Education: English Baccalaureate
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree with the underlying point. That is, of course, what employers are looking for. As the noble Baroness will know, one of the thrusts of our school reforms is to try to give head teachers greater discretion and autonomy to teach the subjects they think are appropriate for the pupils in their care. It is not for us to tell them what to do the whole time. If we can strip back the national curriculum, freeing up more unprescribed time to study some of these other subjects, I hope that will help. Ultimately, it is our view that it is for schools to decide and for pupils and parents to make their views known. The more information that we can publish so that parents and others can see what choices schools are offering, the more it will help to make sure that children are able to study the subjects that are right for them and are not driven by perverse incentives in league tables. This is where I agree with the noble Baroness. We have to be very careful that we do not end up with children studying subjects that are not suitable so that schools can do better in league tables.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I preface my question by saying that for many years I was a parent governor of what was then the only comprehensive school in England doing the baccalaureate as an alternative to A-levels. Would the Minister agree that the baccalaureate has a big advantage in not pressing pupils into a science/arts split, in the way that A-levels tend to, and that it encourages a creative way of thinking and writing in depth at A-level standards?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, the international baccalaureate to which my noble friend refers, has many merits. I am not sure I would have benefited from it, because I was never very good at the science and maths bit, which it entails. I agree with him, however, that for many children it is suitable; it has many strong advocates. We are freeing up the system so that schools that want to offer the IB in the maintained sector are able to do so and that pupils can choose to study it.
Academies Bill [HL]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move Amendment 6 and speak to Amendment 7. These two amendments follow our discussion on Report and are designed to make clear the situation regarding new free schools, which are defined as additional schools in the amendments. My noble friend Lord Phillips tabled an amendment on Report designed to require the Secretary of State to take into account the likely impact of a new free school on neighbouring schools, and I accepted the principle of it then.
Amendment 6 will ensure that, when the Secretary of State is considering whether to approve proposals for additional academies, such as a new free school, he will be required to take into account the impact of those proposals on the other schools and colleges in the local area. As I have explained before, the Secretary of State has a duty to act reasonably in all matters, which includes considering all the relevant implications of the proposals. The amendment puts that requirement into the Bill, and will ensure that no free school proposal will be approved without due consideration of its wider implications.
When assessing the impact, the Secretary of State will consider a range of information and issues. These might include things such as performance data relating to local schools, admissions data, surplus places data and any sensible school reorganisation plans in the area. This will be done with a view to gauging whether introducing additional competition into the local area will be helpful or otherwise. Subsection (4) makes it clear that where the new school is not like for like—for example, it is the result of an amalgamation—it would also be counted as an additional school and thus caught by the requirement to evaluate the impact.
I have also tabled Amendment 7. If accepted, this will require any promoter of an academy which does not replace the maintained school—that is, a new free school—to consult those it sees fit on the issue of its proposal. As I have said, noble Lords raised concerns on Report that the requirement to consult on academy proposals, on which I brought forward an amendment at that stage, was aimed at converting schools and therefore did not capture proposals for free schools. The point was made not only by my noble friend Lord Phillips but also by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. Even though I think that a free school proposal, which will need to demonstrate parental demand and support, will by definition involve and require consultation, I accept the point of principle and believe that I have addressed it with this amendment. It replicates exactly the requirement on a governing body under new Clause 5 in that the person who is to enter into the academy arrangements with the Secretary of State must both take a view on those with whom it is appropriate to consult and consult with them on the question of whether to enter into the arrangements.
Taken together, Amendments 6 and 7 reflect the concerns that have been raised on all sides. I believe that they provide further reassurance on consultation to those noble Lords who flagged these issues on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for listening to the arguments advanced at the previous stage, with which I was involved, and for bringing forward the new provisions that meet satisfactorily the matters concerned. There is just one point on which I would be obliged for his assurance. Some noble Lords will find that the wording of subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, although it mirrors the new consultation clause, still appears somewhat subjective, requiring the people promoting the new or additional school to,
“consult such persons as the person thinks appropriate”.
It would be helpful to have in Hansard an assurance from the Minister that, in considering the impact of a new or additional school on other schools under the new impact clause, the Secretary of State will have to take a view as to whether the consultation undertaken by the promoters of the new school is adequate and sufficient in order for him or her to come to a view on whether the impact is on the right side of the line.
As I say, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that, if the Secretary of State considers that the consultation undertaken by the promoters is simply not adequate to establish whether the impact is on the right or wrong side of the line, he or she will be able to undertake further consultation as will lead to the facts that he or she must have in order to reach a proper conclusion on impact.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I pay tribute to the Minister for ceding the principle around the impact of additional schools. He has listened to the House and we are grateful to him for that. Like the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I pay particular attention to Amendment 7 and the phrase,
“a person must consult such persons as the person thinks appropriate”.
Given the excellence of the people drafting the clauses, I am sure that that is perfectly sound technically. However, it is wide in its effect. I would argue that in the case of additional schools, in particular, we have to include in that consultation the local authority and possibly the schools forum. I ask the Minister to commit to amending the Bill in the other place, particularly as he already may need to do so. If he does not like the amendment agreed earlier, that may open up the possibility that he will agree to an amendment on this.
My concern is around the funding of these additional schools and it may help your Lordships if I briefly explain how the existing funding works. The bulk of schools funding comes through the dedicated schools grant—except for academies, which are funded directly by the Secretary of State. The dedicated schools grant is then allocated by local authorities as agreed by the schools forum, which is made up of schools, pre-schools, further education colleges and other 14 to 19 providers. It is notable that the Minister does not include pre-schools in Amendment 6 and, given that under his policy academies can now include primary schools, which may be providers of pre-school education, there may be an issue about pre-schools not being consulted. However, I shall not dwell on that.
When academy arrangements are entered into, the necessary funding for the academy is taken away from the local authority’s dedicated schools grant and allocated direct to the academy. Additional schools need revenue funding, and that will come from that local authority allocation. That is why it is essential that the local authority is consulted—unless, of course, the Minister has a pot of money for revenue funding. I know that capital funding is allocated and, like other noble Lords, I have been on the web today trying to understand these issues. On the Department for Education’s website I found a press release from the Secretary of State dated 18 June in which he refers to capital funding by reallocating £50 million from the enhancing technology grant to create a standards and diversity fund. However, there is no mention of the revenue funding needed for these new schools.
The frequently-asked-questions section on free schools contains six lines outlining how much funding I will get to run my free school. That remains very vague. It states that,
“we will work with the early groups of Free Schools to develop a sustainable and fair funding model and publish further detail as it becomes available”.
Perhaps the Minister is ready to publish that further detail to help inform the debate today.
Determining the revenue of an additional school requires a prediction of pupil numbers. This then determines both how much the new school will get and how much the other schools will lose because we are working within a constrained pot—unless, of course, the Minister has his pot of gold. Can the Minister tell the House where the revenue will come from in the first few years as the additional schools are established? A modest-sized, virtually unviable, secondary school would have 400 pupils at £4,000 per head per year, which is probably lower than the current average per pupil funding. According to my calculator, that is £1.6 million of revenue funding per school in its first year of operation. We need to know where that money is going to come from.
Who agrees the predicted number of pupils for the additional school? That will have an impact on the surrounding schools because they will then know how many they are likely to lose. What form of appeal will there then be for those schools, the local authority and the schools forum, which advises on the detailed allocation to each school? What form of appeal will they have on the decision on the predicted number of pupils? Has the Minister taken legal advice on whether the current process that we are being asked to agree today is challengeable if there is no consultation with local authorities or schools forums?
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hill, on his Amendments 6 and 7. He has gone as far as he reasonably should to meet the concerns about consultation in respect of new schools. He will obviously explain his response to the particular issues to do with funding raised by my noble friend Lord Knight. I do not regard the concerns raised on other issues to be matters of substance. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was concerned that the definition of what constituted a replacement school in subsection (4) of the proposed new clause might mean that a school which just had a somewhat larger age range did not constitute a replacement school, but my reading of the amendment is that, if that were the case, it would then be a new school and so would still be subject to the consultation arrangements which are encompassed in the other amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hill. Either way, whether it constitutes a replacement school or whether it constitutes, in the wording of Amendment 6, “an additional school”, it is captured by requirements for consultation that are equivalent.
Regarding the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, about the subjective nature of the consultation, I do not read the amendment as being entirely subjective. He is the lawyer and I am not, but my reading of subsection (2) of the proposed new clause is that because the Secretary of State must take into account the likely impact of establishing the additional school on maintained schools, academies and institutions within the further education sector, he will have to be satisfied that there has been a consultation in respect of them. It would not be possible for the Secretary of State to take into account the impact on those institutions unless they had been consulted. My reading of subsection (2) of the new clause proposed by the Government’s Amendment 6 is that it substantially limits the subjective scope, because the Secretary of State would need to be satisfied that they had been consulted in order to be able to evaluate the impact.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way; he may have finished. It was precisely to elicit a clear statement along those lines that I raised that query. Being a lawyer, I think the wording as it stands leaves things a little open, hence the clarity I seek, which I hope will be given.
Lord Adonis
I had almost finished. I just wish to make one concluding point. I support the policy of new school providers getting a fair opportunity to establish new schools where there is a need for additional schools in an area, either to meet the requirement for additional school places or—to be quite frank—to meet the requirement for high-quality places where they are not being provided by existing schools. If there is to be that opportunity, it is very important that we do not tie up school promoters in red tape that will either dissuade them from coming forward with proposals in the first place or hamper them unduly when it comes to conducting their consultations. Amendment 8 states that,
“the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that relevant interested parties have been consulted”.
As soon as you put phrases like that in legislation, you guarantee a succession of legal cases as people challenge what constitute “relevant interested parties”. That would not meet the purpose, which is the provision of new schools where they are needed or will raise the quality of education in an area, so I do not believe it is desirable.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I apologise for interrupting the last gasp of the Minister’s excellent reply, but would it be fair to say that the obligation of the Secretary of State on the impact consideration is, to a significant degree, a different undertaking from the consultation to be undertaken by the promoters and that the Secretary of State will have to form his or her own judgment as to impact?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
Before the Minister responds to that point, will he also consider the points made by my noble friend Lord Knight about the impact on schools in an area? We talked about funding at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. It is a theme that has come back again and again and it is an important point. When you are looking at the impact of a new school on an educational community, funding is a key question.
