Draft Alternative Provision Academies (Consequential Amendments to Acts) (England) Order 2012
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Boles, Nick (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
† Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff West) (Lab)
† Davies, Glyn (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
† Dunne, Mr Philip (Ludlow) (Con)
† Farron, Tim (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
† Field, Mr Frank (Birkenhead) (Lab)
† Gardiner, Barry (Brent North) (Lab)
† Gibb, Mr Nick (Minister of State, Department for Education)
† Jones, Graham (Hyndburn) (Lab)
† Lammy, Mr David (Tottenham) (Lab)
† Mercer, Patrick (Newark) (Con)
† Qureshi, Yasmin (Bolton South East) (Lab)
† Rogerson, Dan (North Cornwall) (LD)
Simpson, David (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Watts, Mr Dave (St Helens North) (Lab)
† White, Chris (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
† Zahawi, Nadhim (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Lydia Menzies, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Third Delegated Legislation Committee
Monday 12 March 2012
[Jim Sheridan in the Chair]
Draft Alternative Provision Academies (Consequential Amendments to Acts) (England) Order 2012
4.30 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Alternative Provision Academies (Consequential Amendments to Acts) (England) Order 2012.
It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. The Government believe that all children are entitled to high-quality education in whichever education setting they find themselves. Every child must be given the opportunity afforded by good education to be a full participant in society and to shape their own future. Raising standards of behaviour in schools is a key objective of the Government, as an essential prerequisite to raising standards. Shifting the balance of authority in the classroom from the child to the teacher is the key purpose behind the new powers for teachers in the Education Act 2011.
However, for those children with behavioural problems who are excluded from school, that should not mean exclusion from education. If we are to succeed in closing the attainment gap between those from wealthier and from poorer backgrounds, we need to ensure that we do not give up on any child, whatever problems they have encountered in their early childhood. Pupils in alternative provision are some of the most vulnerable in education. They need and deserve a good education just as much if not more than pupils in mainstream schools. In addition to excluded pupils, about half the pupils in alternative provision are there because they have been bullied and are too scared to attend school or are ill or are teenage mothers.
Although there are many examples of very-high-quality pupil referral units and alternative provision, with 81 PRUs assessed by Ofsted as outstanding, the current alternative provision system as a whole needs to improve. Figures published for the first time last year showed that in 2009-10 only 1.4% of pupils in alternative provision achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, including English and maths. That compares with 53.4% in all schools in England. In other words, a child in alternative provision is almost 40 times less likely to achieve that standard than a child in mainstream education. That is despite the provision on average of four times as much funding per head for pupils in alternative provision.
For that reason, the Government gave a commitment in the schools White Paper to
“Improve the quality of alternative provision by giving existing providers more autonomy and encouraging new providers—including new alternative provision Free Schools.”
That is why the Government introduced provisions in the 2011 Act to create alternative provision academies, including alternative provision free schools. The recent review of alternative provision by Charlie Taylor, the Government’s expert adviser on behaviour, endorses that approach. He said that
“the focus of pupil referral units and alternative provision, just as it is in schools, should be about getting high quality education for all pupils”.
The ability to become an alternative provision academy will put pupil referral units and those who want to provide alternative provision on the same footing as those providing mainstream education. It will give them the opportunity to benefit from the greater freedoms and autonomy that academy status brings. Seamus Oates, head teacher at the Bridge academy, an outstanding-rated pupil referral unit in west London, said:
“We are enormously excited by the opportunities that academy conversion will offer good or outstanding PRUs. Whilst we have always received excellent support from Hammersmith and Fulham Local Authority we welcome the additional freedoms to manage our budgets, curriculum and offer in much the same way as established academies. I have no doubt that Alternative Provision Academies will deliver high quality outcomes for young people unable to manage in mainstream settings.”
Work to implement alternative provision academies is well under way. The first alternative provision free schools and academies will open from September 2012. In the 2012 application round, the Department received 34 applications from groups that want to open an alternative provision free school. Seven of those projects were approved and are progressing towards opening.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): To clarify, regarding the converter PRUs into academies, is it the Minister’s intention that those that are already good should convert and that those that provide poorer provision should not convert?
