Schools: Curriculum Update

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Thursday 8th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, everyone would agree on the need for a relevant curriculum, so the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, makes a very good point, particularly on building character and resilience. Can the Minister explain to the House how children’s resilience can be built when the Public Accounts Committee report published yesterday found that the attainment gap in respect of the most disadvantaged children has continued to grow? The Government appear to have no specified measurement for the success of the additional investment in the National Tutoring Programme.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

This country is not unique in its disadvantaged children having suffered particularly during the pandemic. We have been very clear about our vision for the National Tutoring Programme, which is particularly relevant in giving disadvantaged children access to some of the privileges enjoyed by children from more socially advantaged homes. Tutoring on its own is not enough, which is why we have made a number of commitments including, at one end of the spectrum, putting senior mental health leads in our schools and, at the other, reinforcing our commitment to sport, music and other resilience-building activities in our schools.

Schools: Financial Literacy

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Certainly, the aspects of the curriculum that relate to how to operate safely online include fraud, which is a growing and terrible problem, as the noble Lord points out.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom strategy for financial well-being sets a national goal to ensure that 2 million more children and young people across the UK receive meaningful financial education by 2030. I have not found any evidence yet that the Government have dropped this goal, although I have yet to find any evidence that the Government are on track to deliver it. But I would like the Minister to wonder how that goal can be achieved, given that research from the APPG on Financial Education for Young People suggests that two in five teachers are completely unaware of the legal requirement to teach financial education.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I understand the direction of the noble Baroness’s question. I would say that the data from the APPG report, which is extremely valuable, is none the less from a very small sample. It was from, I think, 401 teachers across the four nations. So, I think we have to be careful about extrapolating from that. The Money and Pension Service, which is responsible for delivering the additional 2 million children receiving good financial education has a wide range of programmes, including support for teacher training, communication and support for parents as well.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 13th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the way in which he handled Committee and Report on the Bill, and the various consultations. It was a model of how Ministers should engage. We had a very constructive process with the Bill, for which I am, and all of us are, very grateful.

This Bill was drafted by the last Secretary of State but five. It was eventually inherited by the current team in the Department for Education, with what I dare say was an element of surprise as well as interest: it was, after all, initially drafted almost entirely by Policy Exchange through a range of papers, and Policy Exchange had based its analysis very heavily on American as much as British sources. There were therefore oddities in the Bill, which I hope we have ironed out as we have gone through.

Many of us were very much concerned about the potential for this Bill to damage university autonomy and extend state authority, including Members on the Conservative Benches and others. There are a number of areas in which we have made considerable progress on the defence of freedom of speech. For many of us, there is the removal of civil tort, not simply the reduction of the weight of the civil tort on universities. That remains to be sorted out in the Commons. I hope that the current ministerial team will reflect very deeply on whether to insist on its own amendment or to accept the amendment which a substantial majority in this House produced.

There is also the outstanding issue of the appointment of the new free speech champion. I very much hope that the Government will take particular care in finding a candidate for that position who will be accepted—possibly even welcomed—by the sector he or she sets out to regulate.

Still outstanding is the question of the degree of overlap between what is set out in this Bill, the recent National Security and Investment Act and the current National Security Bill. All of them impose new duties and new reporting requirements on universities, some of which have not yet entirely been ironed out, particularly for the National Security Bill—I hope we will be able to do that as it proceeds through the House.

I thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, who took the burden when I was away for part of Committee, as well as our team, including Sarah Pugh in our Whips’ Office. I know that the Bill team must have worked extremely hard throughout this. One recognises that civil servants are often not thanked enough for the criticisms they accept and the burdens they undertake.

Our universities are a huge national asset. They are an important part of our soft power in the world and a major source of our international income. We all need to be sure, as we have done in considering the Bill and as we look now at the National Security Bill, that we do not damage our universities in dealing with some of the problems and threats which they face, sometimes from their students, sometimes from visiting speakers, and sometimes from foreign powers, because they are such a large part of what makes this country very special.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both the Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and also the Bill team for their accessibility and friendliness throughout the whole of this process. I also congratulate the noble Baroness on her list of commendations of noble Lords who have participated, and wish to second that. Obviously, I need to thank my noble friend Lord Collins, who is probably on his feet in the Grand Committee, which is why he is not here. He did most of the heavy lifting around the Bill, particularly around the—for our part—unlamented Clause 4 and the non-disclosure amendment, which the Government accepted and for which we are very grateful indeed. I also thank Liz Cronin in the Lords office and our team in the Commons, Jonny Rutherford, Vicky Salt and Tim Waters, who provided us an enormous amount of support, which, as the Ministers will know, you need when you are in opposition and dealing with complex pieces of legislation. The stakeholders have also provided us with great briefings; of course, some of them are serving vice-chancellors and heads of colleges here in this Chamber.

The question at the outset was whether the Bill was necessary at all. The answer is that the jury is still out, but probably not quite as out as it was at the beginning of the process. I think we can say with some confidence that we are sending back to the Commons a piece of legislation that is much improved from the one we started out with. The reason for that is twofold. The Ministers and the Bill team engaged seriously all the way through this but this House also engaged in a non-partisan, cross-party examination of the Bill, and I congratulate noble Lords on that.

There are still some outstanding matters which will need further attention, such as the role of the students union, but also the issue that the noble Baroness referred to, which is Clause 8, previously Clause 9. I and my noble friend Lady Royall, the noble Lords, Lord Patten and Lord Wallace, and others raised the risk of duplicating security regulations and the risk that the Bill might pose to the business community, the commercial relations and the trading futures in which our universities have been successful.

I definitely welcome the Minister’s invitation to have a meeting, because I think the Russell group and others need to further discuss this whole matter, particularly when draft statutory instruments and guidance are under consideration. I am grateful to her for saying that. We were still being approached about this as late as last night, because there are still serious concerns among some of our academic community.

I add my thanks for what has been a really interesting Bill. It is slightly outside my normal remit of health and equalities, but I have very much enjoyed being the number two to my noble friend Lord Collins and working with noble Lords on the Bill.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 14th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire’s contention that Clause 8 should not stand part of the Bill. He is back from his holidays but is speaking at the funeral of a very old friend in Bradford. He is very regretful that he cannot be here with us for the Bill, about which he cares so much.

This amendment harks back to the passionate speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, at Second Reading, in support of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. She was critical in setting it up and said it was doing a decent job. It exists and does a reasonable job of dealing with complaints, but Clause 8 is a complete duplication of bureaucracy. We noted that it was recommended by a Policy Exchange paper, but we do not have to do everything that Policy Exchange tells us to do. This clause will impose considerable additional costs but where are the benefits of this? Surely the Office of the Independent Adjudicator should be able to sort out most of the issues in this clause.

Anyway, universities should be able to manage their own complaints themselves, which most of them do very adequately. Mistakes will of course be made occasionally, but we cannot necessarily assume that state intervention will do better in most cases than the universities themselves. This very lengthy clause, with lots of duplication, is surely not necessary. I am sure my noble friend Lord Wallace would have put it much more passionately, but we simply propose that there is no need for this clause in this Bill.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 61 in the names of my noble friends Lord Collins and Lord Blunkett, and say to the Minister that this group of amendments is striving to make sense out of something. I read this clause several times over the weekend and found it very puzzling and complex. The Minister needs to look at this amendment and the complete complaints procedure again. I am very struck by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden: it imposes costs, but where are the benefits?

The amendment of my noble friend Lord Triesman has tried to impose order on a very confusing clause. It may not be perfect but he is initiating a useful discussion. Every amendment in this group seeks to clarify and modify how the complaints procedure might work. As the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said at the opening of this debate, the complaints procedure is not clear.

My noble friend’s amendment would ensure that free speech complaints are considered alongside other competing freedoms, such as the Equality Act 2010 and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, and that the Government should specify in guidance how that should happen. We have been raising issues around the compatibility of this Bill with those Acts all the way through this discussion and we are raising it again in relation to the complaints procedure.

I will not add any more to that. I think the Minister—the noble Earl or the noble Baroness—will need to address all these amendments, including ours, because, as it stands, this is not a satisfactory clause at all.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)]

My Lords, I shall now address the group of amendments that relate to the complaints scheme to be operated by the Office for Students.

Amendment 58, from my noble friend, Lord Willetts, seeks to mandate the provisions set out in paragraph 5(2) of new Schedule 6A on what complaints can or should be ruled out of scope for consideration under the scheme. Amendment 59 seeks to mandate that the OfS must dismiss “frivolous or vexatious complaints”, with the intention of reducing the potential bureaucratic burden on the OfS and higher education providers.

The current drafting’s use of “may” rather than “must”, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, is intentional. The wording is derived from the Higher Education Act 2004, which established the student complaint scheme of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education. This is the usual drafting approach when setting up a new body or new scheme in legislation, allowing for the decision-making body to have discretion in setting out the detail.

