Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting)

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Mr Clive Betts, † Sir Christopher Chope, Sir Edward Leigh, Graham Stringer

† Atkinson, Catherine (Derby North) (Lab)

† Baines, David (St Helens North) (Lab)

† Bishop, Matt (Forest of Dean) (Lab)

† Chowns, Ellie (North Herefordshire) (Green)

† Collinge, Lizzi (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)

† Foody, Emma (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)

† Foxcroft, Vicky (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury)

† Hayes, Tom (Bournemouth East) (Lab)

† Hinds, Damian (East Hampshire) (Con)

† McKinnell, Catherine (Minister for School Standards)

† Martin, Amanda (Portsmouth North) (Lab)

† Morgan, Stephen (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education)

† O'Brien, Neil (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)

† Paffey, Darren (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)

† Sollom, Ian (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)

† Spencer, Patrick (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)

† Wilson, Munira (Twickenham) (LD)

Simon Armitage, Rob Cope, Aaron Kulakiewicz, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

[Sir Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Clause 41

Academy schools: duty to follow National Curriculum

14:00:00

Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss: New clause 44—Flexibility to not follow the National Curriculum— “(1) The Education Act 2002 is amended as follows. (2) In section 79(4), omit from ‘include’ to the end of paragraph (a). (3) In section 80— (a) in subsection (1)(b), omit ‘known as’ and insert ‘which may be, or include,’; (b) after subsection (1), insert— ‘(1A) Any curriculum taught under subsection (1)(b) which is not the National Curriculum for England must not be of a lower standard than the National Curriculum for England. (1B) All curriculums must be assessed by the Chief Inspector to be of high quality.’. (4) In section 88— (a) in subsection (1), omit from ‘that the’ to ‘is implemented’ and insert ‘a balanced and broadly based curriculum’; (b) in subsection (1A), omit from ‘that the’ to ‘are implemented’ and insert ‘appropriate assessment arrangements’.”. This new clause would allow local authority maintained schools to offer a curriculum that is different from the national curriculum but that is broad and balanced. It extends academy freedoms over the curriculum to maintained schools. New clause 53—Exemption from requirement to follow National Curriculum in the interests of improving standards— “In the Education Act 2002, after section 95 (Appeals against directions under section 93 etc) insert— ‘95A Exception in the interests of improving standards Where the proprietor of an Academy school or a local authority maintained school believes that the raising of standards in the school would be better served by the school’s curriculum not including the National Curriculum, any provisions of this Act or any other Act do not apply so far as they require the school’s curriculum to include or follow the National Curriculum.’”. New clause 54—Exemption from requirement to follow National Curriculum where Ofsted approves curriculum— “In the Education Act 2002, after section 95 (Appeals against directions under section 93 etc) insert— ‘95A Exemption where Ofsted certifies curriculum as broad and balanced Where— (a) the proprietor of an Academy school or a local authority maintained school believes that the raising of standards in the school would be better served by the school’s curriculum not including the National Curriculum, and (b) His Majesty’s Chief Inspector has, within the previous ten years, certified that the school provides its pupils with a broad and balanced curriculum, any provisions of this Act or any other Act do not apply so far as they require the school’s curriculum to include or follow the National Curriculum.’”. New clause 65—Flexibility to take into account local circumstances when following the National Curriculum— “In section 87 of the Education Act 2002 (establishment of the National Curriculum for England by order), after subsection (1) insert— ‘(1A) In any revision to the National Curriculum for England, the Secretary of State must ensure that the National Curriculum shall consist of— (a) a core framework; and (b) subjects or areas of learning outside the core framework that allow flexibility for each school to take account of their specific circumstances.’”. This new clause would clarify that, when revised, the National Curriculum for England will provide a core framework as well as flexibility for schools to take account of their own specific circumstances. New clause 66—Parliamentary approval of revisions of the National Curriculum— “In section 87 of the Education Act 2002 (establishment of the National Curriculum for England by order), after subsection (3) insert— ‘(3A) An order made under this section revising the National Curriculum for England shall be subject to the affirmative procedure.’”. This new clause would make revisions to the National Curriculum subject to parliamentary approval by the affirmative procedure.

We move on to new clause 53, tabled by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. Removing the entitlement to a high-quality core curriculum for all children by allowing schools, whether they are maintained or academies, to deviate from the national curriculum, could create an unequal system where the content of a child’s core education varies widely. Let us be clear that what we are talking about: a requirement to teach the national curriculum does not create a ceiling; it does not force schools to teach in a particular way or prevent them from adapting or innovating, and it does not stop them adding extra content that works for their pupils. It simply says that, as a nation, this is the core knowledge and skills that we expect schools to teach their pupils, whatever their background. New clause 53 would allow a school to decide not to teach its pupils some important core content that all other children are being taught. We do not think that parents want their children’s school to be able to do that. On that basis, I ask the hon. Members to withdraw the new clause. The hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich also tabled new clause 54. The national curriculum is the cornerstone of the education system. We are reforming it and extending it to cover academies to ensure that every child, regardless of their background or the school they attend, receives the best possible core education. I have set out already why allowing schools to opt out of the national curriculum creates a risk of an unequal system, where not all children can benefit from a strong foundation of the reformed curriculum and what it will provide, so I will focus on the additional elements in the new clause, particularly the Ofsted certifications. There are unanswered questions about how this provision would work in practice. We have moved from single headline judgments in Ofsted inspections, but the new clause seeks to create a single judgment that would have a material impact on a school for the next decade. The fact that a school offered a broad and balanced curriculum, as all schools must, at some point in the previous 10 years does not mean that it currently does or will do in the future if it chooses not to follow the national curriculum. If, subsequently, Ofsted found the school’s curriculum was not up to scratch, the school would have the disruption and cost of suddenly having to teach the national curriculum again. Allowing more schools to deviate from the national curriculum just as we are reforming it creates a risk that some pupils will not be taught the core knowledge and skills that every young person deserves to be taught. I again invite the hon. Members to withdraw the new clause. New clause 65 was tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham. Ensuring that schools can adapt their teaching to unique contexts and circumstances is clearly important, but the current framework already provides the flexibility that schools need and value. The national curriculum subject programmes of study already give schools the flexibility to tailor the content and delivery of the curriculum to meet the needs of their pupils and to take account of new developments, societal changes or topical issues. The reformed national curriculum will help to deliver the Government’s commitment to high and rising standards, supporting the innovation and professionalism of teachers while ensuring greater attention to breadth and flexibility. The proposed core framework would add significant extra complexity to the national curriculum, which already has core and foundation subjects, and would risk being confusing for schools. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.

New clause 54 would allow academies to continue to exercise freedom in the matter of their curriculum where Ofsted is satisfied that the curriculum is broad and balanced. New clause 53 would allow ongoing curriculum freedom in academies where it is needed in the interests of improving standards. New clause 44 would extend academy freedoms to local authority maintained schools, allowing them to offer a curriculum that is different from the national curriculum, as long as it is broad and balanced and certified by Ofsted. The imposition on all schools of the—currently being rewritten—national curriculum was raised in our evidence session right at the start of this Bill Committee. As Nigel Genders, the chief education officer of the Church of England noted: “The complexity is that this legislation is happening at the same time as the curriculum and assessment review, so our schools are being asked to sign up to a general curriculum for everybody without knowing what that curriculum is likely to be.” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 64.] There is a parallel here in that we are also being asked to sign up to sweeping reforms to the academies order at the same time as the Government are changing the accountability framework, as the hon. Member for Twickenham correctly pointed out in the Chamber yesterday. Several school leaders gave us good examples showing why it is a mistake to take away academy freedoms to vary from the national curriculum. As Sir Dan Moynihan, the leader of the incredibly successful Harris Federation, explained to us: “We have taken over failing schools in very disadvantaged places in London, and we have found youngsters in the lower years of secondary schools unable to read and write. We varied the curriculum in the short term and narrowed the number of subjects in key stage 3 in order to maximise the amount of time given for literacy and numeracy, because the children were not able to access the other subjects. Of course, that is subject to Ofsted. Ofsted comes in, inspects and sees whether what you are doing is reasonable. “That flexibility has allowed us to widen the curriculum out again later and take those schools on to ‘outstanding’ status. We are subject to Ofsted scrutiny. It is not clear to me why we would need to follow the full national curriculum. What advantage does that give? When we have to provide all the nationally-recognised qualifications—GCSEs, A-levels, SATs—and we are subject to external regulation by Ofsted, why take away the flexibility to do what is needed locally?” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 72.] Luke Sparkes, from the also very successful Dixons Academies Trust, argued that: “we…need the ability to enact the curriculum in a responsive and flexible way at a local level. I can see the desire to get that consistency, but there needs to be a consistency without stifling innovation.” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 79.] Rebecca Leek from the Suffolk Primary Headteachers’ Association told us: “Anything that says, ‘Well, we are going to go slightly more with a one-size-fits-all model’—bearing in mind, too, that we do not know what that looks like, because this national curriculum has not even been written yet—is a worry. That is what I mean. If we suddenly all have to comply with something that is more uniform and have to check—‘Oh no, we cannot do that’, ‘Yes, we can do that’, ‘No, we can’t do that’, ‘Yes, we can do that’—it will impede our ability to be agile”. ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 83.] The Minister talked about Chesterton’s fence and gave us some lessons in Conservative history and philosophy, but I point her to the same argument: this is an example of Chesterton’s fence. These freedoms and flexibilities are there for a reason. They are there to defend us against the inflexibility of not being able to do what Sir Dan Moynihan needs to do to turn around failing schools. It is no good us saying, “Here is the perfect curriculum. Let’s go and study this incredibly advanced subject” if the kids cannot read or add up. This is a very powerful point that school leaders are making to us, one which I hope Ministers will take on board. Since the Minister referred to a bit of Conversative history and Ken Baker’s creation of the national curriculum in the 1980s, she will of course be aware that there was a huge debate about it and a lot of concern, particularly from Mrs Thatcher, about what many described as the “nationalised curriculum”. There was concern that it would get out of hand, become too prescriptive, too bureaucratic and too burdensome. That debate will always be there, and the safety valve we have at the moment is that never since its instigation have all schools had to follow the national curriculum. Even though academies did not exist then, city technology colleges did and they did not have the follow the national curriculum. This is the first time in our whole history that every single school will have to follow it. In relation to previous clauses, I have spoken about getting away from the dead hand of compliance culture and moving toward an achievement and innovation culture—a culture of freedom—in our schools. Pupils at Michaela Community School made the greatest progress in the whole country three years in a row—an incredible achievement—and they did that by having an incredibly distinctive and knowledge-intensive curriculum that was completely their own. Its head, Katharine Birbalsingh, has argued in an open letter to the Secretary of State: “Clearly there needs to be a broad academic core for all children. But a rigid national curriculum that dictates adherence to a robotic, turgid and monotonous programme of learning that prevents headteachers from giving their children a bespoke offer tailored to the needs of their pupils, is quite frankly, horrifying. Anyone in teaching who has an entrepreneurial spirit, who enjoys thinking creatively about how best to address the needs of their pupils, will be driven out of the profession. Not to mention how standards will drop! High standards depend in part on the dynamism of teachers. Why would you want to kill our creativity? Then there is the cost. Your curriculum changes will cost schools time and money. Do you have any idea of the work required from teachers and school leaders to change their curriculum? You will force heads to divert precious resources from helping struggling families to fulfil a bureaucratic whim coming from Whitehall. Why are you changing things? What is the problem you are trying to solve?” That is a good question; perhaps the Minister can tell us the answer. Nor is it just school leaders who are raising concerns about this clause. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) said that the proposal to make it compulsory for academies to teach the national curriculum was “of particular concern” to her. Our three new clauses reflect what school leaders have told us. We think the clause is fundamentally a bad idea, but we are trying to find a compromise. New clause 53 responds to Sir Dan Moynihan’s point that freedom to vary from the national curriculum can be really important in turnaround situations: we cannot succeed in other things if children are unable first to read and write. New clause 54 allows freedom where schools are delivering a broad and balanced curriculum. That worries Ministers, although we heard from the head of Ofsted the other day that schools are delivering a broad and balanced curriculum, so once again it is not clear what problem Ministers are trying to solve. We do not learn the answer from the impact assessment either. If this is just about ensuring that all schools have the same freedoms, new clause 54 would give local authority schools the same freedoms as academies, but that is not what the Government are proposing. I hope the Minister will tell us at some point what problem she is trying to solve. Where is the evidence of abuse? There is none in the impact assessment, and Ministers have not produced any at any point so far in the process. The Government’s impact assessment says that schools “may need to hire additional or specialist teachers for any subjects not currently delivered or underrepresented in existing curricula”, that they may need to make adjustments in their facilities, resources and materials to meet the national curriculum standards, and that they may need “additional or specialised training” to deliver the new national curriculum. It says: “some academies may be particularly affected if their current curriculum differs significantly from the new national curriculum”. Unfortunately, the impact assessment does not put any numbers on the impact. Will the Minister commit clearly and unambiguously to meet the costs, including for facilities, for any schools that have to incur costs as a result of this measure? The Minister talked about Jim Callaghan’s famous phrase, his reference to a “secret garden”. We will come on to that on a later new clause, when we will advance the case against secret lessons in relationships, health and sex education. I hope the Minister will be as good as her word; I hope she is against the secret garden in that domain. On these new clauses, we hope the Minister will listen to the voices of school leaders, her own colleagues and people who are concerned about clause 41, and tell us what the problem is that the Government are trying to solve. The Government clearly like the idea of everything being the same—they like imposing the same thing on every school in the country—but what is the problem? Where is the evidence that this needs to happen? Why are Ministers not listening to serious school leaders who have turned around a lot of schools, who say that they need this freedom to turn around schools that are currently failing kids? Why do Ministers think they know better than school leaders who have already succeeded in turning around failing schools?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. In the light of the discussion that we had before lunch, I want to put on the record that those who are questioning these measures—certainly on the Liberal Democrat Benches—are not trying to attack standards. We recognise that, like qualified teachers, the national curriculum is a very good thing for our children. It is important that children and young people have a common core. None the less, I come back to the question that I posed earlier and the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston just posed again: what is the problem that Ministers are trying to fix with clause 41? In oral evidence, His Majesty’s chief inspector of schools, Sir Martyn Oliver, told us that there is very little evidence that academy schools are not teaching a broad and balanced curriculum. He said: “the education inspection framework that we currently use significantly reduced the deviation of academies because it set out the need to carry out a broad and balanced curriculum…I would always want to give headteachers the flexibility to do what is right for their children”. ––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 50, Q113.] Given the Ofsted framework, given that our primary schools are preparing children to sit their standard assessment tests, and given that secondary schools are preparing pupils for a range of public examinations, not least GCSEs, all of which have common syllabuses, the reality on the ground is that most schools do not deviate very much from the national curriculum. On the other hand, during the oral evidence sessions we heard that school leaders have sometimes used the freedom to deviate where children have fallen behind as a result of disadvantage, trauma, the covid pandemic or other reasons, to ensure they reach the required level to be able to engage in that broad and balanced curriculum. I ask Ministers: if an 11-year-old is struggling to read and write, does it make sense to expect them to access the full history, geography and modern languages curriculum immediately at the start of year 7? As much as I would want them to—I say this as a languages graduate who bemoans the death of modern languages in our schools—we cannot expect them to do those things until they have a basic standard of written English. The Children’s Commissioner spoke powerfully of her own experience. She had to turn a school around by ditching the wider curriculum to get the children up to the required standard before opening up the curriculum.