Mr Gibb: I will come to that point, but I want to finish my remarks about the 2012 round of applications for free schools that has just closed. Officials are out there sussing out the applications received. The process for PRUs wishing to convert to alternative provision academies was launched on 27 February and, so far, 35 PRUs have registered an interest in converting. For those PRUs that wish to convert, there must be good-quality provision in the PRU. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a moment with the precise definition of who can apply for PRUs under the converter process.
Kevin Brennan: Before the Minister does that, the reason for asking the question is that, logically, the reason people want academy status is that it will presumably bring real benefit to the PRUs involved. Why does he not believe that academy status will bring benefit to poorer performing PRUs?
Mr Gibb: The same issue applies to academies generally. Where the leadership is outstanding or good, we are comfortable with the school or PRU having the autonomy to run the school without the necessity of a sponsor or new leadership. Where a school is underperforming, we expect a sponsor to come in, look at the leadership and work out how that school needs to be improved. We want underperforming PRUs to convert as well, but we
want to make sure that we have the powers to allow us to raise the standards of underperforming PRUs. They would become sponsored academies, which is what we are trying to achieve. We want underperforming PRUs to become academies just as much as we do high-performing academies.As I said, work is under way. Turning to the detail of the order, section 53 of the Education Act 2011 inserts new sections 1A to 1D into the Academies Act 2010, which provides for two new types of academy: alternative provision academies and 16-to-19 academies. It is necessary to create a legal framework for those new institutions. Schedule 13 to the Act sets out changes agreed to primary legislation during the passage of the Bill. The order is being made under the power in section 54 of the Act, and makes further necessary changes to primary legislation consequential to the creation of alternative provision academies. We discussed that section in Committee and I gave assurances that
“the power relates only to changes to legislation that are consequential to the creation of 16 to 19 and alternative provision academies. It will be used to make provision for what existing legislation is to apply, or not as appropriate, to each of the new types of academy.”—[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 5 April 2011; c. 892-3.]
I also gave assurances that that power would be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. An order made under that power that amends primary legislation is subject to the affirmative procedure by virtue of section 78(4) of the 2011 Act. That is why we are having this debate. I can confirm that the amendments the regulations will make are consequential to the creation of alternative provision academies.
Section 1A of the Academies Act 2010 provides that an academy is an independent school under section 463 of the Education Act 1996. Section 463 defines an independent school as a school that is not a maintained school and that provides full-time education for at least five pupils of compulsory school age, or one child with a statement, or one looked-after child. Therefore, all legislation that applies to independent schools, unless expressly disapplied by legislation, also applies to academies.
However, alternative provision settings are not always full time. Many can be part-time or fall outside the definition of an independent school because they provide full-time education for fewer than five pupils. Of course, the students themselves will receive full-time education, but they may do so by attending a variety of suitable part-time settings. An example is St Peter’s centre, a pupil referral unit offering part-time provision to complement mainstream provision.
If those part-time or small alternative provision settings were to become academies, they would not meet the definition of an independent school, and the relevant legislation would therefore not apply to them. The order seeks to close that gap by making a number of changes to various statutes to ensure that relevant legislation applies equally to all types of alternative provision academy. The amendments in paragraphs 1 to 8, 10 to 12, 14 to 21 and 23 to 27 of the schedule to the order do so by adding the phrase
“alternative provision Academy which is not an independent school”
to the text of the relevant sections in the Children Act 1989, the Education Act 1996, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, the Education Act 2002, the Children
Act 2004, the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, the Childcare Act 2006, the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, the Corporation Tax Act 2009 and the Equality Act 2010.Paragraph 13 makes similar amendments, under which the reference to an independent school also includes alternative provision academies that are not independent schools. However, instead of doing so specifically for each reference, it deems any such reference to be amended wherever it appears in that part of the Education Act 2002. Paragraph 22 does the same for any reference to an independent educational institution in chapter 1 of part 4 of the Education and Skills Act 2008.