Academies Bill [HL]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, it is very encouraging to see my noble friend the Minister bring forward his Amendment 30, but I join others in hoping that he may bring forward an amended version of it at the final stage of the Bill. None of these amendments, except Amendment 26—that may be inadvertent—takes account of new academies: the so-called free academy schools. All these amendments speak of the conversion of existing schools into academies.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
As I understand it, throughout the passage of the Bill, there has been no such thing as a free school; free schools are academies. I am sure that will help the noble Lord.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am grateful for the intervention but I am not sure that it does. I was merely repeating the parlance used by the Government when they talk of academy schools that are not conversions as free schools. I am merely making the point that every one of these amendments is drafted on the basis of an existing maintained school converting to an academy: except Amendment 26, which would cover new free academies, as they are called, as well as existing secondary schools. It is blazingly obvious that our consultation provisions must apply to these new academies. In fact, the need for consultation where a brand new academy springs up in an area is even more acute than when an existing school converts into an academy. I hope that the Minister will say in response to this mini debate that he will bring forward an amendment at Third Reading that includes the new academies.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Perhaps I may ask the Minister for further clarification. Does he accept that his Amendment 30 does not cover new academy schools and therefore needs to be extended?
Lord Hill of Oareford
The amendment arose out of our debate about concerns relating to the potentially large number of converting schools. With the amendment that I have tabled in response to the point made by my noble friend, I hope that we have met the concerns that were raised about the impact of free schools. A free school, which is going to have to demonstrate parental support, will, by definition, have had to carry out a large amount of consultation.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 40A and 40B and build to some extent on what the noble Lord has just said. As a long in the tooth charity lawyer, I have come to believe that the law of charity is best regulated by the Charity Commission. It may not be a perfect regulatory animal but it is, by a measure that you cannot count, more experienced in regulating charities than any of the other principal regulators. It is worth adding that charity law is one of the most difficult branches of law, as it is both a combination of common law and statute law and calls for more judgment in its application than perhaps any other branch of law. It is not textbook law.
I have heard what my noble friend the Minister has said on past occasions and I am content, despite misgivings, to go along with Clause 8, but only on condition that, if the principal regulator proves inadequate to the difficult task of regulating not only the large number of academies to come but the 200-plus academies that already exist, the Charity Commission should then be able to intervene and exercise powers.
For noble Lords who are not aware of it, I should say that the Attorney-General has jurisdiction with regard to all charities. The Minister might say that that should be enough, but the Attorney-General will not intervene other than in quite exceptional circumstances and, frankly, he is not supposed to be an alias principal regulator. The problem is that the powers in Sections 8 and 18 of the Charities Act 1993 were given to the Charity Commission to ensure that charities are charitable—and there is no more precious name or reputation in this country, I suggest, than that of charity—and can be exercised only by the Charity Commission. They cannot be exercised by a principal regulator unless that regulator asks the Charity Commission to exercise those powers on its behalf.
My Amendment 40B says that when the Charity Commission has concerns over the regulation of a principal regulator and what it is doing, or more likely not doing—in this case it will deal with the Young People's Learning Agency, because my noble friend has indicated that that is to be the regulator of academy schools—the commission will consult the principal regulator, the YPLA. If, having consulted the YPLA, it remains unhappy at what the YPLA proposes to do or not to do, having given notice to the YPLA it can institute an inquiry under Section 8 of the 1993 Act that will lead to the much wider powers that it will have under Section 18 of that Act. This is a power, a provision, that I would not expect to be exercised at all, but it is well worth having in the Bill because it may prove to be just the sort of spur that may be needed—I hope it will not—in order for the YPLA to do the job properly. That longstop—the prospect of being exposed to public ridicule and contempt by the Charity Commission having to intervene under the provisions of this subsection—would ensure, as far as anything could, that the YPLA did the job properly.
Before finishing, I would like to say a word about the YPLA. It has been in existence for just three months. Noble Lords may wonder, as I do, whether such a new organisation can possibly be in a position almost immediately—we are talking about the autumn—to undertake this huge and difficult regulatory role. People capable of exercising these powers in a knowledgeable and practical way are few and far between, and it will not be easy to put in place the team necessary to do this job properly. It must be done properly because these academy schools are hugely important in public interest terms. I am anxious that it will not be possible for them to assemble the necessary expertise to do that job, which makes my amendment all the more important.
I am also concerned, to be honest, about the potential conflict of interest that the YPLA will have. Its principal responsibilities, as made clear by the former Minister, Ed Balls, are, first, to support local authorities in commissioning suitable education and training for 16 to 19 year-olds; secondly, to fund academies; and, thirdly, to provide financial support to young learners— none of which is anything to do with the difficult regulatory function that is to be cast upon it under the Bill. I am sorry to have had to explain all that at length, but it is not easy to get across the background to and the need for this amendment.
Finally, and much more simply, my Amendment 40A adds to Clause 8 the charitable incorporated organisation alongside companies limited by guarantee as the alternative vehicle for an academy school. This charitable incorporated organisation was brought into existence by the Charities Act 2006. It is a specially tailor-made corporate animal for charities and is therefore infinitely simpler than the company limited by guarantee, which is subject to the vast forest of company law. I have no doubt that when the regulations come into effect, which will in effect give birth to these charitable incorporated organisations, all the academy schools will want to convert into that new charitable corporate vehicle. It would be remiss if we were not to include that now alongside companies limited by guarantee. I hope that both these amendments will appeal to your Lordships and indeed to my noble friend the Minister.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, I have listened to the debate on Report with even more concern than I did in Committee. I was hoping that, following meetings between noble Lords and the Minister, there would be more on offer to meet the concerns raised by the noble Lords opposite.
When thinking about this group of amendments, I had similar concerns to those of the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Phillips. I was particularly concerned about the role of the YPLA as a regulator when there are conflicts of interest and about the YPLA’s capacity to deal with this. Will the Minister tell us how many staff with charity law experience the association has in place who are ready for this retrospective legislation that will put it in charge of regulating the academies that are currently charities, if that is what is going to happen? I am very concerned about Clause 8.
This reminds me of a storyline from “Yes Minister”. When a new Government come in, officials dust down an old policy that they were not able to convince the previous Government to pursue and suddenly it finds its way into legislation. That is what appears to have happened here. When we were in government, this proposal was put to us. We listened to the concerns voiced by many and to arguments similar to those put by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and we did not pursue this approach.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, described the clause as “a dog’s dinner” and made clear his view that the regulator should be mentioned in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made the important point that the Bill would damage the “delicate balance” between,
“the many strongly held views about the charitable sector”.—[Official Report, 28/6/10; col. 1632.]
He said that this would particularly be the case in the area of education, which has been highly controversial.
The Government should tread carefully in this area. I offer the Minister some advice: it would be sensible to listen to the advice that he is being given at this Report stage and to think further about how the issue can be managed in the Bill. I do not think that it would be a good thing to go forward with this clause, as it would unsettle the settlement achieved in the Charities Act 2006, which was a well deliberated piece of legislation about a hugely controversial area. I hope that the Minister will think further about this.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I too will not pursue this matter tonight. I think that my noble friend the Minister is not right on either of the two legal points he puts forward, but we can discuss that tomorrow.
Academies Bill [HL]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) In considering an application by any person to enter into any Academy arrangements, the Secretary of State shall inter alia take into account the potential impact on schools which may be affected.”
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I am supported in my amendment by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby. This amendment, although different in terminology, covers much the same ground as what was the Amendment 4 that I moved in Committee. I do not propose to rehearse in detail the arguments that I then advanced in favour of that amendment. Suffice it to say that the nub of this amendment is to ensure that before any academy is converted from a maintained school or created completely afresh, the Secretary of State shall take a strategic view of the need for such an academy and, in particular, shall be required to consider its potential impact on other schools —plainly those in the vicinity. It is commonplace to observe that a brand new academy will have to draw its pupils from somewhere. The amendment will require the Secretary of State, in considering whether to grant a request for a school, to consider how that could impact on other good schools in the vicinity. Therefore, the amendment is bang in line with an oft repeated objective of the coalition. In the words of my right honourable friend Michael Gove, we have the most segregated education system of almost any sophisticated democratic country and we need to raise up those who go to schools in underprivileged circumstances. I pay tribute to the previous Labour Government, who strove manfully to do just that, by the creation of the first wave of academy schools.
That is the purpose of the amendment. Not to have such a vital consideration plainly and simply in the Bill would be wrong. I take into account what my noble friend Lord Hill said in Committee, namely that it was his and the Government's view that even without an amendment of this kind they would be under a duty to consider the impact of new academies on neighbouring schools. However, it is a good rule for legislators not to leave principle measures out of a Bill, not least because many of those who in future have to make the Bill work, such as headmasters, governors and local education authorities, will not have access to expert education lawyers who can pick up some of the implications that my noble friend Lord Hill rightly said were in the undergrowth of the Bill. This measure is designed to make plain what is implied.
Finally, I have drafted the amendment to make it clear that it is not the only consideration to be taken into account by the Secretary of State in considering an application for an academy school—it is one inter alia. The prospects to which the amendment relates are important, and there will be a significant number of situations where the amendment will allow sensible, long-term strategic planning of our secondary school system and of our primary school system—but particularly of our secondary school system. I hope that it will commend itself to the House and to the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, I support my noble friend, because this is a crucial amendment that would greatly strengthen the Bill if it were to go through. This is not only because a local authority has a profound responsibility in arranging for the provision of adequate education for every child in its area, but for another reason that is very close to all of us at present: namely, the financial issues facing the Department for Education and many other departments. It is to those issues that I will address a few remarks.
It is worth pointing out—I looked up the figures recently—that in primary education there are 4,000,237 places, with 482,930 surplus places unused and unfilled at present which cost the Government a good deal of money. In secondary education, the figures are slightly, but not a great deal, better. There is a surplus in secondary education of 307,712 places, which is 9 per cent of the total. In the case of primary schools, 11 per cent of all places are empty. That puts a heavy burden on those, whether they are local authorities or churches, who are responsible for running the schools. Therefore, it becomes all the more important that, in creating a new school, whether it is a converted academy or a new school altogether, careful consideration is given to the impact on the number of places already being supplied.
An academy can do one of two things: it can add to the number of schools that already exist or it can replace those that are taken out. As many noble Lords know very well—I certainly do—it is not easy to close schools. There is usually a great deal of passionate commitment to them, especially primary schools, and the procedure for church schools can be long involving dioceses, parents and others in agreeing to such a provision being made. On the coolest statistics of all—the effect of financing education by having a large number of surplus places that are then added to—it is crucial that such an amendment is accepted.
From 1999 to 2003 the birth rate in Britain fell—not hugely, but by about 40,000. Those children who are just at the age when they go to school will be entering schools with already surplus places, which will increase because of the drop in the birth rate. That change in the birth rate goes back to a modest increase in 2003-04, which means that that group of children will not be reaching school until next year. For all those reasons, therefore, I strongly urge the Government to give due consideration to my noble friend’s amendment. I hope that they will consider it and feel inclined to accept it on grounds of cohesion, the satisfaction of people involved in schools and because of the fundamental financial difficulties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, as I said in Committee when we discussed this last time, establishing new schools is, I know, what exercises my noble friends and, I think, noble Lords across the House, in particular, the new free schools, to which the noble Lord, Lord Knight, referred. I take this opportunity to welcome the noble Lord formally to this House. I hope that I made it clear in Committee that it is very much the Government’s view that the implications for other schools in an area should be considered. The amendment moved by my noble friend brings us back to that debate.
I start by thanking my noble friends Lord Phillips and Lady Williams, and other noble friends, for the time that they have spent with me on this issue. I think that it is fair to say that they accept the reassurances that I have given that the Secretary of State would certainly consider any representations from those affected by academy proposals and that he would want to support only proposals for new schools that lead to an overall improvement in provision. As I have argued to my noble friend Lord Phillips, the general requirements on the Secretary of State to act reasonably will, in our view, provide sufficient protection. That is the answer to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. We think that the protection is there.
However, I certainly accept that my noble friends Lord Phillips and Lady Williams, and other noble Lords, have made the case to me for some further reassurance in the Bill with a great deal of tenacity and great courtesy. I have listened to those concerns and, having listened to this debate today, decided to act on them. I am able to say to my noble friends Lord Phillips and Lady Williams, that I accept the purpose of their amendment in principle. I suggest that my noble friends and I talk further and return to the issue at Third Reading. I hope that that is agreeable to my noble friends and, in the mean time, I ask them to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hill and am more than happy to leave the matter today on the basis that he suggests. I look forward to an amendment coming forward at the final stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Academies Bill [HL]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, my Amendment 179 is also in this group of amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has mentioned, probably a number of us were sent them and we have used them in differing ways, but they are in fact extremely similar. My proposal is very much, as we argued in the first place, that if you have to go through a series of consultations before you take the specific step of applying properly to become an academy, the whole procedure of consulting the parents, the staff and everyone—the kitchen sink, as it were—to become an academy is the same as the procedure before you decide to come out of the process. All of that indicates the concern about the whole process. There are without doubt, as originally set out, a number of reasons why a school, having suddenly leapt to the idea that becoming an academy is definitely the way forward, might regret converting to one, so it should have the option of returning to maintained status if that is best for the education of its children.
I therefore join other noble Lords in what they have said about these amendments, and I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy us on these points.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 92 in this group. I cannot resist commenting on the fact that we have been in debate on the Bill for 20 hours and are still only on Clause 2. That says something about the drafting. My amendment covers a simple point. I suspect that the Minister will say that the amendment is unnecessary, but it makes clear that the seven years’ period of notice the Secretary of State can give under Clause 2(2) in relation to payments to an academy may be given at any time. It follows a well worn precedent in normal law of contract, but if he assures the Committee that it is superfluous, so be it.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, I make a brief intervention on the group of amendments concerned with reversion to maintained status. What I am looking for is clarification on the consequences, intended or unintended, of any of these amendments in the case of an academy that had formerly been a church school or a school of particular religious character. Is there a clear intention here that such academies should revert to that form of status, and if so, to what extent in any of these amendments is that intention secured? Moreover, in the provisions that require consultation, in the case of church schools should there not be explicit consultation with diocesan boards of education or their equivalents, for whom such a reversion would have resource implications?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I shall speak also to Amendment 167. Amendment 161 is jointly in the name of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, and Amendment 167 is jointly in the names of my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lady Williams of Crosby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote.
As my noble friend the Minister referred to Baldrick, I think that he will sympathise if I say that Clause 8 could have been drafted by Monty Python himself. It is a dog’s dinner. Quite why we have to have this new definition of “academy proprietors” when the first five clauses make no reference to academy proprietors and they make only a desultory appearance in Clause 6 and a latter-day appearance in Clause 7, I do not quite know. It does not seem to me to be worth its presence in the Bill, which is complicated enough already.
I shall briefly deal with Amendment 161. I am a little shy about proposing it at 11 o’clock at night, but I shall nevertheless do so briefly. The use of the word “proprietor” is unhappy, given that all these academies can only be charities and that the word “proprietor” has an almost aggressively private ring about it, a ring of ownership. If you look up the definition, all its resonances and ring are about personal, private ownership. I am not expecting the Minister to make any concession on this tonight, but if he reflects on this and thinks that the word “operator” would be more in tune with the culture of the Bill, so much the better. The language of Bills can often be quite important in the way they are understood by the public afterwards.
I turn to the heart of this group: Amendment 167. It deletes subsection (4) of Clause 8 which states that all academy proprietors—to use the language of the clause—shall be exempt charities. I know that my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts will argue in the next group along the lines that I now do—it is nice to be in harness with him again and to see the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, o’er yonder because we battled it out for a year over the Charities Bill in 2006. The question of who regulates this new breed of schools is vital. I am entirely happy that the Bill makes clear that all these academies are to be charities—indeed I would have been frantic if it had not.
However, as we in this House know only too well, charities are both highly privileged entities in the national legal fauna and have very considerable tax and other advantages over any other sort of legal animal. Because of that and their ancient nature, and because they are at the heart of civic society and our wonderful voluntary movement, they need to be and, indeed, are specially regulated. It is also fair to say that the law of charity is very particular and complex and requires more judgment on the part of those who apply it than most other parts of our law. It is no accident that the Charity Commission was established in the first half of the 19th century and has maintained to this day its pre-eminent—indeed, almost absolutist—role with regard to the oversight of charity activity and, starting at the beginning, of charity registration.
Therefore, it was with some alarm that I read the Bill and saw that academies were to be exempt charities because, as many Members of your Lordships' House will know, that means that they are taken out of Charity Commission regulation. It is particularly odd on two grounds. First, schools and other educational establishments used to be regulated by what was then called the Department for Education and Science, but that special possession was taken from it and put back into the responsibility of the Charity Commission many years ago.
The second oddity is that existing academies are subject to the regulation of the Charity Commission. I understand that there was a little brouhaha when at first it was suggested that the regulation should not be with the Charity Commission, but that was overcome and the academies remain subject to the oversight and regulation of the Charity Commission. It is worth pointing out that the DCSF, in its guidance to academy schools which it issued less than a year ago, makes very plain why the Charity Commission rather than anyone else is to regulate them. The reason is principally to ensure that academies that are charities must remain charities with the essential attribute of charitable status, which is independence, above all things.
Although the Government will rightly claim that one of the great virtues of the new wave of academies is to be more independent—I do not for a minute suggest that my noble friend the Minister has any other thoughts in his mind—sometimes things can occur that are not intended when one is legislating, and we must be absolutely sure that the independence of new academies, over and against local education authorities for example, is not replaced by subservience to the Government of the day. That is the principal benefaction, if I can use that word, of charitable status, which is why the Charity Commission goes to great lengths to ensure that academy schools are properly independent of government.
The Government say in their guidance that the agreement must be reached after,
“arm’s-length negotiations with the governmental authority”,
and that the trustees of an academy school must not,
“commit themselves simply to giving effect to the policies and wishes of the governmental authority”.
Finally, the trustees cannot agree to allow the governmental authority,
“to decide who is to benefit and in what way … However … it is possible for trustees to accept funding from a governmental authority on terms that are quite prescriptive”.
That gives you a flavour of this long document.
My amendment, which is supported by my noble friends, would bring the regulation back into the hands of the Charity Commission. I do not seek that for any other reason than that it has the experience and expertise to do this job not only better than any other regulating authority but, dare I say it, with less bureaucratic stumbling than might be the case if the regulation were moved to—what is it called these days? Is it still the DCSF?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am sorry. I have got the abbreviation wrong. I am well behind. On utilitarian grounds, and on the grounds of the most effective regulation, the Charity Commission should not be ousted in the way it is in subsection (4).
I also need to say this. The Charity Commission could not take on the role of regulating the new academies unless it was given more staff—it is currently losing nearly 60 staff. Whoever is given the task of regulation will have to have the necessary staff, and any regulating hand will have to have more staff than the Charity Commission, because the Charity Commission has resort to a huge reservoir of experience, expertise and assistance. Noble Lords may ask who will regulate. That is the problem. The Government say that the Charity Commission is not the regulator, but there is nothing in the Bill about who they wish to be the regulator.
Let us concede for the minute that they insist on a different regulator, although I hope the Minister will have second thoughts about that. There are very few examples of other principal regulators. Most of our big national museums are regulated by DCMS, while Kew Gardens is regulated by Defra. Some of the universities are regulated by HEFCE, and some housing associations have a separate principal regulator. There has to be a principal regulator, and if I may say, the principal regulator in the case of the universities has delegated much of its regulatory function to the Charity Commission under a memorandum of understanding. So it all gets a bit confusing and, I would say, wasteful.
I end by saying that, whatever else, we must have the name of regulator on the face of such an important Bill as this. It is not enough for the Government to use their powers to appoint a principal regulator by secondary legislation. We all know how futile are the powers of this and the other place in relation to secondary legislation. We ought at least to have the possibility of commenting on the appropriateness and quality of the principal regulator the Government have in mind in order to assist them.
Finally, why on earth are the Government doing this? I hope it is not because they want to whip these academies through without the careful initial oversight of the arrangements, particularly of the new academies, that the Charity Commission could and will provide. I hope that the Government are not hoping that this will rush things through. If that is the case, they could repent at leisure. I beg to move.
Viscount Eccles
My Lords, I will not make any long arguments. My noble friend Lord Phillips has referred to museums and to Kew, but I think that, although the secondary legislation to appoint a charitable regulator other than the Charity Commission is in draft, it has not yet been triggered. I think that the matter is still in limbo.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I deeply regret having mentioned Baldrick. I am learning as I go and I shall attempt to be more concise in future.
I shall attempt to respond to some of the broad points that have been made and the specific concerns that have been raised. I am conscious of the expertise that resides with both my noble friends, so I think that the sensible way forward, if they are prepared to spend the time, is for me and officials to sit down with them and go through these points in more detail, taking advantage of their knowledge and trying to address some of the points that have been raised.
Perhaps I may respond in general terms to the main thrust of the points made around Amendment 167, which would remove the provision for academy trusts to be exempt charities. The effect of that, as my noble friend made clear, would be that they would have to continue, as now, to register individually with, and be regulated by, the Charity Commission. As we discussed earlier, hundreds of maintained schools may apply to become academies during the next few years and, as charities, they would, if not exempted under subsection (4), all have to be regulated by the Charity Commission. That would clearly be a huge additional burden. I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Phillips that whoever does it will have to deal with it, but I believe that the Charity Commission accepts that the burden of taking on that regulatory role would be considerable.
A range of educational bodies are exempt charities. Further education colleges and higher education colleges are exempt charities and not regulated by the Charity Commission. The governing bodies of foundation and voluntary schools are shortly, following discussion and agreement between the Charity Commission and the department, to become exempt charities as well. They will cease to be regulated by the Charity Commission and will be regulated by the department instead. We therefore thought that academies could be treated consistently with these other schools and educational bodies and be made exempt in the same way.
I know well that the Charity Commission is committed to ensuring that proper public accountability for academies is maintained. It is our intention that funding agreements or grant arrangements should place an obligation on academy trusts to publish their governing documents, reports, accounts and the names of trustees. I hope that that offers the noble Lord at least some reassurance that there would not be an unacceptable reduction in accountability and transparency.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office has agreed in principle that the YPLA should be appointed as the principal regulator for academies. That is the government body with day-to-day responsibility for academies. Once opened, it could be the appropriate body to carry out that role. I am told in response to a point raised in the debate that all principal regulators appointed under the 2006 Act have been appointed under secondary legislation.
I hope that my answers have provided at least some factual information. However, having listened to the debate, I repeat my invitation to my noble friends Lord Phillips and Lord Hodgson to spare the time to sit down with me and discuss these matters at greater length. I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister cannot be fairer than that. I am tempted to make some comments of my own on some of his, but that would be wicked, cruel and unnecessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
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]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for moving this interesting amendment. My default position when I first read it was that it was completely opposed to what the whole Bill is trying to do: to free up Ofsted inspectors so that they do not spend endless amounts of time visiting schools that are simply outstanding across the board but devote that time to schools that are failing in some areas so that those schools can be given greater attention and support. I take the point made by my noble friend Lady Perry, but that was very much where I was coming from.
When I heard the debate, however, I began to move towards seeing a couple of problems that need to be explored. I wonder whether part of the solution, which probably needs to be developed a little further, should not be the partnering of a highly successful school, which is enabled to become an academy, with a failing school. What would be the format of that relationship? Could the successful school assess and supervise the failing school in the interim?
Then there is the role of the governing bodies. Often very little is said about them, but under the new arrangements they will have hugely more power, authority and responsibility. How much training are they given? When one becomes a non-executive director of a firm, there are often lots of training courses about your duties, statutory responsibilities, the pertinent questions to ask and what you should look out for. The head teacher on the first governing body of which I was a member absolutely insisted that there was never any need for a member of the governing body to come to assemblies or to visit any of the classrooms, as that was way beyond their remit. Later on academy boards, I found that the head teachers of good, successful schools went out of their way to encourage governors to experience classroom teaching, to sit in the staffroom and to talk to teachers. Do people actually know this?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Does he accept that his personal experience may not be universal? As one who has had a series of non-executive directorships over the past 30 years and has served on a number of school governing bodies, I must confess that the picture he draws is not that of my experience.
Lord Bates
I defer to my noble friend’s experience, but bodies such as the Institute of Directors put on training courses and provide structured guidance for directorships, so I wonder what the equivalent is for governing bodies? Is there a body which fulfils this role?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, the noble Lord is referring to the 10 per cent based on aptitude, which is a different paradigm—I am not sure whether that is the right word. These are probing amendments and I want to hear what the coalition Government’s intentions are on selection. I am sure that we will all be interested to know.
As with the discussion on the admissions code earlier in Committee, Amendments 130 and 183 will reassure those who are concerned that schools could convert under existing admissions procedures—which may erode over time—with no statutory safeguard against it. Many people outside the Chamber are asking these questions. The amendments would ensure that, in future, no non-selective school could use academy status to become selective.
Indeed, others have expressed this concern from another perspective. The Guardian newspaper reported the views of the National Grammar Schools Association. It stated in regard to academies:
“There may be other covert dangers and, until everything is made clear in the area of legislation and elsewhere, we strongly recommend extreme caution. If necessary, please seek advice from the NGSA before making decisions that may later threaten your school”.
The head of the NGSA said he was concerned that if a grammar school became an academy, it could then be run by a small group of people who might decide to change the admissions procedure. The article continued:
“‘What is the protection for the parents?’, he asked. ‘Does there have to be a ballot? Does it become an all-ability intake?’”
The National Grammar Schools Association is unclear about the coalition Government’s intentions. I should be extremely grateful if the Minister could set out, with great clarity, their vision for the future of selection in academies.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 43 and 46. I can address them briefly because I agree overwhelmingly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, has said. It is recognised that in part of the coalition at least—I hope in the whole of the coalition—there is a quiet passion to ensure that the extension of the academy principle, which is strongly supported all around the House, should not inadvertently become a cause of further problems for the least privileged part of our secondary education system. As the noble Baroness said, all the amendments, including mine, are designed to obtain from the Minister a “battened down” statement, if you like, that will allay these anxieties.
On Amendment 43, and wearing my lawyer’s hat, a characteristic in subsection (1)(6)(c) is that,
“the school provides education for pupils of different abilities”.
A lawyer could make hay with “different abilities”. It could be that a school would satisfy this test if in future it was going to select the top 10 per cent and the second top 10 per cent. They would be of “different abilities”. It could pass the test if it were to select the top 5 per cent and those with tap-dancing abilities. Those would be “different abilities”. I caricature my point to make it, but I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I will come on to deal with that, if I may. If it would be helpful, I am happy to set out in writing for the noble Baroness as clearly as I am able what I consider the safeguards to be. I recognise that many people are concerned about this point, and I want to try to nail that down for her.
As would currently be the case with any proposals for expansion of a grammar in the maintained sector, local groups would have to be consulted before any expansion, and that would persist with academies. We will continue to ensure that the proportion of selective places in partially selective academies does not increase.
Amendment 43 would make it a condition of being an academy that it provided for children of all abilities as opposed to children of different abilities, the point that my noble friend Lord Phillips raised.
If we were to accept Amendment 43, I am advised that national testing would be necessary to ensure that academies all had intakes of all abilities across the country and admissions would have to be manipulated to ensure that all abilities were represented. We do not think that that is proportionate; maintained schools are not required to go as far. There will be circumstances where those who apply for admission to a particular academy do not represent all abilities, although they would represent a wide range of different abilities representative of the area.
Amendment 132 would require academies to provide for children of different academic abilities as opposed to children of different abilities. Section 99 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 defines “ability” as
“either general ability or ability in any particular subject or subjects”.
It is clear, in our view, that what is meant by “pupils of different abilities” within Clause 1(6) is the meaning that is already established within legislation: pupils with a range of different general abilities or achievements. This interpretation is supported by the relief from this duty in Clause 5(3) for existing grammar schools wishing to convert to become academies. Such a relief would not be necessary if “ability” did not encompass academic ability.
Amendments 46, 59, 131 and 183 would require any existing maintained grammar school or partially selective school to remove its selective admissions arrangements on conversion to academy status. To deny existing selective schools these freedoms, or to require them fundamentally to change their nature before being granted them, seems to be unreasonable.
Amendment 130 seeks to prevent any non-selective school that converts to become an academy from acquiring selective admission arrangements after conversion. On that point, I reassure noble Lords that Clauses 1(6)(c), 5(3) and 5(4) of the Bill prevent academies from selecting by academic ability, except where a maintained school with pre-existing academic selection converts to become an academy.
I should be clear that the only schools that will be able to select by ability are those listed in Clause 5(4). As the schools defined as “selective” within that clause do not include independent schools, any independent schools joining the academies sector will also not be able to select by academic ability.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Will my noble friend be open to at least thinking about a rewording of Clause 1(6)? He made a fair point about my amendment, but wording that is more clearly contrary to selection could be put in that subsection instead. That would resolve a miasma of anxiety around the Committee.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I understand that miasma of anxiety. I am due to meet my colleague shortly, and perhaps that is another issue that we can add to our list of issues to discuss.
