Proceeding contribution from Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 21 July 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Academies Bill [Lords].

Academies Bill [Lords]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. It is better to have looser language in the Bill because, as the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) knows, any issues of consultation in relation to the schools that seek to proceed along this path will be the subject of regulation and secondary legislation. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is better to have looser language in the Bill than to be too prescriptive, because that might, as the shadow Minister has said, lay individual schools, local education authorities and other bodies open to legal action further down the line?

Secondary information

Type: Proceeding contribution
Reference: 514 c422
Session: 2010-12
Chamber / Committee: House of Commons chamber
Subjects: Conditions of employment Admissions Curriculum Disadvantaged Finance Grammar schools Faith schools Local government Pupil exclusions Pupils Primary education Personal, social, health and economic education Standards Teachers Special educational needs Religion Academies Pupil referral units Free schools Relationships and sex education Maintained schools
Legislation: Academies Bill (HL) 2010-12
Link: View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk

Academies Bill [Lords]

Secondary information

Librarians' tools