The only paragraph in the schedule to which I have not referred is paragraph 9, which amends section 124B of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 so that an alternative provision academy cannot be designated as a school with a religious character. That reflects the fact that alternative provision academies, like pupil referral units, will not be able to be designated as having a religious character. That policy is also set out in guidance on applying to become a free school.
As the Committee will be aware, the alternative provision system is different from the mainstream school system. Providers work on a referral rather than an admissions basis; places are commissioned by local authorities and schools for the purpose of tackling a specific issue or need. Religious designation does not make sense in that context. In other words, the change ensures that AP academies, unlike independent schools and mainstream academies, cannot be designated as faith schools.
Alternative provision academies are still free to have a distinct ethos based on a set of morals aligned with a particular faith. Like paragraph 9, paragraph 28 amends part 2 of schedule 11 to the Equality Act 2010—
Kevin Brennan: For clarity, is the Minister saying that alternative provision academies will not be able to discriminate on the basis of religion in recruiting staff or in relation to pupils, but that an Islamic alternative provision academy would be possible, because it would be based on the morals and ethics of a particular religion, as outlined in the explanatory notes and the order?
Mr Gibb: Yes. The hon. Gentleman explains it better than I have been attempting to do. He is right. Alternative provision academies are still free to have a distinct ethos based on a faith, but paragraph 28 amends part 2 of schedule 11 to the Equality Act 2010 so that AP academies registered as having a religious ethos, such as the one that he mentioned or of any other religion, cannot discriminate against pupils on the basis of religion or belief in terms of intake or school services, or when recruiting staff, which is the point that he made.
Kevin Brennan: Just to probe the Minister on that, is there an equivalent arrangement in relation to community schools, for example? Could they be based, as it says in the explanatory notes, on a particular faith or ethos and yet not be a religious school for the purposes of being able to use those provisions that allow discrimination in staff recruitment and pupil inclusion?
Mr Gibb: It is possible to have a foundation that is a religious foundation, but unless a school is specifically designated a religious school under the Secretary of State’s powers, it cannot, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience in government, admit pupils, if it is oversubscribed, on the basis of their faith. A foundation school or an academy with a trust with a religious ethos can continue to act as an academy or school, but need not be a religiously designated school, and therefore cannot admit pupils on the basis of their faith.
Finally, I am grateful to both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee for their careful consideration of the order. Members of the Committee will be aware that neither Committee raised any issues of concern. There cannot be anything more important than ensuring that all children, including those in alternative provision, receive an excellent education. As such, I commend the order to the Committee.
4.46 pm
Kevin Brennan: It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan.
As the Minister rightly pointed out, this provision was the only use of Henry VIII powers in the 2011 Act. He has been true to his word in using the affirmative procedure and sticking to the issues he said at the time he would stick to. I thank him for doing so.
As the Committee probably realised when listening to the Minister’s thorough explanation, the order is quite technical, but it contains important measures on alternative provision that stem from the detailed changes the Government are making. I have some questions for the Minister about his chosen approach and its implications.
“an alternative provision Academy that is not an independent school”
occur frequently in the order. They appear to be the failsafe formula the Minister has come up with to apply independent school legislation to alternative provision academies that provide part-time education. I think that is why he has done it that way. By law, an independent school is an institution that is registered by the Secretary of State and inspected by Ofsted, and provides full-time education for five or more pupils of compulsory school age.