In schools that follow the national curriculum, there is nothing stopping teachers from differentiating and offering support to children who are not up to the required standard in reading and writing when they go from year 2 to year 3, for example. That happens now in thousands of schools up and down the country without issue. What is the problem with having the national curriculum in schools that would be expected to differentiate anyway?

14:15:00

I defer to the hon. Member’s expertise. He said earlier that he is a teacher—

Was.

He was a teacher before he became an MP. School leaders are raising concerns about their freedom to deviate being taken away. They feel that they need a degree of deviation where children have fallen behind, or for good geographical reasons, or because a particular cohort needs it. I have nothing against the national curriculum—it is a very good thing. The hon. Gentleman brings me to new clauses 65 and 66. My worry is that imposing the provision on all schools in the middle of a curriculum review means that Members of Parliament are being asked to sign all schools up to something when we do not yet know what it looks like. That is why I ask, in new clause 66, for parliamentary approval and oversight of what the curriculum review brings forward. We have no idea what the review’s outcome will be or what the Government will propose. New clause 65 would ensure that we have flexibility. The Minister says that new clause 65 adds too much complexity to what is already in place, but I come back to my earlier point: what we are not talking about is not yet in place. The provisions will come into force once the new curriculum is implemented as a result of the review. Through my two new clauses, I am proposing a basic core curriculum to which every child is entitled, and sufficient flexibility for school leaders to respond to the needs and issues in their communities. They are the experts. The hon. Member for St Helens North is an expert because he was a teacher, but in general Members of Parliament and Ministers—I say this with all due respect—are not education experts, as far as I am aware. I do not think it is necessarily for Whitehall to decide every element of the curriculum. My aim in the amendment is to put into legislation a basic core curriculum, with flexibility around the edges and parliamentary approval. We do not know what is coming down the tracks, but we will ask schools to implement it, so I do not think it unreasonable to expect Parliament to give approval to what comes out of the review. I have a specific question for Ministers—one that I put to Leora Cruddas from the Confederation of School Trusts. I asked her how she thought the curriculum provisions would apply to university technical colleges, which by their nature stray quite a lot from the curriculum. I visited a great UTC in Durham in the north-east—the Minister may have visited herself—and was interested to see how much it narrows the curriculum. People might think that that is a good or a bad thing, but young people with very specific skillsets and interests have flourished in some UTCs. Will this provision apply to UTCs? Nigel Genders, who has been quoted already, raised the same point I did—that we are being asked to make these provisions when we do not know what the curriculum will be. I respectfully ask that Ministers seriously consider new clauses 65 and 66, particularly the parliamentary oversight aspect.

The national curriculum is a vital part of our school system, but its centrality does not mean there is never space for deviation from it. A couple of hours ago I was saying that initial teacher training and qualified teacher status is a fundamental foundation of our school system, with 97% of teachers in the state education system having qualified teacher status. It was 97% in 2024, and as it happens it was also 97% in 2010. Similarly, we know that the great majority of schools follow the national curriculum the great majority of the time.

Will the right hon. Member give way?

I will if the hon. Member wants to correct what I said.

Can the right hon. Gentleman provide statistics on the extent to which the national curriculum is followed by academies? That feels to me to be more of a contested space.

That is a question for the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues on the Government Front Bench. He is at liberty to table a written parliamentary question, but I think he will find that it is not possible to get a numerical answer to that question. We did, though, discuss the matter with Ofsted in the evidence sessions—I think the hon. Gentleman was there—and it is a broadly known fact, as any educationalist will tell him, that the vast majority of schools follow the national curriculum for all sorts of good reasons, some of which I will come to. It is not widely understood that the national curriculum has always been a relatively loose framework, including for maintained schools. That is the British tradition. There are other school systems in the world that are very much more centrally directed. Even for local authority and maintained schools it has always been, relatively speaking, quite a devolved system with relative autonomy. It is not possible, sitting in Sanctuary Buildings, to decide suddenly what children are going to learn. Occasionally we will hear a press story about how the Department or its Ministers have banned Steinbeck from schools in England, but that just is not possible to do. We had a row a couple of years ago about so-called decolonising the curriculum. We had people writing to us saying that our national curriculum glorifies the British empire and instils all these negative attitudes, and I said, “Where? Show me where in this document it does that. It doesn’t.” It does not specify things to study in nearly that much detail. That brings me on to the Semmelweis question. I first posed the Semmelweis question more than 10 years ago when I was on the Education Committee, because I was curious to know who decides what children learn in schools. For anyone who wants to know what the Semmelweis question is, it is: “Who was Semmelweis?” From visiting schools I realised that everybody under the age of 18 was very familiar with Semmelweis, and young adults and anybody under the age of 25 or 30 knew who Semmelweis was, but nobody over the age of 40 had the first clue who he was. Would colleagues like to know who Semmelweis was? He worked a hospital in Austria where there were two maternity wards, one of which was staffed by midwives and the other by surgeons. The midwives were women and the surgeons were men. Semmelweis detected, through statistical analysis, that the mortality rates in the two maternity wards were markedly different: the safety rate in the midwife-led ward was much better. This was relevant at the time I looked into it because of the hospital superbug. It is quite difficult to find out who, but somebody had decided that every child in Britain, or in England, should learn this story about Semmelweis, because that would promote hygiene in hospital settings. Semmelweis is not on the national curriculum. Nowhere does it say in a document produced by the Department for Education that every child will learn that. So who does decide? For most subjects in key stages 1 to 3, it is a mix of what schools themselves decide and individual teachers decide. Historically, it would have been a lot about what was in the textbook, so textbook publishers play a role. In more modern times it is educational technology and platforms like Oak National Academy. Then for English and maths it is very much about what is in the year 6 assessments. At key stage 4 and sixth form, as the hon. Member for Twickenham set out correctly, it is really the exam boards that decide what a pupil needs to know to get the GCSE or A-level, and it is the same for other qualifications. That in turn determines what children have to learn. That is not the national curriculum but what is called the specification. The specification for a GCSE is about as close as we can get to a definition of who decides what children will learn at school. Although that refers specifically to key stage 4 and above, it also affects what children learn in preparation in lower school and junior schools. The Minister quoted Jim Callaghan and said that things should not be decided in a “secret garden”. Well, that is the secret garden: the specification that determines what is studied at GCSE. It is not, currently, a detailed national curriculum. Why is the looseness of the national curriculum important? Because the national curriculum is driven by politicians, and keeping the national curriculum loose has helped to keep politics at bay. That can sometimes be frustrating. There will be times when the Minister, like Ministers before her, will say, “My God, I am the Schools Minister—I should be able to determine what happens in schools.” That can be frustrating, but it is also helpful that Ministers cannot affect that directly. I would meet Education Ministers from other countries who said, “We’ve just changed the textbook,” and I would think, “God, I wish we could do that.” But we are a million miles away from saying that we have changed the textbook and every child in England is going to learn the same thing. By the way, Ministers will still get a procession of people asking for this or that to be put on the curriculum. Spoiler alert: climate change and financial education are both already on the national curriculum, disguised in different subjects, but that will not stop people coming to lobby Ministers to do it for the first time. Ministers will get a lot more of those visits in future. During the passage of the Education Reform Act 1988—Gerbil, as it was known—the national curriculum could have been made more prescriptive, but self-restraint on the part of the Government of the day, and of Governments since, has meant it has not been. The key point is that we cannot guarantee that self-restraint into the future. In case colleagues think I am just talking about what children will learn in geography or science, I point out that there are sensitive subjects that a lot of people have an interest in. When we took evidence, I asked the Church of England and Catholic Education Service representatives about someone changing the definition of religious education. Colleagues will know that only one event in history is specified in the national curriculum, which is the holocaust, and no other. English literature is another sensitive subject. Boy, I can tell Ministers that relationships, sex and health education has its controversies—they will not be short of people banging down their door looking for changes there.

I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman; as a former Secretary of State, he has a lot of insight and experience, so I am enjoying and learning from what he is saying, but could he say a little about alignment with or deviation from the national curriculum, which is the point we are trying to address? I would appreciate hearing more about his point of view on that.

I do not know whether the hon. Member has a copy of my notes, but that is what I was just about to say. I argued on Second Reading that the ability of academies—which are now the majority of secondary schools and a large number of primary schools in this country—even if most of the time hardly any use it, to deviate somewhat from the national curriculum is a safety valve against politicisation. I remind colleagues on the Labour Benches that their party is currently in government with a whacking great majority, but it is possible that it might not be forever. We all have an interest in guarding against over-politicisation. As we have heard, and as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister rightly said, it can be an instrument of school improvement to ease off from some aspects of the national curriculum while refocussing on core subjects.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that freedoms in respect of the curriculum have also been used to hide information from children—for example, to avoid giving a broad curriculum on personal, social, health and economic education and so avoid giving full sex education to children? Does he accept that freedoms have been used in ways that could negatively impact children?

14:30:00

I am not sure that the hon. Lady’s Front-Bench colleagues will necessarily thank her for making that intervention. That view is held by some. Sir Christopher would rightly admonish me were we to get into a whole debate about PSHE or RSHE, but it is true that the RSHE curriculum covers a range of things that, rightly, children must learn about as they prepare for the adult world, develop their sense of self and their place in society and, crucially, learn respect and kindness towards others, along with valuing all individuals. There is also a degree of flexibility within the curriculum, because at the end of the day there are 21,500 schools in the country, and there are schools with different character and different intakes. I am sure the hon. Lady is not trying to make my point for me, but if we make the national curriculum more rigid, we actually run into more problems, rather than solve them.

You said that the more rigid you make the national curriculum, the more problems we will have, but we are not debating making the national curriculum more rigid. We are debating whether the national curriculum should apply to all schools. A minute ago, you said that the ability not to use the national curriculum is a safety valve against politicisation, but that goes against everything you said in the previous 10 minutes, which was all about the flexibilities that are inherent in the national curriculum, of which you gave some excellent examples.

Order. Please try to avoid using the word “you”.

I am so sorry.

I do not think those things are in conflict. My point was that the national curriculum, as it was set up, is quite loose. It did not have to be, it does not have to be now and it does not have to be in five or 10 years. It can be written exactly as Ministers at the time wish to write it. Although the hon. Lady says we are not debating whether to make the national curriculum more rigid, actually we might be—we do not know. I will come to that in a moment. I was saying—you will be pleased to know, Sir Christopher, that I do want to accelerate—that the flexibility can be an instrument for school improvement, either for entire year groups, for the entire school or, indeed, on a longer basis, for a nurture group or a group or individual who, for whatever reason, needs additional support. It also means that schools might specialise somewhat, and that they might innovate without having, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston rightly said, to overthink about whether they are complying exactly with this or that specification. At a time when we are rightly concerned about attendance numbers, it has been suggested to me that making adherence to the national curriculum more specified, and possibly the curriculum itself being made more rigid, could be injurious to school attendance or inclusion in mainstream schooling if it makes more children feel rejected, uncomfortable or unhappy at school and so seek education either at home or in alternative settings. The crucial point is that, whether schools have innovated with an academy trust curriculum, decided to deviate to support individual groups for a period of time, or specialised somewhat, they will all be judged by Ofsted on the simple requirement of having a broad and balanced curriculum. For most schools the easiest way to comply with having a broad and balanced curriculum is to follow the national curriculum—but there can be other ways. Again, like my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, I am left wondering what the problem the Government are trying to solve is.

We keep coming back to “What is the problem?” That is the wrong question to ask. We are partly here to solve problems, but we are also here to reach further and be more ambitious, so the right hon. Gentleman should be asking, “What is the objective we are aiming for?” That would be a far more engaging question for him to ask.

If the hon. Gentleman is going to pose a great rhetorical question like that, he should have an answer ready. What is it? What is this thing that we are reaching for? I do not think any of us in this room is well qualified or well placed to say, “Where can we take this school?” The person best placed to decide that is the school leader. We would like to give some leeway and flexibility, within a system of all sorts of measurements, constraints and so on, for people to be able to innovate and do what is right for children.

The right hon. Gentleman would have made a good teacher, because he has a very engaging style—although I would have been grateful for a curriculum so I knew what he was covering in the classroom. Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of a national curriculum? If he is not—I am really not sure—why did he not repeal it? If schools need greater flexibility, why did he not get rid of it when he was Education Secretary?

Bless the hon. Gentleman for saying I am engaging, but I am obviously not that engaging, because I spent the first three minutes explaining why the national curriculum is the core standard and why it is central to our school system. That does not mean, though, that we cannot have some deviation from it, just like—if I recall this, I might bring it back to mind—qualified teacher status, which is, of course, a central part of our teaching profession, but that does not mean there cannot be a little bit of deviation—it is about 3% and has been for the last decade and a half—from it.

I will give way to the hon. Member for St Helens North as he was the nicest to me.

The right hon. Gentleman just said that the national curriculum is a set of core standards; why should that not apply for all schools?

