UK Parliament / Open data

Education and Inspections Bill

Proceeding contribution from Nick Gibb (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 15 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Education and Inspections Bill.
We have a diverse set of opinions in the Conservative party, but we all believe in more good schools. It is important that good schools—schools that are over-subscribed by 10 applications for every place—are allowed to expand if they wish. It is important that committees made up of people with a vested interest to maintain the status quo are not allowed to veto such expansion. That is why we welcome the abolition of the school organisation committees in clause 27 and the abolition, in effect, of the surplus places rule. It is important that underperforming and failing schools are reformed or closed over a much shorter time scale, rather than allowing them to languish year after year, providing a poor education to thousands of youngsters. That is why we welcome the Bill’s provisions to make it easier to close bad schools. School discipline remains a major concern of parents and is a key reason why many teachers are leaving the profession. The Steer committee has made some important recommendations about giving teachers statutory powers over discipline, and we welcome the fact that the Bill contains those new powers. Good behaviour is crucial to raise standards in our schools. However, we have some serious concerns about parts of the Bill. It is over-prescriptive on admissions, reflecting a world view that the quality of a school is driven by its intake, rather than by the quality of its teaching and leadership. The school adjudicator’s powers, which are increased in the Bill, need to be tempered by a right of appeal. We will table amendments on those issues and amendments to undo the unnecessary concessions in the Secretary of State’s letter. Despite all the measures in the Bill that make it easier to establish foundation schools, trust schools and academies, the Conservative party could have taken the view that, because the Bill did not go far enough, we would oppose it. With a looming Labour rebellion, that approach would have ended up with the Bill being defeated. We could have formed an unholy alliance with Labour’s rebels in the No Lobby. The public loathe that kind of politics. Such an approach brings politics into disrepute and is deeply cynical, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has set his leadership against it. He has made it clear that, when the Government do the right thing, we will support them.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
443 c1556-7 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top