I beg to move, That this House
agrees with Lords amendment 72.

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment 73.

Lords amendment 178, and amendment (a) thereto.

Although we are all in agreement that it is not sustainable for a Government Department to continue to support and fund an increasing number of academies, there has been some concern about placing this duty within the Young People's Learning Agency, which will carry out academies functions on behalf of the Secretary of State. We have heard what the House has said, and we have also been talking to sponsors. We will continue to consult sponsors and principals, as well as the Independent Academies Association, on the proposed arrangements through the academies reference group that will look at how this new way of working can be developed.

Asking the YPLA to exercise academy functions has benefits. The regional network of YPLA offices will allow much better awareness of the local context that the academy is working in. Also, it will guard against the fragmented system that could result if one of the key providers-academies-were working elsewhere, other than within the YPLA framework. Once the YPLA is up and running, we will issue a remit letter every year, after consultation with sponsors, principals and other interested parties, which will enable the YPLA to develop the way in which it works with academies. We have also tabled two amendments that will build in the safeguards that I hope will reassure hon. Members that the YPLA is the most appropriate organisation to carry out academies functions.

Government amendment 178 makes it clear that the Secretary of State will have a duty to ensure that the YPLA board reflects the sectors and young people it serves. It would not be appropriate for any one sector to dominate the board, as is being proposed by amendment (a). That includes local authorities as well as academies. However, we will ensure that members of the board will have direct experience of academies. There is already significant academy representation on the Learning and Skills Council committee that is working to establish the YPLA, and our amendment should send a clear signal of our intention to ensure that academy interests continue to be well represented. In addition, the recruitment of a director of academies, reporting to the chief executive of the YPLA, will further strengthen academy representation.

Government amendments 72 and 73 will prevent the YPLA from entering into a funding agreement to create an academy and from making subordinate legislation. Lords amendment 72 will also ensure that there is a procedure in place for academies, or others, to make a complaint to the Secretary of State if they are affected by the conduct of the YPLA.

Does that mean that, before the Bill went to the other place, it was the Government's intention to allow the YPLA to enter into funding agreements with new academies?

We are trying to make it clear in the Bill that the YPLA will not be able to enter into a funding agreement to create an academy. A further concern that was raised with us related to its ability to make subordinate legislation. We are making that absolutely clear in response to the points that were raised.

As I was saying, amendments 72 and 73 also ensure that a procedure is in place for academies or others to make a complaint to the Secretary of State if they are affected by the conduct of the YPLA. Academies will have a route of redress if they feel that the YPLA has acted unreasonably or against the principles of the remit letter.

With those brief opening comments, I urge the House to agree to Lords amendment 72.

During the Bill's time in the other place, a number of amendments were tabled, as the Minister has explained, to the clauses relating to the YPLA, but none of them has answered our fundamental concern about its suitability to carry out academy arrangements-that is, for the YPLA to be used as the oversight body for academies. This is very important. The Government have amended clause 75 to make it clear that the academy functions being transferred to the YPLA do not include the body's ability to take the Secretary of State's place in signing a funding agreement with an academy or its ability to make or confirm subordinate legislation. That clarification is certainly welcome, but it does not address the central issue of the YPLA's suitability for this role; nor does it deal substantively with the very serious concerns of academy providers.

There is now a growing consensus that the Secretary of State does not understand or believe in the importance of academy autonomy. He professes to support academies when it is politically convenient to do so, but the policy detail belies those expressions of support. When he was an adviser at the Treasury, he used his influence to undermine reforms in the public services that promoted autonomy or choice, both in health and education. Since his appointment as Secretary of State, a clear trend in policy has become apparent. He has required more involvement by local authorities in the sponsorship, establishment and operation of academies. He has reduced their freedoms over the curriculum; their autonomy has been steadily eroded.

It is this very autonomy that is the crucial decisive principle behind the success of these schools and it is the reason why they are improving faster than other types of school, giving pupils from some of this country's most deprived areas an outstanding and rigorous education. This year, for example, 85 per cent. of the pupils at Mossbourne academy in Hackney-one of the most deprived parts of London, with half its pupils qualifying for free school meals and with 40 per cent. having English as a second language-gained five or more GSCEs at grades A* to C, including English and maths. Last week, Ofsted reported that the Harris city academy at Crystal Palace in south London was the first to receive a perfect Ofsted report under the new reporting regime. Before the school was taken over by Lord Harris in 1991, it managed to get just 10 per cent. of its pupils achieving five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C. As Lord Harris said:

"When we took over this school no one wanted to come here. Yet in our first five years, we increased the number of GCSE pupils getting A to C grades from 10 per cent. to 54 per cent. Since then, we've gone on improving and that figure is now 99 per cent."

The school receives 2,000 applications for 180 places each year. That is what academies can achieve, yet it is an approach that appears not to have gained the genuine support of this current Administration.

Academies do not need to wait for authorisation before attempting an innovation. They are free to focus on their core work-the education of pupils-without being distracted by a welter of Government advice and guidance. They place teachers firmly in control of the school, and the freedoms, the ethos of transformation and the high aspirations they create are the reasons for academies' success. That is why it is so important that those freedoms are not undermined.

The frustration and anxiety of academy providers over the Government's direction of travel was accurately summarised in a letter to the then Minister on 23 February from Mike Butler, chairman of the Independent Academies Association. He wrote:

"It appears that with every consultation, each missive and even new legislation from the DSCF there comes further erosion of the independent status of academies."

I just want to be clear about the hon. Gentleman's high praise for academies, much of which I share. Is the hon. Gentleman's message to Conservative local authorities that they should work with the Government to have academies in all situations in their authorities? It would be extremely helpful to me to know if that was his advice to those authorities, so that I could speak to one or two of them about the provision of academies in their areas where there have been problems of negotiation.

Our advice goes way beyond local authorities; it goes to livery companies, parent groups, co-operative teachers, educational foundations and Church groups that want to set up a school. If there is a Conservative Government after the next election, we will make it much easier for any of those groups to set up schools in any area they choose-regardless of the attitude of the local authority.

I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's commitment to academies, or his commitment to them if he were fortunate enough to take my position. My question, however, was about his advice-precisely what he is saying-to Conservative local authorities up and down the country regarding the Government's academy programme. Is his advice and message to them that they should co-operate with the Government in order to establish academies in their areas? In one or two cases, I am not sure that that is totally clear. It would be very helpful to me if he would make his position clear-that his advice to Conservative authorities across the country is to work with the Government to establish the academies-because whatever they think, that is the best solution for them.

I am quite sure that all local authorities in this country, whether they be Conservative authorities or not, work closely with the Government, but the thrust of Conservative policy on this issue is very clear to all local authorities. It is that the impetus for creating a new academy will come from those groups that I have identified. That is where the impetus will come from, and a Conservative Government will make it much easier for those groups to establish academies, particularly in the areas of greatest need.

Whenever I have had discussions with academy providers, the same issue has arisen again and again, as the autonomy of the academies programme is being undermined. There is a strong sense that although the Secretary of State may pay lip service to the movement and has a Minister of State who is clearly passionate about academies, the Secretary of State himself does not fully embrace the principle that professional freedom brings higher standards and better schools.

The Bill unquestionably continues that trend by transferring academy arrangements to the YPLA. The Minister is going to give a quango, whose primary responsibility is the funding of 16-to-19 education, a position of authority over academies. We have consistently argued that this is inappropriate because it will transfer management of these schools to a body whose primary responsibility lies in a largely unrelated area. As my noble Friend Baroness Verma said in the other place:

"A body that ties academies into local authorities and which deals specifically with education for people between 16 and 19 is not appropriate. First, academies thrive on their independence and freedom from local authorities. Secondly, the age range of academies is most commonly 11 to 18, and some even have primary schools attached."-[ Hansard, House of Lords, 2 November 2009; Vol. 714, c. 53.]

