Oral Answers to Questions
Louise Haigh Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Last week, Sir Michael Wilshaw warned of a brain drain due to the recruitment and retention crisis in teaching that the Minister is well aware of. I appreciate the Minister’s earlier answer about the use of qualified teachers in classes being up to schools, but does he share my concern that teaching assistants are increasingly being used to teach SEN and low-attaining pupils?
Mr Gibb
I do not accept the comments of Her Majesty’s chief inspector of schools. We are doing everything we can to recruit. Despite increasing pupil numbers, and the challenge of a strong economy and the strengthening graduate jobs market, we are ensuring that there are now record numbers of teachers in our classrooms. There are 13,000 more teachers in our classrooms today than in 2010. Recruitment in teaching is a challenge. I use every platform I have to extol the virtues and rewards of teaching to help raise the status of the teaching profession. What does the hon. Lady do?
Enterprise Bill [Lords]
Louise Haigh Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sajid Javid
I respect the right hon. Lady, but I hope she understands how growth is generated by the private sector. The Government deregulate, cut taxes, get out of the way of businesses and set entrepreneurs free. She has to understand that we cannot just pass a law that will grow businesses. Perhaps she agrees with the leader of her party when he says he wants to restore clause 4 to Labour’s constitution; perhaps she thinks that is the way to help growth and help businesses?
One way in which we certainly do help businesses is through further deregulation. That is why in the last Parliament we scrapped £10 billion of Labour’s red tape. We have already committed to scrapping another £10 billion between now and 2020. But business owners have told us that the actions of regulators are just as important as the content of regulations. So this Bill will extend the deregulation target to include statutory regulators, and it will increase transparency with a new annual reporting requirement for regulators subject to the growth duty and regulators’ code. It will also extend the hugely successful primary authority scheme to give more businesses access to reliable, consistent regulatory advice. This will save them money, and give them the confidence they need to invest and grow.
The Enterprise Bill will also end the “Whitehall knows best” approach to the regulation of Sunday trading. We are a one nation Government and we want to see the benefits of economic growth being felt in every corner of our country. But no two parts of our great nation are identical. The needs and wants of a small rural community in the south-west may be very different from those of a bustling city in, say, the north-east. The people living and working in those communities understand them far better than any Minister or civil servant sitting in a comfy London office. So we will introduce amendments in this Bill to allow local authorities to decide whether to extend shopping hours in their areas. Central Government will not be dictating how to use this power. The decision will be entirely local, reflecting local preferences, shopping habits and economic conditions. If the people of Bromsgrove or Barking say they want to see longer Sunday opening hours, who are we here in Westminster to stand in their way?
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
It is fantastic to hear that the Government’s policy is that Whitehall does not just know best, which is indeed what I thought the Government’s policy was before. Why then is the Secretary of State closing the BIS office in Sheffield and moving it to central London where, by default, decisions on investment will be much narrower and much more focused to central London, away from the so-called northern powerhouse?
Sajid Javid
First, the hon. Lady will know that no one makes this kind of decision lightly. The Government have a duty to spend taxpayers’ money wisely, and that is what we do with every single penny. She is quite wrong in her accusation that this will centralise decision making in London. Once the Department has completed its restructuring by 2020, there will be fewer people in London and the vast majority of officials who work for BIS will be outside London.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
This debate is vital for our economy, particularly if the Government are ever to put any meat on the bones of the so-called northern powerhouse. In a week when jobs have been moved from Sheffield to central London, and amid rumours that the chief executive of Tech North has resigned because of attempts by Whitehall to centralise that company in London, Ministers should be increasingly worried about how they can justify such a lofty term.
The missed opportunities the Bill represents have been admirably expressed by hon. Members and by those in the other place, whether on improving finance to SMEs, a broadened scope and sharper teeth for a small business commissioner, or some real vision for our renewables industry rather than a further undermining of investor confidence and security.
The focus of my remarks today will be on the cap for exit payments for civil servants. Labour Members are all for the best possible use of taxpayers’ money. We are well aware that the headlines that disguise the real impact of the measures—to clamp down on pay-outs for so-called fat cat civil servants—will be very appealing, particularly at a time when so many people are still struggling. The Government know all too well, however, that that is not the whole tale.
On the face of it, this is a wholly reasonable policy. There are, however, several issues relating to employer flexibility, the public purse, people suffering from ill health, whistleblowers and staff morale at a time of huge change. I hope they can be ironed out in Committee. The proposals come at a time when we are about to see changes to the rules on recovery of exit payments and a consultation on reducing redundancy terms across the civil service. The latest proposals unilaterally override recently revised terms and conditions, and undermine agreements made at the highest levels of the Government’s own employer representative organisations.
The recent exit payment policy for the NHS was signed off by the Secretary of State in February last year, when NHS trade unions entered into an agreement with NHS Employers and the Department of Health to apply an absolute cap on exit payments. After extensive negotiations, it was agreed that section 16 redundancy payments would be set out by a formula that recognises length of service as its key element. This was implemented in only April last year and is on the back of Lord Maude telling civil servants in the previous Parliament that their settlements would be sustainable for a generation. We know from the Government’s own survey work that morale in the civil service is at an all-time low, with workers feeling year on year that they do not trust their leadership. Is that any wonder, when the rug is constantly being pulled from under their feet?
Toby Perkins
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly important case. Does she agree that there is a bitter irony in a Secretary of State, who obviously does not believe in government, spending £200,000 on employing consultants to come up to the northern powerhouse, shut the Sheffield office and move all the jobs down to London?
Louise Haigh
I completely agree. That point was made forcibly in the urgent question last Friday. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills workers were watching and were horrified by the Minister’s response to that question. It is not understandable that those people should be concerned that their jobs are only secure for the time being, until the Government can force through weakened redundancy terms? Given the announcement last week, people across the civil service will understandably be further concerned.
On the specific issues, people who have given long service to the public sector—midwives, nurses, librarians, social workers; people whom we, on either side of the House, could not describe as fat cats—have dedicated their lives to improving society. Is the Minister comfortable that these incredible workers will be impacted by the cap on exit payments? Why, when this policy was proposed last year by the Minister for Employment, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), were people earning less than £27,000 explicitly exempted to
“protect the very small number of low earning, long-serving public servants”?
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, on the one hand, the Government are always ready to praise the work and contribution of public sector workers, in particular at the lower end of the scale, but that, on the other, it seems they are not ready to recognise that financially when those workers come to the end of their careers and face the difficult decisions that have to be taken by management?
Louise Haigh
Exactly. That is a really important point, given that this is a clear U-turn in Government policy following the announcement last year. There is absolutely no such exemption in the Bill. In the NHS, for example, even without the inclusion of pension strain payments, according to research by the union Unison, the proposed cap will affect nurses, midwives and paramedics with long service. These issues were the subject of very high level negotiations, where a higher level cap was set to mitigate against penalising long service in key front-line services. For this reason, will the Minister consider exempting people with salaries on or below average earnings?
On industrial relations, the exit payment cap will be implemented across a range of public service areas that already have fair, transparent and effective procedures in place which arise from collective agreements negotiated between employers and trade unions that are sensitive to the specific issues facing each sector. If we have anything to learn from the junior doctors’ action, it is that good industrial relations are vital and that we should not legislate haphazardly to weaken terms and conditions.
The Secretary of State said we should move away from the “Whitehall knows best” attitude—I could not agree more—but the Bill weakens that ambition by imposing an arbitrary cap across the civil service on exit payments and by restricting the freedom and flexibility that employers require to manage restructuring and redundancies effectively, at a time when public sector employers require it most. The public sector is in the middle of its most dramatic budget cuts in decades, and employers are having to restructure almost every aspect of public services to meet their new budgetary constraints. In moving the goalposts in the middle of an extended period of large-scale reorganisation, without an initial period of protection, particularly for staff over 50, the Government are further limiting the opportunity for employers fairly to reconsider strategic and operational decisions made in previous reorganisations and planned to be effected in stages on the assumption that current agreements and policies would apply. Will the Minister therefore consider a grace period for public sector employers undergoing reorganisation?
On the public purse, the Government seek to justify the cap solely on the basis of the cost of payments to staff in the public sector between 2011 and 2014. This is the only evidence provided in their consultation, but it fails to recognise that, during the same period, employment in the civil service fell by 107,350, under the current civil service compensation scheme arrangements. No evidence is provided to demonstrate that the cap will deliver value-for-money savings, as changes in the compensation payments naturally affect the number of staff willing to exit the public sector, which might engender higher costs elsewhere.
As for the coalition Government’s early conciliation scheme, which has actually worked quite well, the proposals could have a perverse impact by diverting people to tribunals, where settlements will not be capped, and avoiding settlements at this optimal stage. Ministers should therefore consider exempting such conciliation payments from the cap.
Finally, two more important exceptions should be considered: first, whistleblowers, and secondly, people retiring on ill-health grounds. Whistleblowing is a vital part of our democracy, and capping settlements in such cases could easily deter people from blowing the whistle, given that this often puts their livelihoods and reputations at risk. The Government have made clear their intention not to include those retiring on ill-health grounds and that this will be put in secondary legislation, so will the Minister take this opportunity to make it clear that this is the case and that such people will be explicitly exempted?
Oral Answers to Questions
Louise Haigh Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but we are running out of time. Last but not least, Louise Haigh.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in a briefing on Friday to Department for Business, Innovation and Skills workers whose jobs are at risk in Sheffield, one of the main reasons given for closing their office was:
“because phones and computers don’t work”?
Is the Secretary of State, who is responsible for innovation, seriously saying that the Department responsible for sending people to space cannot find a way to communicate properly with an office 150 miles up the road? Will he now reflect on the way this farcical announcement was made and on the lack of empathy shown to those workers?
Sajid Javid
No one takes these decisions lightly. Of course, a number of people and their families are affected, and we need to do everything we possibly can to help. However, we have an obligation to taxpayers to make sure that we spend their money wisely, and that means making sure that all Government Departments are run efficiently and effectively. Even after this change, my Department will have more people—the vast majority of people—outside London, and that is the right thing.
Oral Answers to Questions
Louise Haigh Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sajid Javid
It is a shame that the hon. Lady has to take that attitude. It would be better if she were a lot more constructive on this issue. I could point out that under 13 years of Labour we saw a 45% collapse in steel production and jobs halved—cut by more than 10,000—because of her Government’s policies. This Government are taking the issue seriously. This Government called for, and were granted, an emergency Council meeting at which we agreed on a number of actions. They will be published today and there will be further information in my written statement, which the hon. Lady can read.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
5. What progress he has made on introducing a market rent only option for pub tenants.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
The Government published a consultation on the introduction of the market rent only option on 29 October. Our proposals have been drafted to strike a fair balance between pub companies and tenants, and we look forward to hearing views from across the industry during the consultation period.
Louise Haigh
The draft pubs code released by the Minister in late October was supposed to signal the end of the unfair practice of forcing tied tenants to buy their beer only from pubcos. In fact, the code seems to give tenants the freedom to buy on the open market only in exceptional circumstances. Does the Minister agree that the code will mean in practice that very few tenants will be free from the pubco profiteers?
Anna Soubry
No, I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s assessment of the consultation at all. The clue is in the name: this is a consultation. We are therefore, quite rightly, publishing our proposals, and I look forward to representations from everybody, including the hon. Lady.
Education and Adoption Bill
Louise Haigh Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Pugh
I will consider the hon. Gentleman’s comments carefully. I am certainly happy with the idea of local decision making—I just wish the Government were more comfortable with it—and I think that we as politicians can do little to improve the educational landscape. We can change structures all the time, but they are not what makes a substantial difference: what makes a difference are the things that we normally cannot control or create but which, if we introduce the wrong kind of legislation, we can certainly frustrate.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of my new clauses 4 and 5 and the new clauses and amendments in the names of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns).