Paragraph 13 of the schedule to the order applies chapter 1 of part 10 of the Education Act 2002 to alternative provision academies. That is the principal legislation on independent schools and includes the application of the independent school standards regulations. However, the previous Government provided a new and quite streamlined legislative basis for independent schools in England in part 4 of the Education and Skills Act 2008, which deals with the regulation and inspection of independent educational provision in England. The Government are slowly implementing the 2008 Act, and paragraph 22 of the schedule to the order applies when the new legislation is in place, with article 3 of the order containing a transitional provision. The main innovation was to include “independent educational institutions”, which would have been independent schools but for the fact—this is the key point—that only part-time education is provided for persons of compulsory school age. Back in 2008, it was estimated that there were approximately 2,000 such institutions—an example, albeit perhaps not
typical, would be Kids Company, which is run by Camila Batmanghelidjh in Southwark. Until the 2008 Act is fully implemented, such institutions will remain outside the education legislation for young people under the age of 18 who participate in their activities.I am sure there is a better way to implement the 2008 Act than by defining an alternative provision academy as an “independent educational institution”, although I am also sure there is a pressing and technical reason why that is not possible. The Minister has not made use of the simple, streamlined way offered by existing legislation, but I am sure he will explain why to the Committee.
The Minister referred to the Taylor review, which has just been published and which relates to the order. The previous Government worked hard on alternative provision, and we support the need to improve it. In 2008, we published a White Paper called “Back on track: a strategy for modernising alternative provision for young people”. That was proceeding to its implementation stage, but when the coalition Government came to power in May 2010, they halted all the work on developing a strategy for alternative provision, with the exception of full-time provision for young people, which was covered by the local authority duty to children out of school from September 2011. The 2010 schools White Paper claimed that that was a coalition decision, although we will not go too far into who claims what. The main thing is that work was halted for two years. Why were two years wasted when work on reforming alternative provision was already in train, and well supported by local authorities, schools and, indeed, alternative provision providers?
The Secretary of State has accepted all the recommendations of the Taylor review, which was published last wekk. I do not believe that there has been an impact assessment. Presumably, the Chancellor is aware of the Secretary of State’s decision to accept all the recommendations. When will an impact assessment be published? If one already exists, will the Minister provide copies to members of the Committee, so that we can understand the costs and implications of accepting all the recommendations of the review? One of the recommendations was that a child could stay as long as is necessary in alternative provision. Does the Minister think it is acceptable for a child to spend most of its school career in alternative provision?
The Minister rightly set out very disturbing statistics about the educational attainment of young people and children in alternative provision. Interestingly, the 2010-11 schools inspectorate report states that 65% of pupil referral units achieved a good or outstanding Ofsted inspection result, compared with only 53% of secondary schools and 55% of primary schools. It is interesting that, according to the report, many existing pupil referral units have coped better than schools in a local authority context, and yet, as academies, the Department for Education wants to bind them together in chains—or under umbrellas—with, in one sense, less autonomy. Perhaps the Minister will explain the difference between a chain and an umbrella. If the terminology used describes a genuine difference, it would be interesting to know why.
“the only PRUs remaining would be those where maintenance by the LA added value to…the PRU.”
That is fine, but are those not the very pupil referral units that the Minister wants to convert? Is there not a paradox in what he is trying to do? It appears that the pupil referral units that have benefited the most from the relationship with local authorities are the ones that he is encouraging most strongly to leave that relationship and go into a chain with alternative provision academies or other institutions. By what mechanism does he think that will result in an improvement in provision? We all want to see improvement in provision, but we need to know that the policy is evidence-based.
Under section 19 of the Education Act 1996, a local authority has to
“make arrangements for the provision of suitable…education…for those children…who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise”
are not in mainstream education. I am concerned that the Government seem to assume that all children are on the roll of a school, when we know that up to 10% of children move between schools in-year due to changes in parental employment or in housing. We know from the news at the weekend that many more children are moving school as a result of the Government’s recent changes to housing benefit regulations, with some schools in Westminster losing perhaps half of their pupils. Given that the admissions code removed the local authority responsibility for co-ordinating in-year admissions, what arrangements will be made for children who are not on the roll of a school to get access to alternative provision under these new arrangements?
According to paragraph 66 of the Taylor report,
“Many schools that fit the criteria of an independent school fail to register with the Department for Education and therefore do not get inspected.”
That, of course, is a criminal offence. I am interested to know what the Government are doing about the fact that many of the schools that fit the criteria of an independent school are failing to register with the Department for Education. As I mentioned earlier, the Labour Government, under the Education and Skills Act 2008, legislated for a new inspection framework to include alternative provision providers. Does the Minister intend to implement those provisions for the inspection of alternative provision providers?
Is it possible for an alternative provision academy to provide boarding education? If so, what arrangements are being made to ensure that the appropriate welfare arrangements are in place? Does paragraph 16 of the schedule to the order mean that it is possible for an alternative provision academy to provide for children below statutory school age? If that is the case, is that for three or four-year-olds with behavioural problems, or is it for the children of young mothers attending the alternative provision academy?
As was mentioned earlier, alternative provision academies cannot discriminate on religious grounds in the employment of staff or in the services that they provide; nor can pupils be chosen on religious grounds, but APAs can have an ethos based on a particular faith. What discussions has the Minister had with Churches and other faith groups about that arrangement? Are they happy with the way the Government are proceeding? Is it possible for an alternative provision academy in an academy trust that has a faith commitment to ensure that staff are not employed on religious grounds under the proposed measures?
There is the possibility of several thousand schools becoming individual commissioners, without co-ordination of what they are commissioning in alternative provision. If strong alternative provision providers are to exist, there must be a local commitment to use them. Is there any danger that, if some schools go their own way, it could undermine opportunities for other local schools because the provision they rely on and want becomes unviable? Has the Minister given any thought to commissioning via local behaviour partnerships—something the previous Government were pushing through—rather than by individual schools? Taylor states the hopeful view that “it is likely” that schools will work together, but “likely” is not good enough. How will we ensure that they work together?
A strong monitoring role is needed, given that it is the most vulnerable pupils who are affected. We must ensure that they get a decent deal. How will the Minister monitor whether schools are taking sufficient interest in pupils in alternative provision, and ensure that they do so? Finally, what real difference does the Minister think alternative provision academies will make in practice for those pupils who are subject to them?
5 pm
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con): I am grateful to the Whips for their prescience in asking me to serve on this Committee, because it gives me the opportunity to raise a number of questions that I had hoped to put to my hon. Friend the Minister shortly. I am in the process of going round every PRU in my constituency, of which there are more than is normal in an area, not only because of the local need within Ipswich, but because of the way Ipswich serves schools around the county of Suffolk.
I should say first that many PRUs in my constituency are excited about the order. By their nature, PRUs are quite entrepreneurial—they seek out referrals, there is a lot of outreach work and they are used to operating on their own. The provisions in the order will be greeted with excitement by almost all the PRUs in my constituency at least, but significant questions remain, some of which were raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West. I would like to add a few more.
First, although PRUs are entrepreneurial, they are, unlike larger schools, more than usually dependent on the back-office services of county councils and education authorities. I am conscious from my discussions with PRUs that they are particularly nervous about that aspect of the changes. They are very happy about managing their own school, but there is considerable concern about how they might be able to deal with back-office support, whether it be HR, legal or bursar support, when they have gained more independence. There is also the issue of geography. As the shadow Minister correctly pointed out, it is conceivable that in Suffolk, for instance, those schools that refer to PRUs in Ipswich from some distance away will seek to create their own provision for some of their pupils. That would change the economies of scale in PRUs that serve schools within Ipswich, where it makes more sense for them to be served. That is just hypothetical; I have no idea whether it would happen.
In both instances, in terms of both geography and management history, I wonder what additional support county councils and the Department would
offer enthusiastic PRUs to give them the ability to be more independent, while at the same time having some guarantee that especially in the first few years they would receive some sort of administrative support and guarantee of referrals. The latter is particularly important to PRUs because, as was correctly pointed out, the teacher-pupil ratio is very high, so a change in pupil numbers of just one or two in a total of perhaps 15, 16 or 17—that is the case for PRUs in my constituency at least; I have no knowledge of those in other constituencies—would mean a significant percentage change in revenue in one particular year. In other schools that have converted to academies, the change in numbers happens much more gradually, over a number of years, and they can adjust their budgets to suit. The withdrawal of just one or two pupils might have a very significant impact on PRUs’ funding levels. What additional support and guarantees might be given to PRUs in that circumstance?A number of PRUs in my constituency are considering joining federations with primary schools—they might become federated academies. Will that be allowed or encouraged under the order? The shadow Minister asked about boarding provision, and a PRU in my constituency would like to add boarding education to its offer. It is interested to know what ability it would have to do so under the order. Also, there is a hospital school in my constituency that serves Ipswich hospital—in the grand scheme of things, a small hospital—which has two members of staff. I know that it craves independence from the local authority, but it is a tiny school without any real administrative back-up or any need to manage itself. Although it would like independence from the local authority, it is concerned about the degree of administrative support that it would receive in such circumstances.
