Free Schools and Academies

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts
Thursday 23rd January 2025

(3 weeks, 3 days ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, I first join the congratulations to my noble friend Lady Evans, who has great experience in this area, on securing this debate. There are a number of speakers here who are far more knowledgeable than me on this sector. In particular, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Harris of Peckham and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on their excellent speeches.

By way of disclosure, I was until recently a trustee at AIM Academies Trust, covering three schools in north London, such as the London Academy of 1,500 students and 200 staff, led by the excellent Paddy McGrath and sponsored by the philanthropist Peter Shalson.

I am also a member of the Leigh Academies Trust, one of the country’s largest and most established multi-academy trusts, based in Strood, Medway, in Kent. The trust was formed in 2008, with its origins as one of the UK’s original 15 CTCs, as the Leigh Technology Academy—a programme championed by my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking and, in the interest of full disclosure, in effect started by my uncle, Sir Geoffrey Leigh. Today, it encompasses more than 20,000 students between the ages of two months and 19 years, in 32 primary schools, secondary schools and special academies.

These two organisations have transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of students for the better. The advantages of the model are clear, as primary and secondary education is integrated and substantial resources shared among many schools to run highly efficient and successful organisations. I am proud and honoured to be associated with them.

Academies and free schools in England are a great success. Just look at the world league tables or even measure us against Wales and Scotland. As the Secretary of State herself said in the other palace two weeks ago:

“Academies, introduced by the last Labour Government and expanded by the Conservative party, have been instrumental in raising standards in our school system. They have delivered brilliant results, particularly for the most disadvantaged children”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/25; col. 857.]


The aforementioned London Academy replaced the failing Edgware School. In 2023, it was among the 55 highest-performing schools in the country. This has been achieved through the flexibilities it has been afforded. Over 50% of the students are eligible for the pupil premium and the admission policy prioritises students eligible for free school meals. AIM North London, historically one of the lowest-performing schools in the country, was, as recently as December 2023, graded good by Ofsted for the first time in its entire history. Historically, it was bottom of the league table and it serves one of the most deprived areas in north London.

Why is all this success now under threat? Labour claims to want to promote aspiration, but all it is doing is destroying something that works so well. There are some well-documented attacks planned by this Government, which we need to resist—for example, enforcing teacher qualification regulations, which is clearly yet another policy this Government are undertaking to appease their union bosses. There is a significant recruitment crisis in teaching, as workplaces outside the sector offer much better deals for people who want such employment. As my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking said, sometimes unqualified teachers are essential for sports, music and other areas. Why stop that? It just might be a ploy for the Government to meet their manifesto pledge of 6,500 new teachers by the end of this Parliament.

I was going to talk about statutory pay, but I understand that the Secretary of State has made a most welcome U-turn on that. Let us park it and see what happens. Retaining staff is essential for academies, where special situations often arise. I gather that Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union, has welcomed the new Bill, because he thinks a uniform pay framework improves fairness and teacher mobility. He is wrong. Uniformity does not always lead to fairness. There are different challenges in different regions of the UK, and pay is not the only driver. Teachers want to be in successful schools led by strong leaders and employing the very best at the top, and this often ripples down the system. If a comparison is needed, just look at the disaster at the state-run, union-dominated Wanstead High School—not an academy.

The requirement to adopt the national curriculum for all is classic socialism, and I think the wonderful aforementioned Katharine Birbalsingh of Michaela school is quite right: it is, in fact, a Marxist system. The Confederation of School Trusts has rightly pointed out that we need greater flexibility in our school system, not greater prescription and control.

Finally, I hope the Minister reflects on all she has heard today and agrees to modify the proposed Bill, which has been sprung on us without any consultation, to ensure we do not recklessly destroy a great English success story.

Education: Philosophy

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts
Tuesday 1st November 2022

(2 years, 3 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

In a serious vein, we know that our schools have tremendous responsibilities in terms of catching up and supporting children, particularly disadvantaged children, following the pandemic’s impact on them. The Government have made a commitment not to change the national curriculum. We need to make sure that the curriculum works for our children.

Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, I declare an interest in that my daughter is studying philosophy at university. Much as I welcome the thrust of the Question, philosophy is of course open to all students who seek to read it at university. I note that the Philosophy Foundation says that students, by studying philosophy, develop analytical, critical and problem-solving capabilities, so are we not lucky to have a Prime Minister who studied philosophy at university rather than, say, law?

Technical and Further Education Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I declare my interests in that I am a governor of the London Academy School in Edgware and that 30 years ago my uncle and family started the Leigh University Technical College with my noble friend Lord Baker in Dartford, Kent. I welcome the Bill, although no doubt others may wonder why it was not part of the Higher Education and Research Bill. However, I can now see why that would not have been appropriate. First, the higher education Bill has a huge amount in it and many Peers, some of whom have connections to institutions of higher learning, wanted to speak and contribute to it both at Second Reading and in Committee on university matters, which could have left this important issue somewhat lost. I can also see that the history of universities being formally covered by BIS could have led to different teams on this Department for Education Bill, but it is important to make time to focus on apprenticeships in their own right—I have a personal interest that I will explain in a moment—rather than being subsumed by other educational institutions. Universities have, of course, very powerful leaders and friends. It is important that those seeking to improve themselves through apprenticeships receive the full attention of your Lordships’ House and, of course, in the other place and beyond.

This Bill could not have come at a more opportune time. As a father of two teenagers, I can tell your Lordships that many teenagers are concerned about the quality of education they may receive in universities, in particular the face-to-face time with their lecturers and teachers. The background of Brexit and its myriad implications mean we are forced to re-examine and defend our political economy. This is an economy that is global in nature, of course—trading with the world is the only way forward for our country—but whatever degree of openness we accept and whatever settlement we reach on immigration, we can all agree that improving our domestic skills base is vital. As my noble friend Lord Baker described, we must make sure that graduates and school leavers have globally relevant skills that our exporting employers need and inward investors demand.

Furthermore, it is timely that the Bill offers opportunities for those already of working age for upskilling and retraining. I hope my noble friend the Minister will tell us how much resource will be spent on adult education, which has been a poor relative. Populism has fed off the disappointments of those who feel left behind by globalisation. We must get across the message that apprenticeships and the broader offering from technical education are not just for young people, but for anyone who wants to gain new skills. Instead of the easy answers peddled by some of nationalism and protectionism, a better skills policy for the whole of working life will offer more people the chance to participate in the fruits of a global economy in which Britain plays a leading role. The apprenticeship levy will raise some £2.8 billion in 2019-20, meaning that the total investment in England will be £2.95 billion —twice the amount in 2010.

Apprenticeships provide real opportunities for long-term social mobility. I pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Minister, Rob Halfon, who sees it as a personal mission to promote social mobility at every opportunity. My noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott talked about family social mobility. My grandfather started at a bench, making furniture. He ended up chairing a public company employing 1,000 people. My late father went to Cambridge University. In the spirit of social fluidity, I went to a lesser institution, but it all started with an apprenticeship.

The apprenticeship programme has been a great success, as it is estimated that substantial financial returns can be generated for an individual completing a level 4 or greater apprenticeship—some £150,000 over a working life. Employers’ feedback has been extremely positive and, of course, the taxpayer will benefit. Raising the standard of the UK workforce in this way addresses so many issues at once. The alleged productivity discrepancies within the UK, of which we hear a lot in this House, are reduced; any benefit dependency culture is discouraged; and enabling home-grown talent as opposed to depriving other countries of their trained people must all encourage us to ensure that we achieve a successful apprentice programme of a high quality through training, as recognised in the Richard review.

It is also vital that steps are taken to ensure that those who choose a technical route at the age of 16 are valued and appreciated for the contribution they will make to our society—often of equal or greater importance than those who chose the so-called academic route. I am very pleased that the Government are choosing an employer-led and designed set of standards, rather than the old framework. The Government’s target of 3 million new apprenticeship starts by 2020 is ambitious and the costs that employers will have to bear to get there considerable. It is imperative that the appropriate level of quality thresholds and value for money is achieved.

Instinctively I am against creating any new quangos, as the new Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education surely is—it is called a Crown non-departmental government body—but I see the need for it as set out in the Bill. It must, though, stick tightly to its remit of driving up standards and holding participants to account, lest it becomes another unwieldy bureaucracy. Provided it remains rooted firmly in the business community and is led by the esteemed board members already announced, a healthy distance from central government would undoubtedly be a good thing—I enjoyed the analogy with weights and measures made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf; that was very appropriate.

I am of course aware that the institute stems from the Enterprise Act 2016. Although I remember much discussion about protection of the word “apprentice”, I do not remember much discussion about the institute. In this Bill we see the detail and, in particular, the remit extended. Clearly there is a strong need for providers and employers to collaborate. I was surprised that the new board does not have any private training providers represented, but it does at least represent a strong mix of employers and academics.

As “board workers representation” seems to be part of the current lexicon, I wondered whether there would be student representation on the institute board. I have seen some regret about that in the specialist education press, but there are many other ways of ensuring that students’ views and concerns are heard and I hope that an appropriate route is found.

In summary, that apprentices have confidence that their training is of an appropriate standard with meaningful qualifications is essential for their own self-esteem and ability to progress in the labour market. It is vital that employers believe they have value for money from the training for which they are ultimately paying a large proportion. I believe that the Bill goes a long way to achieve this.