---

 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1583
 

House of Commons

Thursday 16 March 2006

The House met at half-past Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

The unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker having been announced, The Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

School Transport

1. Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Which categories of children attending the proposed trust schools she expects to be entitled to (a) free and (b) subsidised school transport. [58779]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Phil Hope): All children attending their nearest suitable maintained school receive free transport if the journey is over three miles, or over two miles for children under the age of eight. In future, primary pupils from low-income families will receive free transport if they live more than two miles from school. Secondary pupils from low-income families will receive free transport to any one of their three nearest suitable schools if the journey is between two and six miles.

Tony Baldry: Every day, a number of parents in Bicester exercising parental preference hire a coach to take their children to Marlborough school in Woodstock, which is more than six miles away. In a semi-rural area such as mine, people who wish to express parental preference can do so only if they pay for it, which is unfair for everyone. It is unfair for parents who cannot pay, and it is unfair for parents who have to pay to exercise preference. With respect, the Education and Inspections Bill will not change that situation.

Phil Hope: The Bill includes a number of important measures that will help families with transport. The cost of transport is a barrier, particularly for low-income families, which is why the Bill extends the entitlement to free school transport. There is a general duty on local authorities to assess all pupils' travel needs; local authorities' current focus is on 7 per cent. of pupils. When the new travel plans in the Bill—another measure for disadvantaged pupils against which, regrettably, Liberal Democrats voted last night—come into force more families will benefit from the opportunity for their children to attend the school of their choice.
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1584
 

Jeff Ennis (Barnsley, East and Mexborough) (Lab): The Minister will know that the top 200 performing state schools have two factors in common: the lowest number of children receiving free school meals and the lowest number of children with statements. The bottom 200 state schools have the highest number of children receiving free school meals and the highest number of children with statements. Does the Minister agree that the grand objective of trust schools is to achieve a better social mix, not just in trust schools but across all schools?

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the nature of social segregation in different schools. He will be pleased that the Bill, which will proceed to Committee in a few days' time, includes new measures to ensure that local admission forums measure free school meal allocations and, indeed, other allocations in schools. The forums and, indeed, the school adjudicator can measure and assess the problems described by my hon. Friend. Indeed, the schools commissioner will produce a report every two years to show what progress has been made in reducing those problems.

Science

2. Mr. Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con): If she will make a statement on the teaching of science in secondary schools. [58780]

3. Mr. Mark Lancaster (North-East Milton Keynes) (Con): If she will make a statement on the teaching of science in secondary schools. [58781]

The Minister for Schools (Jacqui Smith): The chief inspector's latest annual report shows that the quality of science teaching and learning is good or better in nearly three quarters of secondary schools. We are improving that teaching and learning further by making the school science curriculum more engaging; improving teacher recruitment; providing more and better professional development; and introducing a new statutory entitlement to study science programmes leading to at least two GCSEs.

Mr. Crabb: I thank the Minister for her reply. Yesterday, the CBI warned of the erosion of core science and engineering skills in this country, describing the decline in the number of science graduates as a car crash in slow motion. Does the Minister agree that the situation will not be turned around without serious improvement in the quality of science teaching in British schools? When 40 per cent. of all chemistry lessons are taught by non-chemists, is it any wonder that the country is not producing enough 18-year-olds with a love of, or an interest in, science?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, as are the CBI and others, to identify the importance for the economy of high numbers of science understanding and science graduates. That is why, for example, the introduction of specialised diplomas with an emphasis on applied science in areas such as engineering is important and why we need to continue working, as he suggested, on the quality of teachers. It is reassuring
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1585
 
that, whereas in 1997–98 we recruited 2,790 people to teacher training places for science, in 2004–05 the number increased to 3,460.

Mr. Lancaster: May I declare an interest, as recorded in the Register of Members' Interests? Given the Minister's previous answer, what message does she think is sent to our sixth-form science students when they discover during national science week that the chemistry department of the five-star Sussex university is to be closed?

