Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 25th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Bill Esterson]

I want to make a few remarks as the Minister did not allow me to intervene earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield made a point about consistency and the treatment of workers, whether they are senior bank executives or Magnox workers. Reasonable people might expect similar and decent treatment from the Government, whether they work in a bank, in decommissioning in the nuclear industry, or anywhere else. That is the grave concern about some of what we have heard and about the clauses tabled by the Government, which we want to amend. I tried to intervene on the Minister’s comments on trade unions. I do not doubt her desire to engage with trade unions or her understanding of the importance of talking to the trade unions.

The Minister is right that constituency MPs have a crucial role in discussing with Ministers the impact of legislation on their constituents. Workers in the nuclear industry who are extremely worried, with good reason, about the proposals in the Bill are rightly being represented by their Members of Parliament and by members of the Committee. Indeed, representations were made on Second Reading and will be made on Report in two weeks’ time. The Minister made comments about the pressures on her diary, but I gently say to her that partnership between Government, business and the workforce, especially through its trade union representation, is a hallmark of successful economies.

As success comes in large part from the relationship between the Government and the trade unions, in order to do the Magnox workers justice, the Minister should have made it a priority to meet their trade union before we got to this point in Committee. It is a great pity that she did not.

[Kevin Brennan]

I thought the Minister’s response was disappointing, given the weight of the evidence submitted to the Committee and the strength of feeling among hon. Members and their constituents. The workers have made their plans and taken decisions on the basis of guarantees and promises given by Government. As far as we can surmise from the limited information that the Minister is prepared to provide about the Government’s intentions, it now appears that the Government are going to take action that will affect them.

To listen to the Minister, one might think that the workers would not be affected at all. She seemed to be dealing with all sorts of shibboleths that were nothing to do with what is in the new schedule, rather than telling us directly whether the workers’ pensions and prospects would be affected by the exit payment cap. The Minister rehearsed arguments about all sorts of scares, which may have been put about by mythical people she was not prepared to name, but going by the evidence submitted to us, the workers in question will be affected—and to quite a large extent.

We represented those arguments and made the case on the workers’ behalf, and quoted, albeit selectively, from a heavy weight of evidence that they submitted to us about their circumstances. All we got from the Minister was a response to issues that had not been raised in the workers’ letters to us and a vague reference to secondary legislation at some later date that will name some as yet unknown entities that may be excluded from the cap.

I am sorry, but I was brought up not to buy a pig in a poke, and if I were the Magnox workers I would not fall for that for a second. It is the oldest trick in the book for Ministers to say “We might do something at a later date, but let something through in the meantime.” That is not why we are here. We are here to get on the record the Government’s position, and whether they accept the arguments about Magnox and other workers that we have set out in the new schedule. We want to know whether they are prepared to exclude those workers, through secondary legislation, from the exit payment cap. At the very least, will they give a strong indication that that is how they are minded to act?

All we got from the Minister was an empty sheet of paper, with nothing written on it. I am afraid that is not good enough for the constituents who have written to us and who are directly affected.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Bill Esterson]

Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy and are at the heart of communities up and down the country. There are more than 5 million businesses employing 10 people or fewer. It is vital that the people running such enterprises are given the opportunity to thrive and that their businesses can flourish.

The creation of a small business commissioner is a good step towards helping small businesses and follows the examples of the Small Business Administration in the US and the small business commissioner in Australia. In our manifesto, we proposed the idea of creating a UK small business administration and we support the principle of a small business commissioner as a step forward. The Enterprise Bill provides an opportunity to explore the proposed terms of reference of the small business commissioner and to look at how he or she can be as effective as possible in championing the cause of small business, in creating a level playing field and encouraging enterprise from the start-up to growth and beyond.

According to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills impact assessment, the purpose is to

“make it easier, quicker and cheaper for small businesses to settle payment issues with larger companies by setting up a Small Business Commissioner. The Commissioner will give advice, provide information and refer businesses to services that can mediate in disputes. It will have the power to look into complaints about poor payment practices and report back on its findings.”

Small and medium-sized businesses, particularly new entrants to the market, drive economic growth by stimulating innovation, acting as a competitive spur to existing businesses. That occurs through the process of productive churn, when new entrants and existing firms become more and more enterprising, with new ideas for products and processes, and win market share, and less productive businesses exit the market. New and small businesses also complement larger firms by operating in local or niche markets and by being the first to enter new markets. Small and medium-sized businesses stimulate innovation with research, suggesting that such businesses in particular act as an important seed bed for innovations. Those businesses either grow in their own right or are taken over by larger businesses that take on board their ideas.

As global competition intensifies, the ability of businesses and individuals to identify and take advantage of entrepreneurial opportunities becomes increasingly important, hence the need for Government to ensure that support for small businesses is in place. It is in the spirit of the Government’s role in creating a level playing field that we approach the Bill, to scrutinise, challenge and propose amendments.

