| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch: Before that happens, I want to add a question and hope that the Minister will write to me between now and the next stage of the Bill.
The academies are funded directly by Government and not by an LEA. Every LEA holds back different sums of money for different functions, so the amount of money that goes to schools is consequent upon the amount of money held back by the LEA. The Government treat the academies rather differently; they are directly funded. How do the Government calculate the sum of money that would normally be fed
through an LEA to a school per pupil and the way in which academies are funded? We would find the answer illuminating.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will remember that the Bellman in the The Hunting of the Snark said:
- "What I tell you three times is true".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 241 to 245 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 245A:
- Page 43, leave out lines 35 to 37.
The noble Baroness said: I shall be brief as I simply want to question why there has been a change. The city technology colleges have been in place for some time and Section 483 of the 1996 Act has worked well. Subsection (2) in lines 35-37 on page 43 will effect a change from "shall" to "may". In a slightly cynical way, I must ask whether an amendment was won to change "may" to "shall" against the then Conservative Government. Does the change represent the department's revenge?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to the ranks of the conspiracy theorists.
It might be helpful if I explain the intention behind Clause 62(2), which the amendment would delete. It should be considered alongside the proposed repeal of Section 483(3A) of the 1996 Act contained in Schedule 22 of the Bill, as it effectively replaces the provisions of that section.
The purpose of subsection 62(2) is to allow for, rather than require, academies to repay capital grant to the Secretary of State in the event that their funding agreements are terminated. I referred to that in passing when my noble friend Lord Peston was here. This provision is necessary because academies, unlike CTCs, will not retain the land and buildings that they occupy in the event that their funding agreements are terminated. That is fundamental and my noble friend Lord Peston is strongly recommended to read this part of Hansard when it appears tomorrow. Because of this difference it would be perverse for the Secretary of State to require them to repay capital grant paid in respect of the land and buildings. They would have no assets or income from which to fund the repayment.
Academies will be established as replacements for existing maintained schools, or to provide new school places in areas where there is a need. In all circumstances, we expect the LEA in which the academy is to be situated to transfer a suitable site to the academy at no cost, as it will be providing places for children who would otherwise be the responsibility of the LEA. The LEA may lease the site to the academy, or transfer the freehold.
If the funding agreement is terminated, for whatever reason, it would be inappropriate for the academy to retain ownership of land and buildings transferred to it at no cost. Where a local education authority transfers land to an academy, either leasehold or freehold, there will normally be provision in the contract for the land to revert to the authority if it is no longer required for the purposes of the academy.
The Secretary of State will also have the power, by virtue of Schedule 7 to the Bill, to transfer land from an academy to the local education authority which provided it, where the land is no longer required for the purposes of the academy.
I hope that the House will agree that it is right that the Secretary of State should have the discretion to waive repayment in those circumstances, and that the provisions of subsection 62(2) are an improvement on the order-making power which currently exists.
The Secretary of State will also have the power, by virtue of Schedule 7 to the Bill, to transfer land from an academy to the local education authority which provided it where the land is no longer required for the purposes of the academy.
I hope the Committee will agree that the Secretary of State should have the discretion to waive repayment in those circumstances. The provisions of Clause 62(2) are an improvement on the order-making power which currently exists.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: If the local authority transfers the freehold over to the new academy, which is an independent company limited by guarantee, then surely the company owns the land. How is it proposed to impose on that company an obligation to return the land to the local authority if it did not fulfil its functions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is proposed to do that by imposing a condition to the freehold transfer, which can also be done to a lease. Schedule 7 to the Bill disapplies the rule against perpetuities, so removing restrictions on the grant of an option to a local education authority to re-acquire the interest in a site transferred to an academy.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that it is not a pun, but I want to talk about a level playing field. We talked earlier about a change to a diocesan measure where the Church enters into a contract to establish an academy and the land is subsequently sold. It is the same basis here with the academies, only the third party is not a Church venture. If the land is subsequently sold, my understanding is that—and I have left a question with the noble Baroness to attend to later—the land and its value actually goes to the Church and the Church is obliged to use any proceeds from the sale for educational purposes. There is not a level playing field here in that the land reverts back to the LEA. There is no ongoing obligation on the part of the third party. So it would seem that the Churches are being treated
extremely favourably. I should like to leave that question on the record so that it can be scooped up with my previous one.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let me respond immediately to that because my understanding, and the answer I gave, was based on the assumption that the land had come from the local education authority and had been transferred at no cost. My advice was that that would be the normal situation. Under those circumstances land has to return to the local authority. I see the point of the question of the land going back—to use Ray Gunter's words—"from whence it came". I would like to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about that matter.
Baroness Blatch: That would add another dimension to the question. My understanding is that some of the schools set up with Church collaboration are not necessarily always preceded by ownership by the Church. Therefore, there will be a transfer of land and assets. It would be useful to have that question answered. I am still puzzled as to why this has worked so far and why there is this change. I shall read what the noble Lord has had to say. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 [Academies: supplementary]:
Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 246:
- Page 151, line 20, at end insert—
1A (1) Section 10 of the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), in the definition of "church school", at the end there is inserted "or an Academy falling within subsection (1A)".
(3) After that subsection there is inserted—
"(1A) An Academy falls within this subsection if—
(a) at least one member of its governing body is appointed to that body to represent the interests of the Church of England;
(b) the premises provided for the Academy when first established were so provided on trust that, in the event of the discontinuance of the Academy, the property concerned was to be held for, or sold and the proceeds of sale applied for, the benefit of the Church of England; or
(c) the premises provided for the Academy when first established were so provided on trust in connection with the provision of education, or the conduct of an educational institution, in accordance with the tenets of the Church of England.""
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 247:
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 247 seeks to tease out the concept of the specialist school more than we have to date. There is no secret that we, on these Benches, have reservations about the whole concept of the specialist school. At present, this applies to a limited number of schools. While the Government are extending that number, it is proposed that only 50 per cent of our secondary schools should become specialist schools. The arrival of specialist schools brings a considerable financial benefit.
The categories suggested here extend the list of specialist schools to international schools and to any specialism applied for by the governing body of a secondary school. In other words, the amendment develops the concept of innovation that the Minister intends the Bill to encourage. There may be areas of specialisation for which schools would like to apply that are not currently listed. It also introduces the concept of a specialist community school. The concept of a community school, which brings such facilities as, say, a public library, childcare and nursery facilities, information services, youth and leisure facilities and adult education alongside a school, has been around for a long time. Indeed, it has been practised with a great deal of success in several areas—perhaps the most renowned being the Cambridge community colleges.
The Local Government Association, in its response to last year's White Paper, Schools—achieving success, proposed the extension of specialist schools, arguing that there was a need for the community category of specialist schools because in many areas where specialist schools may be proposed, parents and the local community need to be engaged. Community schools have a good record of engaging children's families in learning activities.
In advocating those developments, the LGA wants to look beyond the normal cluster of activities associated with community schools to such areas as banking, post office or health facilities, housing advice and tourism. Whether schools as the centre of a community should extend as far as the LGA envisages is a moot point, but the central argument remains:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
"MEANING OF SPECIALIST SCHOOL
The Secretary of State may by order designate any community, foundation or voluntary secondary school as a specialist school if it has one or more of the following specialisms—
(a) technology;
(b) arts;
(c) sports;
(d) languages;
(e) engineering;
(f) business and enterprise;
(g) community;
(h) international;
(i) any other specialism introduced by order of the Secretary of State; or
(j) any other specialism applied for by the governing body of a secondary school."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page