Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Greaves

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group. I will start with Amendment 159A which questions why, on page 9, line 36, it is possible for non-providers of primary medical services to be eligible to apply to establish a clinical commissioning group. Particularly in the light of my noble friend’s comments on Amendment 159, one would surely only want applicants who had experience of providing GP services to be able to apply to form a clinical commissioning group.

Amendment 160A requires the board, before considering an application to form a clinical commissioning group, to consult with the general public, the relevant local authority, the relevant health and wellbeing board, and patients receiving primary medical services from providers within the clinical commissioning group. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raised some pertinent questions about transparency in the formation of clinical commissioning groups. It is extraordinary that there seems to be no process by which putative CCGs consult with their patients before they make an application. The decision is, essentially, being made by bureaucrats within the National Health Service system—who put constraints on CCGs,—and the GPs themselves. Where on earth are the public in all of this?

[Lord Greaves]

The noble Lord very kindly referred to what I said. Is it not also the case that a group of GPs could go ahead and put forward proposals without even consulting all the GPs in their area?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

From reading the Bill, it is only when two or more are gathered together that they can make such an application. So the noble Lord is quite right. The amendment is seeking assurance that there will be public consultation and consultation with patients. We are told this is all about patients. Can patients therefore be consulted before GPs commit themselves to forming a clinical commissioning group? Or are we just to be told at some stage, “That’s it, you are in that clinical commissioning group because you are in that practice and you have no choice”. It is remarkably high-handed for it all to be done with no public involvement whatever. It is remarkable how many changes are already being made without any statutory authority given by this legislation.

I want to continue the theme of consultation, because I have a number of amendments in this group which come back to the same point: Amendment 164A in relation to the board’s determination of applications; Amendment 166 in relation to variations in the constitution of clinical commissioning groups; Amendment 166B in respect of variations made in the area covered by a clinical commissioning group, as specified in the constitution; Amendment 167A in respect of mergers, and Amendment 167B as regards the dissolution of clinical commissioning groups.

If I as a patient am part of the clinical commissioning group, one would have thought that I would have a role in deciding whether it is appropriate for that clinical commissioning group to be dissolved, or is that again just for the GPs to decide? What about Amendment 216ZZA as regards commissioning plans? Perhaps I have misread the Bill and there are crucial points which would envisage members of the public and patients within a CCG area being consulted on all these matters.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Greaves

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

I was going to make merely a brief intervention on this group on the question of coterminosity. However, this has extended into a much more important debate, which is coming down to some very fundamental issues in relation to clinical commissioning groups. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is to be congratulated on introducing this debate because it is absolutely crucial. We have to have it some time—if we are having it on this amendment, fine.

The noble Lord said in passing that the same issues keep coming round at different stages of the Bill. On this Bill the same issues keep coming round in different sessions in Committee. This is the second time we have talked about coterminosity. I think previously it was on an amendment from his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I will not repeat everything that I said then, except to say that there has to be some flexibility. There are very good arguments for saying that CCGs should not cross local social care authority boundaries. However, the point I made previously was that in very large counties, like Lancashire or North Yorkshire or, if I think about the south of England—which I force myself to do occasionally—Hampshire and Kent perhaps, at the very least they ought to have the ability to not have a very large CCG forced on them that covers a whole county, which would be very remote indeed.

We have heard about Cornwall and Devon from my noble friend. We have heard about Birmingham. I am going to say a few things about Lancashire. I am very interested to know whether there are any noble Lords in Committee today who are very clear about what is happening in relation to setting up CCGs in their own areas, how it will work and what will come out of it. Asking colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches while this debate has been going on, nobody seems to know; chaos and confusion seem to be the impression. I am not saying that it is chaos and confusion, but as far as ordinary members of the public are concerned, let alone other people like myself who try to take a more direct interest, it is not very clear at all what is happening, or if what is happening is clear, it is not clear why and how it is happening. This comes back to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the fact that there are very clear pressures from above that are moulding the system that is going to take place. I very much take the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that there ought to be local discretion and local decision-making here. However, that is not happening. People are being forced into decisions, and that goes against what she was saying.

Let me tell you about where I live, in east Lancashire. At the moment there are two PCTs. There is a Blackburn with Darwen PCT, because Blackburn with Darwen escaped from Lancashire County Council at some stage in the past and became a small unitary authority, so it has its own PCT. The other five districts, which are part of Lancashire County Council, have an East Lancashire PCT which, as the noble Baroness pointed out, had been formed by amalgamations over the years. There is one East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust that effectively covers the two PCTs, so there are two PCTs and one hospital trust at the moment. The PCTs have been combined with the rest of Lancashire into a county-wide cluster, but the East Lancashire PCT still exists.

I have recently been given a whole set of minutes and agenda papers, a great big thick file, from a relatively recent meeting—in the last few weeks—of the East Lancashire PCT. Although they find it increasingly difficult to keep going because all their chief officers have gone, there are still functions taking place at the PCT level; there are functions taking place at the cluster level, and for somebody like me who takes an interest in but is not directly involved in the health service nowadays—I used to be on a district health authority, an area health authority and a community health council, but am not now—I find it very difficult to find out where the decision-making is taking place.

Back when CCGs came along, the original idea was that they would be quite small, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, quite rightly said. They would be groups of GP practices within a recognisably local area. Whether that was a good or a bad idea—and in many ways it was an attractive idea—that has clearly now gone by the wayside. People were told that the minimum that you could get away with in east Lancashire was district-wide—that is the lower tier—so people were getting together and forming proto-CCGs at the district level.

In terms of population, Rossendale is about 70,000 and Pendle is probably the biggest of the five at about 90,000; it is that sort of range. The doctors who were getting together and working on these CCGs—and certainly in both Burnley and Pendle they were working closely with the district authorities to share back-room services and so on when they were set up—were told that this will not do any more. I am not at all clear who told them, but it has been made absolutely clear that there now has to be a new CCG covering the five districts, an area of 450,000 people. It is a very significantly different proposition, however you define significant, from groups of local practices, where the whole thing started off.

Blackburn and Darwen, because it is a unitary authority, is insisting that as far it is concerned, it will have its own CCG, which will be coterminous with the relatively small unitary authority, which has a population of around 140,000.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Has that potential CCG been told that it will not get authorised? I would think that that is the way in which the system will force it into a larger merger.

[Lord Greaves]

I assume so, but I have no personal knowledge of the processes that are leading to these outcomes. All I hear about—from talking to people who are professionals and politicians involved in these systems and through the normal bush telegraph—is the outcome. The outcome is that there is almost certainly going to be a CCG 450,000 bigger, as I understand it, than any of the doctors involved would really like, and there have to be far fewer doctors involved from each of the districts. In my own district, it was going to be a Pendle-wide organisation where all the doctors involved would be known to a lot of people in Pendle, but now there will be just a small number from Pendle and some from Rossendale and some from far-flung parts of the Ribble valley. Meanwhile in west Lancashire, along the Fylde coast, where there is a string of small holiday towns with Blackpool in the middle and then a large area of countryside, are the two districts of Fylde and Wyre while Blackpool itself, the main town of the Fylde coast, is a unitary authority. What we understand is going to happen there—I have no direct evidence of this, it has come through the bush telegraph—is a CCG of Fylde and Wyre, a relatively smaller one, with Blackpool on its own. Of course all the hospital services and everything else are mainly in Blackpool. There does not seem to be any logic about what is going on, even though it is being defined by local authority boundaries.

I ask the Government to provide some clarity over what is happening in two ways. First it would be very helpful to have clarity on what is actually happening in each area, and for this whole process to be taking place in a much more public way. But it is not. It is all taking place out of the public gaze, and unless there are local journalists who are particularly interested in it and try to research it, nobody has the slightest idea what is going on, whether or not it is being decided locally.

More importantly, I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, says, but I think that we need an understanding of the sort of pattern which is going to result from this Bill once it is enacted and the CCGs are set up. We want a clarity of vision from the Government. What sort of number are they talking about? What range of size will be thought to be permissible? If they are saying that it could stretch from areas of 15,000 right up to a major city of half a million or so, and that sort of thing will be left to some sort of diffuse local decision-making, then that is okay, but we need to understand that. If, on the other hand the Government are saying that a lot of the groups that have been looking at this are far too small and they have to be much larger, then they are really moving towards what I might call the Lord Warner position, and again we need to understand that. We have a right to know what the outcomes of this legislation are likely to be before we allow it to go forward.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Greaves

Monday 14th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Can I say how much I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to our Committee? We have missed him. Now we have turned our attention to detail, his particular expertise comes to the fore.

On bureaucracy, I have tabled this amendment because I have genuinely been a passionate fighter of bureaucracy. That is why sometimes as Ministers we have to intervene in the bureaucratic affairs of the health service. The noble Earl may find that he himself has to do so. My concern is that, partly because of the listening pause, there is now a plethora of organisations to be established. Apart from clinical commissioning groups, we have commissioning support units—about which we have heard very little but apparently will be there—as well as the senates, the health and well-being boards, the clinical pathways and the national Commissioning Board. The regulators are likely to be given more power in the future: Monitor is being given more powers and, post Francis, there will probably be changes to the CQC and other regulatory matters. The risk is that, far from this being a streamlined process, it will be a very complex and bureaucratic one. I seek here merely to help the Government deliver their aims by encouraging them to restrain the cost of the whole exercise.

[Lord Greaves]

I was of course teasing the noble Lord in as pleasant a way that I could. This is another instance where Hansard ought to have a few smileys liberally littered round the text. The noble Lord made the same point, at slightly greater length, that I made when I referred to the kaleidoscope of bodies that we now have. An important job of this Committee is to sort out the relationship between all these different bodies before they are finally set up. We have got to do that absolutely vital job.

Subsection (2) of the noble Lord’s proposed new section “Duty to reduce bureaucracy” says,

“For that purpose the Board must exercise its functions … so as to ensure that at no time there exists more clinical commissioning groups than there were primary care trusts on 1 April 2011”.

That is a slightly different point, hitched on to his bureaucracy point. This is a vital question. Again, this will not appear in the Bill—it will not say that there will be X number of clinical commissioning groups—but, in general terms, we need to have clear in our minds when the Bill leaves the House how many clinical commissioning groups there will be and of what sort of size. This has evolved with discussion over the legislation. When the first proposals came out—when they were called GP commissioning groups because that is what they were—there was a feeling among many people throughout the country, the health service and among politicians that they might be quite small, or even that large GP practices might try and do it on their own. A lot of people were alarmed by this because they thought it would not be very efficient and it would not work. How on earth do you commission the kind of facilities which have to be provided, whether it is a local health centre or specialist clinical services, on a sufficient scale? The more people thought about it, the more it seemed that these groups had to be larger than just a large GP practice or group of GP practices in a smallish town.

The Government then encouraged GPs in particular areas to get together and co-operate to set up early-stage shadow commissioning groups. This happened and the Government issued a statement saying that a high proportion of the country—I forget what, but perhaps 70 or 80 per cent—was covered by these voluntary, shadow groups. These GPs quite rightly wanted to make things work in their area, whatever they thought of the legislation and changes. In my part of the world, it tended to come down to one commissioning group per second-tier or lower-tier district council area, in places like Burnley, Hyndburn and Pendle. Now, apparently because of pressure from above, people are talking very strongly about having—or having to have—a commissioning group on the same boundaries as the existing primary care trust. This would not be the cluster of trusts that is at the county level but at a sub-county level.

