Academies Bill [HL]

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

17A: Clause 1, page 1, line 17, leave out “an independent” and insert “a non fee-paying”

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 22B, 60B and 60C. The amendments in this group are designed to probe the Government’s thinking on free state education, because there appear to be mixed messages in the Bill. There is a simple but important principle to which I hope we all adhere. This essential principle is contained in the great Education Act 1944, which was brought in by this Government's coalition predecessor, the last formal coalition Government in this country. The principle is that there shall be universal education for all children in this country, and that that education shall be free.

We have been given assurances by the Government that they do not intend that academies should be allowed to charge. However, paragraph 13 of the Explanatory Notes states:

“Subsection (7) provides that an Academy may not charge for admission or attendance at the school or for education provided there”—

so far so good, but it goes on to state—

“(unless the Academy agreement or grant under section 14 of the EA 2002 specifically permits it)”.

Why the “unless”, and why are there any exceptions? I do not understand. The Bill would allow another party—that is to say, an individual, group of individuals or an organisation—to enter into academy arrangements with the Secretary of State, convince him or her that those arrangements should include the right to levy charges for admission to all education at the school, and open for business. I do not believe that that is the situation, but I would be grateful for an explanation and clarification from the Minister.

[Lord Rix]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 75 in my name. The possibility of charging is apparent in this clause. The Minister will be aware that children with SEN have additional needs that sometimes require additional resources. It is the responsibility of the school and local authority to meet those needs. I would be extremely concerned if there were moves to charge parents for special education provision. I do not believe that it is the intention of the legislation to charge pupils with SEN, but I would welcome clarification on this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I hope that I am able to provide the clarification for noble Lords opposite, including the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and for my noble friends. I start by reassuring noble Lords that academies are prohibited from charging for admission. No pupils on the roll of an academy will have to pay for their education.

On the specific point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, as I said, Clause 1(7)(a) prohibits charging but the Bill as drafted allows for the prospect that an academy may need to charge in certain circumstances. I shall explain the kind of circumstances that I have in mind; I think that we touched on this earlier. For example, an academy may wish to charge for providing evening classes to people not on the school roll. We had earlier debates about wanting a school to be part of a community. Providing evening classes would seem to be a good example of that and the Bill would enable the school to do it. Alternatively, an academy may want another organisation to be able to provide evening classes or other activities that can be accessed by the wider community. Therefore, as we want academies to take part in, and be part of, the local community, that is what the Bill provides for. However, any fees charged would be put back into the academy in accordance with the charitable objects of the academy trust.

So far as concerns charging for nursery or SEN provision in Amendments 67 and 75, I reassure the Committee that academies will not be permitted to charge for education provided during the usual timetabled school hours, including the entitlement to nursery education; nor will they be permitted to charge for special needs provision.

I hope that that provides some reassurance and that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I entirely accept that the Minister says there is no intention to charge for education. I also acknowledge that it might be acceptable to charge for evening classes—hence the Explanatory Notes. However, I think that there is some confusion here and I should like the wording to be tightened up in some way. At the moment, it looks as though this could be a back door to charging in due course, and that would concern me deeply. Therefore, I ask the Minister to look at this issue so that when we come back to it—and it is something that I shall want to come back to because it is such a fundamentally important question—the wording will have been tightened up.

[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 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.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 17A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

18: Clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out from “(6)” to end of line 20

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I shall also speak to Amendments 55, 100 and 110. Special educational needs in relation to academies are a key issue for us on these Benches, for Members throughout the Chamber and for many in the world of education, in particular those pupils who have SEN. There is huge expertise in this House, as was demonstrated during the short debate on Monday, when the Minister was clearly in reflective mood. I know that he is listening and I am glad.

I have to say at the outset that I am fundamentally opposed to special schools being included in the Bill—hence Amendment 18. Most local authorities and schools do a good job by children with special educational needs and by their families. Inevitably, local authorities and schools also find parents who are unhappy with the provision that their children receive. The Lamb inquiry, of which all noble Lords will be aware, reported that many parents are happy with what they receive, but it recommended that we need to be tougher with local authorities and schools that do not comply with their statutory duties towards children with SEN. There is much work to be done in this area but I do not believe that the proposals in this Bill will assist in improving the situation for children with SEN. It is vital that we acknowledge that the impact of the Bill on SEN will be far-reaching, controversial and incredibly complex.

Parliament is now being asked rapidly to pass legislation that says that by September this year special schools could reopen as academies. That means, at least potentially, that many of the safeguards and programmes that drive improvements in SEN provision in communities—

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

On a point of clarification, it is not envisaged or proposed that a special school would be able to convert by this September. The Government have made it clear that it would be the following September—in 2011.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I am grateful for that clarification, which is extremely important. Forgive me if I have misled the Committee in any way.