We need to make a wealth of important changes to the Bill. It is a great honour to follow excellent contributions from hon. Members who are clearly passionate about educational standards. I do not doubt that the Government share that passion, but the problem is that none of the measures in the Bill will improve those standards. The Bill is based on an overriding assumption that academisation will automatically drive up standards and that the centralisation of power is the way to deliver it. Unfortunately, the Government have been simply unable to evidence that assumption at any stage of this Bill.
As such, the Bill before us today is a missed opportunity—a missed opportunity to address the profound teacher recruitment and retention crisis, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan)outlined, that is predicated on a demoralised, overstretched workforce and a burgeoning young population. It is a missed opportunity to drive up standards in academies where underperformance stubbornly persists—an issue that the Bill inexplicably excludes. It is a missed opportunity to put parents, teachers, assistants and the local school community at the heart of the agenda. That is why Labour Members were disappointed that the Minister refused to take up any of our sensible amendments in Committee, which would have demonstrated a cross-party willingness to drive up educational standards.
Let me explain the contrasting principles behind my new clauses 4 and 5. First, school improvement simply cannot take place without the consultation and involvement of parents, teachers and the school community. Secondly, we must strengthen the accountability system that is, even in its current form, all too lacking, particularly for academy chains.
New clause 5 would place a new duty on the chief inspector of Ofsted to inspect the overall performance of any academy chain to ascertain whether it is carrying out its functions appropriately; and it would give the Secretary of State power to direct the chief inspector to inspect any academy chain and specify which areas need inspecting. That is particularly important for financial stability, where several academy chains such as E-ACT have come unstuck. The new clause, supported by the chief inspector of Ofsted, will go some way towards opening up the accountability system for academy sponsors, which has not caught up with the rapid expansion of academies generally.
The speed at which schools converted into academies or joined multi-academy trusts has increased at a dramatic rate over the past three years. In 2012-13, the Department opened three times as many sponsored academies as in 2011-12, and by December 2014, 3,062 schools had converted to academy status—far in excess of expectations. This, of course, will continue apace under the Bill, as regional school commissioners scrabble to find sponsors in pursuit of centrally set targets.
It is therefore reasonable for systems of accountability to keep pace. That is all the more important because, as we have heard, performance levels among chains still suffer from significant variation. The Sutton Trust concluded in its recent report that the very poor results for pupils of some chains are of urgent concern. These concerns are about what happens not just in the classroom, but in the boardroom. The National Audit Office warned that the inability of Ofsted to inspect academy chains means that there is no independent source of information about the quality of their work, and called on the Government to ensure that the Department has an independent source of information for assessing the quality, capacity and performance of academy sponsors.
The lack of accountability and oversight by an independent body has its consequences—finance, audit and governance systems will suffer without rigorous independent inspections, and in some cases may not exist at all. In particular, the funding arrangements have been found to be open to abuse and conflicts of interests.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Our hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) touched earlier on the issue of transparency. Are you aware of the school in my constituency—the Hewett school, a local authority school—that was handed over to an academy chain called the Inspiration Trust by ministerial fiat against the wishes of the community and the parents of that school? One problem we have with the Inspiration Trust is that it refuses to publish the individual accounts of individual schools. Instead, it simply publishes very basic group accounts. I think there is a concern about conflicts of interests, which are not being highlighted in the way we would like. Will your new clause be able to challenge that and do something about it?
Clive Lewis
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) is indeed honourable for giving way. I was wondering whether my hon. Friend’s new clause could tackle the issue I raised.
Louise Haigh
I am very grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend raises an example—one he has raised on several occasions—that is exactly the kind of example my new clause intends to address.
The Institute of Education reported on the case of the Academy Enterprise Trust, a chain of some 80 academies, which paid nearly £500,000 into the private business interests of trustees and executives, with the payments ranging from project management to consultancy. In all cases, the services had not been put out to competitive tender and the AET’s accounts demonstrated a serious budget deficit.
James Berry
Is the hon. Lady seriously criticising these individuals, who are looking to assist in the education of young people, just because they are Conservative party members? If she is, I think this debate has got to a very sad state. I thought, when we were members of the Public Bill Committee, that both our parties were looking to further education opportunities for young people, not simply make cheap party political jibes and pot shots.
Louise Haigh
The Minister made the same point in Committee when I was raising these issues then. This is not an issue of Conservative party membership; this is an issue of transparency and serious conflicts of interest that have been raised by the cross-party Education Committee. It is not a cheap party political jibe, but one that has been seriously raised about parliamentary accountability and transparency, something Conservative Members are supposedly in favour of.
The Harris chain is particularly relevant, because it has sometimes been chosen as a sponsor by the Department against the wishes of staff, parents, and communities who have preferred other high-performing local options. That brings me to the Minister’s colleague, Lord Nash, who is another Conservative donor. He sits not only in the other place, but in the Department as Minister for Academies, where he is involved in choosing sponsors despite having been involved in specific academy chains. Frankly, there have been suspicions of political favouritism and intervention in these choices, and there are too few safeguards against them.
The vast majority of academy trusts are staffed by people working hard to address educational underperformance, but it is appropriate to ask, as the Education Committee did, what processes the Minister has in place to guard against certain trusts being given preferential treatment if, as we expect, the Government refuse to allow independent scrutiny. Indeed, the Clarke report, following the so-called Trojan horse affair, made a number of very significant recommendations which it appears the Government have yet to implement fully. Recommendation 7 stated that the Department for Education should consider urgently how best to capture local concerns driving the conversion process and review the brokerage system through which schools are matched with academy sponsors to ensure that the process is transparent and understood by all parties. The Government have previously claimed that all the recommendations have been implemented, but perhaps the Minister could comment on how the Bill fulfils them. What we are hearing from education professionals is that in some cases school leaders will go to the Department with recommendations for a preferred sponsor for their school, only to be overruled by the Department.