So in effect people are looking at the groups and saying, “What will be the difference?” What will be different will be the functions and the direct control of community services, which effectively has gone already to the hospital trusts. As for commissioning, it will be effectively the same body, probably in the same premises, controlled by different people. We need to understand this regardless of whether it is necessary to reduce bureaucracy or whatever, which is secondary, in a sense. Before we leave the question of the commissioning groups, which we will be talking about in great detail, we in this House need to understand the Government’s thinking about the future likely site of these groups.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way again. I think it is a very interesting point about the size of clinical commissioning groups. My amendment was simply a probe to get a debate on this. Is there not a tension here? In order to get CCGs dealing with strategic issues, they have to be pretty large and cover a large population, but, in order to get the interest of GPs, they need to be smaller because the GPs need to feel involved. In essence, there is a tension there. The approach of the previous Government of taking primary care trusts and encouraging more practice-based commissioning may well have proved to be a better approach. The risk with CCGs at the moment is that, when they emerge with a board, they will be so removed from the individual GP that the very purpose of setting them up in the first place, which of course was about controlling demand through GPs, will lose that essential aim.

[Lord Greaves]

There is a great deal of truth in what the noble Lord says. Looking at this from afar, I think that the Government have had to struggle with this tension. In order for the bodies to be serious commissioning bodies, commissioning not just for their patients individually or collectively but for the health needs of their area, they have to be sufficiently large. What will happen is that the GPs who sit on these new commissioning groups almost certainly will represent the GPs in the whole of that area, and they will have to be appointed by some democratic process representing the whole area—perhaps one from each area. I do not know how they will do it but that will have to happen at a local, practical level.

In my view, one thing that has bedevilled this debate is that the word “commissioning” has been used in two quite separate senses. One has been the idea of a GP commissioning services for his particular—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

From what the noble Lord said, why on earth did we not continue with PCTs and give them a kick up the backside to allow GP surgeries to commission more locally as well? Why have we gone through this?

[Lord Greaves]

I am not quite sure why the noble Lord is asking me that question. He is tempting me to make provocative statements in relation to the coalition Government of which my party is a member. I think that it is an open question and the answer can remain open. I am not in the mood to make provocative statements today. I might be tomorrow, and the noble Lord can come back to me then.

The point that I am trying to make before I finish, if the Labour Benches will not interrupt me just one more time—

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Greaves

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I expected that we were breaking for dinner. Do we not break for dinner in Committee?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

No.

[Lord Greaves]

No? I thought that we were. All right. It is a good job I did not go and have my dinner, isn’t it?

Amendment 28

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Greaves

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

Before the Minister replies, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, a question? Earlier in his speech, he waxed lyrically in his normal way about the problem of whether the House of Lords can reasonably reject affirmative orders. As the noble Lord knows, many of us in this part of the House very much agree with him that the ordinary affirmative procedure is not acceptable for this legislation. Indeed, the enhanced super-affirmative procedure being put forward by the Government is still not adequate. Something rather special is needed, given the proposal to close down by ministerial order so many organisations that have been set up by primary legislation. There is a great deal of common ground on this issue around the House.

I wanted to pick up the point that the noble Lord has made several times about the approach that my noble colleague the Leader of the House is taking to affirmative orders, possibly taking a different approach from the view that was taken by the Cunningham committee. Does the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, accept that, as ordinary affirmative orders have to be put to the House after discussion, nobody in this House—not even the Leader of the House—can prevent this House from rejecting an affirmative order if that is what it wants? If there is a division of opinion when the voices are called for, there will be a Division and, if more people vote in the Not Contents Lobby than in the Contents Lobby, the order is rejected. That cannot be prevented by anybody.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am sure that that is right. I remind the noble Lord that the Companion recalls the vote taken by your Lordships’ House some years ago that reaffirms its right to defeat secondary legislation. I am sure that that is the position. However, it is important to note the views of the Leader because it is worrying that he should seek to undermine the consensus that I thought we held about the Cunningham convention.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Greaves

Monday 29th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord that we have found a better place to bring it back so we will have an opportunity to debate it later in Committee.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, that is one assurance I can well believe.