As I said, I think it would be helpful if I set this out clearly in writing; as I go through this, I am conscious that some of it is quite technical. I shall write to the noble Baroness and put copies in the Library, and I hope that will help. In the mean time, in light of the explanation and the reassurance that I have sought to give, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Academies Bill [HL]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, unless the Minister is dead keen to answer points raised on the amendments so far, I remind him that Amendment 64 is part of the group. Would he like me to withhold my comments?
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
I am happy to say to the noble Baroness that there is no back door, but I take her point and will of course reflect on what she said.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Can the Minister confirm that the proposition is that night classes do not constitute education provided at the school but are caught by the phrase, “attendance at … the school”? If that is so, I do not get it. At least the Minister might clarify that.
Lord Hill of Oareford
As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the intention is clear. I take on board the point made by my noble friend about the need for clarity. I will reflect on that.
Academies Bill [HL]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I rise to speak to three amendments tabled in my name: Amendments 10, 95 and 120A. I am hopeful that the first two at least may improve the drafting of the Bill, though it could be that the Minister will in response say that what I think is set out in the Bill is not as I think it is.
A grouping of this size, which deals with many different, technical and difficult points, is not a way to legislate. I do not know how Members of the Committee can possibly follow a grouping of this scope and technicality. I hope that in future stages of the Bill the groupings will enable Peers who are not experts in education law—and even those who are—to follow more reasonably.
Amendment 10 seeks to insert in Clause 1(3) the phrase,
“(as may from time to time be amended by them)”.
This is an attempt to make clear that the academy agreement between the Secretary of State and the other party should be defined not only as the initial agreement but as an agreement which may be amended by them consensually from time to time. I hope that that is helpful, because without those words we might run into trouble.
Amendment 95 seeks to amend Clause 2(4), which entitles the Secretary of State to indemnify those running an academy if the agreement is terminated. The amendment simply adds the word “reasonable” before “expenditure” so that the indemnity would be in respect of reasonable expenditure. Paragraphs (a) and (b) then refer to what the indemnity may relate to. It is a prudent provision because without it lavish and unnecessary expenditure would be indemnified, and that cannot be right.
Amendment 120A seeks to amend Clause 4, which deals with academy orders. I have tabled the amendment for clarification because I do not understand what the words at the end of subsection (3)—
“or a school that replaces it”—
mean, or are intended to mean. Are they intended to cover new free schools? I do not think they are because the whole of Clause 4 is confined to existing secondary schools converting into academies.
Lord Lucas
I shall speak to my Amendments 31 and 34 in this very diverse group. Amendment 31 proposes that,
“substantial freedom is given to the school to innovate”.
When I am going round schools I notice how hidebound they are by the restrictions that are placed on them in trying new things. Although the previous Government introduced an ability to innovate, it was subject to applications in triplicate to the Secretary of State and an extraordinarily cumbersome procedure. I hope we will now see a pronouncement in favour of innovation. I suggest that where a school does innovate it is merely necessary to inform the Secretary of State that this has happened—this becomes a risk factor for Ofsted in its decision on when and where to inspect—and that there is a requirement on the school to keep proper records so that the benefits or otherwise of the innovation can be judged in subsequent years. The whole tenor should be in favour of innovation. There are many good and experienced teachers out there who are capable of doing a great deal of good for the system if we let them have a go.
On Amendment 34, one of the good things to come out of the past 13 years of government was an increasing interest in schools co-operating with each other. Neighbouring schools will always be a little at loggerheads, but there are good examples—both those induced by the Government and those that have occurred privately—of schools forming networks to share problems and good practice and generally to get together and get beyond the confines of what is possible within a school, particularly a primary school. I am thinking particularly of the transition from primary to secondary and how schools can work together. There have been some excellent examples of that and I would not like the process of becoming an academy to be seen as an excuse to be isolated and a star on your own. It ought to be a process of becoming more co-operative and more linked into schools generally.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, would it help the Minister and the Committee if I were to say that the score is England 1, Slovenia 0?
The Earl of Listowel
I apologise if this has already been covered but the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, pointed out that the academy schools will have considerable additional funds. I am sure that we will have discussed this; it is something that I should have given more attention to sooner. Could the Minister, in replying or in correspondence, give as much detail as possible on exactly how much academies can expect to be given? That would be helpful. I thank the Minister.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Perhaps the noble Baroness will explain. Under existing arrangements for a current secondary school with a religious identity, surely, the principle that she wishes to apply to academies is present in existing maintained schools.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
Perhaps I could come on to that in what I am about to say, but if the noble Lord still wishes to ask questions perhaps I or someone else can respond to them.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I may surprise the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, by saying that I know Brockdish extremely well. The Church of England did not only provide the village school. There was also a church house at the end of the churchyard which, for a long time, was the best eating place in the whole of Suffolk. So we should be grateful to the Church of England on more than one score.
I take a pragmatic view of church schools. The fact is that the Church of England and many other faiths have provided this country with invaluable educational opportunities. It is worth recollecting that the Church of England used the initial academy legislation to plunge into some of the worst, most deprived parts of the whole kingdom. These were not elite schools truckling to snobbism. The church went straight in where the need was greatest and the schools exemplified the church’s values.
I confess to being a rather perspiring Anglican myself. However, it would be a bizarre act of folly to make life more difficult for any faith. It would be nice—I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey—to see the humanists setting up a few schools. I would be jolly happy about that. But it would be bizarre, would it not, to make life more difficult for the faiths? They have to scrimp and save and work hard to establish and maintain faith schools. People come to them not unwillingly and reluctantly because they are the only school in an area, but precisely because they provide an ethical framework that the parents, even if they are not of that faith, respect and admire.
I am perfectly happy to support the amendment proposed by my noble friend. I do not see anything wrong with withdrawing children from acts of worship. However, the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, seems to me destructive. I am sure that that is unintentional. As I understand it, her amendment would mean that an existing state school converting to an academy would not, on conversion, have the religious character that it had before conversion. That is the essence of her amendment. I see no reason for it; it would be a discouragement to the continuance and creation of new faith schools. What is more, the simple effect of her amendments would be that no church school—or faith school, since one must not always talk of church—would convert if it could not carry through in the conversion the same religious character as it had been founded for and run in pursuance of. That would stultify the good aspects of this Bill. Surely, there is no earthly point in doing that.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
Would the noble Lord accept two things? First, would he accept that the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, supported my amendment and was relevant to what he is saying? Secondly, would he accept that a faith school or religious school should have to adhere to a national curriculum?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I must confess that I was not aware that that was the purport of the noble Baroness’s amendment. However, off the top of my head I would say that I think that those schools should.
Baroness Murphy
The noble Lord is raising an issue about pupils. He implied that the important thing about many of our religious schools or faith schools at the moment is that they have an open selection policy. That seems to me utterly crucial. The possibility of people of all faiths sending children to schools whose ethos and culture they like is one thing. It is certainly the case with most of the Anglican schools, some Catholic schools and some Jewish schools. However, it is not the case with many schools set up recently, such as some Christian fanatically evangelical schools, some Catholic schools and a majority of the Islamic schools, although some Islamic schools are inclusive. The point is about the selection of pupils. There is a highly concentrated, exclusive quality to some of our schools, which causes me anxiety.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I have no wish, in what I am saying, to stray at all from the current arrangements for the pupil composition of church schools, which seem to me on the whole sensible, undogmatic and tolerant. Indeed, in the village of Brockdish and every village that I know of, of course schools do not discriminate on admissions. What the noble Baroness refers to is a very small number, as I understand it, of extremely zealous schools. I have no means of knowing whether she is right or wrong but, if she is right, that is something that we should address specifically. However, to mark the whole of the church school sector, which includes thousands of excellent schools, as carrying the imprint of the excesses of the tiny number that she is talking about and amending the legislation on that basis seems to me counterproductive.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
We should all be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. He admitted his faith and I shall admit mine—I, too, am an Anglican. He has put forward a sensible approach on all this. The Church of England is part of the history of this country and part of the way in which this country has developed. It is perfectly sensible to want more Anglican schools—and schools of different forms of faith—to be set up. I certainly hope that the vast majority of them will apply the same open conditions of selection as apply to all maintained schools.
This is all crucial in what we are trying to achieve, which is better standards of education for all. I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, that if humanism is a faith, belief or whatever she wants to call it, it is possible to set up schools along those lines. I totally agree that humanism has an ethical base and I would expect just that.
At this stage, I will take a different line. I come back to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about what was understood under the Equality Act. I want to be absolutely certain that there is agreement. There was endless debate in your Lordships’ Chamber on this. There was agreement but it was not satisfactory to all sides. However, we all agreed to accept it. Any diversion from that in how staff are appointed or promoted would be very much a backward step. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us. It is a difficult and emotional subject for most of us, but I am sure that there will be a way for him to deal with it.
Lord Greaves
I shall also speak to Amendment 58. In doing so I am conscious that we are about two and three-quarter hours into day 2 and still on page 1 of the Bill. I shall try to be brief, which is always difficult for people like me. I am also conscious that we are moving from matters of deep philosophical and religious belief on to the meaning of words, where some of us are a bit more at home perhaps.
This amendment seeks to delete the description of an academy as “an independent school” in subsection 5(a). Subsection (4) refers to financial agreements and academy financial assistance requiring undertakings from the persons setting up an academy, or converting. Subsection 5(a) states:
“The undertakings are … to establish and maintain an independent school in England”.
My eyebrows raised a little when I saw “independent” because I think that it is the wrong word. My noble friend Lady Walmsley suggests that I said that “autonomous” was a better word. I am sure that she is right although I do not remember doing so. Independent schools are a well established and well understood part of the education system. Most people who go to those schools pay fees and they are within the independent sector.
I do not believe that academies will be independent schools because they are a sector of education on their own. They are different from local authority-maintained schools and from independent schools. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells suggested that schools becoming academies would enter the independent sector. I do not believe that that is true—academies will not be the same as independent schools as we know them, whether they are small and local or places like Eton and Harrow. It therefore seems to me that “independent” is the wrong word. I notice that the Labour Party has tabled a similar amendment which appears in a later group. It suggests that the term should be deleted and another put in its place.
