---

The Minister for Schools (Jacqui Smith): I start by thanking all the Members who contributed to this very lively debate. I am not surprised. As the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) suggested, education is the passion that brought many of us into politics. This debate has built on the important debate that we had since we published the White Paper and up to the publication of the Bill, a debate that involved parliamentary colleagues. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and the work of the Education and Skills Committee in taking forward that debate.

I pay tribute to other hon. Friends and parliamentary colleagues, as well—even to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) for his contribution to the debate that we have had since the White Paper. The debate has also included local government, head teachers and school staff, including through their professional associations. The Bill is better for having gone through that process.

We want to continue the scrutiny and discussions in Committee, which is why I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is
 
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1560
 
frankly wrong to ask people to vote against the programme motion, as is the Conservative party. The programme motion sets an end date for consideration of the Bill in Committee. I know that some colleagues are worried that that might limit the time available for scrutiny, but I can assure them that the number of Committee sittings and how long they last is not in the motion. We have already said to Opposition parties that we are prepared to be flexible about this matter to ensure that the Bill has all the scrutiny necessary in Committee and two days for Report stage and Third Reading on the Floor of the House. I ask my hon. Friends and others to support the programme motion.

During the debate, many colleagues have contributed their experience as teachers, governors, local councillors and parents. I taught for 11 years before coming into this place. I taught in the lean years, when funding per pupil was falling in real terms, when we used to run around putting buckets under leaky roofs, and when the four in 10 11-year-olds who came into secondary schools without the necessary levels of English and Maths sank or swam—and usually sank—on their own. So, although I welcome support from wherever it comes in the House, quite frankly I would not depend on Tories to deliver our shared ambition to provide the best education for every child, wherever they live, whatever their background.

We have been taken back in time by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—back to 1987, back to Margaret Thatcher. Well, there is one thing that can be said about those years: at least then Tories used to vote with the courage of their convictions. Tonight, they will be voting with the courage of our convictions, because the Bill builds on the hard work of staff, governors, school leaders and local authorities throughout the country, backed by Labour Government investment and reform, which has led to the best ever results, more young people staying on and getting on, and fewer failing schools.

For this Government, however, good enough has never been good enough. While there are still seven out of 10 young people on free school meals who do not get five good GCSEs, while too many leave education and training at 16, and while where someone comes from still determines where they will get to, there is more to be done, and only a Labour Government can do it. That is why clause 1 spells out what is at the heart of our reform: ensuring that every child fulfils their educational potential.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) is right to focus the Government on disadvantage, but that is what the Bill does and what our funding has been doing. The Bill is about more one-to-one and small group tuition, more targeted support for disadvantaged families and more full-time provision for excluded pupils—the sorts of things argued for by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) as well.

John Bercow: Given that children in young offender institutions receive, on average, only eight hours of education a week, but that the Minister says that the Bill is intended to help all children, will she be good enough
 
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1561
 
to tell me and the House where in the 167 clauses, 18 schedules and 228 pages better provision is made for those children, because I cannot see it?

Jacqui Smith: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have looked in detail at the Green Paper that we have already published about offender education.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) made the important point about special educational needs and, of course, ensuring the potential of every pupil covers that. I can assure him that all maintained schools, including trust schools, have a duty to admit pupils who have that school named on a statement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) rightly argues that the extra funding that we are making available for personalised learning should be used to develop collaborative initiatives in Plymouth. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) identified the progress being made for looked-after children in the Bill.

This is a Bill that gives every child an entitlement to a choice of new vocational diplomas, rightly highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley South (Mr. O'Hara), whose authority is a pathfinder in taking forward that work. It is a Bill that makes healthy food and drink available throughout the school day. It opens up access to a range of exciting activities after school and in spare time.

Remaining on those issues, I welcome to the Front Bench the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather). I hope that when she has been in her job a bit longer she will bring a bit more coherence to the Liberal Democrat position. As it is, I have to say that I am quite looking forward to the next "Focus" leaflet. Alongside the headline, "There's a hole in the road. The Lib Dems are looking into it," will be one saying, "And by the way, we've just voted against support for school discipline, more vocational choice, better school food and youth facilities and a tougher admissions code."

