No, I will not.
My point—[Interruption.] My point, if the right hon. Gentleman will listen to it, is that children have a right to a broad and balanced curriculum, and his prescriptive English baccalaureate is taking us away from that. The body that has independently advised Ministers, which was set up by the previous Conservative Government, the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, is being abolished, so what can we expect in the future? We can expect ministerial whim replacing independent expert advice. As the Education Committee pointed out last week, a mix of academic and vocational options is more likely to keep young people engaged and help reduce behaviour problems.
We welcome provisions in the Bill to ensure that every young person has access to independent careers advice, but we fear that this is yet another instance where rhetoric will fail to live up to the reality. Is not the truth that the Secretary of State's mismanagement of transition arrangements to an all-age careers service and front-loaded cuts to local authority budgets have meant that careers advice is disappearing?
Why does the Bill remove the requirement on the Secretary of State to enforce the new legal participation age of 18? Is it because, with the scrapping of EMA and the other measures that I have described, he knows that full participation until 18 will never be achieved? Alongside the clauses on higher education, no wonder ASCL talks of a Bill with"““serious implications for social mobility””."
In the ways that I have described, the Bill takes power from pupils and, in the words of UNICEF,"““risks narrowing the educational agenda and limiting children's rights within schools.””"
Let me turn to how the Bill takes power from parents. The National Children's Bureau has called this a Bill which"““chips away at hard-won parental rights””."
It removes their ability to challenge decisions about admissions and exclusions and to make local complaints. The Bill abolishes the local admissions forum. ASCL raises concerns that there"““may now be a void in policing admissions””."
Admissions forums involve local parent representation, governors and heads. They exist to give parents avenues of redress and to help them get a fair deal. As with many provisions in the Bill, their abolition seems at odds with ideas of localism. With no group co-ordinating fair admissions, the NASUWT says that there are real risks of increased inequality, back-door selection and covert discrimination.
We welcome the extension of the schools adjudicator's powers in relation to academies and individual cases, but we fear that this move is undermined overall by a weakening of the adjudicator's role and his ability to change admission arrangements. ASCL has said that it is"““essential that parents have a well defined route to deal with their grievances relating to admissions”” ,"
yet the Bill repeals parents' power to complain to the local commissioner.
The Secretary of State mentioned Tony Blair and our reforms. They were all about empowering parents, just as in the health service we empowered patients with guarantees. The Bill strips away those powers from parents. That is why we do not support it.
Education Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Andy Burnham
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 8 February 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Education Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
523 c187-8 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:33:44 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_712810
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_712810
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_712810