This amendment is about keeping some of the safeguards which exist in legislative form in relation to some of the bodies listed. There are many more safeguards of different sorts which are in legislative form at the moment. One of the real concerns over this Bill is the process by which Parliament will be able to scrutinise and the Government will be accountable to Parliament in the discussion of whether these safeguards are going to remain. Ministers are indeed accountable to Parliament, but ministerial accountability to Parliament at the Dispatch Box, when we can ask questions and raise debates and so on, is rather different from legislation written down in the statutes of the land, in the law of England, which can, if necessary, be challenged in court. It is a different sort of accountability if people are responsible to the courts of the land for following the laws which have been set down by Parliament. It is in many ways a much more robust form of accountability and we are concerned that it is going to go if, as the Minister says, the Government prefer that all this is done on a non-statutory basis. The ministerial orders which will be responsible for making a lot of the changes proposed to the organisations set out in the schedules are in themselves legislation. To suggest that a lot of it will be non-statutory suggests that those orders will not contain these safeguards, and that, too, is a major concern.

These are important issues which go beyond the particular issue of sustainable development and I am sure they will come up again and again as we continue to debate this Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Greaves

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that I might change my wording to “custom”.

[Lord Greaves]

Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, might consider that the relevant statistic is the number of occasions on which the House divides on such instruments rather than the number of occasions on which the Division results in their being voted down. It is clear that the House divides on instruments rather more often than it votes them down, largely as a result of this Liberal Democrat group putting matters to the vote in the previous Parliament. The number of such Divisions is not huge, but there has been a handful of them in my recollection rather than none at all. If the House accepts that it can divide, it must accept that it is capable of voting instruments down.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I have certainly noticed the reluctance of the Liberal Democrat Benches to put things to the vote; sometimes, they have to be encouraged to do so, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, found out earlier today.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right that a number of developments have occurred in secondary legislation. Noble Lords have been encouraged sometimes to put down non-fatal Motions, which has been very helpful. Equally, there have been votes on some orders which have been lost. However, I accept what the Minister has said—that is, it is more the custom than the convention.

Notwithstanding the seeming withdrawal of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, from what we thought was a consensual agreement in relation to Cunningham, I am clear that this House has every right to vote down an order. I am absolutely certain that, unless this Bill is heavily amended, there will be a series of votes on each organisation and the Government will find themselves in very great difficulty. We agree with the principle, which is why it would have been much better if this Bill had been sent to a Select Committee. Well, we did not win the vote. It would be much better for the Government if they were to accept a super-affirmative procedure along the lines suggested in my amendment. They will find, in the end, that that will be a much more satisfactory way of dealing with these matters than with the implied possibility of each individual order having extensive debate and votes at the end of it.

The Minister has very kindly said that he will consider very carefully the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the debate that we have heard tonight. I believe this to be one of the most important debates in the whole Bill until we get to Schedule 7, Clause 11. That debate clearly ought to be in prime time and it would be right for me to withdraw the amendment; I am sure that we can have good constructive discussions between now and Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Greaves

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group—Amendments 115 to 117, 128, 129 and 170 to 172. They are all amendments to the three government amendments that have been put forward. Noble Lords know what those amendments say and can judge my amendments accordingly. The amendments that I have put down are very much along the lines of the amendments that I usually put down on consultation. I listened—as, no doubt, did many other noble Lords—with great admiration to all the detailed legal analysis on Amendment 1. I congratulate the Minister on understanding it all. We are dealing with something much more basic now that I do understand and in which I have been involved all my life—that is, public consultation.

As my noble friend Lord Maclennan said, these amendments put more detail on to the principles set out in amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. The former states that,

“the Minister must conduct a public consultation”,

and the latter states that,

“the Minister must consult the public”.

That fundamental principle has to appear in the Bill. It is absolutely right that consultation should be with all the appropriate organisations, interests and individuals that the Government can identify. In addition to that, consultation has to be open and transparent. That means that anyone who wants to be consulted should have the right to be consulted. In other words, the definition of who is interested ought to be made by the people concerned.

