UK Parliament / Open data

Academies Bill [Lords]

Proceeding contribution from Ed Balls (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 19 July 2010. It occurred during Debate on bills on Academies Bill [Lords].
I visited Sandwell last week, a borough where several schools were told that their new school buildings were going ahead—in version 1 of the Secretary of State's list—but were told in list 2 or 3 that he had made a mistake and all their new buildings were being cancelled. As part of that discussion, I met the head teacher of a special school whose promised new investment has been taken away. We discussed the fact that the new academies policy will take out of the funding agreement the obligation on academies to focus on stopping exclusions of children with special needs. So I have exactly the same concern as my hon. Friend. The head teachers in Sandwell were pleased that I visited. They were also pleased that the Secretary of State has agreed to visit Sandwell to apologise for his dreadful mistake. However, they think that it is odd that he wants to visit on 5 August. Visiting schools in August is not usually the done thing, as the Secretary of State will find out. I am sure the reason is that his diary is full. Perhaps he should share the load. I know that the Prime Minister is today in Liverpool announcing his big society. Perhaps the Secretary of State should urge the Prime Minister to apologise to the 25 schools in Liverpool and the many thousands of children who have seen their new school taken away from them by the free-market schools policy in this Bill. Perhaps while the Prime Minister is there, he could also apologise to the leader of the Liberal Democrat group on Liverpool council, who had some interesting things to say about the Secretary of State. Former council leader Councillor Warren Bradley said that"““it would be absolute folly if we were to ignore the impact of such a ridiculous decision by Michael Gove, whether or not we are in coalition. Not only would it show how shallow we are, either in control or opposition, we would be letting this and future generations of young people down.””" He goes on:"““It's ridiculous. The plans for BSF were so far advanced and it's unforgivable that other funding options are not in place.””"

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

514 c38 

Session

2010-12

Chamber / Committee

House of Commons chamber
Back to top