The purpose of the small business commissioner is to support small business. We want that commissioner to be as effective as possible and believe that he or she will therefore need to work independently of large business and Government. The small business commissioner is being set up to support small business, according to the BIS impact assessment. That includes making it easier to resolve commercial disputes, not least relating to late payment, and to resolve contract negotiations related to late payment or otherwise. It also includes having someone to turn to for dispute resolution and in respect of being treated unfairly in tendering for work, as well as being able to maintain business relationships while in dispute, ensuring that good mediation options are available and dealing with supply-chain matters.

We welcome the small business commissioner’s having a remit that supports small business in addressing those challenges. As the impact assessment says,

“…small businesses thrive and grow, to help support our economy, both locally and nationally”.

The impact assessment goes on:

“It is proposing to establish a service to complement existing provision and lead a culture change in how businesses resolve—and ultimately avoid—commercial disputes. It is proposed that the new Small Business Commissioner (SBC) would: empower small businesses to resolve disputes and avoid future issues through general advice and information, related to dispute resolution and contract principles; signpost to appropriate services eg sector ombudsman or regulator, existing independent advice service, approved alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provider or SBC complaints handling function and; consider complaints by small business suppliers about payment matters arising with larger businesses which they supply. These disputes may relate to pre-contractual negotiations as well as terms of the contract and new arrangements proposed once a contract is in place; for instance, if a firm feels it is being harmed by the other party’s unfair behaviour.”

Helping small businesses thrive and grow to help our economy is very much the right way for Government to intervene in support. The list of intended responsibilities I have just read out are all concerns shared by many small businesses. There are too many examples of larger customers treating their smaller suppliers in an unfair way, but one large group of larger customers is the public sector.

The Bill at present gives the Secretary of State the power to appoint and to dismiss. The Lords amended the Bill to allow the small business commissioner to appoint his or her own staff. However, the Secretary of State still has the power to appoint and dismiss the small business commissioner. This group of amendments seeks to make the appointment a Crown appointment, to ensure that the small business commissioner is in a position to help when the source of complaint or unfairness is the public sector. If the Secretary of State appoints and has the power to abolish, there may well be a reluctance on the part of the small business commissioner to challenge the very organisation that appointed him or her and which can abolish his or her role.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. Perhaps there is a contemporary analogy with what the Government are currently doing in relation to charities: they are saying that where Government funding has been given to charities, those charities should not be able to use it to campaign in any way against Government policy. If the Government have such influence over the appointment and the very existence of the small business commissioner, does my hon. Friend think there is a danger, without our amendments, that the Government might seek to exert the same kind of influence on the small business commissioner as they do over the charities?

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good comparison. There are many examples where the closeness of the relationship means there is the potential for a conflict of interest. There are other examples, which I will come to, where there is an arm’s length relationship: our amendment attempts to forestall this potential conflict.

We certainly do not want the Secretary of State to have undue influence and the commissioner to feel constrained in his or her ability to act. After all, if we want small businesses to be as successful as possible, we want them to have independent support from the small business commissioner. People will rightly look to the commissioner to give a lead and give support, advice and encouragement to small businesses, which are, as I said at the start of my remarks, the backbone of our economy.

The Government do not intend the small business commissioner to have a role when it comes to disputes between small businesses and the public sector. As that is a source of much concern among small businesses, it seems certain that many complaints will go to the commissioner about the public sector. Even in relation to complaints against larger public sector businesses, if the Government do not like the way the commissioner is operating—this is at the heart of my hon. Friend’s intervention—the Secretary of State may decide to intervene and that implied threat could cause the commissioner to be less effective, through a reluctance to act.

Education and Adoption Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 9th July 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan]

Reductio ad absurdum is the Government’s policy here. Ultimately, what improves schools is stronger leadership, better headteachers, better trained staff, more effective organisation and all those sorts of things. I have given several examples of where that has happened without following the academisation path. The Minister has helpfully given many examples of where academisation has not resulted in school improvement and where inspectors have had to come in and rate those academies “inadequate”.

Putting in the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to academise a school is an example of not only a one-club golfer—the analogy we used earlier—but of what has happened to Rory McIlroy ahead of next week’s Open golf championship. He has effectively shot himself him in the foot by injuring himself before the tournament begins. He has hobbled himself, and he cannot carry out his job properly. That is what the Secretary of State will be doing if she has no discretion when Ofsted gives an “inadequate” rating.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I wonder whether, like me, my hon. Friend has heard the Minister more than once today use the phrase “academies and schools”, which suggests that he does not regard academies as schools. Does my hon. Friend agree that if I were a parent—in fact, I am a parent—

[Bill Esterson]

I am extremely concerned to hear that one of my children goes to something that the Minister of State does not regard as a school. What does that say about his attitude and the Government’s education policies?

[Kevin Brennan]

Can I confirm that I, too, am a parent? In fact, I come from a long line of parents. I therefore think that I am particularly eligible to run for the leadership of the Labour party, as the Government Whip just suggested. You will have to hold your breath on that one, Sir Alan. I have no intention of doing so—I want to prevent any rumours from starting, following this debate. I think that the Minister made a slip of the tongue. He probably meant to say “academies and maintained schools”.

For the Government to introduce a clause that states that the Secretary of State must follow one particular path of school improvement alone is, at the very least, not very sensible. Ministers seem to believe that there is only one pathway to school improvement heaven—so much so that they regularly descend to abuse anyone who disagrees with them in a manner that is not appropriate to their office. Their ideological position is to regard private sponsors as always better than a public authority —or even a Church authority, as in the example I gave. In particular, they regard private sponsors as better than local authorities, regardless of their party affiliation. They apply their contempt equally to Conservative-led and Labour-led authorities.

The amendment states that decisions should be made according to the circumstances of the particular case, which I think is an eminently sensible proposition. Ministers have all the powers that they need. Under the Academies Act 2010, they can already make an academy order for any school that has received an adverse Ofsted finding. With this clause, the Government are tying their own hands.

Even if a high-quality sponsor is not available—there will be a rapid expansion and there is a limited number of high-quality sponsors, so a number of low-quality sponsors have been given an opportunity to run the schools that our children attend—even if the local authority or diocese has a strong record of stepping in and improving schools, and even if the parents and the school propose a credible alternative approach that has proven evidence of success, Ministers will not even be able to entertain an alternative to their prescription. They are set on removing their ability to exercise discretion or make exceptions.

We know already that the Government have not been able to convert all the schools that they could have done in the past five years, and not just because of the opposition of ideologically driven local activists, who perpetrate and orchestrate campaigns for ideological reasons, otherwise known as parents. There are often delays and difficulties when the Government try to academise a school, including bureaucratic delays in the Department and other legal issues, which we will return to when we debate the later amendments. What makes the Government so sure that they will be able to manage the 1,000 more to which the Prime Minister has committed himself? In some circumstances, academisation will clearly not be the best route, but the clause will tie Ministers to it regardless of whether it will do the school any good.

I will speak briefly to the other two amendments that we have tabled. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central will speak to his amendment which is part of this group. Amendment 42 is intended to clarify whether the new provision applies to maintained schools and pupil referral units. There is some ambiguity about what is covered by the phrase “maintained school”. The amendment is designed to remove that ambiguity. Perhaps the Minister will make that clear in his remarks.

The provisions on academisation in the Bill are based on Ministers’ assertion that turning a school into an academy is always the best solution. That assertion has been widely questioned by a range of researchers. Neither the Government majority on the previous Select Committee nor the RSA/Pearson Commission set up on the assumption that academies were the future was able to say with conviction that there was clear evidence for the superiority of the academy model.

Amendment 45 would allow the Secretary of State to try to prove her case, so the Government should welcome it. The way to make schools improve is not just to cherry-pick a few anecdotes to illustrate the point, or to abuse statistics, at which the DFE has become infamous and expert in recent years. The independent UK Statistics Authority has had to rap Ministers’ knuckles about that on more than one occasion in recent years.

The Government should commission independent research from a trustworthy source into the impact of turning schools into sponsored academies. They should listen to the evidence and make policy that is driven by the evidence rather than by uninformed ideology. I know that that is a radical suggestion for the Government, Sir Alan, but commissioning independent research and listening to the evidence would be a good way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

We are discussing clause 7, which says that if a schools gets a failing Ofsted report, all those other interventions ultimately cannot be used to improve that school. That is the problem with the clause. The Secretary of State already has the powers that she needs on the matter. The proposals fetter the action of the Secretary of State and future Ministers in an unhealthy way, which is why we have tabled these amendments.

[Bill Esterson]

Before I speak to the amendment in my name, I want to make a few comments about some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West made extremely good points about the range of options available. As evidence, he mentioned the success of federation, school-to-school support, collaboration, school improvement measures, and different types of activities over a great many years. In previous debates, I mentioned the example of success that is readily available for the Government to draw on—the London Challenge. Its various iterations around the country were never allowed to flower when the coalition came in, in 2010. The coalition Government sadly failed to look at the evidence of London Challenge’s success, which my hon. Friend asked them to consider. They were dismissive of it and decided not to continue it in Knowsley and the Black Country among other places.

My hon. Friend also touched on the importance of inspection and the fact that it gives the opportunity for improvement using a range of measures. It occurred to me that we have again come to the point of debating the difference between what the Government say and what they do on devolution and localism. The Government clearly do not trust local schools, communities and people to know best about how to improve schools in their areas. If they did, they would allow more than one route for school improvement. The approach is very clear and very worrying indeed; it is not evidence-based. If it were, the Government would look at what the Select Committee found—not only our conclusions, but the evidence that we took from many people around the country about what works—rather than dogma.

