Academies Bill [Lords]

I am talking about the funding formula. As we have been talking about different parts of the country benefiting in different ways, I thought it important to get on the record that my students were disadvantaged by that formula. The amendment is useful in that it has prompted a discussion on these issues, but there are problems with it. I note in passing the phrase in proposed subsection (1A)(c):"““any other persons deemed appropriate.””" In yesterday's debate, the Opposition argued that it was not sufficient to deem people appropriate and that the list should have been much longer, and included staff, for example, so a little inconsistency is apparent. Putting that point aside, the problem with the amendment is that it is a little vague. Essentially, it relates to situations in which anyone in the local community might think that their school needs a bit more investment for a project, but no level of investment is specified. I can see how the amendment could kick in when a school has been identified by Ofsted and everyone else as needing drastic investment, but it talks about"““whether there are outstanding requirements for capital investment””." Presumably, the consultation would leave it up to those who responded to a request to define what they deem to be ““outstanding requirements””, so the amendment would effectively mean that if anyone said, ““We want a bit more in our existing school for this””, no money would be provided. The amendment is intended to toughen up the criteria governing such requests, and I am tempted by that, but it is flawed because, in practice, it would act as a block. I am sympathetic to some of the issues that have been raised, and I hope that the Minister will respond to them and clarify how local people may be reassured that the Government's proposed capital programme will meet as many demands for improvements to existing schools as possible.