New Schedule 6A sets out the bones of the new scheme but it will be for the OfS to provide the detailed rules. The OfS needs the discretion to determine which rules should apply, looking at the scheme in the round. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, highlighted some of the reasons why that is important. We anticipate that the Office for Students will consult on the rules, so it will be informed by key stakeholders in the sector. These rules will set out the detail of the type of complaint that the scheme will consider and the process to be followed.

I think we are aligned on my noble friend’s aspiration for coherence—he is smiling behind me; I am not sure whether that is encouraging—but it is a question of where that coherence is established. We respectfully suggest that that should be done in detail in the rules. My noble friend will absolutely be aware that paragraph 5(2)(b) of new Schedule 6A clearly sets out what is within scope for the OfS to decide—whether a free speech complaint should not be referred until the internal procedures are exhausted. We would expect that to be set out more clearly and in more detail when the OfS has gone through this procedure of drafting the rules.

It is also the intention that complaints should be referred under the scheme within a specified time limit. In the case of the OIA, the time limit is 12 months from the date on which the higher education provider tells the student its final decision. The OfS may well decide on a similar provision, but that is a level of detail for it to determine; it is too specific to be included in primary legislation. It is not necessary to mandate that there should be a time limit, as the OfS will want and need to include this as a matter of good administration. The OfS will also set out rules on how it will deal with frivolous or vexatious complaints for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, eloquently exposed.

I know that my noble friend and the Committee more generally will have spotted that we use “must” in a couple of cases in the Bill. That is where it is considered particularly significant, such as in the requirement to make a decision and the need to make a recommendation if the regulator considers a complaint justified where “may not” is used—that is, where we have a prohibition.

Amendment 60, from my noble friend, Lord Sandhurst, seeks to confirm in the Bill that the OfS has the power to determine whether a provider has breached its freedom of speech duties. My noble friend is right to think carefully about how the complaints scheme will work.

My noble friend mentioned the Court of Appeal decision in Maxwell and the powers of the OIA. This was about its power to adjudicate on disability discrimination. The court held that it was the OIA’s role to review complaints and consider whether the provider acted reasonably and in a justified way. Here, the Bill sets out the parameters of what the OfS must decide. It is clear that it will have the power to determine whether they consider that there has been a breach of the free speech duties.

The Bill specifies that the OfS must provide a scheme under which it is to review and determine free speech complaints. Such complaints are defined as claims that the person has suffered adverse consequences as a result of the governing body’s action or inaction, and

“claims that, or gives rise to a question as to whether, the action or inaction was a breach of a duty of the governing body under section A1.”

That is at paragraph 2 of new Schedule 6A. Where a complaint is referred under the scheme, the OfS will be required to make a decision as to the extent to which the complaint is justified. As I mentioned earlier in relation to the Maxwell case, this makes it clear that the OfS may determine whether a provider has breached the freedom of speech duties. Indeed, it is a central part of how the complaints scheme will operate.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Thornton]

67: Clause 10, page 15, line 11, at end insert—
“(1A) A person may not be appointed as the Free Speech Director if the person has at any time within the previous three years made a donation to a political party registered under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.(1B) The person appointed as the Free Speech Director may not while in office make any donation to a political party registered under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.(1C) The appointment for the Free Speech Director must be made by an independent advisory panel to be established by regulations made by the Secretary of State.(1D) The appointment of the Free Speech Director is subject to a confirmatory resolution of the relevant Select Committee of the House of Commons. (1E) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (1C) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would ensure that the Free Speech Director has not recently and cannot while in office donate to a political party, and that they are only appointed subject to confirmation of an independent advisory panel, a Select Committee of the House of Commons and a resolution of each House of Parliament.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 67 was tabled in the names of my noble friends Lord Collins and Lord Blunkett. I raised the issue of the appointment of the director at Second Reading. At the time of our Second Reading, which I think was around June, the job had been advertised, with a closing date of 13 July. I do not know what happened after that. I appreciate that the Government have had their mind elsewhere over the last few months, so it is possible that it has sunk without trace. I suppose my first question is: what happened? Was an appointment made and, if so, who is that appointment?

We hope that Amendment 67 is helpful for the Government to fulfil the Prime Minister’s stated ambition for integrity and honesty in politics and government. It is about the kind of person who should be appointed to this job and the accountability and safeguards that need to be in place to ensure that they can do their job in the best possible way. Our view is that we should ensure that the free speech director has not recently, and cannot while in office, donated to a political party. Their appointment should be subject to the confirmation of an independent advisory panel of a Select Committee of the House of Commons and a resolution in each House of Parliament.