That brings me to new clause 4, which is intended to put the voices of parents and the local community at the centre of any decision to choose the identity of an academy sponsor. Apart from questions about the principle and pace of the academy programme, there will be questions about the identity, values and track record of particular academy sponsors for particular schools. Labour Members simply do not understand what the Government have to fear from the voices of parents, teachers, governors and support staff. We consult those groups constantly, and we value their input extremely highly. Indeed, the head of the National Association of Head Teachers argued, very wisely, in a blog ahead of today’s debate, that
“removing the right to consultation and engagement with local communities, in my experience, tends to alienate and promote opposition where previously the local community was neutral.”
Tristram Hunt
As we know, the academic evidence shows that when there is parental support for and buy-in to a school, the results of that school are often better. What we are seeing from the Government, however—whether we are talking about the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill, the Trade Union Bill or this Bill—is a sustained Tory assault on democracy and free speech, on the very anniversary of Magna Carta. I have to say that it fills me with dread.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Communication and consultation can only be positive, and significantly improve the process of schools’ conversion to academy status.
There is another perfectly legitimate reason why parents have a right to be involved in the decision. As we have heard, there is a stark variation between the performances of academy chains. Parents, teachers, local authorities and the school community could be handing a school over to a chain that might perform markedly worse than the existing maintained school.
In a report that is as detailed and comprehensive as any could be found, the much-respected Sutton Trust demonstrated that sponsored academies are twice as likely to be below the floor standards as other mainstream schools. Half the chains examined by the trust did less well than the mainstream school average. Indeed, in 2014, 44% of the academies in the analysis group covered in the report were below the Government’s new “coasting level”.
Our education system must be a collaborative effort between parents, pupils and schools, and Labour Members believe that it is the right of parents to have a substantial say in how their children are educated. The Conservative Education Act 1996 set out in law the general principle that
“pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents”.
That has been a principle in law since school attendance became compulsory more than a century ago.
It is strange that the Government’s talk of localism and involving service users in decisions does not apply to schools. After the election, the Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked in a speech on devolution that “the old model” of running things from London
“made people feel remote from the decisions that affect their lives. It’s not good for our prosperity or for our democracy.”
He will find some agreement among Members on both sides of the House on that general point, but perhaps the Education Secretary failed to get the memo, as she removed the right of parents and the local school community to have a say in the future of their schools. I ask once again, why are the Government so afraid of the voices of parents and the school communities?
My new clause would go a small way towards repairing the democratic deficit that is opening up as a result of a Bill that puts too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State, and far too little in the hands of our school communities.
Peter Kyle
It is great to be called for the first time under your stewardship, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to support new clause 1.
I have already paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan); let me now extend my thanks to the Schools Minister, who sat opposite me for the many weeks of the Committee stage, and took my interventions very graciously during that period despite my frequent fumbling breaches of protocol.
No one, in Committee or today, has disputed the need to challenge coasting in any school—least of all me, because I went to a school which, by today’s standards, could be deemed to have been coasting. I left with very few qualifications, and, at the age of 25, I had to return to the same state secondary school and take my exams again. I spent a year in a secondary school as a 25-year-old. Anyone who has done that—spent a year with teenagers as a 25-year-old, and had the experience of going through education for the second time—will never, ever allow any other person to go through the same thing, or allow any other person to leave school without the right qualifications. It seems an irony that the school I left and had to return to is in the constituency of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, because the Minister for Schools is the MP for that constituency. This has therefore come full circle now, and I hope that what was Felpham comprehensive school—I do not know what it is called now, but I presume Felpham community college—is doing much better today than it was doing then.
Nobody disputes the need to tackle coasting wherever it is, least of all me, and nobody disputes that academies are the answer in some cases, but only the Government think they are always the answer. That is the nub of why I support new clause 1.
The Government could not produce a single witness in the witness stage of the Bill to say conversion to an academy was always the answer to coasting. In fact their star witness, Sir Daniel Moynihan, a remarkable man who set up and is chief executive of a fantastic organisation, the Harris Federation, was asked directly by me whether he thought academisation is the only response to coasting. His answer was simple: “No,” and he went on to explain why in more detail.
The sum of that, of the experience there has been, and of the evidence given in writing and in person by experts is that academisation is one tool of many, and is not the only tool. I should make a declaration here: I am chair of governors of an academy that has fundamentally transformed the ability of young people to go through education successfully with fantastic outcomes.
My second point is that the regulatory framework that will underpin schooling as a consequence of this Bill is confused and complicated. Given this Government’s philosophical approach to deregulation, it is extraordinary that schools from different sectors—state maintained, academies and the private sector—are all regulated in different ways. This is absurd and it is becoming a regulatory nightmare which will produce some real absurdities.
For example, as a consequence of this Bill, a school could in future be rated as outstanding by Ofsted yet the Department for Education could deem it as coasting. What are parents going to make of this new world? How will they decide where to send their children?
We will have a regulatory framework where academies that are deemed to be coasting by every other measure are not allowed to be converted to another status. The Bill focuses on organisational status as opposed to what we now know works: a focus on standards and educational outcomes. All the international evidence throughout the world shows that a focus on standards is what drives up educational outcomes, yet this Bill completely ignores all that evidence. It is turning into an ideological Bill, which I fundamentally oppose.
It is extraordinary that someone who comes from my background and has been involved in the conversion from local authority-maintained schools to academies should stand here in such opposition to a Bill that refers to academies.
Oral Answers to Questions
Louise Haigh Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that question. He is absolutely right in what he says, and we have been talking about the executive pipeline. I am pleased to say that 45% of the DFE’s senior civil service are women, and 42% of our most senior management posts are held by women.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
7. What steps her Department is taking to increase the (a) provision and (b) uptake of subject knowledge enhancement courses in chemistry.
The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)
Thank you, Mr Speaker Bercow.
Subject knowledge enhancement courses allow trainee teachers to build on their existing knowledge to enable them to teach their chosen subject. We have reformed the programme so that the courses can now be delivered by schools and universities, and we are promoting the courses through the successful “Get into Teaching” marketing campaign. The additional training is free of charge and most participants also receive a bursary. New chemistry trainees are also eligible for a bursary of up to £25,000 in 2015-16.