I have two final questions for the Minister, the first of which concerns Ofsted. Two PRUs in my constituency deal with children on the autistic spectrum. Although they deal with capable children, they are concerned that there is a problem with how Ofsted assesses pupils, especially on the outstanding measure of having to see rapid and sustained progress in teaching. Some of the children, although they are not eligible to go into special education, are being judged by the same metrics as are children who are not on the autistic spectrum. If PRUs are going to become alternative provision academies, I know that that will be an additional concern to them, especially when Ofsted inspections have become much more important to them. My final question is whether special schools are included in the order, or whether they will be dealt with in a later statutory instrument.
5.7 pm
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the Committee, Mr Sheridan. I will not detain the Committee long, but I have a number of questions.
The whole House must be grateful that we are in Committee discussing PRUs, which have often been the Cinderella service of the education system. They deal with the most vulnerable children and are hugely important in most constituencies, so any change to their arrangements is significant. With that in mind, I echo the questions asked by the hon. Member for Ipswich.
In dealing with PRUs, we are dealing with very vulnerable children, whose families have complex needs and who often have complex needs themselves. PRUs have had a lot of dealings with the local authority in relation to families that require quite a lot of intervention. I have seen cases involving complex domestic violence, and the children often come from chaotic families, which have been discussed a lot in the House in recent months. The Minister will also recognise that particular alternative provision units deal with very sick children—children who are suffering or struggling with mental illness or cancer; children for whom the large school environment is not appropriate. What will the autonomy of academy provision mean for those children, given the need for liaison with health services, social services, housing and many other agencies that are hugely important to their progress and their educational and well-being outcomes? Will the Minister say more about the local authority’s role in relation to such academies, particularly those that deal with children whose families have complex needs? I hope he also appreciates that in London and other major cities, the profile of many such children is that of an ethnic minority. Will he tell us why an equality impact assessment has not been done?
On the Minister’s cost-benefit analysis in relation to pupil referral units coming forward as academies, I understand that many major providers in the academy arena are not convinced of the benefits to their organisation of setting up primary academies unless they can do so on a significant scale, which often means having secondary schools in their portfolio. If that is the case—the Minister will know this from his conversations with providers—who does he think will offer to provide academies in this relatively small sector of the education system? I suspect that he will find that the providers proposing to come forward for pupil referral units are those with academies at secondary and primary level. If that is the case, will he say more about the arrangements across that provision?
The Minister will be aware of the phenomenon of schools excluding excessive numbers of pupils, who end up in pupil referral units, because that makes the school’s grades and other things better. Certainly, he will recognise the tremendous long-standing concern in the black community about black children being excluded disproportionately. I just want to ensure that he has considered whether there are any perverse incentives in relation to moving from an academy for a primary school to one that happens to offer alternative provision: when it looks as if there is autonomy, there may not actually be autonomy; there may be only one provider across the whole system and the proposals might lead to unintended consequences.
In paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory notes, the Minister states:
“Alternative provision Academies are still free to have a distinct ethos based on a set of morals that are aligned with a particular faith.”
Will he say something about the context in which he sees particular faiths providing such alternative provision? I ask that simply out of curiosity. Does he recognise that very small schools usually have a cross-section of faiths, and will particular faiths have sufficient numbers to be able to provide such alternative provision?
