EU Council

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 28th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I would never—although perhaps I might occasionally—accuse the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, of being curmudgeonly. My noble friend is quite right about what has been achieved in terms of generating jobs generally and the improving trend of economic figures that we are beginning to see. There is much more to do but there has definitely been progress. He is also right about what has been done to tackle youth unemployment. On his broader point, the Prime Minister has demonstrated that it is possible both to argue strongly for Britain’s national interests and to build alliances with other similar-minded countries in Europe to bring about change for the common good. The issue is sometimes presented as a false dichotomy, whereby if you argue for Britain’s national interests you jeopardise your influence within Europe and you either have to go with the consensus or become an outist. The Prime Minister has set out that one can argue very strongly from within the EU for what is in the interests of the whole of Europe as well as Britain.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, will my noble friend say a word more about trust in politics as he very wisely referred to it early on in the Statement. It seems to many here today that there is a slow but very worrying creep of disaffection across Europe with democratic politics. There can be no more signal demonstration of the cynicism that exists in some parts of the political establishment at the very highest levels than the bugging of the phone of Angela Merkel. I suspect that tens of millions of people will have noticed that who do not notice much else—good things—about the world they live in.

My question is this—I apologise if it is a question that cannot elicit a direct reply. Is there any consequence to that extraordinary event? It must have been a criminal offence in Germany and in the United States. Is there any accountability for what happened?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I will make two points in response. First, my noble friend is right to point to a growing disaffection across Europe with the institutions and processes of the European Union. One of the things that many people are trying to work for is to bring the work of the Union more into contact with the everyday concerns of the citizens of Europe and overcome this growing democratic deficit as people call it. That is something that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister would say he is seeking to pursue by arguing against measures that would affect British businesses, choke off growth and all the rest of it.

Regarding the point about telephones, as my noble friend knows, he will not tempt me to comment in any detail on the work of our intelligence services. The leaders at the Council issued a statement after a great deal of thought in connection with the issue he raised and that has set out a way and a process in which the French and the Germans will talk to the Americans about what may or may not have gone on.

Education Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hill of Oareford

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, we had a very good debate about this issue in Committee, and, although the hour is late, we have just had another such debate this evening. I recognise the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, made at the beginning: this is not a completely straightforward issue. There are difficult interests to balance. I understand the force of the arguments that have been made about the importance of safeguarding children. I am extremely clear that a huge amount of progress has been made over the years in making children safer in school, thanks to steps taken by the last Government, and no doubt Governments before that. To respond to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, we have no desire to do anything to unwind or undermine any of that. I listened with care to the point she made about Childline. My understanding is that the Bill would not prevent children talking to Childline, and Childline talking to parents. However, I understand the force of what she was saying, and I will check that that is the case. Clearly one would not want a measure inadvertently to have the effect which she raised.

At the heart of this, and the reason why the Government are doing this, is the evidence that has been provided to us on this issue. I think that that evidence is not contested: I know that there is a difference of opinion about the strength of the evidence of the number of cases of pre-charge publicity in the press, but there is an acceptance that we have a problem, that there is a growing number of allegations made against teachers, that teachers are fearful of this trend, and that they are fearful of the effect that it has on their ability to exercise their position of authority in the classroom. We think that they have a particular position—

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend the Minister, but he is wrong about these statistics. The JCHR misread the NASUWT statistics. I said in Grand Committee that,

“for the past three years there has been a decline”,

in the number of allegations—and this is on the statistics in the JCHR report. In 2008, there were not 181, as there had been the previous year,

“but 148; in 2009, 115; and, last year, 107. Yet the Minister in the other place said that the number of allegations had increased, which is simply wrong”.—[Official Report, 6/7/11; col. GC 172.]

With great respect, I suggest to the Minister that he does not follow down that fallacious track.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, getting an accurate picture of the extent of the problem is difficult. I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Phillips that, through the research that the department has carried out by going online and looking at local press reporting as best it can, so far the number of cases that it has come up with is a multiple of five, but not many multiples of five. I think that the number circulated after the recent survey carried out for the department was 15. I accept that that is not a large number. However, the principle and the concern that underlie it are what we seek to address.

I will now address the amendments that my noble friend tabled rather than the general principle. The first area where he thinks that the clause gets the balance wrong is in relation to communication within the school community. His Amendment 51 seeks to ensure that pupils or parents will not breach reporting restrictions by communicating with other parents and other members of school staff. An example of where this might happen is if the parent wishes to communicate with other parents about an allegation that their child has made against a teacher. I should clarify that parents would not breach reporting restrictions by holding private conversations whether in person or online. The reporting restrictions would apply only to communication to the public at large or any section of the public.

My noble friend argued that a parent might wish to communicate with a section of the public in this way in order to seek corroboration of an allegation against a teacher before raising it with the school. We think that the effect of his amendment would be wider than that and would exempt from reporting restrictions communications by any pupil or any person acting on behalf of the pupil to any section of the school community and so reduce the protection the clause gives teachers against malicious or unfounded gossip. For example, it would allow pupils or parents to use a forum on the school network to publish an allegation against a teacher widely within the school community. I agree with my noble friend that parents should be free to follow up allegations made by their children, but I do think—I know he was dismissive of this point—that they should do that through appropriate channels by raising the issue with the school or the relevant authorities rather than by launching their own inquiries or campaigns. He knows, because I have discussed it with him before, that I am aware of a number of cases where e-mail campaigns against teachers are led by parents to whip up a campaign against them. We would not want that to be allowed to happen.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

The Minister is surely aware that if anybody whipped up, as he put it, a campaign that was untrue, they would be subject to very heavy libel or slander damages.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am aware of that, and we have discussed that point before. I know that is the case, and I defer to my noble friend who is a very distinguished lawyer, who I think used to do libel. To expect a teacher who finds himself the subject of a malicious campaign to take a libel case on his own account, financially, emotionally or in any other way, is not a practical course of action.

Education Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Thank you.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I shall try to pull together some of the strands from this extremely good and thought-provoking debate. I fully accept that these are not simple issues. I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, approaches this matter from a slightly different point of view from the generality of the Committee, with her concern for the children involved, whereas generally there was acceptance of the principle that one needs to protect teachers in schools. However, the debate concerns whether one should extend that further. I recognise noble Lords’ concerns, some of which were raised by my noble friend Lord Black, which we shall discuss in more detail when we consider amendments in the next group in the name of my noble friend Lord Phillips.

I accept that the reporting restrictions introduced by the clause interfere with rights to freedom of expression. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, made this point. I think all noble Lords agree that any such interference would need to be carefully targeted, proportionate and justified. Teachers already have legal remedies if they are the victims of libel and defamation, as we all do, but those remedies are available only once the damage is done. My noble friend Lord Black raised that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am not answering. I cannot respond to the speaker. We want to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his, as usual, careful and considerate reply. There are a lot of very difficult technical issues involved in that group of amendments. I welcome his invitation to talk about them outside this Committee Room, and I will certainly do that.

I want to refer to only one of his answers particularly, because I am wholly, as opposed to partly, unsatisfied by what he said as regards Amendment 73HJ. The Minister’s claim was that one could get a parent who wanted to start a vindictive campaign against a teacher. I think that is at the far end of speculative possibility, not least because a parent who did that would be in direct danger of libel proceedings by the teacher concerned. One might argue that teachers do not do that, but I have acted for a few people who have done that and have prospered from doing something to recover their reputations. Anyway, we shall talk about that when the time comes.

The only other thing I would say is that I am most grateful to the other Members of the Committee for their extremely wise and informative contributions to this mini debate and I note that not a single person opposed the amendments. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Oareford, will sleep on that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I will also be brief as we have already rehearsed many of the arguments this afternoon, so I will not detain the Committee for long. The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, referred to assembling the information that we have. We will, of course, do that although some of it is slightly harder to come by, given its nature.

We have moved a long way in the course of the afternoon—this often happens in your Lordships' House—from the views that have been expressed to us all by the unions and by teachers. Some of their figures as regards the scale of false allegations are so high that I do not believe them in the sense that this is the sort of story that people relate to other people and so it spreads. Like me, the noble Baroness will have seen survey research which shows that 50 per cent of teachers claim to know someone who has been the subject of false allegations. That seems to me a suspiciously high and precise figure. One should not suggest that there is not a problem that needs to be addressed or that a consequence of this measure is that child protection and safeguarding will be weakened.

I support the great British media but arguments have been adduced in relation to the crusading role of the media in child safeguarding issues. I can think of many cases where that is true but I can also think of many where the crusading purpose has been directed at increasing newspaper sales and producing salacious articles. We must be careful not to go too far in taking the moral high ground and taking our eyes off some of the practical issues which teachers and head teachers tell us that they face and fear. We should see this provision as part of a broader range of measures to try to make teachers feel that they have the backing of us all in their difficult job of maintaining order and discipline so that children can learn. One must not lose sight of that point.

My noble friend Lord Phillips quoted powerfully from the exchange between the JCHR and the Secretary of State. Paragraph 1.48 of the JCHR report states:

“However, we are satisfied that the evidence and justifications relied on by the Government are sufficient to justify the imposition of such reporting restrictions as a necessary and proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation and rights of teachers and supporting teachers in their role as the professionals responsible for classroom discipline”.

It is worth recalling that the JCHR concluded that the evidence—not as complete as my noble friend would like—led it to that conclusion.

In the course of this afternoon, there have been forceful arguments in favour of extending the clause from the Benches opposite and from some of my noble friends. There has also been opposition to its current breadth. I am aware of the concerns. I would be happy to speak to my noble friend about the earlier issue and try to provide further reassurance. As I have said, we will bring forward the review of the impact of these provisions and we will continue to monitor closely the issues that have been raised.

I argue that these provisions would not enable a teacher to get off scot-free from wrongdoing. Safeguarding duties remain in place. The clause states simply that anonymity should remain in place until someone is charged. I have a difference of opinion with my noble friends Lord Phillips and Lord Black about the effectiveness as a practical act of recourse of the PCC or of a libel action. I understand the arguments of both noble Lords—one with great experience as a lawyer, the other with great experience of working with the press. In previous situations, people have always said, “There’s always the PCC”, or, “You can always bring a libel action”. I am afraid that I do not believe that the PCC is an effective protector of people, and I do not believe that bringing a libel action would be a practical course of action for a teacher who has had all kinds of awful things going on and their reputation traduced.

Those are the arguments in favour of the clause. I have listened to the points raised by noble Lords on all sides this afternoon. I will try to provide some more statistical information, which I hope will help the Committee. I will also reflect on the points that have been made. On that basis, I beg to move that Clause 13 stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

As before, I am grateful to the Minister. I ask him to reflect on the statistics, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, invited him to do. It is essential that the unions provide us with concrete examples of pre-charge newspaper reports of a salacious nature, because so far they have not produced one. The only reports they have produced have been four-line factual reports. They must produce pre-charge reports.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, berated me—no, not that. He would not do that.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

That would be libel.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

No, it would be slander. He very reasonably said, “Look at the end of the JCHR report where it exonerates the Government”. Indeed it does, but how it does is beyond my tiny brain to understand. I suspect that the committee was confused.

Education Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hill of Oareford

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, the main purpose of the Bill is to give legislative effect to proposals set out in our White Paper, The Importance of Teaching, published last November. To that extent, it has been well trailed and contains few surprises. In a number of respects, it builds on reforms introduced by the previous Government. In all respects, I hope that it will enable us to strengthen the autonomy of schools and colleges, to back heads and teachers as they go about their jobs, to move away from top-down prescription, to strengthen the ways in which we hold schools and Ministers to account, and to build on our efforts to tackle disadvantage and extend opportunity more widely. While I am sure that there will be proposals on which we will hold different views, I hope and expect that there will be broad agreement to the principles on which the Bill is built.

Why are we so keen to strengthen autonomy and accountability and to put our trust in schools and colleges? It is because the evidence from the best-performing educational systems around the world suggests that this combination is most effective at driving improvement. Greater autonomy, backing teachers and increased accountability are the threads that run through the Bill. I will say a little more about each.

“Autonomy” is a rather lifeless word to describe something that I believe that we are all keen to encourage: a situation where inspiring heads and outstanding teachers are free to use their judgment and experience for the good of children. There can sometimes be a temptation for legislators to prescribe everything that we think is desirable in order to guard against things going wrong. The difficulty with that impulse, which I understand, is that the effect over time can be to silt up the system and make professionals feel constrained in exercising their judgment on the ground.

In 2009, the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee produced a report on the cumulative impact of statutory instruments on schools. It recommended that the former Department for Children, Schools and Families should shift its primary focus from the regulation of processes through statutory instruments towards establishing accountability for the delivery of the most important outcomes. In line with that, the Bill removes some unnecessary legislative duties from schools, such as: to produce a school profile; to co-operate through children’s trusts; to have regard to the area’s children and young people’s plan; and to take part in a behaviour and attendance partnership. We want schools to be able to co-operate in ways that are right for them, not to be asked to conform to a one-size-fits-all approach determined in Whitehall.

We are fortunate to have a strong and vibrant sixth-form college and further education sector. Again, we feel we should be able to trust that sector’s leadership and staff to meet the needs of young people and employers in their local community, yet they tell us that they too often feel weighed down by a complex statutory framework that holds them back from doing what they do best. That is why we are removing those duties and stripping away some of the powers that legislate for best practice or inhibit the sector’s ability to enhance the choice and experience of learners and employers.

The Association of Colleges has said that:

“AoC is pleased that Ministers have placed on a statutory footing the clear commitment they have already shown to freeing Further Education and Sixth Form Colleges from many regulatory burdens … Colleges don’t need a statutory duty to tell them they should take account of the views of students and local employers on the courses they offer or that they should have regard to promoting the well-being of the local economy and community”.

We know that governors play a critical role in the strategic leadership of schools. Current regulations prescribe proportions and categories of governors in minute detail. Therefore, we are keen that governing bodies should have more freedom, if they want it, to recruit governors primarily on the basis of skills and experience. During the passage of the Bill through the other place, there were strong representations, particularly from Liberal Democrat colleagues, that, in addition to the head teacher and parent governors, it is important for maintained school governing bodies to have a governor appointed by the local authority who has the skills required by the governing body, and a governor elected by staff. We listened to those views and will bring forward amendments to the Bill in Committee to reflect that position. There will also be amendments to correct defects in and omissions from legislation.

As noble Lords know, a key part of our drive to increase school autonomy is the academies and free school programme. The academies programme, pioneered by the party opposite, has been shown to raise standards for all children and for the disadvantaged most of all. Building on that, there are now over 700 academies open, and a third of secondary schools are already academies or are in the process of converting to academy status. The traditional emphasis on underperforming schools continues and is, indeed, accelerating. This Bill extends that programme further with new categories of academies for 16 to 19 year-olds and to provide alternative provision for the most vulnerable.

We also want local authorities to have a critical role in the education system as local champions of social justice. As the challenges and circumstances in each area are different, we want to avoid statutory duties which require a one-size-fits-all approach from authorities, such as: requiring every pupil to be able to access every diploma; requiring every school to be provided with a school improvement partner; and requiring the same type of admissions forum. It is our belief that it should be for local areas to determine these matters, reflecting what works best in their community, and the Bill provides this freedom to local authorities.

In talking about concepts such as autonomy and the structural reform needed to help deliver it, we must not lose sight of the need to attract and retain the best graduates into teaching. Outside the Bill, we will shortly be announcing further proposals on teacher training, but I would like to mention two measures in the Bill which relate directly to teacher retention and which reflect concerns put directly to us by head teachers and teachers: behaviour and discipline, and anonymity from false allegations. We know that poor behaviour, or fear of it, puts many of our best graduates off teaching. A 2009 survey showed that in primary schools an average of 30 minutes of available teaching time per teacher per day was lost due to pupil indiscipline. In secondary schools, the figure for lost teaching time increased to 50 minutes per teacher per day.

This House is rightly concerned about children’s rights. But I believe that it will also accept the need to balance the right of individual children against the rights of all children to learn in an orderly environment. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were more than 360,000 fixed-term exclusions—almost 18,000 for physical violence against an adult and almost 80,000 for threatening or verbally abusing an adult.

To get more talented people into the classroom and give disadvantaged children the inspiration that they need to succeed, I believe that we have to support teachers and head teachers in maintaining high standards of behaviour in schools. That is why the Bill builds on the powers introduced in the Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act on searching pupils and students. Teachers need the authority to search for items that have been brought into school with the intention of causing an offence, harm or injury. We also propose to give teachers the power to search for and to confiscate items banned under the school rules.

We also know, through evidence from children, that cyberbullying is a real problem, with nearly one in five 12 to 17 year-olds saying that they have been victims of it. Schools should be able to prevent mobile phones being brought into schools for cyberbullying and the Bill provides teachers with the power to confiscate them and, where there is good reason to do so, delete inappropriate material before they hand them back. I recognise that concerns have been expressed about the use of some of these powers, including the power in exceptional circumstances for opposite-sex searches where an item may cause serious harm if the search is not carried out urgently. These are permissive powers and we believe that there are sufficient safeguards in the legislation, as well as these powers only being available to staff whom the head teacher has specifically designated to conduct searches. The Bill also provides schools with the power to issue same-day detentions to children who misbehave.

Overall, these changes have been welcomed by the main head-teacher unions. The Association of School and College Leaders says that the discipline measures in the Bill are necessary and proportionate, and that head teachers and teachers can and should be trusted to use these permissive powers sensibly and in the interests of all pupils and staff in their schools. We also want to give schools the final say on whether a pupil is excluded in order to avoid those cases, which I acknowledge are rare, where a school is directed to reinstate a pupil who it believes, after proper consideration, should not be.

Finally, we want to give teachers better protection from false allegations made by pupils, which could be used to undermine their authority and have a devastating affect on their lives. The Bill therefore provides for reporting restrictions where a pupil, or someone on their behalf, alleges a teacher has committed an offence. These restrictions would be lifted once the teacher is charged. Alongside the work that the department is doing to strengthen guidance on dealing with allegations so that unnecessary delays are removed and that suspending staff is not seen as the default option, these measures will, we hope, provide better support teachers.

Hand in hand with increased freedoms for schools, we want stronger accountability directly to pupils and parents. The Bill therefore makes it easier for parents to see how well their school is doing by reducing the criteria for Ofsted inspections to four areas; namely, teaching, leadership, achievement, and behaviour and safety. We want also to free outstanding schools and colleges from inspection so that more time and resources can be devoted to those who need help most.

Alongside the Bill, we are reforming the performance information made available to parents, including measures on the progress children make at school and not just their raw attainment. That should remove some of the perverse incentives on schools, which led to a focus on a narrow group of children who might boost rankings in performance tables. New destination measures for schools and colleges will allow parents and young people to see for themselves how well institutions do at academic and vocational courses and how well they equip their students for life afterwards.

We must also be outward-looking, comparing our education system with the best in the world. That is why we are strengthening the role of the independent regulator, Ofqual, and requiring it to look not just backwards in time to make sure our qualifications maintain standards, but outwards to ensure that they compare well with qualifications overseas. The Bill will also require schools that are sampled to take part in international surveys of educational standards to participate.

However, it is not only school-level accountability that we are keen to strengthen in the education system. Local and central government needs to be more accountable. We have a shared goal with local authorities to tackle underperformance and in most cases we are able to work together to achieve that. But in some instances local authorities have not gripped underperformance, so we propose to take a new power in the Bill to increase the focus on tackling weak schools.

The Bill also restores ministerial accountability to Parliament by abolishing four major statutory arm’s-length bodies—the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, the General Teaching Council for England, the Training and Development Agency for Schools and the Young People’s Learning Agency. Many of their activities will cease, as teachers and school and college leaders decide for themselves how best to meet the needs of their pupils and students, rather than receiving pages and pages of guidance. Where roles continue, they will be brought back within the department and Ministers will be accountable to Parliament, which is where accountability should sit.

The final theme that I want to cover is fairness. For far too long, children from disadvantaged backgrounds have not fulfilled their potential. That is why this Government, in difficult economic circumstances, have managed to find additional resources and target them on those most in need. Starting in the early years, the Bill provides for the extension of the entitlement for free childcare to all two year-olds from the most disadvantaged families. The previous Government did much work in this area and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, who oversaw a significant growth in early-years education, which this Bill continues. We will move from 20,000 to 130,000 two year-olds benefitting each year over this Parliament.

Outside the Bill, noble Lords will know that we are introducing the pupil premium—£2.5 billion a year by the end of the Parliament—to support children on free school meals, looked-after children and children from service families.

We are committed to continuing the last Government’s drive to raise the participation age. Overall, we can fund more than 360,000 apprenticeships across all ages in the coming academic year, while making changes to the underlying legislation in this Bill so that they are deliverable in practice. In particular, there will be sufficient funding for 135,500 apprenticeship starts in the academic year 2011-12 for 16 to 18 year-olds.

We are taking a new approach in the Bill by requiring schools to secure careers advice—which must be impartial and independent—for their pupils. That is supported by a range of measures, working with the careers sector, to improve the quality and professionalism of services in this area.

So far as higher education is concerned, the Bill takes forward two elements of the new student finance arrangements. They will be more progressive, with the lowest-earning 25 per cent of graduates paying less over their lifetime than they do at present. It will also mean that fees for part-time courses are capped so that new loans can meet them.

We are extremely fortunate in our country to have so many great schools and colleges, led by a superb generation of heads and supported by an extremely talented and committed cohort of teachers. Despite the dedication of these professionals and the fact that our children seem to work harder than ever at exams, other nations still appear to be overtaking us. Our 15 year-olds are a full two years behind their Shanghai-Chinese peers in maths and a year behind teenagers in Korea or Finland in reading. Evidence from these best-performing countries shows that giving greater freedom to professionals and schools, with stronger accountability, provides the best route to improving our education system. That, in essence, is what lies at the heart of the Education Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, am I too late—

Education: English Baccalaureate

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hill of Oareford

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[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]

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hill of Oareford

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[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.

Academies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I commend Amendment 30.

[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.

Academies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hill of Oareford

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[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]

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 28th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[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.

Academies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 28th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[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]

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords—

[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 Hill of Oareford]

No.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Lords Chamber

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 21st June 2010 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Academies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 21st June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I should say briefly that all the amendments we are discussing are relevant to maintained schools converting to academies. They do not address the issue of creating an entirely new school, when there will be no pupils, parents or staff. Yet the need for consultation when a brand new school is created is surely pre-eminently more obvious than for even a school which is converting. I merely make that point; maybe my noble friend will provide some reassurance on that issue.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, as has been the pattern today, we have had a good and lively debate, which has certainly given me food for thought as we go forward. Perhaps I may briefly restate the amendments.

Amendment 3A would change who the Secretary of State could enter into academy arrangements with from a person to an individual or organisation. This is an unnecessary amendment because in law, a “person” is taken to mean either an individual or an organisation.

Amendments 4A, 101 and 102 would require proper checks of any person who was party to academy arrangements and, with Amendment 104, require the governing body of a maintained school to consult certain persons listed in the amendments before applying to the Secretary of State for an academy order. These people would include pupils at school, parents, school staff, staff trade unions, relevant local authorities, other local schools who might be affected and any other person who it is appropriate to consult. It is important to be clear that current legislation does not address these issues. These would be additional legislative requirements that the noble Baroness is seeking to introduce, although I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, quite properly and fairly about the change in status; currently there would be an obligation to consult if the school was to close. The circumstances are different and she is right about that.

I will first respond to the broad thrust of what the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked—why the urgency? Why can we not take some time? That point was in some way echoed by my noble friend Lord Greaves. I know that I have made this point repeatedly, but part of the answer to the urgency question is that, five years ago, the Government of whom she was a member set out down this path. Five years later, we are still debating it and that represents another five years of children who have not been able to take advantage of some of these freedoms that I know her party, when in government, were keen to extend. In another part of the answer to the urgency question, I underline the point that we made in previous debates that our approach to this legislation is fundamentally permissive, rather than coercive. Simply by putting a flyer there and saying to schools, “Is anyone interested in this? Are these freedoms something of which you would like to avail yourselves?”, more than 1,750 schools have said that they would be interested. Thinking about the point that my noble friend Lady Perry made, that tells us something quite powerful about trust, which one always has to balance against our natural instinct to try to make sure that nothing goes wrong. One needs to listen to those who are clearly keen to get on and feel that there is a need for urgency. My starting point in this is not so much the question of why we need to move so rapidly as of what is preventing us getting our skates on.

I turn to a specific point which my noble friend Lady Walmsley has already picked up on. It is already part of our process to carry out full due-diligence checks on anyone who is party to a funding agreement, and regulations also require CRB checking of all governors. I, like many Members of the Committee, I suspect, have been CRB-checked more times than I care to remember—although not because there was a particular problem, I should make clear.

I was struck by the point that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made about drawing a distinction between the spirit of consultation and making it a legislative requirement. He gave examples of the difficulty of getting a satisfactory definition in the Bill within which everyone could operate—and which did not have the problem alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, of the old system of ballots, which caused acrimony—and which would not give people who, for particular reasons, might want to frustrate this policy the opportunity to do so. I think that there is broad acceptance on her side of the Committee that the policy is fundamentally good, and these are the detailed questions that we are working through. I was very persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, concerning the dangers of being overly legalistic. However, I also accept the point made by him and many other noble Lords on all sides of the House about the spirit of consultation. It is something that clearly one must take seriously.

We certainly expect schools, in deciding whether to make an application to convert, to discuss their intention with students, their parents and the local community. A point that has been well made by a number of Members of the Committee is that that is what happens already, and it would not make sense for a school not to do so. The governing body of any maintained school that is considering converting does, and will, include parent governors, staff governors and local authority governors. These governors will all be part of the decision-making process. Currently, the employer of a school’s staff would also need to conduct a TUPE consultation with all staff and the unions as part of the staff transfer process. On a small point of fact—I know that this point has been raised before—I say to my noble friend Lady Walmsley that there is not a minimum 10-week consultation period; the time is not specified in law but there would clearly have to be consultation with all staff and the unions as part of the process.

In response to a point about informal consultation that I think was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe—I hope I shall be forgiven if it was not her—I shall try to be brief as I know that supper beckons. The departmental website will make it absolutely clear that we expect teaching staff, other staff, parents, pupils and the local community to be consulted. The question with which we are grappling—the debate has grappled with it this evening—is how far this process needs to be formalised, with the risk that that might either slow it down or make the process acrimonious. Our view is that there are clear disadvantages—

Academies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 7th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I fear that, if I may, I will need to write in more detail to the noble Baroness. I understand her point, but I do not want to get myself into deep water. I will follow this up with her specifically.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Before the Minister goes off the subject of charity, and given that the Charity Commission is a highly effective and experienced regulator of all sorts of other charities—large and small—does he think it sufficient to leave the regulation off the face of the Bill? I am thinking particularly of the desirability for public accountability of regulation.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

That, too, is a point on which I need to reflect. Generally, I will follow that up with the noble Lord if I may.

Consultation was a recurring theme. It was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Turnbull and Lord Greaves, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Garden and Lady Williams of Crosby. The concern was expressed that there would not be sufficient consultation with parents or others. Current legislation does not require consultation with parents or the local community on the acquisition of academy status. The Bill does not change that. However, we anticipate that schools will want to consult parents about this, as they do at present.

In addition, maintained schools have parent governors who will be able to take part in the governing body and the decision-making process on whether to convert to academy status. Consultation with staff is another important point. Schools are required by the TUPE regulations to undertake appropriate consultation. We are advising schools on how best to carry out that process. That is linked to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, about speed, which I will return to in a moment.

The role of local authorities is clearly of great importance. I repeat a point that I made in the debate on the gracious Speech and earlier: there is, I hope, nothing in the Bill that noble Lords will interpret as an attack on the role of local authorities. We do not seek to send that message. Strong local authorities will remain central to the Government’s plans to improve education. We want to work with local authorities on what these changes will mean. We certainly envisage that local authorities will have a strategic overview of services in the local area and that they should help to support parents and pupils to choose a good school as part of a mixed economy of schools provision. They will retain a key strategic role in supporting the delivery of educational excellence. The law already allows local authorities to supply goods and services to schools, including academies. Many academies buy these services from the local authority. We expect this to continue. Nothing in the Bill will prevent an academy from buying a service from a local education authority and, if the academy considers the local authority to be the best supplier of that service at the best value, I am sure that it will continue to do so. As I have said, the local education authority will retain responsibility for ensuring that pupils’ SEN needs continue to be met.

The speed of the process was another recurring theme. The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, led the charge, but the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey, Lady Sharp and Lady Royall, returned to it. I underline the fact that schools can carry out this process at their own pace. I understand the point, which has been raised before, about expectations. There has, perhaps, been a sense that the Government expect all outstanding schools to be ready to go in September—that they are rushing and that schools are being encouraged or pressured to convert by September. That is not the case. The aim of the Bill is to be enabling and permissive rather than coercive. Our wish is for schools to do this at their own pace. We believe that some schools will be ready to convert at an early stage. Others will certainly choose to convert at a later date. We are currently telling schools that we expect the fast-track process for outstanding academies to take three months, although a longer process may well be needed in exceptional circumstances. It should be noted that not all the outstanding schools that have so far expressed an interest in converting want to convert as soon as September 2010 or will be able to do so. Although we want to give the schools an opportunity, I am conscious of this point, and we will not force any school to do it any quicker than it wants to.

I say in response to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that converting outstanding schools will not take priority over academies already in the pipeline. I am assured that we are able to deal with both. Nor do outstanding schools need to have an external sponsor. They will in effect be self-sponsoring, which will include existing arrangements with faith bodies.

The pupil premium, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred, is to be separately funded and will not be used as a subsidy for academies. We believe that academies have proved their success. I think that that point is broadly accepted on all sides of the House. Where they have worked well, their impact has been tremendous. This Bill will allow more schools to become academies, with a simpler application process and more trust given to the professionals who we think can and should be making decisions about how their school is run.

Raising standards in all schools is our primary goal—seeing the best performing schools do even better, supporting others to do the same, being more ambitious for the schools which are doing a good job but which could do better and transforming those schools which are underperforming and currently not delivering the standard of education that their pupils and parents rightly expect. We believe that academies are an excellent mechanism for achieving those aims placing, as they do, school improvement at the forefront of their focus, and working in a flexible way to achieve that. This is an important Bill. I am grateful for the advice that I have received today from all sides of the House. I look forward to continuing these important discussions in Committee, for however long that takes. I commend the Bill to the House.