PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

EDUCATION BILL

Twentieth Sitting Thursday 31 March 2011 (Afternoon)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 40 to 48 agreed to. SCHEDULE 11, as amended, agreed to. CLAUSES 49 to 51 agreed to. Adjourned till Tuesday 5 April at Nine o’clock.

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £5·00 PBC (Bill 137) 2010 - 2011 Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of Proceedings in General Committees sent to them are requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office.

No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published with Bound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 4 April 2011

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL COMMITTEES

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2011 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 823 Public Bill Committee31 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 824

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: MR CHARLES WALKER,†HYWEL WILLIAMS

† Boles, Nick (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) † Hendrick, Mark (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) † Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff West) (Lab) † Hilling, Julie (Bolton West) (Lab) † Creasy, Stella (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) † McPartland, Stephen (Stevenage) (Con) † Duddridge, James (Lord Commissioner of Her † Munn, Meg (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op) Majesty’s Treasury) † Munt, Tessa (Wells) (LD) † Durkan, Mark (Foyle) (SDLP) † Rogerson, Dan (North Cornwall) (LD) † Fuller, Richard (Bedford) (Con) † Stuart, Mr Graham (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) † Gibb, Mr Nick (Minister of State, Department for † Wright, Mr Iain (Hartlepool) (Lab) Education) † Glass, Pat (North West Durham) (Lab) Sarah Thatcher, Richard Ward, Committee Clerks † Gyimah, Mr Sam (East Surrey) (Con) †Hayes,MrJohn(Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning) † attended the Committee 825 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 826

safety and, of course, its leadership and management. I Public Bill Committee am not saying that those are the only things that matter, but they are the most important. Thursday 31 March 2011 Amendment 165 would place an additional requirement (Afternoon) on the chief inspector to report on a school’s contribution to community cohesion. I and other Government Members [HYWEL WILLIAMS in the Chair] agree that community cohesion is important, but we do not accept that it should be one of the core areas for Education Bill which schools are held to account through routine Ofsted inspections. As the chief inspector commented Clause 40 to the Committee earlier in March: SCHOOL INSPECTIONS: MATTERS TO BE COVERED IN “We welcome the narrower focus on the four areas, because it CHIEF INSPECTOR’S REPORT gives us a chance to build on what we have been doing and to narrow the focus and look deeply, particularly at teaching and 1pm learning”. Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): I beg to move Having to cover community cohesion separately would amendment 165, in clause 40, page 35, line 45, at end diminish that aspect and detract from it. insert— I draw the Committee’s attention to another comment ‘(e) the contribution of the school to community made by the chief inspector when giving evidence: cohesion.’. “I really do value that focus”— The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss on the four areas— amendment 166, in clause 40, page 36, line 9, at end “even at the expense of an explicit judgment and grade on insert— community cohesion. We will expect to see that the school community is a cohesive community, that children respect one another and ‘(c) the quality of the governance arrangements at the behave with respect to one another and that their parents feel school; fully engaged in the school.”––[Official Report, Education Public (d) whether the financial resources made available to the Bill Committee, 1 March 2011; c. 76-78, Q141 and Q145.] school are managed effectively.’. That statement by the chief inspector shows general Kevin Brennan: Prynhawn da, Mr Williams, croeso support for narrowing the focus for inspection but, at ’nôl—good afternoon and welcome back, one and all. the same time, demonstrates that important aspects of We now move on to clause 40 which, as one of my community cohesion will remain within scope. hon. Friends pointed out, means we have passed halfway through the Bill and, as in football, the second half Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): This is an often seems to rush past quite quickly in the excitement, important issue to discuss, and I am pleased that the compared with the first half. [Interruption.] I did not shadow Minister raised it with his probing amendment. quite catch that intervention, but I am sure it was very To cast my mind back to the passage last summer of the funny. Academies Act 2010, it was important that academies’ Amendments 165 and 166 would require Ofsted, duties in relation to community cohesion remained in respectively to inspect community cohesion and to ensure that Bill. I welcome the fact that the Government have that inspections consider the financial management and put on record through the Minister’s comments their governing arrangements at a school. Does the Minister determination that Ofsted will consider it across a range share the view of the NASUWT that financial management of issues, as a thread running through everything that “is a critical area to secure the entitlement of all children and goes on, rather than as a discrete matter. Cohesion must young people”? presumably be judged in a cohesive way, so it should If he thinks it is critical, why under clause 40 is Ofsted run through all the key areas on which a school is not required to inspect it? assessed. The NASUWT was also particularly concerned about the scrutiny of compliance with the community cohesion Mr Gibb: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. duty and the public sector equality duties—tackling The duty to promote community cohesion remains a racist incidents in schools and prejudice-driven beliefs. duty on the school. Given the comments of the chief The Schools Minister himself has taken a strong interest inspector, it is clear that it will remain within the scope in bullying caused by prejudice, whether on grounds of of what inspectors will consider, although the overall race or sexuality or whatever is involved. Such provisions grading will not be determined by that one issue. were adopted to promote equality and to tackle To develop the argument a little further, the changes discrimination experienced by children and young people, that we propose will enable Ofsted to consider aspects which can be a real barrier to learning and success in of community cohesion much more coherently, which schools. should result in a more meaningful assessment that is Can the Minister tell us why the clause removes the better understood by schools. At the moment, when requirement for Ofsted to inspect community cohesion? assessing pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural How important do the Government feel a school’s development, inspectors are required to evaluate pupils’ community cohesion is? What impact does he believe understanding of their own culture and those of others that the change will have on schools? locally, regionally and nationally. That overlaps with a separate assessment of community cohesion requiring The Minister of State, Department for Education coverage of related matters. That artificial distinction (Mr Nick Gibb): Clause 40 seeks to focus inspection on causes schools and inspectors to attempt to separate the core business of a school, in other words on pupils’ their assessments to enable both areas to be judged, achievement, the quality of teaching, behaviour and which is unhelpful to schools and parents. 827 Public Bill Committee31 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 828

Our proposals will require inspectors, in assessing the the past, and I pay tribute to him for continuing the four core areas, to consider how schools are providing work that was started, and building on it in government; for pupils’spiritual, moral, social and cultural development, it is extremely important, and he should be commended. meaning that those important aspects will be brought I noted the chief inspector’s comments that the Minister together to inform the overall assessment of a school in referred to in his response. While welcoming the inspection a much more coherent way. That, along with the other of the core matters, I think he used the phrase “even at revisions to inspections coverage, will give parents a the expense” of community cohesion, which illustrates clearer understanding of how their child’s school is its importance. The Minister has confirmed for the performing. Committee that he regards it as important—he is nodding Amendment 166 seeks to add two further areas that —as did the inspector. the chief inspector must consider in reporting on the I take the Minister’s point about inspectors not being quality of education provided in a school. The hon. auditors. I have been, as he knows, a teacher who has Member for Cardiff West will be aware that the quality been subject to inspection. I am not an accountant. My of leadership and management of the school is one of hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool is an accountant, the four core areas. As the consultation document launched but he does not often tell the Committee that before he last week by Ofsted explains: became a fully fledged accountant—I think I am right “Governors are also expected to challenge the school and in saying this—he was a turf accountant for a brief ensure that it improves. We propose to retain these as key period. considerations when judging the effectiveness of leadership and management.” To add governors as a separate entry will send mixed Mr Gibb: What are the odds of that? messages to schools, governing bodies and parents about the link between the overall leadership and management Kevin Brennan: Indeed. We do not see many of those of the school and governors. in the House of Commons, so my hon. Friend the Finally, on the management of financial resources in Member for Hartlepool brings a tremendously rich vein schools, we want inspectors to spend their time doing of experience to the Committee. what they do best. We want them in the classrooms I take the Minister’s point; he said that the Government observing lessons, talking to children, listening to children want to ensure that governors challenge schools to read, observing teaching and assessing children’s educational ensure that they improve. Having put on record our experience. Inspectors are not auditors, unlike the hon. concerns and tried to tease out of the Minister his Member for Hartlepool and me, and we should not commitment to ensure that such matters will not be pretend that they are. They do not have our brilliant neglected despite the reforms that he is making, I beg to expertise; they have different expertise. ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab): Or our creativity, Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the imagination and style. Bill.

Mr Gibb: Indeed. To look in detail at financial resources would involve significant investment of inspectors’ time. Kevin Brennan: I have just a few points, to which I Currently, inspectors square the circle by almost always hope the Minister will respond, from some of the matching their value for money assessments with their organisations that have commented on the clause. Save judgments on pupil outcomes. Ofsted’s guidance is explicit the Children told us: about that, but how useful is it to put inspectors in the “The school inspection system must focus more clearly on the position of having routinely to make such separate specific impact of schools in improving the life chances of children assessments? Inspectors will continue to be able to from poor homes.” report where there appear to be shortcomings in the In his independent review of poverty and life chances in management of resources, and that will be reflected in 2010, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead the leadership assessment, but it is not helpful for the (Mr Field) said: legislation to refer to it separately. “The Department for Education should ensure schools are The hon. Member for Cardiff mentioned prejudice-based held to account for reducing the attainment gap in the same way they are for improving overall attainment. Where a school has a bullying. The draft school inspection framework, on persistent or increasing attainment gap, this should have a significant which Ofsted is consulting, proposes to bearing on the inspection for the school.” “judge pupils’ behaviour and safety by giving particular attention I certainly agree with that statement. Will the Minister to…how well they are protected from bullying”. confirm that he does too and will he explain how the Ofsted will look specifically at bullying when it forms a change will help that to happen? judgment on the four core areas of the behaviour and Save the Children also told us: safety element. I hope that with those brief comments, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his “It is crucial that the extent to which the education provided meets the needs of low-income pupils and children in care (those amendment. who are eligible for the full Pupil Premium) are specific requirements of the Chief Inspector’s report.” Kevin Brennan: On that last point, may I genuinely The Bill’s explanatory note for clause 40 refers specifically and sincerely pay tribute to the Minister for the work to pupils eligible for the pupil premium, children with that he is continuing to do on homophobic bullying? It special educational needs and disabled children. However, is something that might not have featured highly in a only the latter two groups are mentioned in the Bill. Conservative Education Minister’s list of priorities in Will the Minister explain that? The National Children’s 829 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 830

[Kevin Brennan] Mr Gibb: Because that is something that inspectors will look at, as they have historically. The hon. Gentleman Bureau told us that it was asking for schools to be could also ask why the clause does not refer to looked-after inspected on the quality of education and other support children or to closing the attainment gap between children they provide to vulnerable groups. of different ethnic minority backgrounds. It is difficult Unison said that Ofsted should focus on the role of to list everything, but we wanted to emphasise those support staff in delivering quality education. Aspects two groups. It is clear from the consultation documents, such as the quality of school food and the eating and from everything else that we know about Ofsted, experience should be considered under the quality of that it will try to close the attainment gaps between all education and social and cultural development. Will the groups at schools, including the gap between genders. Minister comment on whether it is his intention that the I am sure that Ofsted will take account of the role of support staff should be covered in an inspection? contribution of support staff in a proportionate way. I Will he also explain his rationale for streamlining the urge support staff and their unions to respond to Ofsted’s coverage of inspections and what he thinks the risks, if consultation document. Frankly, I do not see many any, are of doing that—I am sure he will tell us what risks to the new framework, but Ofsted is consulting on benefits and rewards he thinks there will be—and how that and will consider carefully any risks referred to it he will manage those risks? by respondents. Given all the measures that we are introducing—such as the pupil premium, and the separate column in the attainment tables for the attainment of 1.15 pm pupils qualifying for the pupil premium—the revised framework and the provisions in the clause should Mr Gibb: Clause 40 sets out the foundations for a tackle all the important issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. new approach to school inspection, which will enable On that basis, I urge the Committee to allow the clause inspectors to concentrate on the things that matter most to stand part of the Bill. in improving educational provision and raising standards. Every parent should have the right to send their child to Question put and agreed to. a successful school—one which is led effectively and has Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. strong teaching, where poor behaviour is not tolerated and pupils are safe, and which has high aspirations for Clause 41 all its pupils and does not use social and economic circumstances as an excuse for poor achievement. INSPECTION OF FURTHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: An overriding objective of the Government is to EXEMPT INSTITUTIONS close the attainment gap between those from poorer Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the and wealthier backgrounds. We will not necessarily do Bill. that through the inspection framework, which is intended to ensure that schools have high standards. The pupil premium and the attainment of children who qualify Mr Wright: The clause relates specifically to the for the pupil premium will be separately identified in inspection of further education and allows for institutions attainment tables, which will focus schools on ensuring to be deemed exempt from inspection. We have just that those children achieve to the best of their ability. debated clause 39 and the exemption of schools from Attainment is one of Ofsted’s four criteria, and it always inspection. I am sorry to disappoint the Committee but looks at qualifications achieved by a school when assessing I do not want to reiterate the arguments made by my attainment. hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West, although I will if the Committee so wishes. The Government Whip In addition, subsection (1) will insert new subsection (5B) nods vigorously; I will put that on the record. in the Education Act 2005, which specifies “the extent to which the education provided at the school meets I want to make a point in relation to the FE regime the needs of the range of pupils at the school, and in particular and something that was raised by the Association of the needs of…pupils who have a disability…and…pupils who Colleges. I fully recognise that it welcomed the exemptions. have special educational needs.” The AOC is concerned that the clause allows the Secretary Therefore, those two groups are specifically referred to of State to instruct Her Majesty’s chief inspector to in the Bill. The consultation document produced by conduct an inspection of a college graded outstanding, Ofsted—in paragraph 10 on page 8—mentions persistent but without specifying whether the college should be low attainment and states: notified. The AOC told us: “in whatever circumstances he did order such an inspection we “It is…important that schools reduce differences in attainment think it important that the autonomy of the College is respected between groups in the school, including those between looked and therefore the governing body is formally informed that an after children, pupils from different social and ethnic groups and inspection is to happen and why the Secretary of State has between boys and girls. The new inspection framework will pay ordered such an inspection.” particular attention to such gaps in attainment and inspectors will look at what is being done to close them.” Given that query, can the Minister assure the Committee that when the Secretary of State triggers an inspection of an exempt FE college, he will give adequate notice to Kevin Brennan: I am aware of that, but my point is the college as well as details on what triggered the that, although the Bill specifically refers to pupils with a inspection that was required? disability and with special educational needs, the explanatory notes to clause 40 also refer to pupils who are eligible The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong for the pupil premium. Why is that not referred to in the Learning (Mr John Hayes): I am delighted to be able to Bill? speak to clause 41. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s 831 Public Bill Committee31 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 832 remarks in the course of setting out very briefly the Clause 42 concept that he alludes to, which lies at the heart of the clause. INSPECTION OF BOARDING ACCOMMODATION Alongside the provisions that recognise high quality Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the schools, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, we recognise Bill. that many FE providers are outstanding in their leadership and management, outcomes for learners and links with Kevin Brennan: I do not want to say much about this the wider community. The provision acknowledges that clause. I thank the Minister for providing a note about excellence and enables regulations to be made to exempt it to explain the Government’s intentions, but will he outstanding colleges from routine inspection. The hon. briefly outline those intentions for the record? Gentleman said that this has been pretty widely welcomed as a concept; indeed, he did not disagree with it. It Mr Gibb: As hon. Members will know, boarding creates greater consistency and coherence in the assumption schools are inspected on two things: education and about inspection. welfare. In England, independent inspectorates carry out inspections in most independent boarding schools, The provision will allow outstanding colleges to be and Ofsted carries out all welfare inspections. Joint freed from the burden of unnecessary inspection. It inspections by Ofsted and independent inspectorates puts trust in the leaders of outstanding institutions to are undertaken where possible, to minimise disruption continue to deliver high standards and to concentrate to the schools concerned, but there are two separate on delivering high quality learning. It gives Ofsted the inspection reports, published on two separate websites. freedom to adopt a proportionate approach to inspection. A single inspection report of the school published on a Instead of being bound by inspection cycles, they can single website would be more helpful for parents and use their resources to target those providers that need easier for schools to handle. help to define and improve their weaknesses. The Children Act 1989 gives a power, which we will now use, to remedy that position and continue the Of course, I need to reassure the Committee that previous Government’s work in this area. We intend to Ofsted will continue to risk-assess the performance of appoint an independent inspectorate to undertake some all exempt colleges on an annual basis. If significant boarding welfare inspections in England, as is already concerns arise, an exempt college can be brought back the case for some education inspections of independent into the inspection cycle. That business of exempting schools. The clause therefore makes three changes outstanding colleges has been raised before. We also consequential to the use of that power. appreciate that an Ofsted inspection is a recognised and First, it gives a power to the Secretary of State to respected validation of the performance of a college. So make regulations setting out the matters to be taken there may be colleges, particularly those that are exempt, into account by him in deciding to appoint, or withdraw that would want to request an inspection if they believed the appointment of, an independent inspectorate. That it would add value to their performance information mirrors an existing regulation-making power in the and provide information for learners, employers and the 2008 Act on the appointment of independent inspectorates wider community. Clause 41 makes this possible by to conduct inspections of education provision in allowing the chief inspector to charge for an inspection independent schools. where an FE provider requests one. It is for the chief Secondly, it will allow Ofsted to monitor independent inspector to decide whether to respond to such a request. inspectorates’inspections of independent boarding schools, As with schools provisions, it is not our intention that again mirroring the current arrangements. Ofsted will Ofsted should charge where an inspection is in response produce an annual report for the Secretary of State on to concerns about a college. So let me reassure members independent inspectorates, which will be published on of the Committee that this is not a money-making the Ofsted and relevant inspectorate websites. measure, but it will ensure that Ofsted resources are Thirdly, the clause gives a power to the Secretary of focused on poorly performing colleges. Any income State to direct Ofsted to undertake a boarding inspection generated from this exercise will have to be within the of any school at any time, including where the boarding Treasury’s restrictions on Ofsted income. provision would normally be under an appointed independent inspectorate. That mirrors a similar provision The purpose of the clause is to give back freedom to allowing him to direct Ofsted to carry out an education outstanding providers. It reduces bureaucracy and, as I inspection at any time. said, it allows Ofsted to focus on what we think is most We believe that those measures, when taken together, essential and ensures that appropriate safeguards are in will provide transparency, accountability and confidence place in the way that I have outlined. On that basis, I in the arrangements for independent inspectorates to hope that the Committee will endorse all that we aim to carry out inspections in independent boarding schools. do in the Bill. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s advice in The Boarding Schools Association welcomes the transfer that respect. On the further issue that was raised by the of welfare inspections in independent schools to an hon. Gentleman about the Secretary of State, it is independent inspectorate and has no objection to Ofsted’s appropriate that appropriate notice is given. That is a monitoring role. I hope that that will provide the hon. perfectly fair and reasonable point, and we will ensure Gentleman with a succinct description of what the that that happens. clause is intending to do. I urge the Committee to allow it to stand part of the Bill. Question put and agreed to. Question put and agreed to. Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 833 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 834

Clause 43 ability to strategically plan school place demand? In the case of a closure, what safeguards does the Minister intend to put in place to ensure adequate alternative SCHOOLS CAUSING CONCERN: POWERS OF THE provision exists? SECRETARY OF STATE Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the This is another example, as I said earlier, of an Bill. additional power—there are more than 50 examples throughout the Bill of the Secretary of State taking powers to himself and potentially away from parents. 1.30 pm Can he confirm that under the clause local provision Kevin Brennan: This clause is another that extends the that is critical to some groups of children and young powers of the Secretary of State, allowing him to intervene people could be removed at the discretion of the Secretary in schools that are causing concern. Currently, he can of State, with no recourse for parents to appeal on direct the closure of the school because it requires behalf of their children? The Local Government special measures, but the clause extends the situations Association told us: in which the Secretary of State can direct a school “The LGA believes this runs contrary to the Government’s closure. Under the clause, the Secretary of State will be plans for localism and able to direct the closure of a school when it has failed removes the element of local discretion from the current power of to comply with a performance, standards and safety the Secretary of State to direct an authority to consider issuing warning notice, and when a school has been identified such a notice. We would support the removal of Clause 43”. as requiring significant improvement by the chief inspector Does he agree with the LGA that this clause runs and has been issued with a notice to improve. It extends contrary to localism? Will this clause apply to academies? the Secretary of State’s power, so that when a local Is there any intention to use this clause to convert authority has been directed to consider giving a schools into academies? Is it possible under this clause performance, standards and safety warning notice and for the Secretary of State to step in and use this power has decided not to do so, the Secretary of State may to get round the other provisions for converting a direct the authority to give a warning notice in specified school into an academy? terms. When any warning notice has been given, whether I ask the Minister to explain his justification for following a direction or not, failure to comply with it introducing this clause and to set out the particular would result in the school becoming eligible for intervention. circumstances in which he envisages that the Secretary Will the Minister explain his rationale for introducing of State will make use of these powers. What was his this clause and, in particular, outline the circumstances compelling reason for proposing this extension of state in which he thinks the Secretary of State’s current power? powers to intervene when schools are causing concern are insufficient? I know he does not like too much state power: he will only want to introduce any further extension Mr Gibb: Clause 43 will amend the legal framework of state power from the centre when it is absolutely for maintained schools causing concern in England. necessary and based on compelling evidence. The clause The Government are committed to taking early and encourages more frequent use by local authorities of focused action if a school’s performance is either below warning notices; if not, the Secretary of State will direct the minimum floor standards or simply not good enough their use. What safeguards does the Minister intend to given the context within which the school operates. put in place to avoid inappropriate or insensitive use of Children only have one chance at education, and we this power by the Secretary of State which could damage cannot allow underperforming schools, in which children the relationships between local authorities and schools? are not receiving the education they deserve, to carry on In what circumstances does he envisage that the Secretary unreformed. Each day that children are not being educated of State will direct a local authority to issue a warning properly in the classroom is another day that they are notice? held back from achieving their full potential. The The clause means that there will be no difference in Government will not hesitate to use our intervention approach between “special measures” and “notice to powers to turn around underperforming schools where improve” schools. Does he recognise that Ofsted will the schools themselves and local authorities have been have judged the latter category of school to have the unable to do so, and I have always thought that that leadership and management necessary to improve the would be the hon. Gentleman’s view. school? In what situations does he intend that the The circumstances in which the Secretary of State Secretary of State will intervene in this powerful and can intervene in an underperforming school are inconsistent. draconian way even when Ofsted has deemed the school At present, he can direct the local authority to close a capable of improvement on its own? The NUT told us school only when it is eligible for intervention because it of their concerns that under this clause, requires special measures. By contrast, he can already “schools would become eligible for closure as soon as the 15 days intervene in other ways, such as by appointing additional had elapsed” governors or making an academy order where the school since the issue of a valid warning notice. Does the is eligible for intervention because it also requires Minister think that this is a fair and reasonable way to improvement or has failed to comply with a warning conduct school improvement and one that is likely to notice. The clause will therefore extend the Secretary of result in rising standards? How will parents and State’s power to direct a local authority to close a communities be consulted in any decision by the Secretary school so that a direction may be made in the same of State in Sanctuary Buildings to issue a warning circumstances as other intervention powers. It is right notice or close a school? Can he explain how his new that he is able to tackle underperformance firmly and power to close schools will affect local authorities’ consistently. 835 Public Bill Committee31 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 836

We believe that the power to direct a school’s closure academies are underperforming, the Secretary of State should not be confined to schools in special measures, may intervene. So the clause applies only to maintained but in all circumstances where a school is eligible for schools. intervention because of poor performance. We are aware With those comments, I hope that the Committee that one intervention solution will not fit all scenarios, will allow the clause to stand part of the Bill. which is why we believe the Secretary of State’s range of powers should be available consistently. Kevin Brennan: I do not intend to ask my hon. Friends to divide on the clause, but I have a comment on the Minister’s points. Kevin Brennan: What are the safeguards against an abuse of the power by the Secretary of State? I asked about the potential for abuse of the power, because it is a serious power to give the Secretary of State—to direct the closure of the school under such circumstances. In answer, he said that the Secretary of Mr Gibb: The Secretary of State is accountable to State was accountable to Parliament. Parliament. He can do nothing without his action being scrutinised by the hon. Gentleman and other Members However, I simply put on record once again our of the House. If he does not go through the procedures concern that, to be accountable to Parliament, Ministers correctly as set out in statute or in common law, his need to answer parliamentary questions and correspondence decisions may undergo a judicial review. The main from Members of Parliament. That would perhaps accountability is to the House. convince us more of the accountability of the Secretary of State, if he and his Ministers did that in line with The clause also enables the Secretary of State to their own targets. If they do not do so, perhaps we direct the local authority to give a performance standards should be given a power to put some sort of notice of and safety warning notice in specified terms. As now, he intervention in place and close them down, so that will first direct the local authority to consider giving a accountability can be restored. warning notice. If the local authority decides not to do so, but he continues to believe a warning notice is The Minister said that judicial review was then possible, necessary after considering the local authority’s reasons, but the Secretary of State has already been told by one he will then have the power to direct the local authority judge in a judicial review that he is guilty of an abuse of to give a warning notice in specified terms. power, which he tried to make light of on the Floor of the House. So we have some justification for being Members of the Committee may remember that a sceptical about whether those two weeks will do the similar power was proposed in the Children, Schools trick. However, it is not my intention to divide the and Families Bill. That clearly highlights the cross-party Committee. consensus on the belief that the changes will lead to improvements in standards and that they are needed. Question put and agreed to. There is, however, an important distinction between the Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. clause proposed in that Bill and this clause. While we believe that the intervention power is necessary, we do not believe that the power of the Secretary of State Clause 44 should be unfettered. Schools will be able to make representations to Ofsted against the warning notice, COMPLAINTS: REPEAL OF POWER TO COMPLAIN TO whether or not it is given as a result of a direction. LOCAL COMMISSIONER Ofsted will be the final judge of whether the warning notice should have been given. If the notice is confirmed, and the school fails to take the necessary action to Kevin Brennan: I beg to move amendment 169, in remedy the concerns set out in the notice, the school clause 44, page 38, line 42, at beginning insert— will then become eligible for intervention. ‘Subject to subsection (3)’. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the NUT is concerned that the Government will treat schools in The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss special measures with notice to improve in the same way amendment 170, in clause 44, page 39, line 28, at end as schools failing to comply with a notice. As I have just insert— said, that is deliberate. We are committed to tackling ‘(3) The Secretary of State must not commence this section performance in schools that are not meeting the expected under section 78 (Commencement) until six months after Her standards or are failing to show that they have the Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and capabilities to turn performance around. It is not about Skills with the Commissioner for Local Administration have having a blanket approach to all schools in special reported jointly to the Secretary of State on the operation of measures or in other categories. Before intervening in a Part 10, Chapter 2 (Complaints: England), ASCLA 2009, and the Secretary of State has laid the report before Parliament.’. school, the Secretary of State will have assessed the needs of that individual school on a case-by-case basis. The provisions will ensure that he has the necessary Kevin Brennan: The clause is another example of the intervention powers in those schools that most need it, attack on parents’ rights that is part of the Bill. not according—this is the key point—to the label that The previous Government established a new complaints they have been given regarding their performance. system, to deal with the problem of putting on a proper The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the clause footing how complaints are dealt with in schools. The applies to academies. However, the funding agreement last thing we want is for complaints to clog up the is what provides the Secretary of State with powers to system and, certainly, for trivial and vexatious complaints intervene and, under that contractual arrangement, if to stop a school doing what it should be doing. 837 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 838

[Kevin Brennan] why the Government would want to prevent parents from making legitimate complaints about schools to a There was a thoughtful consultation period, over local agency. quite a long time, to explore the available options for a I note that the Lamb inquiry on special educational sensible system for dealing with complaints. The objective needs and parental confidence recommended that the was to provide a well thought-out and coherent system LGO should be able to hear complaints. It argued that which would allow parental and student complaints to allowing it to do so be handled if the school had exhausted its procedures. “represents the potential for a unified route for individual complaints The new system required complaints to be heard through about SEN at both a school and local authority level, with more the normal system in the school, with the complainants appropriate forms of redress available to parents.” then able to use the established office of the local I am grateful to the Special Educational Consortium government ombudsman if that did not satisfy them. for its submissions on the subject. In the light of those, I Six months after the system came into place, with am interested to know how the removal of the LGO’s minimal marketing of the new arrangements, the new powers will affect the hearing of complaints about Government now claim that take-up is so low that they provision for children with special educational needs. have to abolish this safety valve for the school system. For example, parents might—and often do—complain That will clearly be a reduction in parental rights, so we that although provision has been made for their child want to hear the Minister’s explanation. in a statement and the money has been received by the Amendments 169 and 170 would make the repeal of school, sufficient and proper provision has not been the power of parents to complain to the local commissioner made. I am interested to hear from the Minister how we subject to a report on the use of the provision by the will ensure that such parents can ensure that their voices chief inspector and the local government ombudsman—the are heard. The Special Educational Consortium questions commissioner for local administration. The amendments taking away the local accountability mechanism before would require a full review of the new complaints it has been fully evaluated, especially at a time when the procedure before it was abolished. It has been piloted in Department for Education faces a significantly increased a number of local authorities. The costs in the impact work load—an awful lot of powers are coming to the assessment included start-up costs, which are not Secretary of State. Perhaps the Government might ongoing—as an accountant, the Minister will know reconsider the matter and if not, might at least ensure that. that the Department is in a position to provide answers to parents in extremis or more rapidly than it has What evidence has the Minister considered to inform sometimes answered parliamentary questions to date. his decision to repeal parents’ rights to take a complaint, ultimately, to the local commissioner? Why has there Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab): My concerns not been a full and proper review of the new system? All about the clause reflect much of what has already been we have is one and a half pages in the impact assessment. said, because it reduces the role of parents and devalues A piece of careful, well thought-through and well balanced their importance by taking away a new and important work is being undone without sufficient thought and role in the complaints structure. consultation. The Committee heard me speak on Tuesday about my son and his school. I know the Committee will want 1.45 pm to congratulate my son whose school was inspected by Ofsted this week. In two and a half years it has gone Mr Stuart: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, from “serious weaknesses” to “good with outstanding Mr Williams. I do not know whether we will have a features”. I want to put it on the record that we offer stand part debate, but with this many amendments we our congratulations to the head and staff of Silverdale may cover most of the issues. I shall speak to amendments school in North Tyneside. One of the areas of outstanding 169 and 170, but in passing I note that my amendment practice was the work with parents. Given that the 77 was not selected because it sought to delete the whole school is a secondary school for children with emotional clause, which makes it immune to selection. and behavioural difficulties, and that parents face many As we know, the Bill provides for the abolition of the challenges within the community, the fact that it placed local government ombudsman’s ability to hear complaints such importance on working with parents reflects its against a school. At present, the LGO, as we have understanding that a child’s education is dependent heard, can hear complaints when a parent has exhausted upon the compliance, co-operation and commitment of the school’s internal complaints procedure but continues parents. to believe that the school is acting unreasonably or I echo what was said by the Chair of the Education unlawfully. The LGO has only been allowed to hear Committee. I was part of the Lamb inquiry and I saw, if complaints for a short while, since last April—less than I needed to, the huge difference that commitment made a year—and the new processes that are currently being when local authorities and schools were working with piloted in 14 local authorities are not scheduled to be parents and not just paying lip service to working with fully implemented until September 2011, so they are parents. I remember many years ago—I might have said very much a work in progress. this earlier in the House—a parent saying to me, “If I am concerned that the LGO has spent considerable God gave you advice on my child, you wouldn’t take it, time and resource developing, piloting and training its because God is not a professional.” It was a road to staff in an effort to implement the complaints procedure. Damascus moment, because I remember thinking, “You’re On the face of it, the LGO appears to offer a more absolutely right”, and from then on I changed my accessible and local route for parents to make complaints attitude. I have seen in practice so many times that the about the nature of their children’s education. I am commitment and involvement of a parent makes a huge unclear—doubtless, all will be made clear by the Minister— difference to the education of children. 839 Public Bill Committee31 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 840

So, my concerns are about the collective and cumulative hon. Friend, the Minister of State. It is about placing impact of what I see as a weakening of parents’ rights new trust in head teachers, governors and teachers. All throughout the Bill. On Tuesday, I said that the local schools will continue to be required to establish procedures government ombudsman has three main areas of complaint: for handling complaints, and it is right that they should. admissions, SEN and planning. Anyone who has been Having said that we value educators, as I have previously, on the receiving end of a local government ombudsman we have all fallen from a state of grace, and teachers are investigation, as I have, knows how robust and detailed no exception. To that end, there has to be a complaints the investigations are and how they get to the heart of process that is robust and meets the requirements I the issue. I have seen parents’ frustration when they described earlier. understand that the area of their complaint that refers It is important that we fulfil our duty—in those rare to the local authority can be dealt with by the local cases where schools do not fulfil their duties as regards government ombudsman, but the part of their complaint— children or act unreasonably—to protect the interests usually the most significant—that relates to the school of learners and those who care for them. The Secretary cannot, and that part falls. Given that the local government of State has all the necessary powers to intervene in ombudsman would only get involved as a matter of last such circumstances, where he considers it necessary. resort, and only where there has been clear Referring complaints that have not been resolved at a maladministration that leads to injustice, I simply do school level to the Secretary of State offers a simple not understand why the Government are repealing this system for pupils and parents faced with the actions of part of the legislation. the thankfully small number of schools that fail to fulfil Being investigated by the local government ombudsman their duties with regard to individual children. is not easy, but I am a firm believer that we are fastest It is worth reminding members of the Committee when we are chased and that such things result in better that that is already the situation in all but the 14 local practice. I repeat what the Chair of the Education authorities. The prevalent practice, which meets the Committee said. I have seen parents literally pulling criteria I established as being the hallmarks of any good their hair out. They have had a statement for their complaints procedure, is the one that most people will child—it has not been easy to obtain—they have seen know and will have had dealings with. We are not alone the money delegated to the school and the school is in believing that the Secretary of State is best placed to simply not delivering the provisions in the statement. assist parents. The Association of School and College There is no point in taking that to an SEN tribunal, Leaders said: because it will only look at the statement, and they have “For the overwhelming majority of parents, the arrangements nowhere else to go. Will the Minister look at the measure in place before the LGO remit was introduced were fair, transparent again? I see it as a weakening of the role of parents and and worked well. The use of the LGO represented a large it is happening throughout the Bill. I think it is regrettable sledgehammer to crack a small nut.” and it is having a cumulative effect, so—particularly in It is by no means clear that the arrangements put in relation to the issue of parents’ rights—will the Minister place by previous legislation were necessary. reconsider? I am extremely sensitive to the remarks made about children with special needs and their parents, and I will Mr Hayes: The shadow Minister assumed my hon. address those specifically, because they deserve a proper Friend would respond, but I am not an accountant and airing. even my relationship with turf accountants has been extremely rare. But I am a parent. Actually, I come from Pat Glass: Does the Minister not agree that the a long line of parents, so I speak with some familiar ASCL would say that, because its members are the authority, at least on these matters. people who would be under investigation? Being under Amendments 169 and 170 would require a report on investigation by the local government ombudsman is the operation of the local government ombudsman not an easy thing to take. school complaints service to be laid before Parliament before the clause can be commenced. Members who have spoken so far have made the case for that. I want to Mr Hayes: I suppose that, if one started from a speak to the amendments, as well as to put the clause certain perspective, one might draw that conclusion. If into context. the hon. Lady were to begin from the perspective that it would be an unusual, exceptional and extremely rare Let me be clear: our aim is to ensure that parents and circumstance in which a school did not fulfil its duty, schools have access to a complaints system that is she would be rather more optimistic than she seems to quick, transparent, simple and cost-effective and provides be. I do not want to paint her as a pessimist; I think proper independence. That is what a complaints system Churchill said should be. As we have discussed before, the Government’s determination is to devolve greater authority to schools “A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity”. in these matters. Perhaps I should set that in an even This opportunity is to recast the way that we perceive broader context. We have the view—I think and hope the role of the people she described. that it is an increasingly orthodox view—that the way to create the most responsive system is to exercise power as 2pm close as possible to where it has its effect. The other point is about value for money. As I said, I I think most of us would recognise that principle, am not an accountant, so I am not preoccupied with because it lies at the heart of our representative democracy counting pennies, any more than the shadow Ministers and what we do as Members of Parliament. That principle are, but it is about value for money. There are real runs throughout this legislation. It has been articulated question marks about whether the involvement of the many times in earlier parts of our consideration by my local government ombudsman would deliver significant 841 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 842 value for money, and whether it could stand up to that rather more robust argument on those issues to legitimise proper scrutiny, which we would wish to exercise, in it, but I want to consider special needs children because terms of the expenditure of public money. Removing I too share the passion of the hon. Lady. the duty on LGOs to investigate complaints will lead to significant savings. The Department allocated £2.071 million Kevin Brennan: Is the Minister saying that the for the service in 2010-11, including for the set-up. I Government estimate that complaints would cost £15,000 know, as the hon. Member for Cardiff West said, that each if the complaints system were to be scaled up to the set-up was part of that expenditure. the full level in the future? Is that the point he is making? Kevin Brennan: What proportion of that was set-up costs? Mr Hayes: It is not possible to say that because, as the line of his inquiry suggests, this is a limited sample. It is based on a set of specific complaints. I simply could not Mr Hayes: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the say that, and I did qualify my comments, rather than Department has provided a little less than £1 million in give a more definitive statement. What we can say, the next financial year. There were substantial set-up however, is that it is pretty costly. I take a pre-Burkean costs, and I intended to mention that, because he made view of this, that we should only mend things when they that point, which was a reasonable one. However, even are broken—“if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. I think that without the set-up costs, substantial sums are involved, the previous system was not broken. There is little which could support a range of other services. However, evidence to suggest that it was failing parents or learners. I do not want to belittle the efforts of the ombudsman service in undertaking its duties. We are well aware that Kevin Brennan: Perhaps I could help the hon. Gentleman. many of those who have encountered the organisation The provenance of this scheme was not in the desperate while it has investigated school complaints have been desire of Ministers in the last Government to intervene impressed by its efforts. Indeed, the hon. Member for in the affairs of local schools; rather, it came out of Sir North West Durham made the point that the investigations Alan Steer’s review on behaviour and discipline in schools. are rigorous and testing, but the LGOs are well respected It was his initiative and recommendation as a highly because of their thoroughness. That was a well made experienced and successful serving head teacher. He felt argument. that it was using a hammer to crack a nut if the only However, in these difficult times, the sums involved place parents could go after a complaints procedure could be better spent. The sledgehammer and nut metaphor was to the Secretary of State. is well argued given the complexity of the structure and the evidence that the system very largely worked effectively Mr Hayes: That is interesting. If I start to digress, until now. In that context, it is also clear that the Chairman, you will criticise me, my own side will tire of take-up of the service has been significantly less than me and even the hon. Gentleman, with his legendary had been expected. In the period from April 2010 to tolerance, will become bored by me. However, I will say March 2011, the LGOs received fewer than 100 complaints. that the hon. Gentleman is right that when Governments I looked into that more closely because I thought that introduce measures and schemes it is not because of people would want a bit more detail, and a substantial some perverse desire to create ever more bureaucracy, number—not the majority, but a substantial minority— even if our partisan exchanges suggest otherwise. It is came from a single area; almost a third came from often out of well meant responses to advice and suggestions Kent. from outside. The cumulative effect of those suggestions, It could be said that each of those complaints has that advice—all the kites that people want to fly—is cost the taxpayer more than £15,000 to investigate. immense. After an extended period of that kind of Although I appreciate the sentiment that the decision process we end up with the kind of byzantine system about the termination of the service should not be that was the hallmark of the previous regime—a kind taken without having established the facts, I cannot of unhappy mix of Byzantium and Crete. imagine turning up facts and arguments that would indicate that the situation is acceptable, given what I Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): have already said. I do not see how the use of a mechanism that already existed—and on which a large sum of public money was expended to get it up and running, able to deal with Pat Glass: I am not surprised that the vast majority these cases and allow parents to go to someone more of complaints from parents relate to Kent. In the Lamb local—creates the Kafkaesque, labyrinthine, Terry Gilliam’s inquiry, eight particular areas were picked out as pilots, “Brazil” universe which too often was delivered by one of them being Kent. It was one of the authorities Labour. On this occasion, I suggest that it is a more that I supported, and I have to say that I have rarely localist solution to use the existing mechanism to deliver come across an authority that took less notice of parents, a better service for local parents. What is wrong with or where parents’ input was less welcome than in Kent. that? Will the Minister think again? So it does not surprise me that that was the case. Mr Hayes: I am not sure that the local government Mr Hayes: I would not want to say anything particular ombudsman is quite as local as the local schools. I do about an authority on the basis that I would want to not want to pick apart my hon. Friend’s logic and I know a little more about the detail before I did so. What certainly could not match the breadth of his reading—I I will say, however, is that, measured by take-up and just aspire to it, no more. We must be certain about two cost, it is pretty hard to make this system stand up. things. First, we must deal with the circumstances raised Those who take the counter view would have to make a by the hon. Member for North West Durham— specifically, 843 Public Bill Committee31 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 844 young people with special educational needs. The local arising from schools, including—but not limited to—an government ombudsman will continue to be able to evaluation of the complaints service provided by the investigate the concerns of parents of children with a local government ombudsman. The findings of that statement of special educational needs who believe that review will be published in the summer, and will be used their child is not receiving the provisions set out in that to strengthen the complaints service in the Department. statement. I want to make it absolutely clear that we offer that The hon. Lady knows that it is clarity about what is assurance as part of the reform, and I shall just say provided to meet the specific need that is critical. Getting what that is about in detail. It is about standards, the that right is fundamental to ensuring that those people timetable, clarity and a transparent and accessible process. fulfil their potential. We do not always get it right, and Setting out what schools, parents and pupils can expect we need a process that enables parents to check that from the complaints procedure in the Department is of every effort is being made to deal appropriately with fundamental importance, and we will ensure that that their children. I want to emphasise that that will continue. happens. With that assurance, I hope that Members will However, from July 2012, parents of statemented pupils understand that our intention is to produce an accessible, in the 14 LGO areas will direct those complaints that user-friendly and cost-effective, but appropriately sensitive are not connected to the statement to the Secretary of and responsive, system for dealing with complaints— State for consideration, as is currently the case—as I because we care, of course, about those who benefit think the hon. Lady said—for other parents. from our system of schooling, and we certainly care That leads to my second point, which is about the about the need to deal properly with complaints. robustness of the process followed by the Secretary of State. It is absolutely right to say that we need to ensure that the Department handles complaints from both sets The Chair: We have had a fairly substantial debate, of parents properly. and there are further amendments to be discussed. I am minded not to have a stand part debate on this clause. Pat Glass: We are clearly talking about two different things. The current position, which I understand will not change—in relation to the quantification in the 2.15 pm statement and the assessment—is that the local authority Kevin Brennan: The debate shows how wrong the will still be subject to scrutiny by the local government Government have got this. They assume that it has to ombudsman, and parents can go to a tribunal. The do with a culture of complaining parents and vexatious other situation arises once the statement has been made people knocking at the school gate, abusing teachers and the funding delegated. We found in the Lamb and so on. It has nothing to do with that at all. As I inquiry that the vast majority of complaints were not pointed out during the Minister’s remarks, the reforms about the local authority, but that was the only route for emerged from the work done by Sir Alan Steer on parents, because they had no one else to complain to behaviour in our schools. Sir Alan felt that a piece of about the school, apart from the governors or the the puzzle was missing in terms of parents and their Secretary of State. In those cases, the complaints were relationship with head teachers, governing bodies and dealt with much less robustly, and that was why the schools. local government ombudsman was recommended. The Chair of the Education Committee made a valid contribution to the debate. He wanted to strike out the Mr Hayes: Perhaps the hon. Lady misunderstood entire clause, which unfortunately made his amendment because I did not make myself clear. I do not suggest otiose, but his remarks were nevertheless important. I that people will have the opportunity to make such a thought that we would have heard from the Liberal complaint only if the local authority is failing, but that Democrat wing of the coalition about localism, local people will have that right if the provision is inadequate, authorities, parents’ rights, civil liberties and so on, but in other words if the school is not providing, in line with the Liberal Democrats seem to have gone from being the statemented needs, the right kind of offer to the the third force in this country to being a spent force. child. Furthermore, as the hon. Lady might know, if They seem to have nothing to say on those subjects, parents believe that their child is not receiving all the although they would have been jumping up and down support they need, they can ask a local authority to before, even if only to press Ministers as the Secretary undertake a further statutory assessment. I think that of State—sorry, the Chair of the Education Committee; the hon. Lady has mentioned that and, if the local he would make a good Secretary of State—has done in authority failed to take appropriate action, it is that the course of our debate. process that might ultimately end in the tribunals she I think that Ministers’ mindset risks rewinding the described. clock back to a time when some head teachers, although There are several steps along that road, however, by no means all, felt that their empire could never be and—in addition—the Secretary of State can direct challenged by parents. Parents were not really welcome action to be taken if a school is not fulfilling its obligations. inside school gates. What went on in schools was nothing There are several parts to the process, which will robustly to do with them, and if they did not like it, they could ensure that provision is appropriate. I give my personal lump it or appeal to the Secretary of State. Perhaps that undertaking that in respect of children with special is a bit of a parody of the position, but it seems to educational needs—and children more generally, but I inform this senseless overturning of a sensible, modest particularly want to talk about the most vulnerable and moderate evidence-based reform made by the last ones—we will consider robustly the matter of the Secretary Government, at the initiative not of Ministers directly of State handling complaints effectively. To that end, but of the head teacher who considered such matters on independent research is already reviewing complaints behalf of the Government. 845 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 846

[Kevin Brennan] having to appeal to the Secretary of State. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would support that. The Government seem to be saying that if someone Not long ago, he definitely would have supported it. has a complaint against a hospital, a local council or a Department, they can have access to an independent Mr Hayes: I want to make a further suggestion. The ombudsman, but if a parent has a complaint against hon. Gentleman talks about the majority of parents their local school, they must go to the Secretary of being comfortable with the system, and that they would State. If ever there were a sledgehammer to crack a nut, be anyway because they were not making complaints. that is it: a huge leap from a local complaint about a The issue for me is that there does not seem to have been school to the Secretary of State for Education, in Sanctuary any profound weakness in what prevailed, not just in Buildings, who will then presumably be presented with the eyes of the majority of people who did not complain, a submission, prepared for him by officials, in his red but in the process itself and the business of complaining. box, recommending how he ought to resolve a complaint I am happy to agree that in our review there should be at a local school in one of our constituencies. specific consideration of the interests of special needs The fact that that is impractical and not at all a pupils and other vulnerable learners and their parents. sensible way to deal with complaints is what led Sir Alan That is not in my notes, but arises from our debate. Steer to recommend the reform in the first place. For a parent to have to appeal to the Secretary of State, or go to some judicial review or whatever, is too big a leap Kevin Brennan: I would expect that to happen, at the in order to draw a complaint to a sensible conclusion very least. However, it is not the point. The need was independently of the school. identified in a review by Sir Alan Steer, who told Ministers The Minister was right when he said that the that there was a gap in the system, and suggested the overwhelming majority of parents are happy with the best way to plug it. The whole matter was considered existing complaints system. Of course they are, because carefully, because no one wants to impose unnecessary the overwhelming majority of parents do not complain. burdens on schools, least of all Ministers. The system The purpose of having an ombudsman is to protect the was consulted on, introduced and trialled, but the minority of people who may find that the system slams Government are now sweeping it away without giving it the door or the school gates in their face. We know from a chance to settle in, and the figures that the Minister our constituency surgeries, week in and week out, how gave were not an entirely accurate reflection of the true bureaucracy and government can affect people’s lives, cost of the system. and how they sometimes need a key to unlock that. Their complaint may not be satisfactorily resolved on Pat Glass: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Lamb their behalf, but they will have seen that their complaint inquiry, which took evidence throughout the country has been properly considered, and looked at independently. and had an open evidence system, saw many parents who were incredibly unhappy, which is why this was a Dan Rogerson rose— significant part of the inquiry’s recommendations? It was very much evidence based. Mr Hayes rose— Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend brings tremendous Kevin Brennan:I may have provoked the Minister and experience and spoke extremely powerfully about that a Liberal Democrat Member from their metaphorical matter when she made her contribution. She said that slumber. we are fastest when chased. I know that she is a Catholic girl—I think she meant chased, rather than chaste. I Dan Rogerson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that think I understood her meaning when she said it, but there is no metaphorical or physical slumber going on. I she brings huge experience and sincerity to the issue in understand his point about people’s interest in having the way that she makes her point. someone to go to. He was confusing that with localism I do not want to detain the Committee for a long and devolving power earlier, and it is important to put period of time, but I will say this—[Interruption.] If we on the record that I do not believe that any form of examine the record, I have probably spoken a lot less local commissioner would increase genuine local than the Minister on this matter, if there are rumblings accountability, because they would not be elected locally from the Minister’s PPS. Finally, the Minister tried to and local people would not have any say in their say—but then carefully rowed back—that this would be appointment. The hon. Gentleman may be stretching a hugely expensive complaints system, and that was not things a little too far in claiming that there is a genuine really worthy of him. He knows that the figures he was local need for that. quoting include set-up costs, and that if this system were to become to universal it is highly unlikely that it Kevin Brennan: I do not really believe that the hon. would be a high-cost system, given that it would be Gentleman agrees with the clause, but what he said done through an organisation that is already in place—the makes me think that perhaps he does. Perhaps I have local government ombudsman. misread his previous political philosophy, and he is As in other parts of the Bill, the Government are finding ways of saying that he agrees with the provision. introducing a significant reduction in parents’ rights. The point about the ombudsman is that they are there We want to support and extend parents’ rights. We will to protect people from maladministration at local level, therefore press the amendment to a Division. and I do not think that that would be an unreasonable Question put, That the amendment be made. burden. In fact, it would enhance parents’ powers moderately and modestly at local level, instead of them The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9. 847 Public Bill Committee31 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 848

Division No. 20] about the curriculum in the same way. That will simplify the process for parents, pupils and schools, and it will AYES allow local authorities to focus more closely on their Brennan, Kevin Hilling, Julie strategic priorities. Where authorities choose to continue Creasy, Stella to offer support to schools in handling complaints, they Munn, Meg Glass, Pat will still be able to do so. Hendrick, Mark Wright, Mr Iain I hope that now I have given that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment. NOES Boles, Nick Hayes, Mr John Kevin Brennan: It was a probing amendment and I Duddridge, James Munt, Tessa beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Fuller, Richard Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Gibb, Mr Nick Rogerson, Dan Gyimah, Mr Sam Stuart, Mr Graham Kevin Brennan: I beg to move amendment 172, in Question accordingly negatived. clause 44, page 39, line 10, leave out ‘omit subsections (3) and (4)’ and insert— (i) in subsection (2) (Bodies to which section 496 Kevin Brennan: I beg to move amendment 171, in applies), after “authority”, insert— clause 44, page 39, leave out lines 2 to 8. (ii) omit subsections (3) and (4).’. I have never believed that when someone says no, they mean yes, but if ever one could detect that in the The Chair: With this, it will be convenient to discuss voice of a human being, it might have been in that of amendment 173, in clause 44, page 39, line 12, leave out the Chair of the Education Committee in his vote on ‘omit subsections (4) and (5)’ and insert— that amendment. Before you call me out of order, (i) in subsection (2) (Bodies to which section 497 Mr Williams, I will move on to amendment 171. applies), after “authority”, insert— The Bill reinstates the Secretary of State’s role in (ii) omit subsections (4) and (5).’. complaints. The amendment asks the Minister why he will not reinstate the local authority’s role in hearing Kevin Brennan: The clause does not relate to academies. complaints about a school’s curriculum. Will he tell the Under the clause, parents of children who do not attend Committee what assessment he has made of whether it academies will be able to complain to the Secretary of would be more or less likely for a parent to lodge a State but parents of children who attend academies will complaint at a local level, or directly with the Secretary not be able to do so. Can the Minister tell me why of State? Does he believe that for some people the parents of children who attend academies will not be option of complaining directly to the Secretary of State able to complain to the Secretary of State? Alternatively, might put them off making a reasonable complaint that if they will be able to complain to the Secretary of State, they would have made had they been able to do so at a can the Minister tell me how impartiality will be achieved local level to a local authority? If so, how does he intend given that the Secretary of State has a strong interest, as to ensure that those reasonable and sensible complaints he is a party to the establishment of the academy and are heard? could even be its funder?

