| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
As regards Amendment No. 252AA, Clause 153 allows the Secretary of State to amend or appealall references to local education authorities and children’s services authorities in any statutory provision, replacing it with a reference to an English or Welsh local authority. Our amendment would require that any order made under this subsection be laid in draft and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
We welcome the powers in the Bill to change references to the terms “local education authority” and “children’s services authority”. It is clear that the distinctions between the various types of authorities providing children’s services and education have been broken down and that to maintain these distinctions would serve no further use. However, this is a Henry VIII clause and for that reason the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee drew particular attention to it, stating in the report:
- “We are not
persuaded that the scope for any amendment of substance is so limited
as to justify the negative procedure for this Henry VIII power. We
therefore recommend in accordance with our general presumption that
Henry VIII powers should be subject to the affirmative procedure, that
the affirmative procedure should apply in this
case”.
- “The great majority of such
amendments will be straightforward amendments in the form of
‘for local education authority/children’s services
authority, substitute local authority’”.
25 July 2006 : Column 1729
When the order is produced, according to the department it will need to set out in detail amendments where such a simple substitution could not occur. It would do this by, for example, setting out a list of education functions to replace references to local authorities in their capacity as local education authorities. If the hitherto novel definition of education functions is to be incorporated into English law, it is extremely important as a matter of principle that it receives parliamentary backing. This is made all the more important by the immense scope of the proposed order. The policy statement produced by the department states that over 50 non-education Acts contain references to local education authorities and that the order is expected to take two years to complete. Both of these amendments, although substantively unrelated, seek to ensure that the Government act with the courage of their own previous convictions and those of the expert opinion of the officers of your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Walmsley: I shall speak to Amendment No. 252B tabled in my name in this group, but perhaps I may say first how strongly we on these Benches agree with the objective of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas: ensuring that good quality educational research receives a wider audience and is implemented as broadly as possible. We believe that fact- and evidence-based policies are always the best ones to pursue.
Amendment No. 252B seeks to ensure that academies are also required by regulations to, for example, act in accordance with the admissions code, serve school meals that meet the nutritional standards and be subject to similar school improvement measures as other schools. In other words, the amendment seeks to relate academy funding agreements to the relevant provisions of the Bill. Of particular concern to us are admissions, school improvement measures and nutritional standards. Perhaps I may speak briefly about each of them.
It is not possible to reach any conclusion about how the admissions, exclusions or the SEN regime will apply in a particular academy in terms of reference to general principles of educational law and the statutory framework. The first recourse will always need to be to the funding agreement, but levers for pupils and parents over that funding agreement are not as strong as the equivalent levers they would have over a maintained school. The DfES website on academies says that,
- “in all cases
the admission arrangements for each academy are agreed with the
Secretary of State as a condition of the funding agreement and are
consistent with the code of practice on admissions and with admissions
law”.
25 July 2006 : Column 1730
On nutritional standards, academies are intended to replace schools in many deprived areas. The majority will have a high number of pupils entitled to free school meals. For many children, lunch is the main meal of the day, so it is important that meals served on academy school premises are nutritionally balanced. Under-nutrition, as we have heard this afternoon, can have detrimental effects on cognitive development, behaviour and concentration. Including all schools in the requirements would ensure that the food and drink provided on school premises was not subject to undue influence from a particular party such as a school sponsor who might award provision for school food to a particular company or see it as an area where costs could be cut. I understand thatthere have been examples in academies where school contracts have been awarded to companies connected to the sponsor.
Finally, on school improvement measures andlocal authority powers of intervention, in its briefing sent for an earlier day of Committee, the Local Government Association argued that:
- “Children may well
attend schools not maintained by the local authority, but the council
is still responsible for their well-being and educational
fulfilment...The Bill fails to bring Academies into the scope of a
local authority’s challenge, intervention and support
functions...This would mean a significant number of children in
the most deprived communities will be beyond the assistance of
councils”.
While many academies are improving, they are not immune to failure, as we have heard on other days in Committee. Local authorities should therefore have the power to intervene to ensure that academies are provided the necessary support if they are failing or coasting so that children's well-being and educational potential are protected.
Lord Adonis: I am glad to be able to respond positively to two groups of amendments before us. The first is Amendment No. 258 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It would require the Secretary of State to establish a foundation for research and excellence in education. We entirely agree with the noble Lord that evidence should have an important role in both the design and delivery of education. My department already commissions a wide range of research—indeed, a colossal range, as I see all the proposals that go through which are funded by my department. However, we are aware that in other sectors, such as health and social care, sector-wide organisations provide guidance drawn from research and other evidence. The noble Lord referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and one might also cite the Social Care Institute for Excellence as examples of that.
We are considering whether some form of
evidence centre in education could summarise and provide digests of
research and other evidence in a form that front-line organisations and
practitioners could easily absorb. That might take place in conjunction
with a
25 July 2006 : Column 1731
In considering an evidence centre, we need to be careful in defining its role and remit so that it can command widespread credibility. It is a matter that we have in hand, and I will report back to the noble Lord and the Committee when I can.
Amendment No. 252A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, would incorporate into the Bill the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that orders under Clause 153 which amend primary legislation should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I can assure the noble Baroness that we accept the recommendations of that committee and intend to table an amendment at Report in line with that recommendation. We cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendment, unfortunately, because parliamentary control of orders and regulations are set out in Clause 167 rather than against individual clauses. But we will achieve the objective that she seeks by means of an amendment at Report.
Amendment No. 252B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, replicates AmendmentNo. 184, laid by my noble friend Lord Judd in that it would apply a wealth of legislation currently applicable to maintained schools to academies. We have already debated this point fully on 18 July, when I stated why I believe adequate protection is already afforded to pupils attending academies.
5.15 pm
I have since written in some detail to both my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Baroness in response to the points they have made during the debate. I simply reiterate that we believe adequate protections are already afforded to pupils attending academies, including in all three of the areas to which the noble Baroness referred.
All admissions arrangements in academies must be in accordance with the admissions code of practice. There is no better guarantee of that than the fact that they must be agreed personally by the Secretary of State, including any changes made. As I said in an earlier debate, the nutritional standards will be required through the funding agreements.
As regards school
improvements, I think there is a misconception as to the regulatory
authority. It is not that there is not a regulatory authority in
respect of academies—there is—but the regulatory
authority is the Secretary of State. It is the Secretary of State who
appoints school improvement partners for academies and who has the
duties which, for maintained schools, are fulfilled by local
authorities, as the noble Baroness described. We accept that there
needs to be a regulatory authority and that it may, in certain
circumstances, need to address poor performance, but that authority is
the Secretary of State. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on
a previous occasion in Committee when she raised the issue of one
academy that has been failing—the Unity Academy in
Middlesbrough—we have undertaken
25 July 2006 : Column 1732
Amendment No. 252 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, questions the role of the Secretary of State in judging power to innovate applications. I emphasise that we are talking about power to innovate applications which relate to the suspension of legislation in respect of schools, not any power to innovate in the much broader area beyond that which does not require any contravention of existing legislation. Of course we encourage schools to be as innovatory as they wish to be, consistent with meeting their obligations to their pupils. That is the reason why we think there is a role for the Secretary of State. It is essential to ensure that all the evidence on a proposal under the power to innovate requirements—which can have significant implications for the operation of the law—demonstrates to the Secretary of State’s satisfaction that it will contribute to raising standards and that pupils and students are not disadvantaged.
In her Amendment No. 254A, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, seeks to commence provisions in the Education Act 2002 giving exemptions related to school performance on teachers’ pay and conditions and the curriculum. I frankly confess to the noble Baroness that we are thinking this through further because, since we enacted those provisions, we have significantly extended the scope for innovation within the curriculum. We have slimmed down the scope of the statutory curriculum and we are seeking to do so further, for example, with the key stage 3 review that we are currently conducting. We have also, through the recommendations of successive reports of the school teachers’ pay review body and the additional powers and responsibilities we have given to head teachers in respect of the appraisal of teachers and decisions taken about the putting of teachers on to higher pay spines, given schools greater flexibility in these areas. So, in the context of the changes we have made in respect of schools at large, we are considering whether commencing the provisions in the 2002 Act to which the noble Baroness referred would be a sensible thing to do. But we wish to keep the issue under review and we have not yet reached a definite decision on it.
Finally, in his Amendment
No. 257, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asks what is the reason for the
relevant provision in respect of the registration
authority—being the Secretary of State for England and the
National Assembly for Wales—having powers to institute
proceedings against any person who has committed an offence relating to
independent schools. My explanation, I am advised by my lawyers, is
this: it is essential that the legal requirements relating to the
registration of independent schools can be enforced. It is entirely
appropriate that the registration authority that has responsibility for
determining all aspects of an independent school’s registration
should have the final authority to take action where an offence has
been committed. As a condition of registration, independent schools
must meet the
25 July 2006 : Column 1733
Experience has shown that the circumstancesin which these powers would be exercised are, thankfully, very infrequent. However, it is only right that the registration authority should be able to act where offences occur which would put children’s well-being at risk, and that is the reason for these provisions. On that technical note, I believe we are now well and truly on the home stretch.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for a very full explanation in response to my amendments. I am really pleased that, notwithstanding the fact that he is unable to accept my amendment, the objective that I wanted to achieve is there, and we look forward to receiving the Government’s amendment on Report.