5.13 pm
Mr Gibb: I shall deal first with the shadow Minister’s comments. He talked about our having wasted two years, but as a Government, we have not wasted a minute in tackling behavioural issues in schools. We took important powers in the 2011 Act to give teachers more powers to tackle poor behaviour, shifting the balance of authority in the classroom back from the pupil to the teacher and away from the child towards the adult. We have abolished the absurd 24-hour written notice rule for detentions. All the direction of travel implicit in the Academies Act 2010, including the notion of alternative provision academies—and, incidentally, special school academies—is to raise the quality of alternative provision and that Act, like the 2011 Act, had key provisions for raising standards of behaviour. I therefore contest that we have wasted a minute in tackling poor behaviour, which is a key aim and objective of this Government.
The hon. Gentleman raised an issue about the 2008 Act. Alternative provision academies will, in some instances but not all, meet the definition of independent educational institutions. Alternative provision academies that provide fewer than 15 hours of secondary or 12.5 hours of primary education for fewer than 28 weeks a year will not meet the definition of independent educational institutions, which is why paragraph 22 of the schedule to the order ensures that all AP academies will be regulated in the same way as independent schools. We are considering whether to commence the remaining provisions in the 2008 Act, which already apply to independent schools.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West talked about good PRUs converting. As I said, we want PRUs that are performing well to convert, but we also want to take these powers to enable us to raise the standards of underperforming PRUs, which will become sponsored academies. More than 100 PRUs are not regarded as either good or outstanding—104 are rated satisfactory—and, overall, only 1.4% of year 11 pupils attending PRUs or alternative provision gain five good GCSEs. That indicates that action is needed, notwithstanding some good examples across the country, which the hon. Gentleman and I have visited, that do fantastic work and ensure that youngsters with behavioural problems return to mainstream education having had a good experience in a high-quality PRU.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the impact assessment of the Taylor review, which relates to the equality impact assessment the right hon. Member for Tottenham asked about. The impact assessment of the Taylor report will be produced alongside the upcoming consultation on implementing the Charlie Taylor review recommendations. All the Equality Act impact assessments relating to the regulations, which are technical amendments to primary legislation as a consequence of sections 53 and 54 of and schedule 13 to the 2011 Act, were produced before the passage of the 2011 Act.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about role of local authorities and others in providing support on issues such as mental health. As paragraph 34(c) of the Taylor report sets out, a characteristic of a good-quality AP is that it works closely with relevant organisations, including child mental health services. We have accepted Charlie
Taylor’s recommendations, and we expect that characteristic to be included in the definition of high-quality alternative provision.The hon. Member for Cardiff West stated that only where local authorities add value will a PRU become an academy. As I said, we want all PRUs to benefit from becoming AP academies. Local authorities will retain their section 19 duty to arrange suitable full-time education for those school-age children
“who, by reason of illness, exclusion…or otherwise, may not…receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them.”
Whoever authors that provision, the relationship with a converted PRU will change in that the local authority role will move from being a direct provider of services to a commissioner of services. In the longer term, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are trialling a system in which schools, rather than local authorities, take responsibility for arranging alternative provision for permanently excluded pupils. That trial is happening in 300 schools across the country, representing nearly 10% of all schools, so it is an important trial, which will provide important evidence on how to proceed.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about chains and umbrella arrangements for PRUs. Chains will be groupings of academies—potentially, a chain could be a group of PRU convertors or PRUs plus, say, a special school, other PRUs or mainstream academies. The common feature is a trust that is responsible for the strategic direction of each school and that enters a funding agreement with the Secretary of State. An umbrella arrangement can be looser, with a charitable trust supporting each school individually, but with the funding agreement being between the Secretary of State and each individual school.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether becoming an academy would benefit individual pupils and what impact AP academies will have in practice. The freedom gained by becoming an AP academy will allow converting PRUs to develop their own provision and to diversify the range of AP provision in the area. As with other academies, AP academy principals and leaders will use their professional judgment to deploy resources to maximise the benefits for their pupils. AP academies will diversify the range of available AP providers, enabling development of the commissioner role, which is the role the Labour Government set out in the 2005 White Paper.