The Government can never know who wishes to contribute in total and which contributions might be useful to them in improving what they propose, or in coming to the view that it is right or wrong. That principle is accepted in many areas, such as consultation over planning applications to a local authority. Local authorities all have a list of the people whom they automatically and systematically consult, such as neighbours—depending on what the proposed development is, people living within a certain radius of the proposed development or perhaps just people living adjacent to it. A whole series of organisations—some national, some local—also automatically get consulted. There is no problem about that; it is the kind of consultation the Government are talking about in the Bill. In addition, there is an open consultation. Traditionally, a site notice might be posted so that people who walk past can have a look and see that the application has been made. There may be newspaper advertisements in certain cases where the application is thought to be particularly important, or is specialist—applications for listed buildings, for example.

Probably universally now, an open invitation is put on the council’s website for people to put their views forward, and an increasing proportion of people do so that way. That is an open consultation—it is open to anybody to take part and the council has to consider those representations. It does not mean that the whole basis of local government collapses; it is just a normal part of the process. There is no reason whatever why the Government cannot accept that principle on the kind of proposals in the Bill, which are often far reaching. In many cases, the Government act in this way; they may have a specific obligation to consult certain people and bodies, but in addition they put things on websites and take account of what people say. However, that is fairly ad hoc at the moment; whether it is done depends on the people involved. The principle ought to be in legislation. The internet makes the whole process far easier. The idea of advertising in national newspapers, the London Gazette or whatever—nobody ever sees it—has been superseded completely. All the information can now be put on the internet via the Government’s websites and people can respond in that way, or write in if they wish to respond in that way. There is no reason why that should not happen.

My amendment is the standard one that I table whenever this kind of thing comes up in your Lordships’ House. I tabled it on the Academies Bill; we got a weak concession from the Government on consultation by school governing bodies proposing to become academies, which has turned out to be pretty feeble in practice. Consultation is not an option. It is essential and should be entrenched in the legislation. I can remember banging away on the same issue on the Marine and Coastal Access Bill and various local government Bills.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

The noble Lord has brought up a Bill of blessed memory to many noble Lords, including of course the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. Will the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, contrast the submissions that we received on the marine and coastal access path from organisations, including bodies listed in this Bill, with the position now? We have been overwhelmed with silence from those bodies. He may well share my concern about that. Officials in departments have clearly given the message to those bodies that they are not to say anything. The more I think about it, the more concerned I am about it.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I heard the comments made to that effect by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on a previous amendment. He is right; it is the only explanation I can find for the devastating silence. In some cases I have gone out of my way to try to get information out of various bodies that may be affected by the Bill; no doubt other noble Lords have too. It has been like getting blood out of cheese on one hand, and on the other there have been subterfuge-type conversations: “I’ll have the conversation with you, but don’t tell anybody, will you?”. That is not satisfactory. It would help if the Minister could give us all an assurance that any such instructions that have been sent down the line will be countermanded immediately, so that those of us who are interested in these organisations can get the information that we legitimately need for when we get on to the detailed amendments and discussions that we shall have on the schedules, quite apart from the debate on this amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I doubt that the noble Lord will find any written instruction, but you do not need written instructions—you just need indications from officials that organisations that make trouble will find themselves in some difficulty. It is absolutely clear that that is the message that they have. I am pursuing this because it shows the chilling impact of the Bill. Any organisation listed knows that there will be repercussions if it makes trouble, and the Bill allows that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will give a firm indication from the Front Bench that the organisations listed are free and open to provide their views. I will make it my business to contact some of the organisations, and if I find that they are not prepared to give views to the Official Opposition I will take that up with the Government, because I regard that almost as contempt for Parliament.

Academies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Greaves

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister said about Amendment 53, which is half of what we are putting forward. We would be very happy to take up his offer. On that basis, no doubt my noble friend will not move Amendment 53 when we finally get to it some time tonight.