The Minister mentioned, quite rightly, the success of the relatively small number of schools—several hundred—that were converted to sponsored academy status, following the work of Lord Adonis in the last Labour Government. The Select Committee has looked into that. There has been sufficient time to determine that the Labour academies were a success; that they raised standards and improved outcomes and results for children at those schools compared with schools in similar situations faced with similar difficulties. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, academies were never intended to be more than an additional tool in the box—an additional means of school improvement.

The Select Committee was advised by the charter schools in America that these sorts of approaches should only ever be used in a small number of cases at a time, because that gives an opportunity to evaluate their success or otherwise. I only wish that the Government had listened to that advice, rather than ploughing on with changing many thousands of schools in one go. As the Select Committee said, it is impossible to know whether the changes have worked or not, because so much has been changed so quickly.

Amendment 24 relates to the situation of some of the more vulnerable children in our schools—children with statements of special educational needs, children with special needs without statements, looked-after children, children with disabilities and children with low prior attainment not otherwise covered by the categories listed in the amendment.

Headteachers in my constituency and elsewhere over the years have raised concerns that not only academies but schools generally sometimes suggest to parents, “This school is not for your child.” Schools do that because it is a challenge to ensure that children with additional needs receive the education that they need to progress without affecting the school’s accountability measures.

The Children and Families Act 2014 has an important presumption of mainstream education for children and young people with special educational needs. However, a concern has been put to me and to the Committee in written evidence that if a school is required to become an academy under clause 7 because it requires improvement or special measures, some children might be deemed to challenge or threaten the school’s ability to hit its targets when it comes to progress measures or more general results. That could lead to undesirable behaviours or, if I can put it this way, unintended consequences. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that concern.

The provision in the 2014 Act stating that mainstream education should be the presumed approach is definitely the right one, and we should consider carefully anything that moves away from that presumption. Amendment 24, like so many of the amendments, is an attempt to get the Minister to think carefully about the consequences of what he proposes. The last thing we need is the exclusion of disabled children, looked-after children or any children who might adversely affect a school’s results.

Figures given to me suggest that children with special educational needs are four times more likely to be excluded from academies. If that is true, it is certainly a concern and would justify the amendment. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that figure.

The structures available in multi-academy trusts allow for alternative provision as a main option. That is not consistent with the presumption of mainstream education provision in the 2014 Act. Concerns have been expressed by the Academies Commission that alternative provision is being offered by setting up a free school, to ensure that the children I described are not included in performance data. If that is true, and if the point about the likelihood of exclusion from academies is true, amendment 24 is certainly worthy of our consideration.

I hope that the Government’s intentions are as good as their word—namely, the 2014 Act’s presumption of mainstream education. The points I have made about exclusion and alternative provision using the free school model, as well as the anecdotal evidence that I cited of some children being rejected from schools because of their effect on performance data, are of great concern. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that he will understand why I tabled the amendment.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Margot James.)

Education and Adoption Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan]

Preferably, another route of appeal would be available when the power was exercised by a local authority, namely an appeal to Ofsted. Given that the Minister is sweeping away any right to an appeal to Ofsted on behalf of governing bodies—presumably because he has lost all faith in Ofsted’s being able to deal with it—there must be some alternative. I am interested to know whether there is such an alternative, and whether that might be through a statutory instrument. That is particularly apt when the Minister, who is after all accountable to Parliament, would be making such an order—or, indeed, such a direction—unless the amendment is accepted.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It was interesting that the Minister asked about an appeal to the local authority. Does he think that that is a route to be explored, if he is concerned that using statutory instruments is excessive? Perhaps a local authority is the route to deal with such matters.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister was not suggesting that—I am saving him the trouble of explaining that to the Committee. He was testing whether, in the case of a notice laid by a local authority, there should also be a means of appeal through a statutory instrument, as envisaged in the amendment. I am simply saying that it is worrying that he is sweeping away any right of appeal and that such an approach has severe dangers—we will hear from several Conservative Members this afternoon, but I do not know if they are concerned about natural justice. The Schools Minister may be able to tell us, when he makes his remarks, about how he thinks the clause will fulfil the normal common-law requirements on natural justice—he mentioned common law in this morning’s sitting, so perhaps he will explain that point to the non-lawyers among us this afternoon.

All governing bodies are not necessarily up to scratch—everyone acknowledges that. The National Governors Association admits that governing bodies vary in quality across the country, and says, as we would—I am sure the Minister would—that

“governing bodies need to be honest and realistic about their own performance”.

However, there are many competent governing bodies across the country, which play a central part in school improvement and are capable of adequately challenging headteachers and senior leadership teams. There should be some channel for their concerns to be heard.

The revocation of the fundamental democratic right in the clause genuinely offends against natural justice. Disallowing any means of appeal constitutes unfettered power of the sort that the Minister has previously denied that he is seeking. I took the trouble of reminding myself of what the Minister has said on this issue in the past. In this case, it was during proceedings on the Education Act 2011, specifically when discussing the insertion of section 96A into the Education and Inspections Act 2006—again, this business of making legislation by amending previous Acts, which we were talking about earlier. At the 20th sitting of the Public Bill Committee on that legislation—it was a much longer Bill than this one; hon. Members will be relieved to hear that this Committee will not be sitting for that long—the very same Schools Minister who, Lazarus-like, is sitting here now after being taken out of the Government for a while, said:

“While we believe that the intervention power is necessary, we do not believe that the power of the Secretary of State should be unfettered. Schools will be able to make representations to Ofsted against the warning notice, whether or not it is given as a result of a direction. Ofsted will be the final judge of whether the warning notice should have been given. If the notice is confirmed, and the school fails to take the necessary action to remedy the concerns set out in the notice, the school will then become eligible for intervention.”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 31 March 2011; c. 835.]

There we have it—that is what he said back in 2011.

It is therefore only fair that the Minister should give the Committee a full and properly justified explanation of why he now disagrees with himself. We all look forward to hearing from him at the end of the discussion on this group of amendments, and I may want to probe him a little further once we have done so, so I will leave my remarks there for now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

We were discussing the statistics that the Minister used in his remarks and in the evidence sessions. He provided helpful clarification of the statistics he quoted of sponsored academies improving their GCSE five A to C grades, including English and maths, results by 6.4%, compared with local authority maintained schools’ increase over the same period of 1.3%. He accepted that that was a comparison between schools that had been made sponsored academies and all maintained schools, rather than a comparison between schools that had been made sponsored academies and schools with similar issues that had been subject to other school-improvement methods.

Similarly, the Minister quoted statistics for primary schools, saying that sponsored primary schools had improved their performance at double the rate of maintained primary schools, again comparing sponsored academies with all maintained primary schools, rather than comparing like with like—in other words, taking schools at a fairly low base and comparing their performance with that of all other schools, without comparing them like for like with schools that had achieved similar levels of performance but had attempted other means of school improvement. That is like saying that football teams that have engaged new managers have done better than all the other teams in the league, rather than comparing the teams at the bottom of the league that have engaged new managers with other teams at the bottom of the league that have tried something else, such as buying a new player or attempting a new formation in their play.

That is why I appeal to Ministers to subject all of their favourite statistical observations to the UK Statistics Authority for comment, so that we can have independent assessment of them. I am sure that would hugely enhance the quality of our debate and bring a better use of statistical evidence to our proceedings when considering the most effective policy for school improvement, which is why we are all here. I invite the Minister to do that.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is right. I am reminded of the Labour party’s attempt to get the Office for Budget Responsibility to scrutinise the budget plans of all the parties before the election. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a similar reluctance now to look at evidence? Does he also agree that there is a danger of the Hawthorne effect? Early examples of new initiatives tend to attract the very best people and, therefore, have better outcomes than over time. Statistical analysis should be carried out over an extended period before any conclusions are reached.

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I think that is an additional point, although sponsored academies have been with us for some time, as the Minister pointed out, so there is some long-term evidence. My hon. Friend is right that any new initiative, in whatever field but in particular in education, is likely to attract those who are most enthusiastic and have the zeal to be part of an interesting, innovative change. It is understandable that very high-quality educational leaders might be attracted to new initiatives in education, and we have to factor that into any judgment of the success of innovations. Quality teaching and leadership are scarce resources. We all want to increase the quality of teaching and leadership, but we will not do that simply by “initiativitis”. We have to look into how we can grow better school leaders and better teachers through valuing them, paying and training them well, so that we attract the very best into the profession.

As the Minister fairly and accurately noted, we are trying to tease out in our amendments why clause 4 is still applicable to “inadequate” schools if under clause 7 they will be automatically academised, without being subject to the Secretary of State’s discretion, if they fall into either “inadequate” category. It is interesting that, as the Minister confirmed, there are two types of “inadequate” school: those with serious weaknesses that require improvement, and those that are in special measures. That can be confusing, given the new Ofsted category “requires improvement”. It is worth reminding hon. Members that “inadequate” schools can fall into either of those two categories.

The Minister confirmed that clause 4 will still apply to “inadequate” schools, despite the fact that they will be automatically academised under clause 7, because the academy order could take some time. It is not always caused by the obstructionism of ideologically motivated people, otherwise known as parents. It is often due to delays and bureaucracy in the Department for Education, problems with the legality of who owns the land and other issues that rightly have to be sorted out. The Minister said, in effect, that in the meantime it is good to be able to do other things. So he has freely admitted that other methods work. He is making a deliberate effort in the Bill to retain the ability to use other methods of school improvement in the interregnum during which the academy order is going through. We know through parliamentary answers that the orders can take years, and not because of the obstructionism of ideologically motivated people, otherwise known as parents.

