Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

Lord Addington Excerpts

Friday 24th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this Bill is a decent addition to the statute book. The principal thing is the two-years as opposed to seven, because your client base is going to be there for only a couple of years, rather than the seven years that would be expected if you actually had an ordinary academy. It makes sense, so I do not see any objection.

I also follow the noble Lord, Lord Bates, in pointing out what is a historical fact and has been for many years: society is getting safer. I know that it does not sell many red-tops or make any nice reels on social media or programmes, but it is a fact. I remember someone once saying to me, “Why can’t we be safe, like we were in the time of Shakespeare?” It is then that one suddenly realises that the murder rate was about 20 times what it is now, because there was no police force and most people went around with a bladed weapon. It was de rigueur. So it is a trend that has been going on for a long time, but it is worth pointing it out.

The fear of crime is probably a bigger problem now. I totally endorse what the noble Lord said: it is something that should be said more often and by more people. The previous Government should also take some credit for lowering the rate of people being incarcerated—so congratulations, and please make sure all your colleagues point out that it is going down: that would be a really beneficial thing. One waits to see whether that will have any effect in the next interview on the dreadful state of youth crime in this country.

We must also note the client base here. The average person has not been in school since they were 14; most people I have spoken to have said the “scholars” were the ones who were there at 14. More often, it is earlier. That was a direct quote from somebody involved in the thing. Secondary school seems to be the cut-off, going through.

It would be almost incredible if I did not mention, with my background, alternative provision. It is accepted that everybody in there has a special educational need; that is the planning basis. What are we doing to make sure that we have a teaching staff in these institutions that can deal with the educational problems? If you are struggling in school and experiencing failure, which makes you more vulnerable to getting involved in the criminal justice system—it is a proven link—what are we doing to make sure that you are getting through and actually addressing this and making sure that your education process is acceptable?

The dyslexia group was the one I first met, because of my own connection. The autism group is another. Either they do not handle authority well or, more commonly, they are more easily led. These are just two that I have come across recently. Anybody who fails consistently in the education system cannot get employment, cannot work, cannot handle authority and cannot understand letters or messages. It is a fairly proven pathway. Are these schools going to make sure that they can address and educate the people they are getting? We need a specialist and focused workforce. Without that, it really will not make much difference because, if you have experienced failure in a classroom, being stuck in another classroom for another period of time is not going to improve your attitude to that institution. It has to be more relevant.

Somebody with dyslexia whom I met in one of these institutions said, “If I have to be told how to spell ‘cat’ again by somebody who doesn’t understand my brain just doesn’t work like that, I think I am justified in wanting to kill them”. I discouraged him from this attitude, but you can understand the frustration. I hope that, when the Minister replies, she will address this, or at least give us a chance to bring this out at another stage of the Bill—but I wish it well.