Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Hill of Oareford (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 28 June 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HL) on Academies Bill [HL].


Academies Bill [HL]

My Lords, the amendments in this group deal with the transfer of school property to the successor academy. Amendment 160 deals with the transfer of property other than land. In response to the question from my noble friend Lady Sharp, that means things such as desks, computers and so on. The amendment would impose a requirement to consult the local authority, and possibly others, before the property may be transferred. In the case of converting academies, the clear intention is that there should be a smooth transfer between the existing school and the academy, as part of which the school would need to be able to continue to use its property, including things such as desks, computers and so on—property other than land. I am conscious that we have discussed the question of consultation in other contexts and I have said to the Committee that I will reflect further and come back to it. I am aware that views on consultation differ, but I will bear in mind my noble friend’s points as part of my reflection. The amendments spoken to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter are, as he says, extremely technical and complex, particularly as they concern the Reverter of Sites Act. Perhaps it would be acceptable to him if, for the convenience of the Committee, I were to write to him at length on those points and place the letter carefully in the Library. I understand the significance of these issues to the church and do not want to rush them, get them wrong or end up, as he says, with an expensive lawsuit. I am advised that we have some answers to the points. Perhaps I may write to the right reverend Prelate and circulate the letter widely. When he receives that letter, if there are specific circumstances that the church authorities have in mind and about which they are still concerned, I would be happy to consider the matter further if he or others contact me. If he and the rest of the Committee agree to that proposal, perhaps he will refrain from pressing his amendments and my noble friend Baroness Sharp will withdraw hers.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
719 c1622-3 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Education Disability Bullying Admissions Curriculum Charities Community interest companies Buildings Design Ancillary staff Classroom assistants Hearing impairment Equality Freedom of information Governing bodies Grammar schools Inspections Faith schools Food Local government Qualifications Parents Pre-school education Pupil exclusions Pay Property transfer Public bodies Nutrition Monitoring Primary education Standards Safety Personal, social, health and economic education Registration Schools Teachers Special educational needs Secondary education Free schools Academies Ofsted
Legislation
Academies Bill (HL) 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk