PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

EDUCATION AND ADOPTION BILL

Eighth Sitting Thursday 9 July 2015 (Afternoon)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 7 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Written evidence reported to the House. Adjourned till Tuesday 14 July at twenty-five minutes past Nine o’clock.

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £6·00 PBC (Bill 004) 2015 - 2016 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 13 July 2015

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 2015 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 265 Public Bill Committee9 JULY 2015 Education and Adoption Bill 266

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †MR CHRISTOPHER CHOPE,SIR ALAN MEALE

† Berry, James (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con) Pugh, John (Southport) (LD) † Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff West) (Lab) Timpson, Edward (Minister for Children and † Donelan, Michelle (Chippenham) (Con) Families) † Drummond, Mrs Flick (Portsmouth South) (Con) † Tomlinson, Michael (Mid Dorset and North Poole) † Esterson, Bill (Sefton Central) (Lab) (Con) † Fernandes, Suella (Fareham) (Con) † Trevelyan, Mrs Anne-Marie (Berwick-upon-Tweed) † Gibb, Mr Nick (Minister for Schools) (Con) † Haigh, Louise (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) † Walker, Mr Robin (Worcester) (Con) † James, Margot (Stourbridge) (Con) Wilson, Sammy (East Antrim) (DUP) Jones, Graham (Hyndburn) (Lab) † Kyle, Peter (Hove) (Lab) Fergus Reid, Glenn McKee, Joanna Welham, † Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma (South Shields) (Lab) Committee Clerks † McCabe, Steve (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) Nokes, Caroline (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) † attended the Committee 267 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education and Adoption Bill 268

Amendment 45, in clause 7, page 6, line 10, at end Public Bill Committee insert— ‘( ) in section 19 of the Academies Act 2010, in subsection (2), insert at start “Except subsection (A1) of section 4” and insert Thursday 9 July 2015 after subsection (3) ( ) Before the Secretary of State makes an order commencing section 4(A1) she will lay before Parliament an independent (Afternoon) report demonstrating the improvement, or otherwise, of schools which have been academised, or not, after being eligible for intervention by virtue of sections 61 or 62 EIA 2006.” The amendment requires the Secretary of State to demonstrate that [MR CHRISTOPHER CHOPE in the Chair] academisation is the best solution for schools which receive an inadequate Ofsted judgement. Education and Adoption Bill Amendment proposed (this day): 39, in clause 7, page 6, Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab): I want to line 5, at beginning insert— speak briefly in support of amendment 40, which allows us maturely to reflect on the need for academisation “If the Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills advises”.—(Kevin Brennan.) before the Secretary of State imposes her will on an underperforming school. Before the break, my hon. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to take advice before using new provision Friend the Member for Cardiff West laid out many examples of alternative methods of school improvement and made the case that academisation is not the only 2pm option. In 2012, 559 schools were judged inadequate. Question again proposed, That the amendment be Of the 294 that remained maintained, and therefore made. were not engaged in the academisation process, only nine remained inadequate a year later. On re-inspection, 152 were deemed good and six were rated outstanding. The Chair: I remind the Committee that with this we We have heard today that local authorities are not are discussing the following: taking the necessary action to improve standards in Amendment 40, in clause 7, page 6, line 5, leave out schools, but those figures clearly suggest otherwise. “must” and insert “may” Furthermore, sponsored academies are twice as likely There may be a good reason why the school should not be academised, to stay inadequate as maintained schools. and this amendment allows for mature reflection of the need for academisation. Does the Minister agree with the Local Government Amendment 46, in clause 7, page 6, line 6, after Association, which commented in evidence to the “intervention”, insert “for the first time after 1 January Committee that governance—or structure—is 2016” “a distraction in all of this.”?––[Official Report, Education and The Bill does not make clear when the Government will implement this Adoption Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2015; c. 18, Q36.] new power. This amendment would provide that the power could not be Does he not think it logical for the Secretary of State to used retrospectively. consider the case for academisation first, given that it is Amendment 24, in clause 7, page 6, line 8, at end not the silver bullet that the Minister seems to think it insert— is? Rather than placing a duty on the Secretary of State ‘(A1A) Prior to making an Academy Order in respect of a to force academisation, it would be good practice to maintained school under subsection (A1), the Secretary of State allow the Secretary of State, in consultation with the must arrange for an independent assessment of the impact of chief inspector of schools at Ofsted, to make a decision conversion into an Academy on vulnerable pupils, including but based on the available evidence and the circumstances not limited to— of individual schools. Amendments 40 and 39 would (a) children with statements of special educational needs, allow the Secretary of State space to use her judgment, (b) children with special educational needs without rather than having her hands tied arbitrarily. In the statements, event of a warning notice being issued, a school having (c) looked after children, been found to require significant improvement or a (d) children with disabilities, and school being in special measures, the amendments seek (e) children with low prior attainment not otherwise to give the Secretary of State time to consider the case falling under (a) to (d). for academisation properly. (A1B) A report of any assessment conducted under subsection (A1A) shall be laid before each House of Parliament by the The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb): Welcome Secretary of State. back to our proceedings, Mr Chope. It is again a (A1C) Where a report under subsection (A1B) indicates any pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. risks of negative impacts on vulnerable pupils, the Secretary of State must accompany the report with a statement of the steps he Amendments 39, 40, 46, 42 and 45 all relate to is taking to satisfy himself that reasonable mitigating steps will clause 7, as does amendment 24, which was tabled by be planned and implemented to reduce such risks.” the hon. Member for Sefton Central. Clause 7 places a Amendment 42, in clause 7, page 6, line 8, at end duty on the Secretary of State to make an academy insert— order for any maintained school that Ofsted has rated ‘(A2) For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (A1) does not inadequate, removing any doubt about how we will apply to a maintained nursery school or a Pupil Referral Unit.” intervene in failing schools: they must become academies The amendment is to clarify whether the new provision applies to with the support of an effective sponsor to give them maintained nursery schools and Pupil Referral Units. the necessary support and challenge to turn the school 269 Public Bill Committee9 JULY 2015 Education and Adoption Bill 270 around. The clause is therefore a crucial new power to see what results were produced? Officials have had strengthen our ability to deal with failure and to do so several days to do that, so I would have thought that he more swiftly. would have those numbers in his notes by now. Amendment 39 seeks to make the duty to issue an academy order dependent on whether the Ofsted chief inspector advises that such an order should be made. Mr Gibb: We are always crunching numbers when The Government of course greatly value the independent comparing schools and we are always looking at how advice of the chief inspector on school performance, individual schools and academies are faring. We pore but I consider the amendment to be unnecessary and over all kinds of crunched numbers the whole time. likely to lead to a less efficient process for taking the That is a particular role of the regional schools necessary action quickly once a school is identified to commissioners, who do similar analysis to identify schools, be failing. Ofsted judgments on a school’s performance and indeed academies, that are failing. are made under the powers of Her Majesty’s chief We do take swift action when academies are failing. inspector, as set out in the Education and Inspections Thetford academy, for example, was put in special measures Act 2006. When Ofsted judges a school inadequate, the in March 2013. The sponsors acknowledged that they chief inspector has already sent a clear signal to the did not have the capacity to make the required school, local authority and the Secretary of State that improvements, so the Department brought in the Inspiration he judges the school to be failing to provide an adequate Trust, who took the school on in July 2013. Results in education. Once a school is deemed inadequate, there the next academic year showed that the number of should be no further question about whether the school students achieving five or more A* to C GCSEs including should be converted into an academy. In such cases, the English and maths increased by 10 percentage points. In school is failing to provide an adequate education and December 2014—just a few months later—Ofsted judged requires academisation as quickly as possible. Regional Thetford to be “good”, with outstanding leadership. Its schools commissioners are then responsible for taking report described the school as “transformed beyond the necessary action to secure improvements, and they recognition” and said that the trust’s leadership and are accountable to Parliament through the Secretary of support had State. “created a strong culture where only the best is good enough.” The amendment would create a further review stage That demonstrates that we are equally as rigorous for the individual school before an academy order is when dealing with underperforming academies as we issued, but when Ofsted has already given a clear judgment will be when dealing with underperforming maintained that the school is failing. That additional step is unnecessary schools under the Bill. The difference is that we have the and runs against our aim to make intervention more powers to deal with underperforming academies through effective and efficient. In short, we will have already the funding agreement between the trust and the Secretary asked for the opinion of Her Majesty’s chief inspector, of State. We do not have similar powers for maintained and that will have been provided when Ofsted awards a schools; that is what the Bill is about. school a category 4 grading. Amendment 40 would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to make an academy order when Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab): The Minister is generous in a school is found to be inadequate. In every case in giving way. The example he gave was of a failing academy which a school is found to be inadequate, it must have a being removed from a chain. Do powers exist to remove fresh start immediately, secured through an academy coasting academies from their chains with the same solution with an effective sponsor. The duty that the enthusiasm? It has been reported to me many times that clause places on the Secretary of State to make an good academies trapped in bad chains struggle to get academy order in respect on any maintained school that the same freedom to move between chains that he Ofsted has rated inadequate removes any doubt about proposes for schools to break free from local authorities. how we will intervene in failing schools: they must become academies, with the support of an effective Mr Gibb: We will use the Bill’s definition of coasting sponsor. schools to assess the performance of academies. The Since 2010, sponsors have taken on more than 1,100 such regional schools commissioners will start a similar discussion schools. The replacement of the governance of a failing with academy trustees or the chief executives of those school with the support of a strong sponsor is an trusts where schools or academies in the trust are coasting. effective way to secure rapid improvement. By 2014, There are no plans to allow schools to leave academy results in sponsored secondary academies open for four chains; that is not how they work. If we are unhappy years had risen by an average of 6.4 percentage points with the governance of a school in a chain, it is the compared with their predecessor schools. During that sponsor that we are concerned about. We would be same period, results in local authority schools rose by concerned not just about that one school, but about an average of 1.3 percentage points—[Interruption.] In every school in that academy chain. previous sittings we have debated whether that is a valid judgment. I contend that it is, because it puts in perspective what those 6.4 percentage points mean in terms of how Peter Kyle: It is interesting that the Minister outlined standards are rising overall through the system. the process by which you can engage in conversation with governors at such times, yet previously you talked Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): As the Minister about the need for efficiency in dealing with maintained is using that same statistic again, will he ask his officials schools. Do you think that the process is more important to crunch the numbers for schools that were in similar when dealing with academies, and that, when dealing positions and tried other methods of improvement to with a maintained school, efficiency is the priority? 271 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education and Adoption Bill 272

The Chair: Order. The hon. Gentleman must direct Mr Gibb: Yes, I can. There is no power for a governing his remarks through the Chair. body of a school within an academy chain to vote to leave that academy chain. One can see the reasons for Mr Gibb: We are taking the same approach. Clause 7 that. If a school is underperforming and objects to deals with schools that have been awarded category 4 in improvement measures, those measures need to go ahead. an Ofsted judgment. Therefore, we will take swift action The governance of that individual academy within an to turn that school into an academy. When a school is academy chain should not be able to avoid those measures coasting, whether it is maintained or an academy, those by leaving the chain. We want academies tied in to discussions start. If the regional schools commissioner strong academy arrangements, so schools cannot choose is convinced that there is an adequate plan to deal to leave a strong arrangement. The Secretary of State effectively with that coasting, they will support that can change sponsors when there is evidence that they plan. It is only after those discussions lead the regional are not delivering high-quality education. Through that schools commissioner to believe that it does not have an mechanism, the Secretary of State can move academies adequate plan that the Secretary of State will use the from an underperforming academy chain. powers under other provisions in the Bill to move towards academisation. 2.15 pm Kevin Brennan: The Minister said that the Bill gave Steve McCabe: I want to pursue this, because I wonder power to the Secretary of State in those circumstances. whether this is really where the Minister wants to end Will he confirm that under the 2010 Act the Secretary up. What would happen if a school was locked into a of State can make an academy order in relation to any particular sponsor chain, but all the surrounding schools school that has received an adverse Ofsted finding? were locked into another, possibly because they academised Therefore, the Secretary of State has the power. What later? If the rationale for the school leaving and joining this proposal would do is restrict the type of action that the second chain were that it would lead to a more the Secretary of State is able to take. efficient distribution of the service in the area, is the Minister saying that that would not be permitted? Mr Gibb: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is a “may” power. The Secretary of State may issue an academy order under that provision of the 2010 Act. Mr Gibb: One of the things that my noble Friend The provision in clause 7 would make it automatic, so Lord Nash has done is to ensure that academy chains that the academy order is automatically issued on the and groups, as they grow, evolve around geographical day or day after Ofsted awards a judgment of “inadequate” clusters. That does not mean a geographical monopoly for that school. That fulfils our manifesto commitment with all schools in one chain. That would not be desirable, to take action from day one, when a school is demonstrated but nor would it be desirable for an academy chain to be to be failing. We make no apology for bringing in a Bill dispersed throughout the United Kingdom, which would that changes that “may”into a “must”. That demonstrates make the practical issues of travel and efficiency very the seriousness of the swift action the Government difficult. intend to take with failing schools. Altering clause 7, as amendment 40 proposes, would have the effect that the Secretary of State does not have Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): I to make an academy order when a school is found to be want to clarify something the Minister said because I “inadequate”, which would create unnecessary delays do not know if I misheard. In response to my hon. and uncertainty. We all have a responsibility to ensure Friend the Member for Hove, the Minister said that it that failing schools improve as quickly as possible. would not be possible for an academy—an individual Amendment 46 seeks to prevent clause 7 from applying school—to leave the chain. There is no provision for to schools that are judged “inadequate” by Ofsted before that. If there were a problem, he would seek to deal with January 2016. As I have just said, we think it is wrong the sponsors. Is he saying that schools are locked in in for a child to spend time in any school that is failing to perpetuity under this arrangement? Is that what we are provide the level of education that all children deserve. legislating for? We want to raise standards swiftly across the board, which means turning around all failing schools with the Mr Gibb: No. There are many examples where the same urgency. We would not achieve that by applying Secretary of State has removed academies from chains. an arbitrary date for the new power granted by clause 7, For example, the E-ACT and AET chains have both as proposed by the amendment. A school judged had their academy rebrokered into other academy chains. “inadequate”is failing, regardless of whether the judgment There is scope for doing that. I am talking about the was made before or after 1 January 2016. After the Bill provisions about leaving a federation that do not apply receives Royal Assent and the provision is commenced, to academies leaving an academy chain. proposed new section 4(A1) will apply to all schools judged “inadequate” by Ofsted at that point. Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): Will the Minister Amendment 42 seeks to prevent the Secretary of confirm that, if a school wants to leave, it cannot? The State’s duty to make an academy order from applying to examples he gave were of chains in trouble, which had maintained nursery schools and pupil referral units. All to be broken up because there were very real concerns children are entitled to a good education, regardless of from the centre. If an individual school wants to leave, I their circumstances, and that includes children in pupil cannot think of a single example where that has been referral units. We are committed to taking swift action possible. In fact such schools have less freedom, not where that is not happening. As with maintained schools, more, than they had in the maintained system. Will the the Secretary of State can impose an interim executive Minister confirm that is the case? board to replace the management of a pupil referral 273 Public Bill Committee9 JULY 2015 Education and Adoption Bill 274 unit that has been rated “inadequate” or a pupil referral rated “inadequate” by Ofsted. When a school has been unit that the Secretary of State is satisfied is found to be failing, the best solution for that school and underperforming. all its pupils is a fresh start, delivered through an The Secretary of State also has the power to make an academy solution with an effective sponsor. It is precisely academy order in relation to a pupil referral unit judged because the Government are committed to securing the by Ofsted to be “inadequate”. If a pupil referral unit is highest standards for all children, including those with failing and is not viable, the Secretary of State also has special educational needs or from disadvantaged the power to direct the local authority to close it. When backgrounds, that we are introducing the Bill to turn that happens, the local authority must provide the Secretary around failing and coasting schools. The amendment of State with information about the arrangements it is would simply add bureaucracy and delay improvements. making to ensure pupils receive suitable education. Between 2013 and 2014, key stage 2 results for pupils There are already many “good”or “outstanding”alternative eligible for free school meals in sponsored academies provision academies. For instance, there is the Bridge improved at a faster rate than those in local authority alternative provision academy, which was rated schools. The proportion of free school meal pupils “outstanding” by Ofsted in May 2013. It has gained achieving level 4 or above in reading, writing and national prominence, and is frequently visited by mathematics improved by seven percentage points in representatives of other schools and local authorities to sponsored academies, compared with four percentage see what lies behind its success. At present, clause 7 does points in local authority schools. not apply to pupil referral units. The Secretary of State will therefore not be under a duty to make an academy Steve McCabe: Will the Minister say why a specific order for any PRU that is rated “inadequate”. It will be requirement to consider the needs of children with possible, however, to apply such a provision through special needs, which I am sure he will concede is the regulations in the future if the Government wish. We most overlooked group in the education system, before therefore do not want to exclude the possibility of a school changes to an academy would simply be extra doing so now, so we are able to consider whether we bureaucracy or administration? Is he not concerned want to take that approach with pupil referral units. about that? It is too late to be concerned after it has The amendment also seeks to confirm whether clause 7 happened. applies to maintained nursery schools. I can confirm that it does not. Current legislation does not allow Mr Gibb: We are concerned about that. We are of the maintained nursery schools to become academies, and view that an effective, highly performing school is the the Secretary of State cannot make an academy order best place for such children to be educated. That is best for such provision. That is because maintained nursery achieved through an academy if the predecessor school schools do not fall within the definition of maintained has been failing to achieve that level of education. schools for the purposes of the Academies Act 2010. Amendment 45 proposes that before we make an Steve McCabe: Perhaps the Minister looks at different order commencing proposed new section 4(A1), the schools from me, but it is perfectly possible to have an Government must publish an independent report effective, highly performing school that has a lousy demonstrating the improvement of academised schools. record on kids with special needs. In fact, some of them Under section 11 of the Academies Act 2010, the are so highly performing that they go to extraordinary Government are already required to publish an annual lengths to ensure that youngsters with special needs report on the performance of academies. The latest cannot get access. It is not extra bureaucracy to say that report, focused on the 2013-14 academic year, was this particular category of children deserves a bit more published on 30 June 2015 and sets out many examples attention. of the progress made by academies. At Wyndham Primary Academy in Derby, for example, which is sponsored by Mr Gibb: May I disabuse the hon. Gentleman of that the Spencer Academies Trust, after just two years, 90% last comment? Academies do play their part in providing of pupils are achieving the expected level in reading, for children with special educational needs. Sponsored writing and mathematics—up from 64% at its predecessor academies actually have a higher proportion of pupils school. with special educational needs than the average across Making an academy order enables us to move quickly all state-funded schools. In January last year, 22.1% of to replace poor leadership and governance under the pupils in sponsored secondary academies were identified guidance of an expert sponsor. The last Ofsted annual as having some form of SEN, compared with 17.8% of schools report, published at the end of last year, said: pupils in all state-funded secondary schools. The figures “Overall, sponsor-led academies have had a positive and sustained are similar for primary schools. impact on attainment in challenging areas”. Nothing in the Bill removes the requirement under Kevin Brennan: Will the Minister give way? section 11 of the 2010 Act to publish an annual academies report, containing information on the academy Mr Gibb: I will happily. No doubt my statistics are performance. I hope that I have satisfied the concerns of going to be challenged once again. the hon. Member for Cardiff West and that he feels able to withdraw his amendment. Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman is correct, because Amendment 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Sefton that is not the interesting comparison. It is hardly Central, would require the Secretary of State to arrange surprising that sponsored academies have a higher number for an independent assessment of the impact of conversion of children in that category since they are the schools before issuing an academy order in respect of a school that were likely to have been causing concern. The real 275 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education and Adoption Bill 276

[Kevin Brennan] Mr Gibb: We are working with the Collaborative Academies Trust to ensure that it has a robust action test would be comparing the number of special needs pupils plan to help make improvements in its schools. Whenever in those schools, now that they have become sponsored there are failures in sponsored academies, we take swift academies, with the number they had before. The Minister action. The record shows that we take swifter action in is no doubt about to supply us with that statistic. those circumstances than has historically been the case in many local authorities, where there are examples of Mr Gibb: I hope to be able to do that, but in the schools languishing in special measures for many months, meantime I can tell the hon. Gentleman that academies if not years. perform well as far as children with special educational needs are concerned. Between 2013 and 2014, key stage 2 results for pupils with special educational needs in Kevin Brennan: On that point, will the Minister confirm sponsored academies improved at a faster rate than that every time an academy receives an “inadequate” those in local authority schools. The proportion of Ofsted rating, it will be removed and given to another SEN pupils who achieved level 4 or above in reading, sponsor the very next day, in the same way that he writing and maths improved by six percentage points in proposes maintained schools should be academised or sponsored academies, compared with four percentage have an academy order issued the day after receiving points in local authority schools. that Ofsted rating? That would show he is serious about parity of treatment. Kevin Brennan: The statistic that the Minister just read out—inadequate as it is, as we have already pointed Mr Gibb: We are certainly taking swift action. The out—shows that academies are doing worse with special difference that the hon. Gentleman fails to understand needs pupils than with other pupils, given the statistics is that a new system of academy chains is now developing. he read out earlier. There are more than 400 academy chains of at least two academy schools evolving into successful chains. Some Mr Gibb: No doubt one would see similar disparities are taking time to become effective in their overall across the system. governance and school improvement support services. The hon. Gentleman keeps asking about a like-for-like Where they are struggling, we take action to remove the comparison. The Department has published detailed sponsor or to insist that reform takes place. analysis comparing the performance of sponsored We are trying to make the evolving system work so academies and similar maintained schools. Analysis that we have a collection of effective academy groups published in 2012 and 2013 showed sponsored academies and chains that we can see developing. We have Ark and performing at a faster rate than maintained schools Harris at the top of the performance table, but other with similar prior attainment, levels of deprivation and academy chains such as Outwood Grange are busy pupil starting points. Last week, the NFER published developing effective models of how to run multi-academy data comparing the 2014 GCSE performance of academies trusts. I am optimistic and excited that, in the future, we open for two to four years with those of matched will have a very effective governance system. Be in no maintained schools. It found that the percentage of doubt that where we see academies graded as category 4, pupils achieving five or more A* to C GCSEs in sponsored we will take swift action with their multi-academy trusts. academies was 2.9 percentage points higher than in If we believe that they are not capable of managing similar local authority schools. With that statistic, I their school improvement, we will take action to remove hope to have put this debate to rest once and for all. that sponsor.

Bill Esterson: Far from it. The Minister accepted the 2.30 pm point made by my hon. Friend the Member for The final point I will make before I give way to the Birmingham, Selly Oak about children with disabilities hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak is that the and SEN not making the same progress as other children, academies movement, initiated by the Labour Government whether in academies or elsewhere. That is surely why before 2010, has been in place for less than a decade. the amendment is so important. There must be a proper The problems that we are encountering in local authorities review of children with the greatest needs before any have been there for several decades. changes are made. When local authority-maintained schools are put Mr Gibb: We are against not analysis but delays to into category 4 by Ofsted, my view is that the local academisation. This kind of well-intentioned proposition authorities have had their chance to deal with them and can and probably would lead to delays, which we believe that is why academisation is now the automatic route. damage children with special educational needs as much Some academy chains have been in place for just a as, if not more than, children without special needs. matter of months or a few years and some of them need a little more time to ensure that they get their school improvement measures right. Sometimes, we believe Bill Esterson: The Minister says that he does not want that those chains are not capable of getting that school delays to academisation. Ofsted finally published today improvement service right. In such cases, we remove the its report from three months ago about the Collaborative sponsorship, as we have done to 75 academies. Academies Trust. One of its concerns was the failure to close the gap between the most disadvantaged children and everyone else. Does that not show that the rush to Steve McCabe: I have an awful feeling that, in a little academisation is the problem? We need this kind of under a decade, we may well find ourselves saying, “We amendment in the Bill so that there is a proper review, told you so,” as we recognise that the mad rush to especially for the most disadvantaged children. academisation at all costs had some downsides that the 277 Public Bill Committee9 JULY 2015 Education and Adoption Bill 278

Minister is blinded to at the moment. However, to school for one single day. If it is an academy school, it is return to special educational needs, he said that he is all right because it will have plenty of opportunity for not against analysis but he does not want a proper, evolution to take place—that is, by the way, if the thorough assessment because that would be excessively school teaches evolution. Some of the schools being bureaucratic. What will happen to children with education, contemplated by some sponsors apparently have doubts health and care plans who are currently on the roll of about one of our greatest ever scientific achievements—the maintained schools? Who will guarantee that the provisions theory of evolution by Charles Darwin. Anyway, we in their plans are carried over in total to the new will leave that aside. arrangement? We have teased at least that point out of the Minister and have had a good knockaround with the amendments. Mr Gibb: That is a good point. The law is clear: under So much more could be said, but I think we have said part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014 at section 43, most of it. We want to move on to the debate on clause academies are treated as maintained schools and so can stand part, so I will not press our amendment to a vote. be named in a pupil’s education, health and care plan, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. which means that that school—that includes academies— Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. must take that pupil. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Steve McCabe: I apologise; perhaps I was not terribly clear. When a child already has an education, health and care plan, the maintained school that they currently Mr Gibb: The clause places a duty on the Secretary of attend will be listed. Without excessive bureaucracy, State to make an academy order for any maintained how will that be transferred across? Will we have to school that Ofsted has rated “inadequate”, whether by modify such plans? Who will be responsible for ensuring virtue of being in special measures or of being judged that that happens and that the plan is transferred in to have serious weaknesses. This removes any doubt total to the new arrangements? about how we will intervene in failing schools: they must become academies with the support of an effective sponsor to provide the support and challenge necessary Mr Gibb: That is a technical point. My instinctive to turn that school around. The clause is therefore a answer is that, of course, if an education, health and crucial new power to strengthen our ability to deal with care plan names a maintained school that converts to be failure and to do so more quickly. an academy, that plan will apply equally to the successor academy school. However, given the technical nature of We are clear that becoming a sponsored academy is that point, I will ensure that I have got my answer an effective way rapidly to transform a failing school. correct, so I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. There are numerous success stories of failing schools I hope that I have managed to deal with hon. Members’ being turned around by the leadership of a sponsor, concerns and that, on that basis, the hon. Member for and of the huge improvement that can make to Cardiff West will withdraw his amendment. performance. For example, Meopham school was judged inadequate by Ofsted in 2012. Attainment across all subjects, especially mathematics, was poor. The Swale Kevin Brennan: We have had an interesting debate on Academies Trust took on sponsorship of the school in this group of amendments, in which we have teased out 2013 and appointed two new assistant headteachers some interesting points from the Minister. One is that who were both specialists in maths. Extra classes were when academy schools and chains are deemed “inadequate” introduced to support students. Ofsted described the by Ofsted, he is happy for them to evolve—I think that impact of the trust as transformative and judged the is the word he used—out of the situation. Evolution is school to be good in 2012. the preferred option for academy schools that are found to be “inadequate” by Ofsted. By requiring the Secretary of State to make an academy order in respect of a failing school, the clause will make The Ofsted report on the Collaborative Academies it automatic that failing schools must become sponsored Trust mentioned Lumbertubs primary school in academies. When a school is found to be failing, a Northamptonshire, which was a predecessor school transformation needs to be able to take place from day before it was academised. It received grade 3 in its final one. Our experience over the past five years shows that inspection before academisation, which means that it in many cases where it was most needed, transformation was definitely requiring improvement; there is no question was delayed by unnecessary debate, delaying tactics and about that. However, in the school’s most recent section 5 obstruction of a process. The Bill seeks to put an end to inspection since academisation, it was given grade 4—special such delays, which do nothing to improve the quality of measures. The school was turned into an academy and education that pupils receive. went from a grade 3 to a grade 4. Under the Bill, if that school were a maintained school, the Secretary of State would have absolutely no Kevin Brennan: The Minister keeps referring to this as choice but to issue—the very next day, we have been a new power. As I pointed out, the Secretary of State told—an academy order for the school to be academised. already has the power to academise. This is not a new That is a bit difficult when the school already is an power; it is a new restraint on the Secretary of State. It academy and has gone from grade 3 to an “inadequate” limits their power to take another action that might be special measures situation. Under those circumstances, the appropriate one when a school is found “inadequate” it is allowed to evolve out of the situation in which it has by Ofsted. been deemed “inadequate”. As I said on Second Reading, The Minister went on to describe academisation as so much for the Secretary of State’s professed view that an effective way—he did not use the definite article—which no child should be allowed to languish in an inadequate suggests there may be other effective ways. That is the 279 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education and Adoption Bill 280

[Kevin Brennan] was all that some schools received after exchanging local authority governance for a chain of academies. case we have been making and he himself has accepted The RSA Academies Commission found that, by saying that those ways could be used in the interim “it is increasingly clear that academy status alone is not a panacea prior to the academy order finally taking effect. He for improvement.” went on to describe and give an example of where It went on to say that, academisation has been accompanied by an improvement in the school’s performance. Earlier I gave an example “the evidence considered by the Commission does not suggest that improvement across all academies has been strong enough to of where academisation did exactly the opposite, where transform the life chances of children from the poorest families.” it resulted in the school’s performance declining, with the school going from category 3 to 4; that is, from 2.45 pm requiring improvement to inadequate. Earlier I cited evidence from the Catholic Education I want to make it clear that we are completely on Service, as well as case studies it provided of alternative board with the concept that, in certain circumstances, routes that have been taken successfully. Like us, the the use of a sponsored academy can be the right approach Catholic Education Service is not opposed to academies to school improvement. If there are the right sponsors but is clear and has proven that other ways of intervening and real quality, it can be a powerful way to turn a in and supporting schools can work, yet the Government school around. However, the clause would place a cling to their belief that, in the words of their press requirement on the Secretary of State to issue an academy release, the Bill will order the very next day, according to the Minister, no matter the circumstances or how many sponsors are “sweep away bureaucratic and legal loopholes” available, their quality or whether they are to be trusted that previously prevented schools from improving. There with a large number of schools. is no loophole or legal bar that prevents the Secretary of Whatever their previous record, without their being State from academising a school if she wants to. vetted—another issue, Mr Chope—the Secretary of There is little real difference between the improvements State must hand over the school, via an academy order, in results. The Minister should stop exaggerating, as the to an academy sponsor whatever the current circumstances. Education Committee suggested. It is easy to swap That means the Secretary of State does not have to take anecdotes—Opposition Members have been doing that professional advice or worry about whether it is appropriate. a bit too, to give the Minister a taste of his own The decision is, in effect, taken in advance under this medicine. No one would deny that there are great examples clause. It is not surprising that there is opposition to the of sponsored academies working well, but anecdotes clause from all sorts of quarters. are not proof. In reality, being a sponsored academy I quote from the NASUWT briefing on clause 7 of does not always work, as we have shown. We need to the Bill: look at the data and the evidence, which is what we have “The lack of guidance on the face of the Bill on how the been calling for. Secretary of State should exercise these discretionary powers The Secretary of State tells us that waiting in the could lead to uncertainty across the system and unacceptable wings are variation between the ways in which different cases are handled. “the best education experts”, It should be a minimum expectation that these powers should be used in a way that is transparent and consistent. This clause seeks who will to apply an ideological ‘one size fits all’ approach to school “intervene in poor schools from the first day we spot failure.” improvement, regardless of local circumstances or evidence.” That is great, and we hope it will happen. However, the That is exactly the point that we have been making. NAO has reminded us that Ministers have little idea We gave copious examples of other forms of school what is going on in the academies that the experts are improvement during the debate on the amendment. We supposed to be responsible for, let alone in the many think that the clause is not fit for purpose. The debate is maintained schools that they will take responsibility for not about whether academies sometimes work; it is as a result of the Bill. We need to hear a lot more about about the proposition that they always work, and that who these experts are, because some of them are presumably nothing else ever works as well. In making those the people who ran the 123 schools that have been presumptions the Ministers are ignoring what the Select found to be “inadequate”. I presume the Minister thought Committee said. The cross-party Select Committee—with that those people were experts when handing over the a Conservative majority—in the previous Parliament schools, yet the schools have been found to be “inadequate” called on the Government to “stop exaggerating” with and have been made academies as a result. There is regard to the success of academies. nothing to stop the Secretary of State acting on these “Current evidence does not prove that academies raise standards schools, but all the best education experts out there overall or for disadvantaged children.” should be doing so. I am glad the Minister in his last remarks provided us Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that with some new data we can get our teeth into, and we the qualities of the sponsors the Government have will enjoy doing so. Perhaps he could stick to that in found have sometimes been lacking. The Sutton Trust future rather than the pointless comparisons that he found that there are more academy chains that perform sometimes makes. significantly worse than chains that perform significantly Sir Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector, said at the better. Just before the general election, the Department end of 2014: slipped out its own research, which showed that in a “There could be little difference in school improvement under combined league table of local authorities and academy an academy chain or a council.” chains, 47 of the top 50 are local authority jurisdictions. He argued that, That might not be a fair comparison, but those are the “a new name and a breathless new motto” DFE’s figures. 281 Public Bill Committee9 JULY 2015 Education and Adoption Bill 282

The Government have resisted tooth and nail allowing Kevin Brennan: I agree with everything the hon. Lady Ofsted to inspect the chains, but when Ofsted looked at said in the first part of her intervention, and I am very groups of schools in chains, it found a huge amount of pleased about the success of the intervention in her poor practice. Even the Government have found it constituency that she talked about in the second part of necessary to prevent 14 chains from taking new schools her intervention. She said that that kind of improvement and have removed schools from some chains because can take place in the maintained sector or under a their performance is so poor. That is despite a number sponsored academy programme. She was lucky that the of those chains paying their senior staff far more than Collaborative Academies Trust—those great experts who any headteacher—indeed, more than the Prime Minister are supposed to take over and improve our schools—did and the Secretary of State, and no doubt more than the not take over the school in her constituency, because if Minister himself. they did the school might have ended up in special In reality, the Government do not have any case for measures. That example makes my point that we must the clause. They cannot go on asserting that sponsored not tether the Secretary of State to a particular course academy status is always the best answer, because the of action, which is what clause 7 does. Turning around data say otherwise. The people who are best placed to an “inadequate” school requires the right course of know, such as the chief inspector or the Education action, with the right leadership, the right people and Committee, also say otherwise. the right solution. We need more evidence about the degree to which the Steve McCabe: As my hon. Friend demonstrated, fragmentation of what is intended to be a national there is little evidence to support the Minister’s arguments. system of schools is linked to the concerns my hon. In truth, the clause is the authoritarian face of this Friends expressed about the treatment of special needs Government. This is the Government at their dictatorial pupils and the socioeconomic segregation between schools. worst. The Minister will be stripped of all flexibility as a We need to look carefully at that. Professor Stephen result of the clause, which he should call the “compulsory Gorard of Durham University pointed out in his written academisation at all costs” clause, because that is what evidence that we should be very careful about that he really seeks to achieve here. fragmentation and ensure it does not cause socioeconomic divides and issues around special needs, which we spoke about earlier. On that basis, I ask my hon. Friends to Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend, once again, is right. join me in opposing clause 7 stand part. We have to wonder what the Secretary of State’s problem is. Does she not trust herself to make the right decision? Mr Gibb: The Bill is not driven by ideology but by Why does she have to legislate to ensure she makes the tackling underperformance, and we are happy for local right decision? It is a highly unusual clause, and I am authorities such as Bristol to do their work. GCSE racking my brains to think of something similar to it. I results in Bristol have risen for 10 years in a row. Ofsted am sure that some constitutional experts, many of whom has judged 85% of primaries and 90% of secondaries to will be following our proceedings, will dig some up. I be “good” or “outstanding” and 100% of nursery and hope that this peculiar clause will be removed from the special schools are now judged “good” or better. Bill, if not now then at a later stage, not because it is not vitally important that we do everything we can as Kevin Brennan: I am pleased to hear that, but the quickly as possible to improve our schools, because it is, clause says that should a Bristol school have an Ofsted but simply because it is extremely foolish for Ministers inspection tomorrow and receive an “inadequate” rating, to tie their hands and prevent themselves from carrying the Minister would not be prepared to work with the out other forms of intervention that might be the right local authority and an academy order would be granted pathway for improving schools in the long term. the very next day. The Government do not say enough about pupils who are languishing in failing academies—25% of failing Mr Gibb: Yes, that is right, because Bristol’s oversight schools are academies. From listening to Ministers’ of that particular school, of which it would have had wonderful anecdotes about academies that are thankfully oversight for decades, would have been proven not to be successful, it would be easy to think that failing academies effective. We are not prepared to tolerate or risk a do not exist. We believe that a judgment about the further decade of unsuccessful oversight. We are looking at future of a school should be based on evidence and on underperformance. Where regional schools commissioners the particular circumstances of the school and the see high performance in schools, they are simply not community. There should be a proper, open debate interested in using their resources to intervene. That is about that. There should be no stitching up of things the system to which we are moving. behind closed doors. Bill Esterson: I was pleased to hear the Minister Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con): Is it not clear praise a local authority for the quality of its support—I from the evidence we have heard that some academy have not heard him do that often—but if Bristol or chains perform excellently and some do not, and some another local authority is doing a good job and an maintained schools perform very well and many do academy in that area is classed as category 4, would the not? It is a mixed picture, but it is clear that the Minister consider allowing the local authority to take academisation programme over the past decade has over from the existing sponsor? The process seems to be produced success. The academisation of a school in my moving in one direction only. constituency has taken it from below average to “good”, and it is on track to “outstanding”. That must surely be Mr Gibb: The school will have changed into an progress. Anything that empowers that process and academy x months ago from that local authority. The takes it a step forward must be supported. local authority will have had the chance to improve the 283 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education and Adoption Bill 284

[Mr Gibb] Clause 8 school but did not succeed, so the school then became a CONSULTATION ABOUT CONVERSION sponsored academy. If it fails, the wrong answer would be to send it back to the local authority. The right answer is either to ensure that the multi-academy trust 3pm is developing an effective school improvement service or Kevin Brennan: I beg to move amendment 47, in to move the school to a new sponsor. clause 8, page 6, line 15, leave out— Bill Esterson: The Minister has forgotten what has ‘is converted into an Academy’ been happening for the past few years. A large number and insert— of “good” or “outstanding” schools have been converted ‘applies for an Academy order under section 4’. into academies. In fact, for a time, they were allowed to This amendment makes clear that consultation on an application for convert only if they were “good” or “outstanding”. If Academy status must occur before an application for an Academy those schools end up in category 4, the logic of the Order is made. Minister’s argument suggests that a good local authority should be able to take them over. The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 48, in clause 8, page 6, leave out lines 18 to Mr Gibb: Those schools will have converted voluntarily 22. and many still stand alone. Collaborating with other A consequence of requiring consultation before an application for an academies is the long-term answer even for stand-alone Academy Order [see amendment 47]. academies. That is happening. We now have 400 or 500 sponsored academies, many of which started life as “good” or “outstanding” schools. When a converter Kevin Brennan: What a shame—I really thought that academy goes into special measures, we would expect it we might have won that one! to collaborate and be taken over by a successful sponsor, Under the Academies Act 2010 there is a duty to because, as Ofsted said in its annual report at the end of consult on an application for academy status, albeit a last year, fairly loose one, put on the governing body to consult “sponsor-led academies have had a positive and sustained impact who “they think appropriate”. Such a consultation can on attainment in challenging areas”. happen before or after an academy order is made and it It is because of judgments such as that, and because of is only on whether a school should be an academy. the experience of the academies movement, that we are There is no such duty on the Department for Education, determined that that must be the right approach to despite the fact that in many cases it will require the dealing with failure. conversion to happen, nor is there any consultation on Turning to two of the points made by the hon. who should be a sponsor. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, I can confirm that On schools eligible for intervention, the clause removes the technical answer I gave him regarding education, all requirements to consult, which is a familiar theme in health and care plans is correct. Also, he said in an the Bill. Earlier last month, we heard the Secretary of intervention that clause 7 has stripped us of all flexibility State present the Government’s true intentions in the in all circumstances, but that is incorrect. Clause 12 Bill: it is seen as a way to gives the Secretary of State a power in certain exceptional “sweep away the bureaucratic and legal loopholes previously circumstances to revoke an academy order made under exploited by those who put ideological objections above the best proposed new section 4(A1) or section 4(1)(b) of the interests of children”— Academies Act 2010. The Secretary of State has the otherwise known as parents. The objections she referred flexibility in some circumstances to revoke her own to are mostly those of parents with affected children order, but we will discuss those rarefied circumstances and members of the local community. It really has come when considering clause 12. to something when parents’ genuine concerns about the Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Government’s rather dogmatic approach to schools policy The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 6. are treated with such contempt by Ministers. Division No. 3] Amendments 47 and 48 would rescue the requirement to consult, which vitally gives a voice to the local AYES community that the schools in question serve. It has Berry, James James, Margot been said that, under the clause, governors will no Donelan, Michelle Tomlinson, Michael longer have a duty of care to their children; instead they Drummond, Mrs Flick will have a duty to implement Government policy, and Fernandes, Suella Trevelyan, Mrs Anne-Marie that that in itself is an attack on freedom of speech. It is Gibb, Mr Nick Walker, Mr Robin not surprising that governors around the country are concerned. NOES The National Governors’ Association said: Brennan, Kevin Kyle, Peter “The proposed Bill removes the requirement to consult parents, Esterson, Bill Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma pupils and staff on the decision to change the status of the school, Haigh, Louise McCabe, Steve if the school is eligible for intervention and subject to an academy order. We accept in clear cut situations, school improvement should not be delayed, but in the interests of transparency, NGA Question accordingly agreed to. suggests that the case of an academy order over and above other forms of interventions, in particular an IEB, should be made Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. public.” 285 Public Bill Committee9 JULY 2015 Education and Adoption Bill 286

We know that the Department has a history of favouring propose that that approach should change, and that the closed-door policy making and believes that it always consultation by a governing body that proposes to knows better than everyone else, so it is a slight convert voluntarily would have to take place before the inconvenience for the Department that we live in a school applies for an academy order, rather than, as democracy. The Government do not always know best, currently required, before conversion is finalised—a so we should not assume that they always do. later stage in the process. There are good reasons why it is usually most appropriate Mr Gibb: Clause 8 removes the requirement to consult for a formal consultation to take place after the academy where a school is eligible for intervention. An academy order is made. Before the order is made, the governing order will be made either under the existing section 4(1)(b) body will prepare an application to the regional schools of the Academies Act 2010, where a school is eligible commissioner to convert to academy status, and that for intervention, or under the new section 4(A1), where application may not necessarily be accepted. For example, an academy order must be made because a school has the RSC may judge that a school that has applied to been rated “inadequate” by Ofsted. The effect of the convert to being a stand-alone academy should instead clause is that, where a school is eligible for intervention, join a multi-academy trust or benefit from the support a consultation is not needed on whether it should of a sponsor. For that reason, it will generally be most become an academy, but a governing body will still need appropriate to consult after the regional schools to consult if it proposes to convert to academy status by commissioner has considered the application. If the choice and is not eligible for intervention. application is approved, the regional schools commissioner Amendment 48 would require the governing body to will make an academy order. This is an enabling order. consult when a school is to become an academy as a It is a first step in the administrative process that a result of intervention by the regional schools commissioner. school will go through to become an academy. It acts as The Bill makes it clear that any school judged by Ofsted an agreement, in principle, that the school will be permitted to be “inadequate” will become a sponsored academy. to become an academy, but it is not a guarantee. There In some cases, a regional schools commissioner may are further processes between an academy order being also require schools that are eligible for intervention for made and a school becoming an academy to work other reasons to become sponsored academies, such as through, such as the arrangements for the transfer of where a school has met the coasting definition and the staff, land and assets. By consulting after the academy regional schools commissioner has judged that it does order is made, the governing body has more details not have a sufficient plan to improve. Where a school is about the implications of conversion that will help underperforming and an academy solution is required, inform the views of staff and parents. we want the improvements in standards to begin The crucial decision-making point is when the school immediately. The process should not be delayed by and the Secretary of State enter into academy arrangements, ongoing debate about whether the school should become which is when the funding agreement is signed. It will an academy. An academy solution, with the support therefore be more meaningful for schools voluntarily and leadership of an effective sponsor, is the best way to converting to academy status to consult about whether turn around that school. to enter into academy arrangements with the Secretary Our experience over the past five years shows that, in of State at that point in the process, so that staff and many cases where it was most needed, transformation parents can give informed consideration to what is best has been delayed by unnecessary debate, delaying tactics for the future of the school. and obstruction of the process. Twydall school, for Although the statutory consultation generally takes example, was judged to be inadequate in March 2014. place after an academy order has been made, governing The Department wrote to the school and to the local bodies are able to carry out some consultation before authority within five working days of the Ofsted judgment making their application, if they wish. For example, to outline that an academy solution should be considered, they may informally consult the staff prior to making and in May 2014 the governing body voted to become an application and then consult more widely after the an academy. Subsequently, however, there has been a academy order has been made. Clause 8 does not prevent series of drawn-out consultations, which have prevented the first informal consultation from happening for schools a sponsor from being agreed and put in place. Between voluntarily converting. I therefore do not agree that the June 2014 and May 2015, Ofsted conducted four section approach to consultation proposed by the hon. Members 8 monitoring inspections and found that the education for Cardiff West and for Birmingham, Selly Oak in of pupils at that school has continued to suffer throughout amendments 47 and 48 is necessary or appropriate. I the period of delays caused by consultation. The Bill urge them not to press their amendments. seeks to put an end to such problems, which do nothing to improve the quality of education that pupils receive. Kevin Brennan: We remain concerned about the Amendment 48 would serve only to defer those essential withdrawal of consultation in the Bill for all sorts of improvements, which is why I urge colleagues not to reasons. It is not my intention to press the amendments accept it. to a vote, but we have laid our concerns on the record The position is different for high-performing schools and they remain. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the that wish to benefit from the additional freedoms that amendment. academy status provides. Such schools are currently Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. required to consult on academy conversion. They should Kevin Brennan: I beg to move amendment 49, in discuss that decision with staff, parents and others who clause 8, page 6, line 24, leave out “any” and insert “a have an interest, and they should take account of those majority of” views before entering into academy arrangements with Currently, legislation does not require a majority decision of the the Secretary of State. Clause 8 makes it clear that that Governing Body of a Federation to apply for a federated school to requirement will continue, but amendments 47 and 48 become an Academy. This amendment rectifies this position. 287 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education and Adoption Bill 288

[Kevin Brennan] I have spoken already about the case of Twydall school. Another example in which the principle of This is a probing amendment, which reflects the fact conversion was agreed but the process became unnecessarily that legislation currently does not require a majority drawn out involved Bydales school in Redcar and Cleveland. decision of the governing body of a federation to apply That school was found by Ofsted to require special for a federated school to become an academy. It might measures in December 2013, but did not benefit from a be a sensible provision that the majority of the governing sponsor until February 2015. Outwood Grange, a high- body of a federation applying for a federated school to performing sponsor with a strong track record, was become an academy should agree with that decision. If identified for the school, but the governing body and a majority of concerned governors oppose the academisation the local authority were not supportive. The process of a federated school, it seems that, superficially, the was delayed while the local authority attempted to desires of that majority ought to be honoured. I should persuade others to sponsor the school, despite none of be grateful if the Minister would elucidate that point. the alternatives having the experience and track record of Outwood Grange. That resulted in the process taking Mr Gibb: The amendment seeks to change the twice as long as it should have done, while the school consultation process required for a federated school to remained in special measures. become an academy. It proposes that the decision on who to consult when making an academy order application Louise Haigh: Outwood Grange operates an academy for a federated school should be made by a majority of in my constituency, and if Outwood Grange were about the governing body, not simply by the governing body, to take over another school in my constituency, I would as explained by the hon. Member for Cardiff West. The want parents and pupils to be aware of its track record amendments would have no material effect because all of governance of that school, because it has expelled a decisions of a governing body, including who to consult, number of SEN pupils and pupils from backgrounds of are already made by majority vote. Therefore, we resist high deprivation. Headteachers of other primary schools the proposed amendment. in my constituency have expressed grave concerns, as If, however, the intention of the amendment is to have staff at the school. I am particularly interested to change not the consultation process, but the application hear the Minister give the example of Outwood Grange, process for a federated school, I can confirm that the given my experience and the experience of parents and Department has recently consulted on changes to pupils in my constituency. regulations to require at least 50%—not 100%—of prescribed governors to approve an academy order application. The consultation closed on Friday 3 July Mr Gibb: I cannot comment on the specific example and we are now considering the response. Any changes that the hon. Lady gave, but Outwood Grange as an will be made to the regulations in September. Therefore, academy sponsor is highly effective; and so far as the there is no need for the matter to be addressed through school that I cited, Bydales school, is concerned, it is the amendment or in primary legislation. On that basis, still early days since Outwood Grange took it over, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. the indications are that it is making good progress. The Bill seeks to put an end to the delays that I have Kevin Brennan: I am grateful to the Minister for that described. They do nothing to improve the quality of clarification. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. the education that pupils receive. We want the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. transformation of a failing school to begin from day Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the one. However, this clause retains the requirement that Bill. where the governing body of a school is proposing voluntarily that it should become an academy, it must 3.15 pm consult on whether the conversion should take place. In Mr Gibb: Clause 8 inserts into the Academies Act these schools, the governing body is expected to take 2010 a new section 5 concerning consultation on academy account of that consultation process in deciding whether conversion. The new section 5 preserves the requirement to go ahead with becoming an academy. to consult on the proposed conversion in the case of schools that are voluntarily proposing to opt for academy Kevin Brennan: Clause 8 represents an extraordinary conversion, and maintains the freedom of the school’s departure from the normal processes of governmental governing body to carry out such a consultation before decision making. The Secretary of State is empowered or after the academy order, or an application for an under this clause to make a decision without making academy order, has been made. As now, consultation any attempt whatever to listen to pupils, parents, teachers, must be with those the governing body think appropriate. governors, employers—anyone at all who might be thought The significant difference made by this clause is that the to have some knowledge of the situation on the ground. new section 5 provides that where the academy order is In fact, concern has been expressed by the NASUWT in to be made because the school is eligible for intervention, its briefing that the provision might breach article 26(3) there is no duty to consult. of the universal declaration of human rights: Where a school is underperforming and an academy “Parents have a…right to choose the kind of education that solution is required, we want the transformation to take shall be given to their children.” place from day one; we do not want the process to be Of course, we know what the Secretary of State delayed through debates about whether a school should thinks of other people’s views, because her press release become an academy. Our experience, as I have said, is about the Bill said that that in many cases where it was most needed, transformation “campaigners could delay or overrule failing schools being improved was delayed by such debate, delaying tactics and obstruction by education experts by obstructing the process by which academy of the process. sponsors take over running schools.” 289 Public Bill Committee9 JULY 2015 Education and Adoption Bill 290

That is really the attitude expressed in the Bill to any Reading, I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall concerns, or anybody who ought to be consulted. Of South (Valerie Vaz) put it very well: course, it is based on the absolute presumption that the “Amazingly, the Bill says that parents should not be consulted, Secretary of State’s view and solution is always best, but so the very people who know about a school will not be allowed as we have demonstrated time and again during our to have a say. In this country, we consult, we do not dictate, and debates, that is not always the case. To put it generously, that is one of the key areas that judges will look at in considering there is no evidence that her case has been made and whether a decision is lawful.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2015; that academy conversion is more likely to lead to Vol. 597, c. 684.] improvement in an inadequate school than adopting The Minister and the Government are opening themselves other school improvement approaches in particular up to that kind of challenge. I agree with my hon. circumstances. And there is plenty of evidence, from Friend and we will continue to pursue this matter as the Ofsted and from the DFE’s own analysis of results, that Bill progresses, although we will not press clause stand there is enormous variation in effectiveness among sponsors. part to a Division. That is why, as we found out earlier, Ministers always Question put and agreed to. mention good sponsors when talking about academies Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. but never really emphasise the bad sponsors until we press them and make them do so. The idea that every sponsor who comes forward has some unique level of expertise is frankly not true. Clause 9 What is most likely to improve a particular school in CONSULTATION ABOUT IDENTITY OF ACADEMY SPONSOR IN particular circumstances is a matter of judgment. CERTAIN CASES Exercising judgment requires evidence, and gathering evidence means listening to those who have views. Kevin Brennan: I beg to move amendment 50, in Dismissing those who have different experiences and clause 9, page 6, line 29, leave out from second “section” different views is not an acceptable, or even a sensible, to end of line 31 and insert “4 has effect” way to carry out any branch of government. It inevitably leads to bad decisions, and certainly worse Clause 9 provides for consultation about who should sponsor an Academy in certain cases. This amendment widens the scope of the new decisions than would have been made in general, had section 5A to include all Academy sponsors. they been made after obtaining the views of those who have some knowledge locally. There is a case generally for consultation and a case The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss for consultation on specific issues. Local communities the following: should not have particular sponsors imposed on them Amendment 51, in clause 9, page 6, line 32, after without having some say in the matter. They are not just “into”, insert “or terminating” interchangeable; they have different and particular This amendment provides for consultation when there is a change of approaches to managing schools and the curriculum, sponsor. and they have different records in terms of their effectiveness Amendment 52, in clause 9, page 6, line 34, at end and of managing public money. Despite the strenuous insert— efforts of Ministers to prevent Ofsted from inspecting academy chains, we know from Ofsted how inadequate “(za) parents, some chains are. From the Select Committee evidence, (zb) school staff, for example, we know that one chain, the Kemnal (zc) local community, Academies Trust, takes pride in having sacked 26 out of (zd) local authority,” 40 headteachers and holding the axe over the heads of This amendment widens the group of persons that must be consulted the rest, with targets to be met every six weeks. Not about the identity of the academy sponsor or when there is a change of surprisingly, perhaps, Ofsted did not think much of its Academy sponsor. record. New clause 3—Consultation about identity of Academy Communities are entitled to say that they do not sponsor in all cases— want this regime locally, and then there are the cases in ‘After section 5 of the Academies Act 2010 insert— which the proposed sponsor is given the job of carrying “5B Consultation about identity of Academy sponsor in out the consultation. That is hardly a way of guaranteeing all cases that the process is open and above board. It is wrong (1) This section applies where an Academy order under that it is done behind closed doors—not only in principle, section 4(A1) has effect in respect of any maintained school. but it makes the whole process of improving a school (2) Before entering into Academy arrangements in relation to harder than it needs to be. A sensible Government the school the Secretary of State must consult the following negotiate and seek to persuade local people. They listen about the identity of the person with whom the arrangements are and are prepared to amend their views, and recognise to be entered into— that there is not only one source of wisdom. Schools are (a) the school’s governing body, not lollipops to be doled out to Ministers’ friends, (b) the local authority, supporters and party donors. Government should not leave themselves open to the charge that they have (c) the Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Schools, favourites and will support them regardless of evidence to the contrary. (d) parents of registered pupils at the school, It may ultimately be that after consulting, the (e) the teaching and other staff of the school, Government decide to carry on with their initial view. (f) registered pupils at the school, and That is fine, but not to consult at all is wrong. On Second (g) any other such persons as he thinks appropriate.”’ 291 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education and Adoption Bill 292

Kevin Brennan: We are now motoring on to clause 9. and that at the time of the inspection, As you said, Mr Chope, we are considering amendments 50, “there were not yet any good or outstanding academies in the 51 and 52 along with new clause 3, which has been trust.” tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, The amendment is important because if a school is to Heeley. become an academy, parents, pupils and all other relevant Amendment 50 notes that clause 9 provides for stakeholders should have a choice in whether the academy consultation about who should sponsor an academy in is run by a trust such as EdisonLearning or perhaps a certain cases, and it widens the scope of the proposed local federation, an outstanding local school that can new section 5A to include all academy sponsors. sponsor schools or, possibly, a co-operative trust. If I Amendments 51 and 52 provide for consultation when were a parent—I assure the Committee that that is a there is a change of sponsor. thoroughly hypothetical situation—I would want a choice The amendments would require the whole local community over which sponsor was going to run the school. I to be consulted about the identity of sponsors. It is would want to know its background, as well as the important to note that the identity is a matter of concern governance arrangements, and to be given as much not just to faith groups, which the Minister has acknowledged information as possible. I am sure that parents and elsewhere in the Bill, but to others. They would require children across the country feel the same. I hope the consultation when there is a proposal to change a sponsor, Minister will seriously consider the amendment and the which has happened when chains collapse, such as the new clause in his response. Prospects Academies Trust in May 2014, or when schools are taken away from them due to poor performance, and Mr Gibb: I will take amendments 50, 51 and 52 and we heard examples of that from the Minister earlier. An new clause 3 together. The amendments and the new academy chain in charge of running six state schools—the clause relate to clause 9 and the consultation about the ProspectsAcademiesTrust,whichwetalkedaboutearlier—was identity of academy sponsors. forced to close. It was the first example of that happening, which shows that it is extremely important that there is For schools that have failed and have been judged consultation in such circumstances. Communities should “inadequate” by Ofsted, there should be no debate not be left in the dark and treated with contempt by the about whether urgent action is required. It will be Government when it happens. That is no way to run an secured through an academy solution with an effective education system. I hope that the Minister agrees that sponsor. The regional schools commissioners will decide under those circumstances, consultation would be the on the most appropriate sponsor to turn around a right route to take. failing school. Louise Haigh: New clause 3 goes a bit further than the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend. It amends 3.30 pm the Academies Act to require that a certain number of In some circumstances, however, it will be appropriate people are consulted over an academy order in respect for the regional schools commissioners to consult on of any maintained school, including the chief inspector the best sponsor to turn the school around. Clause 9 of education, children’s services and skills; registered requires that, where a foundation or a voluntary school pupils of that school; and any other persons that the with a foundation is eligible for intervention under Secretary of State thinks appropriate. The Government sections 61 or 62 of the Education and Inspections Act are not fond of consultation—that was made very clear 2006, which pertain to “inadequate” Ofsted judgments, by the 2011 legislation—but the official Opposition are and is therefore subject to an academy order under big fans of democracy and accountability. We do not proposed new section 4(A1) of the Academies Act believe that they and school improvement are mutually 2010, the Secretary of State must consult the trustees, exclusive. the foundation and, for schools with a religious character, The amendments are important because, as both the appropriate religious body about the proposed sponsor. sides of the Committee accept, there are good and bad In practice, regional schools commissioners will, on academies. There are “outstanding”, “failing” and now behalf of the Secretary of State, identify the most “coasting”academies, and those terms apply to maintained suitable sponsor for the school in question and will schools as well. If pupils and parents do not have a say consult on the identity of the sponsor. in whether their school becomes an academy, it is right Amendments 50 and 52 and new clause 3, which is in that they should have a say in who runs it. If an the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley and academy chain such as the Harris Federation was going has the same intention, seek to widen the requirement to run the school, that would be a very different story so that the Secretary of State must consult on the from its being run by a chain such as E-ACT, which has identity of the sponsor for any type of school, not just a had so many schools removed from it. foundation or a voluntary school with a foundation. It is important to include the chief inspector on the Amendment 52 further specifies that the consultees list of consultees, to ensure that as much information as must include parents, school staff, the local community possible is available, particularly given Ofsted’s press and the local authority. release last week. I know it has been referenced several Clause 9 makes it clear that it is appropriate to times, but it is important to the Committee. It included consult on the identity of a sponsor when the school is a information about the inspection of the Collaborative foundation or a voluntary school with a foundation. It Academies Trust, which is sponsored by EdisonLearning. recognises the enormous contribution that Church schools Nine academies are in the trust: three in Northamptonshire, have made and continue to make to education in this five in Somerset and one in Essex. Ofsted found: country. Many successful Church schools have benefited “Too many academies have not improved since joining the from converting to academy status, and many dioceses trust” have taken on the role of sponsor for their struggling 293 Public Bill Committee9 JULY 2015 Education and Adoption Bill 294 schools. The Diocese of Ely, for example, has established The school opened as an academy, sponsored by a multi-academy trust that includes both sponsored and Harris Federation, in September 2013. In summer 2014, converter academies. There are now 13 primary schools its results had improved from 65% of pupils achieving in the trust, with a further two joining in September. level 4 in the previous year to 94%. In June 2015, Ofsted The diocese is focusing on expanding its school inspected the school and judged it “outstanding” in all improvement capacity by using school-to-school support areas. By becoming an academy, Roke truly has been models and building a central support team. saved, yet we delayed that whole process by at least a It is important that underperformance in any type of year—a year’s lost education for the children in that school is tackled, but we accept the importance of part of Croydon. protecting the ethos of Church schools, which is why the clause identifies certain cases in which the regional Steve McCabe: I congratulate the Minister on finding schools commissioner must consult on who the best an example to support his argument. If I were the sponsor might be. This is why subsection (2) specifies parent of a child who attended one of the schools that that the trustees, the foundation governors and, where was going to be taken over—by, for example, the Djanogly appropriate, the religious body are consulted by the Learning Trust, the Grace Foundation, the Landau regional schools commissioner. They will be consulted Forte Charitable Trust, the Lee Chapel Academy Trust, specifically to recognise their responsibility for the ethos the South Nottingham College Academy Trust or the of the school, and to contribute their views on how it Learning Schools Trust—would I not be entitled to say might best be preserved. That is why we do not agree that I thought there was a risk in that trust being with amendment 52, which proposes that a wider group allowed to take over the school? The Minister is going of people should be consulted on the decision. to prevent that. In each case, if there had been consultation, In many cases, a diocesan sponsor will be the best the problems would not necessarily have arisen. choice, but where appropriate a non-faith sponsor can be put into place in such a way that the school’s particular Mr Gibb: Except where underperforming schools ethos is protected. We expect that dioceses and regional have, in the past, been transferred to those trusts, there schools commissioners will work closely together to has been consultation. The hon. Gentleman is presumably agree the best academy solutions. In other cases, asserting that those academy chains are not performing consultation on the identity of the sponsor is unnecessary as well as they should. However, the decision about and would serve only to delay necessary improvements. which academy group is responsible for an underperforming When Ofsted finds a school “inadequate”, or when a school will now be left to the regional schools commissioner, regional schools commissioner has determined that who knows the academy chains and the area and will academisation is necessary to turn the school around, choose the appropriate chain. the local authority and governing body have, by definition, demonstrated that they have failed to uphold standards Kevin Brennan: By what logic would there be fewer in the school. I do not see a good case for consulting failures in academy chains if we wiped away consultation? them on the identity of the sponsor in those circumstances, which is why I do not agree with amendment 50. Mr Gibb: It is not the success or failure of the process at stake. I am simply pointing out to the hon. Member Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): Surely for Birmingham, Selly Oak that the school acquisitions the question is whether the sponsor identified by the he cited took place with consultation. He may be critical regional commissioner is necessarily the best sponsor. It of their outcomes, but they happened with consultation. may be that the people whom the Minister wants to My objection to amendment 50 and new clause 3 is exclude from the consultation have pertinent information. that they will delay the process. In the example that I The Government have had to restrict 14 or 15 chains of cited in Croydon, a year of children’s primary school sponsors from looking after schools. If they had had education was wasted. We would have had significantly that information earlier, presumably they would not more children getting good literacy and mathematics have got into such a mess in the first place. results if that process had happened when it was meant to. Mr Gibb: Actually, those consultation were taking place, leading up to this point. We are trying to prevent Kevin Brennan: What about the academy chains that formal consultation from delaying the process of conversion. were appointed and failed those children? What about I will give the hon. Gentleman an egregious example. In that waste? By what logic would that be less likely to May 2012, Roke primary school in Croydon was given a happen if we do not bother to consult anyone? notice to improve by Ofsted. DFE officials began discussions with the local authority and the school Mr Gibb: The issue with consultation is time. If we about it becoming a sponsored academy. Opponents take steps out of the process, we reduce the time. The reacted angrily, describing it as a “hostile takeover”. In issue of whether a particular academy chain is good or April 2013, almost a year later, Ofsted revisited the poor is one that we take swift action on. We take much school and put it into special measures. The move to swifter action now in dealing with underperforming academy status was heavily opposed, and a “Save Roke” academy sponsors than local authorities have in the committee was set up. Due to objections from opponents, past in dealing with underperforming schools, which in the academy consultation had to be extended. At one many instances—not all, but many—have languished in point, the proposed sponsor, Harris Federation, received special measures for far too long. The whole academisation a batch of 100 questions to answer. A petition of process is designed to speed up the process. Where we opposition attracted 2,500 signatures, including some find that academy chains are underperforming, we take from Australia, for some reason. equally swift action to deal with the sponsors. 295 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education and Adoption Bill 296

