Academies Bill [HL]

My noble friend Lord Wallace says that the evidence is as good as the evidence the previous Government had. The answer to the question is that, over time, the period has shown itself to demonstrate stability for parents and children because it gives them some certainty. However, in terms of the impact assessment, I can give no better answer than the previous Government themselves had. We think that reducing the period of notice required for termination would create greater uncertainty. We are not aware of evidence that suggests that a shorter notice period would provide a better solution. However—and this comes back to earlier discussions about the difference between the funding agreement and the grant arrangements—there may well be a case where a new school is created for providing a shorter period for the school to prove itself. That is the reason behind the proposed new grant arrangements. In such a case there would be greater flexibility to allow for more regular review of performance, and then once the school had established itself as what is called a free school, it would be possible, if both parties agree, to move on to the more conventional contractual funding agreement. Furthermore, it is right that the academy itself is sure of this same stability to make long-term plans and that the Secretary of State, when committing to funding, is confident of the proprietors’ commitment to the academies programme. The amendments would add unfair uncertainty to the academies programme. On the question put by my noble friend Lord Phillips through Amendment 92, I am advised that it is already the case, as he says. The Bill gives no prescription about when the notice to terminate may be given. Amendment 108 seeks to allow the governing body of any school which has applied for an academy order to withdraw the application at any time up to one week before the conversion date. Until the academy arrangements, including the funding agreement, have been signed by both the academy trust and the Secretary of State, the academy trust is free to withdraw its application for an academy order, even if the order has been made in respect of that school, and in theory that could be right up until just before conversion. An order merely permits the school to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of State; it does not require it. The decision by a school to enter into academy arrangements with the Secretary of State should be taken after due consideration. The academy trust will want to be confident of its decision when it signs the funding agreement or grant letter but, as I say, in theory that could be up until the point before conversion. We do not expect that a school would want to withdraw its application at the last moment because that would cause uncertainty. However, if after signing the academy arrangements the governing body wished to withdraw its application, the Secretary of State would be able to assess the case on its merits and could set the agreement aside, with the consent of both parties, providing the local authority was still in a practical position to maintain the school. Amendments 178, 179, 180, 181 and 182 all seek to give academies the power to revert to maintained school status after a shorter period of years. Again, these amendments would, in effect, overrule the requirement of seven years’ notice, which we have already discussed. On the specific point about a school being able to convert back to maintained status, if an academy wished legally to become a maintained school again it would first need to terminate its academy agreement with the Secretary of State. To establish a new replacement maintained school, there would need to be either a new schools competition proposal by the local authority under Section 7 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, or the local authority or other proposers of the new school would need to apply for the Secretary of State’s consent under Section 10 of the same Act to publish proposals for the new school outside the competition process. In both cases, a statutory process would need to be followed where the proposals are subject to local decision-making arrangements and to determination ultimately by the local authority or schools adjudicator. This is consistent with the process a trust school would have to follow if it wished to return to community school status. As a shorthand, practical response to the questions about whether it is possible and how it could be done, given the freedoms that are inherent within the academies programme, any academy at any point could choose to run itself exactly like a maintained school if it wished. There is a legal process it could go through—although a fairly protracted and complex one, I do not dispute—which is clearly set out, but it could at any point choose to behave, should it want to, exactly like a maintained school. It could buy back services from the local authority and could voluntarily comply with any regulations which apply to maintained schools. From that point of view, it would feel, look and behave like a maintained school without any need for changing its status legally. The basic point is that we expect all schools which apply to be confident in making the decision to become an academy and to be fully committed to it. That is in line with our overall approach of this being, effectively, permissive rather than coercive legislation. We are not seeking to stampede schools into conversion and we expect them to consider all these points carefully before their decision. I hope that explanation provides factual answers to the questions raised and an explanation of the process. In the light of that, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.