16/06/2011 Business Questions

Honourable Gentleman and members that wish to make it will be

considered at that time of consideration. It's a if -- the

Government is keen it you find new ways to scrutinise European Union

issues. It's as the Government and would welcome proposals from other

parliamentarians. In a written reply I understand that the

Government is keen to end gold plating of the key directors but

the only way of doing so is granting MPs the power to amend a

statutory implementation. Is there something that the government will

approve? I think the problem is that we will need a reconciliation

process and what we have is a bill going through parliamentary

procedures. There are some difficulties in what she proposes

but I will pass her concerns on to the Minister for Europe. During the

last two years of the parliament the opposition row against the fact

that the structure of the standing committees had collapsed. There

used to be put in nine committees - a rogue members on three committees

that would -- do in a Members on three committees that would discuss

things like this and it is time to put people back on those committees

to learn the business of Europe before they stand up and open their

mouths. I will not comment on the latter's observations made by the

gentleman but he is right. That is why I am sure the minister for

Europe is a very much engaged in talking to him and his colleagues

to make sure that we get the pro- military structures right and as

soon as possible. It's -- parliamentary structures. For what

action up are the Government taking a say in response to what is going

on at Southern Cross? Government has made it very clear

that the welfare of residents living in Southern Cross homes is

paramount. We appreciate that recent events and media speculation

has caused concern to people in the Southern Cross care homes and to

staff and I regret that. I would like to reassure everyone that no

one will find themselves homeless are without care. The government

will not stand by and let that happen. Department of Health

officials have been a constant contact with senior management over

the last few months and that will continue. We are engaged with the

company and are monitoring the situation very closely. The

Government is acting to ensure that all parties involved are working

towards a swift revolution -- resolution which must have the

welfare of a residence at its heart. It is for Southern Cross, a

flamboyant and those with an interest in the business to put in

place a plan that is jaws operational continuity of the care

homes. That work is happening and we must let it continue. This is a

commercial sector problem and we look to the commercial sector to

solve it. All the business interest involve fully understands the

responsibility. But it is also the case that the Government has a role

to play as well and that is why we are working closely with the

Association of Directors of adult social services and local parties

to -- local of parties to make sure that robust arrangements are in

place to address the restructuring plan meant to put in place a

business on a stable footing. Yesterday there was a meeting would

delay a Lloyd's and other members and they agreed on May things. They

made clear that the continuity will be maintained and every resident

will be looked after. This is a welcome development and the

Government is encouraged by this positive agreement by the main

stakeholders. The exact details will be set out every the next few

days and the following weeks. I think the joint statement issued

yesterday by the company provides further reassurance that the

continuity of care of the residents is at the centre of its consensual

restructure. The Government will continue to keep close contact with

all involved and I will continue to In recent months we have seen a

drip, drip of new stories about the financial stability at Southern

Cross. After yesterday's meeting with the landlords the company's

future is still uncertain. However residents of Southern Cross, their

relatives and the director of social services will need further

information Suton -- sooner rather than an later. What next? Residents

and their relatives need peace of mind, they need it now. The company

appears to be hanging by a thread, the number speak for themselves. It

is reported half year losses of �311 million since 2006 per share

prices drop by 91st -- 97%. There are 31,000 residents and 750 care

homes and this is a UK problem with 400 consider disease affected in

Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England. The Government has

been too slow to get a grip on the situation. Issues has been since

last December but Age Concern say the Government has allowed it to

reach this crisis point. Questions that need answering include,

newspaper reports say 20 million is owed by HMRC by Southern Cross,

will the Government allowed the company to be dragged down by this

�20 million that? What banks borrowed money and how much is owed

and what action will the banks take? How is the company working

with the landlords? What is the government doing to ensure

financial probity in this crucial sector? We need to stop the get

rich quick merchants brink on our elderly relatives? Can ask the

Minister who will lead on this very at the highest level, this is a

cross Government matter needing health, business and regulatory

intervention. We need reassurance that residents would be safe in

their homes, the continuing care will be of the high standard and in

the coming months, the Government is focus on ensuring stable,

financial Government's with these companies for the care of our old

and a vulnerable. There are reign number of questions

at their, so of which are for ministers and some are for the

landlords. He asked about NHP? He is right to identify the fact NHP

it largest landlord and asked about bank lending and the lenders have a

key part to play in the sovereignty restriction of this business and

that is why they were at the meeting yesterday and he asked

about the he HMRC and the body responsible making for these

decisions they are making decisions at the moment. We have about the

financial problems and the seeds of those financial problems? I would

urge the honour would gentleman in look at a history of this to look

back several years to the restructuring of this company and

the business model was established that caused the problem and asked

himself who was in Government at that time?

Does My honourable friend agree the government has just one priority in

this set of circumstances and that is to secured the interests of

residence. Can he reassure the House, he will send a clear message

into the system there will be zero tolerance of any slippage of the

quality conditions that what are -- that are imposed on the providers

of care and he will continue to keep his eyes firmly focused on the

day by day quality of care that is delivered to the residents of these

homes? He is right. That is the

Government's paramount interest and it is the interest of all of us to

ensure the welfare and interests of the residence of these homes and

that is why that has been the message I have been given to

Southern Cross and to the landlords and will continue to do so and see

QC will have the responsibility it is carried out. It is clear all of

us in this House have to ensure that this restructuring takes place

successfully and that is in the best long-term interest of the

residents. Her would like to thank the

Minister for his statement and congratulate the Member for being

granted this urgent question on this issue of great importance.

This is not the first time members have tried to bring the Minister

there for them to respond to their concern of of leadership and

information during this period of uncertainty and anxiety for

residents and their families and the employers has been notable and

as a result of the agreement we have a period of relative stability

but great uncertainty remains for residents and employees. We've

heard Southern Cross will now begin a period of restructuring from the

report of around 300 homes changing management but contracts have been

ripped up and 3,000 jobs are being lost. Water shares can the Minister

give for security of employment for those working at Southern Cross and

safety, last we we heard Southern Cross as a result of making 3,000

people redundant there we have heard from the quality care

commission that Southern Cross has breached standards in 164 care

homes, 20% of the English estate, can the Minister guarantee the

safety of the residents? Will they carry out more frequent inspections.

There's been widespread condemnation of the business

practices that led to Southern Cross financial problems and is OK

to point fingers of what may have happened many years ago but the

problem exists now and the Minister is in Government now. The question

is, when people are treated as commodities were no thought to the

consequences of them in this risky business model it is important that

governments set up to the plate and do something about it. Southern

Cross is not the only company in this industry to have financial

difficulties and we have heard from the business secretary that the

model will be looked at by his department and will the Minister

provide more details on timings of this review and how members will be

told about its findings. Cuts, the Minister says that there will be

robust local arrangements and they agree sure local authorities will

step up to the plate if asked but he must recognise local authorities

are under enormous straight as a result of the cuts imposed by his

Government and the cuts they are having to make to adult social care

and how can they be expected to pick up the pieces of this national

problem without assistance from Government and given more resources

to be able to deal with the problem at Southern Cross.

She was long on critique but shallow when it comes to the ways

in which she would approach to this. Last week I set out in a return

Minister a statement reproach the Government was taking and we also

dole with this in health questions last week. She asked about the

3,000 job losses that are being proposed as part of redundancy

measures and let us be clear they have an obligation to declare the

ceiling in terms of number of job losses that may take place. I have

asked the see QC to take additional inspections to address concerns

arising from those job losses. She talks about cuts in social care

spending and glosses over the fact this Government through the

spending review agreed to an unprecedented transfer of resources

from the NHS to social care, 2 billion extra into social care by

2014. Perhaps the area we might have some agreement is we need to

learn lessons from all that is currently occurring with regard to

Southern Cross, regulation, how we make sure we have a stable and

successful social care sector in the future and that is why the

Government is completed -- committed to an overhaul into

should wear -- social care. Would he grew the real fundamental

problem here is there was a flawed business model and that was allowed

to exist for far too long and certainly during the last

Government? You are right to draw attention to

that and his is one of the things commented on by the financial pages

of our media that is one of the reasons we are in a position with

this company now on why such a restructuring is necessary. I take

heart from a joint statement issued yesterday from an the meeting

between the landlords, the company and between the lenders which does

not suggest there is a clear map be worked out that will ensure the

continuity of care and that is what all members of this House must want

to happen because we must be interested ultimately in the

welfare and interested of the Isn't it clear that the business

model employed at Southern Cross, selling off properties at colossal

profit and then leasing them back, with the state played -- paying the

fees to meet the rent, with the rental income being siphoned off by

beat -- the landlords into tax havens, leaving the home is grossly

underfunded and failing basic CQC standards in 164 homes, is that not

a national disgrace? Does it not mean or so that the Prime

Minister's commitment to selling off all public services to any

willing provider must be abandoned? Well, I think we need to perhaps

have an important reality check when it comes to the social care

sector. About 78 % of care provided in England is provided in the

private sector and that is not something that has happened in the

past 12 months. What we do have to do in the light of the experience

of the last few months is to make sure that we draw lessons from that.

But we have to be focused on now the paramount interest of the

residents. Can I thank the Minister for the information he has given

the House. The there are two homes in my constituency and this is a

matter of great concern to the residents and also the start and

there -- and their morale. Can I urge my honourable friend to

facilitate as best he can a speedy resolution but also to look at the

model that we expect local authorities to adopt book-buying

care, the residents themselves should be more involved in the

process. I am grateful for that question and it points for the need

for greater personalisation in the way that care is delivered in the

longer run but what we need to do at the moment is make sure that in

concert with local authority colleagues we are clear about what

happens in the event of failure but also we ensure that there our

successes. I think a lot of people know that it has been a licence to

print money, running care homes. This is the second time in about a

fortnight that we have had a case like Winterbourne. There are

billionaire's making a ton of money. However, there is now evidence that

it is not just Southern Cross. The goose might have stopped laying the

golden eggs. It is time to go back to what we had in the old days,

local authorities being in charge and owning these care homes. Let's

get back to that. What's more, wouldn't it be wonderful as well if

we had everybody being able to go to hospital free of charge? I think

it is important to put on record something that the honourable

gentleman said that is not and never has been the case. Social

care in this country is not free. It is one of the inequities of the

current system and one of the challenges that we are determined

to address. On his direct question about the good old days, I have to

say that for many, they did not see those days because the care was not

personalised or always good quality. To say something more about the

specific steps he is taking to ensure that the Ku -- the CQC

ensures that standards of care in homes in my constituency are

maintained during this transaction period. -- transition. That is, I

think, a key preoccupation for all members of this House who have

residents in homes owned by Southern Cross. We have been clear

in our discussions with the CQC that they have to maintain a clear

focus on the behaviour and conduct of these homes during this

restructuring period. CQC has already identified issues and is

addressing them through its enforcement powers. The Minister

will know that many residents of Southern Cross homes have dementia.

He will also know that many people with dementia cope poorly with

changes and therefore it is of enormous concern to the relatives

of what might happen. He must have had these discussions with his

officials. What is the legal conditioned -- position, what is

the backdrop if the worst case scenario develops, what will he do

to reassure my constituents that the government really will make

sure that their relatives are not put in a position where they will

have changes which will dramatically affect the quality of

their light? She posed three questions but I know there will be

an immaculate single reply. assurance I can give the honourable

lady is that first and foremost we need to make sure that in the event

of a catastrophic failure that there are clear arrangements in

place to deal with that. Those importantly we need to learn

lessons from past care home closures to ensure that those are

taken into account in the future. What we can also be clear about is

that the viability of this business is very strong indeed. We need care

homes and this is why Eddie Izzard, Kriss Akabusi, Martin Bell and Greg

Dyke is now a route which sets us on a Cork -- Road to having a

solution. It would be wrong if anybody tried to use this as a

political shield to try to make cheap political points, but can the

Minister tell us a, given that there will be up to 3,000 job

losses, what measures will the government be taking to monitor the

quality of care in individual homes to make sure that there is no

negative impact on residents. asks a very important question

about the quality of care and its impact is there mack were staff

losses and that is why that when it became clear that the company was

posting 3,000 redundancies I asked the CQC to look into that and make

sure that there is no impact on the quality of care. What is the

Minister doing to beef up the CQC? I understand there have been a

number of redundancies there. If he wants to maintain the quality of

care, he has to be -- beef up the commission. Does he also know that

recently the Telegraph investigated an investigation in 10 homes which

were found to be very wanting in terms of standards and hygiene.

the question on the staffing of the CQC, I can confirm than in October

of last year I authorised an additional 75 posts for inspectors

to be filled in that organisation. Given that it was the changing

business model that seems to have led to the current difficulties,

what procedures have the government put in place to prevent such

procedures leading to similar collapse of the business? Is he

convinced that the CQC has sufficient investigative as opposed

to enforcement powers should this sadly we are care? -- sadly re-

occur. There are issues that we would want to look at a rising from

this situation in terms of forming social care but I think it would be

wrong in the midst of the restructuring that the company is

undertaking to come forward with a hard and fast set of solutions to

the long term so -- stability of the sector. Tomorrow I will visit

Bellevue Court in my constituency, one of many Southern Cross homes

around the country. I note what the Minister has said about the

government guaranteeing that nobody in the care of Southern Cross will

be left without care as a result of what is happening. Clearly it is

preferable for Southern Cross and their landlords and lenders to

reach a solution that ensures that but let me pressing harder on what

will happen if that does not come about. How will he live up to be

guaranteed -- they guarantee that if the rescue plan that they are

trying to work through that the government will ensure that

nobody's care is compromised? grateful to the honourable

gentleman and I understand why he would want to press for further

details as to what would happen in those hypotheticals, but in the

very nature of these commercial discussions to give credibility to

hypothetical situations is to create the possibility of them

becoming a reality. I do not want that to happen. The failure of the

last government a regular the banks led to a crisis in that sector. Is

the national disgrace which is Southern Cross a similar

dereliction of duty? What I am really entirely focused on at the

moment is making sure that through the facility of officers of the

government we ensure that all of the parties are clear about their

responsibilities and that they understand that reputation will

damage to them if they do not do what they must do, which is to

ensure a timely and thorough restructuring of this business that

ensures continuity of care for the residents. In opposing these

proposed sell-off of care homes by Nottingham County Council, I have

been warning the council about the crisis in Southern Cross but this

is not the only big care provider in problems. A care provider in my

constituency is also now in crisis and threatening to throw people out

of Forest Hill care home. Will the Minister be prepared to meet

families from my constituency so that on the next occasion he is

ahead of the game rather than behind it? Have caused the Minister

will be happy to provide a be her - - brief reply but we must focus on

the specific question of Southern Cross. This is not a general debate.

In the spirit that the question was asked, I would be only too happy if

he was to write to me to consider the request. The residents of

Bradfield House care home in Bradfield will welcome what the

Minister has said today. Could he say some more about how we will

learn the broad lessons of this situation and ensure that this

never happens again? I am grateful to my honourable friend for that

question and as I have indicated, in the work that we are currently

doing preparatory to producing a paper, we are engaged with many

stakeholders are discussing the issues of quality and regulation to

make that we are, A, equipped to make -- get the right questions but

also get the right policy for the future. The Minister has been very

careful not to say what he should be saying here, and I understand

why his officials will have told him not to. Will he pledged to the

House that no vulnerable person who should not be moved if there is a

catastrophe of the kind we all want to avoid will be able to stay in

their residential home? That is the pledge we need to hear from him to

show some leadership as the Minister responsible from him.

pledge that I can give to the House is that every local authority with

Southern Cross care homes is clear about their statutory duties to

guarantee and provide care for not just the state funded Presidents

but also be self- funded residents. That is the clearest guarantee that

My constituency -- constituents are in clear about the early warning

system for social care, how can any mechanism be improved? A number of

members asked questions about how we ensure we improve the system?

Indeed, in the reforms we have brought forward in the Health and

Social Care Bill, one of the questions that Bill right raises is

a role in the future potentially for monitoring effective regulation

of the social care sector, an issue we are exploring with colleagues in

the Department of business and continue to discuss it with other

stake holders and that could offer a longer term solution.

The care sector is increasingly reliant on private-sector providers

and the care sector includes not only people who run care homes, but

kept agencies as well. I suspect that will be one of our next

problems. As a significant proportion of both care homes and

care agencies comes from public funds i think the Government and

local authorities have the right and responsibility to assess the

financial stability of providers who they are interested in the care

of very a vulnerable people. Why has far not been done?

I think that, I have in fact spoken to those in the devolved

administration and my officials maintain contact and dialogue with

them and in Wales with 1,700 residents in care homes, 54 in all

their real concerns. As to the wider issues of the sector, she is

right, we need to look at other issues. In the current arrangements,

for the Sikh QC there is a duty to examine that financial viability

and there is an issue will cut further C Q c. Following the marks

made, directors have very specific duties in stewardship of the

company. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Secretary of

State about referring this matter? I have not had those discussions

and the need for those discussions has not arisen. The company itself

feels that the consequences, the outcome of yesterday's meetings has

been very important in terms of its ability to be able to carry forward

a restructuring which safeguards the interests of residents.

My constituents asking me specifically about whether their

elderly and sometimes frail relatives may face the prospect of

having to move. I know my honourable friend has raised this

issue but this is specific and has been risen by my constituents?

For think I tried to give the House a number of reassurances on that

point and I would add over a number of years, they have been home

closures and what we have to do is make sure we learn lessons from

those and one of the lessons is we have to minimise the possibility of

home closures and ensure a meeting place their done sensitively,

slowly and in a careful way. I very much will come to work the

Association of Directors of adult social services have done and what

they published which sets out clear evidence based guidance to assist

local authorities in managing any closures in the future.

I'm rather concerned about what Mr to this morning, the complacent

attitude the Department of Health is showing about the role of local

authorities. Is there a co- ordinated plan for the whole of the

country bringing together all the local authority's plans so we know

there's coverage across the country if the worst happens? I'm not sure

there is? Such work is in hand and has been

in hand for some time. There is concern across this House

that 31,000 of the most vulnerable people in our country are facing

the risk of having to move care home and all the risks that come to

that for the health. Can the Minister in some of reducing of

white paper saying there is an injured -- urgency for this and

come forward with regulation and make sure this does not happen

again? I understand the desire of all on the members to have urgent

action but up what I did not here in her question was asked what

changes would be. When he cares to offer those, we can look at that.

I'm very grateful for the ministers' reassurances this

morning but there was reassurances ring a little hollow because I was

already aware of a great deal of shortcomings in terms of levels and

quality of care in the homes that Southern Cross having Gateshead

before the financial crisis became a matter of public record. Is seems

to quality council are looking at homes on a individual basis and not

a national pattern on how their rotten care ethos in this whole

organisation will stop where will the Mr Justice as a whole national

problem cure -- the Minister as a whole national problem. Her can

remind them of the merits of brevity. Residence in the care

homes in my constituency, about six care homes in my constituency would

be horrified at the remarks. The fact they say it was a commercial

sector problem to be dealt with by the commercial sector is outrageous

and will frighten the wits out of those that are 1,000 residents,

this is a society problem and should be dealt with by the

Government. What crumbs of comfort can he give to the people of my

constituency we stop abusing elderly people and use them as

marketplace commodities? There have been to contributions to

this statement which really do conflict separate issues, we have a

business that is in serious financial stress and is working its

way through to be a viable business for the future and this is not

about the abuse of all the people in these homes and we should not

conflate in the way, that is not helpful to having a sensible debate

and securing a sensible restructuring of this business.

He is displaying complacency when it comes to this crisis. Like it

will not this crisis is his responsibility and honourable

members on both sides will be having surgeries this weekend and

meeting the families of people who are very vulnerable living in these

care homes and he has failed to give any guarantee about the future,

he has not convinced the House of what lessons he has learned in

short term, who can we phone, who will be the Department this weekend

if there is a problem? In a statement I've made it clear

that both the steps the Department of Health has taken working with

landlords, working with some cross and others to make sure each party

to this is clear about their responsibilities and clear about

what actions they would take in the event of business closure. What I

want to be clear about is that as we move forward we need to make

sure that we learn lessons from this, lessons from this in the

context of regulation, lessons about how this was allowed to occur

in the first place the this is not the time for those, the focus I

have as a minister was focused on this as an issue is making sure we

have a successful restructuring of this business and the business

remains focused on the welfare of the residents.

I'm sorry to press the Minister again and I think he recognises

that changes to care, even when well planned, have a serious impact

on the health of residents in care homes. Can I ask him again, can he

guarantee that if those commercial discussions fail, residence will be

guaranteed to be continued to care for cash cared for in their

existing homes? Who Government has made it clear in no circumstances

will we allow the residents of any of these care homes to find

themselves made homeless without good continuity of care and that is

the pledge we make. Is not a real issue, how will he secured that?

There is a real tension between care and commerce. It seems to me

in the restructuring it could well affect areas disproportionately and

we need to have something from the care quality commissioned measure

members have a feedback and reports on how this is being dealt with.

I have said one of the things I take very seriously is the need to

keep the House informed as we progress on these matters. I'm

clear that the paramount interest, the interest the regulator has a

statutory duty to enforce is the welfare of the residents and that

is what we're doing and will continue to do.

I welcome the Mrs comment that every resident would be looked

after, can he further reassure residents in my constituency that

they will suffer no detriment as a result of this situation?

What I can say is we need to make absolutely clear to the landlords

and to the company that their actions do have consequences and

that their actions us be focused on a speedy resolution to the way in

which this business he's restructured that insures the

business canned continue to employ good god is staff and insures it

can continue to provide care for the 31,000 people who live in its

homes. I heard the Minister say he had discussions with the devolved

administration and could the say during the discussions with the

Scottish counterparts, was he made aware of the real concerns of the

conventions of Scottish Local authorities should there be a

catastrophic issued they do not have the funding to deal with there

consequences and what will he offer to -- for that respect? The most

unlikely, by far of all of the outcomes of Southern Cross is that

catastrophic outcome, the most likely outcome is the least

successful -- the successful restructuring with business moved

to other operators. When I spoke to Nicola Sturgeon earlier this week

we discussed all of the issues that concern her and me and we were

agreed about the need to pursue this path of a consensual, solvent

restructuring of the business as the best way of securing the

welfare of the residents in the homes.

80% of the income for Southern Cross it comes from the taxpayer,

yet the Thames seem to have been made to of shop as much of that

money as possible. Age UK as in future all care home providers

should demonstrate to the regulators they have a solid

business model. In his answer to my friend from Wolverhampton, he

implies there was no weight regulation can be strengthened,

would he look sues the at the suggestion over the coming months.

It does allow me to make the case age UK... We are in discussions

with them and will continue to look at that. I understand that the

Department of Health was invited to the meeting yesterday with Southern

Cross and with that 1,000 people being vulnerable with the chance of

losing their homes, why did no-one from Dublin attend? Meeting in his

character changed significantly over the last couple of days to

meeting which have focused on getting to a clear agreement

between the lenders, landlords and Southern Cross and we wanted to

make sure they were focused on doing that and that is why there

was no DH represented at the meeting.

Or the contributions be made have concentrated on the rights and

plight of the residents and that is understandable, but we should think

about the work force at Southern Cross. Yesterday I was into it for

the local organising and he told me with the homes in Dundee, the work

force are demoralised and that is not the best atmosphere in which to

provide care. What has been said earlier, would the Minister

consider setting up and in MPs helpline, a Claudia Lawrence said

he would have families coming into the surgery and it would help if I

could contact someone? Two days ago I had a meeting our we will put

right a range as to be made in event of those scenarios he talked

about. I thank the Minister and colleagues, urgent question, Mr

Andy Burnham. -- the Secretary of State for Education to make a

statement on funding for the academy programme. The errors

reported in the Financial Times today relate to mistakes made by

local authorities in their returns to the department. It relies on

local authorities to provide accurate information about their

spending and occasionally individual local authorities make

errors which can lead to academies getting too much or indeed to

little funding. The system for funding academies set up by the

previous Government is unclear, unwieldy and in our view and fair.

It is no surprise therefore that some errors do occur. This is why

we are proposing changes to the school funding system to ensure all

schools and academies are fully funded and three system without the

complexities that lead to these types of problems. It is brought up

of the right honourable gentleman to ask these questions and

attacking us for failing for the system created by the previous

Labour Government of which he was a part. We are the ones sorting it

out just as we are sorting out the historic budget for deficit. Does

he agree we should raise the bar on secondary schools from 35%

achieving five good GCSEs and English and maths to 40% next year

and does he agree that we should further raise it to 50% by the end

of this Parliament. Does he agree with our announcement today... I do

not why the opposition do not want to hear this, does he agree with

our announcement today to extend the Academy's programme to

underperforming Paris schools and in particular to the 200 worst

performing primary schools many of which were in that state for a

decade while his party was in When will they learn that they can

never backed away the question and always blame at something --

somebody else? Today's Financial Times says that his department has

given a large number of academies in England more money than they are

entitled to. This comes days after the Secretary of State caved in to

a legal claim that too much money had been taken from councils to pay

for academies. Does the Secretary of State and the Minister have a

grip on the budget? Wary is the Secretary of State? This is a day

on which serious questions are being asked about the rapid

expansion of his Academy's programme and whether it is backed

up with a serious plan. Why is he not here making that statement to

the House of Commons? Shouldn't he be here to reassure members that he

can proceed with his programme fairly and efficiently without

penalising other schools? Will the Minister tell the House how many

schools have been over funded and what is the total amount paid in

error? Will this money now be clawed back from schools? It is not

good enough to blame everybody else. When will he take responsibility

for the budget of his own department? If they had not spotted

this mistake before the F T reported it, why not? Under threat

of legal action, the government has announced a U-turn on Academy

funding. Can the Minister set out the details for that review and

does he accept the need for urgency? Is indeed the case that

the Secretary of State repeatedly finds himself in these situations

because he fails to consult people? -- isn't it the case. The only way

that people can make you listen to them is to launch her legal action.

That is no way to run a department. We hear that he will pay the

councils' legal costs. He has paid more money on solicitors' fees than

Ryan Giggs and Fred Goodwin tomorrow. -- together. Isn't this a

scandalous waste when money is needed for children's education? He

has been converted to Labour policies. We support raising

standards in schools. It is the standards of the Secretary of State

we are worried about. Maybe the plan necessary today was for poorly

run government departments to be taken over by successful ones.

Today the Secretary of State pathetically tried to blame Labour

for his latest blunder. Isn't it time he took responsibility for his

serial incompetence? Who yet again the honourable gentleman overstates

his case. The Secretary of State is speaking in Birmingham to the

national college as school leadership. I am sure his

predecessors spoke to them every year. We are taking action to

tackle these problems. They occur every year and they did so every

year under the last Labour government. The difference is that

we are taking action to sort out this problem and that is why we

announced a fundamental review of the school funding system. We are

making further announcements on the details of that review later this

year. He also raised the issue of double funding, where central

government is funding both the local authority and the Academy for

the same services. This is something that occurred under the

last Labour government and we are sorting it out. That is why the D C

L G sliced money off the funding of local government to deal with that

funding. We are looking about again. -- looking at that again. I would

like to know whether the right honourable gentleman supports us in

supporting a clearer and simpler system. We want a system that has a

per pupil funding system that everybody can understand and that

is fair. Rather than the system that his government had, where

schools were receiving thousands of pounds more per pupil a than

another school in a similar situation. Isn't it the case that

the question is a smokescreen for those who opposed academies? We

created more in 12 months than they created in 12 years. The last

government left half-a-million children illiterate. They want to

wallow in mediocrity rather than pursue excellent. -- excellence.

is clear where the opposition stands in relation to free schools,

for example. Since the election the right honourable gentleman has said

he opposes the establishment of free schools but since the news

broke that one of Tony Blair's closest aides is setting up his new

school he has now said that he supports them. Does he support the

academies programme or would he closed down those schools if he

came to power? When I published the original policy paper 10 years ago

on academies it was never intended that they should be overpaid and

local authorities under paid for doing the job of supporting pupils.

Can the Minister confirm that the 2.25 % that has been withdrawn from

school funding general and the overspend on academies has denied

other children the key services they need to raise standards and

give them a life chance that all of us should want for every child?

think it is a rich when former Education Secretary is attack us

for this policy because this is a system that this government