The hon. Gentleman asked about behavioural partnerships, and I will reiterate what was said during the Committee stage of the Bill. It is not for central Government to dictate how local arrangements will work. The scheme is already happening in some areas —for example, it is working well at a local level in Cambridgeshire—without interference from central Government.
The hon. Gentleman asked about boarding arrangements. It is possible for AP academies and PRUs to have such arrangements, subject to regulations that we are consulting on. The welfare and safeguarding arrangements in an AP academy will mirror those that apply to maintained schools. The local authority retains overall responsibility for the welfare of all children in its area.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether pupils would be left languishing or spending the rest of their educational career in alternative provision. He raised that issue
when we debated what is now section 51, I think, of the 2011 Act, where we removed the provision to change the name of PRUs to “short stay schools”. As Charlie Taylor’s report recommends:“Children directed to AP by the school should be able to stay for as long as is necessary, providing the placement is appropriate, is meeting the child’s needs and that progress is regularly monitored.”
It would be a pity to put a time limit on PRU stays, but of course we do not want young people staying in PRUs longer than necessary.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the arrangements for pupils not at school, which is important. Local authorities will still be responsible for arranging full-time education for children not receiving suitable education. A duty also applies to pupils who are not on a school roll. Section 463A, I believe, of the Education Act 1996 provides that local authorities are under a duty to make arrangements to identify children who are not receiving education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, in a helpful and interesting contribution, he asked about back-office support. PRUs that are concerned about their capacity to manage back-office functions when becoming a new alternative provisions academy could look to join, for example, a bigger chain of AP academies, which can then provide support. The issue is also relevant for small schools that wish to become academies, and that model is being considered and adopted.
My hon. Friend also asked how PRUs that become AP academies will be funded. The Government are considering future funding arrangements for high-needs pupils. A consultation on school funding was published in July last year, which set out a range of proposals for informing funding arrangements for high-needs pupils, including pupils placed in alternative provision settings. Pending further consideration and the introduction of a reformed approach to funding pupils in AP settings, PRUs that convert to academy status will be funded through interim arrangements that will seek to replicate the funding arrangements and budgets already in place for those PRUs.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham asked about the relationship between local authorities and local authority services for families, including those with medical needs. The best PRUs work closely with local authorities and other local services, and AP academies will succeed effectively only if they can provide the best possible education. To do that, they will need to work closely with other local authority services, and we will expect them to do so.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West asked about faith alternative provision providers. As with maintained schools, we hope that academy sponsors, including those from faith organisations, will come forward to sponsor underperforming pupil referral units. We also hope that faith organisations currently working in the alternative provision sector will consider becoming an AP free school. Although, as I said, they will be able to have only a religious ethos and not a religious character, I hope that they will come forward to help to diversify and to improve standards in the sector.
Kevin Brennan: All I would say is that instead of using the phrase “alternative provision Academy that is not an independent school” throughout the order, the Minister could have achieved what he wanted with the phrase in existing legislation, “independent educational institutions”, which would have been a more elegant solution. He said that the problem was that not all alternative provision academies would be captured because of the hours provision under legislation on independent educational institutions, but regulations under section 93(3) of the Education and Skills Act 2008 allow for the definition of “part-time” to be changed, so it would not have taken much for him to follow my suggestion. However, I do not intend to detain the Committee by pressing the point.
Mr Gibb: Commencing those provisions would have wider implications in terms of the number of institutions that would be subject to regulation. As I said, we are considering the commencement of those provisions in the 2008 Act.
On that note, this has been a good and lengthy debate on a technical provision, but it has been worth while. I think we are at one in the Committee in wanting high-quality education for youngsters who are excluded from mainstream education for whatever reason. I think we all agree that the 1.4% of year 11 pupils in alternative provision who are currently achieving five GCSEs including English and maths is insufficient. I am strongly of the view that the provisions in the 2011 Act, supplemented by the regulation that we are scrutinising today, will go a long way to raising standards in alternative provision.
That the Committee has considered the draft Alternative Provision Academies (Consequential Amendments to Acts) (England) Order 2012.