This is an important job, and we should be using the accountability structures that we have to ensure that this job does what it says it will do on the tin and that the person appointed is appropriate. This was raised by my honourable friend Matt Western in the Commons, at Committee and Report stage. He raised concerns at that time, and we still have those same concerns. I would like to be updated on where exactly we have got to.

If the appointment has not yet been made, at Second Reading I raised the job description, and recommended noble Lords might read it—and some may have done so. The position seemed to require no legal background or expertise in higher education. The person holding this job will be tasked with settling contentious cases, so it must be in our interests that they have a broad understanding of the sector and of the legal and regulatory frameworks around free speech. None of those things was essential in the job description, as it was in July. I ask the Minister whether that has changed. Maybe now there has been this hiatus, there is an opportunity to return to that and perhaps start again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

By following the public appointments process, which I hope your Lordships trust, we are endeavouring to make it as independent and objective as possible.

On the noble Baroness’s point about legal training or expertise, I reassure your Lordships that the successful candidate for the role will have been assessed for their understanding of the legal framework concerning freedom of speech and academic freedom, including how this relates to other relevant legislation. Although legal knowledge would be a benefit for the person undertaking the role, the director will be supported by a team of lawyers, caseworkers, board members and others at the OfS to support decisions under these measures. These decisions will legally be those of the OfS and not of the director personally.

Important oversight will also be built into the system once the director has been appointed. The director will be responsible for reporting to the OfS board on the performance of the OfS’s free speech functions. This reflects a similar provision in Schedule 1 to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, which makes the director for fair access and participation responsible for reporting to the other members of the OfS on the performance of the OfS’s access and participation functions. This will not only ensure oversight of the role of the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom by the rest of the OfS board; it will also allow the OfS to co-ordinate and monitor its free speech functions better.

I therefore confirm that the appointment of the director will be in line with the usual public appointments processes, and there will be ongoing oversight of the role. On the noble Baroness’s question about where we have got to in the appointment, applications for the role closed on 27 July, and we are currently sifting them, after which there will be interviews and an announcement in due course. Given this, I hope that noble Lords will agree that these amendments are not required.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. I also thank my noble friend Lord Stansgate and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for their comments. We of course support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her comments in support.

This is not a satisfactory situation. I suppose we should be quite pleased that the accusation of pre-emption that I made at Second Reading is not happening. I suspect that this is not through design—through deciding to wait until the legislation is on the statute book before making the appointment—but rather through not having got round to doing it yet, which is par for the course in government at the moment. I hope that will change over time, particularly if we have a change of Government.

In a way, this is the most partisan amendment that we on these Benches have put down. It is based partly on the appointment of the chair of the OfS, which was not uncontroversial, because it was a donor to the Conservative Party and someone who made a speech in a gathering of very right-wing European politicians in Hungary, as mentioned in the discussions on the Bill in the Commons and at Second Reading. So, pardon me, but we are a bit suspicious about this appointment.

My point is that made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben: this is a particularly special appointment, and it needs to have the confidence of the whole higher education sector. The Government’s job is to ensure that that happens, and I am afraid that it is not the case at the moment. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 67 withdrawn.

Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th November 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Thornton]

53C: After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—
“Legal aid: families with children experiencing domestic violence
In Regulation 33 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012, after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) A general practitioner or other health professional may not charge for the provision of evidence of domestic violence or risk of domestic violence, where the domestic violence has taken place, or is at risk of taking place, in a family which includes children.””

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 53C seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill. I have not participated in the passage of the Bill to date, but I have followed its progress with great interest and am pleased to bring this important matter for the consideration of the House today. The aim of the amendment is to put an end to the practice of GPs charging domestic violence victims a fee for producing the letter they need to access legal aid.

As noble Lords will remember—some of us remember it very distinctly—legal aid is now available for private family law matters only where an individual can prove that they are a victim of domestic violence. A person must produce specific evidence to qualify, and one way to do it is through the provision of medical evidence.

Doctors are free to levy an unspecified fee for providing this medical evidence, as it sits outside the NHS contract—and it seems that some are doing so. This seems inappropriate at every level. For a woman on a low income, who may be on benefits or financially controlled and coerced by an abusive partner, paying a fee could seem almost impossible. I think that this is most unfeeling. Sometimes these women are struggling financially and may have to make a choice between a fee to the doctor or paying the bills.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her amendment and for the points that she, the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, have made. I understand that the concerns around GPs charging for evidence are shared by others, including the Law Society and Rights of Women. I also note that Tom Watson MP, deputy leader of the Labour Party, launched a campaign related to this issue in September. Before addressing their points, it may be helpful if I briefly explain the purpose of the regulations to which the tabled amendment refers.

The reforms introduced by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 removed most private family matters from the scope of legal aid. These were mainly matters concerning child contact arrangements following separation. A clear exception to the scope of these reductions was for family cases involving the appalling crime of domestic violence, for which legal aid is available provided that applicants can produce a piece of objective evidence from those listed at Regulation 33 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012. A letter from a health professional, including a GP, is one of the specific pieces of evidence listed. Such letters are one of the most common ways that victims evidence their abuse: around 25% of applicants rely on it currently. In the letter, the GP must confirm that the victim has been examined and has injuries or a condition consistent with being a victim of domestic violence. The examination must have taken place within five years of an application for civil legal services. GPs are not required to provide a full report of the violence, just a brief letter for which a template is provided by the Legal Aid Agency. The template was designed in conjunction with the Royal College of GPs.

The Ministry of Justice does not believe that there is a need for GPs or health professionals to charge for writing a letter, although we recognise that this may happen on occasion. I am sure we can all agree that none of us wishes to see unnecessary barriers placed between victims of domestic violence and the help that they need, and I understand the concerns raised by noble Lords. However, I worry that in the absence of alternative funding arrangements or legislation compelling GPs to provide this service to victims, GPs may choose not to provide the evidence following this amendment. That could be counterproductive and prevent victims accessing legal aid. In any event, the House should be aware of an extensive programme of work currently being undertaken by the MoJ, looking not just at this specific issue but at the domestic violence evidence requirements for legal aid more generally. It is worth me elaborating on this a little further.

The Government have broadened the domestic violence evidence criteria three times since implementation; they were most recently amended in April this year. Upon announcing the latest amendment, the Minister then responsible for legal aid announced to the House of Commons that the Ministry of Justice had begun work with domestic violence support groups, legal representative bodies and colleagues across government to gather data and develop their understanding of the issues encountered by victims in obtaining evidence, with the aim of drawing up replacement regulations. The Law Society and Rights of Women are among those with whom the Government have been working collaboratively over the summer. Among other things, the work has involved a large survey of legal aid providers and domestic violence support organisations, as well as a series of focus groups facilitated by Women’s Aid with victims who have had experience of providing evidence. The work is looking at all types of evidence set out in regulations, not just letters from GPs and health professionals, as well as issues around accessibility more generally. The Ministry of Justice is considering the findings and will announce any change to regulations in due course.

I reassure the House that the Government strongly believe that victims of domestic violence must have access to the help they need, including access to legal services funded through legal aid. The extensive research work undertaken by the Ministry of Justice is a reflection of that. I am sure that my colleagues will be happy to meet the noble Baroness to discuss the matter in more detail, and I will certainly take back the particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson. However, in view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel reassured enough to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Thornton]

I thank the Minister for that detailed and comprehensive answer. My only complaint is that he did not accept my amendment, because he has covered all the bases. Clearly there is more to discuss. I thank him for his answer and will certainly accept the invitation to discuss this further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 53C withdrawn.

Schools: Special Needs and Disabilities

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am afraid that I am not able to go into further detail at the moment. However, given the noble Baroness’s interest, I would be happy to discuss with her subsequently her thoughts and views and to take them into account.

[Baroness Thornton]

With regard to children with special educational needs, do the Government accept the view of the House, which was overwhelmingly carried earlier this week, about special educational needs provision in the Academies Bill? Secondly, will he give his view on the fact that Becta played an important role in child safety on the internet in our schools—not just for those with special educational needs but for all children? What will happen to the role that Becta fulfilled as regards child safety on the internet?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I will take the noble Baroness’s second point first. As regards child safety and many other functions that Becta has delivered, we will look at ensuring that there are appropriate arrangements for the important bits of the job that it did. There is widespread acceptance that Becta has done very useful work over a long time and we will certainly take that into account. On the noble Baroness’s first question, the House made its view very clear and it is now for the other place to decide what happens next.

Academies Bill [HL]

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, I will come to my Amendment 31 in just a moment. I strongly suspect that the Minister’s answer to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is that the academy order is permissive. It does not force the school to become an academy; it is permission for it to do so. The school becomes an academy only when it converts. I suspect that will be the answer, but my noble friend will speak for himself. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that it is desirable that the school consults all the right people before it even applies. I very much suspect that all those groups who feel themselves to be appropriate consultees—

[Baroness Thornton]

Does the noble Baroness think that there should be a consultation before a school becomes an academy or not?

[Baroness Walmsley]

Indeed I do, which is why I have tabled my little tweaking amendment in the hope of persuading my noble friend that a school should consult before it applies to become an academy. Once it knows the shape of the proposed school, the terms of the academy funding agreement, and—particularly in the light of what my noble friend Lady Sharp said about schools’ expectations of that extra money being somewhat inflated—how much money it will get, it is highly desirable that a school should then go back to appropriate consultees and say, “These are the terms under which we will become an academy if we decide to go ahead. This is the extra amount of money that we will get and this is what we have to do with it. Are you still sure that this is the right way to go about it?”. That is why I have put my little tweak into my noble friend’s very welcome amendment about consultation. It is desirable, but if he suggests that it is another thing on which we should not prescribe, I would be happy to accept that.

For the record, however, I urge schools that are thinking of applying to consult widely. I am confident that any group of people who feel that they are an appropriate group under the terms of this amendment but have not been consulted will certainly kick up an awful fuss. I ask the Minister to consider in particular that the pupils of the school themselves and the local authority would, in normal circumstances, fall into the category of,

“such persons as they think appropriate”.

That would give me considerable comfort in supporting Amendment 30 without my Amendment 31.

Academies Bill [HL]

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I accept entirely the need for giving certainty to people who are setting up new schools. This process has just started and the question will be worked through with the first group of schools that have expressed an interest. It is a good point to which we will need to return when we have done that work.

On the point my noble friends have raised with me, particularly in relation to Amendment 28A, I stress that any academy funded via a grant will be subject to exactly the same requirements as those which apply to the funding agreement: there will be the same safeguards on admissions, exclusions and special educational needs, about which I know not only my noble friends but others on all sides of the House are concerned. These safeguards will apply equally to the majority of academies, which will be funded by the funding agreement, and to the minority, which may turn out to be funded by grant. The safeguards will be set out in the grant letter just as they are set out in the funding agreement. I can confirm that the governing body and the academy trust would be aware of the terms of the grant before finalising the academy arrangements. I hope that provides reassurance to my noble friends and your Lordships generally and I am happy to place it on the record.

Amendment 20, to which a number of noble Lords have spoken, would require academy funding to be based on the needs of pupils as well as on their numbers. I agree with my noble friends and others who have spoken that the needs of pupils as well as the numbers of pupils must be taken into account. The primary driver of academy funding will be the numbers on the roll because that is the best way to begin to measure the total amount of teaching and other resource that is likely to be required in a school. However, the local authority funding formula which is used to fund an academy also contains factors which measure special educational need and the level of deprivation among pupils. Some do this directly—for example, by measuring prior attainment—others use proxy indicators such as free school meals. The sixth-form formula used for academies and maintained schools also contains a measure for deprivation. In no case is an academy funded simply on the basis of its pupil numbers.

On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, we intend developing a simple funding model for free schools based mainly on a per pupil amount. However, of course—I think this point was raised by my noble friend Lady Walmsley; she will forgive me if it was not her—the pupil premium for disadvantaged pupils, on which we will bring forward proposals in the autumn, will also be in operation and so needs will be recognised.

On Amendment 12A and the establishment of an independent monitoring system, as we discussed in Committee, the Bill requires that the academy arrangements will oblige the academy proprietor to comply with these characteristics when establishing and running an academy. The Secretary of State ensures at the outset—

[Baroness Thornton]

I am still not sure about the answer to my noble friend’s question. In layman’s terms, if the money for a new free school is to come from the money that is available to a local authority to fund all its schools, what happens to the other schools?

Academies Bill [HL]

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the honesty in his considered reply. I am a little alarmed by the idea that Baldrick may be in charge of government education policy, but I do not think that he quite said that. If I cite him correctly, he said: “We have not come up with a clear answer to the role of local authorities”. The more that we have considered the Bill, the more obvious it has been to me—this point was made by some of my noble friends—that it would have been a good idea for it to have had pre-legislative scrutiny to try to bottom out some of these issues and at least to present us with some considered alternatives on these important matters.

The future role of local authorities in relation to schools is vital. Clearly, a few hundreds of academies can be created without, in most areas, severely affecting the role of local authorities, but not once it gets into the thousands. I think that there are about 20,000 schools in England. If 5,000 or 6,000 of them, a quarter of them, converted to academies, which is clearly possible under the criteria that the Government propose, during the next four or five years, that would have a severe effect on the viability of local authorities—at least in some areas, because their creation would tend to be geographically patchy.

I believe that we are to get a schools Bill or an education Bill which will be a bit fatter than this Bill later this year. If so, this issue should certainly be returned to at that time, if not before. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will reflect on the matter. Finally, the answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, as to why we are rushing this, is that we have a Secretary of State in a hurry. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but if it results in bad legislation with all sorts of unintended consequences, we will have to sort them out in due course.

[Baroness Thornton]

Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment—which I expect he will do rather than test the opinion of the Committee on the matter at this time of night—does he have a view on what is the tipping point? If he does not, perhaps he would like to ask his noble friend what he thinks the tipping point is before a local authority becomes unviable.

[Lord Greaves]

That is the $64,000 question, or perhaps more than that at present exchange rates. I do not know. We will all have a view on that. It will depend on how big or small the local authority is. A big local authority, such as Lancashire, could probably survive quite a lot of its schools becoming academies, because it would still have a critical mass, but if a small local authority—a small London borough that has only a few schools—is left with just two or three primary schools, it will be in serious trouble.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I shall be very brief on Amendment 165, because it is an alternative route to heaven for academies. It would permit them, instead of becoming charities, to become community interest companies. It is a probing amendment which may repay some study, and I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say about it.

The Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004—inelegantly entitled, I agree—has in it a bit on community enterprise. Part 2 of the Act, which comprises Sections 26 to 63, establishes the concept of community interest companies. If the Minister’s officials care to look through those clauses, they may be able to or wish to advise him that it could be a useful structure for the new academies to adopt. I shall not weary the Committee tonight with a recitation of how they would all fit together, except to say that Section 35 sets up a community interest test, rather like the public benefit test, while Section 27 establishes a regulator of CICs, as they are known, with extensive powers, and Section 30 caps dividends and distributions, so they are not profit-making in the normal sense of the word. There are a number of less important aspects, which might have value in this approach.

CICs cannot be charities, so they would be travelling a totally separate road. They come under Companies Act regulations. However, this could be a useful alternative—not compulsory, but a possible alternative—to becoming an exempt charity with some of the issues that we have just been debating in the previous group of amendments. This amendment seeks to explore the possibility. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will probably have something to say on this. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and I had several happy hours in the Chamber discussing community interest companies and how they should be formed. The noble Lord is correct—it was a matter of some significant discussion at the time that a community interest company could not be a charity. However, a main feature of a community interest company is the asset lock. That is why it is such a valuable company form for social enterprises. I am not sure how that could be applied as an alternative form to a charity. This is a complex issue, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is about to make it even more complicated, because I know that he has very firm views on this, but I cannot see how the asset lock would work here.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I do not like being known as a man who complicates things, but I shall just say that I, unusually, do not support the noble Lord in his amendment. The fact that a CIC cannot be a charity is a fundamental impediment. It would also mean that it could not have a principal regulator under the Charities Acts 1993 and 2006, which would be a really major drawback. However, the noble Lord has at least drawn the attention of the House, inadvertently perhaps, to the charitable incorporated organisation, which is a new corporate animal created under the Charities Act 2006. The Charity Commission is still struggling to find the regulations appropriate to the birth of this new beast but, by jingo, when it is born, it will be a perfect vehicle for these new academies. As Clause 8 has been drafted by Monty Python, it will not be a permitted corporate carrier of a school, although plainly it should be. So I am grateful to the noble Lord for his amendment, even if I disagree with it.

Academies Bill [HL]

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Amendment 64 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley. With this amendment, I have had the temerity completely to redraft Clause 1(7) because, with the best will in the world, it is extraordinarily lumpy and unclear. However, I have made a wonderful boo-boo in the redraft, in that I have said that academy arrangements “may” prohibit, when of course it should be “must” prohibit, so I beg noble Lords’ indulgence and ask that “must” be read in place of “may”. However, my point is that in the existing subsection (7) the difference between attendance at a school and education provided at a school is wholly unclear to me. It says that,

“no charge is made in respect of … admission … attendance … or … education provided at the school”.

I suppose that this is really a probing amendment so that the Minister can tell the Committee what is missing from my comprehension.

[Baroness Thornton]

I promise that I shall say only a few words but I want to add to what my noble friend Lady Royall said in opening this debate. The very helpful Library notes that we received in the briefing pack repeat what is in the Explanatory Notes, so it is very important that this matter is clarified.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I hope that I am able to provide the clarification for noble Lords opposite, including the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and for my noble friends. I start by reassuring noble Lords that academies are prohibited from charging for admission. No pupils on the roll of an academy will have to pay for their education.