Steve McCabe: If the issue is time, why does the Amendment 51 would require the Secretary of State Minister not create a time limit? Why does he not issue to consult about the identity of a sponsor when there guidance automatically excluding the signatories to a was a change of sponsor. In the vast majority of cases, petition from Australia? Why does he not take normal, the sponsor matched to an underperforming school sensible steps, rather than denying people the right to would be successful in delivering the necessary express a view, and the right to peruse the information? improvements. Those successes include large sponsors That would deal with the question of time. He is denying such as REAch2, which sponsors the largest number of people a voice. primary academies in the country. Its schools have improved, on average, at three times the national average Mr Gibb: We are denying campaigns such as the rate. I pause in case the hon. Member for Cardiff West “Save Roke” committee that call measures to improve a wants to jump in. He has not, so that is another fact primary school a hostile takeover. Such ideologically-driven that we can treat as established. campaign groups are interested not in raising the academic There are also successful local sponsor arrangements. standards in schools but in delaying the process. They For example, in the Tall Oaks academy trust, White’s are ideologically opposed to the concept of academies. Wood academy, an outstanding academy with a national My understanding is that the Opposition are not leader of education as its head teacher, turned around ideologically opposed to the academisation process; so Mercer’s Wood, which was previously in special measures. I would expect them to support measures to increase Since joining the trust, that school has been judged the speed of the process when a school is demonstrably “outstanding”, too. underperforming. However, in the scenario where a sponsor is not improving the school, or not doing so fast enough, or Peter Kyle: The example that the Minister gave has where there is any other concern about the sponsor’s resonance for me because in my constituency before the ability to support that school, we will not hesitate to election there was a similar debate and similar protests take steps to intervene. Regional schools commissioners, about a school called Hove Park school. During the acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, can issue lunch break, I introduced the Minister to some of its warning notices demanding urgent action to bring about students. The campaign was vigorous and campaign substantial improvement. Any such notice will set out groups from outside the school community used it as a what must be done to improve in a given timescale. political football in many ways, and I share some of the Minister’s concerns about how that unfolded. However, the point for me, as I said at the time, was 3.45 pm whether it was possible to deal with people driven by We do encounter performance issues with academies ideology separately from parents, students and teachers and sponsors and we are quick to act. As I have said who have their own views, wishes and concerns. It seems before, we have made new sponsor arrangements in to me that we do not want to exclude and punish the relation to 75 academies and free schools, which include school community because people campaign for ideological 32 cases in which a sponsored academy had its sponsor reasons from outside it. Does the Minister agree that it replaced. That action is proving effective. Therefore, is possible to take that approach? even though there is no requirement in law for a consultation when there is a change in sponsor, we would expect the Mr Gibb: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right existing trust and new sponsor to share information that the community should be consulted when the governing with staff, parents and others on the proposed change body of a “good” or “outstanding” school wants to of sponsor, allowing them the opportunity to raise and pass a motion that it should convert to an academy. I address concerns. We therefore do not believe that it is think that there is also a case for discussing an improvement necessary or helpful to require in law consultation about plan with staff and governors of schools in category 3, a change of sponsor and, as such, I urge the hon. rather than 4—coasting schools—where the regional Member for Cardiff West to withdraw his amendment. schools commissioner wants to try measures short of academisation,. However, when Ofsted puts a school into special Kevin Brennan: In the interests of making progress, I measures it is an extreme thing. It affects a tiny minority will not make lengthy remarks, but we do not see the of schools. When schools have reached that point of logic of sweeping away consultation. Our amendment underperformance, we must act so swiftly that there is sought to ensure that consultation would take place and simply not time to engage in formal consultations. Why we do not see by what logic academy chains are less was the “Save Roke” committee not established a few likely to fail when no one bothers to consult anyone years earlier, to try to deal with the underperformance about the correct sponsor in the first place; in fact, of Roke primary school? I could say the same about surely they would be more likely to fail, and we have Hove Park. It was a pleasure to meet year 9 students had too many failures already. However, given that our from Hove Park academy, if I have the name right. views have been put on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Peter Kyle: Hove Park school. It did not become an Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. academy in the end.

Mr Gibb: I understand that that school voluntarily Kevin Brennan: I beg to move amendment 53, in applied to convert to academy status, so it would not clause 9, page 7, line 15, at end insert— fall under the measures in question. I could tell from the ‘(2) After section 5A of the Academies Act (inserted by teachers I met that it is a good school that has voluntarily subsection (1)) insert— sought the freedoms that come with academy status. “5AA Designation of Academy sponsors 297 Public Bill Committee9 JULY 2015 Education and Adoption Bill 298

(1) An Academy sponsor may make proposals to enter into Mr Gibb: Amendment 53 covers the scrutiny of academy Academy arrangements under section 1 (Academy Arrangements) sponsors and the academy trusts that they establish. only if the Academy sponsor is for the time being designated for Sponsors are high-performing schools or other the purpose— organisations that have been approved to sponsor (a) by the Secretary of State; and underperforming schools through the academy trusts (b) has been approved for this purpose by Her Majesty’s that they have established. The trusts become responsible Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services for the governance and the educational and financial and Skills. performance of such schools, in place of the former (2) This section does not apply where the Academy sponsor is governing body and local authority. proposing to enter into an arrangement for a single school.’.’ There is a need for public scrutiny of Academy sponsors. This In amendment 53, the Opposition propose that the amendment provides for the Secretary of State to maintain a list of Secretary of State should be required to approve such Academy sponsors and for sponsors to be approved by Ofsted. bodies before they are allowed to take on sponsored Subsection (2) relieves sponsors of schools converting to Single academies. In practice, the Secretary of State already Academy Trusts of the need to be designated. subjects sponsors and trusts to thorough scrutiny through regional schools commissioners, which consider all new The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss sponsor applications in their regions and approve those amendment 54, in clause 9, page 7, line 15, at end that demonstrate that they have the capacity and expertise insert— to turn failing schools around. For example, in October ‘(3) In section 17 (Interpretation of Act) in the appropriate 2014 a member of the north of England headteacher place in subsection (2) insert— board did detailed work with a prospective sponsor to “Academy sponsor” is a person to whom the Secretary help it to make sure that its governance structure was fit of State has entered, or is proposing to enter, into Academy arrangements under section 1 for purpose. As a result, the sponsor revised its governance (Academy Arrangements), or a person who arrangements and proposed a small strategic body with wishes to enter into Academy Arrangements with a good mix of skills, which the regional schools the Secretary of State.’. commissioner judged to be entirely appropriate for a Although the Bill uses the term “Academy sponsor”, the Academies Act sponsor trust. does not define an Academy sponsor. This amendment corrects that omission. The regional schools commissioner applies a rigorous assessment process, advised by the headteacher board Kevin Brennan: Amendment 53 would bring some of outstanding academy leaders, to ensure that prospective transparency to the process of selecting academy sponsors. sponsors have a strong track record in educational There is currently no public quality control of potential improvement and financial management, and that the sponsors. Ministers have totally committed to the policy, proposed trust has high-quality leadership and appropriate so they will need to find sponsors at all costs, and governance. Since 2013, the Department for Education regional schools commissioners, as we found out in oral has published monthly a list of approved sponsors. All evidence, are paid by results, so they also need to find those non-statutory arrangements have been in operation sponsors. since September 2014, and I see no reason to place the process into legislation now. Someone in the system has to be responsible for saying no to people who come forward if they are not The amendment also proposes that the chief inspector good enough. If that means that schools cannot be at Ofsted should be required to provide approval. Most converted, that is better than using an inadequate sponsor; academy sponsors—75% of all new sponsors since January another solution or sponsor should be sought. Logically, 2014—are schools, so they are already subject to Ofsted Ofsted should play that role. Ministers may argue that inspection, and the regional schools commissioner considers they can be trusted, but that is hardly convincing because their latest Ofsted report as part of the assessment. we know that that is not true. Ofsted plays an important role in holding schools and Sponsors’ performance shows that some are simply sponsors to account. The arrangements for focused inadequate and that there are not sufficient checks and inspections of schools within multi-academy trusts provide balances. Some have misused public money, which the the opportunity to report on the quality of education Government profess to be greatly concerned about. support that approved sponsors give to the academies Some, such as the Prospects Academies Trust, have in their trusts. I do not believe that there is any need to collapsed. Some have seriously dodgy international links, give the chief inspector a further role and add a layer of such as the Aurora Academies Trust, which is linked to unnecessary bureaucracy to an already rigorous process. one of the more dubious US chains with a record of In amendment 54 Opposition Members propose that failure and scandal. the words “academy sponsor” should be defined in the The Bill will throw up a greater need for academy Bill, and they offer a definition. The term does not sponsors, so we require that proper quality control; the appear in legislation, and we see no need to introduce independent inspectorate needs to take on that role such a definition, given the success of current arrangements. urgently. We want to know what the Government will A point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly do about quality control and what they will do to make Oak raised in our debate on the previous clause relates sure that it is independent in this extremely murky area, equally to this matter. He read out a list of sponsors, where we have already heard about many failures on the all of which have been paused by regional schools part of academy sponsors. Amendment 54 is intended commissioners, so no further brokerage of schools to to gain some clarification on the definition of an academy those sponsors will take place pending improvements in sponsor. If such companies are to become so important their school improvement service. That process is already in our education system, we need to know exactly what in place, and I am absolutely convinced that the system they are. I hope that the Minister can shed some light allows us to approve and monitor sponsors, so we do on the matter. not need to change the legislation. 299 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education and Adoption Bill 300

Kevin Brennan: It is interesting to hear the Minister with a foundation before entering into academy confirm that all the academy chains and sponsors on arrangements in relation to the school. In such a case, that list have been paused by regional schools the Secretary of State must consult about who she commissioners. Presumably, those sponsors were approved, proposes should be the sponsor, and that consultation and deemed to have the capacity and expertise to turn must be with the trustees, the foundation and, where the around schools, in the first place by the same regional school has a religious character, the appropriate religious schools commissioners and Ministers. That makes our body. point for us: regional schools commissioners and Ministers For schools that have failed and been judged inadequate do not have the capability to assess accurately whether by Ofsted, there should be no debate about whether sponsors have the capacity and expertise to turn around transformation via academy conversion is needed, and schools. If they had, they would not have had to pause urgent action is required. A new start is needed, to be them before taking on any more schools, and we would secured through an academy solution with an effective not have had the failures of academy sponsors and sponsor. That is why we have sought through this Bill to chains that we heard about earlier. impose on the Secretary of State a duty to make an There are real issues with the current arrangements, academy order in such cases. despite the Minister saying how wonderful and successful However, we appreciate the great contribution of the they are, and it is absolutely sensible that there should foundation schools, which is why there is an exemption be a rigorous assessment process beyond the current for church schools and dioceses that have taken on the process, which he says is rigorous but which is creating role of supporting struggling schools. the need to pause the particular academy sponsors on On that basis, I urge that the clause stand part of the the list that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Bill. Selly Oak read out.

Mr Gibb: Can I just point out to the hon. Gentleman Kevin Brennan: The clause limits the requirement to that there are 735 approved sponsors, and that 597 of consult about an academy order to foundation schools them are responsible for 2,675 academies and free schools? and voluntary schools with a foundation. We see no When he cites one, two, or half a dozen academy chains reason to limit consultation in that way, for the same that have been paused, it is a very small number out of reasons that we have outlined in debates about other 735 approved sponsors. I think that 14 is the number parts of the Bill. We will not vote against the clause that were paused, and the number on the list that he was standing part of the Bill, because at least it allows for going to read out is a very small proportion of the total some consultation; there is a little bit left after the number. Minister has swept through the consultation landscape in the way that he has proposed. At least there is some consultation and we hope that it will be expanded Kevin Brennan: At least my hon. Friend the Member further on Report or when the Bill reaches another for Birmingham, Selly Oak gives out examples in 14s place, given the sheer illiberality of sweeping away rather than in ones and twos, as the Minister does when consultation. However, on that basis, we will not vote he wants to prove his case. I thought that my hon. against the clause standing part of the Bill. Friend was being very generous in providing all those Question put and agreed to. examples; he might have held some back for later on in our proceedings and just leaked them out one by one, in Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. the same way that the Minister does. I do not think that the Minister has proved his case. Clause 10 The point is that, yes, there are a large number of approved sponsors, but that number will become even larger, and therefore we might expect that unless there DUTY TO FACILITATE CONVERSION are some changes in the quality of the assessment of academy sponsors, the number of failures and the number 4pm of pauses in future will increase by the same proportion; there is no reason for us to believe that that is not the Kevin Brennan: I beg to move amendment 55, in case. Therefore, there is every need for a better level of clause 10, page 7, line 21, after second “school”, insert quality control, which is, of course, what we propose in “, if relevant, the persons listed in section 5A(2)” the amendments. This amendment adds to the persons who are placed under a duty to facilitate academisation to include those listed in the new section 5A(2) Once again, I think we have won the argument, but I as found in Clause 9. sense that we might not win the vote if we pressed the matter to a vote at this stage. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. the following: Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Amendment 56, in clause 10, page 7, line 24, after Bill. “body”, insert “, or, if relevant, the persons listed in section 5A(2)” Mr Gibb: The clause inserts new section 5A into the A consequence of amendment 55. Academies Act 2010, which imposes on the Secretary of Amendment 59, in clause 11, page 7, line 35, after State a duty to carry out a consultation when, under “authority”, insert section 4(A1), my right hon. Friend makes an academy “, or, if relevant, the persons listed in section 5A(2)” order in respect of a foundation or voluntary school A consequence of amendment 55. 301 Public Bill Committee9 JULY 2015 Education and Adoption Bill 302

Kevin Brennan: Amendment 55 is a probing amendment He commented that the delays were not “extensive”, and seeks to discover the Government’s thinking behind but they are delays nevertheless. Perhaps the Ministers why some people are placed under a duty while others can quantify those delays. One of the law firms with a are not. It is not necessarily about whether the Opposition financial interest in such things is Lee Bolton Monier- think that the duty itself is the correct approach. The other Williams, which has helpfully placed an article on its two amendments are a consequence of amendment 55. website that analyses the issue: Clause 10 places a duty on a school governing body “Neither the school governors of voluntary or foundation and the local authority to “take all reasonable steps” to schools (acting in their capacity as the trustees of the GB as a help the conversion of a school when forced academisation charity) nor the site trustees of such schools may be required to is required under clause 7 or when the Secretary of facilitate conversions or directed to do so if to comply would result in a breach of their trust. This is not recognised in the Bill State chooses to go down the forced academisation as it stands and appears to us to be a major defect.” route for another reason. If the Secretary of State notifies a school and local authority that they want a In other words, these lawyers see the difficulties arising specific academy sponsor, the school and local authority from the dual responsibility of school governors who must “take all reasonable steps” to help the Secretary of are charity trustees when the Secretary of State selects State and the sponsor to reach a funding agreement. the sponsor in a forced academisation process. They continue: Clause 11 enables the Secretary of State to give specific directions to school governing bodies and local “Secondly the question will we think inevitably arise as to authorities about the forced academisation process, whether an academy (or a school about to be converted into an presumably when they think that the local authority or academy) may lose its religious character without closing and being re-opened as a new institution. The DfE has imposed ‘as is’ school governing body are not taking reasonable steps. in respect of gaining or losing a religious character with regard to Such directions relate to section 8 orders regarding the conversions under s4(1)(a) but we suspect may want to remove a transfer of staff, contracts for photocopying, cleaning, religious character without closure in respect of conversions school dinners and so on, moveable property such as under s4(1)(b) or under the new s4(A1).” minibuses, intellectual property used by the school and New section 4(A1) of the Academies Act 2010 is about part 1 of schedule 1 orders to do with the transfer of the forced academies route. The briefing goes on: land owned by the local authority and not by a governing body, foundation body or trustees, which is covered by “The Bill certainly reads as though this is either expected to be part 2 of schedule 1 of the 2010 Act. the case or the issue has not been considered and will become a problem. We argue most strongly that removal of religious character Bodies other than the maintained school governing without closure is not possible and that the power in Regulations body and the local authority have a role to play in for the Secretary of State to remove independent schools from the expediting academisation, the most important of which list of those designated with a religious character cannot be is the owner of the school building and land when they exercised if the objective criteria governing designation still apply.” are not owned by the local authority or a foundation As the Government have not sorted out that issue, school without a trust. Voluntary-aided schools, voluntary- lawyers are likely to get involved. That means delay and controlled schools and foundation schools with a trust cost, which are likely to be borne by the local authority are likely to be occupying land owned by bodies that as the maintaining authority, so there will be an overall may not be directly concerned with the academisation increase in costs to the public purse. process. In particular, the bodies listed in new section 5A(2) to the Academies Act 2010, as inserted by clause 9, are Ministers should know what is going on and what is bodies that either own the school land and buildings or delaying academisation. Helpfully, the Commons Education have an interest in preserving the religious identity of Committee inquiry asked about the academisation process the school on forced academisation, including the trustees and faith schools. Regrettably, only three local authorities of the school, the person or persons appointed by the responded. One of those authorities, Kent, which has foundation governors and, in the case of a school with a many Church schools, commented: religious character, the “appropriate religious body”— “The proposed sponsor sometimes makes considerable extra defined for Church of England and Roman Catholic demands upon the LA and its financial and capital resources Schools as the diocesan authority, but all faith schools towards the end of the process of transfer of a school to an are included. academy chain. This slows down, and can hinder the conversion process and can interfere with the urgent school improvement I accept that this is a complex area, but we need work required.” clarity. There was a time when any proposal by the state That sounds like the point in the academisation process to remove Church-owned land occupied by Church where lawyers start to make their money, and it could schools from Church control might have resulted in result in significant delay to an academy order. That some considerable controversy, but times have changed. delay is caused not by the issues outlined by the Minister— Sorting land ownership on academisation can be a ideologically driven people, otherwise known as parents— lengthy process that has nothing to do with the school but by the legal minefield involved. governing body or local authority. These amendments are designed to probe why such bodies are not included Kent County Council’s response to the Education in clauses 10 and 11, without accepting the premise of Committee continues: the clauses. “Considerable public resource and LA Officer time is expended When the ownership of land is transferred, lawyers unnecessarily waiting for sponsors to decide to proceed with their get excited and get involved. Lord Nash agreed with me initial interest.” when I raised the matter. He said: Perhaps it is the sponsor who should have a duty under “Lawyers do argue on those issues”.––[Official Report, Education the Bill to take reasonable steps. By imposing a duty on and Adoption Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2015; c. 90, Q211.] one party to take reasonable steps in the academisation 303 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education and Adoption Bill 304

[Kevin Brennan] Amendment 60, in clause 11, page 7, line 41, at end insert— process, the Government seem to be granting a charter ‘(4) The Secretary of State must provide reasonable to the other party to make unreasonable demands at a compensation to a local authority where a direction under late stage in the process. What estimate has the Minister subsection (1) causes additional expenditure or the loss of capital made of the cost of legal fees incurred when lawyers assets.” make last-minute demands on behalf of sponsors? How Requires the Secretary of State to pay for the cost to local government does he see the Bill affecting that trend in the future? of her directions.

Mr Gibb: We are now considering clauses 10 and 11. Kevin Brennan: Amendment 57 seeks clarification Clause 10 inserts a new duty on governing bodies and about the meaning of “reasonable step.” Amendment 58 local authorities to facilitate the conversion of a school requires direct parliamentary accountability for the use into an academy. Clause 11 inserts a new power to give of the new power by the Secretary of State to direct directions to governing bodies and local authorities bodies to carry out unspecified actions to facilitate the when progress is slow and direction is needed. Both the conversion of a school to an academy. Amendment 60 duty and the power are placed on governing bodies and requires the Secretary of State to pay for the cost to local authorities because they are the responsible bodies local government of her directions, and we have already that must take swift action to ensure an academy can heard how those costs for academy conversions can open. spiral—I understand, sometimes into six-figure sums. The hon. Gentleman’s amendments seek also to place Amendment 57 is about the loose phrase, “reasonable that duty on any trustees of the school, the person or step”. What may seem reasonable to Ministers may not persons by whom any foundation governors are appointed be quite so reasonable to someone else. The amendment and, in the case of a school with a religious character, seeks to put some limit on what can be required by the appropriate religious body—he has lifted the list of saying that it should not require additional expenditure consultees from new section 5A(2) of the 2010 Act. The by a school or local authority. amendments will place duties on independent charitable Amendment 60 is designed to protect the financial bodies, such as dioceses or historical foundations, that position of the local authority by requiring the Secretary do not have a direct relationship with the Secretary of of State to meet revenue costs and any loss of capital State and are not accountable to Government. In this assets in the process. Amendment 58 says that, when the context, placing a direct duty on independent bodies Minister is making a specific direction, it should be would be disproportionate. Local authorities and governing done with transparency and with the possibility of bodies are in a different position as public bodies that parliamentary and public scrutiny. Those directions are are funded by the state. The Bill does, therefore, place likely to be about property, and significant amounts of them under a duty to facilitate conversion. Putting an money will be at stake. It is essential that there is a additional duty on trusts, dioceses and charitable bodies proper process for ensuring that public assets are protected. would be unnecessary as their interests are already I am sure that the Public Accounts Committee and the engaged through their stake in the school’s governing National Audit Office will be interested to ensure that body, which will be under a duty to facilitate conversion. as well. I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment. Mr Gibb: The amendments relate to clauses 10 and Kevin Brennan: Well, I did say that they were probing 11. Clause 10 inserts new section 5B into the Academies amendments. I have raised very real issues, which I hope Act 2010, ensuring that, when a failing school has been the Minister will take some time to ponder. I do not issued with an academy order, the school’s governing know whether he—having received some in-flight body and local authority refuelling—wishes to say anything further on it. I would “must take all reasonable steps to facilitate the conversion of the have paused a bit longer if he did, but he does not. I beg school into an Academy.” to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Those steps include working with an identified sponsor. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. If that does not happen, clause 11, which adds new section 5C to the Academies Act, allows the Secretary Kevin Brennan: I beg to move amendment 57, in of State, via regional schools commissioners, to direct clause 10, page 7, line 28, at end insert— the governing body or local authority to take specified steps for the purpose of facilitating that conversion into ‘(3) A reasonable step does not include a step that would result an academy. The effect of the two clauses is to require in additional expenditure by a local authority or a school governing body.” local authorities and governing bodies to facilitate, This amendment seeks clarification about the meaning of “reasonable proactively, the conversion of failing schools into academies, step”. removing the roadblocks, which have sometimes delayed necessary improvements to underperforming schools. The measures will not place any additional burdens on The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss the governing body and local authority but will ensure the following: that they work efficiently to progress an academy Amendment 58, in clause 11, page 7, line 34, after conversion. “direct”, insert “by order” Amendment 57 seeks to ensure that a local authority This amendment requires direct parliamentary accountability for the use of the new power by the Secretary of State to direct bodies to carry or governing body does not incur additional costs as a out unspecified actions to facilitate the conversion of a school to an result of the duty in the Bill to facilitate academy Academy. conversion. I recognise that there are costs to the schools 305 Public Bill Committee9 JULY 2015 Education and Adoption Bill 306 involved in academy conversion. The Department It would be wrong to introduce a new requirement for contributes towards those costs by providing a grant. the Secretary of State to compensate local authorities in High-performing schools converting so that they benefit these circumstances. The clauses do not require the from the freedoms of academy status receive £25,000. local authority or school governing body to do anything Failing schools that become sponsored academies receive more than would be required for an academy conversion. a higher start-up grant. The value of that grant depends As a school converts to an academy, it will be granted a on whether it is a primary or secondary school, and on 125-year peppercorn lease to operate on its land. The the scale of change required. We currently expect the land continues to be used for educational purposes, and local authority or governing body to fund any additional the local authority retains the freehold. In view of that, costs not met by the grant. That will remain the case I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff West will feel under the Bill. reassured enough to withdraw his amendments.

