| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD): May I say—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I thank hon. Members very much indeed, but they are taking up my time.
We certainly welcome some elements of the Bill. Clause 1 emphasises the role that local authorities should play in improving standards for all children. Quite frankly, I take that as a given—indeed, it was stated for the first time in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998—and it is good see it re-emphasised. The point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) about looked-after children is absolutely right. We very much welcome the Government's recognition that we must have a strong disciplinary framework in our schools to which people can relate and in which teachers in particular feel safer.
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1513
The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and the hon. Member for Knowsley South (Mr. O'Hara) both made very telling speeches in their own ways. They both emphasised that their constituencies have dynamic local authorities. Sheffield was Liberal Democrat-led and is now Labour-led, and it has taken on our great ideas. [Interruption.] I shall carry on while I am winning. Those local authorities have been doing exactly what they should be doing: providing dynamic leadership in the schools in their communities and delivering results.
The schools in Sheffield, Brightside—they were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Sheffield Brightside—achieved those results and improvements despite the Bill. They did not need the threat of trust schools coming along. They did not need wealthy individuals to put in £2 million to get £25 million of Government capital to improve. They improved because the local authorities believed that such things were important. The work going on in Knowsley South is, quite frankly, inspirational.
Ms Angela C. Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that schools in Sheffield, Brightside have enjoyed relationships with external partners via the education action zone and, in addition, that the chair of the local sixth-form college was Sir Hugh Sykes—a local benefactor of Sheffield schools?
Mr. Willis: The hon. Lady makes my point exactly—the Bill is not needed to do all that is claimed—and I am grateful to her for emphasising that fact.
This is a Conservative Bill, but Labour Members will support it in the Lobby tonight. We heard the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) make it absolutely clear that these are Tory proposals. Labour Members can dance on the head of a pin about whether or not the Bill will create grant-maintained schools mark 2, but the reality is that that is exactly what they will be. That is why the Bill has so excited Tory Members under their new leadership.
We have only to go back to what Lady Thatcher said at the Tory party conference in 1987:
"Give parents and governors the right to take their children's schools out of the hands of the local authority".
Little did she know that a Labour Prime Minister would do exactly that, but the question that we as a party—my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) made an outstanding contribution in her first speech in her new role—and, indeed, those Labour Back Benchers who have the courage to stick to their Labour principles have to answer is, in fact, whether these are the right proposals.
First, where is the evidence? I asked the right hon. and learned Member for Ruscliffe, who is a former Secretary of State for Education and Science, and the current Secretary of State to produce any evidence to support the proposals. The White Paper said:
Where is the evidence that that will occur? It said that, under the Bill,
Where is the evidence for that? Not a single bit have the Government been able to produce in support of that claim. It also said that
Where did that come from? There is no evidence at all that that is what parents want. The vast majority of parents want good local schools, and when they have had the opportunity to take up some of those advantages, they have not taken them.
Let us consider the grant-maintained system. Despite the fact that schools were bribed to become grant-maintained and extra resources were involved, how many did it? Just fewer than 1,000 primary and secondary schools took up that offer. Let us take the Education Act 2002—
Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Willis: Not now, as I am in full flow.
Let us take the Education Act 2002. We again argued whether all schools should have the power to innovate and have earned autonomy unless they were under special measures. The Government refused that, but exactly the powers that could underpin most of what is in the Bill are in place. What have we had from schools, parents and governors since 2002? Three schools have asked for permission to change the school day. That is how excited parents and governors are about actually changing things. There is no evidence. I wish there was more time, but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones)
Lynne Jones: Of course, the Government will argue that no school would have to opt for trust status; it is purely voluntary. However, does the hon. Gentleman share my concerns that there are all sorts of ways in which the Government coerce schools to do what they perceive the Government want? In Birmingham, there are proposals for seven academies. There is no demand for that, but the Tory-Lib Dem controlled LEA is forced to go down that route, because that is the only way that it knows that it will get the desperately needed funding for the schools.
Mr. Willis: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and the Minister knows that she is right. The point applies wherever one goes in the country. For example, to get money from the building schools for the future programme, Newcastle had to include an academy in its proposals. I do not believe that that gives choice. It is back to the nonsense that we heard the other night when the Home Secretary told us that having a passport was voluntary. It is just semantics at the end of the day.
One of the great myths in the Bill is that the creation of choice and diversity means that the good schools will suddenly, because of trust status, say, "Ah, we want to take the most disadvantaged, unruly, disruptive kids from the estate down the road so that we can expand." That is absolute and utter nonsense. There is not a single piece of evidence for that. Successful schools are successful because of their size, catchment area and parental involvement. The idea that we will deal with disadvantage simply by creating trusts is absolute nonsense.
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1515
Before the last general election, the Government betrayed most of our schools and most of our youngsters by their betrayal of the Tomlinson report and its proposals. There is a sop to vocational education in the Bill—a sop that continues the myth that academic education is for the best and vocational education is for the rest. Lady Lumley's school is in North Yorkshire where it is sometimes 30 miles to the nearest school let alone the nearest college. One cannot have there the sort of diversity that is prayed in aid by the Secretary of State and Ministers. In reality, the Secretary of State will decide the vocational curriculum; it will not be individual schools. There will not be that flexibility.
Wherever I go—I am sure that this applies to every Member of the House—I am constantly bombarded by companies that say that they cannot get people with the right skills. They are talking about the right skills from levels 2 and 3 and right up to graduate and postgraduate levels. The Bill does absolutely nothing to create a 21st century curriculum. All it does, yet again, is show that this is a controlling Government who have now reformed themselves in the image of Mrs. Thatcher. They should be ashamed.
3.58 pm
Martin Salter (Reading, West) (Lab): What a horrible image.
When Dr. Philip Cowley updates his next pamphlet on Back-Bench rebellions, he might like to consider the following subtitle: "The Education White Paper: How to lose friends and fail to influence people". I give credit to the Government for eventually and grudgingly—at times, it felt like pulling teeth—making important concessions in response to the concerns raised both in the alternative White Paper and by the Education and Skills Committee, teachers, schools governors and many others. However, there have been spectacular gaffes along the way, most notably when hon. Members were told that their concerns were misplaced and would all disappear once we truly understood the nature of the White Paper. I have to say, spinning a set of proposals to curry favour with the Daily Mail and patronising the hell out of Labour MPs is an interesting, but inadvisable political tactic and I trust that Ministers have learned from it.
I was in the Department for Education and Skills for a very short time as the White Paper was being prepared. It became clear to me that my role as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister for Schools would be to promote the White Paper proposals among my colleagues—something that I was simply not prepared to do. It is not that everything in the White Paper is necessarily objectionable or runs contrary to Labour values. In fact, the points of contention about trusts, admissions and the role of local education authorities are contained in a comparatively short section of the White Paper: some 28 pages in a 116-page document.
Perhaps most objectionable of all, however, was the contention put forward without a single shred of evidence that good local education authorities are an inevitable drag anchor on progress and innovation. That was pure dogma, inserted into the middle of an otherwise reasonably acceptable White Paper. We know
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1516
where it came from, and I have to say that it was not from the Department for Education and Skills. Poor LEAs have to be dealt with, but good LEAs offer support and encouragement and play a vital co-ordinating role in helping schools to improve and in driving up standards. They did not deserve to be trashed as they were in the White Paper and I trust that they will not be again.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |