Mr.
Laws: I share the hon. Gentleman’s aspiration for
more choice in the system and the potential to ratchet up standards as
a consequence, but he will be aware of evidence that choice has not
always proved to be a good vehicle for automatically increasing
standards, particularly in less affluent areas. Surely, there will
therefore need to be a mechanism of accountability that is stronger
than simply having the choice
mechanism?
Mr.
Gibb: We have not really had genuine choice in this
country. In countries that do have genuine choice, such as Sweden,
standards have risen considerably, both in the schools that have come
into the system and in the existing municipality, so I believe that
choice will have an effect. He is right that, ultimately, powers will
have to reside somewhere to tackle academies or federation of academies
that fail, and I think that they should rest in a newly established
body. There is some confusion, which the Minister will clarify in a
moment, about where those powers lie. Is it with the YPLA or with the
Secretary of State, who has the ultimate powers to terminate funding
agreements or to appoint additional governors. Those are the key powers
that will be used to tackle poorly performing academies, leading to a
rise in standards. If those powers rest with the Secretary of State,
rather than the YPLA, the YPLA will be powerless to tackle
underperformance.
Jim
Knight: I was reluctant to intervene on the hon. Gentleman
because we want to make progress, but he has said something significant
about his party’s policy
on moving towards all academies being part of wider federations and
chains of schools. It is worth pointing out that Dan Moynihan, whom I
have quoted, is the chief executive of one of our most successful
partnerships. It is also worth pointing out that however successful the
free schools in Sweden or the charter schools in the United States have
been, this country’s education system still outperforms theirs
in international comparisons. I thought that the hon.
Gentleman’s policy of parents being able to start schools would
be that groups of parents could start them wherever they want, but he
is now saying that they can do that only as long as they are part of a
chain.
Mr.
Gibb: I was explaining that I thought academies would form
federations. They would probably form federations with primary school
academies to provide the back-office support and assistance that the
schools need if they want to raise standards. I do not prescribe that
that will happen, but I suspect that it would happen if there were more
freedom and ease to set up academies to run
autonomously. I
was reassured by what the Minister said about amendment 339 and that an
appeal could be made to Secretary of State when an academy was
dissatisfied with decisions by the YPLA. I, too, would like a
Division to be held on clause stand part for slightly different reasons
than those outlined by the hon. Member for Yeovil. I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Amendment
proposed: 26, in
clause 74, page 45, line 29, at
end insert— ‘(2A) For the
purposes of subsection (2) “Academy arrangements” require
the YPLA to support the objective of the autonomy of Academies wherever
it is reasonable to do so.’.—(Mr.
Gibb.) The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
9.
Division
No.
13] Question
accordingly negatived.
Amendment
made: 291, in
clause 74, page 46, line 1, leave
out ‘this or any other’ and insert
‘any’.—(Jim
Knight.) This technical
drafting amendment is needed to achieve consistency in the provisions
in the Bill that refer to the Bill itself in conjunction with other
Acts. Question
put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill. The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
6.
Division No.
14] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 74,
as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
75Grants
for purposes of Academy arrangements
functions
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 75,
page 46, line 18, at end
insert— ‘(e) require the
YPLA to support the successful establishment of Academy sixth
forms.’. The
amendment reflects the concern of academy principals and sponsors that
the new arrangements for funding established under the Bill might
result in discrimination against academies that want to establish sixth
forms. In a letter to the Minister from the Independent Academies
Association, Mike Butler, the chairman of the IAA,
wrote: “Given
the force of numbers likely to be brought to bear in many debates
regarding post-16 commissioning, particularly where the commissioning
power rests with groups of local authorities, and/or there is a strong
FE sector contingent, there is genuine anxiety that academy sixth forms
will lose out. Despite verbal assurances, there appears to be nothing
in part 3, chapter 4 of the Bill that would suggest that the YPLA can
safeguard an academy’s post-16 funding should local agreements
be to its
detriment.” He
goes on to say that
“the presumption
for academy sixth forms is based on a sound rationale, namely that of
raising student aspirations and being able to recruit the best
teachers. New academy sixth forms need time to build up, and are
critical to developing academic work throughout the academy, and thus
to raising community aspirations and contributing to regeneration and
community
cohesion.” The
amendment seeks to give legislative backing to those verbal assurances,
by requiring the YPLA to support academies at which to establish sixth
forms. That support should be forthcoming notwithstanding other
sixth-form provision in the area. Choice and competition as a lever to
force up standards can work only if new providers are given the freedom
to establish schools, without restrictions based on the number of
surplus places that already exist.
The areas
with the most surplus places are where there is greatest need for new
providers to establish the type and quality of education demanded by
those very parents who are avoiding the schools with the spare
capacity, whether that be sixth form or secondary education more
generally. If the Minister believes in choice and diversity provision,
he should have no problem in supporting the
amendment.
Jim
Knight: I shall speak briefly to amendment 27, as I have
already made a similar point about an earlier amendment. I am sure that
the Committee can refer back to what I said then for a fuller argument.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman and others that the size of a proposed
academy, and whether it should have a sixth form, will be decided long
before it opens and while the Secretary of State retains direct
involvement. Appropriate admission arrangements are determined to
reflect that. After an academy is open, if there is disagreement
locally about the number of places to be funded, the matter would be
referred to the YPLA, which would act on behalf of the Secretary of
State. The YPLA would reach any decisions on academy sixth-form places
by having regard to the policy guidance provided by the Secretary of
State. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb: I have listened carefully to the Minister. We have
had these debates before and I suspect that we would not win a Division
on this issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 75
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
76Academy
arrangements: information
sharing Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Gibb: The growing use of information-sharing clauses under
the Government is always a cause of anxiety. I understand the
Government’s rationale. If they establish three or four quangos
where there used to be just one, to avoid replicating the same
information three or four times, they can pass a law that enables those
quangos to send the data files that they hold to each other. The danger
is not simply that those files could go missing in the post—I
cannot believe that would ever happen—but that through the
clauses, new data-sharing powers are swept in. Personal data collected
for a narrow, specific purpose could be shared with other statutory
bodies for whom they were not intended. In the clause, exam or internal
test data from students at an academy, or confidential notes regarding
conversations between a student and a teacher, could be given to the
Secretary of State, the YPLA
or “any
other person by or in respect of whom a relevant function is
exercisable.”
That is clause
76(3)(d).
It would be
helpful for the Committee, and in due course for the Information
Commissioner, if the Minister would spell out what information he has
in mind, and what are the limits to the type of information that he
envisages being shared among the four categories in subparagraph
(3).
There may be
instances when it is necessary for information to be shared between
parties in order to effect the new arrangements, and we will debate
information sharing more widely when we reach clause 119, from memory.
We can go into more detail then, if that is the Committee’s
desire.
1.45
pm Clause
76 enables the information to be shared between the Secretary of State,
the YPLA, the academy and other relevant parties, including, typically,
the local authority. That information will be subject to guidance that
the Department will issue. Such information sharing might include
management information on the application and impact of specific
policies—for example, exclusions or special educational
needs—that the YPLA has referred to the Secretary of State. The
information will be used to inform policy
development.
Mr.
Gibb: Can I therefore be assured that that does not
include any personal data relating to
individuals?
Jim
Knight: I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman. There may
be circumstances in which, for example, an individual in an academy,
rather than carry on from year 11 to the sixth form, might want to
secure learning somewhere else, so information about them would best be
supplied to the YPLA as part of the commissioning arrangements that it
might require to secure the individual interests of that
learner. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 76
accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
77Interpretation
of
Part Amendments
made: 318, in
clause 77, page 47, line 16, at
end insert— ‘(2A) For the
purposes of this Part a child is subject to youth detention
if— (a) subject to a
detention order, and (b) detained in
relevant youth accommodation.’.
This amendment defines when a child is
subject to youth detention, for the purposes of Part 3 of the
Bill. 275,
in
clause 77, page 47, line 17, leave
out subsection
(3). This amendment is
consequent on amendment 282. The effect of
clause 250(2) and (3) is that the definition in the new
section 13(4) of the Education Act 1996 (inserted by
amendment 282) will apply for the purposes of Part 3 of
the Bill.
276, in
clause 77, page 47, leave out lines 25
to 27.—(Jim
Knight.) The amendment is
consequent on amendment
275. Clause
77, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 78
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
