Academies Bill [HL]

Debate between Viscount Eccles and Baroness Morgan of Drefelin

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I start by saying that I was nothing like so fortunate behind the bicycle sheds as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould.

I have been waiting to hear what the House thinks the reaction of the teachers would be to making this a statutory requirement at this particular moment. There was a report done by the Merits Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, gave the committee his evidence on two occasions, written and spoken. The memorandum submitted by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers said:

“In the recent past, too many professional judgements about curriculum, assessment and pedagogy have been removed from teachers and placed in the hands of ministers, government departments and agencies”.

It went on to say that this,

“shows a lack of trust in the profession and a denial of complexity”.

The whole House is agreed with the objectives of the noble Baronesses opposite and the objectives of my noble friend Lady Walmsley. The teaching profession is in agreement with those objectives as well. The question is how you best get those objectives achieved; in my submission, that will not happen by including a statutory requirement in this Bill.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I rise to support my noble friends Lady Massey and Lady Gould. I was also particularly moved by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. It is extremely important that, if my noble friend chooses not to divide—and I do not know what her choice will be—we hear from the Minister what practical steps the Government will take on this key agenda. I was interested to hear again from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, her exultation about the work of the previous Government around the proposals contained in the Children, Schools and Families Bill, which were removed on the specific request of the Conservative Opposition, as the noble Lord is aware. Before the election we had a set of principles and proposals that commanded the support of a significant part of the coalition Government and of a great number of noble Lords across the House.

My noble friend Lady Massey came forward with a very thoughtful proposal; she did not just reproduce what was in the Children, Schools and Families Bill, which the Government can do at any time just by going back to the filing system or doing a cut and paste. Here we have a practical step forward for going forward in this Bill. That is why I should like to have the opportunity to support the amendment. I see no reason why we should delay. Noble Lords have raised concerns about the numbers of teachers qualified to teach PSHE, but we have been reassured on that. There have been concerns about whether we are talking about teaching sex education to children inappropriately in primary schools. In all the debates we have had there have been umpteen reassurances about age-appropriateness. I do not think that this should be a party-political issue. It is very much a House of Lords issue, as it is very much something that the House of Lords has debated many times. We came up with a very constructive way forward only a few months ago. There is no good reason for us to delay any further.

If the Government want to bring forward any tidying-up amendments at Third Reading, that is very much in their gift. It can be done. We are all behind the principles that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, described, which were in the previous Bill. They are great—yes, we could see those come forward at Third Reading. I see no reason to delay, as this is about common sense and supporting the professionals. I am delighted that they gave my noble friend Lord Knight a standing ovation when he addressed the professionals in this field. We can get on with this. It is a regret of mine that it took us, in a Labour Government, as long as it did to consult and come to consensus and to the settlement that we did. It took us a while, so let us not take any longer.

Academies Bill [HL]

Debate between Viscount Eccles and Baroness Morgan of Drefelin

Monday 28th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Eccles]

I stand corrected. That secondary legislation was drafted by the previous Government and I must confess that I had some hope that the coalition Government would see that there had been an error and not implement it. An extremely strong argument has to be made in order to appoint any charitable regulator other than the Charity Commission. In default of that argument, the Charity Commission should be the charitable regulator.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I have got slightly confused about the groupings. I think that I have a clause stand part in here. Anyway, I shall make a brief contribution to this debate.

The contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on the question of charitable status and the automatic exemption proposed in the Bill was so key that I am not sure that I want to add much more. When I read the Bill, it gave me great cause for concern. I sat through much of the proceedings on the Charities Bill as a new Peer and learnt how thoroughly this House can interrogate a piece of legislation. I came to understand the importance of presumption and the role of the regulator in safeguarding the values that the charity brand, if that is the right phrase, has for members of the public. This is a fundamental step to take.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families considered this measure for its last Bill but rejected it on the basis of advice that we received, so we were listening carefully. There were lots of good reasons why academies might want to become charities, but in the end there were not enough good reasons to suggest that all the careful deliberation that this House and the other place went through to achieve that settlement should be thrown out. To carry on the Monty Python link, I would say that this clause is a dead parrot, as it really is dead as a concept. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response, but I have heard some convincing arguments today for why Clause 8 should not remain in the Bill.