Why should we assume that an organisation designed to provide funding for 16-to-19 education will be an effective supervisor of academies that educate children from the age of 11 or even three? The issues at stake and the expertise required will be very different. The autonomy of academies is essential to their success, which means that any oversight function needs to be arranged so that this principle is not threatened. Why, therefore, has this function been given to a body that has not been specifically designed to discharge it?

There is a very real danger that the YPLA will interfere in the work of academies, particularly if members and component local authorities are ideologically opposed to the academies movement. In my experience, that tends to be Labour, not Conservative, local authorities, as intimated by the Minister. That is why we and many academy providers have consistently argued that the YPLA should not be able to enter into academy arrangements. Dr. Daniel Moynihan of the Harris Federation said in evidence to the Bill Committee in March:

"We want to be fully accountable and fully in the daylight for our performance, and for that we need to be responsible for decisions about services and how they are used, and not have them forced on us."

In response to a question about moving academies back to local authority control, Dr. Moynihan said:

"My answer would be that local authorities have called in academy sponsors because the various mechanisms that they have deployed in the past to improve the schools that they offer us as academies have not worked... It does not make sense to return those schools to local authorities." --[ Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 48, Q126.]

Dr. Moynihan's major concern relates to the attitude that the YPLA would take to academies establishing sixth forms, and whether it would try to prevent them from doing so because of the competition that that might create with established sixth forms. As he said:

"In one local authority, we were told... that we could not open sixth forms in two of our academies. It was a particularly poor part of London in terms of the staying-on rate, and the reason why we were told that was that it did not fit with the plan. Four years later we have 400 sixth-formers and an outstanding sixth form, but nothing else has changed in the area. As in that case, we would want to be sure that we had a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, and that it was clear that we could not necessarily be blocked by whatever the local plan was if it was not an entirely sensible and objective one.

We have experienced difficulties on other occasions when local authorities have not wanted an academy to open for political reasons and in order to protect underperforming local provision."

The response from the Minister in another place, Lady Morgan, was sympathetically expressed but ultimately unhelpful.

I know the hon. Gentleman will agree that Dr. Moynihan is a fantastic advocate of academies and has done a tremendous job. Let me, however, quote from the same session from which the hon. Gentleman quoted. Dr. Moynihan said:

"we support the establishment of the agency. It makes sense for the Department to have an agency to take care of academies. Clearly the Department was never meant to be a local authority, so we are perfectly happy with that and we think it will work well." --[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 43-48, Q107.]

Dr. Moynihan was saying that he was in favour of an agency, but not this agency. He does not want the YPLA to be the body overseeing the academies movement.

Can the hon. Gentleman clarify whether that latter aspiration is the policy of the Conservative party-which, essentially, would mean displacing the existing YPLA with something purely academies-based-or whether he envisages the powers returning to the Department, as has been the case?

When we debated the issue in Committee, I tabled an amendment to enable a different organisation to be established to run the academies. The question is whether the academies should be run from within the Department or whether they should be overseen by a stand-alone non-departmental public body. There are arguments on both sides. We are considering them, and the hon. Gentleman will be the first to know what we decide.

In another place, Lady Morgan said:

"we cannot accept a situation where academy sixth forms are funded automatically".

She went on to say:

"However, academies often are the best providers. Those academies have nothing to fear. Local authorities cannot and will not just ignore that. If local authorities acted unreasonably in their commissioning role-refusing to fund high-quality provision may well count as unreasonable-they could face judicial review".-[ Hansard, House of Lords, 2 November 2009; Vol. 714, c. 58.]

Administration by judicial review is the not the way to proceed. The very real concerns expressed by Dr. Moynihan, which are shared by the rest of the academies movement, have not been properly addressed by Ministers. Indeed, none of the changes made in the other place that we are debating today has expressed those concerns in any substantive way. That is why we tabled an amendment to Lords amendment 124 which would insert a requirement that a majority of ordinary members of the YPLA must be currently serving principals of an academy, thus ensuring that the YPLA will take into account the needs of academies and will have an understanding of the approach that makes the movement so successful. The minority members will be able to deal with the other duties and responsibilities of the YPLA-

Order. Let me point out for the sake of clarification that if the hon. Gentleman is referring to amendment (a) to Lords amendment 124, it is in the next group of Lords amendments.

