dividing line between the parties in the House: we say that there should be a code of admissions and no selection on the basis of ability; the Conservative party says that every school should have the ability to select its pupils with tests, in every circumstance, not only at the age of 11 but at the age of 5. That is a massive difference and the people of the country will know it.

The hon. Gentleman asked about primary legislation. There are aspects of our proposals that require primary legislation, which will be introduced in due course.

Finally, I remind the hon. Gentleman that grant-maintained schools were funded by a national funding agency, which we are not reintroducing—we are funding through local government. Let me remind him that they had beneficial levels of funding compared with everybody else, whereas our specialist schools, city academies, non-specialist schools—all schools—are funded on the same basis, without the discrimination that was established through the Conservatives' system. Therefore, whoever the anonymous Cabinet member was, they were wrong, and I am glad to say that in public. No doubt he can tell me who that individual was.

There is a choice facing the country—it is the choice that I have set out. I hope and believe that the country will vote for progress in the way that I have established.

Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD): I echo the thanks to the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement and of the five-year plan.

Having spent a lifetime in education, it is very sad that I should respond to a five-year statement by saying that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) has summed it up right: it is Tory policy being delivered by a Labour Government, and I find that absolutely scandalous.

We support much of what is in the mission statement launched by the Secretary of State today and by the Prime Minister yesterday, in his evangelical announcement in Camden. No one could deny that we need to raise standards for all, to eradicate educational failure, to extend educational achievement and to give schools more autonomy and freedom. It is strange to think that two years ago the Secretary of State vetoed a Liberal Democrat amendment to what became the Education Act 2002 that would have given all schools earned autonomy. That has now become standard policy.

We support those objectives. Our differences with the Secretary of State lie in how they are to be achieved. We welcome the move to three-year budgets, which I think will be welcomed by every head teacher in the land, and the sensible change to a budget year beginning in
 
8 Jul 2004 : Column 1017
 
September and ending in August. Why, though, did the Secretary of State not support the idea of an activity-led funding model, particularly for higher schools and particularly for the 14-to-19 phase? We also welcome his commitment to early-years centres. He said that all parents would have access to them, but will he confirm that by the end of the five years 80 per cent. of the poorest boroughs will have no early-years centres? I do not know how he can reconcile that with his commitment.

Few Members would oppose the concept of excellence and opportunity for all, but the Secretary of State's plan seeks not to erase but to widen division. We were told that there would be no selection—that schools would not be allowed to choose students. How on earth can any Secretary of State try to persuade the House and the public from the Front Bench that that can be achieved by giving specialist schools the right to choose 10 per cent. of their pupils, and dancing on the head of a pin when it comes to aptitude and ability? How can it be achieved by allowing 500 new independent specialist schools to select 100 per cent. of their students on the basis of ability or similar criteria, and allowing 200 academies to select for whatever purpose they choose? [Hon. Members: "You got it wrong."] With respect, we got it wrong when Ministers said that there would be education for all. Saying that there will be no selection and then allowing virtually every school in the land to select is an illusion worthy of David Blaine.

We are not concerned about academies or specialist schools. We are concerned about ensuring that children gain access to good local schools that receive state funding. Can the Secretary of State explain how—given the increased plethora of admission arrangements that he has announced—it will be possible to give all children, irrespective of postcode, ability, social class or religion, an equal chance to gain access to the schools of their choice? If he cannot guarantee that, yesterday's claim by the Prime Minister of excellence and opportunity for all was little more than a cruel deception.

The deception does not stop there, however. How can the Secretary of State believe that creaming off £5 billion from the capital budgets of "schools for all" to pay for 20 new academies will do other than provide fewer resources for the rest? Will he confirm that local authority asset management plans are now redundant, and that a deprived community will be able to acquire a new school only if it is an academy? If the 500 new foundation schools all expand with the help of additional capital and revenue, what will happen to the others—the schools that are left with falling roles and fixed costs? How can that give the poorest of our kids the opportunities that they so richly deserve?

This Government came to power promising standards, not structures; but today's statement was all about structures. It contained nothing about standards. Where was there mention of a curriculum in the new five-year arrangement? What is happening to the vocational offer? As for special educational needs, they have been parked out of sight.
 
8 Jul 2004 : Column 1018
 

The Secretary of State ought to look around the country. He would find that not all schools are like London schools. Many are in rural areas where there is no choice because there is only one school.

This is not a five-year plan. It is an election plan, launched in an attempt to steal the Tories' clothes before the next general election and next week's humiliating by-election results in Leicester and Birmingham.

---