For all the reasons that I gave, it does apply. Ofsted requires a broad and balanced curriculum from every school, and the vast majority of the time the vast majority of schools say that that is the national curriculum, but some of them may innovate and deviate. They may need to do something different to support children or they may be in a school improvement phase. All those are good reasons. In a system where we trust school leaders and teachers to do what is right for the kids in front of them, those are all reasons to have some flexibility.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the national curriculum is a floor, not a ceiling?

Sort of. It is not really a floor or a ceiling at the moment; it is a very loose framework that says, “These are the things at key stages 1 to 4 that one should cover.” It is not really a floor because it does not say, “You must learn these things. You may learn others.” It says, “These are the broad categories of things that you must learn.”

“Use the scaffolding.”

Now we are on to modern methods of construction: scaffolding or a floor? I do not know. I will give way to the hon. Member for Bournemouth East, then I promise I will move on.

I deeply thank the right hon. Member for taking so many interventions. What is the point of a national curriculum if some schools are not compelled to follow it?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston has mentioned, it has long been the case that some schools have not had to follow the national curriculum. Even under the proposals in the Bill there will be some schools that will not have to follow it. One of the reasons why I have been banging on for so long, Sir Christopher, is because I have been through a lot of these points already and I am being asked to restate them. I have to ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me but, as I have set out, it is a broad framework, and there is nothing wrong with having a little bit of innovation within that. I want to come to a close. There are serious people working on the curriculum review and I wish them well in their work. We must of course await the outcome, not prejudge it. So far we have heard only the good stuff—the things we are going to add. In politics, it is always easy to talk about adding things. We are adding more creativity, art and sport, and those are all things that I welcome. It is great to have those opportunities for young people. The difficulty may arrive when we ask, “What does that mean?” Does it mean a longer school day, which is one option? Or does it mean that something else has to go to make way for those things? I do not have the answer, but it is a relevant question. To come back to the ceiling point—whether the national curriculum is a floor or a ceiling—it depends how much headroom is needed. In a very loose national curriculum, schools can innovate and so on, but in a heavily specified national curriculum, they cannot, because the floor is already close to the ceiling and there is not that much room to play with. I do not know whether the hon. Member for North Herefordshire is on Professor Francis’s working group, or what will be in the review document, but there are three problems with insisting on 100% adherence to the national curriculum. First, we are being asked to agree to it before we have the outcome of the national curriculum review. Secondly, Ministers are not obliged to adopt that independent review; they may decide to do something slightly, or more than slightly, different. Thirdly, they are not obliged to stop there. I say “they”, but it is of course not only them. The Bill is going to be an Act of Parliament: we are not legislating for what happens between 2024 and 2029; in the absence of another piece of legislation to replace this one, we are legislating for all time. We cannot know who might come along in the future and decide to do something of which colleagues here might not approve. We do not have large numbers of schools teaching unscientific facts, creationism and what have you. We do have Ofsted, which evaluates all schools on whether they follow a broad and balanced curriculum. We know that, the great majority of the time, the great majority of schools follow the national curriculum, but some innovate, and that can have some benefits. Like others, I am left asking Ministers, what problem are we trying to solve?

I had a long speech prepared, but it does not include Keats, Semmelweis or Callaghan, so I will cut it short. Teachers want to be trusted to teach, to read their class and to choose what to teach, when to teach and how to teach it. My concern is that the Government are bringing all schools under the same framework and that that will allow them to fundamentally change what is taught in schools. We have all read the news about the Becky Francis review trying to broaden the curriculum, dumb it down, dilute it and move it away from a knowledge-rich focus. Will the Minister confirm the Government’s intention to retain the national curriculum’s focus on knowledge, and the attainment of knowledge, as opposed to skills? I know she will say that the Francis review has not reported, but the Government have no statutory obligation to accept its recommendations. Will Ministers please confirm that they want to keep the national curriculum focused on knowledge and core knowledge subjects? It is clear that the intention is for all schools to teach the national curriculum. Can the Minister assure me, and thousands of teachers who want to do the best for their students, that the curriculum will be kept broad to allow them to teach as they see fit, in the best interests of their students? Again, the Government do not have to follow the guidance from the Becky Francis review. What has been proven over time is that the current framework works for academies. I will keep saying this in the Committee: academies have been proven to produce better results for children who come from a low-performing or failing state school—they have been proven to do much better for children in the long term. [Interruption.] They have; that is what the evidence says.

I hope you are enjoying the debate, Sir Christopher. Although national curriculum reform is not mentioned in the Bill, it is going forward. The previous Government introduced a number of curriculum changes. Those were often implemented quickly and not considerate of the profession. In 2010, one or two years were given to implement the changes, depending on sector. The consultation was top-down and was criticised for not reflecting classroom realities. In 2013, the Government had one year to implement the changes. There was a wider consultation, but despite that the original proposals were unchanged. In 2016, there were almost immediate changes to the curriculum, but, again, no fundamental changes were made to the original proposals after the consultation. In 2019, there was one year for implementation, and in 2020 and 2021 the changes were immediate, albeit that that was linked to the fallout from covid and the attempts to rectify that. Again, some changes involved input from the profession, and some did not. A national curriculum should do what it says on the tin and be a “national” curriculum. It should have a core basis. We should consult the profession. I found it really difficult to sit here and listen to the ideas that have been put forward, when the previous Government did absolutely none of that.

14:45:00

Where to start? I guess I should start by responding to the fundamental question that I think hon. Members are asking: what problem are we trying to solve? Fundamentally, Opposition Members—I do not refer to all of them—do not seem to have a very realistic perspective on the challenges that are very present in the education system. They cite singular examples of schools that are doing a fantastic job and that absolutely should be celebrated, but that is not reflective of the entire system. Through this Bill and the other reforms we are looking to introduce—I think Opposition Members fundamentally agree with them, but do not wish to say so—we are trying to create a core offer for every child in this country. No matter what type of school they go to, what their background is and where they come from, children will be guaranteed a core, quality educational offer, with qualified teachers and a national curriculum core framework that gives them the basis, yes, of knowledge, but also skills and development as an individual that set them up for life. It is an absolute myth that maintained schools are unable to innovate while following the national curriculum. The reformed national curriculum will support innovation and professionalism in teachers, and maintain the flexibility that we know is really important if schools are to meet the needs of their children. It is absolutely right that schools can, for example, choose to prioritise English and maths, if that is what their children need. However, that should not be at the expense of curriculum breadth and opportunity for young people who also need extra support. We want every child in every state school to have a broad range of subjects and to have the opportunity to study a common core of knowledge that has been determined by experts and agreed by Parliament. I absolutely agree that it should be led by experts, which is why we have an independent panel of experts advising on the curriculum and assessment review. I absolutely recognise the strong track record of, for example, Michaela and the good outcomes it delivers for its students. I understand that, as hon. Members have rightly acknowledged, the vast majority of schools do follow the national curriculum. It is our intention to create a common core framework right across our school system, regardless of the structure of the school. That is all we are trying to achieve with this fairly straightforward measure. To be honest, the attitude that is sometimes displayed and the fears that are being mongered just seem a little hysterical. Every child should have a high-quality education, which is all that we seek to ensure with the measures in the Bill.

I read out the very real concerns of serious educational leaders with strong track records. The Minister says that they are hysterical.

No, I did not.

Well, she said the concerns are hysterical. They are not my concerns; they are concerns that have been put to this Committee by incredibly respected school leaders. The Minister says that only a few of them are using these freedoms. Well, if it is only a few, why should they not have the freedom to do what they know works? Why do Ministers think they know better? Let me just ask two specific questions. Will UTCs have to follow the curriculum as well, and will all the costs that fall on schools from this measure be met? I ask those questions now, because Ministers may want to get the answers from the Box.

Let me be clear: I have not referred to any academy leaders or professionals in our education system as expressing views that are hysterical. I have referred to hon. Members, and I was very clear about that in my comments. I have seen far too much of that in this Committee—putting words into Members’ mouths. It is not respectful to the people we are here to represent and serve, who are working extremely hard in our school system and contributing constructively to this debate. We are open to feedback, which is why we have two consultations out on a number of the measures being considered as part of our reforms. We absolutely welcome feedback; we welcome challenge. Actually, the level of challenge reflects how important this is to the people who contribute to the discussion and debate. The hysteria I was talking about referred to hon. Members and their characterisation of some of the changes. For the sake of a reality check, let me just say that in 2022—Members should note these statistics—of primary schools in multi-academy trusts, 64% were good and 15% were outstanding; in single-academy trusts, 67% were good and 27% were outstanding; and in maintained schools, 76% were good and 16% were outstanding. There is no difference for children’s outcomes depending on the school’s status. This is not about academies versus maintained schools or anything like it; it is about making sure that we have a framework that serves every child and that every child has a core offer as part of their education. To treat it like some sort of terrible, terrifying prospect is a mischaracterisation of the reality of both the school system and the changes we are looking to make.

I thank the Minister for the statistics she has presented, which echo the point I was about to ask her about. Would like to challenge—as she just has—the assertion from the Conservative Benches that academies are somehow better performing? Would she agree that there is no clear evidence, as suggested by Professor Stephen Gorard, who absolutely knows what he is talking about, that academies as a whole do better than maintained schools? An ideological commitment to academies, based on a set of cherry-picked examples of individual schools, is unhelpful to the tenor of the debate. We should focus on ensuring that every child in every type of school gets an excellent education.

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. She took the words out of my mouth earlier when she challenged the right hon. Member for East Hampshire. The national curriculum offer and everything we are presenting as part of our reforms provide a floor, but not a ceiling on ambition, innovation, flexibility and the ability to give an outstanding and exemplary education to the children in this country. We celebrate and value success for our children, in whatever form it comes, whether that is an academy or a local authority-maintained school. Indeed, success comes in all those forms. All we wish to see, through this fairly straightforward measure, is a knowledge-rich education—in answer to the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston—and a curriculum that is cutting-edge and that ensures high and rising standards for every child. That is why we launched the curriculum and assessment review to take the advice of experts on bringing the curriculum up to date. It is why we want to see the national curriculum as the experience that every child should have, and the framework that every child should experience throughout their primary and secondary education, regardless of the type of state school that they attend. And it is why we will be asking Members to support clause stand part. Before the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston asks, I will respond to his question on UTCs because—

And on whether all the costs will be met.

We recognise the valuable contribution of UTCs in providing a distinctive technical education curriculum. However, we want to ensure that all children have access to a quality core curriculum. The curriculum and assessment review is helping us to make sure we have a broad, enriching curriculum from which every child can benefit. Once it is complete, we will work with UTCs to provide any support they need to implement the changes, because we recognise their particular offer.

It was me who asked about UTCs. In her answer, is the Minister suggesting that UTCs will be required to follow the full national curriculum, even if they have a very specific technical specialism?

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire made a very interesting speech. As far as I could tell, it was not all entirely relevant to the clause, but it was an interesting description of a national curriculum and its purpose and core. Fundamentally, we want every child to have that basic core of rich knowledge and experience. Even if their school has a technical or other specialism, we still want them to have that curriculum. It is incumbent on us as a Government to create a curriculum and assessment framework that can accommodate variations, flexibility and innovation within the system. We will work with UTCs to ensure that the curriculum can be applied in their context. This brings me to the question from the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston about costs. As we plan the implementation of the curriculum, we will work with trusts and schools to consider what support they might need to implement the changes. That is my response to his question.

I am just reflecting on this debate, and I wonder whether the Minister would agree with me on three points. First, we do not have evidence that academies have improved outcomes, and where we do, it is thin and contested. Secondly, we do not really have evidence that academics are using their autonomy; in fact, the only DFE report I could find on this dates back to 2014. Thirdly, where there may be evidence that academics are performing well, it is not necessarily the case that deviation from the national curriculum is the major contributor to that success. Is not the problem that we do not have a significant body of evidence from the last 14 years? The Conservative spokespeople on the Committee could have commissioned one from the Department for Education to back up their arguments.

My hon. Friend makes some interesting and valuable points.

Will the Minister give way?

Could I just respond to my hon. Friend’s point? I think the fundamental point he is making is that an obsession with the structure of a school is a distraction from the importance of ensuring the quality and outcomes experienced by the children within it. That is why this Government are focused on ensuring that every school has the fundamentals to provide that opportunity for children, whether that is having qualified teachers in the classroom or a curriculum and assessment framework that sets every child up to thrive. We are focused on ensuring that teachers have a fair pay framework, which we will get on to, and that there is consistency across the board, so that every school in every local community can co-operate—we will also get on to that—to ensure that children in that area, regardless of their background and needs, have the opportunity to thrive and achieve as part of their education. Question put and agreed to. Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 42 Academy schools: educational provision for improving behaviour Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

15:00:00

Clause 42 will ensure that all mainstream and special state schools are subject to the same regulatory requirements and safeguards when directing pupils off site to improve their behaviour, creating a baseline between academies and maintained schools. Academy schools can already arrange off-site placements through their general powers, and in doing so they already follow the same guidance as maintained schools. However, technically there is inconsistency in the legal framework. Providing academies with the same explicit statutory power and equivalent limits and controls will strengthen the wider efforts to consistently safeguard all pupils and promote educational outcomes. It will also support consistency, scrutiny and transparency against misconduct or malpractice. In using the power, academies will be required to follow the same statutory requirements as maintained schools, as set out in existing guidance. These include notifying the local authority where a pupil has an education, health and care plan; setting out the objectives of the off-site placement and keeping it under review; and keeping parents fully informed to meet pupils’ needs. I therefore recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill. Question put and agreed to. Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 43 Academies: power to secure performance of proprietor’s duties etc

I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 43, page 102, leave out lines 35 and 36.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 79, in clause 43, page 102, line 37, leave out from “may” to the end of line 3 on page 103 and insert “exercise their powers under the funding agreement to terminate or require performance of the funding agreement in accordance with its terms.” Amendment 88, in clause 43, page 102, line 37, leave out from “directions” to the end of line 39 and insert “as are necessary to secure compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.” This amendment would limit the Secretary of State’s power of direction should an Academy breach, or act unreasonably in respect of, the performance of a relevant duty. Amendment 89, in clause 43, page 103, line 2, leave out from “directions” to the end of line 3 and insert “as are necessary to secure compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.” This amendment would limit the Secretary of State’s power of direction should an Academy act unreasonably in respect of the exercise of a relevant power. Amendment 77, in clause 43, page 103, line 3, at end insert— “(2A) Where the Secretary of State exercises functions under this section, the Secretary of State must make a statement in the House of Commons which explains the actions taken and the reasons for taking such actions.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament each time the Secretary of State uses the powers in this clause. Clause stand part.

This is a very centralising Bill. We have already talked about what PE kit people should be wearing at school; we have talked about whether schools will now have to apply to the Secretary of State to put up a bike rack. [Laughter.] Ministers laugh, but it is serious. They agreed to a clause just this morning that has that effect.

Nonsense.

It is not nonsense. It is your legislation. Sorry, let me correct the record: it is nonsense. This is nonsense legislation that we are being asked to pass. Now we come on to something really serious that school leaders are warning us about, which is another completely out-of-control piece of centralisation. As drafted, the Bill will create the power for the Secretary of State to direct academy schools to do pretty much anything. Leora Cruddas, of the Confederation of School Trusts, has suggested a way to bring the currently unlimited clause 43 power under some limits: “We do have concerns about the power to direct. We think it is too wide at the moment. We accept that the policy intention is one of equivalence in relation to maintained schools, but maintained schools are different legal structures from academy trusts, and we do not think that the clauses in the Bill properly reflect that. It is too broad and it is too wide. We would like to work with the Government to restrict it to create greater limits. Those limits should be around statutory duties on academy trusts, statutory guidance, the provisions in the funding agreement and charity law.” That is precisely what Opposition amendments 88 and 89 would do. We are not against Ministers having a new power to intervene to get schools to fulfil their duties, but that is different; it is narrower than the current drafting. It may just be that when officials have gone away and tried to turn Ministers’ intentions into legislation, they have gone too far. David Thomas, a successful headteacher, has made the same point: “If the purpose is, as it says in the explanatory notes, to issue a direction to academy trusts to comply with their duty, that feels like a perfectly reasonable thing to be able to do. The Bill, as drafted, gives the Secretary of State the ability to ‘give the proprietor such directions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate’. I do not think it is appropriate for a Secretary of State to give an operational action plan to a school, but I think it is perfectly reasonable for a Secretary of State to tell a school that it needs to follow its duty. I think there is just a mismatch between the stated intention and the drafting, and I would correct that mismatch.” I am not surprised that school leaders are concerned. The Government’s own policy summary notes make it clear that they intend to use the power to reach into schools and intervene on pretty much anything that the Department wants. They give the following example: “The academy trust has failed to deal with a parental complaint and has not followed its complaints process. Therefore, the issue may be escalated to the Department to consider. In such cases, the Secretary of State could issue a compliance direction to ensure the trust addresses the complaint appropriately”. It is crystal clear that the Government are taking a power to direct any academy school, without limit, on any issue they see fit. That is such a big move away from the whole idea of the academies programme—the idea of independent state-funded schools. There are two ways of fixing the problem. Amendments 78 and 79 would simply delete the bit that is excessive, proposed new section 497C(1)(b); amendment 77 would require a statement to be made when the powers are used. Alternatively, amendments 88 and 89—this is, broadly speaking, the suggestion made by the Confederation of School Trusts—would be more incremental reforms. They would retain the text about direction but, in two relevant places, would limit it to “compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.” The impact assessment for the Bill says that if schools do not comply with the new orders from the Secretary of State, the trustees may be found to be in contempt of court. This charge may come with punishments including fines. It is also possible that, in very extreme cases, individuals found in contempt of court could face a custodial sentence. Helpfully, the assessment says that that should be very rare, but what a long way we have travelled from the whole idea of academies as independent state schools! That has been the theme as we have gone through the Bill: again and again, we are moving away from a culture of entrepreneurialism, can-do spirit and freedom—going out there and solving problems and making the magic happen for kids—and towards a compliance culture that is all about dealing with what the Secretary of State wants and clicking our heels when they say jump. Since 1988, we have been on a cross-party journey away from micromanagement and towards greater autonomy for schools.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 48% of schools are local authority-maintained schools? He seems to be denigrating their entire modus operandi in his characterisation of the way non-academies work. They are working hard and are delivering fantastic outcomes for children. We do not denigrate academies; I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman wishes to do so to maintained schools.

It is always a bad sign when someone has to misrepresent completely what their opponent is trying to say. Allow me to address that point directly by, once again, reading what Leora Cruddas of the Confederation of School Trusts told the Committee: “We accept that the policy intention is one of equivalence in relation to maintained schools, but maintained schools are different legal structures from academy trusts, and we do not think that the clauses in the Bill properly reflect that. It is too broad and it is too wide. We would like to work with the Government to restrict it to create greater limits.” ––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 81, Q169.] That is what our amendments seek to do. To take the temperature out of the discussion, let me say that I do not have a problem with the Government having a new power of intervention to cut across their funding agreements with academies—although that is a big step, by the way. My problem is with the completely unlimited nature of the power. I am thinking about the effect of getting away from micromanagement over time. The sixth-form college I went to had become brilliant because it had managed to use the freedoms in the 1992 reforms to take a huge step away from micromanagement, but some of the older teachers there still remembered the days when they had to ring up the town hall if they wanted the heating turned up. Imagine that absurd degree of micromanagement. Terrifyingly, some schools in Scotland are still experiencing that insane degree of micromanagement; teachers there are currently on strike because their concerns about discipline are not being taken seriously, so we can see that freedom has worked in England. I do not think that this was the intention of the Ministers, but the drafting of the clause is far too sweeping. It gives an unlimited power. I see no reason why the Ministers should not accept the suggestion from the Confederation of School Trusts, which our amendments seek to implement, that we limit that power in certain reasonable ways. It is fine for Ministers to be able to intervene more, but we need some limits. I am sure that the current Secretary of State wants only good things, but a bad future Secretary of State should not be able to do just anything they want. The Ministers started from a reasonable point of view, but it has gone too far. I hope that they will work with the CST to turn the unlimited power into a limited one. Perhaps they will even accept our amendments, which would do exactly that.

I was going to say largely the same as the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, although I think he was exaggerating slightly in suggesting that the power will lead to local authorities telling schools whether or not they can switch their heating on and off.

I did not say that.

There was that suggestion.

No, I said that that happened in the ’80s.

All right. I have a lot of sympathy with amendments 88 and 89, and I agree that the drafting of the clause seems at odds with the explanatory notes. There is a potential overreach of the Secretary of State’s powers over schools, so I look forward to hearing what the Minister can say to temper what is in the Bill. I have no problem ideologically with what I think are the Ministers’ intentions; it is just that the drafting seems to allow a level of overreach and micromanagement from Whitehall, which I think we all wish to avoid.

Clause 43 will give the Secretary of State a power to direct specific actions to comply with duties, rather than just specifying what those duties are. That is what brings it into a different category. It is a much wider set of powers than we would find in a funding agreement. In principle, it appears to include the power to dictate how individual schools are run, which is not to say that the present Ministers would ever do so. I have two questions for the Minister. First, is there a mechanism to challenge or appeal a decision made in that way? Secondly, has the Department assessed how much extra work will be involved for it as a result of handling more complaints? I want to say a little about academies and maintained schools in general. There is no conflict. Defending academy freedoms and what academies can do does not mean pushing down on maintained schools. I have had children at both, and I have both in my constituency. In fact, East Hampshire is relatively unacademised: particularly at primary level, it has a relatively small number of schools that are academies. I love them all, because they are places where children learn, but none of that takes away from the fact that the freedoms and flexibilities afforded to academies are good things to have. On the question of academic studies, as with grammar schools or various other debates, I could find an academic who could give us any answer we want. In fairness, causality is really hard to prove with these things. What I can tell the Minister, however, is that I have a graph. He may have seen it; if not, I will be happy to send him a copy. It is a U-shaped graph of the performance of schools in England relative to their peers in other countries; it relates to the PISA study, but there are equivalents for PIRLS and TIMSS. The graph shows how remarkably school performance in England has improved over the past decade and a half. Nobody should ever claim that a single factor causes these things, but a fundamental vehicle for schools improvement in that time—alongside the hub network and established and proven methods such as maths mastery and phonics—was the ability for schools to convert to academies, and for academy trusts to spread good practice through our system.

15:15:00

I will turn first to amendment 77, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. We are committed to maintaining transparency in our decisions to intervene in academies and trusts. We already publish notices to improve and termination warning notices when they are issued to trusts. When a direction is issued, the Secretary of State will publish the direction unless there are good reasons not to do so. The direction will make clear the duty or power in relation to which it is made; it will also clearly state what the trust has to do to rectify the issue. We therefore do not consider it necessary to make a statement to the House of Commons about every direction. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Members not to press amendment 77. Amendment 78 seeks to limit the legal duty limb of the direction-making power to when the Secretary of State considers that there has been a breach of a legal duty by a trust. As the regulator of academies, the Secretary of State must be able to ensure that trusts are complying with their legal duties; this includes performing those legal duties properly and not bending the rules. That is why it is important that the Secretary of State can intervene when trusts are performing their legal duties in an unreasonable way, just as we can issue a direction to governing bodies of maintained schools under existing powers when there is an unreasonable performance of a duty. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw amendment 78. Amendment 79 seeks to limit the scope of the power to secure proper performance of academy trusts to breaches of their legal duties only. It also suggests that the Secretary of State may not be able to issue a direction, but should instead rely on the termination powers in funding agreements to enforce compliance with the duty. The legal duties and powers to maintain schools and academies originate from different sources. The duties and powers for maintained schools are contained primarily in legislation; in contrast, some academy duties and powers are sourced in legislation, but others are sourced in contract. This measure therefore needs to be drafted broadly to encompass a comparable range of powers and duties. The purpose of the direction-making power is to give the Secretary of State a way of enforcing breaches of legal obligations where threatening to terminate a funding agreement and move an academy to another trust is not proportionate. The amendment would totally undermine that purpose and would leave us with essentially the same powers that we have now. I therefore respectfully ask hon. Members not to press amendment 79. Amendments 88 and 89 seek to limit the scope of the Secretary of State’s power to issue directions. The Secretary of State must be able to hold trusts and their proprietors to account for fulfilling their duties and powers. Limiting the scope of compliance, as is proposed, would undermine that ability and would hinder effective oversight. As I have said, the legal framework for academies is distinct from the framework for local authority-maintained schools. The duties and powers applicable to academies are not solely enshrined in legislation; they are also embedded in their funding agreements and articles of association. A power with a more broadly drafted scope is necessary to encompass a comparable range of powers and duties. The broader scope will ensure that the Secretary of State can address the unreasonable actions of academy proprietors comprehensively and effectively, without the need to terminate a trust’s funding agreement. Narrowing the scope of directions, as amendments 88 and 89 would, risks hindering the Secretary of State’s ability to enforce proprietors’ compliance with their duties and to exercise their powers as they should. It is crucial that we maintain a robust and flexible approach to oversight, ensuring that all academies adhere to the highest standards of governance and accountability. Furthermore, it is important to note that any directions issued by the Secretary of State will be made in line with common-law principles of reasonableness and fairness. This will ensure that the directions are fair, balanced and appropriate to the circumstances, providing a safeguard against any potential misuse of power. For those reasons, I respectfully ask hon. Members not to press amendments 88 and 89. I turn to clause 43. The majority of trusts are doing an excellent job, providing good-quality education to their children and fulfilling their legal obligations while doing so. However, when things go wrong and trusts are not fulfilling their obligations or are stretching the rules unreasonably, it can be hard for Government to intervene. The only intervention that we can currently take is threatening to remove academies from the trust, and that would disrupt the education of children. That is the only option, even when non-compliance is not even connected to education outcomes. Clause 43 will allow the Secretary of State to issue a direction to a trust when things go wrong, identifying what needs to be done to remedy it. That will provide the trust with clarity about its responsibilities. In almost all cases, before deciding to issue a direction, the Secretary of State will write to the trust to let it know that she is minded to direct it to take action, providing an opportunity for it to make representations. When the trust does not comply with that direction, instead of disrupting the education of pupils for quite discrete matters we will seek an enforcement through a court order. That means that the Secretary of State can ensure that trusts are doing what they should be doing, without unnecessary disruption to pupils. I shall now respond to some of the questions raised. This is not about micromanaging academies. Existing intervention powers, like termination warning notices, simply are not always suitable for isolated breaches of legal duties or unreasonable behaviour—they are like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. That is no way to run a system where what is often required is firm but much less drastic action. Terminating funding agreements can be incredibly disruptive for pupils, parents, staff and communities. The new measure offers a much more flexible, direct and commensurate way to ensure compliance. It will minimise disruption and maintain stability for trusts and their pupils. With regard to the shadow Minister’s comments about the Confederation of Schools Trusts’ suggestions, I should say that I have absolute admiration for the work that the CST does and full respect for its views on these matters. However, the measure is drafted with the scope to cover a broad range of ways in which an academy trust might breach a legal duty, or exercise a power unreasonably, in a way that warrants intervention. By covering all duties and powers applicable to academy trusts, our drafting achieves that aim and makes the direction-making power as effective an intervention measure as possible. We will issue guidance in due course detailing the circumstances in which we will issue a direction. We do not think it is necessary to limit the scope of the power to duties and powers in legislation, funding agreements and articles of association, as that would still result in a broad power. On the question of appeals, we will issue a “minded to” letter first, as is already the case, so that the trust can respond to concerns. But when a trust is fulfilling a legal duty or exercising a legal power in an unreasonable way, the measure gives the Secretary of State the power to issue a direction to the trust, which will make it clear what is required from the trust. In cases of unreasonableness, we will issue a direction only when the behaviour of the trust is such that no reasonable trust could have acted in such a way, not simply when the Secretary of State disagrees with the action of the trust. If a trust believes that the Secretary State has issued a direction mistakenly or unreasonably, the direction may be challenged by way of judicial review. Without this proposed direction-making power, the Secretary of State’s ability to take action in cases of unacceptable behaviour from trusts—for example, issues in relation to off-rolling—will be limited. I turn to the comments of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire. As he will be aware, we are already regularly engaging with trusts as part of existing intervention processes. The amount of extra work for the Department is certainly a factor to consider, but it is difficult to quantify as it will vary on a case-by-case basis. Considering existing parallel powers for maintained schools has not led to an increase in work for the Department. Indeed, being able to take a more measured and proportionate approach, rather than a “sledgehammer to crack a nut” one, will hopefully be a more proportionate and measured response to any unreasonable behaviour by academy trusts.

For clarification, I meant that if a trust or a school had not followed its own complaints procedure and the DFE needed to intervene, that would result in an increase in the volume of parental complaints. The DFE does handle parental complaints, of course. I think that there would be an increase in the volume. My question was about the specific resourcing implications of that, particularly in a changed world with social media: when people get wind of these things, complaints could grow somewhat.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about a very specific example. I am happy to take it away. The issue of complaints is generally important. The Department is looking at where accountability and responsibility lies and how to make clear for parents where they can best direct their concerns. It is an important issue and one we are taking away. In terms of the implementation of this power, I cannot see a significant impact, given that the provision is intended to create a much more reasonable approach when it comes to academies that are not fulfilling their legal duties. Currently the only options available are significant and disproportionate in many cases, and action might be required to deal with the case of a trust not complying with its legal obligations.

The Minister mentions a trust that is not complying with its legal duties; I do not think we would have a problem with addressing that, but that is not what is drafted here. As the provision is drafted, the Secretary of State can intervene whenever he or she thinks, in their own eye, that the school is behaving unreasonably. The only appeal the school will have is judicial review. The Minister is saying a lot of sensible stuff, but that is just too much, and I am keen to press amendment 88.

I have already responded to that point, both in my substantive comments and subsequent responses. I think we will have to agree to disagree. I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

For all the reasons we have just rehearsed, I am keen to push amendment 88. Ministers may well vote against it today, but I hope that later on in the process they will listen to what school leaders are saying. There is a group of amendments, but I intend to push only amendment 88 to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 78. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed: 88, clause 43, page 102, line 37, leave out from “directions” to the end of line 39 and insert “as are necessary to secure compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.”—(Neil O’Brien.) This amendment would limit the Secretary of State’s power of direction should an Academy breach, or act unreasonably in respect of, the performance of a relevant duty. Question put, That the amendment be made.

14|0|5|12|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

Clause 44

Repeal of duty to make Academy order in relation to school causing concern

I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 44, page 103, leave out from line 25 to line 8 on page 104 and insert— “(a) in subsection (A1), after ‘measures)’ insert ‘unless the Secretary of State determines that no suitable sponsor is available’; (b) after subsection (A1) insert— ‘(A2) Where the Secretary of State determines that no suitable sponsor is available, the Secretary of State must, within 14 days, publish a plan to secure appropriate governance and leadership of the school and to secure its rapid improvement. (A3) A plan published under subsection (A2) must include— (a) the parties with responsibility for the school and its improvement; (b) the parties who will take action to improve provision in the school; (c) the resources that will be provided to the relevant parties, including who will provide the resources and when the resources will be provided; and (d) the intended outcomes of the plan, with the relevant timetables for the outcomes. (A4) The Secretary of State must report annually to Parliament on— (a) the number of times the Secretary of State has published a plan under subsection (A2); (b) the resources which have been provided as part of any plans; and (c) the outcomes of any plans.’”

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 81, in clause 44, page 103, line 28, at end insert— “(c) after subsection (1), insert— ‘(1ZA) The Secretary of State must make an Academy order in respect of a maintained school in England if— (a) Ofsted has judged the school to require significant improvement; or (b) a Regional Improvement for Standards and Excellence team has judged the school to be significantly underperforming when compared with neighbouring schools with similar demographics.’” Amendment 82, in clause 44, page 103, line 28, at end insert— “(c) after subsection (7), insert— ‘(7A) No application or petition for judicial review may be made or brought in relation to a decision taken by the Secretary of State to make an Academy order.’” Amendment 95, in clause 44, page 103, line 28, at end insert— “(c) after subsection (1A) insert— ‘(1B) Before deciding whether to issue an Academy order in respect of a maintained school, the Secretary of State must issue an invitation for expressions of interest for suitable sponsors. (1C) The Secretary of State must make an assessment of whether or not to issue an Academy order based on the established track record of parties who responded to the invitation issued under subsection (1B) with an expression of interest in raising school standards.’” Amendment 96, in clause 44, page 104, line 8, at end insert— “(10) Before the amendments made by this section come into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing— (a) the mechanisms, including Academy Orders, by which improvement of school standards can be achieved, and (b) guidance on the appropriate usage of these mechanisms.” Clause stand part.

The Bill ends the automatic conversion of failing schools into academies. That measure was put in place because it became apparent that the most effective way to turn around failing schools at scale was to put them under new management. It also became apparent that when there was a question of discretion and choice, that opened the way for bitterly divisive local campaigns and time-consuming legal action. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) said on Second Reading: “I know from bitter personal experience that any change to the status of a school can become highly political. The current system, in which failing schools automatically become academies, provides clarity and de-politicisation, and ensures a rapid transition. I fear that making that process discretionary would result in a large increase in judicial reviews, pressure on councils and prolonged uncertainty, which is in nobody’s interests.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 902.] She also said on the “Today” programme that the end of the academies order will mean that “the DFE will find itself mired in the high court in judicial review. When we tried to transfer our first failing school to a Harris academy we spent two years in court, and children…don’t have that time to waste.” Rob Tarn, the chief executive of the Northern Education Trust, has made the same point: “If there’s no longer a known, blanket reality…There is a risk that, where it’s been determined a school needs to join a strong trust, it will take much longer and we will go back to the early days of academisation when people went to court.”

15:30:00

The Children’s Commissioner has also made the same point. In her written evidence to this Committee, she says that she is

“deeply concerned that we are legislating against the things we know work in schools, and that we risk children spending longer in failing schools by slowing down the pace of school improvement.”

In her oral evidence to this Committee, she noted that

“I cannot let children remain in failing schools, so if those are going, I need to know what is going to happen. Childhood lasts a very short time, so if a child is in a failing school, how will those schools be improved, immediately and effectively?”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 42, Q90.]

She went on:

“Probably the main reason for academy orders was to try to expedite improvement quickly against a backlash. Would it not be great if we could get everyone on side to be able to act really quickly, together, to improve schools that need improving?”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 42, Q91.]

She is right.

The Confederation of School Trusts has said that the current system offers struggling schools “clarity” as they

“will join a trust, and that process can begin immediately”.

They warn that turning schools around

“can be much tougher with the mixed responsibilities of governing bodies and local authorities. We are not clear on how commissioning part-time support through the RISE arrangements makes that any easier.”

The former national schools commissioner, Sir David Carter, has warned that the

“arguments and legal actions that will arise if a school in Cumbria is told to join a trust while a school in Cornwall just gets arm’s length support will only add delay to delivering a fairer and better offer to children.”

He notes that

“The academy trust movement has been a success story. Not everywhere, admittedly, but in many more locations than we have ever seen before in my 40-year career.”

He is right, too.

Academisation works. Even the impact assessment produced by the Government says that recent data shows that

“More than 7 out of 10 sponsored academies which were found to be underperforming as an LA maintained school in their previous inspection now have a good or outstanding rating.”

Strangely, though, that impact assessment is silent on the issues that schools leaders are raising about this clause, which are a return to protracted campaigns at the local level and legal action to fight academisation.

Recently, Schools Week magazine examined just this question. It went back and looked at some of the cases in which there had been protests against academisation, and found that in all 12 schools that had seen protests but where the school had gone on to become an academy, those schools were improved by the trust that took them over. In fact, 10 were rated good at their next inspection, and one was rated outstanding. One Labour MP quoted in that Schools Week piece said that the plan in this clause would lead to

“campaigns outside every school, parents split, the secretary of state will have correspondence everywhere and a judicial review at every school. The lack of clear pathway is a bad idea for children, for parents, and for ministers.”

It is somewhat hard to get a handle on the workload that the people in the RISE teams, which are being used as a part-alternative to academisation, will face. The Government say that

“Prior to these new RISE teams being fully operational we will establish an interim support offer to our most vulnerable schools. We plan to use the existing school improvement offer structures to deliver interim support. We estimate interim support will be offered to approximately 80 existing 2RI+ schools, and up to 190 schools identified using the new triggers for intervention.”

The last statistics on the size of the RISE teams suggested that there were currently 35 staff, so can the Minister confirm that that is roughly eight schools to be turned around per member of staff?

Various Members, including the hon. Member for Twickenham, made the point yesterday that it was rather strange for the Government to be announcing their new intervention regime halfway through legislating to scrap the old one. I agree: that is obviously very odd and not desirable. The gap between policy and this legislation opens up some real dangers for schools in need of help and for the pupils in those schools. The consultation makes clear that for many schools—effectively, the old 2RI cohort—the end of the academies order through this clause will delay a much-needed handover to new management. Schools will get 18 months of work with RISE, and then will be “normally” academised if there is no improvement over that period.

That word “normally”, which also appears in the consultation document referring to schools in special measures—schools with greater concerns—is what will open up exactly the time-consuming legal challenges and divisive community campaigns that the Children’s Commissioner, the former national schools commissioner, school leaders and even Labour MPs have been warning about. If it is optional and discretionary, the decision can—and will, unfortunately—be challenged in court. The consultation document also sets up a particularly messy transition period, in which policy will be unchanged but no longer supported by the law because of this clause. That transition will be a gift to litigious anti-academies campaigners.

It is difficult to avoid the sense that the Government are slightly changing direction in mid air. Last summer, Ministers decided to abolish the academy conversion grant and the grant to grow strong trusts and they tabled this legislation to end the academisation order. But they now say that they are big fans of academisation. That change of rhetoric needs to be followed by another change: dropping this clause. A gap is opening up between policy and rhetoric, and the actual legislation we are debating today, which has not changed.

On page 18 of the accountability consultation, the Government say:

“we expect that mandatory intervention, through both structural intervention and targeted RISE intervention, will cover around twice the number of schools as are currently covered”

over the last two years. I am keen to ask the Minister to give us the numbers behind the claim. How many schools over the next three years does she think will get, first, a structural intervention and, secondly, a targeted RISE intervention? Those two things are very different. In the consultation, the Government refer to figures but did not give a number or specify how many would get the lower-key RISE support and how many would get the structural intervention.

If the Government are going to claim that they are effectively doing twice as much, we need at least to see the numbers so that we can compare them to what happened under the old regime. I am sure that the Minister would agree that that is a reasonable thing to ask for and that she will be able to provide us with statistics on how many schools will go through structural intervention over the next three years and how many will go through the targeted RISE intervention.

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that I should be predicting which schools go into special measures and which have an Ofsted outcome that requires significant improvement?

I am afraid that the Minister is the one making the prediction. It is her consultation document that says that the Government expect that twice as many schools will go through some combination of either RISE or structural intervention. The Government must know, to be able to make the claim—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way and I will clarify?

Just a second. To make the claim that Ministers want to make for all kinds of reasons, they have to know. It is not me who is making the prediction, but them. I just want them to give us the numbers behind it.

I think that the hon. Gentleman is conflating the identification of stuck schools that under his Government remained consistently underperforming—about 600 schools, with 312,000 children. The RISE teams will immediately focus on those as the immediate priority for improving outcomes.

I am trying to get the Minister to de-conflate her own statistics. The Government want to present the statistic in a deliberately conflated way and I am trying to get it de-conflated. This is the Government’s statistic; I am not offering it. I would like to have some sense from them of how many schools—they must have the figure to make the claim—are going to go through structural interventions so that we can compare the future regime to the previous regime. The Ministers are the ones making the claim that this will intervene on more schools; I am not claiming that. I think it is reasonable to ask for the numbers behind the Government’s own claims, which they did not have to make. There is an irony behind all this. Ministers have said that they worry about having different types of schools and they want things in the system to be generally more consistent. Currently, the school system is a sort of halfway house: about 80% of secondary schools are now academies, but fewer than half of primaries are—so just over half of state schools are now academies; most academies are in a trust and so on. In the absence of this Bill we were gradually moving over time, in an organic way, to get to a consistent system based on academies and trusts, which would then at some point operate on the same framework. But the Bill effectively freezes that halfway: it is ending the academisation order and enabling local authorities to open more new schools again. I have never been quite clear about why Ministers want a situation where they do not end up with an organic move to a single system but remain with the distinction between academies and local authority maintained schools, particularly given the drive for consistency elsewhere in the Bill. In the past, there have been people in the Government who have held anti-academies views, or at least been prepared to bandwagon with anti-academies campaigners on the left. When running for leadership of the Labour party, the Prime Minister said: “The academisation of our schools is centralising at its core and it has fundamentally disempowered parents, pupils and communities.” That was not long ago; there he was, on the bandwagon with the anti-academies people. Likewise, the Deputy Prime Minister said she wanted to stop academy conversion and “scrap the inefficient free school programme”. We talked about the evidence that those programmes worked when Labour Members asked for it. The Deputy Prime Minister said that the free schools programme is inefficient, but the average Progress 8 score of a free school is 0.25. That is a fantastic score, getting a quarter of a grade better across all subjects, which is beating the national average. That is what the Deputy Prime Minister thought was so inefficient, but the opposite is the truth. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are not the only ones: the Culture Secretary spoke at an anti-academies conference. The Energy Secretary said that free schools were the last thing we need—but actually, for many kids they are the first. When Ministers in this Government say that they just want more options, and that they are still prepared to fight all the usual suspects to put failing schools under new management—even where left-wing local campaigns are against it—we start from a bit of a sceptical position, because of the relatively recent comments made by senior Ministers. We do not have to imagine the future. The other day, we saw a choice: we saw a straw in the wind. Glebefields primary school in Tipton was issued with an academy order after being rated less than good twice. The DFE previously told Glebefields that the Education Secretary did not believe the case met the criteria to revoke academisation, despite the change of policy before us. The school threatened legal action and the Secretary of State changed her mind. I worry that there will be many such cases, as well as court cases, and that too many children will find themselves in schools that are failing them, and in need of new management that they will not get. Ultimately, our amendments seek to limit the damage of this clause, but fundamentally we think that it is a mistake. We worry that, in a few years’ time, Ministers will realise what some of their Back-Bench colleagues already realise: why this clause is a big mistake.