Mr Gibb: Amendment 171 relates to a local authority’s Mr Gibb: As the hon. Gentleman has just explained, role in considering complaints about curriculum, sex amendments 172 and 173 aim to bring academies within education and religious worship in the schools that they the scope of the powers conferred on the Secretary of maintain. Clause 44 is intended to streamline the complaints State by sections 496 and 497 of the Education Act 1996. system for parents and schools by removing the local Those powers allow the Secretary of State to consider a government ombudsman’s schools complaints service complaint about a school and to issue a direction if a that was introduced in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children school is found to be in breach of its statutory duties or and Learning Act 2009. By removing the duty on local to have acted unreasonably. authorities to consider complaints on curriculum, sex I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern that pupils education and religious worship, we are further simplifying of academies and their parents should be treated the that system. The clause will not stop local authorities same as pupils in maintained schools and their parents. from being involved in considering complaints, but it I hope that I can reassure him that that is already the will stop them having to be involved. It is an anomaly case. Like the previous Government, our policy is that that local authorities currently only have a role when academies are regulated through their funding agreements the complaint is about the curriculum, sex education or with the Secretary of State rather than through legislation. religious worship. The hon. Gentleman’s party The specific obligations that are placed on academies, acknowledged this anomaly when they were in government such as duties in relation to the curriculum or assessment, by removing this duty from local authorities as they are contained in those funding agreements. Parents and moved to the local government ombudsman complaints others can complain to the Secretary of State about the system. failure of an individual academy to meet any of those obligations. If an academy is in breach of its funding 2.30 pm agreement or has failed in respect of any of its statutory Other education-related complaints about an individual duties, the Young People’s Learning Agency would child are considered by the school and then by the enforce an appropriate remedy for any breach. When Secretary of State, so it is right to treat complaints the YPLA is abolished, any such complaints will continue 849 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 850

[Mr Gibb] What does the Minister intend to do to prevent that from happening? Will he tell the Committee what the to be dealt with through the Department for Education impact of the clause will be? The clause will mean that and Skills. In light of the process that I have just the Secretary of State is able to completely overrule outlined, no additional protections will be afforded to decision making on local public accountability and the pupils attending academies and their parents as a result ability for local authorities to make decisions in the of extending the scope of sections 496 and 497 of the interests of their communities. I am sure that he will 1996 Act. also want to say a brief word about the note that he has I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that kindly supplied to the Committee. complaints about academies are already treated comprehensively, albeit under separate powers. Parents Mr Hayes: Before I deal with the amendment, which can be sure that, irrespective of whether their child is is about an affirmative resolution, and the points made taught at an academy or in a maintained school, they by the hon. Gentleman, let me say contextually why we have routes through which to raise their concerns and want to include the clause in the Bill. The clause will they can be sure that any complaints about academies enable the Secretary of State to direct local authorities will be investigated with the same degree of rigour as to make specific revisions to their schemes for financing any complaints about maintained schools. schools, as has been said. Such schemes, which we On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will require local authorities to have, define the financial withdraw his amendment. relationship between local authorities and their maintained schools. We already specify in regulations the matters Kevin Brennan: I note what the Minister has said and that must be dealt with by the schemes, but as things I do not intend to press my amendment to a Division. stand, they cannot be amended in a sufficiently consistent, But I note in passing that when this clause is taken coherent or timely way. We have, as the hon. Gentleman together with other provisions in the Bill, including the mentioned, issued a policy statement to the members of provisions about reform of admissions in clause 34 and the Committee, which sets out information about the the provisions about exclusions in clause 4 that we have schemes in more detail. already debated, it represents a pretty significant reduction I want to talk about why we are not seeking an in parents’ rights in the Bill. That is an important theme affirmative resolution. The previous Government, as of the Bill that is emerging as we debate it. the hon. Gentleman knows, included the power to make Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the directed revisions in the School Standards and Framework amendment. Act 1998—I think my hon. Friend the Minister of State Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. and I served on that Bill Committee—but they decided Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill. then that such directed revision would not be subject to affirmative resolution by Parliament, and we agree with that position. Schemes are not about the formula used Clause 45 to fund schools. The power may not, for instance, be used to introduce a national funding formula for schools. LOCAL AUTHORITIES’ FINANCIAL SCHEMES It would be wholly inappropriate to subject a direction to such a level of scrutiny. That was the argument used Kevin Brennan: I beg to move amendment 174, in by Ministers at the time, and I do not think we challenged clause 45, page 39, line 33, after ‘direction’, insert them, although we may have done. ‘approved by an affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament,’. Kevin Brennan: I take that point. However, is it not This is a probing amendment. It would require an sometimes beneficial to have an affirmative resolution affirmative resolution before the Secretary of State can procedure? I believe that the Minister argued for that make a direction under clause 45, which will enable him strongly in the opposite direction at the time. to revise the whole or any part of a local authority scheme by giving a direction, and will require him to consult the relevant local authority and such other Mr Hayes: It can be useful. I would certainly never persons as he sees fit before a direction is given. Will the argue that it is never desirable. To use a phrase that I am Minister explain the circumstances under which using far too often—I do not want to be repetitive—I the Secretary of State would issue a direction to revise think that in this case it is a bit like using a sledgehammer the whole or any part of a local authority finance to crack a nut. Twice is acceptable, and three times scheme? would be carelessness, so I will not be using that again. I know that the Minister has provided a note to the The purpose of using a direction for these matters is Committee on the clause, for which I thank him. A to give the Secretary of State flexibility and to allow number of organisations have raised concerns about the him to bring in measures quickly. Again, the amendment clause. The NUT told us that it was would slow down the process. The amendment would “an unnecessary and excessive centralising power by the Secretary impose the highest level of scrutiny, which is only really of State over the financial arrangements of local authorities”— appropriate for more contentious or controversial matters. another example of the centralisation to the state in the The previous Government subsequently repealed the Bill. The NASUWT says: directed revision power, but we are putting it back in so “Local authorities’ financial plans will be determined by local that schemes can be amended more simply as policies needs of children and young people. If these can be over-ruled by change. We would only use the power for policies that the Secretary of State the needs of children and young people will be of particular benefit to schools by being implemented could be disregarded with the consequent disadvantage.” quickly or where there is a need for a nationally consistent 851 Public Bill Committee31 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 852 policy position. There may also be a need to issue relating to community facilities—or extended services directed revisions that flow from other legislation, such as those are often called. There is a consistency about as the proposed abolition of the General Teaching what we are doing in the Bill in respect of the use of Council, and it would therefore be unnecessary to require moneys. It would be inappropriate and inconsistent further parliamentary approval. with existing legislation, which was brought in by the We believe that there would be sufficient opportunity previous Government—my hon. Friend the Minister of for detailed scrutiny because of the requirement to State and I were on the Committee that considered that consult with local authorities and other such persons legislation—to place such tight restrictions on this one that the Secretary of State thinks fit, before the Secretary type of expenditure. As any expenditure on staff employed of State gave a direction to local authorities to revise for community purposes will necessarily take away some their schemes in accordance with the wording of the funds that could otherwise be spent elsewhere, and direction. There are those safeguards when it comes to therefore be likely to have some effect on duties imposed taking into account the views of other relevant parties. on governing bodies by the Education Acts, we feel that That is the appropriate level of scrutiny that is required we need to keep in the word “significant” to make the in the circumstances. clause workable in practice. I could go into considerable detail about examples of The amendment would mean that, in practice, there when this might be used. If absolutely pressed, I will, would be few occasions when the cost could be charged but I am hoping that I will not be so pressed. We think to the delegated budget, even if a school had large that these are sensible changes that will help schools to balances. It would therefore work against the intention provide financial assurance without unnecessary of the clause, which makes a technical change; it makes bureaucracy and to plan their budgets sensibly. To that funding of the costs consistent with what is allowed for end, and with the absolute assurance that the directed all other expenditure on communities facilities as a revision would only be used where there was an absolute result of amendments made to the Education Act 2002 need to implement national policy on financial management by the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010. In a or consistency grounds, I hope that the hon. Gentleman sense, and without wishing to embarrass the Opposition, will withdraw his amendment. we are making technical changes to bring the Bill into line with legislation inspired by the previous Government. Kevin Brennan: I do not want to use a sledgehammer I remind the Committee that the wording of the to probe the Minister. I therefore beg to ask leave to clause is consistent with section 28 of the Education withdraw the amendment. Act 2002, which enables schools to provide community facilities or extended services. Under that section, governing Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. bodies can provide community services only Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill. “if and to the extent that they are satisfied that anything which they propose to do will not to a significant extent interfere with the performance of any duty imposed on them…by the Education Clause 46 Acts.” We believe that it is right to repeat the existing legislation’s PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF DISMISSAL, ETC wording in the clause. By giving schools greater freedom and flexibility, yet Kevin Brennan: I beg to move amendment 175, in remaining consistent with existing legislation, we believe clause 46, page 40, line 4, leave out ‘a significant’ and that we have constructed an appropriate balance. The insert ‘an’. amendment would unbalance the legislation by introducing As we understand it, the Government are doing a bit a potential inconsistency with previous legislation. I am of tidying up through this clause. We tabled the amendment certain that that is not the intention. On that basis, I ask to probe the Government, perhaps with a sharper and the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. more forensic instrument than a sledgehammer, to find out what they mean by “a significant extent” and to ask the Government how “a significant extent” will be Kevin Brennan: I thank the Minister for that detailed measured in each case. The clause is about who should response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. pay redundancy costs when a member of the school Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. staff is made redundant and who provides community Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill. education and community services—not the education of pupils on roll. The amendment requires that the redundancy costs should not to “a significant extent” reduce the education provision to children on roll. Clause 47

Mr Hayes: As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED CHARGES would mean that schools could not use their delegated budget to fund the termination of employment costs relating to community, staff and schools if the governing Kevin Brennan: I beg to move amendment 176, in body considered that that would result in interference, clause 47, page 40, line 10, leave out subsection (2). however minor, with the performance of any duties imposed under the Education Acts. We take the view that schools should be able to fund The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss redundancy costs from their delegated budgets. From amendment 178, in clause 47, page 40, line 11, after ‘to’, April, they will be able to do so for all other expenditure insert ‘the marginal cost of’. 853 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 854

Kevin Brennan: I intend to make a reasonably broad is more of an important factor, maintained provision would be contribution, Mr Williams, but within scope; as a result, unlikely to be able to compete with the cheaper on-costs of PVI we may not need to debate clause stand part, although providers.” that is a matter for you. The main aim in tabling the amendments is to get There is some concern out there about the Government’s assurances from Ministers about the protection of intentions, and that it might be their desire to introduce additional free hours for disadvantaged children, and to what might be called the easyJet model of education. ask them to set out safeguards so that additional hours People would get the bare essentials when they checked for vulnerable children, as currently provided by some in. Actually, if it was easyJet, they would probably have local authorities, will not be curtailed—under this clause, to pay. When they signed up for the journey, they would local authorities can charge—and to explore how Ministers get the bare essentials, but would have to pay for a lot of expect the measure to affect the broader local market in optional extras, and it might not be clear at the outset early education and child care. Amendments 176 and exactly what the costs would be. 178 address the new charging provision that applies to all areas where schools can make charges for “optional We want to probe the Government about their intentions, extras”, namely the charge for buildings and and to see whether the purpose of clause 47 is to extend accommodation. That was probably not included previously, the ability of schools to charge for provisions that are in as the majority of the costs for buildings and keeping with the objective of section 17 of the Childcare accommodation have to be met irrespective of whether Act 2006, or whether it is a means of squeezing more an optional extra is provided. Whether the costs are cash from hard-working parents. For example, would business rates, most maintenance, refuse disposal and Ministers allow charges to be made for reception class so on, they have to be paid irrespective of the building’s education? Summer-born children can be at school use for an optional extra activity. Of course, heating full-time for a whole year before reaching statutory and lighting bills may still have to be paid. school age. It will be as well to get all these things on the record. Do Ministers intend charging the parents of If the charge is to be made for buildings and such children for full-time attendance during reception accommodation, surely it should be a proportionate year? Another example is whether children from cost, with the activity cross-subsidising school curriculum disadvantaged families should have access to that provision activities. Or should it be only the marginal costs—the without charge and what arrangements will be made in additional cost of allowing the activity to occur? There respect of that. is a considerable amount of concern and scepticism about the Government’s intentions. This is an opportunity There has always been a problem for two parents who for the Minister to put on record what is intended by the work full-time using the free entitlement for a three-year-old measure, and that it is not a way of squeezing more child at a maintained school. They would have to employ money out of already hard-pressed and hard-working someone, perhaps a childminder, to take the child to parents by charging for things that should be absorbed school and to pick him or her up after the three hours, into the general costs. Will the Minister respond to when in many respects it would be preferable for the amendments 176 and 178? parents to take their children to school in the morning and pick them up at the end of the working day, as happens with many day care centres. Mr Gibb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for Teaching time in a nursery class is about 25 hours a tabling the amendments. I understand the concerns that week; if a child was to stay beyond the 15 hours of free he has aired. He enables me to clarify the effect of entitlement, we recognise that it would be hard to clause 47. I am sure that will reassure him about all the provide child care during the 10 hours when other issues that he has raised. children were provided with education. We want the The regime enabling schools to charge for a limited Minister to clarify whether that is the purpose of being number of activities has been in place for some time. able to charge for the cost of directly employed, qualified Where schools are permitted to charge for certain items teachers. The Daycare Trust told us that local authorities under the Education Act 1996, the Act refers to them as should not use the proposed change in the law “optional extras”. The 1996 Act defines the list of “as an excuse to cut back funded provision to 15 hours if they are optional extras for which schools can charge. It includes currently offering more - they can still choose to do that and there some extra educational activities provided outside school are good reasons why they may wish to offer longer hours to meet hours, some music tuition, entry of pupils in certain local need, reduce child poverty etc. Unfortunately the cuts to public exams, some transport, and board and lodging funding make this more likely. However if the demand is still on residential trips. The Bill does not expand the definition there then parents should have the option to pay for additional of an optional extra; the definition in the Education hours rather than it disappearing altogether.” Act 1996 remains. What are the Minister’s views about the effect on the Section 456 of the 1996 Act sets out what costs can be broader local market in early education and child care included when a school is calculating charges. Subsection that, if implemented, the clause might promote? Would (4) explains that the cost of provision of an optional it make education and child care in a maintained school extra more attractive than in the private and voluntary sector? What is the Department’s view? The NUT said: “includes costs, or an appropriate proportion of the costs” “The proposal may have a destabilising effect on the local ‘market’ for childcare. Whilst maintained provision would typically arising from the list of items. The list includes: be more expensive than other types of provider, because of the “materials, books, instruments or other equipment…the provision higher staff and, in many cases, premises costs, the quality of of non-teaching staff” maintained provision, coupled with its link to primary schools, may be sufficient incentive for some wealthy parents to use it as and their main or only provision. In poorer areas, however, where cost “teaching staff engaged under contracts of services”. 855 Public Bill Committee31 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 856

Through subsection (2) of clause 47 we are taking the I hope that has answered his questions. I will sit down opportunity to clarify a point that is not altogether now, but if he has further questions I will try to answer clear. Subsection (2) makes a simple technical change them. that puts beyond doubt the fact that costs for things such as heating and lighting can be included in the Kevin Brennan: I am surprised by what the Minister charges for all optional extras. I believe it is only fair has just said about marginal costs, given his earlier that schools offering optional extras should be able to lionisation of his economics teacher when he was a include in their charges the costs relating to doing so. It school pupil, and his knowledge that I was head of is natural, therefore, that those should include building- economics in a comprehensive school and taught A-level related costs such as heating and lighting. economics for many years. He will be aware, having sat the exam himself—he has not yet told us what grade he got—that marginal cost is a central concept in micro- Kevin Brennan: Would it be allowable under the clause economics. It is one with which I am, therefore, very for a school to calculate the opportunity cost—the familiar and have explained to many a teenager, with Minister is an economist so he understands what I varying success, over a number of years. mean by that—of renting a room to some other body and including that as part of the charge for the optional 3pm extra, given that the opportunity cost would obviously Returning to the amendments, I think I am reassured represent the true cost of the room being made available by what the Minister has had to say. I want to think for that use rather than some other use? carefully about what he has said, however, and to have a close look at it between now and Report. Although I will not press the amendment to a vote at this stage, I Mr Gibb: No. It has to be costs incurred, and it has to want to reserve the right to return to the question of be attributable to the optional extra. charging if we have concerns on Report. As the Minister The main change we are making through clauses 47(3) knows, there are concerns out there about it, so I want and 47(4)—they are the subject of the next group of to be absolutely sure that we nail down the idea that this amendments, but I will explain the reason for the change may be—to mix metaphors—a Trojan horse for an now—is that, for early years provision only, we are easyJet approach to charging in our schools. Work that allowing attributable teaching costs to be charged for. one out. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. We are making that change to support the sustainability Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. of high-quality school early education provision. We also want to avoid creating a perverse incentive for The Chair: We may be sitting for some time, although schools to engage teaching staff for additional early I cannot foresee that, of course, so it would be in order years provision under contracts for services so that for us to have a suspension for half an hour. We will those costs can be charged for, rather than using existing return by 3.30 pm. permanent teaching staff for that additional provision. Amendment 178 seeks to restrict the costs of buildings 3.1 pm and accommodation, which can be included, to the Sitting suspended. marginal costs. Although it is well intentioned, I do not believe that it would be helpful for schools. Local authorities have arrangements for calculating such costs, and they 3.30 pm will have been in place under successive Governments. On resuming— The previous Government revised the guidance on charging for school activity in January 2009. Kevin Brennan: I beg to move amendment 177, in I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman moved the clause 47, page 40, line 14, leave out subsection (3) amendment, because I would have thought it was more and (4). in line for the hon. Member for Hartlepool to get to grips with the definition of marginal costs. The technical The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss meaning of marginal cost is extra cost as a result of the following: 179, in clause 47, page 40, line 18, after producing one extra unit. I see his memory is flooding second ‘the’, insert ‘marginal’. back as he remembers the definition from his accountancy Amendment 181, in clause 47, page 40, line 20, at end exams, so I will not pursue the issue. insert— I can reassure the hon. Member for Cardiff West ‘(6B) Notwithstanding subsection (6A), no charge may be about the issue that he raised right at the beginning of made in any circumstances for early years provision if the pupil’s his comments, which concerned charging for reception family is eligible for free early years provision for two year olds provision. I make it absolutely clear that reception under regulations made under section 7 of the Childcare provision is free, full-time provision in schools and it Act 2006.’. will remain so. In freeing schools to be able to charge for early years provision, regulations will make it clear Kevin Brennan: Croeso ’nôl, Mr Williams. I hope you that reception provision remains free. That will be the enjoyed your soup in the Tea Room; it looked very case whatever the age of the child in reception, including appetising. The Chairman must feed during the course children who start reception before the age of five. of our deliberations, and you look suitably restored The hon. Gentleman asked what the effect would be after our brief intermission. on the market. The intention is to create a level playing We now turn to our second group of amendments to field between the maintained sector and the PVI sector. clause 47. Proposed new subsection 6A to the Education 857 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 858

