| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not quite say that the admissions procedure was the same. In order to be safe, I shall read what I said because I was reading my brief on this occasion. I said that academies will comply in full with the requirements of SEN admissions and exclusions legislation as they apply to maintained schools. As regards the issue of banding, we turn to that with the next group of amendments. I think that it would be better if we discussed the matter then.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may come back on that. I was referring to an occasion much earlier today when the noble Lord said that as far as admissions were concerned academies were treated the same as maintained schools. It might have been in the context of another aspect, but it was not in the context of SEN.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not always read speeches and perhaps I made some such comment. However, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that it is not necessarily the case—and perhaps this is relevant to the next group of amendments—that academies have banding policies. It is not necessarily the case that they interview potential pupils.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. I am somewhat reassured by what he has had to say. I am delighted that he has accepted our Amendment No. 234—that is a nice little bonus for us.
The only issue to which I want to return is that of admissions. Am I right in thinking that academies are their own admissions authorities, in the same way as the CTCs are their own admissions authorities?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They are independent schools in the public sector, and they have funding agreements, memoranda, and articles. I have explained what those require them to do and the extent to which they have to obey the same law as maintained schools; but they are their own admissions authorities, subject to those very significant constraints.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I realise that those are very significant constraints and that is reassuring. What I find particularly reassuring is the degree to which the academies will be serving their own local communities. On these Benches, we feel strongly that a great deal of public money is going in and that it is important that they do not become élite academies.
In relation to Amendment No. 237, we should be delighted to see the abolition of the Greenwich judgment, but it is there and we recognise the limitations that that imposes.
There is a great deal in the Minister's answers, for which I thank him. We shall read them with care, and we shall possibly return to some of these issues on Report.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I, too, am grateful to the Minister for explaining why Clause 62 does not apply to Wales. He referred to the document produced by the National Assembly, The Learning Country, which I have read more than once. It looks forward a decade or so, but, alas, is not very innovative in terms of practical ideas. It seems as if a straitjacket has descended on the comprehensive system in Wales. Possibly, the spirit of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has been abroad in educational circles in the Principality.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the noble Lord does not expect me to agree with him. In words once used by Ken Tynan, wild horses on their bended knees would not extract from me a criticism of the National Assembly for Wales.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: As regards the amendment, my personal view is that Wales is losing out and that the Bill is not as enabling as it might be, in that, if these clauses did apply to Wales, it would, of course, be up to the Assembly and others involved in education as to whether they were activated or not. Personally, I think that the idea of academies is a promising one and would be relevant in the Principality. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 234 not moved.]
Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 235:
- Page 43, line 11, leave out "different" and insert "all"
The noble Lord said: I hope that I can deal briefly with these two amendments, Amendments Nos. 235 and 236, especially as I am indebted to the good offices of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp and Lady Blatch. I tabled them partly so that we could have a good debate on comprehensives, and we managed to have such a debate earlier.
The two amendments in my name and that of my noble friend should not be interpreted to mean that either of us supports what I regard as the most idiotic idea; namely, "academies". I have no idea what the origin of this lunacy is, but in speaking about the idea I hope that I am not interpreted as thinking for one moment that it would be other than damaging to the education system of our country.
The Minister has spoken on more than one occasion of the Government's commitment to comprehensive education, for which I am indebted. "Comprehensive" education means admitting pupils of all abilities. One need rarely argue about the word. It does not mean "different abilities"; it means "all abilities". Therefore, given the Minister's commitment to comprehensive education—and the Minister having said how sympathetic she is to at least one Conservative amendment, how sympathetic she is to one amendment tabled by the Bishops, how sympathetic she is to one Liberal Democrat amendment—we might have an absolutely miraculous occasion and she might actually support an idea coming from her own supporters. I therefore press on the Minister the notion that we need the phrase "all abilities" and not the phrase "different abilities".
My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey reminds me of our younger and happier days when the idea of banding was introduced in a moment of aberration on the part of the people of Haringey who voted for a very short time for a Conservative local administration. It did not last very long, but it thought that the idea of banding was a good one. Two leading figures in opposing that to the death were my noble friend and myself. We won that battle. I certainly have not changed my view and I take it that he has not. Therefore, we really must replace the word "different" with the word "all".
Amendment No. 236 is more of a drafting amendment. In the provision, the word abilities—which I hope will be "all abilities" rather than "different abilities"—is followed by "who are wholly or mainly". That could be interpreted as meaning that the issue of abilities applies only to those who come under the "who are wholly or mainly", so that young people who do not come from the local area do not have to be of "all" or "different" abilities, but could be of one ability. That is my reading of the amendment.
There are two possibilities here. The first is that I am right and that we need the "and" that I suggest. Alternatively, as I am not an expert in drafting, my noble friend could say, "No, we don't need the 'and' because the clause as it stands means the 'and'". Not being an expert on reading legislation I shall take his word whichever way round. However, my reading of it is that the "and" is required.
Those are my two points. We need "all abilities" because allegedly—not allegedly; my noble friends have said how committed they are—definitely we believe in comprehensives. The "and" is to avoid any confusion as to what the clause means. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I believe that the importance of education is to do what is best for the child rather than to employ political prejudice.
Baroness Blatch: I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We have on record now the city technology colleges, city academies and specialist schools, all of which have made a positive difference. The noble Lord cannot point to any of those establishments and say that it has failed young people in any sense whatever. In fact, they have served the more deprived communities better than any preceding schools.
Lord Peston: The noble Baroness should know that there is no research evidence supporting what she has just said, and that there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence showing exactly the opposite. There is no case other than an a priori and a prejudiced case—to which I shall return in a moment—that it is the other way round. There is no case for these schools. No one has ever shown a research case for them or, in my view, a philosophical case for them. The noble Baroness really should not persist with this view that they are doing a lot of good. There is no evidence whatever that they are doing a lot of good.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but I shall remain undaunted and continue to press my case. However, the noble Lord himself has not produced any evidence whatever for the case he is pressing. I shall make the following statements:
- "The comprehensive revolution has not removed the link between education and class but it has strengthened it. The revolution which afflicted state schooling from the 1960s is one of the most profound and incendiary factors influencing the state of British society. It was not merely a technical educational change, but changed the nature of the country. In 1965, the Labour-controlled House of Commons resolved that moving to a comprehensive system would 'preserve all that is valuable in grammar school education for those children who now receive it and make it available to more children'".
- "The comprehensive revolution tragically destroyed much of the excellent without improving the rest. Comprehensive schools have largely replaced selection by ability with selection by class and house price. Middle class children now go to middle class comprehensives whose catchment areas comprise middle class neighbourhoods while working class children are mostly left to fester in the inner city comprehensives their parents cannot afford to move away from".
Those are not my words but those of Andrew Adonis, a Labour Party educational adviser to the Prime Minister.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page