Children and Families Bill

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I support this important amendment, which I knew was coming up today. I was sitting as an adult magistrate in Westminster Magistrates’ Court earlier today, in a general remand court, and I took a note of the type of cases we heard. I had 26 defendants in front of me today, five of whom were in the age range of 18 to 21: a perfectly typical illustration of the age range that we see. Although it is not always obvious in court what someone’s background is, I would make an educated guess, based on their previous criminal history, that four of those five had been in some sort of care: that was not a surprise. The fifth defendant was a foreign national who was only 20 years old and was living rough in London.

This is totally typical of the type of defendants whom I see in my adult work in central London, and that is why I support so strongly the amendment moved by the noble Earl. I would see a similar distribution in my youth work, and this one amendment could make more difference than any other single amendment we are talking about this evening.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, made a point about the age of 21. Noble Lords are sharing their experiences of parenting today, and the thought that my 21 year-old could be launched out into the world now fills me with anxiety. I feel that she is on a bit of elastic, will be coming back every so often and we will be there for her as things go on. I understand the evidence put very eloquently by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for this proposition, which I support. However, this is such an unusual opportunity that I wonder whether we should be saying 21 or 25. It might be pushing it slightly to say 25, but 21 seems so young. This is about making evidence-based policy, so I would be interested to know what the evidence is for the age of 21.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, I do not want to delay the Committee but I want to make a few quick comments in support of this amendment. It is very dear to my heart, as I was Minister of State for Children when we instituted the pilots to which several noble Lords have referred. One reason we did that was because, in the White Paper we wrote at that time, I felt strongly that one of our guiding principles in going forward and trying to improve the situation for children in care—a view shared by members of the Committee—was that we should provide them, as far as possible, with the same opportunities that we would want for our own children. As so many noble Lords have said, we have seen a social change over the last 20 years in that our young adult children do not leave home at 16, 17 or 18. Even if they go to university, their bedroom is still there and they come back. They often come back after they have done their studies and they now do not leave home until, on average, their mid-twenties. When the state is the parent, we have to aspire to the same opportunity for those children for whom we are collectively responsible. This is one of the most compelling reasons why we should extend these pilots and make them national.

The benefits to the young people in the pilots have already been well expressed and I will not rehearse them. There is, of course, a cost. The Department for Education has estimated, on the basis of the pilots, that the cost of instituting Staying Put nationally would be £2.7 million. I know that it does not work out as an average because some local authorities have more children in care than others, but, on average, that is £18,000 per annum, per local authority—not per child or per placement: per local authority. So the costs, relative to the benefits, are very small and, as we have heard, there are additional savings to the state from some of the state-funded benefits and support that would have been reduced in the pilots.

The Minister in reply to the previous debate said that helping care leavers to stay in education and training was vital. He also said that when the legislation is being changed, we need evidence of impact. I put it to the Minister that this particular proposal satisfies both of those criteria. If we were in government, and if we are in government again, this is something we would definitely be looking at to see if we could fund because the costs relative to the benefits are also small. I hope the Minister will consider this favourably.

Building Schools for the Future

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I think that I am right in saying that that question should be directed to the DCLG, which is the responsible department, but I will follow up my noble friend's question.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister had to respond to a number of questions from my noble friend Lady Jones on the Front Bench, but can he answer her question about publishing all the relevant information regarding the case of the local authorities and how much public money was spent on legal fees to advise the department on those proceedings? Can he answer more fully my noble friend Lord Knight’s question: what reassurance can the Government offer the public that a truly open mind will be brought to the second attempt to make the decisions according to due process?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

It is clearly the case that an open mind will be brought to it. We have been told by the judge that it needs to be considered in an open way, and we would be extremely foolish if we did not listen to what the judge said to us.

On the first point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, about the publication of information, as I said, all that information was given to the judge and the court, so he had all that information in front of him when he reached the decision that he did.

Education: Language Assistants

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I agree with the point that the noble Lord makes but I also think that it is very much a two-way traffic. That is one of the benefits of this scheme. Other countries benefit from our young people going there and helping to spread English and we benefit from young people from those countries coming here and helping our young people to learn languages.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, clearly the Government have a lot of thinking to do to build fully on the Dearing report and to develop fully their policy on languages and IT. The Business Secretary is concerned about the Government’s rush to reform and the resulting mistakes. Education policy is a prime example of this, as are the Building Schools for the Future fiasco, the schools budget cut despite announcements, and the embarrassing U-turn on school sport. Does the Minister agree with his colleagues in the coalition that education policy is a car crash, or is it perhaps a rail crash?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, whichever travelling metaphor is used that my brain is not quick enough to think of, I feel extremely comfortable with the direction of travel taken by the Government on their education reforms. I consider myself extremely fortunate to have been able early on to introduce the Academies Bill. So far, we have received more than 330 applications from schools to convert to academies. We are making rapid progress across the piece in education.

As for modern languages, which was the point behind the original Question, from which we have deviated quite a long way, the review of the curriculum is an extremely important part of how we address the very serious challenges, some of which we inherited from the previous Government, around the teaching of modern foreign languages. We will announce the review in the new year, and the review will be a proper, thorough and rigorous look at the place of modern foreign languages in the primary and secondary curriculums.

Schools White Paper

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this Statement in your Lordships’ House. I am not going to make the same jokes about punctuation and spelling within the Statement that were made in the other place. We have two tests that we will apply to education policy: first, will it help every school to be a good school and, secondly, will it help every child to be the best that they can? I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased to know that we welcome important elements of this White Paper but, overall, it fails the tests that we have set rather miserably.

This is a plan for some of our children but not for all of our children. I believe that the Government will have to work very hard to explain how this plan will not result in the damaging of morale in some schools, throwing them into decline and creating a new generation of failing schools. We welcome the retention of a floor target for secondary schools and the Government’s apparent change of heart about the role of targets in raising standards. This builds on Labour’s successful National Challenge programme and I, of course, welcome that. We welcome the expansion of Teach First, which we championed in government. Labour’s legacy, according to Ofsted, was “the best generation ever” of teachers and we share the Government’s aspiration to achieve the best teaching profession in the world. We also support anonymity for teachers who face accusations from pupils.

However, the Government’s overall direction is very worrying indeed. Their direction is driving us towards a two-tier education system. I support the focus on maths, English and science that we promoted vigorously when we were in government. We have seen the take-up of science doubling since 2004, and of course we set that direction in motion. By focusing entirely on the five academic subjects of the English bac, though, are the Government not encouraging schools to focus only on those children with a chance of achieving that particular batch of GCSEs? Is there not a huge danger of cementing the divide between academic and vocational qualifications, which really is not appropriate for the 21st century? There is a risk of the English bac becoming the gold standard by which schools are judged. The IPPR commented yesterday that:

“Schools will have an incentive to focus extra resources on children likely to do well in those subjects, rather than on children receiving free school meals”.

Is this really the right direction?

Is there not a risk that the pupil premium will not be spent on the children for whom it is identified? At a time when we all need to focus more on the 50 per cent of children who will not go to universities, is it not the case that the Government have very little to say to them today? The Government’s message today is that the vocational route is second best. Is there not a real danger that the combined effect of the announcements today will create a new generation of failing schools? Is it not the case that some improving schools will see themselves plummet down the league tables, damaging morale and risking throwing progress into reverse? Has the Minister considered that in detail? Many of those schools are the same ones that suffered from the Building Schools for the Future decisions. What hope can the Government give them today, having been through that experience, of extra support to raise standards for all their children, academic and vocational?

Teachers, support staff and careers advisers have worked so hard to reduce the divide between academic and vocational studies, to raise the aspirations of all children, and the Government seem to be throwing it away. How does that help to create the engineers of the future? There is a strong emphasis on teacher training in the White Paper and that is very interesting, but is there not a risk of ignoring the advice of experts? I know that there is an evidence paper but I have to be honest and say that I have not yet trawled all the way through it. Still, is there not a real risk of failing to listen to the experts? Ofsted said yesterday:

“There was more outstanding initial teacher education delivered by higher education led partnerships than by school-centred initial teacher training partnerships and employment-based routes”.

There is a real question there, and I am sure that the Minister will have something interesting to say on it.

Why are the Government planning to end university-led teacher training for a schools-based model? Why is that happening now? Will the Minister assure the House that it will not undermine the quality of teacher training and that it is not simply about cost cutting?

There is a much bigger contradiction that I am worrying about. Today the Government are laying down prescriptive standards for teacher training, but the message just a few days ago to free schools and academies was that they would be free to employ unqualified teachers. Is that not mixing the Government’s messages a bit and trying to have it both ways? This exposes a major flaw in the Government’s thinking, repeated throughout the White Paper. The Government talk a good game on central standards, but they say that they want schools to have the freedom not to adhere to them. So which is it—standards or freedom? Will the Government be clearer about that?

We support some of the proposals in the White Paper; indeed, we recognise that some important elements are built on our experience. I agree that improving teacher quality is key, but perhaps the Government are not going nearly far enough on that. This is because in reality, as we all know, the Government’s focus is on damaging structural reforms and pet projects like free schools, which are at best irrelevant for the vast majority of parents and at worst harmful, with poor facilities and untrained teachers. There are real risks in this structural obsession.

In the introduction, the Prime Minister quotes the 2006 PISA study to assert that our schools system is second-rate. Can the Minister tell the House how our young people compare using the more recent TIMSS study, which the White Paper commits to use as a future yardstick? Is it not the case that there is more recent evidence that makes a much better comparison and creates a much better picture of how our young people are doing? Is it not sad that that more recent evidence has been airbrushed out of the Prime Minister’s introduction?

In the Government’s rush to reform, mistakes are being made that will damage our education system. Ministers seem not to have learnt the lessons of the mayhem caused by the botched decision-making surrounding Building Schools for the Future. At the most crucial moment in our sporting history, on the eve of a home Olympics and on the very day of the opening of the Ashes, why are Ministers abandoning a school sports system that the Australians have called world-leading? Is this not ideology going too far in the face of really positive results achieved by school sports partnerships around the country? Does this not embody the Government’s approach to education—competitive sport for the elite, and forget about the rest in spite of the evidence to the contrary?

Ministers have been briefing newspapers that they will abandon the local authority role in school funding, but then telling the BBC the opposite. Quite apart from the protocol of coming to Parliament first on these matters, with the local authority acting as the parents’ champion and champions of excellence in our new free school world, can the Minister explain what powers local authorities will have to exercise this advocacy? In particular, will they have any powers to intervene in order to raise standards?

Is not the Government’s biggest mistake to destabilise the school system by telling schools at this incredibly late stage in the budgeting process that their budgets are protected, raising expectations, and by continuing to mis-sell the pupil premium? I have said before that I remain to be convinced that the pupil premium is anything but a con. It does not look very additional to me—in fact, it looks as if the areas of greatest deprivation will lose out. I look forward to being proved wrong on that. Will the Minister confirm that when schools receive their budgets in a couple of weeks’ time, those in the most deprived areas will be the biggest losers?

Far from helping all schools to be good schools and every child to be the best they can, this White Paper represents a plan for a fragmented and divided education system of winners and losers. This Government have nothing of substance to say to young people today. Vocational studies have been downgraded, apprenticeships for young people frozen and the EMA scrapped. As we sit here, listening to the helicopters circling and watching young people protesting outside, should we not all be worried that we are in danger of creating a lost generation as a result of an education system that confuses elitism with excellence for all?

Education: Pupils and Young People

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s passionate intervention. She has a great deal of expertise in these matters and it was very helpful. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, on introducing this important debate.

It is tempting for an incoming Government to believe that they are starting from zero and to dismiss everything that has gone before, and the noble Baroness is right to secure the debate to ensure that that does not happen. However, it seems to be a temptation to which this Government are particularly susceptible. In fact, almost everything before May 2010 has been removed from the DfE website and consigned to the national archive, if it is available at all, including much good research and useful material which is entirely apolitical. It is therefore important that we look back as well as forward. It is a big mistake to remove that perspective as,

“those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.

I quote, as many will know, George Santayana, the Spanish philosopher.

The evidence shows that there have been many achievements so far in our schools and children’s services and we have heard a great deal about them. They have been independently verified and should be built on. No wise policymaker would ignore them. I welcome the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, about the success of our academy programme and the importance of the introduction of the diploma from which a great deal can be learnt. However, I take exception to the assertion that we were engaged in levelling down. Let me make it absolutely clear that the opposite was the case. We strongly believe that every school should be a good school and that all children should have access to excellence, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London described so eloquently.

Let us consider what we encountered in 1997. There were no children’s centres or free nursery places; the school estate was crumbling; we had to work with a demoralised teaching profession; and more than 1,600 schools—half of all schools—achieved less than 30 per cent of pupils attaining five good GCSEs. That was our legacy. However, because of our relentless efforts in school improvement, now only about one in 10 schools displays such a poor showing—but that simply represents how much more there is to do. We delivered free nursery places to all three and four year-olds and we committed to and set in motion the extension of that to 2,500 disadvantaged two year-olds, a scheme which the coalition Government have agreed to continue. Alongside this, 3,500 of the much celebrated Sure Start centres were established and thousands of families with a disabled child—this point has not yet figured in this debate but I am sure it will arise in many others—were given access to the kind of short breaks they so desperately need in order to continue supporting their families and children.

I give the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, full marks, if I may be so cheeky, for recognising that we now have the best qualified, strongest teaching profession ever. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, and others also recognised this. This has not come about without a concerted effort in investment and professional development. It did not happen without effort. Across our country, millions of children are going to school no longer having to put up with leaking roofs and peeling walls because they attend one of the 4,000 brand new or refurbished schools that have been built in the past 13 years.

Our young people are achieving the best ever exam results and, when we left office, improvement was taking place fastest in the poorest areas. That is not to say that there is not a great more deal to do, but it does represent our potential to do more. As the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, we should recommit ourselves to the challenge of making a real difference for all our children.

I remind the party opposite of what has been achieved by teachers, teaching assistants—we must not forget teaching assistants because they have such a key role—parents and pupils, because we need to learn from the past and there is much more to do. The Government should avoid the urge to reinvent the wheel, which children in this country definitely cannot afford, and should learn from the experiences of our schools and children’s services over the past 13 years.

What kind of lessons can we learn and what conclusions should we draw? I have picked out three lessons. First, when we were in Government—many noble Lords around the Chamber have echoed this—we learnt that what happens in the classroom is crucial for children’s education; educational achievement does not come about otherwise. We also learnt that what happens outside the classroom matters a great deal, too, especially what happens at home. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, described that parents are the single biggest influence on how well children do. That is why, when in government, we invested in programmes to support parents to help their children learn; and it is why we funded voluntary organisations to work in partnership with us locally and with families. What are the Government’s policies for supporting parents to help their children to succeed at school, especially those parents who did not do so well themselves and who will not necessarily know how best to help their children to do so? What policies will the Government promote to help those children who do not have families? Is the answer that such parents should simply apply to set up their own free school? I am sure that is not what the Minister would say.

The second big lesson we learnt over the past decade is that—not only here but across the world—the early years of a child’s life are the most important in their development. If they get the right educational help then they are set up for success. This is especially important for disadvantaged children, who can either race ahead or be held back at this stage. The crucial ingredient is high quality early years education provided by skilled, kindly, professional staff who make early learning playful and fun.

The spending review document states that the Government will return Sure Start to its “original purpose” and that they will encourage more private and voluntary sector providers to get involved. That raises some big questions. For example, what do the Government mean by Sure Start’s “original purpose”? If, as seems possible, they mean more focused support for those children left furthest behind, how will they identify those children? How will they achieve this at a time when we know that overall resources will be reducing in real terms, particularly for children’s services? Does it mean that provision will be taken away from some children and families who are receiving it now? Since we know that there is a tendency for “services for poor children” to become poor services over time, how will the Government avoid it? It is a real challenge.

Given that inspections show that the best-quality early-years education is more often to be found in the public sector, how will the Government ensure that standards continue to be high if there is simultaneously less money and more involvement from private and voluntary providers? Will they give private and voluntary independent providers the extra help that they need for training? The key ingredient in early education is undoubtedly its quality and—what we are talking about today—excellence.

We have learnt that many children whose educational achievements are held back by other barriers in their lives, such as disability, special educational need or family problems, can overcome them if they get the right help at the right time, ideally before the problems have become too entrenched. That puts a premium on schools having strong working relationships with other services for children, enabling them to get the effective professional help that they need at the earliest possible opportunity. Such help could take the form of social work, educational psychology and mental health support. That is why, when in government, we put in place children's trusts to reinforce those positive working relationships between schools and other professionals. But the Government have said that they will dismantle children's trusts. Their changes to the provision of local health services will also cause chaos. The Secretary of State for Education seems to want to create a free market for schools with autonomous institutions competing with each other. Is this a recipe for fragmentation and dislocation? What will the Government do to make sure that that is not the outcome?

I hope that schools and local authorities will not be left to deal with these dilemmas alone, because, if they are, it is children who will become the biggest losers.

Education: Special Educational Needs

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, on securing the debate, and I add to the many remarks that have already been made about the wisdom she brings to it, especially given her seminal report in 1978. I was still at school and, as someone who had a special interest in it, I can remember the Warnock report being published at the time. I also found my noble friend’s maiden speech very enjoyable. I remember that when I came into the House we had a debate about jam; I therefore do not see why we cannot have a debate about honey. I very much enjoyed my noble friend’s maiden speech.

In preparing for the debate I read an article by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that was recently published in the Daily Telegraph. In it she describes the changing attitudes in society to children with special educational needs and disabilities. She also referred to the fact that when her report was published there was the shadow of the 1980s education cuts still to come. I thought that was an interesting context in her first seminal work, and today’s debate is timely because of what we can all see coming down the track for education.

I agree with the noble Baroness that the Ofsted report is an important contribution to the debate and to how we go forward. I agree also that when we were in government we considered the recommendations of the Lamb report an extremely important contribution as to how we should take forward provision for children with special educational needs. I feel strongly that we must have the highest expectations for children with special educational needs and disabled children. I believe, as do others on my Benches, that these children should have every opportunity to fulfil their potential and pursue their talents. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed out, access to support for achieving their aspirations should not be a battle for parents. I think that we agree across the House on that.

The education and children’s social care system, particularly schools, should be held to account for how well it meets the needs of children with special educational needs. As others have generously said, the previous Government worked in close partnership with the voluntary sector and providers to attempt to develop a system capable of meeting those needs. Our contribution has been recognised in comments from around the Chamber and by the Government. At the election, we made a clear commitment to expanding the number of specialist dyslexia teachers, to improving teacher training for children with autism, to improving the statementing process to give more support to parents and to increasing the supply of teachers with specialist skills, particularly those working with children with severe learning disabilities in special schools. We on these Benches took the concerns very seriously. However, we were never complacent and we are under no illusion about the challenge facing the Government now. That is why we commissioned the Lamb and Ofsted reports and why this debate is so timely and so important.

However, we face the coming clouds of education funding challenges. I have a number of questions for the Minister, which I hope he will be able to help me with today. If he does not have the notes to hand, I would be very happy to receive a letter from him. Yesterday was a very dark day for children’s services. It is now clear that in order to write the great fiction of protected education spending into the story of the spending review, children and family services will bear the lion’s share of the 12 per cent cut to the budget of the Department for Education. We can now perhaps see why it was so important to change its name from the Department for Children, Schools and Families and to write out children and families from the title. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, eloquently explained, schools rely on local authorities for significant funding. As we see the national indicator set and the ring-fenced funding disappear, I fear that children’s services will suffer a very quiet and invisible demise. I look forward to reassurance from the Minister. Children with SEN and disabled children rely on those services. Given that the Chancellor was prepared to be very clear about the provision of social care for adults, could the Minister be very clear for us about the importance of the provision of social care for children. Can he provide reassurance about specialist services for children with SEN?

We have heard much about the pupil premium, which I hope, but have yet to be convinced, is more than a rebranding exercise. We were promised in the coalition agreement that the premium would be drawn from outside the schools budget and would provide additional funding for disadvantaged children, many of whom have SEN. However, the spending review document states clearly that the premium will “sit within” the settlement for schools. We are given to understand that the premium will simply lump together existing budgets, which may result—I look forward to being reassured otherwise—in borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, with the regrettable effect that Peter's school will face cuts.

Will the Minister please explain for the benefit of the House how his Government can justify calling the pupil premium additional when it is simply a rebranding exercise? These are important questions for the support of children with special educational needs. There will be winners and losers following this reorganisation of the schools budgets, so will the Minister give us assurances that there will be proper support for schools as they go through transition? Will he ensure that there will not be a repeat of the fiasco with the Building Schools for the Future announcements?

The Department for Education has yet to publish its business plan, so will the Minister tell the House whether the Government intend to fund the pupil premium through the abolition of the implicit free school meals premium that already exists? The IFS has already described that implicit premium as having a value of £2,460 for primary schools and £3,370 for secondary schools, so the concern is that the premium will be funded by reallocating the same pot of money in a different way. If that were to be the case, it would represent a flat line in funding; if it were the worst case, it could be extremely bad news for disabled children and children with special educational needs.

I turn briefly to the academies programme. We have already heard that during the passage of the Academies Act, the Government accepted a number of amendments to retain funding for specialist support services within local authorities and that a working group would be set up to consider long-term solutions to that issue. Will the Minister confirm that progress has been made with establishing the working group and say whether disability organisations such as SEC, RNIB and Sense are to be represented? It would be important to hear about that.

The Government also committed to monitoring the impact of the Act on services for children with low-incidence specialist support needs. What monitoring and assessment has taken place to date, or are there plans to take this forward? What is the Government’s plan for ensuring the sustainability of services in low-incidence specialist support needs? Local authorities—or some authorities, at least—need to plan for providing specialist support services. The low-incidence needs of children with SEN or a disability such as visual or hearing impairment mean that the market available for the private sector to enter is highly restricted and may not be financially viable. There is strong concern about the stability of these services, given the impact that academies and free schools will have as they take money away from local authorities and are free to commission services, either from the private sector or from a local authority. There is the additional complexity that free schools and academies may not have the relevant expertise to commission the support required by a child with special educational needs or a disability.

That situation could well be made worse—I am sure that the noble Lord will reassure me to the contrary—by yesterday’s announcement of cuts to the tune of 28.4 per cent in local authority funding over the course of the Parliament. There is so much more to discuss about special educational needs, but I know that the noble Lord has limited time to respond to the debate, so I will ask no more questions—except to say that I look forward very much to hearing his response.

Academies Bill [HL]

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, we on these Benches are second to no one in our enthusiasm for proposing the most widespread appropriate consultation on a matter such as this which is so important to every school. That is why we were so pleased that the Minister brought forward the amendment on Report to put into the Bill the consultation that had been lacking in the original Bill. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, and her predecessors, has convinced us on numerous occasions of the dangers of lists and of being prescriptive as to who you should talk to about this, that and the other.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, does the noble Lady agree that we are still convincing those on the other side of the Chamber of the dangers of lists? The right honourable Secretary of State for Education is experiencing a very difficult time with lists at the moment. We stand firm on that position.

[Baroness Walmsley]

The noble Baroness is very quick on her feet this afternoon but that is not the sort of list we are talking about. The list in Amendment 3 is dangerous because it probably leaves somebody out. In an individual school’s case, there may well be somebody who is appropriate to consult but who is not in the list. There are times when you have to trust schools. You have to trust what was in the Government’s amendment on Report, which is now in the Bill, that appropriate consultation must take place. Matters such as this will have widespread publicity within a local area, and any organisation that believes it is an appropriate group within the terms of the previous amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hill, but has not been consulted will certainly jump up and down and shout about the matter, making sure that the governors of the school know its view on whether the school should go ahead.