[Kevin Brennan] as a result of the duty in section 7 of the Childcare Act 2006. The free provision for disadvantaged two-year-olds Act 1996 allows for charging for the cost of qualified will be a statutory entitlement under section 7. teacher provision when the teacher is a member of a I hope that I have addressed all the hon. Gentleman’s school’s permanent staff, which was not permitted concerns. I am sure he will come back to me if I have previously. The drafters of section 17 of the Childcare not. If I have covered everything, I hope that the hon. Act 2006 presumably believed that its purpose was to Gentleman will withdraw his amendment. charge for child care costs, rather than the teaching costs of someone who was already on the school staff. Will the Minister explain the purpose of new subsection 6A Kevin Brennan: I will withdraw the amendment, as in that regard? the Minister has requested. However, as I said on the earlier group of amendments, we want to look very Following on from that, how much should be charged carefully at what the Minister has said and the position for a pupil who is being educated for 10 hours a week that the Department is taking so that we can ensure that but who already receives the 15 free entitlement hours? we understand what its intentions are with regard to Should the cost be related to the marginal costs of the charging. We might do that at a later stage, but at this teacher who is already employed by the school, or point, in the interests of progress, I beg to ask leave to should they be decided by some other means whereby withdraw the amendment. the school may be able to profit from the child’s staying Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. in the school for the additional 10 hours a week? Will the Minister clarify his views on that? Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Amendment 179 asks that marginal costs be charged, and we would like the Minister to respond to that. Amendment 181 provides for the remission of charges Schedule 11 for children from disadvantaged families. Will he offer an assurance that children from disadvantaged families FURTHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: AMENDMENTS will not be affected by the charges? Mr Wright: I beg to move amendment 189, page 86, line 39 [Schedule 11], leave out paragraph 2. Mr Gibb: As discussed, clause 47 does two things. It allows schools to introduce a share of building and The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss accommodation costs in charges for any optional extras, amendment 188, page 87, line 33 [Schedule 11], leave and it modifies how schools will be able to calculate the out paragraphs 8 and 9. costs of providing additional early education. It is to that second part that we now turn. The modification in question is to allow schools to include the costs of an Mr Wright: I am banking on the assumption that we employed teacher’s time, but only where the optional will not have a stand part debate on this. I will just make extra is early years education. a few comments, if I may. As with schedule 11, clause 48, which has just been ordered to stand part of the Bill, Accepting amendment 177 would mean that schools effectively demolished the architecture put in place only would not be able to reflect in their charges for additional a few short months ago under the auspices of the early education the costs of an employed teacher’s time, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. which is a substantial overhead if schools are to recover The Government have essentially rejected that settlement the full costs of offering that additional provision. and propose to introduce more complexity, so that the Many schools offer an exemplary standard of early Secretary of State will have responsibility for the new education and should be able to use existing staff for Education Funding Agency, the local authority will that provision. Allowing schools to charge for additional have what I still believe to be an overall commissioning early education, but preventing them from including the role—we will debate that under schedule 15—and the extra teaching costs in those charges, would undermine Skills Funding Agency will also have a role. the effect of the legislation. Schedule 11 deals with changes to the duties, powers On amendment 179, the Bill is clear that charges may and responsibilities of sixth form colleges and FE college include only the costs attributable to the optional extra. governing bodies, with consequential changes to the I have already explained why I believe that the current roles of local authorities, the SFA, the YPLA in its legislative position is preferable to the idea of marginal current guise and the Secretary of State. costs proposed by the hon. Gentleman. The Bill builds I move on to the amendments. The Government want on the long established position on how schools should to give FE and sixth form colleges financial freedom. manage their charges. It is also fair to parents and does Under the Bill as it currently stands, the college governing not introduce well intentioned but unnecessary complexity. bodies will not be required to seek the permission of the Amendment 181 seeks to prevent schools from being relevant authority—that would be the local authority of able to charge for additional early years education if the the sixth form college and the SFA for a general further child is eligible for free early years education for two- education college—before borrowing money. year-olds. If the amendment’s intention, which is not I am sure that certain members of the Committee entirely clear, is to prevent charges from being made for would agree that borrowing money to pay bills, to free early education for disadvantaged two-year-olds, it expand or to tide over short-term debt is a skilled is unnecessary. The regulations enabling schools to charge business that requires creativity, imagination and style if for additional early education cannot allow schools to there is to be effective financial management. The charge for provision that must be offered free of charge amendments probe what happens when things go wrong— 859 Public Bill Committee31 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 860 when that skill does not exist and the college is facing we are changing the character of that relationship. The financial difficulties, if not bankruptcy. Who takes on accountability that the hon. Gentleman seeks is, at least responsibility for the college? Is the Minister going to in part—for me, it is a significant part—about the allow colleges to go under as a result of this? What relationship between governors and managers. happens with academies? I may be wrong and I hope If there is evidence of mismanagement, that may lead that the Minister will clarify, but I understand that the to intervention—action—being taken by the responsible Secretary of State’s permission will be required. If that body, to secure provision for students. I am anxious to is the case, will the Minister outline, clarify and explain assure the hon. Gentleman that, in the case of any why the arrangements for academies will be different mismanagement, we recognise that there would be an from those for sixth form colleges and general FE? interest in protecting taxpayer investment and learner interest, as well as in the wider issues surrounding the Mr Hayes: I wish to address the issues surrounding community and, of course, college staff. amendments 188 and 189. As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendments would leave in place the requirements Mr Wright: I am grateful for what the Minister says for further education institutions and sixth form colleges about mismanagement. If I talk about the matter in the to seek consent before borrowing money. That is quite a abstract, perhaps he can give us some guidance. Again, restrictive requirement. The amendments also relate to I am probing him about when he imagines there will be sixth form colleges participating in forming or investing circumstances in which a college can be allowed to go in a company for the purpose of protecting or conducting under. I apologise but, with your permission, Mr Williams, an educational institution. this will be quite a long intervention. I recognise the appropriateness of the amendments The Minister has been talking about the governing and the concern of the hon. Member for Hartlepool. body and the senior management team working together His anxiety is to ensure that there is proper accountability to identify a growth in their business. They have borrowed and that a robust process is in place—a context in which money to fund that expansion and they will service the we might place these additional freedoms. In turn, I debt based on those expanding student numbers. Let us hope that he will respect the thrust of what the Government say that there is a change in Government policy, where are trying to do with colleges: invest more capacity in growth is restricted and the college is no longer able to colleges to make innovative decisions and create a more fund the debt; it is under severe financial difficulty as a responsive, dynamic and innovative sector. Indeed, I result of external circumstances. In such a situation, pray in aid Mr Frank McLoughlin who gave evidence does the Minister think that that college can legitimately to the Committee and who is a distinguished principal go under? of a successful college. He says: “I think the college sector has been a huge success story over Mr Hayes: The Government have a responsibility to the last 10, 12, 15 years”. be clear about the circumstances in which colleges do I do not think there would be any disagreement about their business. Government policy should be consistent that in the Committee. He goes on to say: and clear in terms of financial strategy.The hon. Gentleman “I think this Government have recognised that. They have also is right. Colleges have a local responsibility to plan their recognised that it is a very mature sector, and therefore have given financial affairs, but he is also right that the Government it—I think correctly—the kinds of freedoms that universities have a responsibility to ensure that how they conduct have, and we really welcome that.”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2011; c. 102, Q1.] public policy does not inhibit colleges’ capacity to plan. Part of those freedoms is about financial management and investment. Again, the hon. Member for Hartlepool 3.45 pm acknowledged that implicitly. I am trying to be as Let me give two examples of what I mean by that. generous as I can in saying that that recognition about There needs to be greater clarity about the long-term maturity, responsibility and the locked-up human capital funding of further education. That has been a problem in the FE sector was not always evident in the way the in the past. Part of the reason for that is that so much of sector was managed prior to the advent of this Government. the funding has been tied to particular Government The system that prevailed previously was too restrictive, initiatives. We have had a target-driven approach and too bureaucratic, too micro-managed and too target-driven. the financial arrangements with colleges have matched Part of that was about investment and money. I strongly that target-driven paradigm. So in changing assumptions believe that, in the college sector, responsibilities and about how we manage colleges, we will change the decisions about how colleges operate and respond to balance between Government and providers. the needs of the community lie firmly with the institution’s Secondly, in more general terms I hope to devolve governing body and management team. power for all kinds of decisions to colleges and this The responsibility for the financial health of institutions, particular provision needs to be taken in the round for both at a strategic and tactical level, should essentially those additional powers. The distortions that the hon. lie with colleges and their governing bodies. The hon. Gentleman describes that are potentially so damaging Gentleman knows very well that governing bodies must for colleges are in a sense a product of a system that ensure that they clearly articulate their financial strategy, allowed neither sufficient long-term planning nor sufficient have effective mechanisms in place to ensure the continuing discretion on the part of colleges to enable them to viability of their institutions and receive clear and concise avoid those pitfalls when making their own strategies. reports about their financial position from the senior management teams to allow them to exercise control. Mr Wright: We would share the Minister’s desire for That is partly about the relationship between college long-term clarity for funding post-16 provision. I am senior management teams and their governors. Again, not trying to make a party political point. I know that 861 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 862

[Mr Iain Wright] being responsible ultimately to Ministers, has a responsibility to deal with those matters with appropriate sensitivity. we had difficulties about learning and skills councils That will also inform the approach that we take. here, but some of the decisions from the Department for The hon. Gentleman is right that even in the regime Education—on building schools for the future and the that we planned to put in place—which is one of greater education maintenance allowance, for example—seem discretion, greater innovation and greater freedom, and to show that funding streams and things on which I make no apology for that—there do need to be both schools and colleges can rely can be turned off very protections and sensitivity to changing circumstances. abruptly. Can the Minister give a commitment that such To that end, he will know that the chief executive of the decisions, which show a crisis of financial management Skills Funding Agency has a financial memorandum within the Department, will not happen in future? with colleges, which provides appropriate non-statutory mechanisms whereby Government can be assured of Mr Hayes: I will do that. I will say to the hon. sound judgment about how money is spent by colleges. Gentleman that on my watch there will be consistent, That financial memorandum should and will include coherent policy in respect of further education. There considerations around some of the things that the hon. has been a pretty broad measure of consensus across Gentleman said right at the beginning of his contribution the House. That is why I put a strategy in place. I do not on appropriateness in respect of financial strategies and want to extend the Committee beyond what is reasonable, borrowing. It is important that we take the brakes off although so far I am being incredibly reasonable. colleges, but it is equally important that we do not allow them to crash. On that basis, I hope he will withdraw Mr Wright: As always. the amendment. Mr Hayes: We need to get that on the record. The Mr Wright: The Minister has given some degree of hon. Gentleman will know that what we might have reassurance and has provided personal warm words done in further education and training and skills when with regard to this issue. He has not answered my we came into office was to allow the comprehensive central and direct point, which is: under his watch, spending review to define the strategy. I was determined would he allow colleges to go under? In terms of freedoms, to put together a strategy in parallel with our CSR colleges presumably will be able to make adverse decisions negotiations. Of course, it was contextualised around and may have to suffer the consequences. I am not change in financial circumstances, but rather than merely suggesting that FE colleges are too big to fail, but does responding to those financial circumstances, I wanted he consider that they are too important to fail, given the us to have a set of ideas and policies based on consultation importance that he gives, quite legitimately, to skills and and a proper dialogue with the sector that would be the raising of skills? consistent and coherent and would follow through over time. That is not to say that that is fixed in stone. These things are dynamic. But I am determined to take a Mr Hayes: This is a good time to have this very strategic view about the future of further education and honest discussion. The truth is that the potential price of skills and to match funding to that strategic view. On freedom is the sort of possible failure that the hon. that basis I am pleased to say that on my watch—I can Gentleman describes. In a sense, the whole advent of the only speak for what I do and what I am responsible Learning and Skills Council, coming after incorporation for—I am prepared to give that assurance about consistency. —he will remember it all—was a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The hon. Gentleman will remember what Mr Wright: That was an answer to a slightly different happened after incorporation—there were some difficulties question. In terms of the decisions that have been made, as colleges found their feet. The result of that was the where there is an immediate cancellation of quite significant Learning and Skills Council, which was an extraordinary programmes in which educational institutions have invested organisation. It had more money and more staff than quite a lot, can the Minister give a commitment that on the red army—not literally, but that is certainly what it his watch such abrupt financial decisions, which will felt like. So the hon. Gentleman is right—as we extend have an adverse impact on FE colleges, will not happen? freedoms, there is that risk. Given that risk, two things are fundamentally important, Mr Hayes: I think abrupt decisions of the kind that and this is in order of priority: the interests of learners the hon. Gentleman describes, U-turns in policy of the and the protection of money. People are more important type that he suggests, and deviations of the type that he than money. We will make sure that both those things infers are never evidence of good public policy. I am the are protected through the financial memorandum, through personification of the implementation of good public the consistency that we will adopt in respect of the policy, and on that basis of course I agree with his policies we pursue, and through all the other appropriate insight. mechanisms by which colleges are monitored and inspected. I would like to go one step further than that, because The hon. Gentleman will know that if a college was the hon. Gentleman is also right to say that colleges going badly wrong—that badly wrong—it would be an enjoy a relationship with the Skills Funding Agency, extremely insensitive system that did not identify that and the Skills Funding Agency has a responsibility to early and work with the college to deal with it. He is ensure that it is sensitive to the kind of changes that absolutely right: that does need to happen. might result not from public policy, but from other circumstances. There might be a local circumstance that Mr Wright: I thank the Minister; he has helped us a makes the life of a college more difficult than could lot—although I have to put on the record my sadness have been reasonably anticipated by its governing body that he has broken his promise within a matter of or senior management team. The Skills Funding Agency, minutes by using the phrase “sledgehammer to crack a 863 Public Bill Committee31 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 864 nut.” If he is going to do that with regards to language, to judge and to sort out the wheat from the chaff. None which he considers so precious, what on earth is he the less, the hon. Gentleman surely cannot believe that going to do in terms of money as well? But we shall there is any college in the country that does not regard leave that. its social and economic purpose as salient to its very I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division. existence. To enshrine that in legislation is to state the What the Minister said, certainly in the latter part of his obvious. contribution, was significant, and I would like to reflect That said, I will now ameliorate it, to try and find a on it and perhaps speak to the Association of Colleges, synthesis with the hon. Gentleman. It is true that, even the Sixth Form Colleges’ Forum and others, to see in such circumstances, checks and balances matter. where they think that leaves them. I might come back at Local authorities and other local parties can use their a later stage in the Bill’s proceedings. However, given influence to challenge the leadership of a college. If the what the Minister said, and despite his broken promise, senior management of a college was getting things I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. badly wrong, there is the changed relationship between Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. governors and senior managers, which I have already mentioned and which we see as an essential component of the different freedoms we offer. Mr Wright: I beg to move amendment 182, in schedule 11, page 87, line 17, leave out paragraph 3. We certainly feel that the learner voice should be powerful. I was in discussion this week with the Association of Colleges about governance. If we are going to give The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss additional freedoms, we need to look afresh at governance, amendment 183, in schedule 11, page 87, line 38, leave including the relationship that the college enjoys with out paragraph 10. stakeholders, and I include learners in that. I know that the National Union of Students has views on that, Mr Wright: I have mentioned the Apprenticeships, which I greatly respect; it identifies those colleges that Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. After much have got that absolutely right, and there are some that debate, the Act placed a duty on FE and sixth-form have. I want to look at ways in which we could export colleges to promote the economic and social well-being that best practice and build that into assumptions about of their area. The Bill repeals that. governance. The hon. Gentleman is right that that has to be part of the mix. He did not say that, but he I will refer briefly to a letter of 17 January 2011 from implied it. Lord Hill, the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for schools, to Marion Davis, the president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. Lord 4pm Hill talks about performance management and other Of course, then there is the inspection. It would be a regulatory responsibilities. In the annexe he talks about curious sort of inspection of a college if it neglected to the removal of the duty. He says: discover that the college had either no or little proper “Colleges play an important role in promoting the economic concern for its economic and social role and for the and social well-being of the local area and do not need to be well-being of the community in which it sits. I make no under a separate statutory duty to fulfil this role. We want to apology for being a champion of further education, remove the duty to give greater freedom to colleges to decide how which the hon. Gentleman generously acknowledged best to meet the needs of people who live and work in the local more than once. The reason for that is in a sense at the area, without unnecessary bureaucracy.” heart of the debate. Further education colleges are A theme running throughout the Bill, although we rooted in their community. They are in communion might have a difference of opinion, has been that Ministers with local interests and are intrinsic to the well-being of believe that head teachers and college principals in FE that community. To that end, to say it to them in the Bill and sixth-form colleges do no wrong—at all, in any in that prescriptive way is at best paternalistic and at circumstance whatsoever. However, what happens if worst patronising, and the hon. Gentleman is neither—he they do? What happens if an inward-looking and parochial is paternalistic only in the best sense, and he is never college does not promote that wider sense of economic patronising. Therefore I think that the provision in its and social well-being? On that basis, should the existing current form in the Bill is a sprat to catch a mackerel. provisions on the statute book not remain? That is the On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the amendment. essential probing behind the amendment, and I would be grateful for a response from the Minister. Mr Wright: I welcome the new metaphor—it is a good and positive step. I know that I had criticised the Mr Hayes: I remember when we debated the provision Schools Minister for using personal experience, if not the first time around, when it was introduced into prejudice, to shape policy, but I will demonstrate that legislation, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, now. I am fortunate that the FE, the school sixth form Department for Education, and I did not think much of and the specialist art college for post-16 provision in my it then. Our view was that a pretty fundamental requirement constituency are absolutely first class. They know full of a college is to promote economic and social well-being. well that one of the best things that they can do is What kind of college would it be if it did not see that as provide that economic and social well-being. However, a fundamental duty? the Minister travels around the county, and he knows What about the imperfections identified by the hon. that not everyone can be up to the standards that I see Member for Hartlepool? Earlier, it was me who said in Hartlepool. He mentioned that the amendment was that man was fallen, and I am quite with the hon. prescriptive, but I would disagree with that. I think that Gentleman on that, that we are all imperfect—some the power included in the 2009 legislation was aspirational, more imperfect than others—and it is for the good Lord and does not prescribe at all. I return to the point: what 865 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 866

