Academies Bill [Lords]

The hon. Gentleman and I often agree on education matters, but on this particular matter I do not agree with him. He will know—not only from his experience in the House, but from his local authority experience, which he had on a local education authority, as he reminded us yesterday—that when we talk about money being available, that means money being accounted for in the proper way, so that proposals to do certain things in the future are made according to the rules laid down by the Treasury. The Treasury will not allow anyone to say that they will involve schools in various—for example, in Building Schools for the Future—unless they conform to certain rules. The point that I was making to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) is that the then Secretary of State—now the shadow Secretary of State—conformed to all the Treasury rules to ensure that when those schools became ready for rebuilding, the money was there in the proper way. I was also making the point that free schools, which are the Secretary of State's preferred route forward, are already saying they are feeling the consequences of the changes that the Government have made. In the Yorkshire Post on 9 July—I will not read out the headline, in order to save the Secretary of State from embarrassment—it was reported that free school pioneers are worried about the impact of the changes that the Government are making and feel that they have ““dealt a blow”” to their proposals to establish a free school in Kirklees. Whether it is right or wrong to have a free school in Kirklees, it is not just those on the Opposition Benches who are saying that the position with respect to Building Schools for the Future has caused problems for existing schools. People whom one would have expected to support the Government—indeed, to come out dancing on the streets about what they are doing—are now turning round and saying, ““Actually, the route the Government are pursuing is causing a problem.”” One of the good things about being in Committee is that it gives us the opportunity to look at things in detail. When the Minister replies to this debate, I wonder whether he will comment on the terms of reference for the capital programme, which I want gently to share with the Committee. I do not know whether my hon. Friends or other members of the Committee have had a chance to look at the terms of reference for the allocation of capital funds—they might want to refer them to their constituents, because they are contained in one of those papers that gets tucked away, but which has huge significance—but there are five of them. The second is:"““To consider how to generate sufficient places to allow new providers to enter the state school system in response to parental demand””—" that refers to free schools or additional schools, or whatever we want to call them. The fifth is"““To enable the establishment of new schools.””" I do not know about my hon. Friends, but the Minister might need to tell us how the Government can reassure us on that. He has turned round and said, ““Don't worry, the Building Schools for the Future money has nothing to do with free schools or additional schools.”” However, we then read in the terms of reference for the review group that the Department has established that two of the five criteria by which decisions on how to allocate capital funds are made refer to how capital funds are to be allocated to these new schools. Anybody looking at that would say, ““What's going on there?”” When we look at the criteria under the heading ““Distribution of capital investment””, we read the following:"““To increase choice locally determined by parental demand””." When we read more about the review, we see why amendment 70 is so important, especially as it talks about allocating capital money. At the moment, there will be no consultation with local parents, the local authority or anybody else about what will be done; it will just be the Secretary of State determining that a free school in an area would be a great thing to have. A few people will get together, write out a bit of an application—a few hundred words here, a few hundred words there—and then go the Secretary of State, who will say, ““Oh, what a good idea! We'll set up the free school up.”” However, I would again like to share with hon. Members what the document that I have quoted says. I look at this with incredulity, especially after the great fanfare with which the Secretary of State made his announcement. In that document, the Secretary of State says:"““To review and reform the requirements on schools including the building/School Premises Regulations””." What that actually means is as follows—and this is why amendment 70 is so vital. When the Secretary of State and the Schools Minister talk to parents about establishing schools and so on, they should make things clear. Perhaps the Schools Minister's constituents are different from mine, but I do not get many parents coming to me and saying, ““Can I be on the fifth floor of a tower block?””, ““Can I be in a disused Tesco?””, or, ““Those portakabins are pretty good—can I pop round there?”” Most people I speak to want to get rid of the portakabins. However, the Secretary of State's vision of this new school world—this free school nirvana—is this: ““It doesn't matter where you establish schools; it's fine.”” We all know—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) often makes this point, and quite rightly so—that, at the end of the day, what really turns a school around is not its structure, and often not the buildings, but the quality of teaching and learning, and the quality of leadership. However, there is no one here who would not also point out to each and every one of us—there was a survey about this a couple of days ago—that the quality of school buildings is an essential part of who we, as a civilised society, provide the standard of education that we would want in our schools, for ourselves, our teachers and our children. When we came to power in 1997, the quality of school buildings in general across this country was, frankly, an absolute disgrace. Does that mean that we have reached the point now, in 2010, where every single school is at the standard and level of quality that we would want? No, it does not. But I can stand here as a proud member of the previous Government and say that our record on capital investment and school building transformation was second to none, and I am proud of that. People from Liverpool, the north-east and elsewhere in the country are talking to us about this Government's attack on the school building programme. Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members will have the same problems. Even at this late stage, however, we hope that the attack on the programme can be reversed. The amendment proposes consultation with ““local parents and children””, and with ““the relevant local authority””, as well as any ““other persons deemed appropriate””. If those people were consulted and told that a free school was going to be built, other parents in the area might ask where it was going to be. They might well then be told, ““Oh well, it's going to be in some disused building.”” To be fair to the Secretary of State and the Minister and the Schools Minister, I agree with some of the things they say and I would not castigate them for everything, but I think that this proposal is completely beyond the pale. I find it astonishing. These regulations are called ““Reducing the burden on schools””, but they should be called ““Putting kids in substandard buildings””. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Halton is still here, because he and I have always taken a keen interest in these matters. At the end of the regulations, we find out that they deal with not only building school premises regulations and design requirements, but ““playing field regulations””. I cannot remember a time when Members on both sides of the House have not become incandescent about the selling off of school playing fields—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) wants to intervene, that is fine.