On clause 44, Liberal Democrats have long supported the position that a failing school, or one that Ofsted has identified as requiring intervention, should not automatically be made an academy. That is our long-standing policy position, so when the Bill was published I welcomed that measure. However, I felt the need to table amendments because, as I stated yesterday in the Chamber, I was concerned that we were being asked to take away the automatic provision of issuing an academy order without knowing what the school inspection regime would be, and were therefore being asked to legislate in a vacuum. I still think that it is wrong that this legislation started to be considered before we had yesterday’s announcements, but I recognise that the Government have now made them. I was quite taken, in the oral evidence session, in which we heard from various witnesses, not least by Sir Jon Coles, who said he would like to see what Government policy is underpinning this particular measure, and what the Government’s school improvement policy is. I think the jury is still out on what we heard yesterday, but the fact that we have had a policy announcement negates, to some extent, amendment 95 in my name. It sought to ensure that there was something in place, so that if there were not an automatic academy order, the Secretary of State would invite bids from successful academy trusts that had a track record of turning schools around. I say to the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston that academisation is not a silver bullet. He has enjoyed quoting many times the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, who spoke out against her own Front Bench, but she even said herself on Radio 4 in the interview that he cited—which I listened to very carefully on the day it was broadcast—that academisation is not a silver bullet. I have not seen it in my own constituency, but I note that the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) pointed out on Second Reading that she worked in areas in the north-west where there were some schools with very vulnerable pupils that had not been improved by being switched from academy trust to academy trust. Clearly, it is not always the correct answer. I therefore think it is important that Ministers set out the whole range of options that are available to ensure that we can turn schools around—and turn them around quickly—because our children deserve the best possible opportunities to flourish and thrive. Some questions were posed on that yesterday, and I am sure that Ministers will address it over the coming weeks—although I welcome comments today—but, with the RISE teams that are being put in place, the number of advisers is really quite small for the number of schools.

15:45:00

His Majesty’s Opposition have regularly made the point that local authorities do not have the capacity, or the resources, to do school turnarounds. I gently point out to them that it was Conservative Ministers who cut the school improvement grants to local authorities in the last Parliament. I know that because I wrote to Ministers at the time, because in Richmond upon Thames I had representations from our lead for education and children’s services that these important school improvement grants were being cut. We know that school improvement partners in local authorities do important work, particularly with our maintained schools. That capacity was cut away by the previous Government, and will need to be looked at in the new regime.

The hon. Lady, in her speech, is talking a lot of sense. I would just point out to her that in the last Parliament, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, per-pupil funding, in real terms, went up by 11%. There will always be constraints. Indeed, the current Ministers have cut the academisation grant and the trust improvement capacity fund, and cut Latin, maths, computing, and physics support; lots of things have been cut. In fairness, schools funding, per pupil, went up a lot faster in the last Parliament than it did in 2010 to 2015, when the hon. Lady’s party was in government. But there are always—[Interruption.]

I am very happy to respond to that. The hon. Gentleman will know full well—[Interruption.] Sorry; if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make these party political jibes, I am very happy to come back at him on them. In 2010 to 2015, it was the Liberal Democrats in government who made sure that schools’ day-to-day funding was not cut. We were responsible for introducing the pupil premium, which, post 2015, was never uprated.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

In a moment. I will make this point, because I wanted to pick up on it in the oral evidence session when people were asking questions about attainment, but we ran out of time. The pupil premium was a Liberal Democrat front-page manifesto policy in 2010. That was implemented and it has helped disadvantaged pupils. After 2015 it was not uprated in line with inflation, and that is why our disadvantaged children up and down the country are now getting less money, in real terms, to support their education. We have seen a widening attainment gap since covid in particular. So, I will take no lectures from the Conservative Benches on supporting disadvantaged pupils. It was our policy on free school meals, and our policy on the pupil premium, that came to bear. Actually, it was after 2015 that we saw funding cuts. The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston boasted that per-pupil funding was raised; the Conservatives only got it back to 2010 levels by the time they left government in 2024. I am sure that Members across this room, when they visit their schools, will hear stories about the funding pressures.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I think we are diverging somewhat from the clause and the amendments.

I will give way only if it relates to the clause and the amendments, because I fear we have veered on to school funding, as opposed to academy orders.

I was going to show some solidarity with the hon. Lady, which she may find useful. This is my second Bill Committee—the first was on water—and if it is any consolation to the hon. Lady, the Conservative spokespeople blamed 14 years of water mismanagement on the five years of coalition with the Liberal Democrats in that Committee, too. My question is, would she agree that, actually, it is unfair to blame the Liberal Democrats for 14 years of education failure, given that they were only in coalition for five of those failing years?

I think it is unfair because, as I have pointed out, we saw the most damaging cuts, and the lack of keeping up with inflation—in terms of schools funding—from 2015 onwards. As Liberals, it is core to our DNA to champion education, because we recognise that that is the route out of poverty and disadvantage for everyone. No matter someone’s background, that is how they flourish in life. That is why we had such a big focus on education when we were in government. Sadly, we never saw that level of focus after we left government. I return to clause 44 and the amendments in my name. I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston about judicial reviews. I do not share his concerns far enough to support his amendment, because a judicial review is sometimes an important safety valve in all sorts of decision making, but I recognise what he says: that all sorts of campaigns and judicial reviews could start up. Just the other day, I was talking to a former Minister who has been involved in a London school that needs turning around; they have had all sorts of problems in making the necessary changes, and were subject to a judicial review, which the governing body and those involved won. I recognise and share the shadow Minister’s concerns, and I look forward to hearing how the Minister will address them, but putting a bar on all JRs in primary legislation is possibly overreach.

I want to comment on judicial reviews. Opposition Members will be aware that the previous Government’s long-standing policy of issuing academisation orders to schools with two RIs was not in fact a duty, but can they set out on how many occasions those would have been challenged through a judicial review? Rather than them taking the time, I can tell them that there were numerous judicial reviews that held up the changes that we would have wanted to make, whether regarding governance or a change in leadership. The clause allows local authorities and local areas to choose which way to go.

The hon. Lady posed a question and answered it herself, so I shall move on. My amendment 95 is perhaps made redundant by yesterday’s announcements, but amendment 96 talks about parliamentary oversight. That comes back to the fundamental point that I made in the Chamber yesterday, which is that we will end up passing the Bill before we see the outcome of the consultations from Ofsted and the Government on school improvement. I therefore humbly ask Ministers to at least allow Parliament to have sight of what will replace the power that is being amended, our support for which is of long standing.

Amendment 80 would retain the existing duty to issue an academy order where a school is judged to be in a category of concern by Ofsted. However, it provides an exemption to the duty in cases where the Secretary of State is unable to identify a suitable sponsor trust for the school. Amendment 81 would not alter the repeal of the existing duty to issue academy orders to schools in a statutory category of concern; it would replace it with a duty to issue an academy order to schools assessed as requiring significant improvement or assessed by a RISE team to be significantly underperforming in comparison with their peers. Where a school is judged as requiring special measures, the Secretary of State would have a choice as to whether to issue an academy order, to deploy a RISE team or to use another intervention measure. The amendments acknowledge the spirit of our proposal, which is to repeal the duty to issue academy orders and so to provide more flexibility to take the best course of action for each school. We recognise that in some cases the existing leadership of a failing school is strong and, with the right support, has the capacity to improve the school. Repealing the duty to issue an academy order means that in such cases we will have the flexibility to provide targeted support to schools, for example through RISE teams, to drive school improvement without the need to change the school’s leadership. I acknowledge the spirit of amendments 80 and 81 and the support for greater flexibility, but they would undermine the objective of enabling greater flexibility when intervening in failing schools. I therefore ask the hon. Members not to press them.

As set out by the Secretary of State yesterday, is it not the case that RISE teams will make the faster, earlier interventions to help schools improve before the situation gets so bad that these orders are given? Is that not exactly the point we are trying to get to?

Absolutely. The hon. Lady has put it very well. I was going to come to the detail of how the RISE teams will work, as I appreciate some questions have been raised. Fundamentally it needs to be understood that RISE will be a very different service from previous education improvement services that have been referenced. There will be more days, more money and better quality, because RISE will draw on the very best available school improvement capacity within the region, much of which lies within our academy trust leaders themselves.

I have a genuine question, as they say on Twitter. Quite a lot of teachers and school leaders have asked me, what is the difference between people joining a RISE team and national leaders in education?

Genuine delay of response, on the basis that I will come to that in my comments, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s interest. Amendment 82—tabled jointly in the names of the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich—means that where the Secretary of State decides to issue an academy order to a school, the decision cannot be challenged by judicial review. The amendment looks to address the concerns that have been raised that repealing the duty to issue academy orders will lead to delays in school conversions and improvement, due to legal challenges against the Secretary of State’s decision. I do not accept the challenge that repealing the duty to issue academy orders will lead to unacceptably high numbers of legal challenges. As part of our future intervention process, we will set out a robust and lawful policy which will set out the circumstances in which we will issue an academy order to a school in a category of concern, and that will help ensure that all decisions taken to intervene are in the best interest of the individual school and its circumstances. However, there should be the possibility, and ability, for those impacted by decisions to issue an academy order to challenge that decision where it might have got it wrong. I therefore respectfully ask that the Members withdraw that amendment. I now turn to amendments 95 and 96, tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham. Amendment 95 seeks to require the Secretary of State to invite expressions of interest from potential sponsor trusts prior to issuing an academy order to a failing school. It then requires the Secretary of State to assess the track record of potential sponsors identified as regards school improvement. Amendment 96 would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament, setting out the different mechanisms that can be used to secure school improvement, and guidance on the appropriate usage of those mechanisms, before measures can take effect. The Department already has an established practice on publishing clear policy and guidance on the methods used to support and intervene in schools. In particular, the support and intervention in school guidance makes clear the various intervention powers that may be used when a school is underperforming and the circumstances in which they may be used. In most cases, failing maintained schools subsequently converted to academies have shown improvements. The last published data shows that since 2010, 68% of previously maintained schools, now academies, improved to a “good” or “outstanding” in their latest Ofsted inspection. Conversely, that does show that 32% did not. Once it is decided that an academy order should be issued, the Department already has established processes in place to identify the best sponsor for each failing school. Using the high-quality trust framework, the Department identifies trusts with the expertise and track record in delivering high-quality and inclusive education and the capacity to rapidly transform the performance of the school. The Department will consider the individual school characteristics and the school’s improvement needs in order to match the school with the right trust. We will continue to ensure that we identify the best possible sponsor match for failing schools that receive academy orders to maximise the potential for school improvement. The Department already has these well-established practices, so I do not believe the amendments are necessary to achieve the outcome that they seek. I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Twickenham not to press them to a vote.

16:00:00

Turning to clause 44, for too long, the only solution to tackling failing schools has been to force them to become academies. Although it is true that many schools have benefited from academisation, it is not the right approach in all cases. Academisation can be disruptive and costly, and it may not be necessary where a school’s existing leadership has the capacity to make the necessary improvements, if it just had the right support to do so. There are also circumstances where there just has not been a strong academy trust for a school to join, which has meant children continuing to wait for their school to be improved and continuing to be disadvantaged by doing so.

That is why we are repealing the duty to issue academy orders to local authority maintained schools that are in a statutory category of concern. Instead, we will have a choice between academising or providing support with the new regional improvement for standards and excellence teams. Where it is clear that academisation is the best way to achieve improvement for a particular school, we will not hesitate to pursue it. Where academisation may not be the best option, particularly when the school has existing strong leadership, it will receive support from a RISE team to improve without the disruption that academisation causes for pupils and parents.

Let me respond to some of the questions. The hon. Member for Twickenham rightly acknowledged that the consultation issued yesterday set out the process that will interrelate with the changes that we seek to make through legislation today. Clause 44 repeals the duty to make an academy order for maintained schools that are causing concern. As we said, that will give us more flexibility to address a school’s performance issues. We launched the 12-week consultation yesterday, seeking views on the school accountability principles, including the structural intervention that sits alongside Ofsted’s consultation.

We outlined our policy for intervention in schools causing concern, and we now seek to legislate to provide the ability to pursue the outcome of that consultation. Whatever the outcome, we believe that repealing the duty to issue academy orders to give us that flexibility of approach is the best option. I know that the hon. Lady agrees, and we will use the responses to the consultation to inform the precise balance of use between the intervention options. We will be clear about those options and that approach to minimise any legal challenge that may be brought in respect of decisions taken.

The long-term objective of the measure is obvious: children get only one childhood, and it matters deeply that they get the right school and the highest quality provision in that school through their childhood. We are absolutely determined that improvement, when it is needed, will be delivered as fast as possible. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said, academisation can be a very slow process. Indeed, it can take time to match a school with a strong trust, and it can take time for the legal processes to go through. What we seek to do with the RISE teams is to intervene at the earliest point at which a struggling or failing school is identified, and to put that support in place as fast as possible.

We do not accept the challenge that this will result in intolerable delays to school improvement—quite the opposite: it will ensure that support can be put in at the fastest opportunity. To give some statistics, between January 2022 and December 2024, 40% of all schools in a category of concern took over a year to convert to sponsored academies, and 23% took more than two years. Although some of the concerns existed before the current regime of directed orders was introduced, it still takes too long and there are too many children in those schools that are not getting the support they need to improve. Even where they have the capacity within the school to improve, they do not have the support to do so.

We absolutely back the academy system; we have been very clear about that. The characterisation of this as anti-academy is quite ridiculous.

It was the Prime Minister’s words, not mine.

We greatly value the role of trusts in the school system. Indeed, we recognise the improvements they have brought, particularly for disadvantaged children. We recognise the excellence and innovation seen right across our schools and trusts. As I said earlier, we also recognise that a lot of the capacity to drive improvement across the system exists within those academy trusts, and we will harness that. Without single headline grades, Ofsted will continue to identify those schools that require significant improvement or are in special measures and it will be able to make judgments to inform the level of support that should be given. If a school in special measures does not have the leadership capacity to improve, the proposal subject to consultation is that it should be immediately moved towards academisation. Where a school does have the leadership capacity to improve, for the next year, while we are building up the capacity of the RISE teams—as I said, 20 began work yesterday, but we recognise we are not up to full capacity yet—it will be issued with an academy order. However, once we have the RISE teams to go in and support the leadership team to drive improvements within those schools, we will put in that support, rather than going straight to an academy order.

We have heard various things from the Conservative spokespeople, including from a sedentary position. I just heard the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston say something about the Prime Minister. I want to put on the record what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions recently: “Parents and teachers know that we introduced academies. Parents and teachers know that we are driven by standards. We are committed to standards—they are part of the future—and we will continue to focus on them.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 1000.] It is really important that words are not being put in the mouths of Members, particularly when those Members are not in this room.

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification, and I agree; there has been far too much of that in this Committee.

I literally just read out the Prime Minister’s own words. They are not my words. If he did not want to say them, he did not have to say them. I want to press the Minister, because I can sense that she is starting to wind up. She is talking about how many schools will go through structural intervention—in other words, academisation. The Government have put out a statistic saying that there will be twice as many schools going through RISE and academisation combined over the next three years as there were over the last two years. The Government clearly have a statistic for how many schools they expect to go through academisation, and I am keen that the Minister tell the House what that number is. How many schools do they expect to go through academisation in the next three years? They obviously know.

To be clear, we have identified the 600 schools that require RISE intervention, and that will be mandated—

How many will go through academisation?

If I could just finish, that will be mandated intervention for schools that have been consistently underperforming. They are schools that are not part of the previous Government’s procedure for mandating intervention within schools. They are schools that have been sitting just above the mandated intervention procedures but have been consistently underperforming. This is one of the big failures of the previous Government. We have spent a lot of time in the last few days recognising the great successes of many educational reforms over the years, but it is a crying shame that so many schools are still struggling and have not had the support they need to improve over the years.

No. The idea that a one-trick-pony approach to improving schools will get the required outcome is simply not borne out by the facts. I will give a piece of data that might help to illustrate my point. This is in no way a reflection of academies—we absolutely support academies, and we cannot wait to see RISE working with academies to drive great practice and improvements across the system. However, 42% of schools that were placed in special measures or judged as requiring significant improvement in 2023-24 by Ofsted were academies. The idea that simply academising, academising, academising will get the outcomes we need for children is a narrow-minded, inflexible approach that has let far too many children down. We are not willing to put up with that.

I will get on to answering the hon. Gentleman’s question, if he would like me to. He can ask it again or ask another one.

I am keen to get a piece of information that the Government have not properly put into the public domain. They clearly know how many schools they expect to go through academisation in the next three years. What is the number? That is all I am looking for.

I will need to write to the hon. Gentleman to answer that specific question, as I think it is more complex than he identifies. There are obviously schools that we know are underperforming, and that is where we want to target our resources. Those in special measures and those that require significant improvement will undergo academy conversion over the next 12 months. We probably have the number for that, but ongoing Ofsted inspections will identify new schools that will fall into that category, and they will need to be academised. We cannot predict that, and it would not be fair for us to do so. We have roughly 312,000 children at schools that we have already identified as struggling schools that are not getting any support or intervention. We are directing targeted, mandated RISE support to them. Clearly, future schools will unfortunately fall into those categories as more Ofsted inspections are undertaken over the next year. I therefore do not have the exact figure as to how many will fall into whichever category. We obviously hope that schools will benefit from the universal RISE service that we will bring forward to support all schools to improve, regardless of their process. That, however, is part of the consultation; we will look to roll it out in due course. To be clear on the number of RISE advisers, we recognise that 20 seems like a small number, but they will be the facilitators of a much larger army of school improvement expertise that we know already exists in the system. That will be put together with schools that require support. By April, we will have 50 advisers as we are undertaking a recruitment process to bring in the best of the best for school improvement support. They will not deliver the school improvement but will ensure that school improvement is made available and matched up with schools that need it. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire will know, the national leaders of education, who are school improvers, were deployed for a basic 10 days. That was obviously valuable, but RISE will draw on a much broader range of institutional capacity, and it will bring in more than one provider. There will be more help and expertise, and there will be more time and more money. We are not going to waste any time. We are investing in making sure that children do not spend one more day in a school that is not giving them the outcomes they deserve. I hope the Committee will agree to the clause standing part of the Bill.

I am keen to press the amendment. Question put, That the amendment be made.

15|0|3|12|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

Clause 45

Extension of statutory pay and conditions arrangements to Academy teachers

16:15:00

I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 45, page 104, line 17, at end insert— “(za) in subsection (1)(a), after ‘the’ insert ‘minimum’”.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Clauses 45 and 46 stand part. Government amendment 93. New clause 7—Power to prescribe pay and conditions for teachers— “The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act— (a) make provision for the power of the governing bodies of maintained schools to set the pay and working conditions of school teachers to be made equivalent with the relevant powers of academies; (b) provide guidance to all applicable schools that— (i) pay levels given in the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document are to be treated as the minimum pay of relevant teachers; (ii) teachers may be paid above the pay levels given in the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document. (iii) they must have regard to the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document but may vary from it in the best interests of their pupils and staff.” This new clause would make the pay set out in the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document a floor, and extend freedoms over pay and conditions to local authority maintained schools. Government new clause 57—Pay and conditions of Academy teachers. Government new schedule 1—Pay and conditions of Academy teachers: amendments to the Education Act 2002.

Amendment 47 would, very simply, make the Secretary of State’s recommendations on pay and conditions a minimum for all schools, whether maintained or academy schools, as the Secretary of State and Ministers have now confirmed was their intention with the Bill. I note that, since I tabled this, new schedule 1 has been tabled. I question why we need a separate order-making power, with all the complexities set out in the new schedule—I am sure the Minister will address that—but I think we are at one in saying that the recommendations should be a floor not a ceiling. I return once again to the data laid out in the House of Commons Library document on the Bill, which suggests that there is very little variation in pay between maintained schools and academies. Again, I am not 100% sure why we need the new schedule; I just think we should have a floor for all schools. I think it is great that where schools have the means, they are able to pay a premium to attract teachers in shortage subjects, challenging areas or schools that may have had their challenges, but, as we all know, the reality is that most schools are massively strapped for cash—most headteachers and governors I speak to say that. The idea that they are all going to be able to pay a premium is for the birds. None the less, those schools that are able to should absolutely have that freedom.

We have been on quite a journey on this clause. At the Education Committee on 15 January, the Secretary of State said that critics of the Bill were confused. She said: “It has become clear to me that there has been some confusion and some worry about what I have said in this area, so today I want to be absolutely clear that all schools will have full flexibility to innovate with a floor and no ceiling on what that means.” The fact that, subsequent to that, we have pages and pages of Government amendments to their own Bill suggests pretty powerfully that it was not school leaders and critics of the Bill who were confused. This is a very significant measure. The impact assessment notes that an Employer Link survey conducted in 2021 found that over 28% of employers varied in some way from the school teachers’ pay and conditions document. Freedoms have been quite widely used. As Sir Jon Coles said in evidence to this Committee, just because people are using the freedoms does not necessarily mean that they know they are using them. Some of the innovations are great—they are things we all want for our teachers and schools. For example, United Learning, Jon Coles’s trust, was paying 6.5% on top of the national pay and conditions to retain good people. Dixons was innovating with a really interesting nine-day fortnight, so that teachers in really tough areas got more preparation time. This is really powerful innovation that we do not want to take away. The Secretary of State called for a floor not a ceiling and said that she wanted “that innovation and flexibility to be available to all schools regardless of type.” We think that is a good principle and we agree about extending it to all schools. That is why our new clause 7 would extend freedoms over pay and conditions to local authority maintained schools as well. Given that the Government said previously that it would be good to have the same freedoms for everybody, we assume that they will accept the new clause so that we can have the floor not a ceiling for everybody, not just academies. If a floor not a ceiling is right for teachers, surely it is right in principle for the other half of the schools workforce. Surely, school support staff—actually, they are the majority of the workforce in schools—are not worth any less than teachers, and the same principles should apply to them. This is critical. Lots of trusts are using the advantages of scale to make back-office savings and efficiencies, and ploughing them back into additional benefits and pay to support really good staff. I hope that Ministers will support our new clause 64, when we come to it, and accept that the principle that they have applied to teachers should apply to everybody else in our schools, too.

I warmly welcome the proposal to ensure that there is a level playing field for pay for teachers who teach in different types of schools. Does the Minister consider that now is the time to take a similar approach to addressing pay for leaders of schools? I found it pretty jaw dropping to hear recently that the pay and pension of a CEO of a well-known multi-academy trust topped £600,000 per year. I took the trouble of having a look at that particular academy trust and found that it has 168 people on salaries of over £100,000, and it covers just 55 schools. It is clearly not sustainable for the pay of leaders of multi-academy trusts to continue to increase in proportion to the number of schools in those trusts. If that approach was taken to salary setting, the Minister herself would be on millions of pounds a year. We had an interesting discussion earlier about the difference between correlation and causation. There is worrying evidence—I have seen interesting analysis from Warwick Mansell, for example—showing correlation between the prevalence of non-QTS teachers and high pupil-teacher ratios in multi-academy trusts and high levels of executive pay. That strongly suggests that such trusts are diverting or channelling more funding into higher executive pay rather than frontline teaching, which is surely of concern. While I welcome the moves to ensure equitability across teacher salaries in all types of state school, is it not time to address pay inequalities and excessive pay in certain leadership functions in multi-academy trusts in particular? I note that the Public Accounts Committee drew attention back in 2022 to the DFE not having a handle on executive pay in the sector. I would warmly welcome the Minister’s comments on whether the Government have any intention to take action to address this.

It is good to follow the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. A lot of this argument has just been about pay, but we are actually considering schoolteachers’ pay and conditions. We need to take into account all elements of schoolteachers’ pay and conditions. The hon. Member spoke about executive pay of CEOs. There is an academy trust—United Learning trust—where many staff cease to get sick pay above statutory levels after six weeks. That does not strike me as likely to attract and retain high-quality staff. People may fall ill through no fault of their own, and this is not the right approach to take when we have a recruitment and retention crisis. The schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document allows for recruitment and retention points, SEN points and teaching and learning responsibility points to be awarded. It also allows for teachers working in schools to rise up without an incremental scale, unlike me when I entered teaching and took an annual increment to rise up the scale. We can allow for teachers to be paid at a high level, should there be a need and desire for that. That includes the upper pay scale. Members who were not in the profession may not know that the previous Government introduced that with five elements, but those were quickly reduced to three to keep good and experienced teachers in the classroom. On the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions element, with regard to flexibility it covers 1,265 hours. That can be negotiated in an academy or maintained school according to what works best for individual teachers or the school. I have an example from my city. Several years ago, through the narrowing of the curriculum, GCSE dance was removed from it. The school worked with the dance teacher, who still did her 1,265 hours, but moved her timing, because she did it as an after-school element. There is still the 1,265 element and flexibility. However, the provisions will mean that wherever people teach, in whatever organisation, if they are in a school that is funded by taxpayers—funded by the Government—they will have national standards for their pay and their terms and conditions.

I will speak about amendment 47, new clause 7, Government amendment 93, new clause 57, new schedule 1 and clause 26. On amendment 47, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham for her considered and constructive views on our teachers’ pay and conditions measures. I hope she will agree that, in tabling our own amendments—of which I will give more details shortly, and respond to her specific question—the Government have demonstrated a commitment to ensuring that schools can innovate and share best practice to recruit and retain the teachers our children need. I absolutely appreciate what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve with the amendment. However, if it will satisfy her, our amendment will do two key things. First, it will create a power for the Secretary of State to require teachers in academy schools and alternative provision academies to be paid at least a minimum level of remuneration. When used with the existing power to set pay for teachers in maintained schools, that will enable the Secretary of State to set a floor on pay for all teachers in all state schools. I think that addresses the key effect that the hon. Lady’s amendment seeks to achieve. Secondly, our amendment will require academies to have regard to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document and guidance. That makes clear that we will deliver on our commitment to creating a floor with no ceiling on teachers’ pay, and we remain committed to consulting on changes to the school teachers’ pay and conditions document to remove the ceiling and allow all schools to innovate and attract the top teaching talent that they need. On new clause 7, which the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston tabled, I appreciate his concern. I think we have reached a level of agreement—I do not think there is strong disagreement on the need for clarity for academies or the principle of equivalence between academies and maintained schools on teacher pay and conditions. That is why we have introduced our own amendments to this clause that will, for the first time, allow the Secretary of State to guarantee core pay arrangements for all state school teachers. Our understanding of new clause 7 is that it seeks to achieve a similar outcome to our Government amendments. However, the Government’s amendment on this matter achieves what the hon. Member’s amendment seeks to achieve and more, with greater clarity and precision. It clarifies those academies and teachers who should be in scope, and importantly, retains the Secretary of State’s power to set a flexible framework for maintained schools, giving them the certainty that they want. It also takes into account the important, considered and constructive views of the teaching profession and other stakeholders, without undermining the independent pay review process that we know schools, teachers and stakeholders value. The Government have listened and acted decisively on this matter, and I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments. The Government amendments seek to replace clause 45 and detail the Government’s proposed approach to teachers’ pay and conditions. Let me say from the outset that the Government’s objectives on pay and conditions have not changed. As the Secretary of State set out clearly at the Education Committee meeting, we will create a floor with no ceiling by providing a core pay offer for teachers in state schools and enabling innovation to help all schools attract the top teaching talent they need. Those amendments will provide additional clarity about how we will deliver that. The existing clause 45 will be replaced by new clause 57 and new schedule 1, which introduces a new accompanying schedule to the clause. Amendment 93 deals with the commencement of the new clause and the schedule. The Opposition made a great deal of noise about our plans for teacher pay and conditions, claiming that we wanted to restrict academy freedoms and that our secret intention was actually to cut teachers’ pay. All of it was nonsense. Our rationale for why we need these changes has always been clear. We know that what makes the biggest difference to a young person’s education is high-quality teaching. We greatly value the role that trusts play in the school system, particularly for disadvantaged children—they have transformed schools, and we want them to continue to drive high and rising standards for all pupils. But there are severe shortages of qualified teachers across the country. Our teachers are integral to driving high and rising standards, and having an attractive pay and conditions framework is vital to recruiting and retaining excellent teachers for every classroom.