Louise Haigh
Given that the number of primary teachers in Sheffield with a science degree is below the national average, does the Minister agree that it is wrong for the teacher supply model not to account for regional variation?
Mr Gibb
The teacher supply model takes into account the national position. There will, of course, always be areas of the country that find it more challenging to recruit than others, particularly rural areas or some coastal areas. We are also faced with the challenge of a strong economy. If you really want to make recruiting graduates into teaching easier, you need a weak and stagnant economy, with low growth, recession and high levels of unemployment, but for that you need a Labour Government.
Education and Adoption Bill (Tenth sitting)
Louise Haigh Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend noted that education legislation passed under the previous Labour Government applied parliamentary accountability to regulations of this importance? The affirmative resolution procedure applies, for example, to the designation of a rural primary school, or repeal of school travel scheme provisions, under clauses 15 and 80 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. These are important matters, but surely no more important or controversial than these regulations, with the sweeping changes that they imply to our school system.
Kevin Brennan
I am not surprised that my hon. Friend, with her usual copious research and command of detail, has spotted that. I am a big fan of the affirmative resolution procedure. I am not going to say that in every case the previous Government applied it as vigorously as they should have—I have made that point before—but I am a big fan of the affirmative resolution procedure because it is important that Parliament should scrutinise the Executive closely. It is something that you have done assiduously yourself, Mr Chope, on many a Friday and on other days of the week. It is important that we have the opportunity to debate these matters and have an enjoyable discussion, as we are having now, on the detail of Government policy. On that basis, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Louise Haigh
In another time and place, I was a fan of the original clause 4, but in this instance I prefer the new one. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn notes that on this matter I am on message.
As hon. Members can see, new clause 4, in similar fashion to new clause 2, would place a new duty on the chief inspector of Ofsted to inspect the overall performance of any academy chain, to ascertain whether it is carrying out its functions appropriately, and give the Secretary of State power to direct the chief inspector to inspect any academy chain and specify which areas he may wish to inspect.
In addition, before an existing chain takes over a new school under the powers in the Bill, the chief inspector would have to produce a report detailing the proprietor’s overall performance in performing its functions, including those that relate not only to the running of individual schools, but to the overall management of the group of schools and the support services it provides, in particular where those are equivalent to the roles performed by a local authority for other schools.
New clauses 4 and 2 go some way to opening up the accountability system within academies that have taken some time to catch up. The speed at which schools converted into academies or joined multi-academy trusts over the past three years has increased at a dramatic rate. In 2012-13, the Department opened three times as many sponsored academies as in 2011-12. By December 2014, 3,062 academies had converted to academy status, way in excess of expectations.
We heard in evidence session how some multi-academy trusts now provide their own shared services, even their own pupil referral units within the chain in the case of the Harris Federation. Some have their own training schools, replacing functions that universities perform, let alone local authorities. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect that proper rigorous accountability of the chains, which administer a significant proportion of the new schools, should follow such a rapid expansion. That is all the more important because, as the Committee has heard, performance levels between chains still suffer significant variation, with the Sutton Trust concluding in its report:
“The very poor results of some chains…for pupils…comprises a clear and urgent problem.”
In that context, Sir Michael Wilshaw called for the specific power that we are trying to lay down in the new clauses: that Ofsted be given specific powers to inspect academy chains. Such powers are already available so that it can inspect children’s services at a local council, for instance. The Secretary of State gave Ofsted directions within its existing powers to inspect academy chains, but not to pass judgment, instead focusing more narrowly on the group of schools within the chain. This is particularly concerning given the record of poor performance of some academy chains that the Sutton Trust rightly remarked upon.
Mr Gibb
Is not the hon. Lady aware that all the gentlemen whom she listed are following in the footsteps of philanthropists in the United States in giving large sums of money and large amounts of their time and experience to the public good to raise academic standards in academy chains? She should applaud those individuals, not criticise them.
Louise Haigh
I absolutely applaud philanthropic activity. If that is genuinely the motivation of those individuals, I will certainly pass that on. My concern is around the conflicts of interest that independent auditors and the National Audit Office have raised about the Education Funding Agency, and those that are clearly apparent among these institutions. I do not think it is inappropriate to ask, as the Select Committee report did last year, what processes the Minister has in place to guard against certain trusts being given preferential treatment if, as we expect, the Government refuse to allow independent scrutineers to judge for themselves.
The context is important and demonstrates that the oversight and accountability of academy chains are far from ideal. Of course, some of the concerns are about wider issues, but our interest, especially in the Bill, is primarily in ensuring high quality education for all our children. New clause 4 goes some way to address that specific point.
A couple of examples from the Institute of Education report show the consequences of the lack of accountability directly for the management and oversight of schools. One interviewee described a case where a headteacher had spent more than £50,000 on a one-day training course run by a friend. In another case, one executive head was also the member of the wider chain, meaning that the executive head could appoint the board, which would then undertake performance management on their own school. Although the report states that that is clearly not widespread practice, it highlights how crucial it is to have an independent assessment and judgement of academy chains, and that is exactly what the new clauses seek to do.
Mr Gibb
New clauses 2 and 4 relate to inspection arrangements for academy trusts and sponsors. I agree that it is important that multi-academy trusts, including those led by sponsors, are held to account for their performance. The main way in which this should be done is through the individual Ofsted inspections of schools within their chain. The funding agreement with the Secretary of State allows the Department to take action where Ofsted finds that individual academies within the chain are failing.
The Secretary of State and the chief inspector at Ofsted agreed the arrangements for focus inspections of multi-academy trusts earlier this year. The agreement set out that there was no need to extend Ofsted’s remit to provide them with additional powers to inspect multi-academy trusts. These arrangements enable the assessment by Ofsted of the overall performance of a multi-academy trust, including the contribution and role that the sponsor plays in supporting and leading the effective governance of the trust and the improvement of its schools.