4.15 pm Kevin Brennan: I thank the Minister for that full Amendment 58 seeks to ensure that when a regional explanation. As I indicated, these amendments were schools commissioner directs a governing body or local intended to probe what the Government meant by authority to take specified steps to facilitate conversion “reasonable steps” to facilitate conversion. Once again, to an academy, such a direction is made by order. That the Minister used examples of successful academies, but would mean an order contained in a statutory instrument I emphasise that things can go wrong from time to time. under section 181(1) of the Education and Inspections We hear news that the much-lauded Perry Beeches III Act 2006, and subject to parliamentary scrutiny and the academy—part of the Perry Beeches academy chain in negative resolution procedure. Birmingham visited by the Prime Minister; there are copious photographs of that occasion—has been rated The amendment would introduce a more onerous “inadequate” by Ofsted. process than other direction-making powers available Superficial examples of superheads are all very well, to the Secretary of State—for example, the new power but we need to look at the evidence. We all know how in clause 5 to direct the size and composition of an IEB from time to time particular academy sponsors might or the terms of appointment of its members. It would superficially present an effective PR case for their school, only serve to add delays and complexity to a process so we need to be careful about requiring people to take that we are trying to streamline through the Bill’s measures. reasonable steps when they might have reasonable concerns. If the regional schools commissioners gave a direction On the basis that we have registered our concern on in relation to a conversion, it would be because a this matter through the debate on these proposals, I beg conversion had stalled and any necessary actions by the to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. governing body or local authority were not being taken. For example, Shuttleworth College in Lancashire has Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. been rated inadequate twice in six years, and not better Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the than “requires improvement” in between. A suitable Bill. sponsor has been found, but the governing body has refused to pass a resolution to join the academy trust Mr Gibb: With your permission, Mr Chope, I will and continues to resist becoming a sponsored academy. speak to clauses 10 and 11, as the powers that they take If the regional schools commissioner had been able to are inextricably linked. The purpose of the two clauses direct the governing body to act, the school could be is to tackle the long delays and blockages that governing beginning to benefit from the academy trust’s support bodies and local authorities can create in securing a and be well on the way to improvement. Such decisions sponsored academy solution. Where a school is would not be taken lightly by the commissioners, who underperforming and an academy solution is required, are already accountable to Parliament through the Secretary we want the transformation to take place from day one. of State. Using a parliamentary procedure that is for We do not want the process to be delayed unnecessarily. secondary legislation and for closing motorway slip Our experience is that governing bodies and local roads would be disproportionate. authorities have used delaying tactics, including long Amendment 60 would require the Secretary of State debate. One example of progress being unnecessarily to compensate a local authority for any additional costs delayed was when the City of Derby academy opened in or loss of capital assets when directed to take specified place of the failing Sinfin community school in 2013. steps to facilitate conversion. Such a direction may The school has come out of special measures and include requiring the governing body or local authority improved its GCSE results in the first year of its academy to prepare a draft of a scheme under section 8 or status. Ofsted confirmed that since becoming an academy, paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Academies Act 2010 the quality of teaching has improved, pupils are progressing relating to the transfer of property. more rapidly and pupil behaviour and attendance has improved. Unfortunately, the turnaround was held up by a prolonged campaign that sought to delay the Suella Fernandes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the school becoming an academy. clause allows governing bodies and local authorities to be involved in the conversion process, which is key to Clause 10 will ensure that, where regional schools the local connection and will only bolster the leadership commissioners make an academy order in respect of a and transformation to academy status? school that is eligible for intervention, the governing body of that school and the local authority must take all reasonable steps to facilitate the conversion of that Mr Gibb: My hon. Friend raises an important point. school into an academy. Clause 10 will also ensure that This is about requiring involvement where it seems to be where the regional schools commissioner tells a governing being resisted. She is right to make that point. body and a local authority that they are minded to enter 307 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education and Adoption Bill 308

[Mr Gibb] and then there was a Government web address. The answer continued: into academy arrangements with a specific sponsor in “The list includes all schools that have applied to convert and respect of that school, the governing body and the local those that have received an academy order. It is updated authority must take all reasonable steps to facilitate the monthly…Since the Regional Schools Commissioners took up making of academy arrangements with that sponsor. their positions in September 2014, the individual decisions to approve or decline an academy order have been published on In the majority of cases, the effects of clause 10 their website” should ensure that governing bodies and local authorities take the necessary action to ensure that a sponsored and there was another helpful hyperlink, before it continued: academy solution is in place quickly, but clause 11 is “Schools may withdraw from the academy process at any stage still necessary in the event that they do not. Where an prior to signing their funding agreement.” academy order has been made in respect of a school I thought, perhaps naively, that my question would that is eligible for intervention, clause 11 allows regional have been much easier to answer than it turned out to schools commissioners acting on behalf of the Secretary be for Ministers and their civil servants. If I asked you, of State to direct the governing body or local authority Mr Chope, how many cups of tea you drank yesterday—I to take specified steps for the purpose of facilitating the do not know whether you drink tea, but it is a hypothetical conversion of a failing school into an academy. Under example—you might say three or five, or, if you could section 8 of or part 1 of schedule 1 to the Academies not remember exactly, you might say, “Somewhere between Act 2010, a direction may in particular require the four and six.” I would not expect you to refer me to your governing body or local authority to prepare a draft of website to try to find the answer, or even to someone a scheme relating to the transfer of property. else’s website, as I was referred in the second part of the Clause 11 also allows regional schools commissioners answer to my question. to specify the period within which any steps for facilitating As my question to you would have required, Mr Chope, the conversion must be taken. Where a governing body the question I asked Ministers simply required the or a local authority fails to act according to the duties in correct number to be given as an answer. After digging clause 10 and is not taking all reasonable steps to through all these websites, doing the work of Ministers facilitate conversion, the regional schools commissioner and civil servants for them, it was possible to find the can more specifically direct them to take certain steps answer, if one had to hand the 2012 list—which has by particular deadlines. It is crucial that regional schools long since been removed from the DFE website so is not commissioners have the powers in both clauses 10 and readily available at the hyperlinks provided. The answers 11 to prevent delays in transforming failing and to the questions about how many schools had applied underperforming schools and to ensure that improvement for an academy order but had yet to be converted, and is brought about as swiftly as possible. how many already had an academy order but had yet to be converted, were 160 and 95 respectively. The Chair: Following the Minister’s lead, I am happy Why has the Minister not properly analysed the real to accept a joint debate on the two clauses. reasons for all these delays? They are not all caused by ideological individuals—otherwise known as parents. Such analysis might show that the real reason is not Kevin Brennan: I am also happy to accept that approach. orchestrated campaigns but departmental bureaucracy, Clauses 10 and 11 are intended to avoid delay in complications of ownership, private finance initiatives academisation, but when the Government are asked for and, as I pointed out earlier, sponsors using expensive evidence on the details of delays beyond one or two of lawyers to get one over on the taxpayer, which is what is their favourite anecdotes, Ministers can be surprisingly actually going on in many cases. Perhaps clauses 10 and unforthcoming. 11 are further examples of legislation being made up on Recently, I asked a question of Ministers and received the hoof in order for the Government to be seen to be an all too typical non-answer in the form of a written doing something tough, based on prejudices, rather answer from the Minister for Children and Families—I than on the evidence that I was seeking to illicit from presume that the Minister for Schools is a bit too grand the Department through my written questions. to answer written questions these days. The question, at column 2649, was: “To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many Mr Gibb: Given that there are 4,676 academies, would schools whose governing body had made an application for an the hon. Gentleman not expect a few hundred to be in Academy Order on or before 31 May 2012 had not been included the process of converting at any one time? in an Academy Agreement with her Department by 1 June 2015”— in other words, after three years. Kevin Brennan: I would expect that, which is why I I asked another question, at column 2650: did not ask about those schools that are in the process “To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many of converting; I asked for those that had taken more schools which had an approved Academy Order on or before 31 than three years to get to this stage, and I ended up with May 2012 had not been included in an Academy Agreement with those figures. I am not sure whether they are right—perhaps her Department by 1 June 2015.” the Minister has the actual figures—but from digging So, my questions covered the schools that had made an around myself, I believe them to be 160 and 95 respectively. application and those that had had their academy order In the case of the second group, that is three years after approved. an academy order has been granted. I put it to the The answer that I received was as follows: Minister that that cannot be down to the reasons that “We publish a list of open academies and academy projects in he has given. That is why we are legislating here, for the development at”— most part. 309 Public Bill Committee9 JULY 2015 Education and Adoption Bill 310

4.30 pm Kevin Brennan: No one is suggesting that anyone The tone of these clauses extends the approach that should be given a free rein, to use the hon. Lady’s we have seen throughout the Bill. The Government are expression, and neither is anyone suggesting that it determined to have their way and will brook no alternative might not be appropriate in certain circumstances for view. They have removed all opportunity to protest or an interim executive board or an academy sponsor to appeal against decisions, and now the Secretary of State have to step in to run the school, but the clause goes way wants to take the power to enforce active collaboration beyond that contention. with the decisions that people were not consulted about. She clearly has so little confidence in the strength of her Steve McCabe: Following the logic of the hon. Lady’s arguments that she feels it is necessary to require those argument, would it not also be reasonable to assume who disagree with her to act as if they do agree with her. that if the school had got to such a state, the Secretary That is what this clause means. of State must have been negligent in her duty and would therefore be ill equipped to make a judgment? No one wants lengthy and unnecessary delays over the future status of a school—it does nobody any Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, every good—but Ministers need to understand that their academy that is rated “inadequate” is the responsibility refusal to listen to alternatives and their insistence on of the Secretary of State, and is now the responsibility having their own way at all times through profoundly of the regional schools commissioners. Their failure has undemocratic processes will inevitably provoke a reaction. to be accounted for according to the logic of the People do not take well to being bullied, which is what Government’s approach. these clauses do. I simply ask, given the rhetoric of the Secretary of That the Government think these clauses are necessary State, how on earth the Schools Minister can square is a sort of confession of failure, because they know such rhetoric with the reality of the clause. Is it not the deep down that they are not convincing people sufficiently case that the freeing up of governors mentioned in the with their arguments. The evidence is not on their side, Secretary of State’s speech was just empty rhetoric? but they will plough on regardless, shut their ears to Removing their freedom is the reality. other people’s views, and, through clauses such as these, go beyond that to enforce their wishes and turn school Mr Gibb: I sense that the hon. Gentleman simply governors into ventriloquists’ dummies banned from does not have the same sense of urgency to deal with voicing their concerns and forced not only to concede to underperformance as we on the Government Benches actions that they disagree with but to actively promote have. I accept that he wants to improve schools and that them. he accepts the academy programme as a good programme In effect, the Government are legislating so that the in certain circumstances, but given the accumulation of governors’ duty of care to the pupils at their school is his amendments and the points that he made in his replaced by a duty to implement and promote the speech, I sense that he does not have the impatience and policy of the state, even when they sincerely believe it to sense of urgency that we have to improve the education be against the interests of the pupils who are under their of children in schools that are underperforming. That is duty of care. So it is hardly surprising that many where we will have to agree to differ. governors wonder why they bother, given the Government’s open contempt for their efforts. Kevin Brennan: I will not agree to differ in this sense—I This Government claim to have been converted to am impatient, but I am also impatient with reckless devolution. As I pointed out earlier, there is little evidence decision making that can lead to unsuitable academy of that in the Bill. We see a combined authority approach sponsors being selected, as we have already seen. That is as a much better way of trying to bring about devolution why we need good-quality decision making. We will than that outlined by the Minister. agree to disagree on many things during the course of Clause 11 continues the approach of clause 10. The the Bill, but I am glad that he acknowledges that we can Local Government Association said that the Bill both agree that we want to see schools improve rapidly. contradicted the rhetoric of the Secretary of State, who spoke at the Sunday Times festival of education at Mr Gibb: But the measures in the Bill will deliver the Wellington College on 18 June. She said: rapid improvement— “It’s not the fact of being a free school or an academy that leads to this excellence. Rather, it’s what being an academy or a Kevin Brennan: That is where we agree to differ. free school stands for. Freeing up schools and governors to make decisions that are right for their pupils.” Mr Gibb: The policy that the hon. Gentleman proposed By giving the Secretary of State powers to require governors of some form of combined local authority approach to take specified actions, the clause removes the freedoms will not deliver the sense urgent improvement that we of school governors to make decisions that are, as the absolutely have to have in our schools. Secretary of State said, “right for their pupils”. May I also address the hon. Gentleman’s point about the numbers? I will ask my officials to check his figures to see if they are correct and to get to the bottom of Suella Fernandes: Does the hon. Gentleman not consider what they represent. that if a school has reached such a condition that an academy order is being taken forward, governance will Kevin Brennan: Thank you. have been one of the elements that was failing or required intervention, so it would not be responsible to Mr Gibb: Superficially, it appears that some of those allow governors a free rein, and this includes them in schools that are taking more than three years to go from the participation. an academy order to a funding agreement are actually 311 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Education and Adoption Bill 312

[Mr Gibb] agreement. That is what, in particular, the measures in clauses 10 and 11 seek to do by requiring local authorities schools that have voluntarily converted. They might to get their act together and to provide all the required have had the academy order, but have not finished—perhaps information about pensions, land transfers and so on. there are concerns about land or all kinds of other For that reason, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will issues. I do not know. We will get to the bottom of that. support clauses 10 and 11 stand part. To the extent that those are underperforming schools Question put and agreed to. where there is some resistance, that provides an argument for us to take the powers to push the process forward Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. faster. Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Kevin Brennan: We can probably expedite things by Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.— saying that we will both be interested to see the breakdown (Margot James.) of those figures and the reasons for the delays.

Mr Gibb: Good. On the face of it, however, it sounds like an argument in favour of the measures that we are 4.38 pm taking in the Bill to improve the speed with which Adjourned till Tuesday 14 July at twenty-five minutes schools are moved from an academy order to a funding past Nine o’clock. 313 Public Bill Committee9 JULY 2015 Education and Adoption Bill 314

Written evidence reported to the House EAB 20 Kent Schools Hope EAB 18 Southwark Diocesan Board of Education EAB 21 Group of Church of England diocesan boards EAB 19 Professor Stephen Gorard of education