(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (4).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 2, to the title, line 4, leave out from “Academy” to end.
Sir Christopher Chope
Some people may be unfamiliar with the detail of the Bill because it did not receive a Second Reading debate. It went through on the nod on 16 May. It then went into a quite truncated Public Bill Committee on Wednesday 2 July, and it has now come back to the Chamber on Report.
I tabled amendment 1 to highlight my concern about the consultation arrangements proposed in subsection (4). Amendment 2 is a consequential amendment. As people will have noticed, in the Bill’s long title, it states:
“expand a secure 16 to 19 Academy; and to alter the consultation question required when it is proposed to establish or expand a secure 16 to 19 Academy.”
If amendment 1 were successful, the long title would need to be amended, and in anticipation of that, I tabled amendment 2. As ever, I am most grateful to the Public Bill Office for having ensured that I was on the right lines with that and that such an amendment could be tabled.
Amendment 1 arises from the fact that section 10 of the Academies Act 2010 states that before entering into an academy arrangement, the provider
“must carry out a consultation on the question of whether the arrangements should be entered into.”
Clause 1(4) would insert into that provision an exception that
“where the educational institution, if the arrangements are entered into, is to be a secure 16 to 19 Academy…the person is not required to carry out a consultation on that question”.
In other words, it is an exemption from the requirement for a consultation on the question of whether the arrangements should be entered into. I do not see that as a reasonable thing to do.
In the short debate on this matter in the Bill Committee, there was a bit of a misrepresentation when it was stated that
“secure schools do not compete with other schools.”––[Official Report, Secure 16 to 19 Academies Public Bill Committee, 2 July 2025; c. 4.]
That may be true, but they can compete with other institutions, particularly those providing alternative provision.
Clause 1(4) adds to section 10 of the 2010 Act that for a secure 16 to 19 academy, the person is not required to carry out a consultation on that question, but
“must instead carry out a consultation on the question of how they should cooperate with potential local partners in connection with the establishment and carrying on of the Academy.”
Those local partners are described as “potential local partners”, meaning
“persons exercising functions of a public nature”—
I think the Bill has in mind organisations such as the health service, the local education authority, councillors and so on—
“and…so far as not falling within paragraph (a), proprietors of educational institutions…with whom the person carrying out the consultation thinks it appropriate to cooperate.”
Again, that discretion is left with the person carrying out the consultation.
I do not understand why we are abandoning the much more fundamental issue of the consultation.
There might be no competition between a secure 16 to 19 academy and an ordinary school, but there may well be competition between that secure academy and another such academy that is already in existence or that may be proposed.
The 2022 legislation on secure academies was introduced in the previous Parliament. At the time, nobody thought there was any problem with having the same arrangements for secure 16 to 19 academies as for other academies. This short debate on amendment 1 will give the Minister an opportunity to explain why that change is necessary, how it is justified, and why there needs to be a deletion of the existing consultation arrangements rather than an addition to the existing arrangements of being subject to consultation, which is the subject of proposed new subsection (2A)(b) to section 10 of the Academies Act 2010, as in subsection (4).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) focuses on the specific question of why this change should be made. It is very much a technical change. We have one secure school, the Oasis Academy in Kent, which I have visited. These secure schools are for young people who are sentenced to custody; they join the rest of the youth custodial estate, which includes three young offenders institutions and a secure training centre, as well as a YOI in Wales and some secure children’s homes.
It is a very discrete landscape. There is no competition with alternative provision or any other provision locally, because it would be inappropriate for a young person who was sentenced to custody to go into alternative provision, as they have to go to secure provision—that is, a young offenders institution or one of the other secure provisions, one of which is the secure school.
It was a bit of an oversight in the original legislation to use the term “consultation” about whether it should go ahead, because there is no competition in the locality. A more useful consultation would be about how, because there are issues about working with other partners, including partners that might provide alternative provision, and that is the most appropriate way of doing that.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) has brought this Bill before us today. It seeks to make more sense of the legislation, so that it will be more effective for these particular young people and these particular places.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am so grateful to the Minister. What a breath of fresh air that a Minister has actually answered my challenge and given an explanation! In the light of those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Reading
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions and to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for tabling the amendments. In the interests of time, I commend the Bill to the House.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I now have the chance to talk about the Bill. I did not have a chance on Second Reading, because the Bill went through on the nod, and I was not on the Bill Committee. I am the loser as a result; I was not invited. The hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) steered it through Committee quickly, and now it has come back to the House and she does not feel the need to expand on it in any way.
I will take up one particular challenge, because my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) asked a question in Committee and the Minister said:
“I thank the hon. Members who have contributed so far. On the issues just raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, they are for the Bill as it makes progress. Assuming that it does progress, however, I am happy to write to him with an answer to those points, as they are pertinent.”––[Official Report, Secure 16 to 19 Academies Public Bill Committee, 2 July 2025; c. 6.]
I do not know whether such a letter has been sent but, if so, I have not seen the contents as I was not a Committee member. When the Minister responds in his usual helpful way, I hope that he will share his answer to my hon. Friend’s question. That is a relatively detailed point.
My greater concern about the Bill comes from being a great supporter of academies and what they have done to transform education provision in our country by removing that provision from the dead hand of so many local authorities. I speak as someone who, early in my political career, succeeded in persuading Margaret Thatcher to abolish the Inner London Education Authority, which was one of the great success stories of my campaigning.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 dealt with this issue and set out the secure 16-to-19 academies. I cannot understand whether it was an oversight that the legislation was not changed then to ensure that there was a guarantee of only two years’ funding. Under the Academies Act 2010, an academy was guaranteed seven years of funding after being set up, and if that was curtailed, there would essentially be compensation for the academy.
More importantly, setting up an academy is an expensive job, as I know from the setting up of what became Parkfield school as an academy in my constituency. It transferred from a free school that started in Bournemouth and did not have premises; it was basically on the third floor of an office block. It could not get planning permission because of hostility from the local education authority, which did not relish the prospect of competition. It then found some premises in my constituency that already had an educational use, because they were the training school for NATS—the national air traffic services—in Christchurch.
The cost of converting those facilities into a premises suitable for an academy was significant. It was time consuming, and critics of the academy system used the fact that so much money was being spent on this provision against the then Government. It was time consuming, and critics of the academy system used the fact that so much money was being spent on this provision against the then Government. However, it was made more secure by the fact that there was a guarantee that the academy could stay in place for seven years.
I am sorry to say that, at the end of this term, the academy known as Parkfield school will no longer exist, because the academy trust that took over the running of it has decided to pull out. The original notice was given a year ago, and last year the school dealt solely with people who are waiting to complete their GCSEs. The buildings there will now revert to the Department for Education. What will happen to them, who knows? The investment is there. Maybe it will be used by the local authority for alternative education provision. Maybe it will be used as a secure 16 to 19 academy.
The point is that an academy would never have been able to get started in the premises at Parkfield school had it been given only a two-year lease of life. Members of this House who were elected one year ago this month think that a five-year duration is pretty short. They cannot really get their feet under the table and invest to be fit for the future if they have a guaranteed existence of only up to five years. If we are talking about premises taking on staff, and everything that goes with that—even more so if we are talking about secured premises—I cannot understand why the minimum notice period under a funding arrangement will be reduced from seven years to two.
The argument put forward is that a two-year termination period will enable the Government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer and have more flexibility, should there be a need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. That has not been expanded upon in any of the debates that I have heard or in the explanatory notes. It is just a statement, and a mere repetition of it cannot be a substitute for a justification of it. How will lowering the termination period to two years prioritise value for money? It may well mean that short-termism prevails because the academy says that it cannot do this or that, and invest for the future, because it has only a two-year potential lifespan.
In articulating the Government’s case, the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth went on to say in Committee:
“Reducing it to two years strikes a balance between avoiding a lengthy exit period in which Government would be committed to continue funding the secure school longer than necessary”—
this is exactly the system for academies: if an academy fails, there has to be an exit period, as has happened in Parkfield school—
“while ensuring that secure school providers have the certainty of funding to avoid issues with recruiting and retaining the specialist staff required to work in this environment.”––[Official Report, Secure 16 to 19 Academies Public Bill Committee, 2 July 2025; c. 4.]
I would suggest that having only a two-year contract is hardly encouraging for potential members of staff. I do not think the number of people aspiring to be Members of Parliament would increase if the knowledge was that there would be an election every two years and they might find themselves retrospectively on a two-year contract.
The hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth then went on to justify the disapplication of section 9 of the Academies Act 2010 in this Bill. That was not the subject of an amendment from me, but she said that it would
“remove the requirement that the Secretary of State considers the impact of entering into a new academy funding agreement on other educational establishments in the area for secure 16 to 19 academies. Although it is important that secure schools are established as academies, in order to ensure they mirror best practice in the community, they are fundamentally different, as secure schools do not compete with other schools.”
They do not compete with other schools, but they could potentially compete with other organisations. The hon. Lady then said:
“As such, we do not expect them to have an impact on the viability of other local mainstream schools.”
That is fine—I do not expect that—but what about schools that are not mainstream? That is used as an argument to say that this Bill would
“disapply that duty for this particular type of school, to help any future secure schools open with minimal delay.”––[Official Report, Secure 16 to 19 Academies Public Bill Committee, 2 July 2025; c. 4.]