The core of these inspections is based on the inspection of a group of individual academies governed by the trust. In addition, Ofsted can seek the views of all the academies under the trust on the support they receive and use any data and information that they have about the trust and its academies. Ofsted uses this information to reach a view about the overall quality of the support and governance that the trust provides to its academies.
We therefore recognise the importance of holding academy chains to account, which is why we published a statistical working paper in March 2015 putting forward new measures for multi-academy trust educational performance. We have undertaken to make access to information about multi-academy trust performance more transparent and easier to access. We will improve the performance tables to ensure that they allow access to information on overall multi-academy trusts. A cycle of inspections is under way and Ofsted has so far inspected four multi-academy trusts and published reports on three.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley is enamoured of new clause 4, which also proposes requiring the chief inspector to provide a report on the performance of the trust before the Secretary of State can enter into a funding agreement with it in respect of an additional sponsored academy. This is also unnecessary. The Secretary of State already subjects sponsors and their trusts to thorough scrutiny through the regional schools commissioners before they are approved to take on sponsored academies. They consider all new sponsor applications in their regions, approving those that demonstrate that they have the capacity and expertise to turn failing schools around.
Education and Adoption Bill (Ninth sitting)
Louise Haigh Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point and, as I said, we are probing the Government’s thinking about this. We must not lose sight of the fact that it is equally important—if not sometimes more important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said—that provision is excellent for pupils in pupil referral units, pupils with special educational needs or disabilities and so on. We should have the same, if not more, passion about schools for them, as we do for schools in general. However it is achieved, it needs to be achieved—I think that we can probably agree on that.
Section 59 of the 2006 Act explicitly included all the types of school in amendment 77 in its definition of “maintained school”, and that definition is carried forward into this Bill. The draft regulations can be applied only to mainstream primary or secondary schools, however. The data used are obviously not applicable to either a nursery school or a 16-to-19 school, because they are based on key stage 2 and key stage 4 outcomes. Equally, the criteria are entirely inappropriate for special schools, where the same nationally set rates of progress cannot be expected. It is important that the legislation is explicit and accurate and that draft regulations cover the circumstances of all schools that are to be covered. Either the Bill or the regulations need to be changed, and we would be grateful if the Minister would clarify this matter.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
May I add my thanks for your excellent chairmanship during these proceedings, Sir Alan. I rise in support of amendment 66 in the name of my hon. Friends. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State outlined the intention that,
“No child should have to put up with receiving an education that is anything less than good”,
before going on to say that,
“The measures in the Bill are designed to speed up the process by which underperforming schools are transformed”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 638.]
Clause 1 specifies, however, that only a maintained school can fall under the proposed coasting regulations and, as we know, there is no provision whatever about transforming failing academies and failing academy chains, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West has already made clear. Indeed, under one of the measures of coasting—below 60% of pupils achieving grade A* to C at GCSE—the figures from the DFE performance tables are revealing.
The number of academies and free schools not meeting the 60% benchmark has almost trebled in the past three years, whereas the number of maintained schools failing to meet it has halved. They now very nearly match each other, with the number of maintained schools missing the benchmark falling from 1,445 to 854 and academies rising from 214 to 558. I appreciate that this is just one benchmark of the new coasting definition, but it is telling that the Government have chosen to focus their new performance measures entirely on maintained schools when, under their own terms, there is a clear issue with academies, and failing academies in particular, especially given that there were proportionally more inadequate academies than maintained schools as of April 2015. Further, and finally, as my hon. Friend mentioned, Opposition Members have serious concerns that this Bill will, yet again, leave academies free of direct parliamentary scrutiny, to be dealt with via private contract law behind closed doors. We hope that this amendment will go at least some way to increasing the scrutiny of academies and will allow standards to be raised for all schools.
Mr Gibb
The provisions in clauses 2 to 12 will allow us to tackle failing schools more swiftly. They build on the success of the academies programme established by Lord Adonis and expanded by the coalition Government, and this approach has contributed to a dramatic improvement in standards—over a million more children are now in “good” or “outstanding” schools than in 2010. Those measures will accelerate the process of intervention in failing schools by removing bureaucratic obstacles and making it more difficult for ideology to stand in the way of necessary improvements.
However, our commitment to social justice means that we need to go further. If we are to ensure that every child, regardless of background, receives the high-quality education to which they are entitled, we cannot settle for tackling failure only once it has arisen.
Education and Adoption Bill (Eighth sitting)
Louise Haigh Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 40, in clause 7, page 6, line 5, leave out “must” and insert “may”
There may be a good reason why the school should not be academised, and this amendment allows for mature reflection of the need for academisation.
Amendment 46, in clause 7, page 6, line 6, after “intervention”, insert “for the first time after 1 January 2016”
The Bill does not make clear when the Government will implement this new power. This amendment would provide that the power could not be used retrospectively.
Amendment 24, in clause 7, page 6, line 8, at end insert—
‘(A1A) Prior to making an Academy Order in respect of a maintained school under subsection (A1), the Secretary of State must arrange for an independent assessment of the impact of conversion into an Academy on vulnerable pupils, including but not limited to—
(a) children with statements of special educational needs,
(b) children with special educational needs without statements,
(c) looked after children,
(d) children with disabilities, and
(e) children with low prior attainment not otherwise falling under (a) to (d).
(A1B) A report of any assessment conducted under subsection (A1A) shall be laid before each House of Parliament by the Secretary of State.
(A1C) Where a report under subsection (A1B) indicates any risks of negative impacts on vulnerable pupils, the Secretary of State must accompany the report with a statement of the steps he is taking to satisfy himself that reasonable mitigating steps will be planned and implemented to reduce such risks.”
Amendment 42, in clause 7, page 6, line 8, at end insert—
‘(A2) For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (A1) does not apply to a maintained nursery school or a Pupil Referral Unit.”
The amendment is to clarify whether the new provision applies to maintained nursery schools and Pupil Referral Units.