Furthermore, this is a Bill that ensures that teachers can teach and children can learn, free from bullying and the persistent low-level disruption that blights too many classrooms.

Turning to trust schools, I have great respect for the experience, particularly the teaching experience, of my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) and for Elmet (Colin Burgon), but I think that they are wrong in arguing that there is not a link between what happens in the classroom and the potential of the trust school model. What happens in the classroom fundamentally depends on the leadership of the school, and we can find more ways to support that.

That is why this is a Bill that empowers schools, not to go it alone, but to work with other schools, colleges and external partners to meet the particular needs of their school community. That was the point made so brilliantly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), when he talked about the experience of education action zones and I was reminded why he was such a fantastic Secretary of State for Education and Employment. It was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea
 
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1562
 
(Martin Linton), who argued that higher standards in schools are not a zero sum game. Innovation in the system helps to achieve higher standards.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) suggested that trust schools would mean an irreversible transfer of assets. Let me reassure him that that is not the case. When a trust school wishes to dispose of non-playing field land, it will have to inform the local authority, which will be able to object or claim a share of the proceeds. If a trust is removed, the assets will revert to the governing body or, in the case of school closure, to the local authority.

I turn now to the issues raised by several hon. Members about the role of local authorities. This is a Bill that enshrines the role of local authorities as the champion of parents and pupils, and as the guarantor of standards—my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) rightly challenged hon. Members to look to improving standards in their constituencies. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) that the tougher powers for local authorities to intervene earlier and more strongly where schools are failing will apply to all schools whatever their status. There is also a key role for local authorities as the strategic leader of local services.

In very thoughtful speeches, my right hon. Friends the Members for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) and for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) rightly argued for the important role that local authorities can play, first, of course, in planning places and particularly in relation to expansion. It has been possible for all categories of school to publish expansion proposals since June 2003, but that is not an unfettered right. What is new is that the Bill provides for the local authority, in its new role as a champion of parents and pupils, to take responsibility for school organisation decisions, rather than the school organisation committee. In reaching any decision, the local authority and the school adjudicator will take into account the impact on overall standards in an area.

My right hon. Friends also argued strongly for local authorities to bring together the elements of their responsibility for children's services and for delivering on our belief that every child matters, alongside their role in commissioning schools. That is a key area of the new strategic role for local authorities, which is why every school will have a duty to pay regard to the children and young people's plan produced by the local authority.

Several of my hon. Friends raised the issue of community schools and local authorities' ability to propose the establishment of such schools. May I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said this morning? We are content to explore in Committee whether we should set out in legislation—and, if so, how—the factors that the Secretary of State must consider in reaching a decision about whether to allow a community school proposal to proceed. Finally, the Bill guarantees fair access to the system of higher standards that we believe that we can build through its provisions and our reform programme. It will do so not just for people who can afford to move house for it or who can afford to pay for it but for everybody.
 
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1563
 

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), throughout the debate and in a very thoughtful speech this evening, has emphasised the need for fair admissions, and we have included that in our objective. I assure my hon. Friends that we can consider in Committee the detail of the admissions code and the criteria that will apply to it, as my right hon. Friend spelt out. Some hon. Members expressed concern about the way in which the admissions forums will work in their new strengthened role, but we can look at regulations on reforming admissions forums so that they can play that role not only by referring schools to the adjudicator and producing an annual report but by establishing a collective commitment to fair access across a local authority area. Those are all important questions, and I give the House a commitment that we can consider them in Committee.

The Bill is about delivering equity alongside excellence. It is about delivering less selection and more opportunity. Ironically, if Members vote against it this evening they will vote for weaker admissions arrangements. It is a decisive move away from the policies previously embraced by the Opposition—a grammar school in every town; a few grant-maintained schools opting out of the local family schools and receiving the differential capital funding available at the time; and a passport out for a few children, rather than the drafting in of support for the many.

---