[Mr Iain Wright] of State acquired additional powers to ensure that local authorities used their intervention powers in respect of harm does it do? It does not harm, but raises the game schools causing concern. Is there an inconsistency there? for colleges that may not think that it is an important It would be good if the Minister could mop that up. point. The amendments focus in several ways on the role of the local authority and the sixth-from college: opening Mr Hayes: There is the difference between us. The a college, closing a college, intervening in a failing first question that—I was going to say Tories, but I must college and representation on the governing body—an be sensitive to my coalition partners; I am always sensitive old favourite of ours. I was going to say an old chestnut, to Liberals—those of us on this side of the Committee perhaps I can bring in sledgehammers later. The first of ask is, “What good will this do?” when we consider those roles—which I imagine many of my colleagues legislation. The hon. Gentleman says, “What harm will will welcome—have been nationalised by allowing the it do?” I focus on good, and if something cannot be proposer to make the proposal, but not the local authority. proven to make a difference in the interests of virtue, it I have a direct question to the Minister: is it the should not be on the statute book. That is a difference Government’s intention that new sixth-form colleges between us. should be 16 to 19 academies? The current position of the Government is uncertain. The second action can Mr Wright: I do not think that I have provided the only be taken by the college or Secretary of State. Does Minister with a complete own goal there, but I think any other person have an intervention power in a failing that he is right in many respects. I think that the sixth-form college? With regard to governing bodies, if provision in the 2009 legislation did some good; it local authorities are not to be represented on sixth-form helped to raise colleges’ aspirations in looking further college governing bodies, who will be a member of the afield from within their four walls to ensure that there governing body? Given the flexibility that the 1992 was economic and social well-being. Not only has it not legislation gives, which was subsequently amended by done anything negative, but it has done positive things. the 2009 legislation, will the Minister outline the correct policy position in that regard? I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division because I only wanted to probe the Minister on his Mr Hayes: The amendments need to be debated, as thoughts. I think there is a difference in philosophy on so many parts of the Bill do, in the context of the wider the matter, but in the interests of moving on, I beg to changes we have made and continue to make in ask leave to withdraw the amendment. commissioning, planning and funding systems for 16 to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 19 education and training. We believe the existing systems were too complex and burdensome. They created a Mr Wright: I beg to move amendment 184, in serious danger of diverting both the energy and the schedule 11, page 87, line 25, leave out paragraph 7. resource of local authorities, schools and colleges, away from their key task of providing high-quality education. The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss We have already made considerable changes to reduce the following: amendment 185, in schedule 11, page 88, burdensome bureaucracy on colleges and training providers. line 29, leave out paragraph 13. Indeed, it has become a hallmark of our approach to colleges in particular, and I am sure that goes for Amendment 186, in schedule 11, page 89, line 24, schools, too, but far be it from me to claim any credit leave out paragraph 19. for my hon. Friends’ sterling work in that field. Amendment 187, in schedule 11, page 90, line 13, The context is one of a fundamental change of approach. leave out paragraph 20. We have installed a much simpler funding system, ensuring that funds follow student choice through the system. Mr Wright: I thank the Minister for providing us We have removed the need for protracted discussions with note E 96, which is the Department for Business, between the different parties involved. That has meant Innovation and Skills’ position on local authority we have been able to abolish the requirement for local intervention. Will the Minister clarify what I think is a authorities and sub-regional groups, and come together contradiction in paragraph 2 of the note? It says, under regional planning forums. Under the system, the “The existing intervention powers reflect earlier arrangements responsibility for making payments direct to sixth-form which saw local authorities having a detailed role for planning, colleges and other providers now sits with the young commissioning and funding 16-19 education. They are also people’s learning agency, along with associated financial bureaucratic and heavy handed, with several bodies having powers assurance and audit functions. We have also freed up of intervention, and subject sixth form colleges to a different, local authorities to focus on their important strategic more interventionist, regime than Academies.” role as champions of young people’s learning. Local Have I read that correctly? Does that indicate that the authorities retain their statutory responsibility to secure Government’s position is that the existing intervention education and training in their area. Statutory guidance powers will be transferred, but actually they are too sets out how we expect local authorities to fulfil that heavy-handed and restrictive? Is that the intention of duty by working with partners to shape provision in paragraph 2, or have I interpreted that incorrectly? their areas for identifying gaps, enabling provision and There is also a contradiction between sixth-form developing the market. colleges and schools. The clause and the amendments We are also clear that autonomous schools, academies, we are currently discussing with regard to sixth-form colleges and independent providers should be accountable colleges remove the intervention role from local authorities, for student performance and their own improvement, because the Government fear that they might be used. planning what they deliver in the context of priorities In contrast, we discussed in clause 43 how the Secretary for young people in their area. 867 Public Bill Committee31 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 868

Amendments 184 and 185 respectively seek to maintain are transferred, this comes out of a desire to simplify the existing statutory framework of establishment and the system, without neglecting the proper consideration closure for sixth-form colleges. At present, the Secretary of the representations that will be made by parties of State can only exercise his powers to establish or concerned with learning in a particular locality. I want dissolve a sixth-form college when the relevant local to reassure him that that is central to our thinking. authority has made a proposal. This reflects earlier Paragraph 13 enables the Secretary of State to close a arrangements that saw local authorities performing a college in the absence of a proposal from a third party. detailed role in the planning and commissioning of 16 This provision is essential in the light of paragraph 19 to 19 education. However, it is restrictive, and creates of schedule 11, which transfers to the Secretary of State the potential for bureaucracy and delay as there is no powers that local authorities currently have to intervene provision to allow direct proposals to the Secretary of in sixth-form colleges. For example, in a string of State from prospective sixth-form colleges, such as groups circumstances after intervention has failed to improve a of existing school sixth forms that wish to come together, sixth-form college—that reflects back to our earlier or other colleges that are merging or restructuring. discussion—the Secretary of State must be able to At this point I want to say a word about the note that dissolve that college without such a proposal. That the hon. Gentleman raised, and in particular the point power is a necessary safeguard to protect students from he made about the contradiction. If I may say so, it unacceptable standards of education and training, and shows a certain insight to draw attention to the superficially it reflects the commitment I made during our discussion apparent contradiction. I read the note as he was speaking on the previous set of amendments to protect learner and see what he means. However, I think we are really interests. saying that the powers will be transferred to the Secretary of State, and he is very unlikely to use them. The very 4.15 pm business of the transfer takes out the bureaucracy, Amendment 186 seeks to maintain the current local heavy-handedness, and potential for confusion that is authority powers to intervene in sixth-form colleges. implicit in the current system. The transfer of the Let me pay tribute to the hard work, commitment and powers itself is what adds to the quality of what we success of sixth-form colleges. They have been recognised want to do; that is the virtue of it. We are not saying by Ofsted as a highly performing part of the education that they are bureaucratic, heavy-handed, cumbersome system and the highest performing part of the education and insensitive, but therefore the Secretary of State will sector for 16 to 19-year-olds. In recognition of that high use them liberally. We are saying that they will be rarely performance and responsibility, we have made provision used, and I think that the hon. Gentleman appreciates in schedule 11 to grant those colleges greater freedom that. I think it is fair to say that, by their very nature, and to remove red tape. Again, I acknowledge the point they would be used unusually. Paragraphs 7 and 13 implicit in the hon. Gentleman’s intervention that we address these issues by enabling direct proposals from must ensure that appropriate statutory safeguards remain prospective providers to open sixth-form colleges, and in place to protect students from unacceptable standards from sixth-form colleges wishing to close their institutions. of education or training. The Secretary of State will be The other aspect of the freedoms we have discussed is able to exercise the power to intervene only in certain the desire to create a more plural system. We want to prescribed circumstances, for example if the college create a more permissive set of circumstances where fails to provide an acceptable standard of education, new providers can enter the market. That is important training or learning. I expect the powers to be used very for colleges, sixth-form colleges, and schools. It is also rarely, but the fact they exist provides the safeguard that important for universities, if I may say so. I have colonised the hon. Gentleman seeks. universities, at least for the day, as the Minister for Universities and Science, my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant is otherwise engaged. He is doing Mr Wright: The Minister is being helpful in providing Government business, I hasten to add, but I have been a greater degree of clarity on this issue. He mentioned speaking on that subject today, and why stop when you prescribing the circumstances in which the power would are on a roll? be used. What is the format and medium by which that will happen? Does the Minister suggest that the Secretary The capacity for new providers to come into the of State will produce guidance and regulations on that? marketplace is an important additional part of what the Government are trying to achieve as a matter of policy, and we have given licence to that in the Bill. It is another Mr Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is right to ask that aspect of the debate that we need to have as a House, question. Guidance is essential so that colleges and and so as a Committee. However, I accept that any such other interested parties know where they stand. proposals must be subject to representations, and I would include representations of other interested parties, Mr Wright: Regulations or guidance? for example, other providers or local authorities. That is very much what we envisage. Mr Hayes: I can go one stage further. Guidance In recognition of local authorities’ strategic roles as would be great, regulation would be super, but to put it champions of young peoples’ learning, and of their in primary legislation would be sublime—and indeed it statutory role in respect of economic development, is. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not which is closely linked to learning and skills, the Secretary spot that as it is not easy in Opposition. This provision of State may also consult local authorities before issuing needs to be in primary legislation, as it is. any order to open or close a sixth-form college. I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman. While the Secretary of State takes additional powers in the sense that powers Mr Wright: Where? 869 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 870

Mr Hayes: It has come to me through inspiration. It I emphasise that that does not mean, in any way, shape states clearly in the details in proposed new section 56E or form, a divorce from the local community, including that the section applies to sixth-form colleges if the local public sector bodies and local firms and businesses. Secretary of State is satisfied about one or more of the However, I do not think that that requirement needs to matters listed in subsection (2). It is immaterial whether be in the Bill. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to a complaint has been made by a person, and that is in withdraw his amendment. the Bill. The relevant circumstances are listed and include learner interest and standards. The hon. Gentleman has Mr Wright: I will be brief, in the interest of making got what he wants. progress. I do not want to press the amendments, which Amendment 187 seeks to maintain the power of local are probing amendments, to a vote. I am grateful for authorities to appoint up to two members of the governing what the Minister said regarding the prescribed requirements body, and the hon. Gentleman spoke about that in his in the extreme circumstances for intervention by the earlier contribution. Colleges should be free to determine Secretary of State under clause 56. The Minister will and decide for themselves who the members of their appreciate that we are considering only clause 48 and governing body should be. I imagine that the hon. schedule 11 at the moment; I have not read as far as Gentleman—and other members of the Committee—will clause 56, although I might have a bit of time to do that have been the governor of a school, as I have been all next week. my adult life. He will know that the relationship between I was a bit concerned with two or three things that the the governing body and the leaders in a school is Minister said. It is about the old chestnut of “may” and important. I am not sure that it is helped by the kind of “must”, regarding how the Secretary of State will consult prescription that is implicit in saying that there must be the local authority and the wider community—perhaps x number of local authority representatives on a college we will leave that for another day. We will also come, in governing body. Colleges are free-standing institutions; a subsequent clause, to the question of new entrants they are as grown up as we want to be, and they deserve into the 16-to-19 market. I want to focus on that quite a to be treated as such. They have always been so, but in bit during the consideration of clause 51, and I ask the the past sometimes they were infantilised by the way in Minister whether that is the purpose behind some of which they were handled. We need to be more open-minded the proposals in the schedule. As we heard in our about how their governing bodies are constituted. To evidence sessions from the Association of Colleges and some degree, the current arrangements in governing other organisations, the FE sector is incredibly competitive bodies are a hangover from the days pre-incorporation, and effective, and it is difficult to see how new entrants and we should not just cut free that history. to the market will raise the performance quality and The hon. Gentleman linked the matter to performance, efficiency of the sector given where we are now. The but removing the power would not change the way in Minister is a champion of the FE sector, which is which poor performance is managed. The power for working incredibly well. I fail to see what new entrants local authorities to appoint members of the governing would provide, but that is a matter for clause 51. body may be used as the first action in case of concern I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. about poor performance. In practice, that is not how the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. power is used. Its main use is to bring in specialist expertise to support college activity—for example, oversight of a capital project—often at the request of a governing Mr Gibb: I beg to move amendment 202, page 89, line 12 body. Paragraph 20 does not preclude colleges’ ability [Schedule 11], at end insert— to approach the relevant local authority for advice In section 53 (inspection of accounts), in subsection (2)— about suitable candidates and membership. It is not (a) after “section 15ZA” insert “or 18A”; that the involvement would be undesirable, but that the (b) omit “61 or”.’. power to make those decisions should be held locally. We talked about community cohesion and involvement The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss with the community. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the following: Government amendment 206. good colleges have powerful and positive relationships Amendment 235, in clause 63, page 50, line 3, leave with the local public and private sectors. I would expect out subsection (2). there to be a positive collaborative relationship between local authorities and local colleges. The Association of Government amendments 200, 209 to 214 and 201. Colleges said in its written evidence to the Committee that it Mr Gibb: The Government amendments are technical “is pleased that Ministers have placed on a statutory footing the and relate to the consequential amendments to primary clear commitment they have already shown to freeing Further legislation required because of the abolition of the Education and Sixth Form Colleges from many regulatory burdens.” YPLA. When the Bill was published, we had not been Having fairly thoroughly examined the amendments, able to include those consequential amendments, but I I will conclude. We believe passionately in the provision am pleased to say that we have now rectified that. In contained in schedule 11. It is essential to align the summary, amendments 202 and 206 will insert into process for establishing, dissolving and intervening in schedule 11 consequential amendments to primary further sixth-form colleges with the practical changes that we education legislation. have made, continue to simplify and streamline 16-to-19 Amendment 235, tabled by the hon. Members for education structures and systems, and ensure that providers Cardiff West and for Hartlepool, would prevent the are free from unnecessary burdens and bureaucracy to Secretary of State from making orders in respect of deliver the education that meet the needs of learners consequential amendments to primary legislation and and employers according to local circumstances. Again, to secondary legislation. We agree that we no longer 871 Public Bill Committee31 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 872 need the power in the Bill to make an order for primary The truth is that in the relationship between the SFA legislation, and Government amendment 200 will remove and colleges, colleges must be clear, as the hon. Gentleman the relevant power from clause 63(2), but we still need said earlier, about financial affairs: what money they the power to amend secondary legislation. That is entirely will get, why they will get it and when and in what proper and follows long-standing precedent, so we cannot volume it will arrive. Decisions about how to use that accept amendment 235. money must be a response to economic need, to business Amendments 209 to 214 insert consequential skills requirements and to learner and community interests. amendments into schedule 15. Finally, because of the That changing relationship between the SFA and colleges removal of clause 63(2)(a) by amendment 200, is the reason for the changes in this part of the Bill. amendment 201 will make a corresponding amendment It is necessary, however, to ensure that as a measure whereby a reference to clause 63(2) is removed from of last resort, appropriate statutory safeguards remain. clause 74(4). The reason—we have made this point before, but it I assure hon. Members that the Government deserves amplification—is to protect learner interests, amendments are technical and entirely consequential as well as taxpayer funds. Colleges are the recipients of on the abolition of the YPLA. I hope on that basis that considerable amounts of taxpayer money and it is right the Committee will accept the amendments. that we should ensure that that money is properly spent, notwithstanding our faith in colleges. I sympathised with the hon. Gentleman when he said how well and Mr Wright: I am always suspicious when a Minister— how much they do and how much difference it makes to including myself when I was a Minister—starts speaking so many. to a group of amendments by saying, “These are technical amendments.” I usually think, “What on earth is the It is our intention, by transferring powers of intervention Minister trying to hide?” However, given the Minister to the Secretary of State, to create a mechanism by before us, I fully accept what he has said and the context which he will be able to intervene, as a last resort, in he has described. The Government amendments will do prescribed circumstances. For example, if he considers something very similar to what we wanted to achieve that an institution is performing significantly less well with amendment 235. On that basis, I see it as a victory than might reasonably be expected or is failing or likely for the Opposition, and I hope the Minister is gracious to fail to deliver an acceptable standard of education or enough to allow me that small victory. We do not have a training, he might choose to intervene. The prescribed problem with anything he has said. circumstances also include where the institution’s affairs have been or are being mismanaged, or where the Amendment 202 agreed to. governing body is failing to discharge its duties or acting unreasonably in the exercise of its powers. Those Mr Hayes: I beg to move amendment 203, page 89, line 15 are exactly the kinds of thing that we have been debating [Schedule 11], leave out from ‘for’ to end of line and under the past several clauses, and on which the hon. insert ‘the words from “Chief Executive of Skills Funding” Gentleman rightly presses us in scrutinising the Bill. to “Executive”)” substitute “Secretary of State”.’. Mr Wright: What does the Minister think would be a The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss good test of reasonableness? Would it also include the Government amendments 204 and 205, 207 and 208. concept of coasting colleges—relatively successful colleges that are expected to and could do much better? Does he recognise that concept? 4.30 pm Mr Hayes: I will not say these are technical amendments, Mr Hayes: I do. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman because I know now that will arouse all kinds of unfounded should raise it. My hon. Friend and I have discussed it suspicion in the hon. Member for Hartlepool. I will many times in opposition and in government. Attention omit those words from anything I say at the outset. is often drawn to examples of schools, colleges or other Amendments 203 and 204 transfer to the Secretary of institutions that are doing exceptionally poorly, but we State powers currently held by the chief executive of the have profound concerns about those schools, colleges Skills Funding Agency to intervene in the affairs of further and others that are simply not fulfilling their potential education colleges in certain prescribed circumstances. or doing as well as they might be expected to do by any Our commitment to rationalise and streamline public measure. The victims of that are the learners. That is sector bodies, reduce bureaucracy and free up the further not acceptable, and we both take a strong view of it. education sector means that the role of the chief executive We must address coasting colleges or schools, but I is changing. He does not have a planning function and am not sure that intervention powers are the best his core role is to allocate funds to colleges and training mechanisms for doing so. Intervention powers are, by providers, with individual further education colleges their very nature, best used only in extremis—as I said, themselves determining the appropriate learning offer in circumstances where there is a real risk to learners or and taking responsibility for performance improvements. to public funds. However, there are perfectly reasonable That builds on the narrative, which I think is emerging questions to be asked about what measures we should both in this Committee and more broadly across take to deal with the circumstances described by the Government, on the responsibility that we believe hon. Gentleman. I think such measures are about sharing practitioners in schools and college deserve to be given. good practice, identifying proper leadership and I regard it as the untapped human capital in further management and working to develop better qualities in education colleges, too long constrained by the almost those terms. They are also about appropriate inspection obsessive interest in micro-management that prevailed and using inspection to inform progress—that needs to before our glorious arrival in power. happen. They also relate to governance. The discussions 873 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 874

