Academies Bill — Require Impact Assessment of Effect of New Academy —rejected — 26 Jul 2010 at 20:45
The majority of MPs voted against requiring an impact assessment on the effect of a new academy on admissions, school funding and social cohesion, before an application to create a new academy would be permitted.
The vote was taken on if a new clause ought be added to the Academies Bill. The rejected clause read:
- (1) Before a school makes an application for an Academy order or an Academy arrangement with an additional school the relevant local authority must be asked to assess the impact of Academy status on-
- •(a) admissions in the local authority area where the school is situated;
- •(b) funding between all publicly funded schools in the local authority area where the school is situated; and
- •(c) social cohesion in the local authority area where the school is situated.
- (2) The impact assessment in subsection (1) should be made with regard to any existing policies the local authority or local schools forum have in relation to (a), (b) and (c).
- (3) Before making an Academy order or an Academy arrangement with an additional school the Secretary of State must have regard to the impact assessment in subsection (1) made by the local authority.
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||273 (+1 tell)||0||0||89.5%|
|Lab||0||217 (+2 tell)||0||84.9%|
|LDem||38 (+1 tell)||3||1||75.4%|
|David Ward||Bradford East||LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Mike Hancock||Portsmouth South||whilst LDem (front bench)||aye|
|Andrew George||St Ives||LDem (front bench)||both|