The Bill, as drafted, could mean that many of the safeguards and programmes that drive improvements in SEN provision in communities would simply be dropped or made no longer relevant. That would redesign the SEN approach taken by government to date and completely disrupt the important work of local authorities in this area. There are also serious concerns that SEN provision could be harmed both by the establishment of academies on such a large scale and by the new academies being drawn from those schools that are already strong and which in many cases would be the best place to take on more SEN pupils and deliver real improvements in SEN provision.

As it stands, and as we have discussed, the legislation completely removes local authorities from consultation on academy status. The central funds for SEN provision will be handed out to many schools in a given area. If that is the case, it is vital that we create a framework that gives local authorities, parents and children with SEN, as well as other academies in the area, some certainty and consistency in relation to other schools in the area about what provision each will provide for special educational needs.

Amendments 18, 100 and 110 deal with the issue of special schools by seeking to remove reference to them in the Bill. The way in which we treat less fortunate members of our society is a good measure of any civilised society. The interests of people with SEN are currently addressed primarily by local education authorities. We are greatly concerned that this Bill will damage the ability of local authorities to fulfil their important role in this field and will run the risk of damaging the education, and therefore the life chances, of a great many pupils with special educational needs—the very last group of pupils whom a civilised society should place at risk.

Earlier, I was mistaken in saying that special schools would become academies in September, which would be much too early. I am glad that that is not the case. However, I still think that the Bill is being taken through its legislative process in haste. Although I now understand that special schools would not have even the permissive right to become academies in September, many issues relating to special educational needs need to be better thought out before such schools are enabled. Perhaps we need to see provisions in the Bill that assure us that all these complex details will be properly worked out before schools for special educational needs can become academies.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton)]

If Amendment 18 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 19, 20 or 22 because of pre-emption.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I am grateful for the points raised during the debate and for the kind words that many noble Lords have said about my effort to understand these very complex issues—which I have not done fully at all. However, as I said on Monday and am happy to repeat this evening, I cannot see any logical argument why one should not strive for the principle of parity. Whereas I am not able to say to noble Lords that I am able to come up with particular proposals at the moment or to endorse the persuasive arguments made tonight, I have said that I shall come back with proposals on Report.

A number of very persuasive and forceful points have been made, whether they were to do with complaints, funding or transport. I shall reflect on them with my officials. As these issues are more complicated, and as I explained to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, it is the intention that the schools should not convert until the following year, which gives more time to work these things through. I hope noble Lords will find that reassuring.

I do not know whether I should declare an interest for proprietary reasons, but I shall do so anyway: my wife has been a long-time volunteer and instructor for the Riding for the Disabled Association, working with a wide range of children and adults with a range of mental and physical disabilities. I therefore know a little of some of the work that charities and noble Lords do.

Rather than prolong the debate tonight, perhaps I may respond afterwards to all the points that have been made. I simply restate my commitment to reflect on them and to come back with a proposal on Report. I therefore hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response and for again saying that he will come back to this issue on Report. I know that time is tight, but if his amendment could be tabled as soon as possible so that we could see it well beforehand, we could decide what action, if any, we wished to take on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

28: Clause 1, page 1, line 22, at end insert—
“( ) the school complies with the provisions of the Code for School Admissions issued from time to time by the Secretary of State;”

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, all the amendments in this group state very much the same thing. I therefore support them. I shall speak also to Amendment 169 on the admissions code. The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that they believe that the admissions code is something by which all schools must abide. We celebrate and welcome this, in particular because there has been some talk, rightly or wrongly, of the Government relaxing or amending the admissions code. I am glad to know that that is not the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I will write to my noble friend about that. The ultimate responsibility is with the Secretary of State. I am not 100 per cent certain whether the YPLA is responsible for enforcing it; I believe that it is, but I will write to confirm that. Equally, on Amendment 85, academies are required by their funding agreements to act in accordance with the law on exclusions and to have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance on exclusions as if the academy were a maintained school.

My noble friend Lady Walmsley raised one or two other points. As she correctly pointed out, there are two codes. Both codes are applied to academies through their funding agreements and that will continue to be the case. I hope that that provides some reassurance to noble Lords and I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I am grateful for the clarification from the Minister. This has been a useful debate. However, I will reflect on the issue, because it took some time for us as a country to get a strict admissions code that is, to all intents and purposes, properly enforceable. I would not wish for us to retreat from that in any shape or form. I am not for one moment suggesting that that is what the Government are seeking. However, it might be better—and I know that it would inspire greater confidence—if there could be something about that in the Bill. I know from experience that Governments are always, rightly, reluctant to stick everything into a Bill, but this is such an important issue that I may wish to come back to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.