Education and Inspections Bill

I am confidently expecting, at the end of this debate, to take part in Divisions that will give the Bill a bigger majority on its Second Reading than almost any Government Bill of recent times. That would give me particular pleasure because it is on the subject of education. This also marks a considerable shift in the agenda of political debate. A large bloc of the Labour party is moving towards consensus with members of my own Conservative party, at least on the agenda of political reform, and it is important that we should do that. The poor performance of the British state education system, compared with that of most major industrialised countries, is one of the weakest features of British society. I rejoice that we are moving so close to a consensus; I only regret that it has taken us almost 20 years to get there, during which key figures who are now advocating the reforms from the Labour Benches have spent some of their time bitterly opposing the very principles on which they now base their legislation. However, that is behind us now, and I understand their difficulty. The Secretary of State made a speech in favour of a Bill of which I am broadly in favour, during which I had to listen to her stressing—for reasons I entirely understand—all the parts of the Bill that she never wanted to put in, and with which she hopes I disagree. I do disagree with some of them and I hope that we can amend them in Committee. However, we all know the direction in which we are going. Some peculiar versions of the history of education reform have been given recently, but they have glossed over Kenneth Baker’s reforms of the mid-1980s. The parenthood of the Bill is only too plain to see. I shall not labour that point because we are looking forward to what needs to be tackled and how we can make the best of what we are now doing. However, I shall just remind the House of the old adage: if it looks like a dog and barks like a dog, it probably is a dog. Labour Members are never more ridiculous than when they go blue in the face trying to convince us that the supposed trust schools are not grant-maintained schools, or that the city academies are not city technology colleges, renamed. Indeed, the same legislation was used to introduce the academies that we used to introduce the city technology colleges. Labour Members also talk about diversity of supply, parental choice and the opportunity to compete in terms that would have resonated with everyone who was Secretary of State during the third term of Mrs. Thatcher’s Government. I get worried when the Secretary of State tries to tell the likes of me that I am about to vote against principles that I hold dear. She plucked out as an example some feature of the Bill that she had thrown to old Labour. However, I am reassured when I go back to the White Paper, because there is absolutely no doubt about the direction the Government were setting out when they produced these measures. The Prime Minister’s foreword states that"““the local authority must move from being a provider of education to being its local commissioner and the champion of parent choice.””" [Hon. Members: ““Hear, hear!””] So say all my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Prime Minister’s foreword continues:"““Our aim is the creation of a system of independent non-fee paying state schools.””" That is perfectly clear, and it explains why the Secretary of State’s veto over local authority proposals to carry on opening new community schools has been insisted on by the Government and remains part of the Bill. I am warmed by the fact that they have stuck to their guns on that, at least. I hope that any future Secretary of State in a Conservative Government will make ample use of that veto when local authorities try to challenge the structure for which this Secretary of State is paving the way. If I may, I shall embarrass the right hon. Lady further by quoting her own White Paper. Paragraph 1.30 on page 20, describing the new system, states:"““This can only be achieved in a system that is dynamic, with weak schools replaced quickly by new ones, coasting schools pushed to improve and opportunities for the best schools to expand and spread their ethos and success””." That involves competition. It also involves enabling the best schools to expand and moving quickly to close irredeemably failing schools. That has been slightly obscured in the wording of the Bill, but let there be no mistake among Members below the Gangway on the Labour Benches: I know how a Conservative Secretary of State—and new Labour Secretaries of State over the next year or two, if they can get away with it—will implement that policy and use those powers. Paragraph 1.35 on page 21 of the White Paper states:"““And if parents want to open a school, then it should be the job of the local authority to help them make this happen.””" That follows a long, clear description of how parents should be in the driving seat when deciding what kind of school provision they want. They should be the best arbiters of the arguments about unsuitable people coming in and trying to run trusts or unscrupulous people misusing their powers. We must trust parents more; they want the best for their children. I agree with the Government that creating more parent power in this way within this kind of structure will finally move our education system further forward at a much more satisfactory speed.