16:30:00

In order to achieve that, the Secretary of State has set out that we want to create a floor with no ceiling, enabling healthy competition and innovation to improve all schools. We will do that by taking a power to set the minimum level of renumeration for teachers in academy schools and alternative provision academies, creating a pay floor for those teachers. We will also take a power to issue guidance concerning minimum-pay level setting.

We will place a duty on the proprietors of those academies to have regard to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document, which means they must follow it unless they have good reason not to. That will allow existing and future innovations that benefit pupils and staff to continue, and will go further to ensure that maintained schools have the flexibilities that they need, in the same way that academies already do, by remitting the school teachers’ review body to consider the benefit of further flexibilities for all schools following Royal Assent.

Taken together, the measures in the new clause and the changes we intend to make by way of secondary legislation mean that all state school teachers will have a guaranteed minimum pay offer. In a constrained teacher labour market, all schools will have flexibility to attract and retain teachers, and innovations that are making a positive difference can continue and spread.

It is generous of the Minister to give way. To address the point that I raised in my speech, does she agree that the principle of a floor but no ceiling should apply to school support staff as well as teachers?

Yes, I was going to come to that point, because it is welcome that the hon. Gentleman focused on school support staff. He is absolutely right that they are integral to any successful school. However, we do not intend to amend the provisions, because we are legislating for the school support staff negotiating body in the Employment Rights Bill, and we are creating a new system for support in 2025. Rather than try to amend the existing one, we are creating a new negotiating body for them. It makes sense that the outcomes from the new body will apply in same way to all state-funded schools in England. The primary legislation does not commit us to a one-size-fits-all approach, and so there will be flexibilities for local circumstance to be able to flex above minimum agreement. Again, there will also be a floor but no ceiling for school support staff. We will continue to work with the sector, during and after the passage of the Bill, to ensure that the school support staff negotiating body meets the needs of all school types. The shadow Minister’s intervention and focus on school support staff is absolutely welcome. In response to the specific question of why we need a separate order-making power, we have clarified the objective by tabling an amendment that requires all academy schools and alternative provision academies to pay their teachers at least the minimum level of pay set out in secondary legislation. Subsequent reforms to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document will ensure there is no ceiling on the maximum that maintained schools can pay for their teachers. The amendment will also require academies to have regard to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document, ensuring an established starting point for all state schools while giving confidence that existing or future changes benefiting teachers and pupils can continue. Maintained schools will continue to follow the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document, but the Government are committed to making changes to the document following the Bill’s passage, to remove the ceiling and build in flexibility so that all schools can innovate to attract and retain the best talent. We absolutely want to ensure that the freedoms that academies have enjoyed will continue. Indeed, they will be extended to maintained schools. In terms of examples used, such as the nine-day week—

Fortnight.

Fortnight. Indeed, as in the interesting example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North, it is right that schools are able to find new and innovative ways of ensuring that they retain and attract the teachers who we know will drive the high and rising standards that we want across our schools. I hope I have answered all the questions.

The hon. Lady asked me a question.

I thank the Minister for giving way. Does she agree with me that there is a case for establishing a national pay framework for academy trust leaders, given the huge and rising salaries?

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution, and I recognise the concerns that she has set out. It is essential that we have the best people to lead our schools. That is how we drive and raise standards. But we are absolutely clear that academy trust salaries must be justifiable and must reflect the individual responsibility, and also local recruitment and retention needs. The Academy Trust Handbook gives academy trusts the authority to set their own pay. Trusts must ensure their decisions about levels of executive pay, including salary and other benefits, “follow a robust evidence-based process and are a reasonable and defensible reflection of the individual’s role and responsibilities.” We work with trusts on executive pay. Where there is an insufficient demonstration of value for money, or no direct link to improving outcomes for students, and where executive pay in an academy trust is found to be an outlier when compared with similar academy trusts, the Department engages with the trust and assesses compliance with the Academy Trust Handbook. The hon. Lady’s concerns are noted and, where required, the process will be followed.

Does the hon. Lady have another question?

Just to expand on that, I would like to ask the Minister whether she thinks it is reasonable and justifiable that an academy trust leader has a salary of over £600,000, when a leader in a local authority with responsibility for an equivalent or larger number of schools would have a salary nowhere near?

The hon. Lady has made her point. I will not comment on individual circumstances or individual trust leaders—I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to do so. But she has made her point and it is an important one that is reflected in the processes in the Academy Trust Handbook and the processes that are in place regarding these issues. We will keep it under review as a Department. Obviously the changes that we are bringing will have an impact in terms of setting a more equal balance between the approaches of academies and maintained schools in pay and conditions. That is the intention of the clause. I hope I have set out clearly how our amendments to the existing clause 45 and subsequent secondary legislation will deliver on our commitment to a floor with no ceiling. It will enable good practice and innovation to continue and will be used by all state schools to recruit and retain the best teachers that they need for our children. I therefore urge members of the Committee to support the amendments, but in this context the current clause 45 should not stand part of the Bill.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 45 disagreed to.

So clause 45 does not stand part of the Bill. Does clause 46 stand part of the Bill?

I am happy to speak to clause 46.

We already debated clause 46. If people were not following, I cannot do anything other than express my concern about that. If it is the wish of the Committee that we discuss clause 46 before we put it to the vote, I can be flexible and allow that. Clause 46 Application of pay and conditions order to education action zones Question proposed, That clause 46 stand part of the Bill.

I am extremely grateful for your flexibility on this matter, Sir Christopher. I have a very short contribution to make on clause 46. It is a minor technical change that sensibly tidies up legal provision that is no longer necessary. The clause repeals section 128 of the Education Act 2002. That section enabled maintained schools in education action zones to apply to determine their own pay and conditions for teachers. However, as education action zones have not existed since 2005, the most appropriate action is to repeal section 128 of that Act entirely. Although the legislation to create new education action zones remains in place, the effect of the clause is negligible given that no education action zones currently exist. If any new ones were subsequently created, as a result of this clause they would no longer be able to opt out of the statutory pay and conditions framework, which is entirely consistent with the Government’s new approach to teachers’ pay.

Sir Christopher, you are a superb Chairman. You are also a very kind and thoughtful one for those of us who are not quick enough on the draw. I will not make detailed comments here. We are abolishing something that was set up in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, and it struck me that there are related ideas that the Minister might want to pick up rather than abolish. As well as the education action zones that we are discussing here, the Blair Government had another go at that same idea in the 2002 Act and enabled huge amounts of school freedom in particular areas to bring about improvement. Although lots of work was done on that legislation and it was passed through the House, and lots of work was done to implement it, there was a change of Secretary of State and, strangely, the powers, although they are on the statute book, were never commenced. We, as the Opposition, do not have the power to commence them, but I would recommend to the Minister that she does. I think there is a great opportunity here to get some innovation into the system. New clause 67, when we come to it, may look familiar to Ministers and to DFE lawyers, because I am afraid we have stolen it—it is a straightforward rip-off of 2002 Blair era reforms. Even though in this clause abolishes a bit of Blair-era reform, we encourage Ministers to get back on the reforming horse and to return to that spirit. We hope when we come to that new clause that Ministers will spot what we are trying to do.

I note the spoiler for amendments to come. Question put and agreed to. Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 47 Co-operation between schools and local authorities Question proposed, That clause 47 stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 creates a new co-operation duty for schools and local authorities. It aims to strengthen how schools and local authorities work together on school admissions and place planning. Collaboration and co-operation on these issues is vital to ensuring that all children, especially the most vulnerable, can receive a school education. The clause places a duty on mainstream state schools and local authorities to co-operate with each other regarding their respective school admissions functions. It also places a duty on mainstream, special and alternative provision state schools to co-operate with local authorities regarding their place-planning functions. For the admissions and place-planning system to function effectively, co-operation between schools and local authorities is essential. For example, local authorities need to regularly engage with local schools to produce and deliver proposals for ensuring that there are sufficient school places. That process normally works well and we know that the vast majority of schools and local authorities already work together effectively to ensure that there is sufficient supply of school places and that local admission systems are working to support parent choice and allowing children to achieve and thrive. However, until now there has been no general duty on schools and local authorities to co-operate on these important issues. In some instances, that has led to some schools and local authorities acting unilaterally or unhelpfully in regard to admissions or local place planning, without recognising the impact of their decisions on local communities. These new duties will send a strong message to schools and local authorities about the importance of co-operation on school admissions and place planning. As a result, we expect that schools and local authorities will seek to act more collaboratively on these issues, for example, sharing information in a timely manner and ensuring that they are working together in the best interests of the local community. The absence of specific duties on co-operation also means that there are limited options available for the Secretary of State to intervene where a school or local authority is refusing to co-operate on these issues. Formalising a need to co-operate as a statutory duty will provide a mechanism to address such a situation. Where a school or local authority is failing or refusing to co-operate, the Secretary of State will be able to use her existing and planned enforcement powers to intervene, for example by considering directing the party at fault to take specific steps to comply with their co-operation duty.

I will be quite brief. Clauses 47 to 50 are all of a piece, though it is the last of them, clause 50, that we have the greatest concerns about. In the interest of time, I will reserve my comments on the other clauses until later. On clause 47, I just want to note my concerns that a rather vaguely defined duty to co-operate should not be abused by local authorities, and that a school’s failure to co-operate to the satisfaction of the local authority should not be used as a trigger for some of the rather alarming powers in clause 40. I just mark my concerns on this one, particularly about the vagueness of the duty to co-operate. I will return to more specific concerns on later clauses.

16:45:00

I warmly welcome the provision in clause 47. The Liberal Democrats have long called for far greater co-operation between local authorities and schools on admissions and place planning. This is even more important now as we see falling school rolls, which is a particularly acute problem in London. It is the case in other parts of the country as well, but in my own local authority, eight reception classes were closed in primary schools in, I think, the last academic year. At the moment, we have high demand for our secondaries and falling demand for our primaries. Over the years, that will feed through into secondary schools, which is where most of our academies sit. We must ensure that academies or schools are working with the local authority on place planning. Having a massive surplus of places in such a cash-constrained environment is neither realistic or desirable. I would add just one caveat from talking to the Confederation of School Trusts and the evidence we heard from Sir John Coles. They all welcome this particular provision, but Sir John Coles said that schools and local authorities need clear guidance on how this will work in practice. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on what guidance will be issued.

I too absolutely welcome this new duty to co-operate. It is really important in the context of the problems that competition over people’s heads has led to. I am, however, like others, a bit concerned about the vagueness of the way that it is specified in the legislation. I feel that it does not make it clear enough what the duty to co-operate actually means. Would the Minister consider making it more clear, such as specifying that the local authority becomes the admissions authority for all schools in the area? Would the Government also consider reforming the legacy of partial selection that is still there for some schools? Arguably, we should reform aptitude-based tests and other admissions tests, which evidence shows have led to inequalities in admissions.

The Bill represents a really important opportunity to strengthen the partnership working between schools and local authorities. As well as visiting schools across my constituency of Derby North, I visited Derby College and our university technical college—UTC. In looking at the opportunities and benefits that can be brought by better co-operation, would the Minister consider encouraging local authorities to assess fully 14 to 16 provision across all providers, to ensure that any gaps or barriers to accessing all those opportunities are considered? Could there also be potential consideration of offering opportunities for young people to study and train for part of the week in college settings? There is a real opportunity for our young people when we have better collaboration and co-operation on admissions.

In response to both Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons, we have deliberately not attempted to set out precisely what co-operation means, because it will depend on unique local context and issues. We expect, however, co-operation to include local authorities engaging collaboratively and constructively with schools, and academy trusts producing proposals for ensuring sufficient school places and how to reduce and repurpose spare capacity, which the hon. Member for Twickenham rightly identified as a challenge. We also expect local authorities to share their place-planning strategy with academy trusts and other local partners, and be transparent about underpinning capacity and forecast data, as well as the rationale for targeting schools for expansion or contraction. We expect schools and trusts to work collaboratively and constructively with local authorities, other academy trusts and the Department, on place-planning matters; act reasonably when considering or responding to requests to raise or lower published admission numbers; expand or contract where necessary; and be transparent with local authorities and the regions group about issues affecting their ability to deliver places and about any significant changes that they are planning. I hope that addresses the concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North asked a question about 14 to 16 provision. Where that is in an academy trust within a local authority area, the same co-operation duties apply. She is absolutely right that moments of transition are another key factor, and they have been regularly identified as a challenge for young people. They can be a real opportunity for young people but can also be challenging. We must create seamless transitions for young people. I will take away the consideration that the duty could form part of the solution to ensuring smooth transitions, particularly by ensuring that we have the provision for the age cohort she referred to. I trust that I have answered the questions raised. Question put and agreed to. Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

I beg to move, That further consideration be now adjourned. I specifically thank you, Sir Edward, for being so patient in the Chair for so long. [Interruption.] Sorry, Sir Christopher.

There are many occasions on which I have been confused with Sir Edward Leigh. I am going to indulge the Committee. Back in 1983, we were both new Members, and in those days, there was a system whereby the Chair of a Select Committee was chosen by the other members of the Committee. I was taken for a cup of tea or something stronger by somebody who aspired to be the Chair of a Committee. After he had given me a monologue for about half an hour, I said, “I didn’t think that people were able to vote unless they were members of the Committee.” He said, “You are Edward Leigh, aren’t you?” I have never seen anybody disappear as quickly as that, because he had wasted half an hour of valuable canvassing time. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)

16:53:00

Written evidence reported to the House

CWSB167 National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER)

CWSB168 Comprehensive Future

CWSB169 Sustain

CWSB170 Attachment Research Community and the Restorative Justice Council

CWSB171 Family Action National School Breakfast Programme

CWSB172 Become

CWSB173 Waldorf UK

CWSB174 Kidscape

CWSB175 Citizens Advice Halton

CWSB176 Helen Hamlyn Centre for Pedagogy (0-11 years) (HHCP), IOE, UCL's Faculty of Education and Society

CWSB177 Marie Collins Foundation

CWSB178 Adoption UK

CWSB179 Resolution

CWSB180 Drive Forward Foundation

CWSB181 Edapt

CWSB182 Square Peg

CWSB183 Barnardo's (supplementary)

CWSB184 The Fostering Network

CWSB185 Children North East

CWSB186 Care Leavers Association

CWSB187 Nuffield Family Justice Observatory

CWSB188 Children’s Services Development Group

CWSB189 National Education Union