The truth is that academies will be schools with considerably greater freedoms and abilities to run their own affairs—their own finances, staffing and curriculum—than existing maintained schools have. However, they will be directly funded by the state, so to that extent they will be state schools. He who pays the piper has the ability to choose the tune. The intention is that these academies will have a great deal of freedom to make decisions for themselves, but the state will always have the ability to step in if for whatever reason it decides to do so.
That relates to academies and to individual schools. Indeed, if there are to be a large number of academies, there will be occasions—perhaps quite a few—when the state in some way or another will have to step in to sort things out when they go wrong. There is absolutely no doubt about that because, however excellent and well run academies may be when they are set up, they will be run by human beings who make mistakes. Collectively, human beings sometimes make big mistakes. Academies will not be responsible directly to local authorities, but they will be responsible directly to the Secretary of State or through whatever mechanisms are set up to inspect, monitor and supervise them and to step in when things go wrong. To that extent, they will have a completely different regime from independent schools. I therefore think that “independent” is being inserted not as a name for the schools—it is not suggested that they are independent in the way that true independents schools are—but as a description. However, it is a wrong description and it ought not to appear.
Amendment 58 is a probing amendment about primary schools. It suggests that primary schools should not at this stage be included in the dash to academies. It seems to me that in many ways primary schools are different in kind from secondary schools. Usually, secondary schools are much bigger and much more capable of running their own affairs. They are usually under Local Management of Schools, which has in my view been a considerable success. They are already responsible for managing considerable aspects of their budget and management arrangements. They certainly have considerably more freedom than they did when I used to teach in a secondary school, and it is right that they should. Primary schools have those freedoms, but often they rely much more on support and advice from the local authority. Primary schools are often small, and although some of them could manage as academies, a great deal more thought should be put into the matter. As we discussed on Monday, if primary schools are to be considered for academy status, the process should at the very least proceed by way of a pilot and not as a general invitation for all excellent ones to put themselves forward.
As we are talking about names, I quibble a little about “academy” as a name for primary and infant schools. The word is wrong. I believe that words matter and should be used sensibly and that another word should be used here. “Academy” suggests a level of academic involvement and attainment which, although appropriate for a secondary school, is not appropriate for much younger children.
There is also a problem in allowing primary schools in many areas to have academy freedoms from the local authority in a willy-nilly sort of way. Many primary schools, particularly in urban areas, are still in old buildings. There have been programmes of replacement and modernisation—many of them were in wonderful Victorian buildings, many of which are no longer appropriate for their modern use. If a local authority is to have a serious programme of replacing buildings and considering the provision of primary schools, allowing some of them to float off before the programme can be fully examined across an area, town or city seems to carry problems. Furthermore, because primary schools are small they are much more prone to the vagaries of falling and increasing rolls than are secondary schools. These problems have to be managed carefully. Although there are problems with academies being set up in areas where reorganisation in response to changes in rolls has taken place, or is likely to take place, the issue is likely to be much greater in relation to primary education.
It seems to me that there are many worries in relation to primary schools and the academies programme which ought to be looked at seriously. The greatest of all is that primary schools are small institutions, often ones that live in a world of their own. When the head teacher and the staff are successful and the governing body works well, it is wonderful; but if things go wrong, they often will go wrong in a very big way indeed. If the head teacher goes off the rails in some way or other, the governing body, having been hand-picked by him or her, may not be in a position to step in and do something drastic about the management of the school. It is a fact of life that nowadays people are arm-twisted and persuaded to serve as governors—it is the way that many governing bodies are put together. The school might go wrong educationally, financially or in terms of staff management. That happens.
Anyone who has followed schools in an area over a period will know of instances where a school has gone wrong. If it is a big secondary school, one can understand that the system of monitoring and supervision of academies may work and set in, but when it is a small local school, it will be much more difficult and, potentially, much more damaging to the education of the children in that school. There are serious problems about allowing a lot of primary schools to become academies. At the very least, the Government ought to be conducting some pilots to see whether they work and perhaps go ahead on the basis that some or all of the primary schools in an appropriate place become academies together, so that at least people are working together in a federation, a network, or whatever, rather than just allowing individual primary schools, which may be quite small, to opt out. I therefore commend my second amendment for discussion by your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
In this group of 22 amendments, I shall speak to Amendments 22A and 23, with which my noble friend Lady Walmsley is associated. The first amendment would insert the little word “and” at the end of Clause 1(5)(b). The purpose of that is to make it plain that the undertakings which must be given for an academy agreement to be entered into are both of the matters referred to in subsection (5)—paragraphs (a) and (b). The word “and” would fulfil exactly the same purpose there as it does in subsection (3), where paragraphs (a) and (b) are linked. It is as simple as that.
My second amendment, Amendment 23, would delete from Clause 1(5)(b) the words,
“or provide for the carrying on of”.
That would mean that the undertakings require the undertaker to carry on the school, rather than to delegate the running of the school to someone else. It would be a bit of a hole in the carapace of the Bill to allow anyone to take over the carrying on—the running—of a school from the charity which had negotiated the academy arrangements with the Minister. I cannot believe that the intent is to permit that, because it would mean that there was no control by the Minister over the ultimate organisation running the school. One could envisage—because it does not seem to be prohibited by that wording—a profit-making entity running the school. That would run counter to the whole culture of the Bill, and state schools of whatever type. I would be grateful if my noble friend would respond sympathetically to those amendments.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton
I shall speak to Amendment 25 in this group, which probably should have been taken with an earlier amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—I do not know why they have been separated. The aim of the amendment is simple, and I shall be brief: it is to get a little more push in making sure that we have a little more than warm words about outstanding schools that become academies, that we have a little more clarity and a little more than general good will about them giving genuine support to poor, disadvantaged and failing schools in the same area. I have heard what the Minister said and I generally share the approach that schools want to help each other, but if we think back to the reality of grant-maintained schools, that was not the case and they were separate from the local school community.
Noble Lords know that over the past 13 years, there has been a lot more co-operation and collaboration between schools. That has been for the general good and has led to improvements in all schools. Many head teachers of outstanding schools believe that their staff gain from helping disadvantaged schools. The learning is both ways: it is not all going in one direction, it genuinely moves both ways. However, that has happened with support. It has happened through things such as London Challenge and the Greater Manchester Challenge; it has happened through the national leaders’ programme, which has done some of the brokerage to ensure that people are working together, and has put some oil in the system to make that happen. I am anxious to ensure that we do not lose that lesson—that it does not happen spontaneously—and that there is genuine partnership and proper movement of curriculum leaders and senior leaders between schools. Otherwise, with the best will in the world, it will not turn into reality on the ground.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Can the Minister put it more clearly? Is he saying that the amendment is superfluous because the two paragraphs are both applicable to the undertakings?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I think that that is what I am saying. I am particularly nervous with my noble friend Lord Phillips because I know that he is an expert on every aspect of charity law. If I am wrong and I have misled him, I shall clarify that with him.
Amendment 23 would restrict the ability of academy trusts to use contractors to deliver particular aspects of the running of the academy, including, for instance, cleaning services or the provision of ICT. One would want academies to be able to contract out such services, rather than teachers and heads having to take responsibility for them. If maintained schools are able to contract out services in this way, why should not academies?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I apologise for interrupting again. I know that it is hard on the Minister, who has this huge group of amendments to deal with. These are nitty-gritty points, but the natural meaning of,
“to carry on, or provide for the carrying on of, the school”,
is not that the proprietor of the school should employ external cleaners or providers of this or that. In common parlance, the carrying on of a school surely means the running of a school. Will the Minister take further counsel on this and, in the light of that counsel, consider the amendment again?
Lord Hill of Oareford
That is clearly the purpose and a new academy set up by a parental group may well need a significant amount of educational support in delivering it. I think that that is the point that my noble friend Lord Phillips raised when he spoke to his amendment. As part of the process of applying for academy status, the applicant would have to demonstrate how education is going to be delivered and whether use will be made of outside services in so doing. It would all be considered as part of the application process.
Academies Bill [HL]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morris of Yardley
My Lords, this is an interesting debate that has raised important issues. Legal status and legal titles are exactly that, but at the end of the day they are not the mark of success or failure in our education system. We may disagree on whether legal status is the measure that raises standards or whether it is something other than that. I very much agree with the previous speaker that standards are raised through the quality of teaching and of leadership rather than through legal status or title. However, whatever the relevant legal status was under the previous Government, the fact was that most of the effort and resources were put into the areas of greatest deprivation. I believe that is what academies should do. Once you spread the size of the club, you make it less special and you are not able to devote the same expertise to the schools that need it most. That is the decision that the Government have to make. In that respect, I wish to ask a very specific question about the impact assessment. On page two, it is estimated that over four years the net benefit will be £1.72 billion. I am surprised at that. The relevant figure is £282 million a year. The impact assessment states:
“Benefits are in terms of the increase in estimated lifetime earnings of the additional number of pupils attending academies and obtaining improved GCSE results … Evidence for impact of academies on pupil attainment is based on evidence from academies that opened before 2006”.
I find that very strange and would welcome an explanation of it. The schools that became academies before 2006 were situated in challenging areas. They were often failing schools that were letting down very bright students. The minute they got the chance, their grades improved, and over 12 to 24 months some schools went from fewer than 20 per cent of their pupils getting five A to C grades to as high a figure as 40, 50 or 60 per cent. The Government have decided to concentrate their effort, time and resources on outstanding schools, which may already have 90 per cent of their pupils getting five A to C grades, including English. Given that evidence, I am surprised at the impact assessment and the amount of money that is quoted. The maximum improvement that schools could make would be to increase from 90, 91 or 92 per cent to 100 per cent of all pupils. I like to think that I am an optimist in life, but I am surprised at how that could create a net benefit to the Exchequer and the nation of £1.72 billion over four years.
I have a further question on that. The figures relate to lifetime earnings. What measures or mechanisms are Ministers using, and in which years of these young peoples’ lives might that money accrue to the Treasury?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I should like to make some points which are, I am afraid, against the group of amendments. I accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has a certain logic on her side, but I do not like the logic. I rather take the point made by the right reverend Prelate—at least I think it was his point—that, whereas academies hitherto have been for underachieving and underprivileged communities, henceforth they will, as far as I can see, be at the other end of the educational spectrum. I actively dislike the prospect that they would be called something different, as if to emphasise that they are of a different “class”—a ghastly word. I like the idea of these posh new future academies being linked to the existing ones.
I endorse entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said. So often in this Chamber we underestimate or forget how our legislation will impact in the real world. We underestimate the effect of the mishmash of new names caused by our astonishing excess of legislation and constant wish to change and refine. For goodness’ sake, let us not create another category of schools.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, much as I admire—and I really do admire—the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the considerable strides made on education by the previous Government, we all should admit that whichever Government have been in power—the previous Government and the Government immediately previous to them—we have not achieved the best education for all our children. That is the aim we should go for. I am delighted that we have had this debate. I did not consider that it would begin our debates on the Bill, but it has totally confirmed my view that, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, we need to get away from this mishmash—this alphabet soup, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, called it—and stick to one name. Then we can get on with the business of looking at the many detailed amendments which will ensure that the Bill will achieve its purpose. We should vote here and now for the use of the name “academies”—and no other name for the way forward.
Academies Bill [HL]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) If the Academy arrangements are entered into other than in relation to a maintained school converted into an Academy, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the new Academy meets a public need in the area concerned and will not cause undue detriment to any neighbouring school.”
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, this is a broadly good Bill, but in boldly extending academy status from underachieving schools to any school, we must surely ensure that the Bill does not inadvertently undermine its avowed purpose,
“to raise school standards for all”.
Michael Gove in the other place and the noble Lord, Lord Hill, in his accomplished Second Reading speech here emphasised that primary focus of helping the educationally underprivileged. Mr Gove put it this way:
“We believe that the function of the state is to promote equity … the power of the state should be deployed vigorously to help the vulnerable and the voiceless, those who lack resources and connections, and those who are poor materially and excluded socially”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/6/10; col. 463.]
My amendment is to ensure just that—that the coalition walks that talk and exemplifies its values. It addresses the risk that the free schools—the brand new academies—do not cause undue detriment to existing neighbouring schools. I accept that that would never be the purpose of any group promoting such a new school. However, sometimes any of us—indeed, all of us at times—can so concentrate on our own children and our own back yard that we overlook the needs of others. That is a particular danger when social considerations intrude, as they too often do in this country, vis-à-vis education. At Second Reading I gave an example from my own part of Suffolk of the proposal to convert a feeder middle school into a secondary academy school. That would devastatingly undermine the really good school into which it feeds by the consequent impact on its entry numbers and all that that would mean for finances, staffing, social balance and, ultimately, morale.
Britain is still a sorely disfigured country—disfigured by acute inequalities of life chances. That underlines, among other things, our social and law and order problems, and leads to huge financial and moral setbacks. It is against this backdrop that I very much hope that the Government—my Government—will accept this constructive amendment, which will provide an essential but practical safeguard against the unintended consequences of the Bill as it stands.
Lord Adonis
The noble Lord is a stickler in this House, and rightly so, for precision in language and comprehensibility in legislation. In his amendment he uses some very general terms. He talks about the Secretary of State being satisfied that an academy meets “a public need” and that it,
“will not cause undue detriment”.
Will he set out somewhere for us how he defines “public need” and “undue detriment”?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, the noble Lord made much the same point before the dinner break. If he looks back over some of the legislation that he introduced, he will find that it is peppered with considerations and language of that kind. You cannot legislate without using general terms. The amendment that I have put forward has a long-stop protection in that it is capable of being judicially reviewed. If the noble Lord were to suggest that that is the very evil against which more precise language would guard, I would have to tell him, first, that more precise language cannot be used in a situation such as this and, secondly, that to give a controlled guided discretion to the Secretary of State is a device used in every Bill in every month of every year in this place. I am confident that it will work in this case. You have only to look at Clause 1(6), which refers to,
“pupils who are wholly or mainly drawn from the area in which the school is situated”.
You could argue till the cows came home about what “mainly” means and what,
“the area in which the school is situated”
means. As I say, at times legislative language must, and can only, resort to generalities. I think that the amendment I have produced is capable of being used practically and to effect. The alternative would be to have nothing in the Bill, which I suggest would be the worst of all worlds.
Given the backdrop that I have described, I very much hope that the Government will accept this amendment, which does not apply, of course—I have specifically excluded it from doing so—to maintained schools converting to parallel academies, which will be by far the larger number. However, there would still be a significant number of new free academies, which must surely also be expected to serve the higher purpose of educational justice for all, not just their own pupils. A big society, surely, must be an equitable society, particularly towards its most needy. My amendment may not be perfect, but something like it must be in the Bill if we want to end what Mr Gove called in his Statement today a “segregated and stratified” school system. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, Amendments 191 and 114 are intended to probe the Government’s view of the long term of this reform and speak to concerns expressed elsewhere in this debate. In answer to questions about the Statement on free schools, I think that the Minister spoke of pilots, although I may be wrong. The amendments to which I speak ask the Government to pilot the Bill’s approach in limited areas, or initially to cap the numbers of these new academies so that the effect on nearby schools can be considered in the light of experience. It seems reasonable to me that if the effects that have been forecast of the disruption and funding shortfalls for vital services transpire, we will know that proceeding further along this road would be an error. Other amendments in this grouping discuss the need for openness and the consideration of the wider effects of this policy when proceeding with changes of status on this scale.
Amendments 119 and 177 relate to the criteria for acceptance of an application for conversion to an academy. Crucially, they relate to the need to consider the local impact of the change in the round and to consider the impact on community cohesion of the change to academy status. These constitute very real concerns. The amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, spoke also addresses the local impact of these schools. I support the amendment. Questions need to be answered in relation to the example that he gave of a school in Suffolk.
Amendment 76A seeks to introduce a requirement for academies introducing new or significant sixth-form provision to consult existing providers of sixth-form courses, including sixth-form colleges and FE colleges in the area. It also seeks to ensure that academies are part of regional and subregional planning groups for 16 to 19 provision. This will ensure that there is no duplication of existing provision within an area and avoid inefficiency.
Local authorities currently act as commissioners for courses for 16 to 19 year-olds funded by the Young People’s Learning Agency. They engage with all providers across local authority boundaries to ensure that courses are provided which meet the needs of students and provide the best value to taxpayers. We would need to be assured that that process would continue with academies, because there needs to be an overview.
Amendment 92A seeks to introduce a fair funding element to 16 to 19 year-old provision in academies to ensure that 16 to 19 year-olds are not treated more favourably than existing providers of education for 16 to 19 year-olds. Currently, if an academy provides or introduces new 16 to 19 year-olds’ education, the funding is top-sliced from that which is given via the YPLA to other providers in the area. This funding is provided on the basis that all the places offered by the academy will be filled.
That is not the case for other providers, which are funded on the basis of the places that they have filled in previous years. It can also create an anomalous situation whereby, if places are not taken up at an academy, but the students instead choose to go to a sixth-form college, it is still the academy rather than the college that receives this funding for those places. That creates a financial incentive for academies to offer courses for which there is no or little new demand. I am not an expert in these areas, but when I was alerted to these specific issues, it seemed that these were the very issues that we should be probing and seeking answers on from the Minister.
These amendments are not designed to shackle the Secretary of State and they do not prevent him continuing with his plan. They merely seek to assure those who have perhaps been unnerved by the speed with which he is pursuing an end to any form of community accountability for schools.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am sorry to return to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, but I believe that it is fundamentally unworkable. It is not a question of judgments having to be made about terminology in legislation; these judgments have to be made the whole time. The problem with his amendment is that there are deeply competing interpretations within the education world as to what the words he has used in his amendment would mean. Having been on the receiving end of representations about the setting up of new schools, including schools in the county from which the noble Lord hails, I can tell him that he is setting up a procedure that will see every proposal for a new school that does not have near universal local support end up in the courts being bitterly contested because of the imprecision of language that he proposes to impose on the Bill.
Let me take the two specific terms he uses: that a new academy must meet “public need” before the Secretary of State is allowed to agree to it and that it should not,
“cause undue detriment to any neighbouring school”.
King Lear got this right more than 400 years ago when he said:
“O, reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous”.
But when it comes to defining need in respect of new school places, two fundamentally competing views are held. One is that “need” should be defined as a numerical need for additional places, while another and essentially different interpretation is that “need” should be based on parental demand for a new type of place or, as alas is too often the case in local authorities with a large number of failing schools, for better places, which is what has driven so much of the academy movement. It is not that there have not been enough school places in a locality, but that they have not been of a quality that parents in good conscience wish their children to take up.
The noble Lord owes it to the Committee to be frank and direct about which concept of need he has in mind. Is need to be defined simply as a numerical need for places or is it to be defined in terms of appreciable parental demand for a type of place—it could be for Montessori-type schools with a different educational philosophy—or better quality places than those on offer in the existing schools?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but he has rather challenged me. The answer to his question is this. My amendment leaves a discretion with the Secretary of State, and it will be for the Secretary of State to decide on the two or more interpretations of need. In the same way, it will be up to the Secretary of State to come to conclusions about undue detriment. If, through guidance, the Secretary of State gives a further indication of how the two tests have been interpreted, all the better. But as the noble Lord is well aware, the only basis on which this could be challenged in a court—and challenges to ministerial discretions, which are widespread, are extremely rare—would be that the Secretary of State had acted in a way that no reasonable person could have acted.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I do believe that that is a straight cop-out. Parliament has to be clear on what it means. There are two competing notions of need here and Parliament needs to state, before it charges the Secretary of State with these responsibilities, which one it means. As for judicial reviews and legal challenges being rare, there was one point when I was in the job now being done by the noble Lord, Lord Hill, when I was barely out of the High Court and the Court of Appeal on challenges to academies, most of them with support from the National Union of Teachers and a good number with support, one way or another, from bodies associated with local authorities. So Parliament needs to be clear on what it means.
We come then to “undue detriment”. Again, there are two competing views of what this is. It could be taken to mean making another school or schools totally non viable or it could be taken to mean that it would have a serious, definable or appreciable impact on another school or schools. Again, there is a fundamental difference between those two concepts of detriment—whether the detriment causes a school to become non viable or whether it simply has an impact or an appreciable impact. Again, Parliament needs to be clear which of the two it means.
This goes to the central point about school improvements as well. The noble Lord’s amendment says that the Secretary of State may not allow a new academy to be established if it causes undue detriment. I have to say that in many cases it is the dealing with the undue detriment that should be the duty of the Secretary of State or the responsible local authority using the huge array of school improvement powers available, including those that the Government of whom I was a member provided over 13 years. The idea that parents should not be able to access new or additional school places in areas where the schools are not providing good quality places simply because the provision of those places will cause detriment to other schools fundamentally ignores the interests of parents and their right to have a decent quality school to send their children to. If there is not such a decent quality school and someone is prepared to do something substantive about it, they should be applauded and not put through the legal rigmarole that the noble Lord is proposing, which will work fundamentally against the interests of parents, particularly in places where schools are not of a high enough quality. The imprecision of the language, where it is not clear what the definitions of essential terms such as “detriment” and “need” will be, will ensure that the only people who will gain from this are the lawyers, who will make huge fees while this is fought out in the courts over many years.
Lord Baker of Dorking
My Lords, I support entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has said. It is a pity that he is not saying it from the Labour Front Bench because he is absolutely right.
On listening to the debates both before and after dinner, I was struck by how similar they were to the debates on the Education Reform Act 1988, when I decided to establish two groups of independent schools—city technology colleges, which were totally independent of government and financed by business people, and grant maintained schools, which were almost independent of government—which we had to get through as a result of an elaborate electoral process which in those days your Lordships tried to hinder, restrict and limit. I was told at the time that these schools would destroy the education system, that the detriment to schools would be overwhelming and that ordinary secondary schools would be undermined and destroyed. That is not what has happened.
In 1988 the Labour Party objected so strongly that it said it would abolish them all; that it would destroy them as soon as it came into power. That did not happen. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was a member of a Government who actually expanded and developed them at the expense of local education authorities, I would remind him. He was a senior member of a Government and a Minister of State who approved all this. The CTCs were not voted down. They became beacon schools which other local schools tried to emulate.
In the early days of city technology colleges, the local education authorities opposed them so strongly that they told the other local authority schools for which they were responsible to have nothing to do with them; not to play games with them. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will remember; he was in the House in those days. The local authorities ostracised them; they said that they were the cuckoos in the nest that would destroy them. Now they tell them to co-operate with them; they are trying to imitate them and to reach the standards that they have established. That is an enormous change, as it was with the grant-maintained schools. I shall allow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to intervene but I want him to listen to me for a moment. Again, the Labour Party spent 10 years totally opposing the grant-maintained schools and then it reinvented them and called them trust schools.
However, let us forget all of that. I do not want to make party points tonight. This provision for alternative types of schools is good for the whole education system; it drives up standards. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said, if parents are dissatisfied with a local school and the local authority has tried to improve it—it has thrown resources at it and changed the head three times in two years and done everything it can—and it still has not happened, what does it do? Just let it go on to the detriment of all the pupils? I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in a moment, because he is being stirred, but I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, first.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am intrigued. Is the noble Lord, Lord Baker, saying that the creation of a new school cannot severely damage an existing good school? If he acknowledges that it can, is he saying that nothing should be done about it?
Lord Baker of Dorking
Very often, if there is a good local school there will not be the creation of another school. If you have got a very good primary school that is satisfying the demands of the parents and children, you will not get another group of parents and teachers wishing to create a new primary school.
The noble Lord does not know how difficult it is to start a school. For the past three years I have been starting new schools—at first with Lord Dearing—the new university technical colleges. It is a hard row to hoe because many people do not want it. These are colleges for 14 to 18 year-olds—which is disruptive for an 11-to-18 system for a start—specialising in technological and academic subjects. When Ron and I started, local authorities were not very interested. They did not like them for all the reasons that the noble Lord gave: they hurt good schools. Now I find that local authorities are coming to my little team, saying, “We’d like one of those, please”. They have seen that it is a new model that they like; it is better. I do not believe for a moment that a good school is threatened—that is rubbish, if I may say so to the noble Lord. He should not get up; he has had his go. Only bad schools are threatened; that is the problem. I can tell the noble Lord that it takes enormous effort to get a school started—to get parents together, to get teachers together. Meetings do not happen. Who is the champion? Can they bring it together? Then we have a divisive curriculum. Then they have to find support and make it viable economically: they have to find a primary school for 150 pupils and a secondary school for 500 to 600 pupils. That is an enormous hurdle. All the hurdles that Members of this Committee have tried to put in the way of the new schools over the past few hours is nothing compared to the task that committed groups will have to take on. That is the reality of life. It requires enormous effort and a tremendous act of corporate activity. We should not try to hobble and hinder that activity too much.
I prefer working with local education authorities. For the schools that I am establishing, we talk first to the local education authorities. If you are creating 14-to-19 colleges, they have to accommodate the 11-to-14 pupils. They also have to accept that it is a very different body in their school organisation. But now I am finding that local authorities like it. It is novel; it is different; and it will be effective. It will be effective, because in every comprehensive at age 12, 13 and 14, you have a vast number of disengaged pupils who do not want to continue in their local comprehensive school. We are providing an alternative which the state system has not yet provided. It provided it back in the 1950s as technical schools, but they failed because they were skill by snobbery. That is why we get a university to sponsor each of our colleges.
I therefore say to Members who are anxious about all this disrupting our education system that the new academies, to the extent that they will exist in the future, will improve our education system. They will improve the standards; they will get the commitment of local people, which will be very energetic. Even the Liberal Party knows how difficult it is to get local people to do anything—even to vote for them occasionally. So let us imagine how difficult it is to get local people committed to establishing a new school. That is why the Government are trying to make it as easy as possible. We should not make it too difficult for them to do so. This is a very imaginative proposal by the Government and it should be welcomed. It will be welcomed first by the Liberal Party—obviously; it will be welcomed reluctantly by the Labour Party, just as it came to welcome the city technology colleges and the grant-maintained schools. It is only a question of time. It is still in the mode of fighting the last election. When it starts fighting the next election, it will begin to realise that what we are saying is really rather attractive, responsive to the needs of people and beneficial to the education of our country. I cannot wait for the day.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I apologise to the noble Lord. The word “police” came unwittingly from my lips. He may have sensed that I was fumbling my way through my sentence and I withdraw it unreservedly.
It is our view that, with regard to local decision-making, involving individual schools, teachers and parents is about as local as it is possible to get. We can argue about how we make that work, but I think that that is pretty local. We think that responsibility for educating children and young people should be devolved to the most local level possible. It is that principle, which I know that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, disagrees with strongly, which has led us to decide that local authorities should not be in a position to veto academy conversions. We know that existing rights in the past have meant that that has happened. If we were to give local authorities the right to be consulted on aspects of this new conversion process, our fear would be that they would be frustrated as it has been frustrated in the past. As has already been set out very eloquently by others, the need to tackle problems of education failure is too urgent to allow that to be frustrated.
I turn to the individual amendments. Amendment 4, moved by my noble friend Lord Phillips, would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied, before entering into academy arrangements, that any new academy met a public need in an area. We had an interesting debate in the House in which these points and the potential legal downsides were aired. I have listened with care to the points made by my noble friend Lord Phillips. He and I have discussed this issue and the specific case that he has in mind, so I understand his view. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, on the amendment. I am concerned about its wording, which could give rise to the danger that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, pointed out. The whole point of the free schools policy is that in some cases the proposals should be able to cause detriment to a school if that school has been failing and has let children down repeatedly over a long period. Such a school should be able to be challenged and detriment should be caused to it, so that a new and better school can be established or the school ups its game and improves the education that it offers. That said—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I regret interrupting the noble Lord, but he misses the main point of my case, as did the noble Lord, Lord Baker. Considerations on the part of some of those who wish to form new schools are not genuinely to do with educational need; they are—let us put it brutally—about a sort of social separateness. I am thinking of the leafy suburbs to which the noble Lord referred. The case that I referred to at Second Reading and tonight involves a good and improving school—indeed, it is the most improved school in the county of Suffolk—which will, according to its head and chair of governors, be mortally damaged if the new school is created. I cannot believe that that is what this coalition Government want to enable.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I understand the point that my noble friend Lord Phillips makes. As I said, we have discussed it. It is in no one’s interests to come up with proposals that would damage education overall in an area. That is not the intention or purpose.
The decision whether to go ahead with a free school will not be taken in isolation. The Secretary of State has the discretion to take all relevant considerations into account as part of the approval process. Those considerations would, I am sure, include the kind of issues that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raises. I go back to my earlier point: it seems inconceivable that concerns of the kind that he has raised with me and the views that I know are held by the people concerned with this case would not be made known, not least by my noble friend. The Secretary of State would have to reflect on those in making his decision.
During the application process, proposers will be expected to discuss their plans with any local partners, including the local authority, and we will encourage them to do that. The Secretary of State has said—as I mentioned in our debate about the free schools announcement, he wrote to local authorities about this at the end of last week—that, alongside other checks in place, he will talk to local authorities to make sure that he fully understands the local context and circumstances before making a final decision on whether to support the establishment of a free school.
I hope that these are common-sense and practical reassurances and that they will provide some comfort that the process gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to take these issues into account. As I also mentioned, these are early days of the free schools policy. Our approach is to work through the implications of the applications as they come in. I am sure that, over time, we will resolve these issues; we certainly have a willingness and desire to do so.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I will certainly reflect on that point and see where my reflections take me. In conclusion, I urge all noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
At this hour, and having had this very considerable and useful debate, I am sure that it is incumbent on me to withdraw my amendment.