In relation to Amendment 17 there is a question that will not go away. There are fundamental issues that go beyond whether an application for academy status is being made by a fit and proper person. While the criteria for approving academies will be published, it seems that there need to be ways in which Parliament can discuss those criteria. We have a Secretary of State at the moment who is full of revolutionary zeal in this area. He is being very open and honest with us, through the Minister, about how he will approach this and the kind of criteria which will be looked at. However, Secretaries of State do not last for ever. There will be further Secretaries of State in the future; they will be different people with different ideas, and may wish to change the criteria. Under those circumstances it seems absolutely right that he or she should come back to Parliament.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, given the complete mess over the schools building programme, how long does the noble Lord give the current Secretary of State?

[Lord Greaves]

That question is a long way above my pay grade. The Secretary of State seems to have quite a lot of influence in the Government at the moment. We will see how it goes and I wish him the best of luck.

The Minister said that the funding agreements would be published for each school; each application would be considered separately; and freedom of information requests will get all the information they require in relation to each school. We understand all that but it is different from parliamentary scrutiny of the overall policy and the criteria on which the Secretary of State will make the decisions. This is an issue which will not go away. It will probably be debated in considerable depth when the Bill gets to the House of Commons. We will observe with interest how it gets on. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, Amendment 38 stands on its own. A noble Lord seems to think that there is something funny in that, although I do not know what it is. I am trying to get a bit of enthusiasm and to get going so that it does not take so much time. With this amendment I return to the future role of local authorities, which I raised in Committee, particularly in relation to academies. It also raises the wider question of the future role of local authorities in relation to schools and education generally, which the whole question of academy conversions raises, particularly if they take place on quite a large scale in some areas.

I do not raise this issue particularly from the point of view of schools in the Lancashire authority, because we do not seem to have many schools applying for or expressing an interest in academies. Where I live, there have been just half a dozen in the eastern part of the county. In Pendle only one school was listed and it spent a lot of time last week telling everyone who inquired that it had appeared on the list by mistake and that it should not have been there at all. How many more there are like that, I do not know.

In some areas—it appears to be particularly so in parts of southern England and the south-east—there are rather a lot, so the future role of the local authority in relation to schools and pupils in those areas will become more pressing. In Committee I tabled two amendments on this matter. The Minister seemed to show some interest in the questions being raised and accepted that there are legitimate questions to be asked and answered. To paraphrase, he said that the Government believed that there was an important strategic role for local authorities in future in relation to schools, but that the Government had not really worked out exactly what that was yet and needed to think about it further. I think that that is a reasonable summary of what he said.

I have put this amendment down for further consideration in order to ask the Government their intentions in this matter, how quickly they might think about it and what consultation they might take in the mean time. I have rewritten it to be more general. I have suggested that future activities, even if all the schools in an area converted to academies, might include the,

“oversight and monitoring of Academies”,

which should be done locally rather than through a national quango or bureaucracy, and that there should be “intervention and challenge” when necessary. The issue which I raised in Committee about the,

“strategies and plans of action for the conversion of schools”,

to academies seems to be much more suited to local involvement and planning than at a national level where there is not likely to be much co-ordinated planning in each local area. Another activity listed in the amendment is,

“facilitating the integration of the work of Academies with that of maintained schools”.

The word “partnership” might have been better than “integration”, but the point is fairly fundamental; and there are probably other things that the local authority should be involved in in future in a strategic way—and, indeed, in a less strategic way—which I have not noted here.

This is a major issue. What I want to ask the Government is whether they will give a commitment that an important part of the education Bill that is expected in the autumn will tackle this vital area. Local authorities are going to be left in limbo if a lot of their schools convert quickly or do so over the next two or three years. They need to know where they stand and how to plan for the future, and everyone needs to know exactly what their role is going to be. Is that something that can be tackled in the promised education Bill, and if it is, will the Government carry out a serious consultation with local authorities over the summer to establish what local authorities think their role should be? That would create a genuine dialogue between the Government and local authorities about their future role in relation to schools.

This needs to take place with the Local Government Association and with educational bodies, and it also needs to take place with individual local authorities that have responsibility for schools. I know that the Government have written to local authorities just to ask them what their future role might be, but a proper consultation needs to take place. The Government need to set out the parameters of what could happen in the future, with alternatives and proposals, and ask local authorities what they think they ought to be contributing. If there is an important strategic role for local authorities, which the Government say there is, in a future in which an increasing number of schools in different areas are going to convert to academies, we need to know what that role is both while the process of conversion takes place and after a substantial number of schools have become academies. Either there is a role or there is not. The Government say there is, and we have several months before the education Bill arrives in the autumn for a thorough and serious debate about this extremely important matter. That is the purpose of this amendment. I look forward to a positive response from the Minister and I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, it is a remarkable testimony to the drawing powers of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on local government that at 11.08 in the evening, so many noble Lords are present to hear him speak. I should say that when he addressed these matters in Committee, it was also at a late hour. He has raised issues that are of great substance, and I hope that he might be tempted to bring an amendment back at Third Reading when we could have a proper debate about the role of local government in relation to education in prime time.

I believe that local authorities could have a positive role in the future. I read with interest the briefing produced by the Local Government Association, and they could have a useful and constructive role to play, post this Bill, in relation to academies. We had a good debate on SEN where I could see the positive role for local government. I come back to the Minister’s earlier comment that there is a clear tension in all these debates between wanting to let schools have much greater freedom, which many of us sign up to, and the risk that that involves. The Minister said that if you trust people, there will be times when things go wrong, and I think that that is right. The problem the Government face is that unless they have a local mechanism in place for dealing with these issues, they will come right back to Ministers. However much they set up other agencies or say, “It is nothing to do with us, it is a matter for individual schools”, I can tell him that in the end they will come back to Ministers. In that context, local authorities could play a constructive role and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, might allow us to have a wider debate on this next week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his comments. He suggested that we might have a wider debate next week at Third Reading and that I should put down further amendments. If he can explain to me how to get further amendments past the Clerks, I may pursue that suggestion. I would take advice from him as a former Minister.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Lord. It is quite clear that if he does not press his amendment tonight, the matter will not have been settled. The fact that there has not been an occasion other than at a very late hour should, I hope, be ample justification for him to produce another amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

I shall perhaps go into the Public Bill Office waving my copy of Hansard and quoting the noble Lord in evidence. How much good it will do, I will perhaps find out.

I was grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his response to my comments. The phrase “it may be” occurred quite a lot of times, which does not seem to be a very firm commitment, but I shall perhaps discuss with him outside this Chamber what it means in this context. I hope that I can get a firm assurance that the Government will look seriously at these matters. The fundamental question as far as this Bill is concerned is: what is the relationship between a local authority and academy schools in its area? That is why the amendment is tabled as it is. There is the wider issue of the role of what we used to call the local education authorities.

My noble friend the Minister almost got into a philosophical discussion of localism and then drew back—I would take part in such a discussion any time. However, he did say that he wanted local authorities to have a strong, strategic role in education. That is the nub of the matter. The question that he did not answer is whether we can expect this autumn’s education Bill to tackle the important question of the role of local authorities. That, again, is a question that I will want to pursue with him outside this Chamber before deciding whether to attempt to bring it back. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Academies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Greaves

Monday 28th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Is the point not round the other way? If the cumulative impact of a lot of independent academies in an LEA area is to render problems for the education system, what happens if the LEA no longer has any intervention powers? How is the public interest in a community to be upheld?

[Lord Greaves]

I am beginning to feel like the Minister, the way that I am being cross-questioned by the Labour Party. I am not a Minister; I am not a member of the Government. My first amendment faces exactly the problems that the noble Lord just raised. They are serious problems. The answer has to be properly thought out. It may take longer than this Bill to think about, but it ought not to take very much longer. Having said that, I have said more than enough tonight and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.