Proceeding contribution from Lord Adonis (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 7 July 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Academies Bill [HL].
Academies Bill [HL]
In that case, I need to speak now. I wish to put to him the specific points raised by a number of noble Lords—including, implicitly, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in her Amendment 31—about subsection (3) of his Amendment 30. Why does he think that it is satisfactory for consultation to take place after an academy order has been made? The noble Baroness said that the order may be permissive. That may be true, but it would have to have been applied for in the first instance, and only the governing body can apply for it. My reading of subsection (3) of the noble Lord’s amendment is therefore that it will be possible for a governing body to apply for an academy order without any consultation, and then to go through a second procedure as to whether it wishes to activate the powers in the order. I am anxious to know what circumstances the Minister could conceive of in which that would be a reasonable course of action. Surely the reasonable course of action is for the consultation to take place at the point at which the school applies for the powers. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could explain to us why he thinks it would be reasonable for the powers to be applied for without any consultation, and then for the consultation to take place later. In respect of my noble friend Lady Royall’s Amendment 26, I should point out that under the Education and Inspections Act 2006, for which of course the previous Government were responsible, schools may change from community to foundation status. That is a significant change of status that enables the school to become the direct employer of its staff, the owner of its land and buildings and its own admissions authority and to make significant changes to its governing body. It can undertake that process by a decision of its governing body without the Secretary of State playing any role at all. In terms of consistency, I see no case for Amendment 26. Crucially, it depends on the validity and confidence of the local community in the consultation on the decision that a governing body takes in the first instance when applying for academy status. I look forward to the Minister’s response. However, it would look peculiar to the local community if the whole process of seeking to become an academy happens without any consultation, and if a consultation takes place only at the very last stage when it will be clear to all concerned that the school intends to go down that course.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 720 c307-8
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Access Disability Conditions of employment Codes of practice Accountability Admissions Curriculum Discipline Charities Charity Commission Buildings Design Classroom assistants Church schools Land Freedom of information Education Governing bodies Grammar schools Exemptions Faith schools Ministerial powers Parents Private education Pre-school education Pupil exclusions Pay Property transfer Public bodies Public consultation Monitoring Staff Primary education Non-teaching staff Personal, social, health and economic education Standards Teachers Special educational needs Training Regulation Secondary education Academies Young People's Learning Agency Free schools Relationships and sex education Maintained schools
- Legislation
- Academies Bill (HL) 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 17:18:42 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_653907
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_653907
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_653907