Academies Bill [Lords]

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wright]

I thank the Minister for confirming that. My fundamental concern about this aspect of the Bill remains the same, namely that it seems to be a very centralising Bill. It diverts the relationship away from a school thinking about local stakeholders, and having a good, constructive partnership and collaborative arrangement with local people, pupils, staff and so on, and towards having a direct relationship with the Secretary of State. I thought that was contrary to what the coalition Government would want to do with regard to empowering local people. In that respect, I remain unhappy.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Is there not a problem with the lack of accountability of the Secretary of State? The Secretary of State effectively approves the transfer of funds between the local authority and the academy, in one way or another. If there is a dispute, it is resolved by the Secretary of State, who gave his approval in the first place. There is no obvious transparency in the system, as far as the Secretary of State is concerned, and it is not obvious where one goes if either party simply does not accept the Secretary of State’s decision.

[Mr Wright]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is keen to expand academies as quickly as possible, so he has a vested interest in making sure that that happens. Then there is the decision on the transfer of surpluses; as my hon. Friend says, the Secretary of State is the final judge and jury on that issue. There is an inherent conflict of interest between various bodies, and I am concerned about that. There is a general concern about the complete lack of consultation with local stakeholders on the provisions, and I remain concerned about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

Clause 8 gives the Secretary of State the power to make a scheme to transfer the property of a maintained school in respect of which an academy order has been made. Amendment No. 65, ably moved by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), would require the Secretary of State to consult the local authority or other owner or any other appropriate persons before making a property transfer scheme that would affect, among other things, desks, computers and the assets of any existing school.

In the case of converting academies, we intend that there should be a seamless transfer between the existing maintained school and the academy, as part of which the school will clearly need to be able to continue to use its property, and to take advantage of contracts into which it may have entered, such as those for cleaning, catering and insurance. It may also need to transfer the benefit of trust funds left in trust for pupils or the school. The trust—say, a bursary for art left to the school many years ago in the will of a benefactor—may well mention the name of the predecessor school, and clause 8 would enable it to be transferred to the new entity of the academy.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North)]

In this consultation, is there a specific undertaking given by the Government that in any transfer they would consult the staff or staff organisations of those employed by contractors in one building, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) pointed out in his contribution?

[Mr Gibb]

In earlier debates we talked about TUPE. If staff are subject to the TUPE regulations, all the relevant consultation processes would apply. But if the hon. Gentleman is talking about a contractor who works neither for the previous maintained school or the local authority, and who will not become an employee of the academy, his or her employment rights continue to lie with the contracting company, not with the predecessor school or the academy.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My point is that if there is a contract for, say, computer maintenance, with clear employment implications, and it is transferred, the employment requirement also carries on. If it is not transferred, there would be employment implications to which the Secretary of State might be blind because he is looking only at the transfer of property.

[Mr Gibb]

In those circumstances, the contract would transfer under this clause, but the employment rights would be between the company that is the subject of the contract and the employee, who is not employed either by the predecessor school or the successor academy. The employment rights would not change because the contract would continue with the employer, who would not change.

I should say that we anticipate that the making of any scheme under the provisions of this legislation will be rare. We hope that, in most cases, the transfer of property in connection with a school converting to an academy would be, as now, by agreement among the parties. In most circumstances, a transfer of contract would take place by agreement. That would be our starting point for any property transfer, and this would ensure that all those with an interest in the transfer of such property would be involved in negotiations about their potential transfer. Therefore, we would not get to the point of considering making a scheme under this clause until such discussions were exhausted. It is therefore inconceivable that anyone with an interest in the property to be transferred would not be consulted on a possible transfer in advance of any scheme being made. There is no reason why the Secretary of State would go to the trouble or expense of making a scheme if matters could be resolved amicably. There might be some contracts though, where the other party might try to use a transfer to obtain further financial benefit. The possibility of the making of a scheme would remove that incentive. The provision is an attempt to prevent the possibility that someone might be able to leverage financial compensation, knowing that the transfer has to take place. It is to avoid that possibility that this clause is in place, so that the Secretary of State can make a transfer against the wishes of people who are party to the contract.

The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I ask the hon. Member for Hartlepool to withdraw it.