There is a fundamental point, and I shall not shy away from it. I would submit—sorry, the lawyer is coming out in me—that, when it comes to a timetable for the resolution of any disputes, the new model agreement on admissions should be clarified even further. I am sure that there is scope for looking at the detail, but it does not necessarily mean that such detail has to be in the Bill. If we are going to go down this road, let us ensure that the contract—the agreements—are as watertight, as accessible and as understandable as possible for parents. I have concerns that many Members share, but it does not mean that we need to include them in the Bill. In fact, to take the hon. Gentleman's logic to its conclusion, I note that his amendment seeks to make the Bill even less prescriptive. He might think it an artificial point, but on his logic I am entitled to make it, because, by seeking to sweep away particular clauses that have been included as a result of much deliberation, he is in effect negating his own argument. With that, I draw my remarks to a close.
Academies Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Robert Buckland
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 21 July 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Academies Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
514 c398 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 17:36:10 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_657735
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_657735
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_657735