---

Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab): According to a Liberal Democrat press release, schools would be required to take a certain number of children who are eligible for free school meals, otherwise they would lose out financially. Is not that a focus on social engineering and structures rather than on standards?

Sarah Teather: We would like admissions to be controlled by the local authority; we do not think it appropriate for schools to control their own admissions, as that is much more likely to entrench social segregation. One of the things that we have been looking into is giving schools an incentive to take children from disadvantaged backgrounds or who are underachieving and, under the proposals that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, giving them extra money to take those children so that they can do well—[Interruption.] That is one of the proposals that we are looking at and I shall come back to that point later in my speech.

Mr. Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op): Given that the Bill does so much to improve discipline in classrooms, why do the hon. Lady and her party intend to vote against it?

Sarah Teather: As I explained, although we welcome those proposals, there are so many other aspects of the Bill that are timid on reform that as a whole it is not good enough to accept. The Conservatives have made a similar decision; there are things that they do not agree with, but they have decided on the whole to support the Bill. Each party must consider the Bill as a whole. We have done so and we do not feel that it is good enough.
 
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1490
 

Mr. Khan: The hon. Lady has just explained why she is not in favour of giving schools autonomy on discipline. Can she explain why she is not in favour of giving children aged between 14 and 19 the skills they need to do well in society?

Sarah Teather: The hon. Gentleman has not listened to what I said. That is not what I said. I said that we were opposed to giving schools autonomy on admissions, not on discipline. Particularly lacking in the Bill are proposals to implement the reforms recommended by Tomlinson. There are proposals on personalised learning, but they are timid reforms that go no way towards meeting the needs of young people.

We object to the Bill because we believe that the Government have missed the point about freedom and they have missed the point about choice. The proposed new trust schools will lack the one freedom that schools really want and that pupils really need—the freedom to teach what young people want to learn. But they will gain the one freedom that is likely to make inequality and discrimination worse—the freedom to pick their pupils.

The most important predictor of educational achievement for young people growing up in Britain today is their parents' income, and the gap between the attainment of rich and poor is getting worse, not better. For many young people—more than 16,000 last year—that means they will leave school with no qualifications at all. About half of 16-year-olds leave school with fewer than five good GCSEs. Britain has one of the worst records in the developed world on 16-year-olds leaving education, yet post-16 education has a huge impact on a young person's future earnings. Almost 80 per cent. of young people who leave school at 16 go on to earn less than half the average wage, so our education system is fostering inequality rather than aspiration.

If we are serious about tackling poverty and social justice and about giving all our young people the opportunity to fulfil their potential, we must address the reason why so many are failed by the current system. Reform of our education system must begin with freedom for schools from the over-regulatory centralised curriculum, with real reform of education to give young people choice and opportunity over what they learn.

Tom Levitt: The hon. Lady is making points rather than arguments. The thrust of what she seems to be saying is that the Bill does not go far enough, but given that it is the only Bill on offer and that it takes us a long way along many of the lines that she has set out, why does not she accept half a loaf and then go further?

Sarah Teather: Because, as I was about to point out, some of the problems with the Bill will make it difficult to implement the reforms that we want.

Mr. Andrew Turner: The hon. Lady knows that the Conservatives who now run the Isle of Wight council were bequeathed a failing education system by the Liberal Democrats, who admitted as much when they
 
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1491
 
left office. Can she tell me on how many occasions they asked the Secretary of State for derogations from the national curriculum such as she has described?

Sarah Teather: The hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to know the detail of what has happened in his local area, but if he writes to me, I shall write back.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Due to the hon. Lady's rationing policy on interventions, I must refer back to her remarks on admissions. The Bill states that looked-after children will have priority on admissions, which already happens in my constituency. By voting against the Bill, the hon. Lady will deny that right to all the other looked-after children in the country. How will that help disadvantaged children?

Sarah Teather: The provision that the hon. Lady has mentioned will be introduced by regulation and is not part of the Bill.

If we are serious about reforming education, we must, as I have said, implement the reforms in the Tomlinson report. The entitlements to diplomas laid out in the Bill are all very well, but they will do nothing to shift the two-tier system in education. The two-tier system fails children at both ends of the academic spectrum, because the brightest children are not stretched and many others are completely disaffected. Both groups of children need the option of combining skills and study to allow them to enter the work force with knowledge and know-how.

The Labour Government claim to advocate the politics of transformation, yet they have bottled this chance to transform 14-to-19 education, leaving untouched one of the most potent sources of Britain's class divide. Why will they not implement the root and branch reforms recommended by all since the late John Smith's commission on social justice more than a decade ago.

Mr. Dismore: Is it Liberal Democrat policy to abolish A-levels?

Sarah Teather: As we have said, we want to implement the Tomlinson report, which means using building blocks in a modular form to build towards a diploma.

To implement the Tomlinson report properly and provide real pupil choice, one needs a model by which schools and colleges work together. Clause 149 includes enabling powers to support schools and colleges in working together, but there is no incentive and no requirement to adopt that approach. No school is likely to be able to offer a full range of courses for students across the whole range of vocational and academic study, let alone arrange for work-based learning, if it is appropriate.

Ms Dari Taylor (Stockton, South) (Lab): Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that she has only read the Bill in part? I chair the all-party group on adoption and fostering, and it states on the face of the Bill that top priority will be given to admissions for looked-after
 
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1492
 
children, which is crucial. I hope that she has the decency to acknowledge that she has read the Bill only in part.

Sarah Teather: I shall certainly look at that point. [Interruption.] I have been in this job for one week, and if I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected.

Meg Hillier (Hackney, South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op): The hon. Lady is confusing me, because one moment she talks about devolving power locally, while the next she talks about making changes at a higher level. The Bill gives schools choice, and I point her to the example of Hackney, where strong political leadership has resulted in freedom for local schools along with a requirement to collaborate. If she believes in decentralisation, she should believe in the power of local government to get schools to work together.

Sarah Teather: I believe in decentralisation, but I do not believe in devolving power on admissions.

Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): Will the hon. Lady explain how it squares with Liberal philosophy to oppose giving more freedom to schools, parents and governors to form partnerships or federations of their choosing in order to raise standards in their school?

Sarah Teather: I shall come to that point later in my speech. We do not oppose that approach—in fact, we welcome it. It would be better if groups of schools and colleges in an area came together to collaborate and co-operate on timetables and teaching and were judged by their collective efforts and not by the individual exam results of each institution. I welcome the Secretary of State's support for federations, which already exist in many areas, and I also welcome the change in language on supporting collaboration, but the problem is that the Bill does not include a lot of those proposals.

As has been said, schools could collaborate through loose federations and more formal learning networks, or we could require schools and colleges to work together in a community learning trust, which would still allow external partners to participate. [Interruption.] I have no problem with the concept of a trust; my problem concerns particular details. [Interruption.] I also have a problem with giving freedom on admissions. Reducing the number of parent governors on a trust rules out community governance.

We need to reform education and focus more on students' needs. When one examines the most poorly performing secondary schools in England, one finds that they are plagued by three interrelated problems—poor discipline, truancy and young people opting out of post-16 education altogether. Pupils are currently voting with their feet. In the months of posturing leading up to today's debate, the word "choice" has been oft used and much abused, although it actually appears only three times in the Bill. The Government have not used the word "choice" in respect of young people, and we need an education system that gives young people choice and encourages them to take responsibility in their lives.
 
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1493
 

---