Six Lib Dem MPs rebel on Coalition’s Academies Bill

The BBC reports:

MPs have approved legislation [317 votes to 225, Government majority 92] which paves the way for a radical overhaul of the school system in England. The Academies Bill, allowing schools to opt out of local council control as early as September, is now due to receive Royal Assent on Tuesday.

However, the Bill sparked a revolt among some Lib Dem MPs, with five defying the whips to back an amendment proposed by Southport MP (and former teacher) John Pugh allowing parents to be balloted if a school governor objected it to becoming an academy.

The five Lib Dems who supported John’s amendment were Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and Poole N), Andrew George (St Ives), Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South), John Leech (Manchester Withington) and David Ward (Bradford E).

Here’s a section from John’s speech to the Commons, courtesy Hansard, explaining his amendment and motivations in putting it forward:

Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD): When were elected this May-God, it seems years ago-we all knew that there was some prospect that politics in this place might never be quite the same again. Many of us, frankly, welcomed that. The huge and welcome influx of new Members gave us all hope that things could possibly be different. That, along with the odd arithmetic of this place and the challenging nature of the country’s problems, seemed to dictate that the way ahead would be through rational consensus and for a while-all too short a while-it appeared that tribalism and command-and-control politics were dead; the Chamber and Committees would be important and the policy would have to be evidence-led, much to the disappointment of the media, whose preference is always for a good scrap.

What do we have with amendments to the Bill, however? We have the spectacle of Ministers who have already told us that they will accept no amendment, period, and the sight of Whips new and old cracking their knuckles off-stage and perfecting basilisk-like stares in the mirror, persuading people not to vote for amendments such as amendment 8 and others that, it could be argued, align with the spirit and improve the detail of the Bill. Paradoxically, they are doing that because they assume that is how coalition politics work. I say paradoxically, because the amendment-denying Ministers in front of us, whose agents the Whips are, seem to be the most mature, civilised and benign advocates of the new politics. I personally cannot associate myself with the recent comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron); nor can I afford to drink in the Boot and Flogger. I am simply moving an amendment with which the Committee should be comfortable and, frankly, which any Member of any party can and should be free to support.

In the event of a governing body being divided, amendment 8 obliges a school to hold a ballot if a governor or a minority of governors object to an application for academy status. It therefore provides a restraint on a motivated group of governors misrepresenting or riding roughshod over parents’ wishes.

Mr Evans, you might recall that under Mrs Thatcher, in the Education Reform Act 1988, a parental ballot was an essential precondition of the change to grant-maintained status in any school. There were votes across the country on those matters. Sadly, subsequent Governments seem to have lost interests in the views of parents and, in my view, have disempowered parents, with one exception. Tony Blair insisted that the change from grammar school status required a parental ballot and that condition survives and is effectively incorporated in this Bill.

Can anyone in this Chamber give me an argument for why grammar school parents should be balloted before the status of their school changes and parents of children at other schools should not? I am at a loss to find such an argument. Why should grammar school parents have a right that primary school parents, comprehensive school parents and special school parents do not have? Will anyone agree with the former and present me with a good argument for voting against the latter?

Fellow Lib Dem Mike Hancock offered one pointed answer (not on behalf of the Coalition), asking John:

Does my hon. Friend accept the suggestion that there are to be no ballots because most of them might be lost if parents knew all the facts? That situation is being avoided simply by not making provision for a ballot in the first place.

He might very well think that …

Read more by or more about , , , or .
This entry was posted in News and Parliament.


  • Well all i have to say is WELL DONE.. well done to those six who actually have a conscience and then vote it….

    Tell me what would have happened if the lib dem mps had voted against the bill. …

    please dont whine about how ‘we woudlnt get what we wanted if we didnt give them what they wanted’….. so unbelievably selfish… I’d rather live without av or stv in order to defeat this piece of crap legislation.

  • ‘Rebellions’ are healthy, democratic, and what parliament is about. No harm done.

  • Andrea Gill 27th Jul '10 - 1:55pm

    @Mark Yeates – Hancock has in the past rebelled against a fair amount of strongly Lib Dem policy issues such as Europe too, so I wouldn’t worry too much

  • Steve Hicks 27th Jul '10 - 2:48pm

    <a href=" Ives MP, Andrew George has given his reasons for voting against the Academies Bill last night, here

  • These six have much to be proud of – which is more than I can say of some of those who supported this terrible bill. I wonder whether Sarah Teather was thinking of her words in 2007 as she sat on the benches with Gove:

    “The Liberal Democrats have provided the only parliamentary opposition to the academies project…. I can assure you that we will continue to robustly challenge the scheme with the belief that, in the future, no local authority should have their hand forced by national government in this way.”

  • Neil posted: “That’s how the coalition works we get the pupil premium they get more academies.”

    The pupil premium was a Tory policy pre-election, so the Tories haven’t sacrificed anything at all in bulldozing their muddled and divisive education bill through Parliament.

  • Terry Gilbert 28th Jul '10 - 4:09pm

    A terrible bill.

    Shame on those Lib Dems who are supporting the break up of locally accountable state education.

  • Glad David voted for it, he was murmuring about just abstaining, which would have ruined a lot of the rhetoric aimed at his predecessor in Bradford NorthEast.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Peter Martin
    @ SimonR, There some other advantages. Such as: you can't be sacked if you own your own business! You can put your partner and children on the payroll even i...
  • Andy Daer
    Tom, thanks for this excellent summary. Steve, it was hubris that led that "London adult" to think his hurt was so important - he was on the radio shortly afte...
  • Simon R
    @Katharine: 3 year default tenancy and no evictions other than for breaking the contract? Umm... how does that work if - say - for some reason, I have to move a...
  • Simon R
    @Peter Martin: Yes you're correct that, if you run a small business, taking your income as dividend will typically mean paying less tax than if you take it as a...
  • Katharine Pindar
    Thanks for the support on the share buybacks proposed policy, Peter Martin. Just now I want to add a few facts about what we want to offer young people on housi...