Amendment 45, in clause 7, page 6, line 10, at end insert—
‘( ) in section 19 of the Academies Act 2010, in subsection (2), insert at start “Except subsection (A1) of section 4” and insert after subsection (3)
( ) Before the Secretary of State makes an order commencing section 4(A1) she will lay before Parliament an independent report demonstrating the improvement, or otherwise, of schools which have been academised, or not, after being eligible for intervention by virtue of sections 61 or 62 EIA 2006.”
The amendment requires the Secretary of State to demonstrate that academisation is the best solution for schools which receive an inadequate Ofsted judgement.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I want to speak briefly in support of amendment 40, which allows us maturely to reflect on the need for academisation before the Secretary of State imposes her will on an underperforming school. Before the break, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West laid out many examples of alternative methods of school improvement and made the case that academisation is not the only option. In 2012, 559 schools were judged inadequate. Of the 294 that remained maintained, and therefore were not engaged in the academisation process, only nine remained inadequate a year later. On re-inspection, 152 were deemed good and six were rated outstanding. We have heard today that local authorities are not taking the necessary action to improve standards in schools, but those figures clearly suggest otherwise. Furthermore, sponsored academies are twice as likely to stay inadequate as maintained schools.
Does the Minister agree with the Local Government Association, which commented in evidence to the Committee that governance—or structure—is
“a distraction in all of this.”?––[Official Report, Education and Adoption Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2015; c. 18, Q36.]
Does he not think it logical for the Secretary of State to consider the case for academisation first, given that it is not the silver bullet that the Minister seems to think it is? Rather than placing a duty on the Secretary of State to force academisation, it would be good practice to allow the Secretary of State, in consultation with the chief inspector of schools at Ofsted, to make a decision based on the available evidence and the circumstances of individual schools. Amendments 40 and 39 would allow the Secretary of State space to use her judgment, rather than having her hands tied arbitrarily. In the event of a warning notice being issued, a school having been found to require significant improvement or a school being in special measures, the amendments seek to give the Secretary of State time to consider the case for academisation properly.
The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)
Welcome back to our proceedings, Mr Chope. It is again a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
Amendments 39, 40, 46, 42 and 45 all relate to clause 7, as does amendment 24, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Sefton Central. Clause 7 places a duty on the Secretary of State to make an academy order for any maintained school that Ofsted has rated inadequate, removing any doubt about how we will intervene in failing schools: they must become academies with the support of an effective sponsor to give them the necessary support and challenge to turn the school around. The clause is therefore a crucial new power to strengthen our ability to deal with failure and to do so more swiftly.
Amendment 39 seeks to make the duty to issue an academy order dependent on whether the Ofsted chief inspector advises that such an order should be made. The Government of course greatly value the independent advice of the chief inspector on school performance, but I consider the amendment to be unnecessary and likely to lead to a less efficient process for taking the necessary action quickly once a school is identified to be failing. Ofsted judgments on a school’s performance are made under the powers of Her Majesty’s chief inspector, as set out in the Education and Inspections Act 2006. When Ofsted judges a school inadequate, the chief inspector has already sent a clear signal to the school, local authority and the Secretary of State that he judges the school to be failing to provide an adequate education. Once a school is deemed inadequate, there should be no further question about whether the school should be converted into an academy. In such cases, the school is failing to provide an adequate education and requires academisation as quickly as possible. Regional schools commissioners are then responsible for taking the necessary action to secure improvements, and they are accountable to Parliament through the Secretary of State.
The amendment would create a further review stage for the individual school before an academy order is issued, but when Ofsted has already given a clear judgment that the school is failing. That additional step is unnecessary and runs against our aim to make intervention more effective and efficient. In short, we will have already asked for the opinion of Her Majesty’s chief inspector, and that will have been provided when Ofsted awards a school a category 4 grading.
Amendment 40 would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to make an academy order when a school is found to be inadequate. In every case in which a school is found to be inadequate, it must have a fresh start immediately, secured through an academy solution with an effective sponsor. The duty that the clause places on the Secretary of State to make an academy order in respect on any maintained school that Ofsted has rated inadequate removes any doubt about how we will intervene in failing schools: they must become academies, with the support of an effective sponsor.
Since 2010, sponsors have taken on more than 1,100 such schools. The replacement of the governance of a failing school with the support of a strong sponsor is an effective way to secure rapid improvement. By 2014, results in sponsored secondary academies open for four years had risen by an average of 6.4 percentage points compared with their predecessor schools. During that same period, results in local authority schools rose by an average of 1.3 percentage points—[Interruption.] In previous sittings we have debated whether that is a valid judgment. I contend that it is, because it puts in perspective what those 6.4 percentage points mean in terms of how standards are rising overall through the system.
Mr Gibb
Clause 8 inserts into the Academies Act 2010 a new section 5 concerning consultation on academy conversion. The new section 5 preserves the requirement to consult on the proposed conversion in the case of schools that are voluntarily proposing to opt for academy conversion, and maintains the freedom of the school’s governing body to carry out such a consultation before or after the academy order, or an application for an academy order, has been made. As now, consultation must be with those the governing body think appropriate. The significant difference made by this clause is that the new section 5 provides that where the academy order is to be made because the school is eligible for intervention, there is no duty to consult.
Where a school is underperforming and an academy solution is required, we want the transformation to take place from day one; we do not want the process to be delayed through debates about whether a school should become an academy. Our experience, as I have said, is that in many cases where it was most needed, transformation was delayed by such debate, delaying tactics and obstruction of the process.
I have spoken already about the case of Twydall school. Another example in which the principle of conversion was agreed but the process became unnecessarily drawn out involved Bydales school in Redcar and Cleveland. That school was found by Ofsted to require special measures in December 2013, but did not benefit from a sponsor until February 2015. Outwood Grange, a high-performing sponsor with a strong track record, was identified for the school, but the governing body and the local authority were not supportive. The process was delayed while the local authority attempted to persuade others to sponsor the school, despite none of the alternatives having the experience and track record of Outwood Grange. That resulted in the process taking twice as long as it should have done, while the school remained in special measures.
Louise Haigh
Outwood Grange operates an academy in my constituency, and if Outwood Grange were about to take over another school in my constituency, I would want parents and pupils to be aware of its track record of governance of that school, because it has expelled a number of SEN pupils and pupils from backgrounds of high deprivation. Headteachers of other primary schools in my constituency have expressed grave concerns, as have staff at the school. I am particularly interested to hear the Minister give the example of Outwood Grange, given my experience and the experience of parents and pupils in my constituency.
Mr Gibb
I cannot comment on the specific example that the hon. Lady gave, but Outwood Grange as an academy sponsor is highly effective; and so far as the school that I cited, Bydales school, is concerned, it is still early days since Outwood Grange took it over, but the indications are that it is making good progress.
The Bill seeks to put an end to the delays that I have described. They do nothing to improve the quality of the education that pupils receive. We want the transformation of a failing school to begin from day one. However, this clause retains the requirement that where the governing body of a school is proposing voluntarily that it should become an academy, it must consult on whether the conversion should take place. In these schools, the governing body is expected to take account of that consultation process in deciding whether to go ahead with becoming an academy.
Kevin Brennan
We are now motoring on to clause 9. As you said, Mr Chope, we are considering amendments 50, 51 and 52 along with new clause 3, which has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley.
Amendment 50 notes that clause 9 provides for consultation about who should sponsor an academy in certain cases, and it widens the scope of the proposed new section 5A to include all academy sponsors. Amendments 51 and 52 provide for consultation when there is a change of sponsor.
The amendments would require the whole local community to be consulted about the identity of sponsors. It is important to note that the identity is a matter of concern not just to faith groups, which the Minister has acknowledged elsewhere in the Bill, but to others. They would require consultation when there is a proposal to change a sponsor, which has happened when chains collapse, such as the Prospects Academies Trust in May 2014, or when schools are taken away from them due to poor performance, and we heard examples of that from the Minister earlier. An academy chain in charge of running six state schools—the Prospects Academies Trust, which we talked about earlier—was forced to close. It was the first example of that happening, which shows that it is extremely important that there is consultation in such circumstances. Communities should not be left in the dark and treated with contempt by the Government when it happens. That is no way to run an education system. I hope that the Minister agrees that under those circumstances, consultation would be the right route to take.
Louise Haigh
New clause 3 goes a bit further than the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend. It amends the Academies Act to require that a certain number of people are consulted over an academy order in respect of any maintained school, including the chief inspector of education, children’s services and skills; registered pupils of that school; and any other persons that the Secretary of State thinks appropriate. The Government are not fond of consultation—that was made very clear by the 2011 legislation—but the official Opposition are big fans of democracy and accountability. We do not believe that they and school improvement are mutually exclusive.
The amendments are important because, as both sides of the Committee accept, there are good and bad academies. There are “outstanding”, “failing” and now “coasting” academies, and those terms apply to maintained schools as well. If pupils and parents do not have a say in whether their school becomes an academy, it is right that they should have a say in who runs it. If an academy chain such as the Harris Federation was going to run the school, that would be a very different story from its being run by a chain such as E-ACT, which has had so many schools removed from it.
It is important to include the chief inspector on the list of consultees, to ensure that as much information as possible is available, particularly given Ofsted’s press release last week. I know it has been referenced several times, but it is important to the Committee. It included information about the inspection of the Collaborative Academies Trust, which is sponsored by EdisonLearning. Nine academies are in the trust: three in Northamptonshire, five in Somerset and one in Essex. Ofsted found:
“Too many academies have not improved since joining the trust”
and that at the time of the inspection,
“there were not yet any good or outstanding academies in the trust.”
The amendment is important because if a school is to become an academy, parents, pupils and all other relevant stakeholders should have a choice in whether the academy is run by a trust such as EdisonLearning or perhaps a local federation, an outstanding local school that can sponsor schools or, possibly, a co-operative trust. If I were a parent—I assure the Committee that that is a thoroughly hypothetical situation—I would want a choice over which sponsor was going to run the school. I would want to know its background, as well as the governance arrangements, and to be given as much information as possible. I am sure that parents and children across the country feel the same. I hope the Minister will seriously consider the amendment and the new clause in his response.
Mr Gibb
I will take amendments 50, 51 and 52 and new clause 3 together. The amendments and the new clause relate to clause 9 and the consultation about the identity of academy sponsors.
For schools that have failed and have been judged “inadequate” by Ofsted, there should be no debate about whether urgent action is required. It will be secured through an academy solution with an effective sponsor. The regional schools commissioners will decide on the most appropriate sponsor to turn around a failing school.
Education and Adoption Bill (Seventh sitting)
Louise Haigh Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Brennan
On the one in, one out rule, one could say that there are often academy trusts that fall into that category. I am sure that the Minister has seen Ofsted’s report on the focused inspection of the Collaborative Academies Trust, dated 25 March 2015, which points out that there are real problems with the rapid expansion of the academies programme and that there are serious weaknesses from time to time in the work of academy trusts.
Of course it is possible that local authorities will need intervention. My point is that the Government’s philosophical approach, which is to centralise all power with the Secretary of State, not genuinely to devolve power to a local level, is at odds with their approach elsewhere, and it will ultimately lead to the sorts of problems we have seen in lots of areas where there is not that level of accountability.
One has to call into question, as we have done—this has not been answered adequately—the capacity of regional schools commissioners to take on all these additional responsibilities. When we debate clause 1, we will discuss the fact that the huge expansion in the number of schools that will be eligible for intervention by regional schools commissioners will emphasise that capacity problem.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I am conscious of the Minister’s previous intervention. Does my hon. Friend agree that the powers are not reserve powers? It was made clear during our debate on Tuesday that the interventions of regional schools commissioners or the Secretary of State would trump local authority warning notices. This is not about intervening when local authorities fail to do so, but about centralising all power in the Secretary of State’s hands, as my hon. Friend is making clear.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend makes a good point because there is no need to justify why they are doing it. There is no need to provide the evidence that the action is necessary. The Secretary of State or the regional schools commissioner, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, can just decide to do it.