Jacqui Smith: Like other higher education institutions, the University of Sussex is, rightly, an autonomous organisation. Students in the south-east will be reassured to know not only that the number of home full-time undergraduates studying chemistry has risen by 6 per cent. since 1999 but that the Higher Education Funding Council, working with the surrounding universities, particularly Reading, Southampton and Surrey, has already ensured that the places lost at Sussex will be provided at those other universities.

Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby) (Lab): I, for one, am very grateful for the extensive work that we have done to renew science facilities in schools. However, the reality is that the number of young women who are entering engineering apprenticeships is pitifully low, because we do not have sufficient resources aimed at promoting and taking women into work. What will my right hon. Friend do to address that very low figure and try to improve the number of women going into engineering apprenticeships?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend has a strong background in this area and has pushed me on numerous occasions on precisely that issue. There is the work that I know that she supported in respect of women in science and engineering, the task of ensuring that there are role models for young people, the introduction of the specialised engineering diploma that I mentioned previously and the task of ensuring that, as we improve information, advice and guidance for young people, we enable, for example, young women to undertake taster courses in areas such as engineering so that they realise that engineering is not only something for them, but needs their talents.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Perhaps this is the moment to remind the House that the questions are about science in secondary schools.

Sarah Teather (Brent, East) (LD): The Department's own research has pointed to a crisis in specialist physics and chemistry teachers in deprived areas in particular. The Institute of Physics has called on the Government to adopt recruitment targets in the individual sciences rather than science as a whole. Why have they not done that?

Jacqui Smith: I refer the hon. Lady to the figures that I gave previously, which show that the Government have made considerable progress in increasing recruitment to initial teacher training of science teachers. I also refer her
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1586
 
to the important work—the £51 million project—being carried out jointly by the Government and the Wellcome Trust to develop science learning centres around the country, which are contributing to the continuing professional development of science teachers throughout the country.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): In the science curriculum in mainstream British secondary schools from September, creationism is to be taught alongside Darwin's theory of evolution. Does the Minister welcome that, as students should understand the context in which scientific ideas arise and reinterpretation of empirical evidence can generate scientific controversy?

Jacqui Smith: In fact, neither creationism, nor intelligent design are taught as subjects in schools and they are not specified in the programme of study for the science curriculum. In fact the national curriculum for science clearly sets out that pupils should be taught that the fossil record is evidence for evolution and that that is a fact. As my hon. Friend identifies, there will be opportunities, perhaps in RE lessons or in science, to consider scientific controversy and the issue of creationism may come up in that context, but it is not, of course, a factual element of the science curriculum.

Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): In the spirit of the consensus that was developed yesterday, I thought that, together, we might tackle science teaching in our schools. One of the unforeseen consequences of the Conservative Government's making science compulsory was the proliferation of the double science award GCSE, which is now almost universal in the state sector and likely to remain so even with the Minister's reforms. For someone going on to study three sciences at A-level, that means a reduction of a third in the amount of science that he or she studies at GCSE. Does she agree that we need much better science teaching in our comprehensives and far more students studying the three separate sciences at GCSE?

Jacqui Smith: I was not so involved in the consensus yesterday that the hon. Gentleman is talking about—[Interruption.] I voted for the Second Reading of our Labour Bill, yes—[Interruption.] And Conservatives voted for a Labour Bill, as well.

It is important that we ensure, in the way in which science is taught, particularly at key stage 4, that we provide our young people with both the knowledge and the enthusiasm to continue to study science at a later stage. That is why one of the things that we voted for yesterday was an entitlement for every pupil to study at least two science GCSEs. Part of the way in which that entitlement will be represented in schools will include the study of three separate science subjects. I am confident that, whether we are talking about the science and advanced science option, or the three single science options, that will provide young people with the knowledge and enthusiasm to carry on studying science at a later stage in greater numbers.
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1587
 

---