It is good to have an admission from the Minister that other methods of school improvement work. We will seek, throughout our debates, to show that that is the case, and that by fettering Ministers’ ability to pursue those other methods, the Minister restricts their ability to undertake effective school improvement. I do not intend to press the amendments to a vote, but if the Minister has a point of clarification, we would all be glad to hear it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I want to respond briefly because the Minister has introduced a whole new raft of information at this very late stage in the debate. Again, one could probe and test some of the statements that he has just made, although I will not at this point. Yes, of course, the best academy chains do very well. They are the best academy chains, and that is why they are doing very well. When is the Minister going to cite how the worst academy chains are doing? That is the point. He is making an argument here for the whole programme, rather than for just a limited part of it. The best maintained schools actually do very well indeed, too. This is my point about having to look at all these different things. Of course, the Minister did not quote the Select Committee report, about which my hon. Friend might be about to intervene. I am reluctant to go on too long.

[Bill Esterson]

In the Education Committee report, there was a Sutton Trust comment that,

“most [chains] are not achieving distinctive outcomes compared to mainstream schools”.

My hon. Friend is right that the best are doing best, but overall I am afraid that the evidence was not there. That is what the Select Committee found, and that is what it reported.

Education and Adoption Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the type of warning notice that Lord Nash used for an academy, as he just described, with the items he listed and the ability to deliver on them within the timeframe he gave, might be what the Government have in mind for maintained schools? How would the 15 days that my hon. Friend is envisaging enable these things to happen? Things such as staff morale take an awful lot longer than 15 days, as he said. How will his amendment help to deliver if this is the kind of warning notice the Government have in mind?

[Kevin Brennan]

As I explained at the outset, my amendment is an attempt to probe the Minister’s thinking by putting the 15 days back in, although I acknowledge that it can take considerably longer than 15 days for the sorts of actions outlined in a warning notice to take place. The Minister may be able to give more detail about the period he envisages, whether he thinks the interventions should be reasonable and whether a reasonable length of time should be allowed for making the interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I have a feeling that we will return to that, perhaps when we discuss the next group of amendments or others down the line, but the Minister’s statement about the reason why the Government are taking these powers for the Secretary of State to be able to issue warning notices directly, albeit by using regional schools commissioners, still stands on the record. Incidentally, regional schools commissioners are individuals or bodies that have no description in statute, as far as I am aware. They were invented without the then Secretary of State feeling a need to put the proposal in legislation and to bring it before Parliament. Nevertheless, the power to issue these warning notices, as envisaged in the clause, will be devolved on behalf of the Secretary of State.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend mentions regional schools commissioners. During our evidence sessions, a regional schools commissioner said that he had a very small number of staff and that commissioners oversee an average of 500 schools. That number is growing and, if the Minister gets his way, I suspect that it will grow rapidly. Does my hon. Friend agree that that commissioner’s very small number of staff raises interesting questions about how the provisions of this clause will be fulfilled, if that is to be done by the commissioners?

[Kevin Brennan]

I agree with my hon. Friend—I think that I alluded to that point earlier. I asked the Minister to indicate his view of regional schools commissioners’ current capacity to cope with directly issuing these warning notices, in addition to all the other responsibilities being placed on them by the Bill and other Government actions. The Minister did not say anything about that, but perhaps he will be able to give us more information when we get to the clause stand part debate. How does he envisage regional schools commissioners coping with the extra responsibilities that are given to them through the clause, albeit indirectly through the Secretary of State? Does the Minister think that a significant resource issue will need to be dealt with as a result of the changes in the Bill? My hon. Friend makes a valid point that could be dealt with in more detail during the clause stand part debate.

The Minister did not deal satisfactorily with my observation about the power taken in the 2011 Act to allow the Secretary of State to direct local authorities to issue warning notices. The Minister said that the power was not being used because of obstructionism by local authorities and because the current process is too cumbersome. Perhaps that is why only four such notices have been issued—it is so cumbersome that Ministers have only managed one a year since 2011.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak asked the Minister for examples of how the process is too cumbersome to be carried out by Ministers, but I did not hear an adequate response to that point. The fact that Ministers have not used the power does not mean that it is unusable. It is up to the Minister to demonstrate why they have met this alleged roadblock in exercising powers that they themselves took in 2011. That point is relevant to some of our later groups of amendments, so I might come back to it.

It was perfectly reasonable for us to table the amendments. At this point, I do not intend to press them to a Division, but they raise issues that we need to explore further, perhaps in the clause stand part debate, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I am making the point that local authorities are complaining that the current system restricts them from taking that action even more quickly. Through the amendments, we envisage that local authorities could act more swiftly. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Bill Esterson]

Did my hon. Friend think that the previous intervention was odd as a criticism of local authorities? If the criticism applies to local authorities, could it not also apply to chains and, ultimately, to regional schools commissioners if we have stand-alone academies in serious difficulty? It struck me as a rather strange comment.

