My Lords, I had better start with an apology to the Whips: my comments are a bit detailed, but they are quite detailed amendments—but I am still pleased to introduce them.

We on these Benches support the aims of this Clause to ensure that children learn in safe and regulated settings, that illegal schools either register or are closed down, and that institutions that do not meet the independent school standards are required to do so in an effective way. However, we have two sets of concerns that I shall try to set out. First, they lie with the apparent wish of the Secretary of State to regulate academies in multiple different ways: through the funding agreement that the former Minister argued in Committee in the other place, in relation to Clause 36, was sufficient; through the new powers in Clause 49, which we have yet to debate; and now through the additional powers in Clause 37.

Secondly, our worries reflect the fact that the details of the revised standards will be set out in regulations. Effectively, independent schools are flying blind as to what these new obligations will be. Under Section 94 of the 2008 Act, the Secretary of State was authorised to make regulations prescribing standards in relation to specific matters. These regulations have always bound proprietors of academies, as they are independent schools.

Clause 36 introduces additional subsections into Section 94 of the 2008 Act, and these include a standard

“by reference to whether or not the proprietor of an independent educational institution has regard to guidance issued, or a document published, by the Secretary of State from time to time”.

So, until we see the regulations that are proposed to be published in relation to that standard, we cannot see what the consequence of this change would be. Will the noble Baroness clarify what new obligations, if any, the proprietor of an academy would have to comply with, as distinct from “have regard to”, in new guidance given by the DfE? It would be helpful if the Government could be clear about the changes to the current burdens on the proprietors of academies. My Amendment 429A would remove these types of schools from the standard-setting powers in Clause 37.

It is also proposed to amend Section 94 by including a standard in relation to

“a proprietor which is a body of persons”.

It is not entirely clear what that expression is intended to mean. All academy trusts are companies limited by guarantee and are therefore a single person, not a body of persons. It is possible, therefore, that the proposed amendment to the 2008 Act is irrelevant to academy schools. If so, can the Minister, confirm this?

However, the Bill also includes the following wording:

“A standard … in relation to a proprietor may be prescribed by reference in the case of a proprietor which is a body of persons … to whether the Secretary of State is notified before a new person becomes involved in the general control and management of, or assumes legal responsibility and accountability for, the proprietor”.

So, it could be said that the members of the company limited by guarantee and/or its directors are persons who become

“involved in the general control and management of, or assume legal responsibility and accountability for” the company limited by guarantee, namely, the proprietor of the academy school. I did not draft the Bill. I appreciate that it is dense. One could argue that it is not applicable because the proprietor of an academy school is not “a body of persons”, but it is important that we understand how the Government think this should be interpreted, and I hope the noble Baroness can cover this when she comes to close.

My Amendment 428 would remove academies from the scope of the amendments to Section 118 of the Education and Skills Act 2008. Under proposed new Section 118A, to be introduced by the Bill:

“The Secretary of State may suspend the registration of an independent educational institution if (a) the Secretary of State is satisfied that one or more of the independent educational institution standards are not being met … and (b) the Secretary of State has reasonable cause to believe that, as a result, one or more students at the institution will or may be exposed to the risk of harm”.

My Amendment 428 seeks to confirm what we already know: that the funding agreement gives the Secretary of State all the powers she needs to regulate academies. I thought it was worth refreshing my memory on what is included in the master funding agreement. It covers governance, the running of academies, finance and accounting, and complaints and termination, among many other things. I would have thought that would be sufficient for any Secretary of State.

As the Minister knows, the concept of suspending the registration of a proprietor of an academy is fraught with difficulty. The funding agreement contains complex provisions relating to the termination of such an agreement. Our concern is that the practicalities involved in suspending the registration of an academy proprietor, thus making it unlawful for the proprietor to continue to operate its academies, are unworkable. We believe these provisions should not apply to an academy school, but that the Secretary of State should rely on the provision in the funding agreements, which give her ample powers of Intervention. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that she agrees with me.

On the other amendments in my name in this group, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain to the Committee why the list of accepted institutions set out in Clause 36 does not include academies, including free schools, UTCs and studio schools, given that the list does include 16 to 19 academies. I understand that they are directly accountable to the Secretary of State via the funding agreement, but surely this is the case for 16 to 19 academies too.

Amendment 427BA mirrors that put down by my Honourable Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, which the Minister in the other place committed to addressing in writing. We have not been able to find his response, so it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify this. At the risk of being repetitive, can she explain what problem in relation to academies the Government are trying to solve with this clause? In case the Government have not already thought this through and quantified it, I have put down Amendments 431A and 506D, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of the educational institution standards on schools of different types that are not maintained by the local authority, before commencement of these changes.

Finally, Amendments 432B and 433A relate to new Section 101(2)(g) inserted by Clause 39 which relates to the definition of a material change. Our concern is that a simple change of use of a building or the addition of, say, a bike shed for students’ use would need to be notified to the Secretary of State. Can the Minister explain whether this applies to academies or only to fee-paying schools? The former Minister in the other place, when responding to my honourable friend on this point, appeared to say that it was the latter, but I am not clear where that is made clear in the legislation. As I understand it, Clause 39 links to Clause 36 and academies are not excepted institutions unless, of course, the Government see the light and accept my earlier amendment. I had understood that they would be caught by this clause.

The Minister in the other place argued that one could not be sure that a new building at a private school was suitable for students. If this is the case, why do the Government think that the school would be more likely to respect this legislation than that which already exists surrounding health and safety and building regulations? I beg to move.