[Mr Hayes] ( ) In subsections (5) and (6), for “Chief Executive”, wherever occurring, substitute “Secretary of State”. that I am having with the Association of Colleges, the ( ) For subsection (9) substitute— 157 Group, the National Union of Students, which I “(9) The Secretary of State may not give a direction to a mentioned earlier, and others were about what we can governing body under subsection (6)(c) which relates to the do as a Government to catalyse or stimulate that new dismissal of a member of staff.”’. emphasis on excellence, which is a necessary component Amendment 205, page 89, line 21 [Schedule 11], at of the emphasis that we want to place on further end insert— education and of the freedom that we want to give Section 56B (intervention policy: England) is repealed. providers. Section 56C (directions) is repealed.’. The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on standards. Amendment 206, page 90 [Schedule 11], leave out Standards in colleges are just as important as standards lines 21 and 22 and insert— in schools, for colleges are pivotal to our education (1) Section 82 (joint exercise of functions) is amended as system, but intervention powers—powers of last resort, follows. as it were—are not the best way to achieve those standards. (2) For subsection (1) substitute— Using those powers would almost be like using a spade to kill a gnat and neither of us want to do that. (1) A relevant authority may exercise any of its functions jointly with— If the relevant circumstances prevail and the Secretary (a) another relevant authority, or of State deems it appropriate and necessary to secure (b) the Secretary of State, to the extent that the Secretary the effective delivery of a publicly funded service, the of State is discharging functions under section 14 of Secretary of State will be able to take certain prescribed the Education Act 2002, actions, namely: removing any or all members of the where the condition in subsection (1B) is met. governing body of the FE college; appointing new (1A) The Secretary of State may exercise functions under members to fill vacancies; and giving directions to the section 14 of the Education Act 2002 jointly with a relevant governing body on the exercise of its powers and the authority where the condition in subsection (1B) is met. performance of its duties. (1B) The condition is that it appears to the persons who are to Amendment 205 will repeal the requirement for the exercise functions jointly that to do so— chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency to prepare (a) will be more efficient, or and keep under review a statement of its policy in (b) will enable them more effectively to discharge any of respect of the powers to intervene in the affairs of FE their functions.” institutions. The power of the Secretary of State is to (3) In subsection (2), for the words from the beginning to issue directions to the chief executive of the Skills “provision” substitute “A relevant authority must, if directed to Funding Agency when exercising intervention powers. do so by the Secretary of State, make provision jointly with Those powers would no longer be necessary. The another relevant authority or with the Secretary of State”. amendment mirrors the approach taken by the Department (4) In subsection (3)(a) omit “the YPLA,”.’. for Education in respect of sixth-form colleges, where it Amendment 207, page 91, line 2 [Schedule 11], leave is proposed through the Bill to transfer the equivalent out ‘7(7), 8’ and insert ‘7(2), (3), (4)(b), (5)(a), (6) and intervention powers from the local authority to the (7), 8 to’. Secretary of State. Amendment 208, page 91, line 4 [Schedule 11], leave Finally, amendments 207 and 208 make minor out ‘paragraph’and insert ‘paragraphs 7 and’.—(Mr Gibb.) consequential amendments relating to the earlier amendments 203, 204 and 205, as proposed. Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to. I know that the hon. Gentleman has no intention, either in what he advocates or what he has tabled, to use Clause 49 an excessive degree of intervention—one might say to use a musket to kill a butterfly. On that basis, I hope REPEAL OF PROVISION CHANGING NAME OF PUPIL that he will withdraw the amendments. REFERRAL UNITS

Mr Wright: I was not going to speak to the Government Kevin Brennan: I beg to move amendment 190, in amendments. I am more than happy to withdraw those clause 49, page 40, line 26, at beginning insert ‘Subject amendments if the Minister wants me to. [Laughter.] to subsection (5)’.

Mr Hayes: That is the trouble with oratory, The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss Mr Chairman. One can become intoxicated by the amendment 191, in clause 49, page 40, line 36, at end exuberance of one’s own verbosity—as Gladstone was, insert— by the way, but Disraeli never was, of course. ‘(5) Notwithstanding the amendments made by subsections (1) to (4), a local authority may elect to categorise a Pupil Referral On that basis, I am happy to urge the Committee to Unit as a Short Stay School.’. accept the Government amendments. Amendment 203 agreed to. Kevin Brennan: Perhaps appropriately in the week Amendments made: 204, page 89 [Schedule 11], leave after the Budget, the Minister referred to Gladstone out lines 16 to 18 and insert— and Disraeli. Gladstone delivered the longest Budget ‘( ) In subsection (3), for “Chief Executive” substitute on record, and Disraeli delivered the shortest on record. “Secretary of State”. I think the Minister is more of a Gladstonian Liberal ( ) Omit subsection (4). than a Disraelian Tory. 875 Public Bill Committee31 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 876

What’s in a name? If the Minister were delivering this academies and that any placement in a PRU was temporary, speech, he would probably go on to say, as Shakespeare short and on the way to a full-time and permanent said, that a rose by placement in a school or an academy. As Members well “any other name would smell as sweet”. know, such measures were considered because of the history of PRUs. Sir Alan Steer was absolutely right I shall not do that, because I do not want to delay the when he referred to them as a national scandal. Committee with my learned literary knowledge, although the Minister has been kind enough to refer to it on I remember taking over a PRU, as part of a much other occasions. wider service, in an authority in which I worked. It was The commencement order to change the name of full of children who had been there for years and who pupil referral units to short-stay schools was revoked had nowhere to move on to. I met the head teachers in before its implementation date of 1 September 2010, the authority and we agreed to abolish the key stage 2 and the purpose of the amendment is to probe why the PRU and put that money into preventive funding. There change of name will not happen. Amendments 190 and was a mainstream school that was prepared to take on 191 would allow the local authority to categorise a permanently excluded children on a very short-stay pupil referral unit as a short-stay school. The purpose basis until we could find permanent provision for them. and implications of the clause are not clear. The key stage 3 PRU became a very short-stay school. The Committee will be interested in the points raised There was a 13-week programme in which children were by Jacky Mackenzie on behalf of the executive committee assessed very quickly and then moved on to permanent of the National Organisation for Short Stay Schools. In placements. The key stage 4 PRU became part of a a letter to the Secretary of State, she stated: provision with a special school and a local college. The “We were, therefore, extremely surprised to find that you had reason for that was that there were children who had made the decision to revoke the legal change of name without any been permanently excluded in key stage 1, in infant consultation with PRUs about this. Given that our members and school, and had gone on to spend their entire career in PRUs country-wide had been fully consulted about a name PRUs. That was an absolute disgrace. The previous change this was a worrying sign and indicated a lack of appreciation Government wanted to prevent that happening again. of the healthy dialogue we have had with your representatives as well as an appreciation of the good and outstanding work present PRUs around this country are full of children who in PRUs.” have special needs, some of whom are on statements. It is a sorry tale that the Government have decided not Many of those have either a PRU named on the statement to consult the very organisation whose name they are or some other provision that they have not been able to changing back in the clause. access. PRUs are full of children with mental health difficulties and massive anxieties. There are children Will the Minister clarify the Government’s purpose who have been badly bullied and are placed there because and intention in the clause? Does he intend that those there is no proper provision for them elswhere. They are organisations should no longer be short-stay organisations full of children with autism and there are also children for pupils? What evidence has he used, given that there who are permanently excluded for serious behavioural was long consultation, on which to base his decision to issues. Within any PRU, there is a real conflict around revoke the name change? Will he outline the anticipated the mix, which is potentially explosive. There are the implications of the Government’s decision to revoke the incredibly emotional children and the disaffected, delinquent name change, particularly with reference to the role, and criminal teenagers and that is incredibly difficult to image and status of pupil referral units? Will he outline manage. what role PRUs have and should play given that he has found it necessary to introduce the clause? Will he assure the Committee that the change of name will not impact negatively on the role and image of PRUs, Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con): I am listening intently because the consultation took place for those reasons? to what the hon. Lady is saying. Will she expand on this Will he explain what he intends the combined impact of idea that the name “pupil referral unit” adds to a sense the name change to be? We shall discuss on clause 51 of social separation and social stigma? Was that also the impact on PRUs with respect to academies. part of the thinking of the previous Government? What was the impact on many of the schools that she has The purpose of the amendment seeks to clarify why heard about? the Government decided to revoke the name change from pupil referral units to short-stay schools, and to give local authorities the power to decide whether such institutions should be called pupil referral units, or Pat Glass: That is a helpful intervention. I cannot short-stay schools. I look forward to the Minister’s speak for the previous Government; I was only elected response. to this House in May. None the less, I think that that was very much part of their thinking. It was about separation. These children were moved and were no 4.45 pm longer part of the mainstream provision within an authority. One of the most helpful things that I did was Pat Glass: The provision may not have come into to sit down with head teachers and get a collective force, but it was well known and expected, and good agreement that all the children belonged to all of these local authorities had made plans for it. My understanding schools and that there was a place for every one of them was that the purpose of the previous Government’s within the mainstream of education in that city. proposal to change the name to short-stay schools was to send a signal—we have heard a lot in this Committee Teachers in PRUs do an incredibly good job, but the about sending out signals—that children should have mix of children is very hard for them. The curriculum proper, permanent, full-time placements in schools or range can be huge. Teachers can be providing a curriculum 877 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 878

[Pat Glass] names for individual units that reflect what each of them does. Clause 49 will not prevent a unit from using for children with severe learning difficulties and for the term “short-stay school” in its name, if that is children who are academically very capable, and often appropriate. A PRU that is primarily for pupils with gifted. I should have said earlier that there are often short-term medical needs, for example, may want to use gifted and talented children in PRUs because the curriculum the term in its name. in the school that they had been in has simply not been Clause 49 is about the legal name of such schools. It able to cope with their level of ability. would not be sensible to have two terms for the same GCSE outcomes and longer-term outcomes for children type of school. The clause repeals the change to short-stay at PRUs are very poor. We have had many on the road school, because we do not want to send the signal to to Damascus moments, but I remember standing in a local authorities that such institutions are places in PRU one day, looking at a photograph of children who which pupils should only ever be educated for short had left a few years previously, and the head teacher periods. Often pupils will return quickly to mainstream came up behind me with the deputy head teacher and school, but they should not be forced to if it is not the pointed at various children, saying, “Dead, dead, dead, most appropriate thing. in prison, in prison, in prison, dead,” then finally, “Oh, that boy got a job as a chef.” The outcomes for many Pat Glass: I accept the premise behind what the such children are appalling. We can be discussing GCSEs Minister is saying, but my experience was that those or A-levels, but this is about keeping these children children stayed there if it was a PRU. If the highly alive. Many of them are the very highest-risk individuals. experienced staff in a PRU consider that a child should We are talking about suicides, car crashes, fights and not return to a mainstream school, a PRU is not the drugs overdoses. Their life expectations are very low. right place for them. We need to move them on to a Everyone agrees that the best way forward is that those special school if that is right. My concern is that those children need permanent placements. I do not mind children will stay there for the rest of their educational whether we call them PRUs or short-stay schools. I am career. more interested in whether the Minister has a plan for making things better for these young people and whether PRUs will no longer be sin bins. Mr Gibb: This will depend on the quality of the PRU. I have had the privilege of visiting one or two high-quality PRUs since May, and the children in those units have flourished. I met some alumni who came back, because Mr Gibb: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. I was visiting, to tell us what they had achieved from Member for North West Durham, and she will find that being at that unit. There are examples of good practice everyone in the Committee shares her views. They are around the country. I am not saying that it is consistent, certainly the views of the Government. We need to and I think that the hon. Lady makes a valuable point improve the quality of alternative provision in this when she cites Alan Steer on this. That is the point. We country, whether that is through a PRU or a short-stay do not want to send a message that alternative provision school or any other form of alternative provision. We should always be short stay. It might be short stay in the are taking several measures, which we announced in the majority of cases, but there should be a place in the White Paper, to do precisely that. We will shortly come portfolio of alternative provision around the country in to clauses 51 and 52, which introduce provisions that which children stay a little longer, perhaps a year or will allow good and outstanding PRUs to convert to more, if that is necessary for them. It should be up to academies and for alternative provision for free schools. the professionals in those units or that alternative provision We are also legislating to give PRUs similar freedoms to make those decisions. Some children will never be to community schools. Management committees will be able to go back to large mainstream schools of 1,000 to given a devolved budget and responsibility for staffing, 1,500 pupils. They might find it too daunting and would because most people do not realise that PRUs are prefer to be in a smaller unit, and they might not have actually not governed in the same way. We had a big any special needs, other than needing to be in a smaller discussion earlier about schools governors, but PRUs environment. We have to allow a thousand flowers to do not have governors. They have a management committee bloom, and that is the purpose of the clause. that is directly appointed by the local authority. We will The issue is only about the legal name. PRUs can improve the accountability of alternative provision by continue to be called PRUs, and they can continue to be establishing a professional body and a quality mark for called short-stay schools. We do not have a strong voluntary and private sector providers of alternative opinion about that. People might question, therefore, provision. As hon. Members know, we will trial a what we are doing, because we could leave the provision system of schools retaining responsibility for pupils on the statute book and concentrate on other things. whom they may exclude, so they will have an interest in We have to remove it, however, because we cannot leave ensuring that the provision that they go on to is of a provisions on the statute book that we have no intention high quality. We are as concerned as the hon. Lady is of ever commencing. about quality, and we are determined to do a lot about it. The hon. Member for Cardiff West asked about I fully support the intention of amendments 190 and consultation. Of course we value stakeholder opinion, 191, which is to allow an institution to call itself by and officials had discussions with PRU staff and heads, whatever name it likes. The amendments are not necessary local authorities and voluntary and private sector providers, to achieve that. Local authorities can choose to name through an online forum and in face-to-face meetings, the individual units that they are responsible for, and we about how we could improve alternative provision, rather have no intention of removing that power. I am sure than getting bogged down in the legal name. Those that local authorities will continue to adopt suitable discussions were valuable, and they have helped us to 879 Public Bill Committee31 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 880 shape policies. The decision not to change the name of “Contrary to excitable claims from the Free School lobby, I the units was announced in a parliamentary answer in would not seek to close successful Free Schools or reverse academy July 2010, and the consultation started at about the status for ideological reasons.” same time. I am not aware of any specific complaints Now that I have put that clearly on the record, we can about our decision on the name change during those dispose of the matter and perhaps go on to scrutinise discussions, and we know that some of the people the Government’s intentions for academies. involved in the consultation were aware of the We have not tabled any amendments— announcement that we made last July. On the grounds that we are simply trying to create 5pm flexibility and to remove a provision from the statute Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. book that we do not intend to commence, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment. 5.30 pm On resuming— Kevin Brennan: In the interests of disposing of the provision before possible Divisions in the House, I will Kevin Brennan: Before the Division, I explained that not go on too long or press the amendment to a vote. we had not tabled amendments to clause 50, but we Suffice it to say that there may well be room for further have a few questions. Of course, we are full of admiration debate on the matter, and there might be a particular for parliamentary counsel, but we did wonder why the interest in another place. clause repeals section 1(6) of the Academies Act 2010 as well as clause 51(3). Specialisms were developed Even though the Minister has said that he was not under John Major in the 1992 to 1997 Conservative aware of any concern, I outlined the concern that was Administration and taken forward under the Labour expressed by the executive committee of the National Government. I wonder whether the repeal of clause 50 Organisation for Short Stay Schools and PRUs in Wales marks the end of specialisms as far as the Government about the lack of consultation on the name change. The are concerned. What is the Government’s policy on Minister often talks about signals, and our concern is specialisms? Is there a cost implication to abandoning that the Government might be sending out the wrong specialisms? Will there be a need for schools to rename signal by getting rid of the term “short-stay schools,” themselves once they are no longer regarded as specialist and might be giving the impression that some of the old establishments? bad practices of children being parked in places for Arguably, the end came with the public expenditure long periods, without properly being watched over, announcement last October when the money for carrying might be allowed to return. The Minister said that that out the school assessment was removed from the specialist is not the Government’s intention, and I support him in schools and academy trusts, and the specialist schools his desire to develop appropriate models to help children’s grant stopped. Does the abandoning of specialisms particular needs. When I was Minister with responsibility undermine the previous provision that was in place, for PRUs, I was concerned to improve governance and which allowed schools to select on the grounds of give alternatives, so I support the current Minister in his aptitude up to 10% of pupils for subjects such as mission, but there is a concern out there that the wrong modern foreign languages, the performing arts, visual message might be being given. arts, physical education or sport, design and technology, I therefore urge the Minister to make it absolutely and information technology? Section 102 of the 1998 Act clear that the focus is very much on looking after the permitted selection on aptitude for particular subjects. needs of the children and on ensuring that they can, Will the Minister clarify why under clause 50 this is wherever possible, return to a mainstream school or, if being done and what are the Government’s intentions not, into mainstream options, and have a tailored education and views around specialisms? for their needs, whatever they might be. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Mr Gibb: Clause 50 removes section 1(6)(b) of the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Academies Act 2010. Its effect is to remove the requirement Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill. on academies to have a specialism in their curriculum. The Government’s policy is to remove bureaucracy from the system and to give schools greater freedom to trust in professionals. As part of that policy, we have Clause 50 ended the specialist schools programme for maintained schools, which can choose whether to have a specialism ACADEMIES: REMOVAL OF REQUIREMENT TO HAVE in the light of their particular circumstances. The associated SPECIALISM funding for the specialist schools programme has been Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the mainstreamed into the general schools budget so that Bill. schools can decide how best to use the funding available to them to raise standards, whether through a specialism or not. Kevin Brennan: I am not sure whether we will be Clause 50 gives academies the same freedom by amending interrupted now or later by possible Divisions in the the statutory characteristics of academies so that opting House, but as we are moving on to discuss academies I for a specialism will in future be voluntary. We firmly want to say at the outset that my right hon. Friend the believe that within the context of a broad and balanced shadow Secretary of State recently spoke to the Association curriculum, academies should be free to teach a curriculum of School and College Leaders conference on that that they believe will best raise standards. That may or subject. He said: may not include a specialism. 881 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 882