[Kevin Brennan]

I would not accuse the hon. Member for Portsmouth South of making a strange comment, but my hon. Friend is right; we could ponder whether a double standard is applied to local authorities and academy chains. There is certainly a double standard with regard to inspection, but we will come back to that. Alternatively, it might be an illogicality in the observation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful to the Minister, though disappointed as we were hoping for a moment of inspiration and an example of the sort of warning notice issued by a local authority that would be so inadequate that it would be necessary for a regional schools commissioner to come in and trump it. There are no doubt examples of this; the Minister would not be legislating unless there were. I am not saying that there are no examples. I am just saying that the Committee is entitled to have one or two laid before it in order to consider whether this is the right way to deal with a problem the Minister has identified but for which he has not provided the practical evidence. That is rather disappointing because we would like to see the evidence.

The Minister once again cited the fact that 51 local authorities have never issued a warning notice. That is a perfectly valid observation, but the Minister ought to be able to demonstrate to the Committee that, in taking that approach, those are the local authorities that have a far worse record than those that have issued many warning notices. I do not know the reason; the Minister has the full panoply of the civil service to advise him. It may be that those local authorities that have not issued warning notices have very good schools and have not had to do so, or they may have taken a different approach to school improvement which has borne fruit in a way as productive as the route of issuing a warning notice.

Simply saying that there are 51 local authorities that have not issued warning notices does not demonstrate anything, unless the Minister can tell us that when the numbers have been crunched, the statistics show that those 51 local authorities are clearly performing more poorly than the average of all the other local authorities that issue warning notices or, indeed, than the 51 top local authorities that issue warning notices.

[Bill Esterson]

As my hon. Friend is talking about the use or lack of use of warning notices by local authorities, it strikes me that we have not actually heard from the Minister a justification of why warning notices are such an effective tool of school improvement. I would have expected to have already heard that during this debate. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would agree that perhaps we should expect to hear a justification of that from the Minister, alongside an analysis of the 51 local authorities and whether they are right or otherwise not to have used these notices.

Education and Adoption Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Bill Esterson]

That is absolutely right. Whether it is about adoption or other forms of permanence, we have to find more people to come forward to look after children. In my experience, there are many things we could do to make it easier and more attractive. The issue of support came up in the evidence, for example. We need to improve support for adopters or others who care for the children who end up in the care system.

[Kevin Brennan]

Would my hon. Friend care to commend the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which dealt with measures to improve adoption, but also took the trouble to introduce—by amending the Children Act 1989—special guardianship orders? They should surely be included in any debate or legislation about adoption in order to get a proper picture of all the permanency options available.

[Bill Esterson]

Yes. We heard evidence from Andy Elvin about the increase in the number of children who are subject to special guardianship orders, so something is clearly working for those children, and he said that the outcomes were just as good.

We have 65,000 children in the care system, and we might have a piece of legislation that deals only with 3,000 or 4,000 children a year. Although it is important and right that we do as well as we can by those 3,000 or 4,000, we must do something for the other 61,000 or 62,000 as well. My worry is that this is a missed opportunity. It is a second missed opportunity, as my hon. Friend has reminded us. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when the Government will introduce equivalent proposals to address the support for the much larger group of children and young people—the 61,000 or 62,000—who are not covered by the provisions in the Bill.

Education and Adoption Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan]

I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment, because it is sensible, but if he does not, should he not at the very least be prepared to replicate in his response Lord Nash’s remarks in the other place, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak quoted? Should he ensure that there has been proper information, consultation and so on before he issues such draconian orders?

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is right. Every effort should be made to ensure that existing good arrangements are kept in place and are not disturbed, that any changes are an improvement on existing arrangements and in particular that good practice—there is much good practice around the country and internationally—is shared so far as is possible. Through that, we can keep in mind what I am sure everyone on the Committee and in the sector is committed to: doing the right thing for the children who come into the care system, whether that is adoption or other forms of permanence.

Education and Adoption Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan]

Q 51 A final question. Could the whole issue of coasting schools be dealt with in the inspection regime? Is there a danger that there could be confusion about accountability if we have two separate regimes running side by side?

Russell Hobby: That danger does exist. We now have two separate systems with no read-across between the Ofsted categories of “requires improvement”, “good” and “inadequate” and the new definition of coasting. You will find schools in every Ofsted grade that will fit that definition—in fact, I think you will find slightly more “good” schools than schools in “requires improvement” meeting the definition.

There is a risk that schools will feel that they are working towards two distinct and different sets of criteria. We have always thought that schools should be accountable, but it is helpful if they are accountable in one direction and have one set of standards so that they can focus their efforts on that.

[Bill Esterson]

Q 52 If having a good headteacher is the best indicator of success in a school, what would you like to see in the legislation to increase the numbers of good headteachers?

Russell Hobby: We have taken the first step, which is to move away from vague generalisations of what a coasting school is to start to define what coasting schools are. One of the risks was that a lot of schools were looking over their shoulders, wondering whether they were coasting and, therefore, a lot of people were thinking, “That’s not the sort of school that I would want to go and work in” if there were extra pressures arising.

In favour of the legislation and the regulations being provided, although I have my concerns around the definition, we have now got a more graduated response to those schools that are judged as coasting. Rather than the default assumption being that you will sack the headteacher and academise the school, it is now proposed—at least as written—that you will look for a credible plan of improvement within the school and look to partner the school with other good local schools or national leaders of education. Only then will you move down into forced academisation. I am not sure that that message has reached many school leaders yet. If it does, that might reassure some of the people working in these coasting and challenging schools.

At the same time, some of the checks and balances have been removed or are proposed to be removed. The regional schools commissioners now have a great deal of discretion in determining whether the plan of improvement is credible and who the school should be paired up with. A school’s ability to represent and defend itself is not particularly enshrined within the regulations. School leaders will be wondering, “It’s all very well having the challenge, but do I have the chance to make my case or will I be rushed through a change?” I would look at strengthening those aspects, if possible.

Education and Adoption Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan]

Q 46 On that point, Councillor Watts, the Minister used a piece of data at the beginning. He said that sponsored academies have improved more quickly over the past four years than all local authority schools, which is hardly surprising, is it?

Richard Watts: I am sure it is not. Some of the most interesting comparisons are like-for-like ones. Putting to one side the politics of this, I urge the Committee to consider the Sutton Trust report on this, which looked at the capacity of schools. It found that of the 20 academy chains considered, three produced above-average results, including Harris—on which, enormous congratulations to Daniel—and that of 100 local authority schools, 44 produced above-average results. As I say, you can pick data that show any point you wish. I do not think there is any overwhelming data that show the governance model to be the defining thing in the quality of a school.

[Bill Esterson]

Q 47 Should high-performing local authorities be allowed to take over coasting academies?

Richard Watts: There is a real challenge that the Government will face in pushing through this legislation: the capacity of high-quality sponsors to take on more schools. There are some excellent sponsors and there are some not so good sponsors. We have seen that capacity problems can develop where sponsor chains expand very quickly. The Department for Education has rightly intervened in a number of those rapidly expanding chains. If you are going to expand the pool of high-quality sponsors, it is common sense that good quality local authorities, or even outstanding maintained schools, should be able to become sponsors.

Education and Adoption Bill

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Brennan

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) mentioned the freedoms that academies enjoy and, undoubtedly, the academies legislation provides for additional freedoms. But most of the freedoms that heads in academies have used could have been used when the school was maintained. That was the finding from the evidence that the Education Committee took. The legislation has not led to wholesale change in how such freedoms are used.

Several hon. Members have talked about coasting schools, which is one of the issues of greatest contention in the Bill. The Education Committee looked at the issue of coasting schools, and we found that schools that were doing well—with a good or even an outstanding Ofsted grading—were not necessarily doing the best by their students. A coasting school can be doing very well, but should be doing better, and the difficulty for Opposition Members is understanding exactly what is meant by “coasting”. Is the Secretary of State targeting schools that are already doing well but should be doing better, or is she looking at schools that are perhaps not doing so well by their children? The definition needs to be addressed in Committee.

What should we be looking at today on Second Reading? I would hope that any proposed legislation on education would consider how education can deliver long-term prosperity and success for our young people and for our economy. Education is a critical factor, if not the critical factor, in determining how well young people are prepared for the wider world, in particular the world of work. Employers look to us to deliver an education system where young people can turn up at work and be ready to get going and to contribute, yet throughout the five years of the previous Parliament the Education Committee heard again and again from employers that far too often that is not happening. Young people are not coming out of school prepared for the world of work. Work experience is one example of where things have gone backwards in the past five years.

The Select Committee produced a number of inquiries. On more than one occasion, it came up with evidence which has been mentioned by many Members: the most important factor in providing great education is the quality of teachers, in particular head teachers. That came up in the inquiry into great teachers, but was repeated again and again in the past five years. What is happening in the world of education to deliver great teachers? The education element of the Bill looks at making academisation easier, but it has nothing to say on the quality of teaching. That is a great pity.

It has been suggested by many that the Government want all schools to become academies. Given that the term “coasting schools” is so broadly defined, it occurs to me to ask whether that is really what the Government are trying to do. By failing to define it, are they saying that they want all schools to become academies, without being quite so bold as to actually state that? If that is the intention, Ministers really ought to say so. Perhaps the Minister, in winding up, will confirm whether that is what he wants to do. From what he has said in the past, I think that is his intention.

[Kevin Brennan]

On that point, I wonder whether my hon. Friend saw recently in Tatler—I am sure he is an avid reader—the comments of the headteacher of Wymondham College in Norfolk, Mr Melvyn Roffe? He said that he had been told becoming an academy would mean more freedom and autonomy, but what happened was the reverse. He said:

“We have had more control from central government rather than local government…I don’t believe he”—

referring to the former Education Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove)—

“intended academy status to reduce autonomy. I wish he had the courage to say there are schools doing a good job and they should be allowed to do a good job.”

He regrets the college becoming an academy, so it is not always the case that heads welcome it.