Academies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Baroness Massey of Darwen

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Lords Chamber

[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]

Which principle does the noble Lord mean?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I thought that the noble Baroness was anxious about the principles by which one of these religious schools when converted to an academy would continue on its path. Have I misunderstood?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.