With regard to earned autonomy, I am very pleased that the Minister has said that the Government are thinking this through further. Canhe give us an idea of the timescale? Will he let us know more when we first come back in October about the possibility of further freedoms which might forestall us from taking this further on Report?
Lord Adonis: I shall be happy to do so.
Baroness Walmsley: On my amendment, we will just have to accept that it is unlikely to be a meeting of minds between the Minister and us about whether it is appropriate for a Secretary of State to spend his or her time micromanaging individual schools. We believe that it would be much more appropriately done by the local authority, given the experts they have on hand. The Secretary of State should be looking more at the big picture and not micromanaging. We will have to agree to disagreeon that.
Lord Lucas: On Amendment No. 257, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the registration authority ought to have the ability to institute proceedings. My reading of the Education Act 2002 is that that is the case. Why is only the authority in that position? Why is it only the authority that has to give its permission? That excludes anyone else taking action in respect of breaches of provisions of the 2002 Act. Is there a restriction because there has been some mischief with individuals suing or prosecuting schools privately in a way not approved of by the authority?
Lord Adonis: My understanding is that it is because the Secretary of State in respect of England and the National Assembly in respect of Wales are the relevant registration authority. That is why only those bodies have the power, but I am happy to clarify this to the noble Lord in writing.
Lord Lucas: If there is anything more to say,do, but if there is nothing, don’t. I continue to be interested.
25 July 2006 : Column 1734
On Amendment No. 258, I am delighted that the noble Lord is going down that road. I very much hope that the proposed body will have two important functions. The first is to make the results of research intelligible to the ordinary teacher so that he or she can use it. There are good research digests available but they do not begin to reach that audience. You would require an inordinate amount of time to make any use of the sort of thing which is commonly available. Secondly, I hope that it will be able to advise the Secretary of State on the research he should pursue; it will be gathering a lot of information on what is happening and will see gaps and possibilities emerging. If the noble Lord is not thinking of giving it a budget of its own—which I gather he is not—I hope that someone in the DfES will be listening to its thoughts on what could and should be done. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 252ZA to 252A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 153 [Power to repeal references to “local education authority” and “children’s services authority” etc]:
[Amendment No. 252AA not moved.]
[Amendment No. 252B not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 253 to 255 not moved.]
Lord Adonis moved Amendment No. 255A:
- (1) A member of the
staff of an institution which is within the further education sector
may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the
purpose of preventing a student at the institution from doing (or
continuing to do) any of the following,
namely—
- (3) Subsection
(1) does not authorise anything to be done in relation to a student
which constitutes the giving of corporal punishment within the meaning
of section 548 of the Education Act 1996.
- (4) The powers conferred by subsection
(1) are in addition to any powers exercisable apart from this section
and are not to be construed as restricting what may lawfully be done
apart from this section.
25 July 2006 : Column 1735
- (5) In this section, “member of
the staff”, in relation to an institution within the further
education sector, means any person who works at that institution
whether or not as its
employee.””
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 156 [Collaboration arrangements: maintained schools and further education bodies]:
[Amendment No. 256 not moved.]
Clause 158 [Offences relating to independent schools]:
[Amendment No. 257 not moved.]
Clauses 159 and 160 agreed to.
Clauses 161 and 162 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 258 not moved.]
Lord Adonis moved Amendments Nos. 259 to 261:
(a) in subsection (1A) the words “(within the meaning of section 22 of the Children Act 1989)”, and(b) in subsection (2) the word “and” at the end of paragraph (c).”On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 174 [The appropriate authority by whom commencement order is made]:
Lord Adonis moved Amendments Nos. 262 to 263A:
- “section
(Admission arrangements for schools with religious character:
consultation and objections) (admission arrangements for schools
with religious character: consultation and
objections);”
- “section
(Schools with pre-1998 arrangements for selection by ability
or aptitude) (schools with pre-1998 arrangements for selection by
ability or
aptitude);”
- “section
(Power of members of staff of further education institutions to use
force) (power of members of staff of further education institutions
to use force);”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 174, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Adonis moved Amendment No. 264:
- Page 121, line 3, after
“Act” insert “, other than any amendment made by
paragraph 2 of Schedule 10,”
25 July 2006 : Column 1736
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 175, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |