Sorry, the shadow Minister. It is all very new.
The problem with the shadow Minister's speech in moving the amendment was that it was written, I think, before he heard of the Government's intention to put in the funding agreement an explicit requirement to promote community cohesion. On top of that, it already requires academies to be at the heart of the community. He cited the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment that local authorities will not run schools. That is a view common throughout the coalition and we also agree that local authorities should be the champion of parents and pupils, championing school improvement and challenging rather than defending underperforming schools. In an old politics kind of way, he is trying to drive a wedge into fissures in the coalition where no fissures exist—and he is doing so unsuccessfully.
The point made by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about excluded pupils is wrong. He alleged that the funding for an excluded pupil stays with the academy. The funding follows the pupil when the pupil is excluded and that is a requirement in the academy agreement.
With those few words, I hope that I have persuaded Opposition Members and those elsewhere to withdraw their amendments.
Academies Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Nick Gibb
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 26 July 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Academies Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
514 c809-10 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 17:40:21 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_659850
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_659850
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_659850