You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mean the amendment to Lords amendment 178. It does what I have just described, however.

The minority members of the YPLA could then deal with the YPLA's responsibilities. At least our amendment would enable us to be sure that this body would understand the issues facing academies, and would be sympathetic to them. It is not a matter of one sector dominating the YPLA; it is a matter of trying to undo the mess that the Government have created by transferring all the academies in the country to a body that is unsuitable to be the oversight body.

We have had an interesting debate, and more light has been shed on the Conservatives' position on academies. I shall return to that shortly, but let me begin by welcoming the more straightforward amendments: Lords amendments 72, 73 and 178. I think that some of my colleagues in another place contributed to them.

Lords amendment 72 touches on an issue that we raised in Committee. It would introduce a measure preventing the Secretary of State from making arrangements under which the YPLA can sign funding agreements or make subordinate legislation on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Minister was slightly ambiguous earlier in regard to whether the Government had had a change of heart during the Bill's passage through the House of Commons. I had thought that it was previously the position of Ministers that they had never intended the YPLA to have these powers. The amendment simply seeks to include in the Bill the assurances made during the House of Commons Committee stage, but it would be useful to hear clarification from the Minister in a moment.

We obviously welcome the measure in any event. We also welcome Lords amendment 178, which would ensure that the experience that YPLA members have covers the full range of the responsibilities that the YPLA will have to cover. That seems an entirely sensible proposal.

I am sorry if I was ambiguous; I did not mean to be. We did not ever intend the YPLA to have that function with regard to the funding agreements. What the amendment does is make the position explicit in the Bill. I never try to be ambiguous.

I am grateful to the Minister for correcting any ambiguity so swiftly. We are reassured by his comments.

Let me turn to the most important part of the debate, and deal with amendment (a) to Lords amendment 178. Mr. Gibb is always extremely candid in this place-perhaps more candid than is always good for politicians-and he responded with typical candour when I asked whether this was Conservative party policy by acknowledging that it might or might not be.

Ambiguous.

It was indeed another ambiguity. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was making a point rather than a serious proposal, although his response a moment ago suggests that there may be a serious proposal behind it.

I understand that the previous position of the Conservative party was that it wanted academies to continue to be under the oversight of Westminster and the Minister. We do not believe that that is sustainable. It might have been sustainable with one Minister who was very engaged in the programme when the Government were running 20 or 30 academies, but it is surely not sustainable when there are 100, 200, 300 or 400, and it certainly will not be sustainable if the vision for the education system set out by Michael Gove in his speech on 5 November comes to fruition. He made it very clear that the Conservative party's long-term goal was for academy status to become the norm not just for secondary schools but-I assume from the thrust of his comments-for primary schools as well.

If the Conservative party, or Members of Parliament in general, really think that the Department would be capable of holding to account 3,500 secondary schools and 23,500 primary and secondary schools from Westminster, it and we will be making a grave mistake. I do not see how that could possibly be consistent with many of the criticisms made by the Conservative party of big government and the system of running everything from Westminster and Whitehall. I would also say gently to the hon. Gentleman that if he is concerned with political interference in the academies movement, there could not be a better guarantee of uncertainty in that regard than putting the Secretary of State and the Department in charge of the oversight of academies. That is because whenever there is a Minister or Secretary of State who is unenthusiastic about academies, they might easily and rapidly implement changes to undermine the academy movement. Therefore, those who support academies might want some elements of their oversight or freedoms to be at a greater distance from Secretaries of State. I would have thought that this might be a concern that the hon. Gentleman would have in respect of the current Government. It does not appear to me to be at all obvious that we should stick with the existing system, and it appears fairly obvious that we should move towards a different approach.

The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting this in amendment (a). I assume the amendment is not a serious proposal, but that it has been tabled to make a point. If implemented, however, it would either make the YPLA entirely responsible for the oversight of academies or lead to the appointment of so many principals to it that the YPLA would become obsessed by academies and would pay little regard to many of its other responsibilities. It would therefore effectively end up being a regulator of academies.

Because we do not think that that is a satisfactory approach, my party has not been able to support the Government or the Conservative party on this matter. Such an approach could leave some parts of the country with regional branches of the YPLA that have oversight of a tiny number of academies and that would duplicate the oversight that is already supposed to be in place from local authorities. From my understanding of what happened in Committee, it would also leave us with a deeply unsatisfactory situation in which the Government essentially set up a YPLA to take on the oversight of academies because they do not trust local authorities with the oversight and performance management of schools, and particularly of those schools with high levels of disadvantage and poor levels of overall performance. It seems to me pretty astonishing that the Government might put in place a system of oversight for these schools that suggests that they have no confidence in the other mechanisms that are used for the oversight of the vast majority of schools in this country.

If there are problems with local authority oversight of either academies or existing schools, it seems more appropriate to deal with and address the deficiencies in that oversight than to seek to set up a separate organisation such as the YPLA to do the job or perhaps to end up-this could be Conservative party policy, depending on which branch line it takes in its current review-with the oversight of 23,500 schools from one ministerial office in Westminster.

Many of the concerns about academy oversight and independence-which I think are shared by all three Front-Bench teams-could be met by addressing three separate issues. First, the freedoms of academies need to be protected, and could be effectively protected by legislation. Secondly, there should be support for the establishment of academies where it may not be sufficient to rely on local authorities providing that support if they feel those schools are competing with the existing local authority family of schools. Authority for that could rest with either the Department or a much smaller agency of the type that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton suggested. In our view, that ought to leave the oversight of academies and all other state-funded schools with local authorities, and they themselves should be under very rigorous oversight from an independent educational standards authority of a type that, frankly, we do not have at the moment. That lets down not only those schools that could come under the oversight of local government, but the thousands of other schools that have to rely on a performance management mechanism, which the Government seem to feel is so defective that they are having to set up a separate body to do this for the academies.

We therefore believe that amendments 178, 72 and 73 offer some welcome tweaks from another place, but we believe that the fundamental issue of the oversight of academies has not been dealt with. We certainly do not believe that the right way to go forward is through amendment (a), which seems more of a probing amendment than a serious proposal.

Our brief discussion on this group of amendments has been useful and interesting. Let me repeat and put on record that academies are an essential part of the Government's educational reform programme. They play a significant role in the improvement of educational standards in many of the poorest areas of our country and they have been, in most part, very successful. The fact that we now have 200 academies across the country with a commitment to extending that to 400 academies by 2011 is an extremely important statement of what the Government are seeking to achieve.

I regularly meet academies and speak to the sponsors. I, along with the Secretary of State and other members of the DCSF ministerial team, do all we can to expand and develop the programme. I referred Mr. Gibb to the argument about the need for academies to be developed more quickly as though they are the answer in every situation, because one or two Conservative authorities across the country-or perhaps more-are not following the policy that he has just articulated. If it is, indeed, Conservative party policy that every school should be an academy and that they should be the answer to educational deprivation and underachievement all across the country, he needs to speak to one or two local authorities and tell them that. I have to tell him that in one or two cases where we are seeking to provide an academy solution to a problem, it is not Labour authorities, the DCSF or me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who are preventing that from happening; it is one or two people from his own party.

My experience of speaking to academy providers is that the problems they have faced over the past five or 10 years have come mostly from Labour authorities.

The point I am making is that we want academies to be the solution where that is appropriate, and we need to overcome any obstacles to that. The only point I am making to the hon. Gentleman is that it is not just Labour authorities that are sometimes standing in the way of the academy solution. The Secretary of State has been very clear that academies are an important solution to the problems of educational underachievement. They are an important solution to some of the problems we have seen when social deprivation and educational achievement remain linked despite the efforts that have been made, but they are not the only solution. That is the difference between us. The Conservatives see academies as a solution in every single situation-in every single secondary school and every single primary school-whereas we say that there may well be other solutions, including the national challenge trust. Locally, an academy might not be the best means of improving educational standards in an area, but we will pursue an academy solution if we believe that it is appropriate.

Mr. Laws mentioned local authorities. We might go to the local authority and ask it to come to agreements about educational transformation in its area and develop a strategy for change, perhaps using Building Schools for the Future money. It is up to the local authority to determine how to do that. The difference between us and the other parties is that we want local authorities to come forward and tell us what the solution is-and that may well be an academy, or it may well be a national challenge trust or another sort of federation. We will not tolerate, however, local authorities who will not come forward to grasp difficult issues, but we will work closely with local authorities on the school reform programme.

We have introduced the YPLA simply because, as the hon. Member for Yeovil said, it simply is not sustainable for the Department to run academies from the centre and to become, in essence, a national local authority for hundreds and hundreds of them. If there were only a few academies, such an arrangement might be appropriate, but as we expect to have 400 of them in a couple of years' time, it simply is not in this case. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has said:

"There is a general consensus that the administration and oversight of academies should, because of the growing number of academies, be performed by some form of agency acting for the Secretary of State". --[ Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 19 March 2009; c. 427.]

He may not accept the YPLA, but he accepts that some form of agency, aside from the central DCSF, would be the appropriate body and that suggests that he accepts the need for another body to help run the academy programme, rather than to have the whole programme run centrally.

I agree that we cannot run hundreds or thousands of academies from Whitehall or Westminster. Has the Minister any objection to local authorities performance-managing academies?

In our discussions, local authorities constantly talk to us about the performance of schools in their areas. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have said just recently that what he suggests is not acceptable for the academies in the national challenge or for the one or two that are in an Ofsted category. However, we will work closely with them and with local authorities to do all we can to ensure that academies are held to the same stringent account for performance as other schools.

Why can that performance management not be done by a local authority? Why does it need to be done by a separate agency?

Performance management, ultimately, will be done by Ofsted; it will draw problems to the attention of local authorities, Ministers or the sponsors. Indeed, some academies welcome Ofsted and conduct Ofsted-type inspections of themselves to see how they are performing, and how their improvement programmes and strategies are working.

We have said that the YPLA will provide better value for money and that a dedicated agency would help to save nearly £1 million. The existing regional infrastructure will allow quicker, more focused support resulting from better knowledge of the local context and more regular contact. Academy funding functions fit in with the YPLA's main remit: the funding of education and training places for 16 to 19-year-olds. We are working and will continue to work with academies to make sure that they are supported in ways that work best for them.

We have built in safeguards. The Secretary of State will remain legally responsible for all the academies' functions, including negotiating and signing the funding agreements, as I have said. The Secretary of State will be directly involved in key decisions, such as terminating a funding agreement or appointing new members to the governing body. Academies will have the same legal remedies available to them as now if they are unhappy with how they are treated. There will not be a loss of academy autonomy. The YPLA will not have the power to impose new duties on academies and it will be required to exercise its academy functions in accordance with arrangements and guidance set out by the Secretary of State's key principles.

I do not see that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is appropriate or necessary. We have said that the YPLA board should represent all the responsibilities that the YPLA has, so we would expect significant-not "majority", as his amendment proposes-academy representation. Also on that body would be sixth-form colleges, local authorities and further education colleges. We have set up an academy reference group, and we regularly meet academies and academy hosts. We have a director of academies who will now work within the YPLA, so we are trying to address what the amendment is getting at: the need to ensure that the YPLA, important as its work will be, does not have an adverse impact on the autonomy of academies, does not slow down the real progress that academies are making in tackling educational underachievement and does what we want.

In opposing the hon. Gentleman's amendment, but in supporting the Lords in their amendments, may I say that academies are and will remain a fundamental part of our educational reform programme? We believe that their autonomy within a collaborative framework is important, and that importance is shown, as he pointed out, by the excellent results being achieved in many of those academies in areas where that excellence simply did not exist before-all of us, whatever the type of school we wish to see introduced, want to see that. This evening's debate, as well as the one that has taken place alongside this Bill, will help all of us to bring about the educational transformation that we all wish to see.

Lords amendment 72 agreed to.

Lords amendments 73 to 117 agreed to, with Commons privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 87, 91 and 105.