Academies Bill [Lords]

When I was selected as the parliamentary candidate for my constituency, the editor of the Manchester Evening News described me as a dyed-in-the-wool socialist. He was being complimentary, and I took it as a compliment. That is my starting point. I believe in education that is free for everyone. I do not believe in selection criteria. I do not believe in a system that says, ““You can come in, but you cannot.”” I do not believe in a system that says, ““If you have a certain level of education or qualification, such as particular skills in maths or English, you can come to our school, but otherwise—sorry, we don't want you.”” I believe that all schools should take kids of all abilities, because that is the only way to bring about real levelling and equality in society. People here sometimes talk of the golden age of grammar schools, and reminisce about how brilliant those schools were. Let me give an example of someone who would have been completely lost if the grammar school system had been all that we had. In Watford, where I grew up, we had some very good comprehensive schools thanks to a Labour Government. Only one grammar school was left. If selection criteria had been applied, I would have been shunted off to one of the old-fashioned sink schools where no one had a chance to go to university, and pupils were expected to leave school at 15 or 16 and work as a shop assistant or in a factory. There were no real expectations of them. That did not happen to me, however. I went to a comprehensive school; I took my A-levels, went to university and qualified as a barrister. I can honestly say that if we had not had comprehensive schools I would have been thrown on the scrapheap, notwithstanding all those golden reminiscences about grammar schools. Let us get real. Why should we have selection at all? Given that all these schools are state schools, paid for by the taxpayers—you, me and everyone else—why should they be able to act in such a way? People should be able to send their children to schools that are as near as possible to their homes, with good equipment, good teachers and good resources, and they should all be good schools. Members may think that that is utopia, but it may be something we can work towards. Many schools have improved since Labour came to office in 1997. The Labour Government put real money into helping schools. They enabled existing schools to be refurbished and new schools to be built, and provided schools with classroom assistants and extra teachers. A Conservative Member said that our record of educational achievement had worsened. That is not true. According to all the statistics throughout the country, more people now leave school with five GCSEs, and higher grades than in 1997. That is a record of which a former Labour Government can be proud, and I find it annoying when Members seem to forget the real educational advances that were made under that Government. When my party introduced academies, I was one of those who was not very happy about it, as I preferred that all schools be looked after by the state and the local education authority. I was convinced by that move, however, when it became clear that the less well-performing schools were going to have the chance to get some extra funding so they could improve their educational level. For that reason alone, I was willing to support that academies measure. I want to make it clear, however, that my Labour Government spent a lot of money on education. This Academies Bill is ideologically driven. The best-performing schools will not even have to bother to do anything; they can just go through the process and get academy status. We are told that we do not have enough money to build schools. Schools in my constituency that were going to be refurbished and rebuilt have had those plans cancelled because, they are told, there is no money for them, even though those cancellations will cost my council about £9 million, yet most of the schools that will become academies will have to go through a process that will cost them money. We are trying to save money in that way, yet at the same time we are saying, ““No, it's fine if you want to become exclusive schools and exclude people because you want to maintain your so-called high standards; we are not interested in that.”” Therefore, those schools have the freedom to do that. That is not fair, and I think all Members on both sides of the House should be concerned about this elitist attitude—the attitude that says, ““We must have these excellent schools which only a few excellent people can attend.”” Let me give an example to explain why we need mixed-ability schools. A junior school in Kilburn was considered to be not so well performing, but then a lot of middle-class professional people started sending their children to that school, and years down the road it was found that the performance of the school had gone up. That is what happens such when parents become involved in ordinary schools—in what might be considered sink schools or less well-performing schools. When parents from different backgrounds are involved in schools, standards rise even though there are mixed-ability children. The issue of standards is what this debate should always be about. We all talk about wanting to look after our children, yet all we hear about is exclusivity; all we hear is, ““We want better schools to get better.”” There is no mention in the Bill that there should perhaps be some kind of admissions criteria that allow, let us say, 50% of children in these schools to come from ordinary schools—those that are not performing so well. The Bill does not say that, and everybody knows that when we have a selective system the brightest children get taken on and that cycle continues.