Academies Bill [HL]

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords—

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, unless the Minister is dead keen to answer points raised on the amendments so far, I remind him that Amendment 64 is part of the group. Would he like me to withhold my comments?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

No.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Amendment 64 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley. With this amendment, I have had the temerity completely to redraft Clause 1(7) because, with the best will in the world, it is extraordinarily lumpy and unclear. However, I have made a wonderful boo-boo in the redraft, in that I have said that academy arrangements “may” prohibit, when of course it should be “must” prohibit, so I beg noble Lords’ indulgence and ask that “must” be read in place of “may”. However, my point is that in the existing subsection (7) the difference between attendance at a school and education provided at a school is wholly unclear to me. It says that,

“no charge is made in respect of … admission … attendance … or … education provided at the school”.

I suppose that this is really a probing amendment so that the Minister can tell the Committee what is missing from my comprehension.

[Baroness Thornton]

I promise that I shall say only a few words but I want to add to what my noble friend Lady Royall said in opening this debate. The very helpful Library notes that we received in the briefing pack repeat what is in the Explanatory Notes, so it is very important that this matter is clarified.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Phillips of Sudbury]

Can the Minister confirm that the proposition is that night classes do not constitute education provided at the school but are caught by the phrase, “attendance at … the school”? If that is so, I do not get it. At least the Minister might clarify that.

[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.