On the specific point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, as I said, Clause 1(7)(a) prohibits charging but the Bill as drafted allows for the prospect that an academy may need to charge in certain circumstances. I shall explain the kind of circumstances that I have in mind; I think that we touched on this earlier. For example, an academy may wish to charge for providing evening classes to people not on the school roll. We had earlier debates about wanting a school to be part of a community. Providing evening classes would seem to be a good example of that and the Bill would enable the school to do it. Alternatively, an academy may want another organisation to be able to provide evening classes or other activities that can be accessed by the wider community. Therefore, as we want academies to take part in, and be part of, the local community, that is what the Bill provides for. However, any fees charged would be put back into the academy in accordance with the charitable objects of the academy trust.

So far as concerns charging for nursery or SEN provision in Amendments 67 and 75, I reassure the Committee that academies will not be permitted to charge for education provided during the usual timetabled school hours, including the entitlement to nursery education; nor will they be permitted to charge for special needs provision.

I hope that that provides some reassurance and that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Listowel]

I hesitate to prolong the debate at this late hour and I think that my concern is probably a little far-fetched, but this is such an important area to get right that I hope your Lordships will bear with me for a moment. Before I begin, perhaps I may thank the Minister for the pains he took to organise a meeting to discuss this issue, for his helpful correspondence and for the personal note he sent to me, which I much appreciated.

Recently, I was talking with a friend who worked for some time with a number of children with learning difficulties and disabilities, including two children with Down’s syndrome. They were a girl and a boy aged 13 and 14. The 13 year-old was a real terror in a way. They would be having a picnic in the park and she would run away from the group. It was very annoying and difficult to manage for the teacher. She was a wonderful girl, full of life and really charming, but when getting back on to the minibus after the day out—the excursion—the teacher began teasing her about her boyfriend, the young man. My friend sensed that the teacher was so angry because his authority had been flouted that he was using this devious way of getting back at her.

The point of the story is that we need excellent teachers working in this area. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, raised the issue of the status of SENCOs and said that they should be qualified teachers. It may be far-fetched because I suspect that many of the teachers working in this area have a particular vocation and will not think of leaving it. I imagine that when academy status is introduced, most of the schools that will go into it will be secondary schools and there may not be an issue. However, I remain concerned. I am grateful for the Minister’s reply on this and for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, but if the uptake of academy status is a great success and academies cream off the best teachers into their purlieu, it will be worth considering whether teachers who might have considered going into special educational needs will choose to go to these schools. The Minister said that he is not expecting a revolution; that this is a small-scale change. However, I am not sufficiently reassured by what he has said so far. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, said that the same thing was said about city technology colleges—that they would be the end of the world—but in fact they proved a welcome addition.

I approve of giving schools more autonomy but we need to think through what the general impact may be on the workforce. I refer particularly to the previous Government’s record on health visitors. In 1998, health visitors were hailed as the champions, the pioneers of the Government’s plans for early intervention. Ten years later, where are we? We have an ageing workforce, most of whom are about to retire, with great shortages and too heavy a case load. I was talking to a health visitor—a nurse with the responsibility of funding several London boroughs in this area—and she said, “I have to choose between funding the Sure Start centre, funding the Family Nurse Partnership and funding the health visitors”. It was all done with the best intention, but it is between these stools that these matters fall. I encourage the Minister to recognise the point and reflect further on what the impact might be if his plans are successful.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, about SENCOs; she made a very important point.

I had not intended to intervene but in briefing sent to me by TreeHouse, the charity that runs a school for children with autism, there is a question that has not yet been raised in the debate. It relates, particularly, to children with autism but I think it applies to children with SEN. Indeed, TreeHouse has worked with the special educational consortium on the Bill and agrees with all the briefings that it has sent to different Members of the House. In regard to the application of the SEN legal framework, TreeHouse states:

“Currently the Academies Bill provides that Academies are bound by the SEN Code of Practice, which is statutory guidance”.

In its view,

“This provides only a small part of the legal protection that children with autism and their families currently have in maintained schools, where their rights are more strongly protected by legislation through the Education Act 1996 and the School Standards and Framework Act 1988 in addition to the SEN Code of Practice”,

which other Members have mentioned. It continues:

“Schools that become Academies will therefore have weaker responsibilities for children with SEN, who, in turn, will have weaker legal protection”.

It is a legitimate question for TreeHouse to raise and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer it.