I come to this Bill in a slightly suspicious state of mind, because we know that the Government are not really enthusiastic about academies. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but if the academy programme—I will not call it an experiment, because it has succeeded —had been in a position to have been brought forward under a Labour Government, I do not think they would ever have done it. This Labour Government are reluctant and realise that they cannot really abolish academies, but I am concerned that what is proposed in this Bill may be the starting point of facilitating the making of academies less financially viable and their withering on the vine by removing that all-important seven-year guarantee of funding or indefinite funding with a seven-year notice, which has to be given under the legislation. Those are my concerns.
The fact that this Bill seems to have consensus across the House makes me even more concerned. When we look at lawmaking in this House, we see that many of the worst laws are those that were introduced with cross-party consensus.
The hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth refers to the issue of time. There is no constraint on us being able to debate this Bill today, which is what we are doing. This is the last sitting Friday that has been allocated by the Government, but I am assured by the Government Whip who deals with these things that this Session of Parliament is likely to continue well beyond the autumn and that there will doubtless be further sitting Fridays. If there are further sitting Fridays and some of the business on the Order Paper today is not reached, we will be able to reach it on the next sitting Friday chosen.
As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, although there is a limit of 13 days for private Members’ legislation, where a Session of Parliament has been extended significantly there has by convention been an addition of sitting Fridays to compensate for that—in the same way that additional time is provided for Opposition days by convention. Otherwise, strictly speaking, under the Standing Orders there would not be sufficient Opposition days.
I am not suggesting we go on debating this Bill into the next Friday, but I hope that when the Minister responds, he does not feel that he is inhibited by time constraints imposed by the Whips, because those time constraints are artificial in the extreme and can be altered. I look forward to having my concerns addressed. I am open to being reassured, and I look forward to the Minister pursuing such a course.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I rise to express the Opposition’s support for the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for bringing it forward. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) was not so keen for me to make the most of the time available, so I do not intend to.
As was noted during the earlier stages of the Bill, this legislation largely mirrors a previous Bill introduced before the election by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson)—my office neighbour, as it happens. Although the previous Bill did not complete its passage, I pay tribute to her dedication and clear commitment to improving outcomes for children in custody. She laid the ground work for the Bill we are debating today, and I have no doubt that she will be pleased to see it return to the House with the support of the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth.
Secure 16 to 19 academies, also known as secure schools, are a new form of custodial provision, with education and rehabilitation at their core. They represent a much-needed shift in how we support and care for young people in custody. The last Conservative Government introduced the first secure school, Oasis Restore in Medway. The evidence shows that smaller units that focus on education, health and the root causes of offending are the most likely to reduce reoffending. By helping these children—and they are children—to turn their lives around, we can make sure that everyone is safer in the long run.
Secure schools are not typical educational institutions, and it is both appropriate and necessary that different legal and procedural requirements apply to them. The Bill makes a number of changes to funding and consultation requirements, which are all eminently sensible. Although we agree with the Bill’s provisions, we would welcome reassurance from the Government that the schools will be properly funded and supported, and that appropriate steps are being put in place to ensure that young people in custody are properly supported to reduce their reoffending. If secure schools are to succeed where other parts of the youth estate have historically struggled, they must be properly resourced, effectively led and rooted in strong local partnerships.
We would be interested to hear more in due course about the Government’s long-term vision for the youth estate. What further plans do they have, if any, to open any new secure schools? What future role do they see young offender institutions and secure training centres playing? How will the Government ensure that partnerships with health and education providers are strengthened to maximise the impact of this reform? I would be grateful if the Minister could make some remarks along those lines. This is a practical and proportionate Bill. The Opposition support it and look forward to seeing its progress.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for the excellent work she has done in bringing forward this important Bill and navigating us to this point. I am also grateful to the shadow Minister for his support and for his comments. I assure him that we will take forward the issues he rightly raises in due course.
In answer to the welcome scepticism from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), I can confirm that I wrote to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), and indeed copied in the rest of the Committee, pointing out that Oasis Restore had agreed to the rationale for reducing the notice period from seven years to two and for this change to be applied to their funding agreement. As a result, there will be no financial impact on the taxpayer. I picked up exactly the point that the hon. Member for Christchurch rightly raised; it has been dealt with.
Academies were first introduced by the Government of Sir Tony Blair, but the issues raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch about academies generally are matters for the Department for Education rather than me. I commend the Bill to the House and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth for bringing it forward.
Emma Foody
With the leave of the House, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Members across the House. I thank the Clerks, the Minister and the shadow Minister for their support, and the contributions and welcome challenge from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). It was brilliant to see such consensus on this important issue. I also want to say a quick thank you to my team for the work they have done to support me in bringing this Bill forward in my first year in the House, along with officials from the Ministry of Justice. Without their support, I would not have been able to do so. I look forward to—hopefully—the continued support of hon. Members for the Bill as it progresses through further stages.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.