I remind the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that a school does not become an academy until the point of conversion. Although I personally strongly encourage schools to consult at the earliest appropriate moment, as I have already encouraged them to do in this Chamber, it must be done according to what we have in the Bill now, before conversion. That is vital.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I have learnt so much about conversion in the process of this Bill. I have learnt about the noble Baroness’s conversion to the benefits of the academy model promoted by those on these Benches and now by the party opposite, too.

We come back to what the Minister has talked about through our deliberations: the need to get the balance right between central prescription and local innovation, and the need to trust schools. Nobody in their right mind would think it a good idea for anyone in central government to be rude to schools or to put themselves in a position where they have to apologise individually to them. That is something that all of us around the Chamber take seriously.

Listening to my noble friend Lord Whitty proposing his amendment, I thought that what he said was very reasonable. At the heart of what he is asserting is the need for good guidance for schools. We are talking about potentially large numbers of sometimes quite small schools having to go through a process, and about giving them the right kind of support and guidance. I looked at the guidance that is available on the Department for Education's website. Consultation does not feature very strongly in that; it does not even get its own little blue box in the summary of the conversion process.

On Report, the Minister said that the Government were,

“amending our advice to converting schools on the department's website to include guidance on good consultation practice. We will discuss with an applying school as part of the conversion process what arrangements it has made for consultation”.—[Official Report, 7/7/10; col. 309.]

I would be happy if the Minister would explain whether the advice on the website has been updated since Report. We are in a very fast-moving process and if the Government are committed to providing full and proper advice and guidance to schools on consultation, that needs to happen quickly. The advice that schools get from the website about the communication that they should have with the local authority suggests that they should simply ask it to prepare for them details for the transfer of land—deeds and such. That is the context in which a conversation with the local authority is suggested.

There are good, simple suggestions on the website about how schools might consult parents, such as sending a letter to them explaining the proposals and perhaps meeting them. However, I am concerned that the only communication with the local authority should be to ask the local authority,

“to gather land ownership and land registration documentation and information”.

Surely there is a lot more that the school would want to talk to its local authority about. Will the Minister update that guidance, and soon?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, we return again to the issue of consultation—and we will have another go in a moment with the next group of amendments. We have had detailed debate on the subject both in Committee and on Report. These amendments cover much of the ground that we have already debated and on which I have brought forward amendments, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I am relatively brief in rehearsing familiar arguments.

As my noble friend Lady Perry argued, it is the Government's view that the individuals who lead schools—the governors and the head—are best placed to make decisions. They know the local area, the local circumstances of the school and how it relates to other schools in the area. We trust them to determine how to consult and we do not intend to provide an inflexible checklist, which would not make the consultation any more meaningful. The trusting of professionals to do their job is a key principle that the Government are keen to pursue on many fronts, and it underpins this Bill.

Amendment 3, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, set out, would also require the governing body to consult before applying for an academy order. We had this discussion last week on Report. It is not until the academy arrangement is finally entered into that the conversion process is legally agreed. That is why it is appropriate to leave it to governing bodies to decide when they should consult, so long as they do it before they enter into academy arrangements. However, I accept that they will frequently want to do it—as my noble friend Lady Walmsley said—early in the process rather than later.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, rightly said that we are amending our advice on the website. I do not believe that it has yet been amended. I do not think that what she read out has been updated and we need to do that urgently. We will obviously discuss with an applying school the arrangements that it has made for consultation and we do not believe that we need to be more prescriptive than that.

Amendment 4 seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult the local authority over any academy proposals. Schools or proposers for free schools will, and have to, consult whomever they consider appropriate, and in many cases that will include the local authority. However, we do not believe that the Secretary of State needs to be involved in any consultations in addition to the school or the proposer, and we do not think it necessary to give local authorities a role which could—although perhaps only in some areas of the country—undermine the purpose of the Government’s policy; as we know, that has been the case in the past.

Given that we have had these debates and rehearsed these arguments, and are to return to them in the next group of amendments on consultation more generally, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Adonis]

I had almost finished. I just wish to make one concluding point. I support the policy of new school providers getting a fair opportunity to establish new schools where there is a need for additional schools in an area, either to meet the requirement for additional school places or—to be quite frank—to meet the requirement for high-quality places where they are not being provided by existing schools. If there is to be that opportunity, it is very important that we do not tie up school promoters in red tape that will either dissuade them from coming forward with proposals in the first place or hamper them unduly when it comes to conducting their consultations. Amendment 8 states that,

“the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that relevant interested parties have been consulted”.

As soon as you put phrases like that in legislation, you guarantee a succession of legal cases as people challenge what constitute “relevant interested parties”. That would not meet the purpose, which is the provision of new schools where they are needed or will raise the quality of education in an area, so I do not believe it is desirable.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, it is my turn to pop up from behind the Dispatch Box. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bates, talk about the philosophical issues in Clause 4; I was equally interested to see the little exchanges going on across his Benches. Of course, we have very important business before us at this Third Reading.

My noble friend Lord Adonis and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, put their finger on the issue that my amendment is about; that is, the Secretary of State being satisfied that appropriate consultation has been undertaken before an academy is established where there was no school previously. I think that we are all keen to hear what the Minister has to say, as my amendment is an amendment to his government amendment. I know that my noble friend Lady Royall will be pleased that he has listened to her remarks and taken on board concerns voiced around the Chamber about appropriate consultation on the establishment of free schools. There are real concerns and questions, for example, about how the admissions code might work in some very small schools, how schools set up by a group of parents might cater for other parents and how the broad and balanced curriculum might work in them. It is therefore important that questions around consultation are taken seriously. Like my noble friend, I believe it is important that, where there is a need for a new school, we make sure that parents have the opportunity to establish a school with the support of the education community around them and that if they consult appropriately they will not be accused at some later stage of having consulted only a few of their mates and people whom they know are fellow travellers and will simply agree with them.

In the interests of ensuring that taxpayers’ resources are invested in good new schools and that work is done to establish sustainable schools that fill a need, the consultation on the establishment of new free schools should be no less important to the Secretary of State than consultation on the conversion of a maintained school to an academy. I look forward to hearing the Minister set that out on the record. I shall think about his response when it comes to considering whether to press my amendment to his amendment.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I support Amendment 8 as an amendment to Amendment 7, because it would require the Government in relation to free schools to engage in at least the same degree of consultation as they are required to engage in on conversion.

In a sense, I congratulate the Government on redesignating free schools as “additional schools” because that indicates what they really are. It may not be what the Minister’s PR department would have advised him to call them, but “additional schools” raises the issue of additional resources. At some point in this debate, probably now in another place, he and his colleagues will have to answer the question posed by my noble friend Lord Knight on how the additional schools will be financed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I apologise for interrupting the last gasp of the Minister’s excellent reply, but would it be fair to say that the obligation of the Secretary of State on the impact consideration is, to a significant degree, a different undertaking from the consultation to be undertaken by the promoters and that the Secretary of State will have to form his or her own judgment as to impact?

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

Before the Minister responds to that point, will he also consider the points made by my noble friend Lord Knight about the impact on schools in an area? We talked about funding at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. It is a theme that has come back again and again and it is an important point. When you are looking at the impact of a new school on an educational community, funding is a key question.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I was not disputing for one moment that it is an important issue. I was attempting, however crudely, to make the point that, with regard to consultation, which is the purpose of these amendments, I was not clear, as I listened to his points, precisely how they related to the amendments. As for my noble friend Lord Phillips, I have difficulty because he always asks such intelligent, perceptive and well-argued questions. My noble friend asked whether the Secretary of State will have to take the impact into account. The answer to that question is yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley]

I hope the House will allow me to say on behalf of the mover, since clarification has been required, that the analysis by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, of the amendment is a misreading of its intention.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

Well, another Morgan rises. This is a very interesting amendment. It has prompted quite a fascinating debate at the end of the passage of this Bill. For me the question is: what do we really want this annual report to look at? Is it the free- market, free school experiment in which we replicate the experience of Sweden so we can see by evaluating the impact on standards, as they did in Sweden, how standards fell markedly, or the expansion of the Labour Government’s very successful academy programme and how the coalition Government have learnt from that and further driven up standards based on our expertise and experience? There are lots of different ways of looking at this report.

