Monday Volume 513 12 July 2010 No. 30 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Monday 12 July 2010 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2010 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 639 12 JULY 2010 640 seemingly arbitrary and chaotic way in which the Secretary House of Commons of State has made and announced his decisions. The right hon. Gentleman must now know that there is Monday 12 July 2010 widespread anger in all parts of the House. Following weekend reports that he was advised by his officials not The House met at half-past Two o’clock to publish a list of schools at all, I wrote to him yesterday to request answers in advance of today’s oral questions. I have received a reply that does not answer PRAYERS any of my questions: it merely attaches a new list—list No. 5—containing 20 additional cancelled schools [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] compared with a week ago. I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman for a straight Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab): On a point of answer to a specific question. Did he at any point order, Mr Speaker. receive written or oral advice from departmental officials or Partnerships for Schools urging him not to publish a Mr Speaker: Order. It would not be a point of order, list of schools until after he had consulted local authorities, now, I am afraid. to make sure that his criteria were sound and his facts were right? Oral Answers to Questions Michael Gove: The right hon. Gentleman says that there was anger across the House. There was—at the way in which the BSF project had been run by the right hon. Gentleman. There was justifiable anger at the way EDUCATION in which a project that was originally supposed to cost £45 billion ended up costing £55 billion, and it was The Secretary of State was asked— shared by those who were shocked that under the previous Government, one individual received £1.35 million in Building Schools for the Future Programme consultancy fees—money that should have gone to the front line. From the moment that I took office, everyone 1. Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): For what reasons he involved in this process said to me, “Make sure that you has ended the Building Schools for the Future ensure that this faltering and failing project ends.” That programme for Ilkley and Bingley grammar schools. is what I have done. I inherited a mess from the right [6956] hon. Gentleman, and we are clearing it up. The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): As I set out in my statement last week, the Building Several hon. Members rose— Schools for the Future programme has been over- Mr Speaker: Order. Both the Secretary of State and bureaucratic and inefficient. I therefore decided that the shadow Secretary of State have had their say, and I where financial close had not been reached, future know that we will now want to return to Ilkley and projects provided under BSF could not go ahead. Ilkley Bingley. and Bingley grammar school projects have not reached financial close, and BSF plans for those two schools Ed Balls: The right hon. Gentleman cannot give a have therefore stopped. However, we will continue to straight answer to a straight question. The people of invest in schools capital projects. Bingley and Ilkley will not be satisfied by that answer, and nor are we. Interestingly, his letter today says very Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): In the catchment areas clearly that his fifth list has been validated by local for both Ilkley and Bingley grammar schools, there has authorities—presumably a clear admission that the been excessive house building, so there is no longer information should have been validated before the list sufficient capacity on their existing sites to meet local was published in the first place, including by Bradford demand. Can my right hon. Friend ensure that those authority, in which the schools of Bingley and Ilkley are schools that need new build to increase capacity to meet situated. local demand will still receive capital expenditure? Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman another straight Michael Gove: I very much take the point made by question. Is it not the case that he was advised of the my hon. Friend. One of the defects of the BSF scheme risk of legal challenge from private contractors, but that was that, in many parts of the country where there was he personally decided to ignore that advice and take real need as a result of a growing population, the that risk with taxpayers’ money? That is a very simple money was not there to provide new school places. As a question. We all know that he is on shaky ground, and result of our capital review, we will ensure that where that he is fast losing the confidence of pupils, parents there is additional population pressure and additional and teachers. If he had any sense, he would end this basic need, particularly in primary schools, which BSF shambles, withdraw these error-strewn lists, and let our did not cover, we will provide the support that is necessary. communities have new schools. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to help the parents and teachers in those two great schools. Michael Gove: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for once again stretching so far the geographical definition Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op): For of Bingley and Ilkley. Let me point out that under him parents, children and teachers in Ilkley and Bingley, the the cost of setting up the procurement vehicle for Building initial shock of learning that their new school building Schools for the Future was £10 million, before a single has been cancelled will have turned to outrage at the brick was laid. The taxpayers of Bingley and Ilkley have 641 Oral Answers12 JULY 2010 Oral Answers 642 re-elected a Conservative MP because they are disgusted us to give more support to the children who are most with the waste and squander of the right hon. Gentleman. disadvantaged and who need it most, and to their There is a dividing line between this side of the House schools. We will announce more details of our proposals and that side of the House: when mistakes are made, we in due course. apologise and we take responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman has never apologised for a single mistake in Esther McVey: I would like to push the Secretary of his life; that is why he is on that side of the House and State for greater details on the pupil premium and on we are on this side of the House clearing up his mess. where the extra funds will be allocated. Several hon. Members rose— Sarah Teather: I thank my hon. Friend for promoting me, but it is a little premature. Mr Speaker: Order. I want to help the House. I We will be announcing more information about the appreciate the enormous interest in the subject of BSF pupil premium in due course. However, to quote the in Ilkley and Bingley—conceivably also elsewhere—and Prime Minister, it will involve a “substantial” extra sum there will be opportunities, if Members look, to raise from outside the education budget. We are determined, these matters later. in particular, to tackle the pockets of deprivation that have not been dealt with by other forms of deprivation Academy Status funding, ensuring that the funding follows the students and that schools then have the freedom to decide how 3. Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): How best to spend the money. many expressions of interest in academy status have been received from schools in (a) Skipton and Ripon Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab): Sandwell constituency and (b) North Yorkshire. [6958] is home to some of the poorest families in the country. Last week, officials confirmed that school cuts in the The Minister of State, Department for Education borough were made because the outline business case (Mr Nick Gibb): So far five expressions of interest in for their wave 5 bid was not signed off until after academy status have been received from schools in 1 January. Can the Minister confirm that no school that Skipton and Ripon. Fifteen expressions of interest have retained funding missed that deadline? Does she think been received from schools in North Yorkshire. that the criteria used for the funding is fair given that children in Labour-controlled Sandwell lose £140 million Julian Smith: Does the Minister agree that schools of support while those in the neighbouring borough, with foundation trust status should be given credit for Conservative Wolverhampton, gain £360 million? the work they have already done in moving along the path to independence, and can their path to academy Sarah Teather: I appreciate the particular difficulties status therefore be made slightly easier? with Sandwell. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that BSF was set up by his Government, and it is Mr Gibb: May I welcome my hon. Friend to the because of the slowness and inefficiency of BSF that House and congratulate him on his election? I understand schools in Sandwell were so late in getting anything his point. Trust status was a useful form of independence, from the bid at all.