All 1 Debates between Lord Brougham and Vaux and Baroness Sharp of Guildford

Academies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Brougham and Vaux and Baroness Sharp of Guildford
Monday 28th June 2010

(14 years, 5 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brougham and Vaux Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux)
- Hansard - -

If either Amendment 88 or Amendment 89 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 90 and 92 for the reason of pre-emption.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford Portrait Baroness Sharp of Guildford
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 108 and 178 in my name and that of my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lady Garden. I need not detain the Committee long at this time of night.

Amendment 108 is slightly different in that it concerns the application to convert to academy status, and is very much probing. At the moment, there is no provision in the Bill to withdraw an application once it has been made. Will the Secretary of State allow a maintained school to withdraw an application, and what will be the latest time by which a school can withdraw it? Presumably there will be some point of no return prior to the conversion date or the date on which the academy order is issued, which is the date that allows the school to convert to an academy and therefore to negotiate a funding agreement.

Amendment 178 proposes one of a permutation of clauses—or, rather, it proposes the same clause with a permutation of times in it—and proposes that an academy, once established as an academy, can revert to becoming a maintained school. Its purpose is really to provide a mechanism for the school to revert to maintained status.

It might be of interest to the Committee if I note that the seven-year rule in the Bill came from the Education Reform Act 1988 of the noble Lord, Lord Baker. The rule was originally five years, and Lady Blatch, whom many people in this House will remember, moved as a Back-Bencher that this should be changed to seven years on the grounds that any young person attending what was then a city technology college should be afforded the opportunity to complete a full seven years—the period of secondary education up to 18 years of age. The assumption was repeated by the Minister of the time, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and it might be worth asking whether it continues to be the assumption that academies will provide sixth-form education. Certainly our primary schools and many of our special schools will not necessarily provide sixth-form education.