I am very much in favour of ensuring that we have the data to evaluate the impact of government policy, that they are properly scrutinised and that Parliament has the opportunity to debate the outcome of that work. What would most interest me is a commitment from the Minister that we will debate this policy of expanding or morphing Labour’s academy programme to encompass outstanding schools and its impact, and have some hard data to back up the debate. We are having a conversation around this House that will carry on for some years. It would be good if that were to be supported by hard data. In the past, we have also had real concerns about the impact on children with disabilities and special educational needs, and on children in care. The ability to shine a light on the impact of the policy on their experiences and outcomes would also be of help. I am therefore sure that if that means we are actually going to do something with the data, I would support that. If there are annual reports that have not been published but should have been, I am sure that they are in the process of being compiled and we will see them coming on stream very shortly.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Williams for moving this amendment, not least because it gives me an opportunity, perhaps for the first time in our many lengthy discussions, to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I am grateful for that, if for nothing else—even though I obviously applaud the fact that that the amendment will deliver scrutiny and rightly give Parliament the opportunity to look at the progress of this important policy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, said, we have had an interesting debate in which all sorts of views have come from some surprising quarters around this House. I welcome the support of her party to openness and parliamentary accountability, which is perhaps a shift from the position that it might have adopted a few months ago when noble Lords were calling for debates and scrutiny. However, that point may be unfair.

During the second day of Report, I agreed and was keen to reflect on the persuasive arguments brought by my noble friends Lady Williams and Lady Walmsley, and, I accept, by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when we debated the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the progress of academies and the impact of the Bill. I am therefore delighted that my noble friend Lady Williams has returned with the amendment.

We believe—this lay behind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—that academies already operate within a highly accountable framework. They are indeed inspected by Ofsted and have to report on their performance to the Secretary of State; but I fully accept my noble friend’s argument that this policy marks a significant extension of the academies programme and that it is therefore right that we should report regularly to Parliament on its progress.

On the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, decisions about debates are probably not taken by me; I do not know, and it is not my area. Others in the House authorities will take them. However, if such a decision is taken, we could certainly debate the issue and, after the discussions that we have had so far in Committee and on Report, I can hardly wait for another opportunity to discuss academies.

I thank my noble friends Lady Williams and Lady Walmsley for their help and advice on this issue. It is also true, having heard the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, talking about prodding and poking, that I feel prodded and poked by many of my noble friends, including the noble Baroness. I am grateful for that. I also thank all those who gave so generously of their time in Committee and on Report. A hard core sat through many hours, including Members of the opposition Front Bench. I should like to place my thanks to them on the record. I am grateful to noble Lords for the contributions made from all sides of this House. I am certain that the Bill is better as a result.

Amendment 9 will increase transparency and accountability to Parliament. That seems the right way forward, and I am extremely happy to accept my noble friend’s amendment.

Academies Bill [HL]

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, it is very encouraging to see my noble friend the Minister bring forward his Amendment 30, but I join others in hoping that he may bring forward an amended version of it at the final stage of the Bill. None of these amendments, except Amendment 26—that may be inadvertent—takes account of new academies: the so-called free academy schools. All these amendments speak of the conversion of existing schools into academies.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

As I understand it, throughout the passage of the Bill, there has been no such thing as a free school; free schools are academies. I am sure that will help the noble Lord.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am grateful for the intervention but I am not sure that it does. I was merely repeating the parlance used by the Government when they talk of academy schools that are not conversions as free schools. I am merely making the point that every one of these amendments is drafted on the basis of an existing maintained school converting to an academy: except Amendment 26, which would cover new free academies, as they are called, as well as existing secondary schools. It is blazingly obvious that our consultation provisions must apply to these new academies. In fact, the need for consultation where a brand new academy springs up in an area is even more acute than when an existing school converts into an academy. I hope that the Minister will say in response to this mini debate that he will bring forward an amendment at Third Reading that includes the new academies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving what I am sure are technical amendments. It would be helpful if he could explain whether these amendments apply equally to independent schools and to schools transferring from the maintained sector to become academies. If land is donated to a free school, a new academy, how will these provisions apply in those circumstances?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I believe that they apply across the board. Should I need to be precise in some of those details, it might be best if I follow that up subsequently. I believe that because this will be in the general provisions of the Bill, it will apply equally to all academies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 40A and 40B and build to some extent on what the noble Lord has just said. As a long in the tooth charity lawyer, I have come to believe that the law of charity is best regulated by the Charity Commission. It may not be a perfect regulatory animal but it is, by a measure that you cannot count, more experienced in regulating charities than any of the other principal regulators. It is worth adding that charity law is one of the most difficult branches of law, as it is both a combination of common law and statute law and calls for more judgment in its application than perhaps any other branch of law. It is not textbook law.

I have heard what my noble friend the Minister has said on past occasions and I am content, despite misgivings, to go along with Clause 8, but only on condition that, if the principal regulator proves inadequate to the difficult task of regulating not only the large number of academies to come but the 200-plus academies that already exist, the Charity Commission should then be able to intervene and exercise powers.

For noble Lords who are not aware of it, I should say that the Attorney-General has jurisdiction with regard to all charities. The Minister might say that that should be enough, but the Attorney-General will not intervene other than in quite exceptional circumstances and, frankly, he is not supposed to be an alias principal regulator. The problem is that the powers in Sections 8 and 18 of the Charities Act 1993 were given to the Charity Commission to ensure that charities are charitable—and there is no more precious name or reputation in this country, I suggest, than that of charity—and can be exercised only by the Charity Commission. They cannot be exercised by a principal regulator unless that regulator asks the Charity Commission to exercise those powers on its behalf.

My Amendment 40B says that when the Charity Commission has concerns over the regulation of a principal regulator and what it is doing, or more likely not doing—in this case it will deal with the Young People's Learning Agency, because my noble friend has indicated that that is to be the regulator of academy schools—the commission will consult the principal regulator, the YPLA. If, having consulted the YPLA, it remains unhappy at what the YPLA proposes to do or not to do, having given notice to the YPLA it can institute an inquiry under Section 8 of the 1993 Act that will lead to the much wider powers that it will have under Section 18 of that Act. This is a power, a provision, that I would not expect to be exercised at all, but it is well worth having in the Bill because it may prove to be just the sort of spur that may be needed—I hope it will not—in order for the YPLA to do the job properly. That longstop—the prospect of being exposed to public ridicule and contempt by the Charity Commission having to intervene under the provisions of this subsection—would ensure, as far as anything could, that the YPLA did the job properly.

Before finishing, I would like to say a word about the YPLA. It has been in existence for just three months. Noble Lords may wonder, as I do, whether such a new organisation can possibly be in a position almost immediately—we are talking about the autumn—to undertake this huge and difficult regulatory role. People capable of exercising these powers in a knowledgeable and practical way are few and far between, and it will not be easy to put in place the team necessary to do this job properly. It must be done properly because these academy schools are hugely important in public interest terms. I am anxious that it will not be possible for them to assemble the necessary expertise to do that job, which makes my amendment all the more important.

I am also concerned, to be honest, about the potential conflict of interest that the YPLA will have. Its principal responsibilities, as made clear by the former Minister, Ed Balls, are, first, to support local authorities in commissioning suitable education and training for 16 to 19 year-olds; secondly, to fund academies; and, thirdly, to provide financial support to young learners— none of which is anything to do with the difficult regulatory function that is to be cast upon it under the Bill. I am sorry to have had to explain all that at length, but it is not easy to get across the background to and the need for this amendment.