[Mr Gibb] “hard to see what gap it is closing.”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2011; c. 103, Q197.] The hon. Member for Cardiff West asked a good I understand that we will not, subject to your guidance, question about why we are also removing the same Mr Williams, be having a clause stand part debate, but subsection in the next clause of the Bill, in clause 51(3), will the Minister put more flesh on the bones of what which says “Omit subsection (6)” of the Academies the precise reasoning is behind the provision? How will Act 2010. The reason for that is that clause 51(3) it add value? Is he trying to address something that is provides that academy status will for the first time be lacking in the current provision? able to apply to post-16 education and alternative provision. Amendment 192 would require the Secretary of State It is likely that sections 50 and 51, when the Act gets to approve an academy funding agreement—the academy Royal Assent, will have different commencement dates, agreement—by order. The fact that the Academies Act 2010 and we are keen that all other academies outside those has to be read with the Education Act 1996 means that covered in section 51 should not be delayed in having the Secretary of State, when making or remaking an that bureaucracy removed, so it is a timing issue. But academy order, will have to lay the academy agreement the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue before Parliament and be subject to a level of parliamentary so that it is now on the record. There are no cost scrutiny. The academy agreement will also include the implications to the legislative change. It will have no memorandum and articles of association of the company financial impact on schools. that makes up the academy trust. Any changes to the The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of whether sponsors will, therefore, require a new order. schools can still select. The answer is yes, schools can What is the Government’s current position on chains? choose to have a specialism, and if they do, they can We did not really discuss this issue during our scrutiny then select 10% by reference to it. What we have done as of the Academies Bill over the summer, largely because far as maintained schools are concerned is remove the it was done on the Floor of the House in a matter of bureaucracy. On that basis, I hope that the Committee about 10 minutes as I recall, despite its importance. I will agree to clause 50 standing part of the Bill. will let that lie for the moment. It is right that numbers Question put and agreed to. of academies can work together and provide that sort Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. of common brand. We in the former Labour Government helped to put that in place. We had a list of chains approved to take on new academies. Clause 51 There have been developments since the new Government took over. The Times Educational Supplement reported CADEMY ARRANGEMENTS: POST-16 EDUCATION AND A on 18 March: ALTERNATIVE PROVISION “An academy sponsor has entered talks with the Government about its plans to open a ‘super-chain’ of up to 250 state schools Mr Wright: I beg to move amendment 192, in clause 51, within five years.” page 41, line 10, leave out ‘(2)’ and insert ‘(1A)’. How far will that go? Does the Minister anticipate a maximum size to an academy chain? Will there be a The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss time when there are 152 local authorities? Will a chain the following: amendment 193, in clause 51, page 41, replace all provision within the local authorities, or will line 10, at end insert— there be fewer than 152 chains, with so-called super ‘(1A) In subsection (1), after “enter”, insert “, by order”.’. chains offering schools in a sub-regional region or even Amendment 194, in clause 51, page 41, line 10, at end national capacity? What will they look like and what insert— will their corporate identity be? In evidence to the Committee, the overview and scrutiny committee of the ‘(1A) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the criteria by which he judges whether a person is a fit and proper Tory-Lib Dem Birmingham city council stated that person to whom he may enter into Academy arrangements, and “the paper”—“The Importance of Teaching” White these criteria must be approved by resolution of both Houses of Paper— Parliament before they come into effect.’. “implies that Local Authorities have become too corporate and as a consequence that they stifle initiative. However it is likely that Mr Wright: The amendments seek to ensure consultation over time chains of academies will develop the same tendency and as a consequence will result in the same problems as those that prior to a school’s application to become an academy, have been perceived with Councils.” and to ensure that the Secretary of State sets out to Parliament the criteria that he will use to determine Again, will the Minister comment about the policy who he will enter into academy arrangements with. I position with regard to that? The Secretary of State told the Minister when we considered schedule 11 that obviously has a key interest in this matter, because in I am not convinced of the need for new entrants to the order to agree a new academy agreement, he must 16 to 19 market. During our oral evidence sitting on approve changes to the memorandum. What role does 3 March, I asked Martin Doel of the Association of the Secretary of State have in the development of chains? Colleges what the provisions will add in terms of 16 to How accountable is he to Parliament for decisions he 19 providers. He concluded: takes about them, and how soon are decisions about chains published on the Department’s website? “I would first characterise the 16 to 19 sector as the most competitive within education. The greatest plurality of suppliers Amendment 194 addresses the suitability of persons, already operates in this area, including independent learning both individual and corporate, to be members of an providers, sixth-form colleges, general further education colleges academy trust. With respect, I point out to the Minister and school sixth forms.” that the level of scrutiny has plummeted with the formation He went on to say that he found it of the new Government. There is now only one side of 883 Public Bill Committee31 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 884

A4—in the form of a PDF document—on the Department Mr Gibb: No. That was the point of the provisions for Education website referring to due diligence checks that we discussed earlier. There is now an alternative and the demonstration of sufficient capacity and capability, route, and that is absolutely right. but there is no evidence or documentation about how The hon. Gentleman also asked about chains of that will be measured. Clear education aims and objectives academies. We welcome chains, but within sensible are required, but again, we have no idea about the parameters. We do not want chains to replicate local criteria by which those will be measured. authorities, and we want them to be of a size that Are there any characteristics of potential corporate promotes partnership and support. There are, therefore, members that might lead the Secretary of State to reject limits to the size of a chain that we would approve, and them? For example, what about the tobacco industry? through the funding agreement, the Secretary of State As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West kindly has intervention powers in relation to academy chains. referred to my history as a turf accountant, what about gambling firms? What about the adult entertainment or 5.45 pm alcohol industries? Does the Secretary of State or the I turn now to the amendments. May I first assure the Minister think that such organisations would be appropriate hon. Gentleman that the Government take very seriously corporate members? their role in scrutinising potential free school proposers Does the Secretary of State have any guidance on and academy sponsors? We have a great responsibility how a chain can demonstrate capacity? How much to ensure that we entrust the education of young people should a chain be allowed to cream off from academies only to those who have the capacity, expertise and within the chain to pay for management, or for corporate reliability to deliver the highest standards of education. central services? Should the chain’s chief executive be The academies programme is one of the areas of education paid more than the Prime Minister? Should chains be policy where the Government are building on the inspected? Will the Minister give us more information best policies of the previous Administration. Academies about what he thinks would be appropriate? As this is a were a great success under the Administration supported probing amendment, he has the opportunity to do that. and served in by Opposition Members. The Government While the funding agreement will specify how an are building on that and expanding that success. That is academy can be broken from its chain through poor why we are extending the freedoms that academy status performance, does the Secretary of State have any power brings to more schools and we are setting up free under the Bill to intervene directly in a failing chain? schools to meet the needs of parents, pupils and Should corporate members of chains be allowed to communities. There are now more than 467 academies make a profit from services sold to academies within the and all have been opened without the mechanisms that chain, within the restrictions of charity law, the academy these amendments seek to introduce. agreement, and the articles of association? A rigorous approval process for organisations wishing to become academies is already in place, and a range of The Committee has been asked to approve the provisions, due diligence checks are carried out on those who wish even though we are very much in the dark about them. to open a free school or sponsor an academy. Hon. These are probing amendments, designed for the Minister Members may be aware that on 17 March the Department to shed more light on what is potentially a very significant for Education published details of the revised schools change to the educational landscape of the country and application process which set out the criteria according the manner in which academies operate. to which all applications and their proposals will be assessed. That is mainly because of the large number of applications coming forward to be free schools. Mr Gibb: I will address some of the wider points that In order to assess the suitability of applicants, the the hon. Gentleman raises. The clause amends the Department will carry out a range of financial and Academies Act 2010 to provide for three types of academy, non-financial due diligence checks. Guidance available and it sets out the characteristics of each. It will extend on the Department’s website, which I think was the our free schools policy by making academy status available page the hon. Gentleman referred to, makes it clear that to institutions serving 16 to 19-year-olds and to alternative in order to be approved, applicants will need to demonstrate provision, which the relevant legislation currently excludes. that they would support UK democratic values, including The hon. Gentleman asked whether something was respect for the basis on which UK laws are made and lacking in existing provision. We agree with him that applied, respect for democracy, support for individual much post-16 provision is excellent, especially in sixth liberties within the law, and mutual tolerance and respect. form colleges. Not all areas are as well served as others. The previous Government did not consider parliamentary An important aspect of the 16 to 19 free school extension approval for the criteria used to enter into academy is that it allows parent groups and other organisations arrangements. They did not feel that was necessary and to establish a 16 to 19 free school where there is demand nor do this Government. for a different type of provision, or where local provision Furthermore the Academies Act 2010 requires the is inadequate. Secretary of State to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament annually a report containing information on academy arrangements entered into and the performance Mr Wright: Earlier, in an intervention on the Minister of academies during the previous year. Members of for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, I academy trusts are required by their charitable objectives asked a question, and I am not sure whether I got an to act in the best interests of the academy. If the hon. answer. That might have been because I misheard, but Gentleman looks at the website, he will see that a range do all new sixth form colleges now have to be 16 to 19 of due diligence matters are covered: financial propriety, academies? things like criminal convictions and involvement in 885 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education Bill 886 illegal activities such as tax avoidance, and working in vocational provision at key stage 4, so 16 to 19 academies certain industries such as the ones he cited. They will be should be able to participate in or instigate those kinds taken into account and regarded as inappropriate. With of arrangements. those assurances, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw We want 16 to 19 academies to be able to operate on a his amendment. par with sixth-form colleges and other post-16 provision. As an example, new sixth-form colleges can start by Mr Wright: I thank the Minister for his clarification. offering up to 20% of their places to post-19 students, I am still not certain whether he believes there should be because they are principally concerned with the education a maximum natural limit in respect of these super of 16 to 19-year-olds, but not restricted from offering chains. The article in the Times Educational Supplement limited places to older students. If, therefore, either a last week talked about 250 state schools. He did not sixth-form college or a 16 to 19 academy wanted to comment on that. I am not sure whether that was just offer post-16 education, it would need the agreement of an omission or was deliberate, but does he have a policy the Skills Funding Agency, which would fund it. position on that? I take what he says about due diligence The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would remove the and appropriate persons. The purpose behind our word “principally” from the relevant part of clause 51, amendment about fit and proper persons was to ensure which would mean that 16 to 19 academies could only that we could scrutinise as much as possible whether educate 16 to 19-year olds. They would not be allowed someone is fit and proper. to let any child under 16 to attend the academy. That is I am still not sure whether, under the massive expansion not our intention; we want the new academies to have that the Government are presiding over in the academies flexibility. On those grounds, he has flushed out the programme, defence contractors or Hugh Hefner could policy, but his amendment would do enormous damage open an academy or some sort of chain. What sort of to the provision. person is the Minister thinking of in terms of that due diligence? He has not explained that. In order to make Mr Wright: The Minister has shed light on the matter, progress I give him notice that I want to reflect on this for which I thank him. I beg to ask leave to withdraw and possibly to return to it on Report because we did the amendment. not have time to deal with it during the consideration of the Academies Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr Wright: I beg to move amendment 196, in clause 51, page 42, line 13, after ‘age’, insert Mr Wright: I beg to move amendment 195, in ‘for periods of no longer than six months’. clause 51, page 42, line 3, leave out ‘principally’. I have only one question. I note the helpful summary, The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss E 109, that the Government have provided to the amendment 199, in clause 52, page 43, line 3, at beginning Committee. The amendment aims simply to probe the insert— Minister on whether he sees 16 to 19 academies having a ‘(A1) The Secretary of State must by regulations ensure that role in the education of children of compulsory school the arrangements that apply to pupil exclusions from an age as it currently stands—below the age of 16—and is Alternative provision Academy are the same as those that apply likely to be with the university technical colleges. We to pupils in attendance at a Pupil Referral Unit.’. have discussed school children attending further education colleges, which can be positive in certain circumstances. Mr Wright: The amendments probe the Government’s Does the Minister think that that could happen under thinking with regard to what is meant by an alternative the measure? provision academy. In front of me is E 108 from the Department for Education, which, again, is incredibly Mr Gibb: The Government want to widen the choice helpful in providing greater detail. However, I would of provision for young people, which would encourage like the Minister to expand on the points in that document. them to continue in education after their GCSEs and to I am uncertain, as the Bill stands, notwithstanding develop their knowledge and skills further. That is why E 108, about the Government’s intentions regarding we are legislating so that 16 to 19 academies can be pupils and the relationship—particularly the time period— opened. The Government’s intention is that such academies that we will have in the alternate provision academies. will principally be concerned with educating students Do the Government see pupils as having a long-term between the ages of 16 and 19 years old, but we wish to career in such academies and, if not, why not and what take a permissive stance towards that. It would not be is the intention behind the provision? Does the Minister right for such academies to be restricted only to that age accept our proposed change in amendment 196, where range; they should have the flexibility to decide how the stay would be limited to six months? best to meet the needs of their communities. I would also ask the Minister to speak to paragraph 6 Not all young people will have completed their courses of E 108, which I think is linked to some extent with of study before they reach their 19th birthday, and some the amendments, because again I am concerned about may need extra time to re-sit modules before they gain the darkness in which we are scrutinising legislation. their qualification. We believe, therefore, that a 16 to 19 Paragraph 6 states: academy should also be able to enter local partnership “How this new type of alternative provision will fit into the arrangements with local schools, involving students existing legal framework is complex and because of the complexities who are under 16. Many FE colleges work in partnership the Government is not yet in a position to make all the necessary with local secondary schools, for example, to improve consequential amendments.” 887 Public Bill Committee31 MARCH 2011 Education Bill 888

I am taking your guidance, Mr. Williams, as to whether regulation in the area of exclusions. We intend to follow we have time for a clause stand part debate at five to six, broadly the same approach for alternative provision but can the Minister expand on that paragraph, because academies and, if regulations are needed to secure a it concerns me that we are making legislation in the consistent position across types of institution, we will dark? Can he give us any further information, if not ensure they are in place. now, perhaps on Report, although I would prefer it On the consequential amendments, through the now? regulations, they are simply that—technical amendments as a consequence of the provision. With those words, I Mr Gibb: Pupils in alternative provision are some of hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to withdraw the most vulnerable in education. They need and deserve his amendment. a good education just as much as pupils in mainstream schools. Mr Wright: The Minister has reassured me to some Amendment 196 proposes that pupils of compulsory extent. I will press him on two matters, if I can in the school age attending an alternative provision academy couple of minutes I have. Can he outline briefly where would be able to do so for no longer than six months. I he says that the existing legal framework is complex? agree with the hon. Member for Hartlepool that, for What does he mean by that? Secondly, I know the many pupils, returning to mainstream education as amendment as drafted was rigid with its six months soon as possible gives them the greatest possible chance provision, but he must understand that we do not want of achieving their potential. Our intention through this people to languish in the alternative provision academies. clause is to support improvement in the quality of Can he reassure me on that? I know he trusts the alternative provision by giving pupil referral units access professionals, as we do, but what process will he put in to the same freedoms that are energising other parts of place to ensure that, if a pupil could be best placed in the education system. Although some pupil referral mainstream education, that will happen? units are outstanding, some as the hon. Member for North West Durham said earlier, are poor. Low outcomes for pupils attending pupil referral units can no longer Mr Gibb: It is a matter of trusting professionals, and be acceptable. For example, in 2009, of pupils in pupil we trust that will happen. referral units and hospital schools, only 1.7% achieved The legal framework is complex because the 16-to-19 five or more GCSEs at A* to C. and PRU provisions are scattered through a lot of statutes, Limiting the time pupils could spend in alternative many of which came into being as a result of the provision academies through legislation could have previous Government. However, we are working on this undesirable consequences. If an alternative provision and we expect to provide more detailed information academy was best placed to provide high-quality education later in the passage of the Bill. There is an established we would not want to deny a pupil that. Pupils could precedent that that is an appropriate way of dealing end up being forced to return to mainstream education with consequential amendments. The matter is technical, before they are ready to do so. That cannot be good for but I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured. either the pupil or the school. Pupil referral units are not limited to only having pupils for a period of six Mr Wright: Even though the Minister used the word months, and we see no reason why this should be the “technical”, I accept his reassurance. I beg to ask leave case for alternative provision academies. It should be to withdraw the amendment. for the professionals to make that decision. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. On amendment 199, I want to reassure the hon. Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Member for Hartlepool that we do intend that exclusion Ordered arrangements that currently apply to pupil referral units , That further consideration be now adjourned. (James Duddridge.) are applied to alternative provision academies. Exclusions — arrangements for academies are currently applied through funding agreements. We have heard during the debate 5.59 pm on clause 4 that in the future we may also have need for Adjourned till Tuesday 5 April at Nine o’clock.