Finally, and much more simply, my Amendment 40A adds to Clause 8 the charitable incorporated organisation alongside companies limited by guarantee as the alternative vehicle for an academy school. This charitable incorporated organisation was brought into existence by the Charities Act 2006. It is a specially tailor-made corporate animal for charities and is therefore infinitely simpler than the company limited by guarantee, which is subject to the vast forest of company law. I have no doubt that when the regulations come into effect, which will in effect give birth to these charitable incorporated organisations, all the academy schools will want to convert into that new charitable corporate vehicle. It would be remiss if we were not to include that now alongside companies limited by guarantee. I hope that both these amendments will appeal to your Lordships and indeed to my noble friend the Minister.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I have listened to the debate on Report with even more concern than I did in Committee. I was hoping that, following meetings between noble Lords and the Minister, there would be more on offer to meet the concerns raised by the noble Lords opposite.

When thinking about this group of amendments, I had similar concerns to those of the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Phillips. I was particularly concerned about the role of the YPLA as a regulator when there are conflicts of interest and about the YPLA’s capacity to deal with this. Will the Minister tell us how many staff with charity law experience the association has in place who are ready for this retrospective legislation that will put it in charge of regulating the academies that are currently charities, if that is what is going to happen? I am very concerned about Clause 8.

This reminds me of a storyline from “Yes Minister”. When a new Government come in, officials dust down an old policy that they were not able to convince the previous Government to pursue and suddenly it finds its way into legislation. That is what appears to have happened here. When we were in government, this proposal was put to us. We listened to the concerns voiced by many and to arguments similar to those put by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and we did not pursue this approach.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, described the clause as “a dog’s dinner” and made clear his view that the regulator should be mentioned in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made the important point that the Bill would damage the “delicate balance” between,

“the many strongly held views about the charitable sector”.—[Official Report, 28/6/10; col. 1632.]

He said that this would particularly be the case in the area of education, which has been highly controversial.

The Government should tread carefully in this area. I offer the Minister some advice: it would be sensible to listen to the advice that he is being given at this Report stage and to think further about how the issue can be managed in the Bill. I do not think that it would be a good thing to go forward with this clause, as it would unsettle the settlement achieved in the Charities Act 2006, which was a well deliberated piece of legislation about a hugely controversial area. I hope that the Minister will think further about this.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, as usual this has been an interesting debate. My noble friend Lord Hodgson has set out important points of principle, which, as he said, we have had the chance to debate outside the Chamber—I am grateful to him for taking the time to do so.

I start by setting out the purpose of Clause 8(1), which is to put beyond doubt that academies are charities. Because it is proposed that academies will be exempt charities, they will not in the future be registered with the Charity Commission. It follows from that that they will not receive a charity registration number from the Charity Commission or the Charity Commission’s confirmation of charitable status that comes with being registered. Therefore, we think it important statutorily to confirm academies’ status as charities in this clause.

My noble friend Lord Hodgson has spoken powerfully and from a position of principle. I know how much work he and other noble Lords did on the Charities Act 2006 and, when I heard him arguing his case in Committee and when we met, I found what he said very much worth listening to. He touched previously on his concern that deeming academy trusts to be charities would set a precedent and he set out the response that he was given about that. I reiterate our view that there is a precedent. Our proposal to deem academy proprietors as charities will replicate the current legal position as it applies for a variety of other educational bodies whose status as charities is declared by statute. A range of educational bodies are deemed charities and are made exempt charities. Further education colleges and higher education colleges are deemed charities and are made exempt charities not regulated by the Charity Commission. The governing bodies of foundation and voluntary schools are deemed as charities; they are shortly to become exempt charities as well, following discussion and agreement between Ministers at the Cabinet Office and the department. It seems to me that it is not completely inappropriate for academies to be treated consistently with these other schools and educational bodies and for them to be deemed as charities under Clause 8(1) and made exempt under Clause 8(4).

My noble friend Lord Hodgson reiterated tonight the point that he made in Committee: he has no doubt that academies would be able to pass the public benefit test established by the Charities Act 2006. Given that, it would be appropriate to treat academies in the same way as these other educational institutions. The model articles of association for academy trusts provide that the objective of the academy trust is to advance education for the public benefit. It is only academy trusts which have exclusively charitable objectives that would be deemed charities. The provision of education to pupils without charge is in the public benefit. Therefore, their charitable status should be confirmed.

If Clause 8(4) is enacted, a principal regulator would need to be appointed to oversee academies’ compliance with charity law. The Minister for the Cabinet Office, as noble Lords know, has agreed in principle to appoint the Young People’s Learning Agency as principal regulator. I know that some reservations have been expressed about that. It will clearly need to recruit people to perform that role in just the same way as the Charity Commission would have to. It has made clear that it does not necessarily have the staff to perform this responsibility. As the government body with day-to-day responsibility for managing the performance of open academies, the YPLA could be an appropriate body to carry out this role, since it means that it would be managing academies as a whole. The YPLA and the Charity Commission would agree a memorandum of understanding about the principal regulator role to ensure that academy trusts remain fully compliant with charity law. On the matter of maintaining accountability and transparency, funding agreements or grant arrangements would place an obligation on academy trusts to publish their governing documents, reports, accounts and the names of their trustees.

Amendment 40A, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Phillips, would allow charitable incorporated organisations to enter into academy arrangements. If that is my noble friend’s intention, I am pleased to tell him that the Bill as drafted would allow that to take place. Clause 1(1) allows the Secretary of State to enter into academy arrangements “with any person”. I am advised that it is thus already possible for the Secretary of State to enter into academy arrangements with a charitable incorporated organisation, but it is not necessary for it to be deemed a charity or exempted to enter into such an arrangement. I know my noble friend’s expertise in this area and that he will want to reflect on this point. I will be happy to arrange to confirm that understanding with him.

Amendment 40B would give the Charity Commission the power to institute an inquiry if it considered that an academy trust was not complying with its charity law obligations. We would certainly accept and agree with my noble friend that the principal regulator should seek advice from the Charity Commission where necessary. We expect the YPLA to work closely with the Charity Commission, but are not currently convinced that the commission should be able to override the principal regulator. The Charity Commission has the power to conduct inquiries in relation to exempt charities under Section 8 of the Charities Act 1993, where the principal regulator requests this.

This next point may go some way to meeting my noble friend’s point about the backstop but, again, I am happy to discuss it with him. If the Secretary of State was satisfied that the YPLA was unreasonably refusing to invite the Charity Commission to carry out an inquiry in relation to an academy—I assume that is a conversation that he could have with the Charity Commission, or it with him—he has the power to direct the YPLA to make such a request to the Charity Commission, so that it could carry out that inquiry. I hope that provides a modicum of reassurance to my noble friend, but I am happy to discuss that further.

Overall, it is a clear principle of the academies programme that academy trusts should be charities. Clause 8 will make the process of establishing an academy easier by removing the need for each one to apply to the Charity Commission to be registered as a charity. It will simplify the regulation process. I hope that on some of these points I have provided reassurance that academies’ compliance with charity law, and public accountability and transparency, will be fully maintained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, it is a bit of a forlorn hope that I can capture the Chamber’s attention at this time of night for a group of people who have not been mentioned at any other point during today, although they were mentioned at an earlier stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I am very much on the same wavelength as her.

Among the groups that my amendment on consultation would cover are the teaching staff in general and teaching support staff in particular. This has been an area of expansion of employment in schools—in old jobs such as school secretaries and wider management roles, and in new jobs such as classroom assistants, paraprofessionals and other specialists. Because they are a relatively recent phenomenon, the terms and conditions under which such staff are employed are variable and are not on the same basis as other groups of staff within schools and local authorities.

Local authorities of all political persuasions, the LGA and the unions got together over the past three years to establish the support staff negotiating body and establish a national framework for the terms and conditions of such staff. This has proved beneficial to the management of schools which previously had found difficulty in having to manage individuals under separate terms. In some cases, there were serious conflicts.

This is not just a trade union point; it is a point about how smoothly schools can be managed and how we can avoid conflict in those schools. The problem of when academies are created under the Bill is that without consultation and the normal processes, public servants will be transferred into what will, in effect, be the private sector in terms of the employers they have to deal with. There would be an element of stability in that process if academies were to remain in the support staff framework. It is true that existing academies do not have to be in that framework, although they can opt to be, but it would be helpful to the management of schools which will face all sorts of more complex matters of self-management, once they become academies, if they were to remain or be assumed to remain within that structure.

When the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raised this at an earlier stage, she was told by the Minister that it was not deemed appropriate since the market would determine the rates—that would be the situation with teachers and what was good for teachers must be good for all other staff. Actually, it is the opposite situation. Academies will compete for teaching staff who are specialists or good teachers or teachers in subjects where teachers are scarce and thereby improve their conditions above the norm. In the area of support staff, what is likely to happen is that they will undermine what has previously been the rate in the continuing maintained schools in the local authority area, and will provide pay and conditions that are worse than they were prior to conversion to academy status. That will cause unnecessary conflicts between the management of the schools, the staff and in most cases their unions.

This amendment would provide an element of stability. I hope that the Minister will consider the implications as we go forward with the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I am delighted to support my noble friend's amendment. It may be late, but the contribution that support staff make to our country’s schools is worthy of significant attention. In Committee, I and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, reminded noble Lords of the important role of support staff, and I am delighted to support my noble friend's analysis of the challenges that they face with a major expansion of the academies programme. This amendment provides a framework that is markedly different from the national negotiating body that the Minister referred to in Committee. When one looks at the contribution that the 123,000 new classroom assistants have made across the school system, it is important that we take all possible steps to maintain stability in the workforce. A framework such as this would contribute to that. In the past, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, eloquently said, support staff have been undervalued, and we should put in the work to create a new school support staff negotiating body. A lot of work and thought has gone into defining the roles and contribution that the staff make, and this could be a great support, particularly to small academies such as the primary academies that some noble Lords have been concerned to promote. I hope that the Minister will support this approach.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will forgive me if at this late stage I do not read out the whole of the 15-page brief that I have been given in reply. We are all conscious of the importance of support staff. From the anecdotal evidence that I have picked up both in Yorkshire and London, many classroom assistants and support staff working in maintained schools are working for remarkably low pay on part-time contracts that do not include lunch. Therefore, this is not simply a question about the transfer to academies: there is a broader question of how we all value the very useful contribution that they make. Having said that, and underlined the fact that it is not just a question of the conditions of support staff in schools that convert to academies, but that the problem exists across the board, I also emphasise that academies are intended to have freedoms over staff pay and conditions. That is precisely the point of freeing academies from the deeply complex, embedded structures of maintained schools across the country. Freedom in relation to pay and conditions has been a core freedom since the academies programme started under the previous Government, and indeed that was part of the reason why the previous Government set it up. It enables academies to establish pay and conditions which reflect their approach to the school day and to attract and appropriately reward innovative school leaders and practitioners.

As academies recruit good support staff, I urge them to value them as well, and perhaps to value them more than some maintained schools under local authority control do at present. Having said that, at this early hour, as it has just become, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Academies Bill [HL]

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I start by saying that I was nothing like so fortunate behind the bicycle sheds as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould.

I have been waiting to hear what the House thinks the reaction of the teachers would be to making this a statutory requirement at this particular moment. There was a report done by the Merits Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, gave the committee his evidence on two occasions, written and spoken. The memorandum submitted by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers said:

“In the recent past, too many professional judgements about curriculum, assessment and pedagogy have been removed from teachers and placed in the hands of ministers, government departments and agencies”.

It went on to say that this,

“shows a lack of trust in the profession and a denial of complexity”.

The whole House is agreed with the objectives of the noble Baronesses opposite and the objectives of my noble friend Lady Walmsley. The teaching profession is in agreement with those objectives as well. The question is how you best get those objectives achieved; in my submission, that will not happen by including a statutory requirement in this Bill.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I rise to support my noble friends Lady Massey and Lady Gould. I was also particularly moved by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. It is extremely important that, if my noble friend chooses not to divide—and I do not know what her choice will be—we hear from the Minister what practical steps the Government will take on this key agenda. I was interested to hear again from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, her exultation about the work of the previous Government around the proposals contained in the Children, Schools and Families Bill, which were removed on the specific request of the Conservative Opposition, as the noble Lord is aware. Before the election we had a set of principles and proposals that commanded the support of a significant part of the coalition Government and of a great number of noble Lords across the House.

My noble friend Lady Massey came forward with a very thoughtful proposal; she did not just reproduce what was in the Children, Schools and Families Bill, which the Government can do at any time just by going back to the filing system or doing a cut and paste. Here we have a practical step forward for going forward in this Bill. That is why I should like to have the opportunity to support the amendment. I see no reason why we should delay. Noble Lords have raised concerns about the numbers of teachers qualified to teach PSHE, but we have been reassured on that. There have been concerns about whether we are talking about teaching sex education to children inappropriately in primary schools. In all the debates we have had there have been umpteen reassurances about age-appropriateness. I do not think that this should be a party-political issue. It is very much a House of Lords issue, as it is very much something that the House of Lords has debated many times. We came up with a very constructive way forward only a few months ago. There is no good reason for us to delay any further.

If the Government want to bring forward any tidying-up amendments at Third Reading, that is very much in their gift. It can be done. We are all behind the principles that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, described, which were in the previous Bill. They are great—yes, we could see those come forward at Third Reading. I see no reason to delay, as this is about common sense and supporting the professionals. I am delighted that they gave my noble friend Lord Knight a standing ovation when he addressed the professionals in this field. We can get on with this. It is a regret of mine that it took us, in a Labour Government, as long as it did to consult and come to consensus and to the settlement that we did. It took us a while, so let us not take any longer.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, we had a very good debate on this subject in Committee, a slightly longer debate than the one that we have had today. We have had another very good debate this afternoon. I had the chance last week to meet Peers with a particular interest in PSHE and was grateful for their advice. I join others in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for the way that she has pursued this issue, as have my noble friend Lady Walmsley and many other noble Lords from all parts of the House. I have learnt a lot from noble Lords in the process, not least about knitting from the noble Baroness, Lady Massey—a reference lost on those who were not here for the Committee stage.

What is clear to me, who comes relatively new to this debate, is that there is broad agreement in this House on the importance of PSHE. Nothing has been said today by anyone from any part of the House that would disagree with that. There are differences of opinion about the best way forward. This evening the question is relatively simple and straightforward, so I think I can be brief. This is an important and broad subject. Should we, as this amendment argues, make PSHE a compulsory requirement for academies alone as one distinct set of schools and should we act now? Those are the two main questions that have been debated this evening. I would argue not. First, as others have said, I am not convinced that singling out PSHE in primary legislation is the right way to go. Secondly, I would argue, as a number of noble Lords have argued—it was argued very persuasively by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln—that the best place to consider these issues is in the round, when we get the chance to look at the whole question of the national curriculum later in the year. Noble Lords have already mentioned that we are carrying out a complete review.

In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, Amendment 10 arises from our debate in Committee about the impact of the new legislation on the early years. The Bill remains ambiguous about the care and education of young children and needs specifically to reference the Childcare Act 2006, which establishes the EYFS framework in law. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that young children in academies are guaranteed the same balanced, age-appropriate and play-based standard of care and education under the early years foundation stage as children in maintained and independent schools.

In Committee the Minister said:

“I would suggest that the amendment is unnecessary because academies are already required, under the Childcare Act 2006, to provide the early years foundation stage. That is spelled out explicitly in their funding agreement. This stage is more than just a curriculum, as it covers much broader outcomes for very young children, including issues such as social skills”.—[Official Report, 28/6/10; col. 1570.]

The Early Childhood Forum, which has been briefing me on this matter, very much welcomes the Minister’s positive statements about the EYFS. I also welcome Minister of State Sarah Teather’s announcement a few days ago that the early years foundation stage is to be reviewed. I called for this in my speech in Committee, though I do not think her announcement was simply in response to my speech. I am delighted that the Minister stated that it is the Government’s intention that academies should implement the EYFS. However, I am still concerned that the Bill makes no reference at all to the EYFS, and that furthermore the Childcare Act 2006, to which the Minister referred, contains no reference to academies. This seems to leave an ambiguity in the law that could be easily rectified via this amendment.

Academies do not have to follow the national curriculum for primary and secondary schools. The only reference in the Bill to the curriculum is to Section 78 of the Education Act 2002, which has no application to the education of those aged under five, since the Childcare Act 2006 amended the Education Act before it and removed any reference to nursery education. The Childcare Act 2006 establishes the EYFS as the framework for the care and education of children from birth until the 31 August after their fifth birthday, and which all those registered on the early years register and maintained, approved, non-maintained, independent and special schools must deliver. Under the law, all these providers must meet the legal welfare, learning and development requirements as set out in Section 40 of the Childcare Act 2006 and its associated regulations.

Existing academies are not referenced at all in the Childcare Act 2006. This is an understandable omission as, although there are a number of all-through academies providing education for three to 18 year-olds, until now academy status was available only to secondary schools. The Bill extends academies to many more young children and therefore needs to be unambiguous about the approach to be taken to their education and care. It is clearly not the Government’s intention to exempt academies from implementation of the EYFS. The Early Childhood Forum is concerned that academies do not fall into any of the categories of school referenced in the Childcare Act 2006. It has tried to clarify this matter with officials but they have not replied to its phone calls. Perhaps they were in purdah, pending the Minister’s statement the other day about the review of the early years foundation stage. However, it would be helpful to know the Government’s understanding of where academies fit in the framework of that Act. Perhaps this might have been sorted out if officials had responded to the Early Childhood Forum. I may not have needed, in that case, to table this amendment. It would also be helpful to know how many of the current all-through academies provide education for under-fives and whether they all currently implement the early years foundation stage as they should.

There is some confusion about whether the Government consider academies to be independent schools in law. Clause 1 refers to academies as “independent”, but it also sets out that they are to be funded directly by public money through the Secretary of State. The Independent Schools Council membership criteria determine independence through the individual school’s inspection regime, with members having to be inspected by the Independent Schools Inspectorate. However, academies—as far as they are to be inspected at all—will be under Ofsted. Noble Lords can perhaps see the confusion.

The early years foundation stage is based on the best evidence that we have from research and experience of what is most effective in helping children to develop physically, intellectually, emotionally and socially. The amendment would create parity and balance in this new legislation that matches the reference to Section 78 of the Education Act 2002 on the curriculum for those aged over five in Clause 1. I urge the Minister to accept it or to explain very clearly why it is unnecessary. If he accepts that there is a problem in the Bill and its relationship with the Childcare Act, I hope he will not ask us to wait for the pending early years foundation stage review. This would mean that primary academies and the young children in their care would be left in limbo and outside the current main framework until then. If the outcome of the review is a fundamental change, the Childcare Act would need to be amended in any case, and the legislation on academies would be resolved alongside that for all the other types of school. I beg to move.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment. From listening to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I think I have had exactly the same briefing as her. I simply wish to say “ditto”.

I am slightly concerned that in some things we need to rush ahead with, and in others to hang back from, reviews. It is very important for the Early Childhood Forum and the incredibly important organisations that make up the forum to have the kind of reassurances that the noble Baroness is looking for. The early years foundation stage was a very important step forward. The previous Government initiated it, and it has been well received. It is important that we build on the work of the early years specialists. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[The Earl of Listowel]

Briefly, I support this amendment. The Government recently expressed some horror at the number of prisoners we now have in our prisons. It made me reflect on how many inquiries have pointed to problems within our families. When one does not provide good boundaries within families and a secure upbringing for children, and when schools are quite chaotic, it does not surprise me that there is so much offending among young people or that we have overcrowded jails. It seems to me fairly apparent that if one does not set boundaries early in life, society is left setting boundaries later in life, at great expense to itself. Therefore, it is imperative to get all the right support for children early on. This is an important area. I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance that the early years foundation stage will be delivered in these schools.

Education: Funding

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. I do not want to trade on legacies, but I have to make it clear for the record that even the right honourable Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, has recognised and admitted, albeit rather grudgingly, that in 1997 we inherited a legacy of tremendous underinvestment in the school estate and that it was absolutely right to prioritise investment in school facilities. Labour’s investment in school building initially targeted the backlog of repairs that had built up under the last Conservative Government as well as helping to provide for smaller classes in the primary sector. Since 1997, around 4,000 schools have been built new, rebuilt or significantly refurbished, with 1,000 completed in the last two years. Labour was on track to see a further 1,000 new school buildings in the next two years. Overall, every school has benefited from investment projects, big or small, and devolved programmes did put investment directly into the hands of every single school in every single part of the country.

Building Schools for the Future refocused schools investment on the strategic renewal of the school estate. It was intended to be a programme to renew the entire secondary estate and to plan and provide for changes in demand. The National Audit Office looked at Building Schools for the Future and found that, yes, it was delivering rebuild and redevelopment in a very successful way. So I have to say that this Statement is disastrous news for hundreds of thousands of teachers, parents and pupils who had been expecting this much-needed investment in decent, 21st century facilities for children to learn in. Even though we warned during the election campaign that hundreds of school rebuilding projects would face the Tory axe, I believe that this news will still be a bitter blow for communities right across the country, from Devon all the way to Denbighshire.

This is an extremely short-sighted decision by the coalition Government. Billions of pounds’ worth of contracts that support thousands of jobs and local businesses will now be lost. Further, many schools and councils have spent a great deal of time as well as investing money and resources into working up their rebuilding plans, only to find the rug pulled from under their feet. As I said, Building Schools for the Future was also designed to plan for future changes in school numbers. The right honourable Michael Gove has said that his priority for the spending review is a hugely expensive free market schools policy that will see new schools built with no regard for the need for places in an area. Instead, it will create a free-for-all which has been shown elsewhere to be much more expensive.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. The Statement began by talking about standards. Can he confirm that, in 1997, half of all schools missed the basic performance level of 30 per cent good GCSEs that we set and which has been cut to just one in 12 schools? Can he confirm that improvement in standards since 1997? Further, can he confirm that in the international TIMSS study, England has risen from 25th in the world in 1995 to seventh place, and that England’s 10 and 14 year-olds are the highest achieving pupils overall in maths and science among European countries? Can he dispel the notion that it is the Government’s policy to run down the achievements of teachers and children around this country at every opportunity? I would like to hear him say how proud he is of the achievements and our children around the country.

On the question of Teach First, does the Minister agree that we have the best generation of teachers we have ever had in this country? Is he proud of the contribution that teachers make? Can he confirm that the previous Government had already invested in expanding Teach First, including pilots for primary schools? Can he make the House aware that it was the leadership of the Teach First programme who warned the previous Government that to accelerate its expansion any faster would put at risk the future quality of the programme? So it was the previous Government who were thinking carefully about the quality of the programme.

Can the Minister be clear about what independent assessment has been made about the Building Schools for the Future programme that has led to this huge cut to valuable developments around the country? Have the Government made any assessment of the numbers of construction and private sector jobs that will be lost as a result of the decision? What will be the impact of the decision on jobs? Do the Government believe that excellent facilities are key to an excellent learning environment? What is the Government’s policy on that? Will the schools that have been planning for building still have a building programme under this new value for money scheme, or does it simply represent an overall cut in the development of our school infrastructure?

Where will the capital come from for the free school programme? I really want an answer to that because I have asked the question a few times already. Will the projects be capitally funded from money saved from the cut in the Building Schools for the Future programme? Exactly how much will be saved by this announcement today? What will be lost through the cost of break clauses and reorganising expenditure? What methods will the Government use to fund and support councils to plan for future changes in demand for schools, or will they simply expect them to provide more portacabins as the rolls increase? Will schools and councils be left to pick up the tab for the work they have done already to prepare for the new investment?

Finally, have the Government made an independent assessment of the value for money of the free schools policy? As the Minister is aware, I am interested to know about that impact assessment because evidence from Sweden has shown some disappointing results.

I am aware that I have asked a number of questions and I am grateful for the Minister’s attention. If there are any points of detail on which he would wish to write to me, I should be happy to receive such a letter. I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement.