Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
“Review: factory shutdowns and school attendance(1) On the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must order a review of the effect of factory shutdowns on local school attendance.(2) The review must consider the merits of varying local school holiday dates to minimise the impact of factory shutdowns on school attendance.(3) The review must be published within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, this is a simple amendment. I will preface my remarks by saying that, obviously, it is important that a child is in school as often as possible because when they are not in school, they are not learning. Equally, it is important that they have quality time with their parents. The opportunity to be with their mum, their dad, with both parents, is hugely important, and they learn so much from that opportunity.
As a very young teacher in Prescot, I was conscious that three large factories closed down for a period so that the factory workers could have a holiday. It often did not coincide with school holidays. As a school, we were relaxed about that because, again, we thought it important that children should be with their parents. That practice is very limited now. There are not many factories nationwide, but there are some, particularly in the north, that close down for a set period. I hope the amendment is clear that we take cognisance of that in terms of attendance issues.
On Amendment 499, there is not much to say; it speaks for itself. It is correct that all the available attendance information should be complete, accurate and consistent, and that it should always be available to parents.
I beg to move Amendment 426B.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and to give a nod to his amendment. I rise to speak to my Amendment 499 in this group, the purpose of which is incredibly clear: every child is entitled to an excellent education, but that does not mean that every child should receive the same education. The great joy of being born human is that we are born with rich, bright, beautiful diversity from the moment of entering this human world.
The difficulty with the Bill as set out is that it does not fully appreciate this fact or the difficulties parents have in achieving that excellence of provision for their children. In no sense is that a criticism of anybody in the system. Teachers do tremendous work, day in, day out, often in the most pressing, difficult of circumstances. This amendment is all about recognising the particularity of individual provision—not least for children and young people who may be disabled or have special educational needs—the difficulty for parents in trying to get an EHCP, and the often prohibitive cost involved, even if they can go through that time-consuming and terribly intense process.
The amendment simply asks the Secretary of State to produce a focused, “support-first” attendance code of practice that understands the particularities of those circumstances and that does not have an almost forced presumption that school is necessarily the best and only place for excellent educational provision. As I say, the amendment speaks to children, young people and parents across the piece, but it is often children who are disabled, who have special educational needs, and the parents of those children, who find themselves at the sharpest end of this current situation. That is why Amendment 499 suggests a support-focused, support-first attendance code of practice. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I rise in support of Amendment 499, tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, which would require the Secretary of State to issue a statutory attendance code of practice. I believe this is a modest proposal, yet one that could transform how attendance is enforced and supported across England.
First, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for stepping in for me last week, when I was unable to be here due to a family wedding. My own attendance record that day did not pass without comment. In fact, when the Whips discovered that the wedding was taking place on the Tuesday, business seemed to be swiftly and suspiciously rescheduled from Monday to Tuesday. In any case, I was unable to attend, but I am grateful none the less both to colleagues and to the staff of the House for their patience with me. My amendments have been submitted in large numbers, and some were received with humour, others less so, but they all make in their different ways the same point. At their heart lies concern about the overreach of this Bill and the heavy burden it will place on families and already overstretched local authority staff and systems.
Talking about attendance, practice across the country is wildly inconsistent, at present. One parent reported that, in their local authority, they have a 75% chance of being issued with a notice to satisfy, and a 35% chance of receiving a school attendance order. That authority issued 270 notices in a single year to just 320 home-educated children. In other areas, parents face nothing like this. This does not seem like safeguarding to me; it is a postcode lottery, and it is indefensible.
The current approach, regrettably, often defaults to enforcement and sanctions, rather than genuinely seeking to understand and address the underlying reason for unattendance. Over the summer, it was reported that Hampshire County Council had netted £1.6 million in revenue by fining families over the past three years. Government data shows that almost half a million penalty notices were issued last year, an increase of 22% from the previous year. This can exacerbate distress, erode trust between families and schools and, ultimately, fail to secure a child’s right to education.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, as the Committee knows, school attendance every day is critical for the success of pupils. During Covid, the previous Government introduced the collection of attendance data at a pupil level twice a day— initially on a voluntary basis for all schools in England and now on a mandatory basis. We have among the best attendance data in the world, which allows every school in the country to understand the patterns of attendance and absence within their own pupil cohort and compared to the other schools in their local authority. I thank the Government for continuing the work that we started in this area and commend the officials who are responsible for producing such accessible and practical help for schools.
I argue that the systems that have been built within the Department for Education and that are being used more and more by schools mean that they can already analyse the impact on attendance not just of a factory shutdown but—perhaps more relevant for today—of a tube strike, bad weather or many other factors, and pretty much in real time. Therefore, I am not sure that Amendment 426B is needed. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, was suggesting that there should be more flexibility for school attendance, but I do not agree with him. The evidence that the department has produced is clear on the impact of missing even apparently small amounts of time on, for example, GCSE results, and we need to respect that evidence.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes for setting out the purpose of his Amendment 499. He will forgive that I did not quite understand it in the way that he had presented it. My understanding, which perhaps the Minister will confirm, is that a considerable amount of diversity is already accommodated within schools. I have certainly visited schools where children are able to take time out of the classroom, particularly those with an education, health and care plan—very often that plan sets out the details of the flexibility that they require.
More broadly, there is extensive guidance and practical help to local authorities, admissions authorities and all the other groups referred to in this amendment. The department has been particularly proactive in this area and has encouraged those schools that are succeeding in turning the tide on attendance to share their insights with those that are struggling. Very often, it is about those positive actions that they take, such as putting on more after-school clubs, for example, or calling parents, when a child has had a particularly good series of days of attendance, with a message of congratulations. I absolutely understand and respect my noble friend’s concern about this issue, but respectfully suggest that his amendment is not needed.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are determined to break down barriers to opportunity by supporting every child to achieve and thrive at school. We know the impact that any absence can have on a pupil. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is right that even small bits of absence, particularly when added up over a child’s career, can disproportionately impact on that child’s achievement and, of course, create disruption in the classroom for other pupils.
That is why I am very pleased that, thanks to the efforts of the sector, absence is moving in the right direction; children are attending over 3.1 million more days this year compared to last and over 100,000 fewer children are persistently absent. However, this still leaves around one in five pupils currently missing 10% or more of school, which is why, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, says, there has been considerable focus on this which, as she also says, builds on the work done by the last Government. In fact, she in particular has worked on developing the sort of data to enable comparison and monitoring of progress.
In addition, the department has developed an attendance toolkit, alongside the data tools, to help support schools identify the drivers of absence and adopt effective practice to improve attendance for all children, including the most vulnerable. We have launched an attendance and behaviour programme, with strong schools offering support to others to improve their practice. We have held 12 conferences, attended by around 3,000 leaders from secondary schools, trusts and local authorities to help drive that change.
Amendment 426B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seeks to create a duty on the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the effects of factory shutdowns on school attendance. We acknowledge, as the noble Lord says, that school attendance rates in particular locations can be influenced by a variety of external factors. However, schools and local authorities are best placed to identify those area-specific issues and take steps to mitigate them. In general, the school year is structured to provide plenty of time for holidays and family time outside term time, but schools and local authorities also have considerable flexibility to plan term dates and can hold inset days and other occasional days at times of the year suited to the specific needs of families in their area.
Amendment 499 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, seeks to require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice on attendance. I accept his point about the need to recognise the different needs of children in our schools, which we have talked about in various other groups in Committee. On his call for a standardised approach setting out the requirements and roles of those outlined in the amendment, there is already statutory guidance which sets out in detail those roles and responsibilities for all the institutions and persons listed in the amendment in relation to improving school attendance.
The department published the Working Together to Improve School Attendance guidance in 2022 following a full consultation and it was updated in August 2024. This guidance takes a “support first” approach to improving school attendance and is now widely known by the sector following extensive work by the department to promote and embed its contents and share best practice from around the country. It will be updated as needed in future. Introducing a separate code of practice, as this amendment proposes, would duplicate this statutory guidance that we already have in place, risking confusion and waste. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
“Sharing local authority best practice on home education(1) All local authorities must provide an annual report to the Secretary of State setting out—(a) the total number of home educators in their area (A),(b) the number of complaints they have received from home educators in the preceding year (B), and(c) the number of School Attendance Orders they have issued in the preceding year (C).(2) The Secretary of State must make funding and resources available to any local authority which performs in the top ten percent of both—(a) B as a percentage of A, and(b) C as a percentage of A,to facilitate those local authorities sharing best practice regarding management of home education with local authorities performing in the bottom ten percent of the same metrics.”
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 426D and 426E tabled in my name. These amendments, though modest in scope, address two fundamental issues in the way that our system interacts with families who choose to home-educate or educate otherwise: the sharing of best practice across local authorities and safeguarding children from harm that may arise when legal action is pursued without due regard for their welfare and education.
Amendment 426D would require all local authorities to provide an annual report to the Secretary of State setting out three simple but highly revealing metrics:
“the total number of home educators in their area … the number of complaints they have received from home educators … and … the number of School Attendance Orders they have issued”.
These figures are important because they shed light on how local authorities are engaging with families. They provide a means of comparison, showing where relationships are constructive and where perhaps mistrust and conflict are more frequent. This amendment goes further: it would introduce a mechanism to reward local authorities that demonstrate strong positive performance under these measures—specifically, those in the top 10%—and whose complaints and attendance orders are low relative to the number of families. They would receive funding and support to share their best practice with authorities that find themselves in the bottom 10%. This is not about penalising weaker authorities but about equipping them to learn from others, improve their systems of engagement and, ultimately, foster more trusting relationships with home educators.
While I have mainly focused in Committee on the problems that arise when local authorities overreach, it is important to recognise that there are many examples of thoughtful and constructive engagement which deserve to be commended. Parents have spoken warmly of meetings in which their children have felt valued. One child enjoyed showing his work after initial hesitation, turning what might have been a stressful encounter into a positive one. Authorities such as Salford have invested in training staff to understand diverse approaches, from structured to child-led learning, while families in Cambridge have noted that their efforts to educate officials about progressive methods have borne fruit. Portsmouth has piloted three-way meetings between school, parent and LA to support families considering elective home education, fostering collaboration rather than conflict.
Other good practice includes the creation of parental advisory boards—informal events where families and officials meet in a supportive environment—and commitments to provide local exam centres and fairer access to resources. These examples remind us that, when authorities choose partnership over prescription, families respond positively and children thrive. In my view, this is precisely the sort of light-touch but constructive intervention that respects both the duties of local authorities and the rights of parents. It recognises that the challenges of home education are best addressed not by top-down prescription but by the careful exchange of experience, knowledge and good practice.
Amendment 426E is motivated by an equally important principle: that the welfare and education of the child must always come first. It makes it clear that no parent should be subject to criminal prosecution, penalty or sanction under the provisions of this Bill, if such legal action would cause harm to their child’s welfare or, on balance, cause greater harm to their education than if the action were not taken. The amendment is carefully drafted. It grounds the definition of welfare in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989, the bedrock of our child protection framework, and it ties the understanding of education to both Section 9 of the Education Act 1996, which requires respect for parental wishes, and to Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to education. In other words, this is not about creating a loophole; it is about ensuring that the pursuit of enforcement powers does not, in itself, become a source of harm.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I support the thrust of both my noble friend’s amendments. The Department for Education has an important role to play in helping local authorities drive up the quality of their relationship with and service for the home-educating community. The department can provide leadership on this by giving local authorities the feeling that the Government understand what they are doing, and that is the direction that the Government wish to take. That needs to be transmitted. Doing it in a way which celebrates the achievements of local authorities, and draws out the best of what is happening and makes a good example of that, is a motivating and constructive way to do this. I hope that the Government will take this direction. Local authority home-educating departments tend to be small, a bit isolated and stuck at the back end of safeguarding, and subject to all the pressures that come from that activity. The department has an important role to play in helping get things right.
On my noble friend’s second amendment, as the Government will know from my previous amendments, this is a direction I very much support. We should be looking at the child first and punishing the parent second. I listened to the Secretary of State’s speech at the launch of the Children’s Commissioner’s recent report, and that was very much the spirit that I heard then. I hope it will be reflected in the Government’s answer today.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, on Amendment 426D, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right. It is important that good practice is shared between home educators and local authorities, and that the quality of home education is the best it can possibly be, and local authorities have a huge role to play in ensuring that happens. We already know—many noble Lords have mentioned particular examples—the sterling work local authorities have done with home educators.
I have a slight problem with the idea of the Secretary of State doing an annual report. We have seen dozens of other amendments decrying the fact that more information is required, but to put this annual report together would require doing exactly that—asking for all that form-filling and more information to come to the centre. There might be good practice where local authorities might wish to do a report—the amendment suggests an annual report—on the work that is going on with home educators and which could be shared with other home educators. To me, to put it in a formal way and say that the Secretary of State will produce an annual report is bureaucracy gone mad.
I am, in a sense, surprised by the second amendment. Schools are incredibly sensitive to the needs of children, particularly, as has been mentioned, those with neuro- diverse issues such as autism. They pull out all the stops to support those children. This amendment might create problems for the attendance policies of local authorities—policies that have been developed by the previous Government and this Government. We should recognise the work that goes on currently. Despite concerns, I can tell noble Lords that, in all the dealings I have had with schools, head teachers and teachers, they are more than sensitive to the needs of those pupils.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, briefly, I have a query about proposed new subsection (2) to be inserted by Amendment 426E. I am wondering who would make the judgment around whether legal action would be required if it were to
“harm … a child’s welfare, or … on balance, … greater harm … a child’s education than if the legal action was not pursued”.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey. In my experience, schools have been very good at making the assessments and dealing with young people’s difficulties. The difficulty sometimes is in the relationship between the school and the authorities—I find that that can be problematic.
I am not clear about supporting the amendment because of that proposed subsection, as I am not sure who would make that judgment. Who would make the judgment as to whether the child or young person is doing that deliberately, or whether it is due to their mental health state or some other reason? I am keen to know who would make that judgment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I preface my remarks on these amendments by saying that I do not recognise the Dickensian school world that my noble friend describes. I would encourage him to visit any of the schools that I have visited, led by the noble Lords, Lord Nash, Lord Knight and Lord Hampton, and my noble friend Lord Agnew. In case anyone is thinking that I think only about academies, at my school of joy, Stanley Road Primary School in Oldham, the children are bursting with pride at what they achieve, in a clearly very deprived community. I acknowledge and thank all those involved in delivering education and joy to our children across our schools.
My noble friend’s Amendment 426D seeks to create a mechanism for sharing best practice between local authorities on home education. The principle of sharing best practice is, of course, an excellent one, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, when he says that it is perhaps disproportionate for the Secretary of State to require this report. There is nothing preventing local authorities trying to learn from one another already. Local conditions vary considerably on, for example, the availability of special schools between local authorities. The conclusions that could be drawn from the data that my noble friend suggests should be analysed could be misleading.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on Amendment 426E and the care that schools take to support children. There is a wider point here. It could be argued that a lot of particularly criminal prosecutions of a child’s parents could result in harm to the child, particularly if the child’s principal carer is sent to prison, and that is something that the courts already consider. My noble friend’s amendment would cut across many other areas of legislation and some of the principles that underpin our criminal justice system in a way that is not realistic. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify both these points when she comments.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly associate myself with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the excellent work happening in schools around the country and the enormous pride, enjoyment and achievement that children experience in those schools. However, I would add that, in last week’s lengthy debates—and in those before the Recess—on the provisions in the Bill on children not in school registers, the Government were very clear that there is a right for parents in this country to educate children at home. In fact, as we discussed, we are probably one of the most permissive regimes of any country in allowing you to educate your child at home. What children not in school registers are about is ensuring that the education is suitable and children do not fall through gaps by virtue of claiming a suitable home education when that is not what is being delivered.
Lord Wei (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her response and look forward to this letter. I am also grateful to the department for the correspondence that I and other noble Peers received relating to our questions.
I just want to reflect on some of the contributions. First, to clarify, the request for information from local authorities is asking them to provide data that they already have. Even though it might seem a little bureaucratic, I do not think it would require much more than a few minutes, or an hour or so, probably once a year. This is to be balanced with the tremendous bureaucratic demands that will be placed on over 100,000 families, for all the information pertaining to the education of their child, all the providers, which, in many cases will take many hours, days or weeks even, based on testimony I have received from families. So, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for a set of data to be provided, to share good practice and highlight where there are areas for improvement on the local authority side, given the disproportionate bureaucratic demands, proposed in this Bill, to be placed on parents.
On Amendment 426E, I want to also clarify that we are not talking about mainstream schooling for the majority of pupils or schools in this country. When I talk about some of the distress, the suicides or attempted suicides of children who are forced back into school through some of our measures, we are talking about extreme cases in this country, where it is inappropriate for that child to be sent to a school. Perhaps they have been home educated all their life. Perhaps, as I have testimony of, the parents who have been busy home educating have been repeatedly asked by the local authority for information—even recently and then asked again. They have said, “We can’t share any more. We need to educate our child”. That very statement that they cannot share the information that they shared very recently is interpreted as the child not receiving a suitable education by the local authority.
At the moment, there is no protection. Ultimately, you go down a legal process. I agree that many of the schools will take great care to ensure that whatever they ask the family to do will not harm the child or harm their education, but there is a gap. I would urge the Minister and department to look at this gap, when it is not the school deciding but the local authority deciding, in some cases without much resource or experienced people. They are having to make a very significant decision about whether to take action against that family. All I am saying is, why do we not pay attention to the harm that might cause? Schools, I think, are cognisant, on the whole, of this if they are functioning well. I am not sure that in every case, every local authority is able to make that decision on its own properly.
By the time you get to the courts—including the European courts and so on—and they enforce the principles, that is great, but that has already taken many months, perhaps a year or two, during which the family has had to face tremendous uncertainty and stress, which will inevitably have an impact on the child’s education.
I have heard the response from the Minister and will reflect on what has been said. I may wish to return to this at a later stage but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lucas
“(c) institutions in England that cater for children placed with them for alternative provision by local authorities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to bring unregistered alternative provision within the scope of routine oversight.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to my other amendments in this group.
This amendment concerns the practice of local authorities placing children in unregistered alternative provision. In my view, that should not happen. These children need quality provision, almost by definition. That they should be placed in unregistered provision by the state seems to me a complete dereliction of duty. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, has a rather more subtle and nuanced approach to this; I very much look forward to listening to it.
Amendment 427B suggests to the Minister that the Government should tighten up on, or give themselves additional scope to deal with, unregistered illegal schools that seek to disguise themselves by splitting into separate parts. This is merely a technical issue that the Government should address.
The other amendments in this group address the challenge that the Bill presents to the Haredi community. Obviously, the same principles that I am addressing here will apply to other religious communities where they provide substantial education for their children, but I am focusing on Haredi because I have been talking extensively to them—though I claim no authority to speak for them and no deep knowledge of their life. The Haredi are a venerable and peaceful community. They are contributors to commercial life and to the common good, though they keep themselves apart in many ways.
It is part of the British way, as I understand it, to respect religions. The Haredi community, as with other religious communities, has cultural values that differ from those of wider society, such as treating sexuality as a private, more intimate, subject and having both specific gender roles and a stronger community structure. However, in my experience of the way in which this country is organised, we allow space for these differences and do not attempt to eradicate them, although we set boundaries and should be confident in doing so. There have been religions where murder and child abuse have been common features, and we are quite right to say, “No, those are off-limits”, whatever our religious belief. Where we choose to set those boundaries will change over time and be a matter for debate, obviously, but we should be confident in setting those boundaries.
This Bill, as it is currently understood, places the Haredi system of yeshivas beyond the boundaries set in the Bill; yeshivas would be outlawed by it. The principal conflicts are around the requirement that yeshivas would have to register at schools and thus be bound by the curriculum and moral teachings that we expect of independent schools. This, the community feels, would be fundamentally in conflict with the Torah and would make it impossible for them to continue.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and to associate myself with his remarks. I speak to Amendment 427C on behalf of my colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, in whose name the amendment stands. He very much regrets his inability to attend today’s Committee debate. His amendment offers a reasonable and practical solution to the finely balanced tension between freedom and regulation in education provided by religious bodies.
As things stand, the Bill recognises two types of full-time education: education undertaken in either a school or an independent educational institution. The latter would need to be registered according to the 2008 Act and the requirement to register would apply to education that is more than “part time”. The need to include education provided by religious bodies in national mechanisms for oversight is well understood by all. The Church of England, for example, has taken enormous strides forward in both safeguarding training and safeguarding processes in local parishes that welcomed an average of 95,000 children each week in 2023.
We welcome the Government’s goal to strengthen educational oversight across the nation but, in relation to education provided by religious bodies, there are three issues with the Bill as it stands. First, as the National Society for Education wrote in its response to the Government on safeguarding in out-of-school settings:
“Compulsory state registration for religious activity involving children would significantly extend the role of the state in civil society and represents a considerable and major change to the nature of religious freedom”.
Freedom of religion and belief is a precious human liberty and legislators should think very carefully about the unintended consequences, as well as the intended ones, before enacting regulations that might inadvertently threaten that freedom and inhibit religious diversity.
The possibility of unintended consequences brings me to my second point. There is a risk that imposing extra bureaucratic burdens on many volunteer-run out-of-school settings would have an unintended chilling effect. Those unintended consequences might easily follow from a new burden to tot up religious educational activities, such as choir practice, for fear of exceeding the part-time hours below which registration is not required. This is to say nothing of the practicalities of securely and safely holding all the personally identifiable data that registration and keeping details current would impose on the Government as well as the religious educational institution.
Thirdly and finally, there are the difficult edge cases such as yeshivas that do not quite fit any of the categories that the Bill proposes. No one disputes that such out-of-school cases demand adequate scrutiny to ensure that children are being educated both broadly and safely, in addition to any religious component of their education.
This brings me to the amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. It would offer a balanced and proportional route forward by ensuring that the provisions of the Bill can be met where a setting such as a yeshiva limits itself only to religious education; that the local authority has been clearly notified that an attendee has suitable out-of-school education separately and with sufficient time set aside to allow children to receive that broader education; and that the provider of that religious education demonstrates to the local authority that it provides the required safeguarding measures. I commend the amendment to the Minister and the Committee.
Lord Glasman (Lab)
My Lords, I first thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for tabling this amendment. I respect his gentleness and his nobility—it is very much appreciated.
I begin with just a couple of remarks. I very rarely speak in the House and, when I got here, I was given very sage advice that the more you speak, the less people listen. I therefore beg the attention of the Committee in this case, as it is a matter of great importance to me. It may come as a surprise to my fellow Labour Peers but, in the 14 years that I have been here, I have never once voted against the party. Party loyalty is a crucial part of our constitutional system. I therefore just say that this is a very important matter to me. It is not a matter of conscience—Clement Attlee used to say to Ministers who publicly rebelled, “I thought that conscience was supposed to be a still, small voice”—but a matter of obligation.
I am the Lord of Stoke Newington and of Stamford Hill. Stoke Newington does not really matter in this case, because people there do not care, but Stamford Hill is the centre of the last remnant of European Hasidic Jewry. Their origins mainly lie around 17th-century Ukraine but also Poland. Of the 6 million who were murdered by the Nazis, 3.5 million were Hasidic Jews. They were absolutely devastated by that.
They are a very strange bunch—very mystic, spiritual and absolutely not involved in Zionism or things like that. Those who live in Israel refuse to serve in the Israeli army. They are non-violent, and very committed to exile and a kind of redemption through prayer. For those here who are Muslim, I would say that they are very close to the Sufi tendency. For those who are Christian, I would say that they are probably closest to the Amish. In the film “Witness” with Harrison Ford, there is actually that mistaken identity moment with the child.
I was brought up close to them but not of them. Obviously, my story is different. At the age of 14, I became a socialist and an atheist and my troubles began—and the party’s troubles also probably began at that moment. I have always had a relationship with them, both family and personal. To me, they are a very precious remnant of a destroyed culture. It is a glory to our country that this very peculiar religious community could exist only in our country. It only survived in our country in all of Europe.
I could tell you stories I was told when I was young. They had no idea that all their rabbis, community and family were in Ukraine, Poland, Hungary and those areas. After the war, there was no one there. I met people who went on delegations to find their family and find out why their letters were not being answered. All were destroyed. I have personally travelled through Ukraine and gone to the villages and towns where Jews made up 60% or 70%. Nobody is there. It is all gone. The synagogues are ruined; the cemeteries are desecrated. In only our country did this community survive.
They are a historical anomaly. They should not really exist; they should have been wiped out. It was not only the Nazis; the Bolsheviks—the communists—absolutely laid them to waste. They abolished religious education and yeshivas were illegal, so we should take great pride that our country is unique in Europe in having some kind of continuity of presence for this community and in the way things were sorted out with the yeshivas.
I heard very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, and I share completely this desire to try to find some accommodation and understanding of how this works. It is a ridiculous state of affairs that I have to be in Stamford Hill and defend Bridget Phillipson from the accusation of being a Bolshevik. This is an insane circumstance. I assure them that she is absolutely not, but the historical memory of the community is precisely reminiscent of the Soviet Union: suddenly, their education will be banned, their way of life will be criminalised and they will be packing their bags. It is a very moving situation. As I say, I speak as a matter not of conscience but of obligation.
The arrangement we came to in the 1944 Act was very wise, in my opinion. It is absolutely vital to say that the accommodation was based on this: the yeshivas are not schools; children are home-educated. However, they spend an awful lot of time in these yeshivas, studying the Talmud and these things. I assure noble Lords that I was very grateful not to be part of that, but that is what they do. So the children are, technically speaking, home-schooled.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to speak briefly in overall support of Amendment 427C, which has just been so well moved and spoken to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman. I support the thrust of the Bill and what the Government are doing in these sections. I suppose, in a way, my remarks are directed not just towards the Minister but to her officials who will be listening. I would encourage them to engage with the thrust of this clause: if this is not necessarily the right wording, then something along these lines.
Those of us who have had the privilege of serving as Ministers in the Department for Education—I was going to say “served time”, but I do not quite mean that—know that these are difficult issues and have become more complicated. While we have heard a particular focus on a particular religious group, I know from previous conversations, in relation to both yeshivas and other religious institutions, that there is always a reason why there should be an exception, yet we also know that there will be those who seek to subvert any exception for the wrong reasons and it is the young people who will lose out.
What attracts me to this particular amendment is the fact that the local authority would be involved in terms not only of registration but of safeguarding assurance. I have some concern: we do not want to go back to 1944, when the world was very different—we are in 2025 and we know a lot more about different institutions—but, overall, as we know and have heard set out so powerfully, there are many communities who want both to comply with the law and to have their practices and customs respected. I hope that, even if it is not with this amendment, discussions behind the scenes before we get to the next stage of the Bill can find a way through so that these provisions are able to go through with the support of the whole House.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I oppose Amendment 427C and the gist of the speeches and comments that we have heard so far. In doing so, I tread with great care, because I realise the history, the sensitivities, and the passion and commitment of those people whose lives would be involved. I do not pretend to be part of that community or to criticise it in any way. I am very proud that our country welcomes people of all faiths. I have always been a defender of faith schools and served for a while on the board of Church of England schools. As a Minister, I argued—sometimes with great difficulty within my own party—for continuing with faith schools. That is the background I come from, but I cannot support this amendment.
Over the past 12 months, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, I have had the privilege of meeting young adults, some up to the age of 30 and some in their late teens, who have been students at yeshivas and educated within the system, living within the community. To be honest, they would not recognise the description that the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, has just given. They would not describe their own education and their own lives in that way. So I think our starting point should be that, as with any school or any community, there is a risk to children if we do not protect them in an orderly way and in the way that we should.
I am not opposed to this community being able to continue to educate in its own faith. Why would we not wish it to do that when we allow every other faith to do the same? But that is possible already. There are Haredi-registered schools where parents can send their children. It is not the case that if you close down the yeshivas, no one can have a school based on this faith. They can—and it is in the registered sector. What I have a problem with is the yeshiva. This is where I oppose Amendment 427C. My argument for doing so is very straightforward: if you are there at 8 am and you leave at 6 pm, it is a school. Whatever you do at home afterwards is not full-time education. If you are there at 8 am and leave at 6 pm, it does not in any way have that balance of education that I think we want for everyone.
I understand that it is difficult to get the balance right and decide where to draw the dividing lines. It is not easy and there is an element of compromise, but what I have heard from the people who have spoken so far is that we all welcome the Bill and we all want things to be regulated to protect children—but not this religion, not this faith, not this group. I cannot buy into that. Every child, including children in this community, deserves to be safeguarded and to have a broad and balanced education, which we are all signed up to. Unless you register it, I cannot see how this will happen.
Where I think the debate comes in is the nature of the registration and the consultation with the community. I urge the Minister, as I know she will— I suspect the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, spoke with her already on this—to try to get an understanding and, where possible, to fit our wish to regulate to protect children with the rights of the community to continue to educate its children in its faith. I would not want to stop that, but I would not want to support anything that excluded children from this community from being safeguarded in the way that children from other communities are.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley has just said. Perhaps I can say to my noble friend Lord Glasman that I am Lady Blackstone of Stoke Newington, so we share part of our region in our titles. I am familiar with the Haredi community and have been for very many years, and I admire a great deal of what they do, but I am concerned about what is happening to some of the boys in this community. I share the concern based not only on the meetings that I have had, with my noble friend Lady Morris, with some of the young men who have been through these institutions, but also on the very good charity Nahamu, which is concerned about the abuses of children that are taking place in these yeshivas in north London and, I think, Manchester as well. The trustees of Nahamu are proud members of the Orthodox Jewish community and they are concerned about what is happening to fellow Jewish young men and boys. I think that we should respect that concern in considering how we approach the whole issue of these yeshivas. I will speak at greater length in the next group about what I and my noble friend Lady Morris think we should do to make sure that these young men get the education they deserve, which they are not at the moment, and that their experience is properly safeguarded.
Lord Marks of Hale (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support and compliment the amendments to Clause 36 in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman. The amendments seek to ensure that institutions that provide only religious instruction alongside guaranteed out-of-school education are not wrongly categorised as independent educational institutions under this Bill.
Education in this country has never been a one-size-fits-all, state-run system. Home-schooling remains every parent’s legal right. One community, however, has been singled out by Clause 36: the Haredi, or strictly Orthodox, Jewish community, whose boys attend yeshivas, which are supervised religious settings, alongside receiving home-schooling. As one professor remarked about the Bill’s intentions, which in its supplementary documents almost exclusively singled out that community, it is fine to be Jewish in the UK in 2025 as long as you are not too Jewish. That should not be.
Yeshivas are not schools and they cannot become schools. They are religious spaces operating alongside home-schooling with a wholly different purpose. They are settings where young men engage deeply with their heritage, to develop their spiritual and ethical character and absorb the wisdom and traditions of the Jewish rabbinic corpus. Inculcating a lived faith is fundamentally different from teaching subjects like geography or history. Those subjects are generally limited to one or two sessions a week. Inculcating one’s children into a lived faith must be an immersive experience. That is what yeshivas are all about and why they are so central to our faith community. Yeshivas operate as supervised spaces with robust safeguarding and health and safety arrangements in place. They allow sufficient and flexible breaks to enable attendees to continue their home-schooling alongside yeshiva.
Yeshivas are not illegal schools; they are not schools at all. They operate alongside home-schooling arrangements. The children there do not have access to television, smartphones, video games or social media. Their daily routine is geared towards study and productivity, making the days longer and more suitable for home-schooling.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I was going to speak in support of Amendment 451, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, but perhaps he is going to introduce it when he winds up for his Front Bench. What I have to say is probably relevant to the wider aspects of this debate. I declare that I am a patron of Humanists UK.
I have listened to children speaking about the unregistered schools that they went to, of all faiths. Of course this is only about some schools. Nevertheless, I was very struck by what they had to say about the paucity of the curriculum, often about the enforced dogma of what was taught, sometimes about abuse and sometimes about a very anti-social and anti-democratic ethos. Of course this does not at all represent all faith schools, but those children themselves were not alone.
In short, we need to get a grip on unregistered schools, especially in the case of children for whom education has not been working well, as in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I very much look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s explanation of how we navigate this real problem in the free and diverse society we live in, as we must—we must navigate it. Unregistered schools are not all good—on the contrary.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, the concern of those who have spoken against Amendment 427C in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, is, if I have understood right, around whether these pupils are being safeguarded. Proposed new paragraph (h)(iii) says
“where the institution demonstrates to the Local Authority that it provides the required safeguarding measures”.
That is important. If it did not say that, I would be joining those who do not want this amendment.
The noble Lord said that it is wrong to call these schools and to think that they are providing education, and that the education being provided is in home-schooling. In terms of safeguarding, the amendment is very clear: the local authority must be satisfied that safeguarding measures are in place. Therefore, for me, the arguments fall away because the drift of them was about whether there is sufficient safeguarding for these pupils.
Because the amendment is quite sensitive, I was not going to speak to it or support it. Having heard the arguments, I am persuaded that proposed new paragraph (h)(iii) answers the question. Therefore, I am bound to support this amendment.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I want to speak to this group of amendments on the poorly understood world of unregistered provision, including the types of religious institution that have had a lot of discussion already, as well as looking more broadly. I support two of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas—Amendments 427 and 427B.
Clause 36 is a constructive attempt to put sensible controls in place around the oversight of educational provision for children outside schools and colleges. It creates a wider category of independent education institution to supplement the narrower concept of an independent school. This is a complicated and messy landscape. I could draw out at least four strands—there are probably others—and they overlap. There are the alternative provisions, most often for children with severe behavioural problems. There is a huge patchwork of provision there. Some of it is registered and inspected, so it has a level of quality control, but much of the weakest is not, and there are no neat cut-offs.
A school puts two children in a volunteer-run community garden for one afternoon a week. That would be best viewed as part of the school’s educational model, and the school would be accountable for the child’s experience. However, if those same children are at the garden four days a week and are barely attending school, it is unrealistic to ignore the fact that the gardens become the children’s main source of education —though it is clearly an incomplete education—and that school registrations become a fiction, perhaps to avoid recording an exclusion.
It is often assumed that alternative provision is or should be a brief stint to prepare a child for reintegration into a mainstream school. However, the reality is that few children who move into alternative provision will successfully reintegrate. Hardly any such children take their GCSEs in a mainstream school. AP needs to be seen as a mode of education, not just as respite care.
Then there is provision for children with psychological problems, such as school refusal. Again, unregistered provision is often born out of excellent local initiatives. If a child makes use of such a programme for a short period as part of a plan to help them acclimatise to a suitable school, direct oversight might be overkill. However, if it becomes a de facto permanent placement, it has become that child’s main place of education and it needs to work to the same standards as other schools.
As has been touched on, there are programmes for children who are home-educated, including sports, music, art and other worthwhile activities. Parents are entitled to home-educate, and sports, music and art are all part of a rounded education, but, if an organisation is running five different programmes, one each day, and a child attends all of them, the reality is that, at that point, the organisation is best viewed in the round as having the characteristics of a school—or at least an independent education institution—in taking responsibility when parents are not present for a large part of the week. It is hard to see why such an entity should sit outside the legal framework that protects children’s education and safeguarding.
Finally, I need to talk about illegal schools. It is depressing that they exist, and even more depressing that some of them operate knowingly and intentionally outside the law. Ofsted has a small budget to investigate suspected illegal schools and to warn those that are outside the law that they must register with the Department for Education. It has successfully prosecuted proprietors of such schools, at least one of them twice; I should day that I do not think any of those prosecutions related to a Jewish-affiliated institution. Current legislation just is not equipped to deal with bad-faith operators. It dates back to a time when it was almost unimaginable that a school that had omitted to register would not do so when it was pointed out.
It has been extraordinarily easy for operators to sidestep the law. There is a kind of artificial separation. An operator running multiple illegal institutions, teaching the same group of children in one location in the morning then bussing them to another location to be taught in the afternoon, may claim that they are separate institutions and that neither reaches the threshold to be considered as a school, but, clearly, the reality is that it is a single school. That is why I support my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 427B. There needs to be a sensible ability to take a holistic perspective so that avoidance does not readily happen.
We have had a lot of debate about institutions that rely on the fact that children are not being taught subjects such as English and mathematics, but only an exclusively religious programme, to say that they are not schools. It is a shocking fact that there are British citizens reaching adulthood without the most basic education that they need in order to play their full part in British society and the workplace, if they choose to do so, as adults. They may not choose that, but pre-emptively taking away their capacity to do so should concern us deeply. It seems unreasonable that an institution that is part of such a model should want to be outside the scope of any meaningful scrutiny. We know from IICSA and from many previous cases that, sadly, a strong religious affiliation is not a guarantee that children will be completely protected from the kinds of harm that adults can inflict on them.
It is worrying that so many people do not want to acknowledge or discuss this problem and its tensions. There is widespread hesitancy to venture into sensitive areas linked to faith or ethnicity; we have seen this where other issues have arisen recently. I can see the temptation of offering an opt-out, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Lucas, yet I also know that the better path is to carry on working to try to find models that do a better job of reconciling the desires of a faith group and the important rights of children. I know that many of my colleagues, including my noble friends Lord Nash, Lord Agnew, Lady Morgan and Lady Barran, worked hard in their time in government to try to find those next steps and better accommodations. An opt-out is just not, in my view, sensible or workable. At the point when this country has become simply a patchwork of self-segregated communities, cut off from each another, there will not be much of a nation left.
I note that there is an evolving picture internationally around the same issues that we have been seeing in schools in England. As chief inspector, I talked to my counterparts in countries such as France and Sweden, which are seeing parallel trends. This is something that needs discussing, not just domestically but internationally. I believe that it is impossible—and, indeed, undesirable—to try to make tidy regulatory categories covering every kind of provision outside school. They quickly become obsolete, as would any micro-precise thresholds.
Overall, the extension of scope in Clause 36 is important and justified, but it is also important that the regulations that are made are clear and well understood, and that enforcement is adequately funded, with enough resource for Ofsted to carry on its investigatory work and for the DfE to act where it should. There has to be a high level of transparency about the work, to help stave off pre-emptive attempts to brand this difficult work as biased or unfair. We must carry on doing all that we can to make the intrinsically knotty subject matter here fully discussable.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I strongly support Amendment 427C and pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who made the two opening speeches. All the speeches today have shone a light on what many people in the country are not aware of.
I was a councillor in Hackney many years ago and I knew this community. What was most interesting to me in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, was that he was able to explain how much effort has gone into improving the whole question of safeguarding. That must be something that we are all concerned about in any school.
For me, this is very clearly about the fact that the yeshivas are not schools. They are no more a school than the Sunday school that I went to for many years as a youngster. That was nothing to do with the church—it was a separate Sunday school, set up by some very nice people in the countryside, and I went every Sunday afternoon for many years. It was not a school in the sense of education; it was about religion and understanding the history of Christianity and all those kinds of things. I can see exactly what the yeshivas are doing.
We might think that Governments cannot possibly be misled, but it seems that, under Clause 35 of the Bill, yeshivas will be regulated as if they are schools. That is wrong. We have heard about what goes on there. We know that it is a place for young men to engage with their heritage and build their spiritual and ethical character. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, mentioned some of the young men she had spoken to who were unhappy about what is happening. I am sure that if we went around many of our schools and spoke to young men about what was going on in their school, we would always find somebody who has a real problem, but that does not mean that there is anything wrong with what is happening overall.
It seems to me—maybe the Minister can tell me I am wrong—that there has been very little engagement prior to the drafting of the Bill with the community about the central role that the yeshivas play in the communities. Was there any real discussion? It seems to me, having listened to what people are saying, that we have underlying support for safeguarding. Surely, if the department had spent time talking to the community to know what was going on in those schools, and talking to the local authority, this could have been solved without such an amendment and without having to go through this whole debate. It could have been solved by a bit of common sense and good will, with people sitting around a table.
I hope that that might still happen, and we can find a sensible and practical solution that would allow the yeshiva schools to stay open. I am calling them schools but I am not implying that they are schools; as I said earlier, they are not schools in the sense that we all know what a school is. We could then address remaining concerns about safeguarding and the links between home education and yeshivas. We must try to settle this; otherwise, we will see them all closing and we will be left with a much more difficult situation to handle.
Recognising just how many people feel strongly about this, I urge the Minister to look at this again and come back on Report with wording that may be slightly different and more satisfactory to the department. This really needs to be looked at.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I had not anticipated speaking until the next group. I declare an interest as a senior research fellow at Regent’s Park College, Oxford, which is researching freedom of religion or belief in the UK. A number of Peers have entered into talking about this human right without, I think, fully appreciating its impact.
In relation to the “institution”, as it is referred to in the amendment, if this amendment were accepted, can the Minister outline where it would sit with the other out-of-school settings work that is going on, because I think it would sit as an out-of-school setting? I do not think that they are charities, otherwise they would already have safeguarding responsibilities. Could there, in some respects, be good unintended consequences of the amendment, in that we take an out-of-school setting and bring it into the safeguarding world, with DBS checks, et cetera?
Freedom of religion or belief is not an absolute right. It is sometimes put into a debate as if it cannot be curtailed. It is important to remember that the children to whom we have been referring also have the right to freedom of religion or belief. Parents have the right to bring up their children in the faith that they wish them to have, but that does not mean an immersive experience that does not allow a child to exercise their right to know, through a broad and balanced curriculum, about the world and nation that they are growing up in and about other faiths and humanist and other belief systems. This is a very difficult world—not just in the Jewish context but in the context of Christianity, other faiths and some atheistic traditions—in which to try to shield a child from knowledge so that they never choose a different type of Jewishness or a different religion for themselves.
I hope that, whatever situation we end up in with regard to these schools, we bear in mind that these children have freedom of religion or belief and should have an education that enables them to exercise that right fully. I hope that that will be part of the considerations and the engagement with the community, as we come to a position on these institutions. It is accepted in the amendment that they are institutions of some category, not some kind of faith space.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I was head of a Church of England primary school and my daughter went to a Jewish school. I am conscious that, in my home city of Liverpool, one-third of the schools are faith schools. I want to reflect on what various noble Lords have said, and I want to speak very carefully because I am still considering everything that has been said. I have found it, at times, quite challenging.
Let me deal with an issue that I do not find challenging, which is my Amendment 451. Children who are suspended from school are the responsibility of the school, while pupils who are permanently excluded from school are the responsibility of the local authority. Secondary schools that have pupil referral units, called PRUs, are often able to put suspended students into the referral unit. I have visited many of them and been astounded and impressed by how they have supported students. Instances of expulsion—permanent exclusions, as we now say—are very limited.
Let us remember that young people who are permanently excluded from school often have severe behavioural issues, which perhaps could have been picked up when they were younger and perhaps could have been supported in a different way. Many of them have severe behavioural problems.
Many—quite a high percentage, I think, and certainly over 80%—have special needs. They are the very young people who should not be excluded from school; they should be in school but, clearly, schools have a right to teach, and pupils have a right to learn. When they are excluded from school, local authorities may put them into what we call alternative provision. There are two types of alternative provision. There is alternative provision that is registered, which means that it is inspected from time to time by Ofsted. I have visited two alternative providers and been incredibly impressed by what I have seen. Many local authorities choose to put permanently excluded pupils not into a registered provider but into an unregistered one. Why? Because it is much, much cheaper. That is no way to treat a young person, no way at all.
Some of those unregistered providers do not keep a register. The young person comes and goes. There are no proper qualifications among the so-called teaching staff, et cetera, et cetera. As I have mentioned in debates in this Chamber, that is not to say that some unregistered providers are not very good, but it is still no way to treat a young person. This amendment is very simple. All it says is that any alternative provider—those schools or units, because when we talk about a school, we are probably talking about a school of 20 pupils—should be registered. We should know that there are qualified staff, qualified support and quality learning for those pupils. We should know that all the things we expect take place and that there will be, from time to time, Ofsted reports on those schools. I have looked at many of those Ofsted reports and been incredibly impressed by the work those alternative providers do. That is the simple request: that we should not allow the most vulnerable children and young people in our society to be treated in this way. They have the right to go to a proper institution—a proper school.
I now come to the other amendments. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris—it used to be “I agree with Nick.” I am sorry, I am not comparing the noble Baroness with Nick Clegg. I want children—young people—to have an education, whether in a school or, in some cases, at home, which is broad and balanced, which equips them for life, which they enjoy and which brings out their best qualities. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, does not mind me mentioning this, but I remember that several years ago, she came to me in a discussion about a particular faith school—a Christian school, actually—where the pupils were treated in quite a challenging way. One boy, for example, happened to tell the school that he was gay, so he was pushed into a cupboard and locked in there until he came out and announced that he was not gay. I am not going to mention the school, but I think it employed its own inspection regimes. Because it was in charge of its own inspection regimes, that company—
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am not sure that the noble Lord is remembering the situation accurately, so it would be best in future to consult before referring to something that I think was many years ago. I say that with no disrespect to the noble Lord’s comments.
Lord Storey (LD)
I raise it only because it is a shocking condemnation of a schooling situation where young people cannot be themselves or have a proper education. I respect different religions and their rights; as I say, my daughter goes to a Jewish school where there are Hebrew lessons, the children are taken out at various times and there is a whole range of different faiths. The children’s faiths are respected and there are opportunities for them to develop learning and an understanding of their faith. That is all good and positive.
I do not have an issue with any particular faith bringing up children and young people in that faith, but I do want to see those children and young people have schooling that is registered and/or inspected. That is all we should ask for as a society. Anything that does not carry on the tradition of this country—one of the most successful multicultural and multifaith nations in the world—or develop what we believe in, we need to legislate against.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will keep my comments brief. We have had an excellent debate and these Benches support the aims of this clause: to ensure that children learn in settings, where they provide all or the majority of a child’s education, that are safe and regulated. I have a couple of technical points of clarification that might win the prize today for the most boring question asked of the Minister. I confess that I have read and reread the Bill and the policy notes and still do not quite follow it.
Section 92 of the Education and Skills Act 2008, which this clause amends, includes institutions that offer part-time education within the definition of an independent educational institution. I am unclear what the status of those institutions will be in future and why they do not form part of the revised definition. If the Minister wants to write, that would be fine. I am sure there is a simple and obvious answer that I have missed.
The regulation-making powers in this clause, if I have understood them correctly, are much wider than those in the 2008 Act. New Sections 92(3)(c) and 92(3)(d) seem to give the Secretary of State unlimited flexibility to redefine full-time education without proper scrutiny in Parliament. I suspect the Minister will tell me that it will use the affirmative procedure, but all of us know that that is very restricted scrutiny.
I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Lucas has raised unregistered alternative provision, which benefits from neither safeguarding nor educational oversight, in his Amendment 427. It is extraordinary, as other noble Lords have reflected, that, rather like unregulated provision, we put very vulnerable children and young people in unregistered provision without any safeguards available. I agree with him that we would ideally have no unregistered provision but, at a minimum—this also applies to Amendment 451 from the noble Lord, Lord Storey—we would have some safeguarding regulation of those settings, even if children were going there for a short period. There is always the infamous “Dave the car mechanic” with whom some children apparently spend time. We should at least have appropriate safeguarding checks and I am interested in what the Minister thinks about that.
I now turn to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, all of whom have raised issues that can arise for children whose parents choose an educational path that aligns with their religious tradition. The Minister and the whole House have heard both sides of the argument very clearly today and the valid concerns that have been raised by faith groups about the impact of the Government’s legislation on their communities. Those were eloquently put in particular by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman—who I promise we will still listen to however much he speaks.
I close by aligning myself with my noble friend Lady Morgan of Coates. We want to retain what I think the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, described as the “precious” tolerance that many of us, including my own family, have benefited from this country welcoming us with, but also to ensure that the rights of every child are upheld. I hope very much that the Minister will put her not inconsiderable abilities to the task.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, first, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that she is right—those questions were very boring, but I am sure that they were none the less important. I will write to her to respond to those specific points. The rest of the debate, however, was not boring, and was also important. I hope that I will be able to respond to the wide range of issues that have been raised and the conflicting positions that are part of what we need to wrestle with in taking this legislation forward.
This group of amendments impact Clause 36 and concern which settings are and are not brought into the system of regulation found in Part 4, Chapter 1 of the Education and Skills Act 2008. It might therefore be helpful if I first outline the intent of Clause 36. As I say, the clause concerns the settings regulated by that framework. Among other things, regulated settings are required to register with the Secretary of State and be subject to regular inspection against prescribed standards. At present, that framework applies to independent schools.
Clause 36 expands this framework further. Under this clause, settings will be required to register with the Secretary of State if they provide full-time education to five or more children of compulsory school age or one or more such children with an EHCP or one who is looked after by a local authority. This change will bring more settings that provide a full-time education into this well-established and effective regime. Typically, the settings impacted by this change will be those that operate during, but not necessarily only during, the school day, and we will produce guidance to help those potentially impacted by this change understand what is expected of them.
For understandable reasons, a significant part of this debate has focused on the issue of Haredi children and yeshivas. I will respond to that, but in doing so, I reiterate the point that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is just wrong in suggesting that this legislation is aimed at yeshivas. As I have said, this measure is about ensuring that, where settings are providing a full-time education to children, they are registered and subject to regular inspection and meet certain standards. I accept that there has been concern among the community, and I will respond to that now.
Let me be clear that this measure does not presuppose an inherent problem with a child being educated at a yeshiva or the quality of home education. It is about ensuring the suitability of settings that provide full-time education to children. On the basis of how we define “full-time” and “engagement”, we intend to produce guidance to assist people in understanding whether the education setting they run needs to register with the Secretary of State. It is likely that this guidance will be similar to our existing approach and therefore the starting point will be that settings operating during the day for more than 18 hours per week will be regulated. I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that I very much doubt that she attended Sunday school for 18 hours per week.
I emphasise that in expecting institutions operating for those hours to register, there is no requirement in the Independent School Standards, or in standards akin to those that we will bring forward for these institutions, for a setting to provide a wholly secular education. There is no requirement for them to deliver the national curriculum, for example. In response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, there is considerable flexibility provided around the curriculum. These standards are well-established minimum standards which already apply to many registered settings that do not consider themselves to classically be schools. The regulatory regime gives Ministers flexibility to decide on which standards apply to different types of regulated setting. We will carefully consider options on the standards that will be used to regulate settings. In doing so, I assure noble Lords that there has been considerable engagement with the Haredi community up to this point—I have met with the Yeshiva Liaison Committee and my officials have ongoing engagement with the community. My former colleague Stephen Morgan met the yeshiva community on these issues and we undertake to continue that engagement as we clarify the nature of the regulations and the extent of those that will be included within it.
It is right that full-time educational settings are registered and subject to regular inspection. This will lead to children who currently attend these settings learning in a regulated and safe setting which is subject to regular inspection. For that reason, we believe that Clause 36 should form part of the Bill and is an important improvement on the current situation, as has been recognised by several noble Lords in this debate.
There are several amendments which seek to further change the application of this regulatory framework. Both Amendments 427A and 427C seek to exempt settings which provide religious instruction. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, via Amendment 427A, appears to wish any setting which provides any form of religious instruction in addition to education elsewhere to be exempt from the regime in the 2008 Act. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, in introducing Amendment 427C, seeks to exempt settings which provide only religious instruction or guidance to children of compulsory school age, provided certain other conditions are met.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and others, that in this country we are rightly tolerant of faith education. I remember the arguments that my noble friend Lady Morris had in defending that principle when we served in the previous Government in the Department for Education. We should be proud as a country of the many faith schools that operate. That principle has been supported by successive Governments, and in each of those Governments we have seen support for the development of new faith schools as well as for the protection of those that existed. I hope no noble Lords believe that this is in some way an attack on the ability to deliver a religious education, either within a school setting or as a freedom for parents as part of their right to home-educate their child. This provision is about full-time education, not about the religious approach of the institution.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for that extensive reply. To pick up on some of the issues in the debate, I entirely understand what the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris of Yardley and Lady Blackstone, are saying. If children are not receiving their entitled education, we need to do something about that. That is part of the basic contract, as I understand it, between the state and any education system. The child has a right to an education, and if for whatever reason it is not being provided, that is not tolerable.
It is surely important for the Government to indicate to the Haredi community and others which way forward they favour. I hope I am not leaping too far ahead in my understanding of where the Government want to go, but are they preferring to say that they would like to see yeshivas registered as schools but they will make sure that the regulations that apply to yeshivas do not require them to violate their religious principles in the way that they teach? In other words, is the accommodation to be within that element of what we might normally require a school to provide by way of education, so that yeshivas are schools but are allowed to teach in a way which is consistent with the Torah and with their belief? That is one way forward.
The other way forward is that proposed by the right reverend Prelate and myself. I do not recognise the characterisation of the amendments in the Minister’s reply. We are specifically saying that settings should be exempt which do not provide education and which provide only religious instruction. In other words, the children’s education has to happen somewhere else; there has to be another space, another institution, which is providing that education. The religious space is not regarded as a school, because there is another space which is regarded as home education or a school. If there is somewhere else that is regarded as providing that child’s education, why should the yeshiva, or whatever, be regarded as a school too, because the function of education and school is being provided elsewhere?
First, I would like the Minister’s guidance on whether we are looking at a structure that aims to take yeshivas out of the definition of a school and makes it clear how a child’s education is being provided—whether that is the preferred way forward—or a structure that makes it possible for education consistent with the Torah to be provided within a regulated school. We owe this community a clear way forward, whereby they can focus on what they need to do and where they need to get to, and so those of us who support them can say, “You need to do this”, or “Let’s have a go at the Government because they are asking too much”, so we can have a dialogue on this issue. At the moment, we have a blank as to the Government’s intentions, and that really is not fair or satisfactory.
I really hope that the Government will find that answer. If the Minister wants to reply now, I shall understand, but otherwise I would be very grateful if she wrote to me giving a clear view of the Government’s preferred way forward. What is their opening offer? What would they like to see happen? The Bill as it stands just says, “Destroy these communities”. That is not the impression I get from what the Minister has said, so what is the other way forward? But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, before we start debate on the next group of amendments, I want to make a couple of points. The Committee will have to adjourn before 2 o’clock so that we can get the Chamber ready for Oral Questions. If noble Lords want to make the Whip very happy, they will speak very swiftly so we can conclude this group of amendments before 2 o’clock. If not, I will have to adjourn mid-group—it is quite a huge group—and then we will continue after Oral Questions this afternoon. I remind all noble Lords to be brief in their comments on this group.
Amendment 427BA
Baroness Barran
“(d) an Academy, University Technical College or studio school;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to include academies, University Technical Colleges and studio schools as excepted institutions for the purposes of the new section 92 in the Education and Skills Act 2008.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I had better start with an apology to the Whips: my comments are a bit detailed, but they are quite detailed amendments—but I am still pleased to introduce them.
We on these Benches support the aims of this clause to ensure that children learn in safe and regulated settings, that illegal schools either register or are closed down, and that institutions that do not meet the independent school standards are required to do so in an effective way. However, we have two sets of concerns that I shall try to set out. First, they lie with the apparent wish of the Secretary of State to regulate academies in multiple different ways: through the funding agreement that the former Minister argued in Committee in the other place, in relation to Clause 36, was sufficient; through the new powers in Clause 49, which we have yet to debate; and now through the additional powers in Clause 37.
Secondly, our worries reflect the fact that the details of the revised standards will be set out in regulations. Effectively, independent schools are flying blind as to what these new obligations will be. Under Section 94 of the 2008 Act, the Secretary of State was authorised to make regulations prescribing standards in relation to specific matters. These regulations have always bound proprietors of academies, as they are independent schools.
Clause 36 introduces additional subsections into Section 94 of the 2008 Act, and these include a standard
“by reference to whether or not the proprietor of an independent educational institution has regard to guidance issued, or a document published, by the Secretary of State from time to time”.
So, until we see the regulations that are proposed to be published in relation to that standard, we cannot see what the consequence of this change would be. Will the noble Baroness clarify what new obligations, if any, the proprietor of an academy would have to comply with, as distinct from “have regard to”, in new guidance given by the DfE? It would be helpful if the Government could be clear about the changes to the current burdens on the proprietors of academies. My Amendment 429A would remove these types of schools from the standard-setting powers in Clause 37.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 432A and 434 in my name concern enforcement provisions. They are critical elements of the Bill that seek to address the harm caused by unregistered educational settings.
Let me begin by referring to the experience of a woman whom I shall call Dina, a mother in the Haredi community in Stamford Hill. Like other Haredi women, Dina received a broad and balanced education in a Haredi school. She wants the same for her son, but boys are expected to be protected from secular education, and Dina found herself with no genuine choice but to send her son to an unregistered educational establishment called a yeshiva. The curriculum that Dina’s son studied was exclusively religious, with no provision for any secular subjects, including important subjects such as English and mathematics. This was not parental choice in any meaningful sense; it was the result of communal pressure within a context that often leaves families with no real alternatives. These are the institutions that Clause 36 rightly seeks to bring within the scope of regulation.
I accept that there are parents who genuinely choose to send their sons to yeshivas, but let us be clear: they are schools by any functional definition, and the Bill makes the necessary statutory clarification to ensure that they are treated as such for regulatory purposes. Once within the scope of regulation, they will be a viable option for parents who wish to make use of their services. However, boys in these environments often attend for very long hours, including Sundays. That secular education can be delivered at evenings and weekends in the home is, in almost every case, entirely implausible, so there is no adequate home education for boys who are attending these institutions, often from 7.30 am until late in the evening and on Sundays.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, whose name is also on the amendment, and I offered to visit two yeshivas, but the offer was rejected. There was therefore no transparency in that respect. However, we have met young men who attended such yeshivas. We were struck by their resilience but also deeply saddened by the obstacles they faced in accessing the education that was denied to them in childhood. I am deeply disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, who is not in her place, was so disparaging about the comments that they have made; they were genuine, and the young men were deeply concerned.
It is important to note that these young people do not wish to abandon their religion or community; they seek to live full lives as both observant Jews and fully educated citizens. That is a goal that all in this Committee should affirm, respect and support. They also raised serious safeguarding issues in relation to the excessive use of corporal punishment in the yeshivas. We should be concerned about that, too.
The Bill adopts a two-pronged strategy. First, Clause 31 introduces a home education register to provide transparency and ensure that those genuinely providing home education can continue to do so, and Clause 32 strengthens school attendance orders where that education is not genuinely being delivered.
Secondly, Clause 36 enables regulatory oversight of independent institutions operating outside the law. Our amendments strengthen the enforcement mechanisms required to make these provisions truly effective. These provisions are not about targeting responsible home educators; they are about ensuring that no child, whatever their background, falls through the cracks. Unfortunately, these boys are falling through the cracks in a big way.
I turn now to the amendments themselves. Amendment 432A creates an offence for landlords, property owners and letting agents who knowingly facilitate the operation of an illegally unregistered educational institution. It also creates a further offence for assisting or encouraging such activity in any other manner. This is a proportionate response to a practical challenge. In many cases, it is not immediately clear who owns or operates these institutions, but it is clear who owns the buildings. This amendment aims to create a disincentive to any individual or organisation from profiting from unlawful activity that places children at risk, either directly or indirectly.
Amendment 434 grants His Majesty’s inspectors the power to search premises without a warrant during investigations into suspected illegal schools. This is a necessary power to prevent disguised compliance and to enable timely safeguarding action. Delay can perpetuate harm.
The enforcement provisions are not about criminalising communities; they are about upholding our collective duty to protect the rights of children to a safe and adequate education, irrespective of cultural or religious context. I greatly agree with everything that the noble Baronesses, Lady Spielman and Lady Berridge, said in their speeches to a previous group of amendments.
I acknowledge the important contribution by the noble Lord opposite, who referenced Article 2 of the protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. It is indeed vital to uphold the right of parents to educate their children in line with their beliefs, but that right is not absolute, and that is what we must all accept. It must be balanced with the state’s duty to ensure that every child receives an education that meets minimum standards of safety and quality. That duty is enforced by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Bill does not constrain religious practice; many Haredi children already attend registered schools, where they receive both religious and secular education, and they are frequently within the maintained sector. That might be relevant to the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked earlier.
As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, stated at Second Reading, no cultural or religious norm should be permitted to override the fundamental rights of children. I thank all those Members of your Lordships’ House who engaged on this issue with considerable care and conviction, but I urge the Minister to consider these amendments seriously. They seek only to ensure that all children in this country, without exception, can access the education that they deserve.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My amendments are different from those of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and narrow in scope. I refer to my Amendments 429 and 433, which relate to independent schools and which I have brought forward in close association with my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood, who is, like me, a strong champion of independent schools.
I declare my interest as a former general secretary of the Independent Schools Council, which gives expression at national level for the collective views of its 1,423 member schools, where around 80% of the pupils in the independent sector are educated. Indeed, I have a double interest to declare, since I am the current president of the Independent Schools Association, which is one of the council’s constituent bodies and has nearly 800 members, many of them small in size and cherished by the local communities they serve so well—particularly by making provision for a wide range of special needs.
It is no secret that independent schools have their differences—deep differences—with the current Government, principally because of the imposition of VAT on school fees. However, I am glad to say that this Bill does not arouse deep anxiety among members of the Independent Schools Council. There is no clash of fundamentally opposed principles as over VAT. My two amendments seek to explore the possibilities of adjusting and modifying the Government’s proposals in a number of respects, rather than taking serious issue with them.
I should add that the points in question have been the subject of careful discussion between Department for Education officials and senior staff of the Independent Schools Council. The essential aim of my probing amendments is to secure on the public record a firm indication of the Government’s response to issues that have been raised in those discussions without seeking to contest overall policy.
Amendment 429, for example, accepts that the Secretary of State should have a power to require independent schools to “have regard”—the phrase used in the Bill—to guidance issued from time to time by the Department for Education. That is entirely appropriate in order to ensure, for example, that all children have equal safeguarding protection and equal education in moral and cultural development. The amendment recognises that, in such areas, it is reasonable for a Secretary of State to place duties on independent schools by way of guidance. However, would it not also be appropriate to ensure that a Secretary of State would not seek to limit a school’s independence, in the words of the amendment,
“with respect to admissions, the curriculum, or examinations”?
Those are the three vital components of independence in education, subject to qualifications specified in the amendment. It would surely not be unreasonable to expect that a Secretary of State who prescribes a new standard that independent schools must meet would lay before Parliament a statement asserting that those three vital components of independence would not be compromised. A similar statement would also be appropriate when subsequent guidance is issued.
As it stands, the Bill provides that any new standard to which independent schools would be required to adhere would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Thereafter, though, guidance issued under that standard would be legally binding on independent schools without any defined role for Parliament. My amendment would give Parliament a role. Members in both Houses would be able to bring forward motions on individual documents and pieces of guidance if they wished to do so. Effective power for Ministers needs to be balanced with effective protection for independent schools. Above all, no future Government should be able to limit their operational independence by expanding the purposes for which guidance can be used; that is what Amendment 429 would achieve.
Amendment 433 would address a single, specific problem that independent special schools frequently encounter. There are 128 such schools within the membership of the Independent Schools Council and another 600 that are not council members. Children admitted to these schools to receive support for one or more special needs are often found to have other needs as well—a point on which my noble friend Lady Barran touched. A child admitted to a school specialising in dyslexia, for example, may be found to have trouble learning to read as part of a wider disorder such as ADHD. Under the Bill, a special school that responds to these circumstances by making provision for additional need or needs will be required to make what is known as a material change application. It is that to which my noble friend Lady Barran made specific allusion.
The trouble is that, under Clause 39, such applications will need to be made before action is taken to meet a child’s extra needs. This is obviously impractical. A school that is deeply concerned to assist such pupils fully will want to make immediate arrangements to cover all of their needs. Amendment 433 would provide a simple remedy and set at rest the concern of schools finding themselves in these circumstances that they may be in breach of the law. It would give such schools two academic terms to make a material change application. This is a common-sense proposal that I hope the Government will consider. Plainly, some change to the Bill seems to be needed in order to avoid inflicting difficulty on independent special schools.
A misunderstanding could perhaps have arisen here. In some places, the Bill gives the impression that a school will need to make an application for material change only if it wishes to alter its main purpose. The Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill refer to schools that are
“specially organised to make special educational provision”.
Does this mean that an independent special school will need to make a material change application only if it changes the type of SEND provision that it is specially organised to make? Perhaps the Minister could clarify this point when she responds to the issues that my two probing amendments have raised.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 432A and 434. I spoke about this issue in our debate on the previous set of amendments; I do not wish to rehearse that but, briefly, I wish to link to what the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, said in her contribution to the previous debate. She described a situation in which people are not co-operating with Ofsted and the inspectorate to make sure that unregulated schools can be regulated. Amendment 432A would, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone said, mean that action can be taken in relation to the people who own the building, which is usually clear, rather than the people who run the building, as you can see how that might be evaded.
Secondly, the other amendment would give Ofsted the power to search premises when it goes there, rather than being sent away and, presumably, having to get a warrant in order to go back and look round. I very much support those amendments and tag my comments on to those made in the previous debate.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, it is approaching 2 pm. I suggest that, unless the next speaker can finish his or her contribution by then, we take a short break to allow the House to prepare for Oral Questions; and that the debate on this amendment be adjourned until after Questions.
Nuclear Regulatory System
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Spellar
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the interim report of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce published on 11 August, what steps they are taking to improve the UK’s nuclear regulatory system.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, the report identifies barriers to timely delivery of nuclear projects, including duplication and inefficiencies in environmental and planning assessments. The Government welcome the interim findings and continue to work with the regulators to understand opportunities to streamline the regulation of nuclear projects while upholding high security and safety standards. We are already taking steps to update the UK’s planning framework and aim to designate a new draft national policy statement on nuclear energy generation, called EN-7, before the end of 2025. The task force’s final recommendation will be published in autumn 2025 and the Government will respond in due course.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer and welcome him to his new role. He will know, from defence, how we have been producing small nuclear reactors for over half a century, and we were world leaders in nuclear energy. Fortunately, the Government have now made a decision on small modular reactors, after years of dither and delay by both Governments. We cannot permit further regulatory delay to progress. As he has identified, that is clearly the message of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, but can he be much more specific about when it will actually get on with it? “In due course” is not sufficient.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I should have read the Answer I read out more carefully; I thought that when I read out “in due course”. The serious point, I say to my noble friend, is that the report outlines the fact that recommendations are needed. Those recommendations will be made in autumn 2025. The Government are already discussing, across government, how they should respond to that. There will be a task force, there will be cross-government working to ensure, as my noble friend says, that the report is not just something we all read and agree with, but something we read and act on. It is our desire to come forward with concrete steps. We will bring those forward, and my noble friend will be able to see them for himself, but speed is of the essence.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the main finding of the interim report is the need for a firm steer from the Government to establish a strategy for nuclear safety, because the current policy does not address a strategic direction on safety management. As the report recommends an immediate start on this, and the publication of a consultation paper alongside the task force’s final report, will the Minister commit today to such a timetable?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As I said to my noble friend, we will do everything as speedily as possible. We will move forward on this. I say to the noble Lord: safety is of paramount importance, of course it is, and there cannot be any compromise on that, but we have to get on with this. In the mid-1990s, 25% of our electricity was generated through nuclear; it is now 15%. Even with the new power stations that have been agreed, unless we do more it will go down. That is not good enough; we have to do better than that—with the small modular reactors that my noble friend talked about and with the new power station that was recently agreed by my right honourable friend Ed Miliband MP. There cannot be any compromise on safety, but neither can there be the situation where, time after time, decisions are delayed and nothing happens. The consequence of that is that our economy suffers and jobs are lost. That is not good enough and we are going to do something about it.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, we should concentrate on and give priority to building smaller nuclear reactors, as the Minister’s noble friend has suggested, which can be built in two years, rather than building the gigawatt giants, which apparently we are dedicated to doing, which take years to build and are far more politically risky and far more likely to raise political dangers.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree up to a point with what the noble Lord has said. Our big power stations such as Sizewell and Hinkley Point C are part of the answer. He is quite right to say that alongside that the small modular reactors are necessary. He will know that Rolls-Royce has three which have gone through the generic design assessment. Two additional GDA requesting parties have met the threshold to enter and there are others at other stages of the process. He is quite right to point out the need for small modular reactors, which can be done more quickly and are part of the answer to our energy needs, but nuclear has to be a part of that. Small modular reactors will be a part of it, alongside the big stations such as Sizewell and Hinkley.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis. The report rightly mentions the planning system environmental regulations, as the Minister said, as a barrier to the nuclear rollout. Of course, we have a legislative vehicle for any changes going through your Lordships’ House at the moment in the form of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Will the Minister say what plans the Government have to really join the dots between those two things and ensure that we take the opportunity with that Bill to ensure that it delivers on some of those recommendations? If we have to wait for a future planning Bill to come through, we simply cannot afford that time.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with that and the Government are responding to that request. We are not waiting to legislate through the planning Bill. EN-6, the current framework within which these decisions are made, listed eight sites designated for nuclear applications. EN-7, as I mentioned in my Answer to my noble friend, will be published as a draft, as I understand it, by the end of the year and will soon be put into place. That will change those planning regulations to ensure that any site can be used to be apply for a nuclear designation. Of course, it will have to go through the planning process and be subject to all the safety regulations, but it will open up a number of sites for people who want to have small modular reactors or other nuclear provision—sites that, at the moment, they are excluded from applying for. I think that is good progress.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend come back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about SMRs as opposed to major gigawatt developments? Does he accept that we need both and that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is quite wrong in his criticism of Sizewell C? It is going to supply 6% of our electricity generation. It is a replica of Hinkley Point C so a lot of the risks are being ironed out. We should be giving our support to this fantastic development.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and in answering my noble friend, of course it requires the big nuclear power stations such as Sizewell C and Hinkley C, as my noble friend has said. They are clearly part of the answer to providing our energy needs through nuclear and these big power stations. Alongside that, of course, we need the small modular reactors. They can be put in place more quickly and can be a part of the contribution to ensuring that we can meet our energy needs. Rolls-Royce, Holtec, GE Hitachi and a number of others are all trying to take this forward and, as my noble friend says, they are part of the answer, as well as these big stations.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this interim report. It highlights the need for international collaboration to standardise and harmonise industry and regulatory approaches, the costs and time delays of which can be terminal to many innovative nuclear technologies and projects. We speak a lot about SMRs, but we must not forget the perhaps more interesting AMR technologies coming soon. It is imperative that the UK leads this effort, given the vast power demands of tech companies which really want to work with the UK. Who from the Government will lead the charge alongside our excellent chief inspector so that vendors have the trust and confidence they need to create investable projects?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Of course, the charge will be led by the Government. The Government believe in nuclear and in international collaboration. The Secretary of State, along with others, will provide a whole-of-government response. We welcome the support of industry, the Opposition and across the House and this Parliament for achieving that. Of course, it will be what we do nationally, but there will be international collaboration as well. I thank the noble Baroness for raising this because together we can sort out this energy problem, deliver much more quickly, and ensure that our planning process supports delivery to meet the needs that we have for energy, whereas sometimes it gets in the way.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that if this Government want a renaissance of nuclear power, they must also take reasonable measures to deal with the historical legacy of nuclear waste? What plans do the Government have to address the problem now that the Treasury has described the plans for a geological deposit facility as unworkable?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, the Government understand the need to deal with nuclear waste. If you look at defence, which I primarily have responsibility for, there is a huge amount of work going on with respect to the dismantling of waste from nuclear submarines. We are looking at a whole range of options to do with that and we recognise the importance of dealing with waste.
Child Poverty Strategy
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards developing their child poverty strategy.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government will publish a strategy in the autumn to deliver measures to tackle the structural and root causes of child poverty. As a significant downpayment ahead of strategy publication, we have already taken substantive action across major drivers of child poverty. This includes an expansion of free school meals, a £39 billion investment in social and affordable housing and a commitment to roll out Best Start family hubs in every local authority.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I very much welcome what the Minister has said about producing a strategy and the actions in the face of economic difficulties that the Government have already taken, but does the Minister accept that further progress is going to be challenging, given the need to make the benefits bill fiscally sustainable, not least because of the legacy we inherited on PIP, disability and SEND? Does she agree that, in addition to the priority for getting NEETs and people on sick benefits back into work where we can, tackling child poverty by putting extra money into the purses and wallets of our poorest families remains a key government priority?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his encouragement on what the Government have done so far. It is significant. As he knows, we have already committed to extending free school meals to all children from households in receipt of universal credit from September next year. That alone will lift 100,000 children across England out of poverty by the end of this Parliament and put £500 back in those families’ pockets. That is really significant. But there is so much more to do; my noble friend is quite right about that. The child poverty strategy in the autumn will set out measures across the piece on dealing with child poverty.
My noble friend mentioned the need to make our system sustainable, and he is quite right. There is no doubt that the social security system is not fit for purpose. It is not serving those who need to depend on it and it is not serving the taxpayer, but we have plans to get involved in making sure the system works well. Getting people into good jobs makes all the difference. It will also lift out of poverty the children in those families, so I look forward to doing that and I hope the whole House will support us.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, as the Government are considering their child poverty strategy, can I urge them, particularly in the light of the comments made by the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, about constraining the benefits bill, to retain the two-child benefit cap? This is a very important measure to ensure that families on benefits face the same choices as those who are not. If it were removed, rather than being a measure of fairness, it would be unfair to those who work hard, pay their taxes and strive to live within their means.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I will not be commenting on the future, because the child poverty strategy will look at the ways in which the Government will make changes, not just to the benefits system but across the piece, to tackle child poverty. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, that the benefits system has so many flaws in it at the moment that we have had to go in and try to look at the way it works across the piece. We have had to recognise, for example, that the way we support people who are sick or disabled does not serve either them or the taxpayer. We are not supporting families in the appropriate way. Our job is to try to make the system work for everyone, so that those who can work and support their families do so and those who cannot work will know the state is there to support them. That is our job.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, regarding the two-child benefit and the restriction of it, I was disappointed in the things that the Minister said that the Government are doing. There was no mention of it. There needs to be not only a mention of it but a date for when it will happen. The idea that people in poverty, children in poverty, can wait while the Government pontificate on whether they will produce a change to the two-child benefit cap is a disgrace.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, it is clear today that I cannot satisfy the whole House, whichever way I look. I understand the noble Lord’s position on this, but every time he raises it, he accuses the Government of sitting and pontificating and doing nothing. Perhaps he did not hear my last answer. This Government are committed to extending free school meals across the whole of the universal credit spectrum, which will lift 100,000 children out of poverty in this Parliament—and we are going farther. Please can he encourage us in that, not just attack us?
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, removing the two-child benefit cap would significantly impact minority communities, particularly those who have large families and are on low income. This would lead to improved health, education and social outcomes for these children. I am talking about minority community children. You only have to look at places such as Tower Hamlets in London, where child poverty is over 40%. Do the Government have any plans to overcome this and introduce two-child benefits, or to remove the cap?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, if I can persuade the Cross Benches and the Bishops to raise it, I will have a full house. I completely understand the wider point that my noble friend makes. There is an issue in this country for larger families who are facing poverty. However, perhaps I can reassure him by pointing out the impact of some of the things we are doing: for example, expanding free school meals to all children in households. Those meals go to each of the children in that household. We have tripled investment in breakfast clubs to over £30 million, which is worth another £450 to parents. The Healthy Start scheme supports over 356,000 children. We are extending the household support fund, bringing in a new crisis and resilience fund. All these things help families, and bigger families most of all. I hope that reassures him.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I am not going to mention the two-child benefit cap. Can I say how pleased I am to see the Minister in her place? As always, I look forward to working with her. Can she reassure the House that the child poverty strategy will avoid a narrow focus on short-term income measures and instead promote long-term opportunity, resilience and self-reliance for families?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her kind words. I am very grateful and I agree with her very much indeed on that—I am very glad to be here as well.
She makes a really important point. One of the reasons we have taken our time and been thoughtful about the child poverty strategy is that it cannot ever be just about income transfers. The strategy will be looking across four key themes. Increasing incomes is one of them, but so is reducing essential costs, increasing financial resilience for families and looking at better local support, especially in the early years. We must take action across all those if we are to find a way to tackle the scourge of child poverty in this country in a way that builds in structural improvements for the future. She makes an important point.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, my question is also not about the two-child limit, though I am fully supportive of its removal. Can the Minister say something about listening to the voices of children and young people within the formation of the strategy and give some examples of how the voices of children and young people have maybe changed the mind of the Government in their approach?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. The task force has engaged astonishingly widely. The Children’s Commissioner was commissioned to do listening events directly with children, to hear their voices. A lot of work has gone on listening to organisations, families and parents, but listening to children describing their own experiences sometimes brings out things that the Government and even those organisations would not have thought of.
In terms of the wider groups, I have been able to do a little bit of this, even though it is not quite in my portfolio. However, the right reverend Prelate’s right reverend friend the Bishop of Derby very kindly invited me up to Derby to meet families at a family hub and to look at what the local authority and the faith groups were doing. Every time this happens, I am blown away by the resilience of individual families and the power of local communities, faith groups and local authorities to work together to make the lives of their communities better. The more we can engage with that and the more we can hear their voices, the better we are going to do this.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, the recent Children’s Commissioner’s report identifies, through children as well as their parents, that one of the most difficult things that children in poverty have to put up with is temporary accommodation. Moving accommodation often disrupts their education, because they have to move school. Will the child poverty strategy look at this as seriously as it looks at income?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The Children’s Commissioner’s report, as I am sure she knows, made pretty harrowing reading—as it should. If we are going to tackle these questions, we have to look at the reality of children’s lives nowadays. Her point was very well made. The Government are very aware that homelessness levels are far too high and temporary accommodation is not working. That is really clear. We are committed to delivering long-term solutions to ensure that temporary accommodation is sustainable for local authorities and delivers value for money, because a lot of money is going into something that is not doing a good job for the families using it. That is why the spending review made it clear that we want to encourage better investment in temporary accommodation stock up front and announced £950 million in the latest round of the local authority housing fund.
Sickness Benefits: In-person Interviews
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to reinstate in-person interviews for all applicants for sickness benefits.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, we already undertake a number of face-to-face health assessments for people applying for sickness benefits. However, as announced in the Pathways to Work Green Paper, we are planning to increase the number of face-to-face assessments while preserving alternative health assessment channels in order to meet the specific needs of people who require a different channel, for example, as a reasonable adjustment.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. This problem goes back a long time. I saw in the Times on 28 June that assessors in the department are apparently paid a bonus on interview numbers—the higher the number, the higher their bonus. This may or may not be reasonable but, at a time when there is a need to reduce expenditure on benefits and we know that in-person interviews tend to lead to a stricter application of the rules, would the Minister consider reintroducing in-person interviews before new benefits are awarded or existing benefits are confirmed?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, face-to-face assessments were stopped during Covid, as they clearly could not happen on public health grounds. They resumed in mid-2021, but the fact is that the levels have been left far too low. In the middle of last year, just 7% of assessments were face to face across PIP and the work capability assessment. That said, the assumption that the benefit bill will automatically come down if we change everything to face to face is not straightforward, based on the available evidence. I assure the noble Lord that, as he may know, in our Pathways to Work Green Paper, we committed to doing more face-to-face assessments while preserving alternative health assessment channels, because those who will not be able to do that will need a reasonable adjustment and another alternative. We will increase them as fast as possible and do it in the right way in order to make sure that we can recruit enough people and provide a good service. I am pleased to tell the noble Lord that that is our plan.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, I am all in favour of face-to-face interviews, but they would be made a lot easier if we had not seen the closure of many jobcentres prior to 2024. In the last round of closures around eight years ago, 11 Jobcentre Plus offices were shut in London alone. Many of those closures contravened the Government’s own guidelines, and it was purely a cost-cutting exercise.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, most assessments are done in assessment centres. Many of those are conducted by providers because we have to have health providers to do them. My noble friend may be glad to know that we have specific, clear rules about what an assessment centre must do. For example, it must be appropriately accessible and reasonably easy to get to—so that someone can get from their transport to the front door—as well as DDA-compliant in terms of ramps and areas of ground-floor space, et cetera. There are specific assessment centres designed to be suited to this purpose.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister expand on the purpose of a face-to-face assessment? Is this to help people get the sickness benefit they want and need, or is it in some way to make it more difficult for people to get sickness benefit? What is the overriding reason for such attendance at an interview?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
There are various ways in which you can do an assessment. The starting point is that assessments can be done on paper where there is clear medical evidence of somebody’s diagnosis and functional needs. Some of them are really straightforward. It may be for somebody who is nearer the end of life or somebody who, for example, engages a lot with a physiotherapist or a rehab team after a stroke or a brain injury, where there is clear evidence and a clear track record. There are other people where there is not any evidence for a range of reasons. In those cases, there would need to be an assessment. It can be done on the telephone, by video or face to face.
There are different reasons for different people. Some people are unable to get to a face-to-face assessment. They may be bed-bound or may suffer from a severe mental health affliction, but they can perhaps do a video interview. Some people prefer face-to-face interviews; they feel that they will be seen better and understood better. Our aim is to try to keep all channels available and to get the right balance, both to make sure that we get the right conditions for the claimant and the right decision for the Government and to make sure that we have all the people we need there in order to try to move as fast as possible on assessments.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, how does the Minister explain some of the following statistics, all of which come from government sources? The number of people expected to go on to long-term benefits will rise from 3.3 million to 4.1 million over this Parliament. Some 3,000 people are signing on every day. In our second city, Birmingham, one in four working-age adults is not working. That is higher than it was during the great depression. In those days, it was considered the greatest problem in politics; now, we just shrug. I think it was Charlie Munger who said, “Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome”. What does the Minister plan to do to switch the incentives for some of the people who are choosing to go on to benefits when they are capable of working?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that, if the noble Lord tracked those statistics back, he would see when the numbers began to rise—it was not under this Government. I know that he is making not a partisan point but a broader point; I fully accept that.
The good news is that, as the noble Lord may have noticed from the last labour market statistics, for the first time ever, we have managed to stop that growth in economic inactivity related to sickness and disability. We have a long way to go to bring that down. He is absolutely right to raise this as a major issue. We have seen such a significant rise in the number of people claiming sickness and disability benefits. Broadly speaking, one in 10 of our working-age population is claiming a sickness or disability benefit, and our population is ageing.
In terms of what we will do, it is partly about incentives. The noble Lord will be aware that we recently changed the incentives in the then Universal Credit Bill. For example, we halved the amount of money that someone gets on the standard allowance for sickness and disability and increased the standard allowance overall to reduce those incentives. The truth is that there will be some people who just do not want to work. There are an awful lot of other people out there who would love to work but either cannot find the right job or do not have the confidence, skills, opportunity or support. Our job is to tackle this on all of those fronts. We are trying to transform the whole of employment support so that it is tailored to give people the chance to get into a job, to move up in a job and to get the skills they need, which will serve them and the British economy.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, the Health Minister has reported concerns about the over-medicalisation of normal human emotions such as sadness and anxiety and the labelling of those as mental health conditions. I am sure that the Minister will know—indeed, I am sure that the whole House will be aware of this—that that is behind much of the rise in the numbers of sickness and disability claims. In the Minister’s excellent work, on which I commend her, in bringing back these face-to-face assessments, will she review the process of assessing these mental health conditions so that this can be targeted at the people who are in genuine and serious need?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right: there is no doubt that there has been a growth in people claiming support and not being in work as a result of mental health conditions, but also because of other conditions as well. There are other clear patterns, such as musculoskeletal conditions and a range of other things. That is partly about changes in our population and about trends in society.
Our job is to invest in trying to tackle those early enough. One thing that the Government have done is invest money in putting mental health support into schools. In the case of young people, let us tackle those questions early. We consulted in the Green Paper about what we will do in future, but we have announced that we are going to have a youth guarantee. We have a Question tomorrow on youth unemployment. For those who are aged 18 to 21 and are perhaps heading for sickness and disability benefits, let us find a transition phase for them where we find out what the challenges are, figure out how we can support them and then, hopefully, get them on to a path. Sadly, some people will never be able to work, but, for many people, the evidence is that good work is good for their physical and mental health—we just need to help them get into it.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister set out how increasing in-person assessments, which we on these Benches fully support, will help reduce fraud and error, thus protecting taxpayers’ money, while ensuring another thing that we on these Benches support—that those who can work, do, and those who cannot, get the support they need? Will the Minister encourage her colleagues and the Secretary of State at the DWP to take up the serious and mature offer made by the leader of the Opposition to work with the Government in order to help them cut and reduce benefits?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Baroness asks an interesting question. I do not know whether it was on her watch but she may remember that, in 2022, under the previous Government, the department ran a trial to evaluate whether health assessments conducted by different channels led to different outcomes—that is, did it matter if you did it by video, on the telephone or face to face? The trial data showed no substantial differences between work capability assessment and PIP award rates, lengths or average amounts.
Having said that, my observation is that that does not tell us whether the outcomes of individual claims were affected by the channels used. Also, at the time, there were so few face-to-face assessments being conducted that I do not think it can tell us whether the move to remote assessments under Covid had an impact on the volume of claims. Of course, behaviour changes over time, too. We have committed to increasing face-to-face assessments while preserving the alternatives; we can look carefully at whether that makes a difference.
On the noble Baroness’s broader point, there may be some way to go before the leader of the Opposition in the Commons gains the trust of her opposite number, given what has happened recently. However, I am always very happy to work with the noble Baroness; we can talk about these things day to day.
Gaza Protests: Anti-terrorism Legislation
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strasburger
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following further arrests of people protesting about the situation in Gaza, whether they are reviewing the appropriateness of using anti-terrorism legislation in relation to peaceful protest; and what assessment they have made of the implications for the UK’s international reputation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government currently have no plans to amend the existing legislation. Palestine Action has satisfied the test in the Terrorism Act 2000, having conducted an escalating campaign involving intimidation and sustained criminal damage. Some of its members have been charged with serious and violent offences. In passing, I thank the police for their professionalism in policing recent protests. The House should note that there were 17 arrests for assaults on police officers at the demonstration on 6 September, which is totally unacceptable.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
I thank the Minister for his sadly predictable reply. Using terrorism laws on peaceful, elderly protestors is ridiculous. They are no more terrorists than the Minister himself. This absurd misuse of terrorism legislation is deeply damaging to our freedom of speech. Will the Government please stop shooting the messengers in Parliament Square and start listening to their message, which is that Britain is doing nowhere near enough to stop the daily atrocities in Gaza?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord should know that 20,000 people marched in support of Palestine in a recent demonstration, with totally peaceful activity and no arrests. There was no support for and encouragement of the type of activity undertaken by Palestine Action. As Ministers, we received an assessment from the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre which said that it meets the tests of the Terrorism Act 2000. Are we to ignore that?
The powers in this legislation mean that to support Palestine Action publicly is to commit an offence. If the police, as they did on 6 September, make judgments to make arrests, those arrests and potential charges will be put by the CPS before the court and an individual will be charged, convicted and sentenced accordingly. It does not matter whether they are elderly or otherwise; the offence is defined very clearly under the Terrorism Act and the threshold for that Act has been met. If I am predictable in saying so, it is because I am fulfilling a duty on behalf of the UK to keep businesses and people safe from violent terrorist activity.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, a perfectly good case can be made for proscribing Palestine Action, and I agree with that decision, but does the Minister know that in this country there has always been discretion not to prosecute in a case where there is no public interest in arresting and prosecuting? Does he not accept that what is happening with the arrest of hundreds of harmless old ladies simply for holding a placard is exactly what the demonstrators want the police to do? They see it as giving valuable positive publicity to their views on Gaza and the survival of the proscribed organisation. Could he at least discuss with the police authorities whether it is really in the public interest to carry on using these massive police resources for what is a counterproductive effect?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The police do have discretion; it is not for Ministers to order arrests or bring forward charges. It is for the police at a local level to interpret the legislation that has been passed overwhelmingly by the House of Commons and this House to proscribe the organisation. I say “proscribe the organisation” because, on advice, the organisation has met those tests.
If people wish to protest in support of Palestine, they can do so. They can march, protest, criticise Israel and make their views known on Palestine, but Palestine Action has crossed that threshold. As the noble Lord is a former Home Secretary, he will know that it is now for the police to make their judgments on that, and for the CPS to decide whether charges should be brought forward and for individuals to be prosecuted accordingly. We have put in place legislation that draws a line in the sand on the actions of Palestine Action. I hope people will not mistakenly support those actions while still supporting the state of Palestine, if they wish to, and making any criticism they wish to of the State of Israel.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, can I ask my noble friend how exactly the arrests on terrorism charges of over 1,000 peacefully protesting retired magistrates, as well as vicars, priests, war veterans and descendants of Holocaust survivors, help combat real terrorists like Hamas, al-Qaeda, Islamic State and, in the past, the IRA, who have deliberately targeted and murdered innocent bystanders? He and I worked together in Northern Ireland, so he will know about this. Should our hard-pressed police not be prioritising real crime, such as shoplifting, burglaries and anti-social behaviour, instead of being forced to frog-march normally law-abiding middle-Britain citizens into further clogging up our courts?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend and I have worked in Northern Ireland and on terrorism-related issues. If he received a report from the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre saying that Palestine Action had met a threshold for terrorist activity, I doubt very much that he would not have signed that order as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary did. We have done that because Palestine Action has already had people convicted of not just criminal damage but intimidation and physical threats. There are cases about which I cannot comment that are before the courts; there are allegations around a range of other behaviours and there is strong evidence from JTAC about underground cells and plots against defence organisations and others.
Again, if people wish to hold up a placard saying, “I support Palestine Action”, that is an offence under the terms of the terrorism prevention order that we have. People are sometimes mistaken in their conflation of support for Palestine and support for Palestine Action. That is where the dividing line should be.
My noble friend says that we should concentrate on neighbourhood policing, shoplifting and other things. I just say to him that ensuring 13,000 new police officers will be on the beat over these four years, introducing measures on shop theft in the Crime and Policing Bill and conducting a drive to tackle anti-social behaviour are all things that this Government are doing. But we in this House and in this Government have a duty to protect our citizens against terrorism activity. When we get advice that this threshold has been crossed, it would be irresponsible of me and other members of the Home Office Ministerial team to ignore it.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, a Labour MP recently commented that the people who have been arrested were not, in fact, supporting terrorism but objecting to the prohibition of the group. This is a very fine distinction for the police to try to make on the streets. Surely we should all be supporting the police because, after all, this is a logical consequence of prohibiting the group and having a law to make sure that support for terrorism is illegal, which was passed by this place and another. The Government must have considered that this group had some mass support for its general intent, if not its methods. This is one of the consequences that the police will have to try to resolve, and we all need to support them until this matter is resolved politically.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The police are acting extremely professionally, and I am grateful for their support on this matter. I assure the House that it is not an offence to say, “I wish to see the Palestine Action proscription overturned”. People can hold a placard saying that, but they cannot say, “I support Palestine Action”. In the same way, because of the tests that have been made under this legislation, they cannot say, “I support Hamas”.
I hope the police will exercise their discretion and examine those issues, and the CPS will do the same, but under the legislation there has to be a clear line in the sand. The JTAC assessment to Ministers was that this line had been crossed. Therefore, we have had to take action. I will continue to support the police in their difficult task of interpreting that action in an executive way, which it is not my responsibility to do.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, peaceful protest about the unspeakable suffering in Gaza is entirely legal and allowed, but supporting an organisation which has been proscribed by Parliament, and which engages in illegal activity, allegedly including hospitalising a female police officer, should not be permitted. How will the Government explain the reality to the public and ensure that this distinction is crystal clear?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Earl’s support. We will do that and have done that, but there are several cases pending on which we are not able to comment. Therefore, I hope the public will accept and understand the reasons why that assessment has been made, but he is absolutely right in his comments .
Baroness Doocey (LD)
I absolutely condemn any demonstrators who attack the police; they should face the full force of the law. However, I have no doubt that the current approach is unsustainable. It blurs the line between violent or subversive action and legitimate, peaceful protest. The front-line police officers are strictly following the letter of the law in the name of national security, but does the Minister honestly believe that mass arrests of clearly well-intentioned members of the public are proportionate, necessary and wise, or that they serve the public interest?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I am in danger of repeating myself to the House, but I have to, because the situation is quite clear: there is a line in the sand drawn by legislation passed by this House in 2000 on what a proscription order test is. We have had advice on that proscription order test and have passed legislation in both Houses which proscribes the particular organisation. Proscribing it then bans certain activity, of which protest in support of that organisation is one, not protest against the proscription in the first place. If that line is crossed, it is then for the police to exercise their discretion, for the CPS to determine whether charges should be brought and for a court to determine the activity.
None of that at all stops anybody from walking into Parliament Square today, standing up and condemning the State of Israel, protesting in favour of Gaza and for a Palestinian state, or condemning this—or any other—Government about our actions in favour of or against Palestine and a Palestinian state.
However, the line has to be drawn, and it has been. I hope those individuals who support Palestine will say so in a way that meets the legal obligations of free protest, but does not support organisations which, as the noble Earl said, cause criminal damage, have destroyed businesses, have carried out three major attacks, have thrown fireworks and pyrotechnics, have assaulted people in those buildings and have several court cases ahead. When they come out, if convictions are pursued, they will again show that there is further evidence in support of the actions that the Government have taken.
Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 June be approved.
Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 3 September.
Jaguar Land Rover Cyberattack
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as the nature of the threat that we face is evolving and the lines between hostile actors are blurred, do the Government have any plans to centralise verification and procurement approval, so that the best available commercial solutions designed to be able to tackle, investigate, monitor and counter cyberthreats and, indeed, critical tools such as secure messaging, can be delivered to the various agencies that need them without the need for the usual lengthy processes?
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond to the noble Lord’s question, I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch for her sterling worth as a Minister in this House. I am sure that all noble Lords will thank her for her performance at this Dispatch Box and her support to all Members across the House. I am sure that we will hear many more of her contributions from the Back Benches.
The new Commercial Digital Centre of Excellence for the UK central Government will substantially improve service delivery, enhance user satisfaction and drive efficiency, leveraging new procurement regulations. The provision of cybersecurity services is a part of this vision. In addition, through the Crown Commercial Service’s Cyber Security Services 3 agreement, we provide an official streamlined route to market for National Cyber Security Centre-assured services. I also need to say that the Government are working tirelessly to improve the cyber resilience of government systems, basing our efforts around the Government’s cybersecurity strategy. We have made important steps in understanding and mitigating cyber risks. We are now implementing a more interventionist approach to public sector cyber resilience to address key risks and better support departments.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, some 40% of companies in the UK reported last year that they had faced some sort of cyberattack. High-profile attacks such as those on JLR, Marks & Spencer and the British Museum are just the tip of the iceberg. In the Commons, the Minister referred to legislation. Can the noble Lord confirm when the cyber Bill will appear? What methodology might the cyber Bill use to solve this? The Minister implied that this legislation would seek to cause businesses to try harder. The protagonists of this crime are not state-sponsored, but they are tolerated and supported by the regimes in which they exist and they are part of the asymmetric war that this country faces. Of course business has to defend itself, and the Minister has outlined what the Government are doing now, but it is quite clear that that is not enough. What will the Government do that is different from what they are doing now to defend ourselves from this ever- growing problem?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord made a couple of interesting points, which are crucial, and I will try to address them. Cybersecurity of the UK is a key priority for this Government. It is crucial to protect public services, the public, our way of life and a successful, growing economy. We have been taking significant action to help protect business from cyber- attacks.
We are also providing businesses with the tools, advice and support to protect themselves from cyberthreats, including the Cyber Governance Code of Practice, which shows boards and directors how to effectively manage the digital risk to their organisation. The highly effective cyber essentials scheme prevents common attacks and reduces the likelihood of a cyber insurance claim by 92%. Before I was invited to be a part of the Government, when I ran my businesses I ensured that they all had a cyber essentials certificate. That is the basic requirement that you need to have. At the same time, businesses need to protect themselves by having sufficient cybersecurity insurance. There are a wide range of tools and support from the National Cyber Security Centre including training for boards and staff and an early warning system to get notified about cyberthreats to networks.
When parliamentary time allows, this Government will introduce the cybersecurity and resilience Bill to raise cybersecurity standards in critical and essential services such as energy, water and the NHS.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister have any information about how many companies are paying ransom demands? To what extent do the Government deal with insurance companies, advising them whether to pay ransoms or not pay them?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. I am sure that most noble Lords will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any ongoing incidents. However, the Computer Misuse Act continues to enable the prosecution of those who have undertaken unauthorised access to computer systems for a range of malicious reasons including crime and espionage. The Government are in the process of reviewing the Act and the Home Office will provide an update on further proposals once they are finalised. In recent years, the Government’s policy has focused on supporting the insurance industry, to strengthen and grow the commercial cyber insurance market. Pool Reassurance, or Pool Re, was created to ensure the effective functioning of the UK’s terrorism insurance market. The Government do not have any plans to extend Pool Re’s remit to include further cyber-related risks.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, the scale, sophistication and sources of cyberattacks are increasing exponentially. To that end, I ask again: when will the Government introduce the cybersecurity and resilience Bill? Will it be this autumn? When that Bill arrives, will it contain provisions for the wholesale reform of the Computer Misuse Act to enable our cyber professionals to do what they do best, which is protect this country and protect us as citizens?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord did not hear my last answer. Tackling cyberthreats and improving our national cyber defences is a priority for this Government. As I mentioned, when parliamentary time allows, the Government will introduce the cybersecurity and resilience Bill to raise cybersecurity standards in critical infrastructure and essential services such as water, energy and the NHS and, I am told, food security.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, on Monday the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence heard a striking presentation from the Polish Minister for defence and cybersecurity, who talked about the joined-up thinking his nation has developed on defence and commercial attacks of this kind. I ask the Minister what the Government are doing to join up thinking in defence and industry, in terms of cyber- attacks. In light of the Government’s promotion of artificial intelligence, do they consider that this increases the risk of cyberattacks of this kind? What steps are the Government taking to advocate responsible and cautious adoption of AI to mitigate this risk?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. In 2024, the National Cyber Security Centre managed hundreds of incidents, 89 of which were nationally significant attacks. In 2025, the cybersecurity breaches survey shows that just less than half of businesses, about 43%, and around one-third of charities, about 30%, reported having experienced a cybersecurity breach or attack in the past 12 months. Cyberattacks do not happen just to big companies; they attack every company, all sizes and all types, and we have to be vigilant on that. The Government see the UK cybersecurity sector as a driving force in widening opportunities for our citizens. We have to ensure that this is protected. The Government have a plan and are working across departments putting a Bill together and we hope that parliamentary time will allow us to bring it forward.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I express my appreciation of the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, which the Minister mentioned, and I wish her well in her non-ministerial capacity. Given reports that the attack has been claimed by hacker groups linked to Scattered Spider, which I believe is also responsible for recent attacks on UK retailers, including Marks & Spencer, what enhanced intelligence-sharing mechanisms are the Government establishing between business sectors to prevent co-ordinated attacks by the same threat actors?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that there is only so much I can say about what the Government are doing, but I assure him that the Government are speaking to businesses of all types through various business organisations. The National Cyber Security Centre is working with businesses. It has previously worked with M&S and the Co-op and is now working with JLR to provide support in relation to whatever incidents have happened, including the current incident. As I said, we cannot comment further on specifics at this stage, including with regard to potential perpetrators. The National Crime Agency has warned of a rise in teenage boys being drawn into online criminal communities and is co-ordinating responses to online harm networks across the United Kingdom.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, before we were so rudely interrupted for lunch, I was going to speak to Amendments 430 and 436 in this group. Amendment 436 is the substantive amendment relating to the Independent Schools Inspectorate and Amendment 430 is the consequential amendment. Before I begin, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Spielman, for their support for these amendments.
The amendments are very much probing amendments to test the department’s thinking on the work and performance of the Independent Schools Inspectorate. The ISI is accountable to the Department for Education. If anybody—a parent, a pupil or school—were to have a complaint about the work of the ISI, they would, having exhausted other mechanisms, be able to go to the Department for Education and ask it to look into the way that an inspection has taken place, and potentially, I suppose, seek some findings or ask any other questions that they might have about the work of the Independent Schools Inspectorate.
I would be grateful to hear from the Minister, if she is able, in summing up or perhaps by writing to me, how confident the Department for Education is in the work and performance of the Independent Schools Inspectorate, and how involved the Department for Education gets on an annual basis, particularly in relation to complaints about the ISI. I would be interested to know how many complaints are made and how the department handles them.
School inspection, as we are going to debate in this group and the next, is extremely important and often very contentious. I am grateful, as I say, for the support of both noble Baronesses, but particularly that of the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman. As a former Ofsted chief inspector, she has experience unequalled by many in this Chamber in relation to school inspection. We have to look only at the headlines generated this week by the Government’s proposed new Ofsted handbook to see how strongly everybody involved in education feels about school inspection.
Accountability is essential for parents, to know how their children’s school and education setting is doing, for pupils and for the schools themselves. School accountability is absolutely critical—I say this having been in the Department for Education, and former Ministers such as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, may agree with me—for Ministers and for officials in the department. If there is an issue—particularly in relation to safeguarding or the way a school is being run—the answer, correctly, is to send in Ofsted, in the case of maintained schools or academies, to check what is going on. The department and Ministers will then accept the reports that they are given. The strength of our accountability mechanism is a reason why we have such good schools in England.
For me, the particular focus, and the reason I wanted to table this amendment, is that I am interested in the ISI’s inspection in relation to the role of governors and the quality of governance of our schools, which is of critical importance. Governance is not necessarily the same as leadership and management, and yet those phrases are often run together throughout standards and the relevant handbooks.
Had I had to rush my speech, I would not have referred to this, but given that we had a break for lunch, I will. I have checked the two frameworks and the handbooks. The Independent Schools Inspectorate handbook talks about inspectors covering a range of sources of evidence, including evidence of how those with governance responsibility assure themselves that leaders and managers are fulfilling their responsibility to ensure that standards are met. In November 2025, the proposed Ofsted handbook, which will come into force in two months’ time—I appreciate there is much debate around that—talked about a number of relevant factors. There are many, but I want to draw noble Lords’ attention to leaders and those responsible for governance understanding their respective roles and their performance in these roles in a way that enhances the school’s effectiveness. The point is that the Ofsted framework is tougher and stronger, and rightly so. It is not just asking governors and those charged with governance to look at how leaders and managers are doing—in this case we are probably talking about heads or those with senior management roles; it is asking the governors to reflect on their own performance. That is essential.
When I looked at the groupings, I thought perhaps I should ask for this amendment to be put into the next group, but, frankly, I think we have more than enough degrouping. We are about to talk in the next group about the inspection of multi-academy trusts. That is right and I will speak in support; it is probably something that many people have been calling for. The point about inspection of governance—it does not matter whether we are talking about schools, businesses or other organisations—is that, when you are inspecting something, you have to second-guess and work out who is calling the shots. In many cases, we are finding that, above the schools, there will be some kind of other body. In the case of the ISI inspection that I encountered, there was a foundation sitting above the four schools, one of which the foundation has since decided to close.
In the end, the inspectors decided to look at the performance of the individual school governing body and not the foundation governing body. It was the foundation governing body that was calling the shots and that had, I believe, overseen a woeful appointments process for one of the new head teachers. Personal experience is not necessarily the best thing to talk about in Committee when we are looking at amendments, but I could not miss this opportunity to probe the department’s thinking on this.
As I said, I believe that Ofsted does a better job, and the new framework is stronger. I would be very interested to know, in her summing up on this group, what the Minister and her department think about this. Is there any appetite for the Independent Schools Inspectorate to be brought under or for Ofsted to take on its responsibilities, so that all our young people in all our schools in this country are inspected, and that their education and the way they are governed and led are inspected to the same standard? Parents have the right to expect the same standards in all schools. If the Minister is unable to answer all my questions today, I would be very grateful if she or a colleague would be prepared to meet me.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 430 and 436, to which I have added my name. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Morgan for raising this issue at Second Reading, as I have been concerned about the ISI—previously the SIS—and former inspectorates of independent schools.
There are a number of queries about function, which I will probably theme as “visibility” and “responsibility” —in particular, building on what my noble friend Lady Morgan said, visibility for the Department for Education. While there is accountability, for the department itself there is a question about regulatory function. By that, I mean: do independent schools comply with the independent schools standards? The evidence on which the department is relying to perform its regulatory role, and then its potential enforcement action, in relation to schools is dependent on the information usually obtained through the ISI, which I believe my noble friend Lady Spielman will more ably outline as something that is more akin to a peer review system than to what we know through Ofsted.
With the independent sector, there is less visibility. State schools and numerically half of the independent sector—I would say the trickier half that are not in the association—sit with Ofsted. Therefore, the visibility at the centre in England is Ofsted, directors of children’s services, local authorities because of maintained schools and the DfE itself. Because of the academy system, there is an excellent team of regional school staff who know what is happening on the ground in their area. They are usually incredibly well informed; they are in close contact with the local authority, particularly on safeguarding; and they often liaise with the regional Ofsted teams. They really have a feel. As you sit there at the centre, you know you have an arm reaching out across England.
They know whether a school is struggling, particularly a secondary school. They know, “Oh, this one’s doing really well. This one’s probably going to get into good” —they just have that feel. You sit at the centre and think about the independent sector. As my noble friend Lady Morgan outlined, parents can call in. but you do not sit there with the same confidence, particularly with regard to safeguarding. We have had all kinds of serious historic problems—which I hope are a matter of the past—in both the state and independent sectors. So you have much less knowledge of and feel for what is happening and you are there as the regulator for independent schools, in a slightly different way from the state sector.
Therefore, there is more risk to having a Minister as the regulator, particularly because there is that lack of knowledge. I will give an example of where Ofsted has been really good over the past few years: in highlighting the issue of off-rolling. What applicability can that have to the independent sector? Let me give noble Lords some form of a situation. Consider a troublesome child in an independent school who has maybe been a bit violent. You call the parents in, you have the discussion and, because nobody wants to prejudice the child’s education or the reputation of the school, the child just disappears. However, they pop up again at another independent school, and the same thing happens.
I have read enough ISI inspections to know that it is unlike Ofsted, which can look at the data: “Where are the children? Where have they gone to? They have popped up at AP. They’ll be somewhere else in the system”. I accept that the unique reference number may help, but have we really got the rigour within the ISI system to spot a child like this, who probably needs much more significant intervention before they get to their teenage years, whose propensity not just for behaviour but maybe for serious behavioural issues has not been caught? How do you check, as DfE, whether what I have outlined is in fact the case—really, with an ISI peer review system?
Also, there is the fact that ISI is funded from within the schools it inspects, but says it maintains its independence from the ISC. It may be formally independent, but is it relationally independent? This is a network of individuals. It is a means to train as a head teacher of an association school or to become associate inspector. Does DfE have any role in the appointment of board members of ISI, whose inspections they rely on as regulator? It seems odd if it does not. Entry to ISI for a new school has usually been on the basis of a good Ofsted inspection, but, with the new Ofsted framework, do you need to be expected strong or of an expected standard to be eligible to join ISI? Who is going to determine that? DfE? ISI? ISC? It just seems unusual to have this system of entry that is not really managed by the department.
Sadly, I think that this is a failed market, and it is now a monopoly. It is a historical accident—I do not think there is malevolence in it—but we would not allow BUPA or private hospitals to operate like this; they are all inspected by CQC. Is it the case that, as the smaller inspectorate of this market that failed did not work, they were put straight into ISI without any of that entry criteria of going via Ofsted for a good inspection? I honestly do not know, because there is not the visibility.
So, whether or not ISI is transferred to Ofsted, as the amendment suggests, I think there needs to be greater quality control of the inspections by ISI, and those entrance criteria, and some sort of calibration of ISI inspections, particularly in relation to safeguarding. The harm done to children by failures of safeguarding is no respecter of social class, so ensuring the visibility of the rigour or otherwise of ISI inspections in this regard is vital. I have wondered and still wonder whether children in the independent system could, ironically, be more vulnerable due to this historical accident of an inspectorate ISI.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 429 and 433 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lexden, to which I have added my own. It is a pleasure to see my noble friend back in his place. In Bills such as this, his authoritative and powerful voice on issues related to independent education is extremely important, and we should heed his advice. I declare my interest as chairman of governors at Brentwood School, and honorary president of the Boarding Schools’ Association and Institute of Boarding.
As my noble friend said, these two straightforward amendments do not in any way strike at the integrity of the Bill or seek to undermine what it is setting out to achieve. They are simply practical amendments designed to ensure that, as far as independent schools, which are a vital part of the education sector, are concerned, the legislation works as effectively as possible. As it stands, under the Bill the Secretary of State has the power unilaterally to require independent schools to have regard to guidance issued by the department. This is not an onerous requirement and, like my noble friend Lord Lexden, I have no problem with the principle. Indeed, I see much merit in it. Where I have a problem, and this is at the heart of the amendment, is the tendency of guidance, over time, to acquire statutory force, particularly if the courts become involved at any point. It is therefore vital that any guidance issued has proper scrutiny and that those affected have a chance to make their views known through Parliament.
As a veteran of years of legislation impacting on the media, I know only too well that seemingly innocuous guidance can sometimes have the most profound unintended consequences, especially where regulatory creep sets in. Without being unduly bureaucratic or slowing the process down in any way, this straightforward amendment simply seeks to ensure that in three key areas of vital operational independence for schools in the sector—curriculum, admissions and examinations—there will be proper scrutiny of any guidance to ensure that it is practical, does not add unnecessary burdens on schools or encroach on their independence, and above all is future-proofed. That is what noble Lords are here to do—to scrutinise—and this amendment ensures we have a chance to do it properly.
Again, Amendment 433 is about practicalities. As I know from my own experience, it is not uncommon for people joining a school or moving into specialist provision for the first time, with one diagnosis requiring special support, rapidly to be diagnosed with another underlying condition, identified by experts at the school. As it stands, this Bill will make it well-nigh impossible for schools properly and effectively to deal with that without either placing themselves in legal jeopardy or, worse still, having to remove the child from the school until the material change process is completed in order to comply with these regulations. That cannot be what we want for children in a highly vulnerable position, and it is causing great concern among independent special school experts.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
Perhaps I could inform my noble friend that the oversight mechanism for ISI was first reduced a good many years ago when DFE asked it to remove the strand that involved monitoring a sample of inspections, and then it subsequently withdrew all the remaining elements. So, there is no longer any oversight model to my knowledge.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
That is not the case, as I understand it, but perhaps we could speak about that afterwards.
Most importantly, the regime is effective because inspection is best conducted by experts who know the sector. The ISI is made up of people who understand how it works. That is particularly true for boarding schools, which have a very different operational model from the vast majority of schools that Ofsted inspects. The noble Baroness rightly talked about accountability, which is an extremely important point. Peer review, in this case, is the best way to produce some form of accountability, but we will have to differ on that.
ISI is also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said, self-funding. So it is no burden on the taxpayer, which is an important point, especially in the current economic circumstances. Changing this tried, tested and effective system would be costly, placing additional burdens on Ofsted; it would be disruptive; and above all, it would almost certainly weaken standards of inspection because inspectors would be unfamiliar with the types of schools they were looking at, and therefore what issues of which to be mindful and aware.
I hear what the noble Baronesses say, but I do not believe the case for such a significant and expensive change has been made; nor, indeed, is there any clamour within the sector, or from parents and teachers, as far as I know, for radical reform of this sort. I hope the Committee will reject these amendments.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, among several interesting amendments in this group, I support in particular Amendments 432A and 434 in the names of my noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lady Morris of Yardley. My reasons are exactly as I set out in our discussion of the previous group, so I will just sum up to my noble friend the Minister that we need to have an effective grip on unregistered schools, because of the undoubted harm to education and well-being being done—by some of them only—with impunity.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 432A from the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris and Lady Blackstone, who spoke very well. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, is not here. He spoke very movingly, but I do not believe that any group in our society should be given the right to entirely exclude themselves from mainstream British life.
I was the Faith Minister for a time. I was assiduously courted by them; they are very good at that and were charming people, but I had to fight with them to get them to speak and teach in English, let alone all the rest of a broad curriculum that allows one to function properly in our society. For the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—I am not sure that she is here—to compare it with an easy-going Sunday school feels disingenuous. Sunday school is unlikely to be 10 hours a day, and these yeshivas are of course running for 10 hours a day, five days a week.
This is an important issue and I hope the Minister will look at it carefully, because otherwise, we will be setting a very dangerous precedent.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to what my noble friend has just said, and the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris and Lady Blackstone. It is a matter of balance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, between the needs of the religion and the needs of the child to receive a broad and balanced curriculum sufficient that, when they are adults, they can make choices. Certainly, when I was a Minister there were a number of unregistered settings where the children were attending very full-time, and the organisations were pleading home education as their defence. There was no way, frankly, that there were enough hours in the dark day, or the energy, for that to plausibly be happening.
I also support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. Can the Minister say why it is necessary to have these powers and these changes in relation to academies in the Bill? In five years as the Academies Minister, at no time did I feel that I needed any more powers—either those in this group or those we will discuss later—to sort out problems. Of course, we now know why these powers are in the Bill, even if we do not know why they are necessary: because the unions want them. We know that because the Secretary of State for Education told us so yesterday at the TUC conference. I must say that I admire her honesty. The unions have made a number of excellent comments recently about the dangers of smartphones and social media, because they know that they are creating considerable problems in schools for children and for their members. The fact that they have been so current on this and so strongly outspoken is very impressive, and I commend them for that.
However, it is my perception that the unions are still very anti-academies, which I suggest is an out-of-date attitude. It is clear that a teacher in a good multi-academy trust has far greater career progression opportunities, far greater CPD and far more support than they could possibly have in a single school. I therefore invite the unions to consider their antipathy for academies a bit more in the context of career progression, and to support for their teachers.
Of course, these powers are a power grab not just by the Secretary of State but by civil servants. I personally believe that academy, school and MAT leaders are far better placed to decide how to run their schools than officials micromanaging a system from Whitehall. We know that officials’ first pass at mass academisation after 2010 was not well managed. Having said that, there are currently a number of senior officials in the academies and regions teams in the DfE, as my noble friend Lady Berridge has alluded to, who are very experienced and for whom I have a great deal of respect, but they will not be there for ever. Given the Civil Service’s penchant for moving staff around far too much, such that they never build up any serious domain expertise, I believe that handing so much power to officials is dangerous. The Government would be far better off leaving things as they are because they are working perfectly well—we all have funding agreements and we all understand the deal—so that they can bask in the success of the academies programme, which, after all, was invented by the Labour Party.
I turn to Amendment 436B specifically. New subsection (2)(g) in Clause 39(5), to do with premises, appears to say that if a school wanted to change the use of a classroom from teaching pupils to a crèche or nursery, because of a drop in roll, it would have to ask the DfE. Really? Is that what is actually meant? I ask the Minister to clarify that, please.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Barran’s Amendments 428 and 429A to eliminate any potential confusion between two distinct regulatory regimes. I will not repeat what others have said, but I believe that academy funding agreements should continue to be the primary regulatory instrument for these schools.
I also support Amendment 423 from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to strengthen the set of offences linked to operating illegal schools beyond the somewhat narrow conception of a “proprietor”. Illegal schools often operate in the context of a wider community where they are intentionally enabled by the support and action of others besides the proprietor. Alongside that, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for Amendment 432 and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for her remarks. Both recognise the importance and difficulties of collecting evidence in relation to unregistered schools.
I support Amendments 430 and 436, proposed by my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes, relating to independent school inspection. Again, I will endeavour not to repeat what has already been said, but I have an additional couple of points to make. Things can and do go wrong in all kinds of schools for all sorts of reasons, and always will. There needs to be an inspection model that is rigorous and thorough enough to report fairly and honestly, even when the findings are profoundly uncomfortable for the school and its leaders. Such a model has existed for Ofsted inspections—so for all state-funded schools and the half of independent schools, mostly the smaller and less well-known ones, that are inspected by Ofsted—and I hope that will continue to be the case under the new Ofsted model.
However. it is hard for the ISI to provide a corresponding level of rigour when it finds real problems in a school. I think the ISI inspection model is best characterised as a form of peer review. Peer review is a wonderful way of providing support and advice on ways to improve at the margin, but it is not so good as a method of landing really tough messages. It is simply too hard not to soften your messages and pull your punches a bit when you are talking to your peers. I understand that the ISI has only two full-time inspectors who must also oversee its whole inspection programme. There was once a DfE oversight mechanism for the ISI and a sample of its inspections used to be monitored, but that one control was dropped some years ago.
So, while the ISI peer review model has real value, and I do not want to undermine that, it is not the ideal model to underpin an effective regulatory system. In my experience, the DfE now turns to Ofsted to inspect ISI-inspected schools about which serious regulatory concerns have arisen, and, with the broadening range of schools being inspected by the ISI, that is not surprising. I therefore think it is time to extend a clear and important principle that has long applied in the regulation of state schools. For all state schools, inspection and reporting are kept separate from improvement and support work as a matter of principle. That principle has been maintained under successive Governments and is being maintained by this Government, and it is a good one, provided that the dividing lines are correctly drawn.
I realise that I have not declared my interest as a previous chief inspector, for which I apologise. I took an extraordinary amount of flak from people who did not realise or want to acknowledge that for me to turn Ofsted into a school support model would have been to cut directly across settled government policy. There is a strong logic for looking at the independent schools that are not already inspected by Ofsted on the same principle that improvement and support should sit separately from the hard job of inspection and reporting. There is a strong logic for unbundling the ISI—putting its formal inspection functions with Ofsted and leaving the supportive peer review model to be carried forward by the ISI. This would be a sensible step in the direction of a coherent and effective regulatory system.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will attempt to sum up this very diverse group—
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
I apologise, that was my fault. I rise at the end of a very interesting group and look forward to the summing-up. One amendment has rather disappeared in the context of these important issues, but I strongly support it—Amendment 432B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Until she tabled this amendment, I had not looked very carefully at Clause 39.
Clause 39 sets out a whole long list of things which will constitute a material change in the nature of an independent educational institution. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to this amendment because that would generate a lot of pointless work. It is also a classic example of how, in a large Bill, things slip through on the nod, on auto drive, and have certainly slipped past MHCLG. It says that there will be a material change, among other things, if there is a change of the buildings occupied by the institution and made available for student use, which the noble Baroness’s amendment would strike.
Going a little further down the page, you discover that “building” means any
“building … part of a building, or … permanent outdoor structure”,
that the circumstances where a building is “occupied” may be just
“part of a school day”,
and that it is “for student use” if it will be “routinely used by students”. I do not expect the Minister to give me a clear reply on this immediately, but it strikes me that this means that the proverbial bicycle shed, if it was changed into a building in which students kept things in lockers, would constitute a material change for that institution. That is bonkers.
I draw your Lordships’ attention to this, even though it is in a group which is dealing with much more important matters. I would be very grateful for a reply on this from the Minister, because it is easily corrected. A Government who are genuinely committed to reducing regulatory burdens and to making planning processes more easily arrived at has let something slip in a way with which we are all too familiar.
Lord Lucas (Con)
Following what the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, has just said, I want to speak to my Amendment 432 in this group and say that it is worth going that bit further than Amendment 434, which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is proposing. We are very much looking in the same direction. We want this to be an effective system.
I also lend my support to Amendment 433. On the practicality of understanding, the nomenclature changes all the time. In getting to know a child, you find things out about them, and a decent school immediately wants to do something to provide for that child. It should not have to go through layers of bureaucracy before doing that. As my noble friend said, there should be an immediate reaction and dealing with the consequences of it afterwards.
It is important to deal with the consequences. As my noble friend will remember, there was an excellent school called Stanbridge Earls School, which died because it started to take on children whose SEN it did not really understand. It did not make proper provision. The whole school collapsed as a result. It is really important that these things are properly done, but the immediate reaction to looking after one child should not get in the way of that process.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, second time lucky. This is a very diverse group of amendments and there are one or two that certainly caught my eye. First, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on change of use; that seems to be something the Government could quite easily make a small change on—I do not know how they would do it, but I do not think they would make many enemies if they accommodated that.
Schools have to be inspected, and if you have a consistent system doing that across the board it will be helpful to all. The issue of independent schools which are substandard has been raised, and my noble friend has raised it on many occasions. We should know what we are doing: if something is defined as a school and it is functioning as a school—well, if it walks like duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Let us make sure that they are all inspected to a similar standard. You will have to have flexibility in approach and some knowledge, because if they are doing different jobs, especially in the independent sector, different approaches will be needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, made a very good point about special educational needs. It is incredibly easy to miss co-occurring conditions, and then the one that comes to the fore gets labelled, although it may not be what is causing most of the problems. I say that as a dyslexic who has worked in the field for a long time; co-occurrence is almost the norm. People with dyspraxia are very often co-occurring, and the dyslexia is spotted first because they check your spelling first. They do not realise that you cannot write because you do not have the muscle memory, and your arm is breaking down in the physical movement, but it is going through. Something that allows a change to be made is sensible and practical and will save the child a great deal of distress—and the school too, although make sure you are dealing with the child first. The inspection regime has to have some consistency across it; otherwise, we will have a variety of competing groups with competing standards chasing their tails and blaming each other.
I hope the Minister can give us some assurance that we will get to a more coherent position in the future, but it has to be one which accepts that you are dealing with a variety of different animals.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this group, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for moving Amendment 427BA. The group considers amendments to the clauses relating to independent educational institutions. These clauses amend the Education and Skills Act 2008 and the regulatory regime which applies to independent schools. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, eloquently made clear, it is a diverse group, so I ask noble Lords to bear with me while I go through the diverse responses.
As noble Lords will be aware, academy schools are independent schools in law, which is why the regulatory regime in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 applies to them. Among other things, this means that academy schools are regulated by the Independent School Standards guidance. Vital issues, such as safeguarding, are covered by these standards. Due to their state-funded status, academy schools differ from other independent schools by also being accountable to the Secretary of State via their contractual funding agreements. This long-standing arrangement is not intended to change. Instead, Clauses 36 to 44 are principally intended to change how privately funded schools are regulated.
Amendments 428, 429A and 427BA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and to which a number of noble Lords spoke, including the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, concern the relationship between the Education and Skills Act 2008 and academy trusts and their schools. They would mean either that valuable parts of the Education and Skills Act 2008 will no longer apply to academy schools or that these powers would need to be recreated via funding agreements. This would be expensive and time-consuming, with no immediate benefits.
Amendments 431A and 506D seek to require a review of the predicted impact of the powers relating to the suitability of proprietors and the requirement for proprietors to have regard to guidance. It is absolutely right that we can prevent unsuitable people from running schools. We already have a robust process in place, including requiring new academy trust chairs or trustees to complete a suitability check. Our approach to due diligence is already transparent. We do not expect the process to be significantly different or burdensome under any regulations made using this power, so a review is unnecessary.
To respond to the noble Baroness, the power to require independent school proprietors to have regard to guidance is limited to matters already covered by the independent educational institution standards in Section 94(1) of the Education and Skills Act 2008. It is right that academies, as publicly funded schools accountable to the Secretary of State, should be required to have regard to guidance issued.
I turn to Amendments 429 and 433, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood. If I have understood, the noble Lord’s concern is, first, that the Bill puts too great an imposition on the independent school sector and, secondly, that it represents an unnecessary fettering of its freedoms. On his first concern and Amendment 429, this new regulation-making power is limited to standards about matters already covered by Section 94(1) of the Education and Skills Act 2008. On his second concern and Amendment 433, the current requirement is that it is a material change to admit any pupils with special educational needs. This is too low a threshold and unnecessarily burdensome for institutions. Under Clause 39, it will matter to the Secretary of State whether a setting is a special institution and, if it is, what special educational needs it caters for. We do not intend to require a school to submit a material change based on the needs of individual pupils. Officials will test this further to ensure that the drafting does what is intended. I trust that this gives the noble Lord and others the assurance he is seeking.
Amendment 432, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendments 432A and 434, tabled by my noble friend Lady Blackstone, make changes to the suite of inspection powers proposed to be given to Ofsted. To respond to my noble friend Lady Whitaker, the Bill contains measures to increase Ofsted’s powers when investigating only the specified relevant offences; for example, suspected unregistered and therefore illegal independent schools.
On Amendment 432, I agree with the noble Lord that unregistered independent schools are unsafe. Ofsted should have the necessary powers to investigate these settings and support criminal prosecutions against those responsible. That is why the Bill introduces a new suite of investigation powers available to inspectors in this situation. These achieve the same ends as the noble Lord’s amendment.
The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Blackstone and spoken to by my noble friends Lady Morris and Lady Whitaker and the noble Lords, Lord Agnew of Oulton and Lord Nash, both seek to further strengthen the new investigatory regime. Amendment 432A introduces two new offences in this area. These may criminalise a landlord who is wholly unaware that their property is being used for illegal purposes, or a parent who innocently pitches in to support the running of a school which is not registered. The existing offence in this area of “conducting” is already broad and should capture and support our aim of prosecuting anyone running, controlling or managing an illegal school. Amendment 434 would allow inspectors to search any premises without a warrant. While I understand my noble friend’s concerns, this would be too intrusive. The Bill already strikes a good balance between allowing inspectors to act as they deem appropriate and introducing necessary safeguards which protect the rights of those subject to the investigation.
Amendments 432B and 433A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would make changes to Clause 39. It may help if I outline why the Government believe that Clause 39 is necessary. A setting seeking to register as a new private school is tested against the Independent School Standards. The noble Baroness asked whether schools would need to apply for material change if, for example, they added a bike shed. To be clear, we want the focus to be on buildings that are commonly used by pupils and, therefore, the places where risks to them might often arise. We have examples of settings that put pupils in entirely inappropriate buildings, including buildings with dangerous chemicals or exposed wiring, buildings that the public can enter freely and buildings in a state of disrepair.
In relation to the point on bike sheds, officials are testing the current drafting to ensure that its scope is not overly broad; and that the focus is on buildings that would be commonly used by pupils and are, therefore, the places where risks to them might arise most often.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s answer on my amendment. Can she add to the many helpful things that she has said a commitment to drift the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and by me—as well as her own response —past the Chief Inspector of Schools to see whether he agrees with what she has said? From listening to him on several occasions, I have the impression that he might not.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Third time lucky, my Lords. I thank the Minister for her remarks and, in particular, her encouraging comments in relation to my amendment to Clause 39; I think that people will find them very reassuring. I hope that this may be a new trend, in the Government’s response, of accommodating our amendments. I will read Hansard very carefully.
To be honest, the Minister was obviously trying to be as speedy as possible. I know that the Committee appreciates that, but I did not follow fully her comments about the applicability of certain elements to the Bill to fee-paying schools only, which I know she talked about; I just need to make sure that we understand that. I also did not understand why 16-to-19 academies are still accepted institutions while wider academies, including all-through academies, are not, but I can pick up those points.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their amendments in this group. The Minister gave some reassurance to my noble friends Lord Lexden and Lord Black of Brentwood in relation to their Amendment 433; I am grateful to the Minister on their behalf for that.
The Minister was clear that, in relation to illegal schools, the Government’s approach achieves the same as Amendments 432 and 434 in particular; that is what I have written her down as saying. However, as my noble friend Lady Spielman said, in her experience, it can be very hard to gather evidence. I remember that, in 2022, we spent a lot of time during the passage of the then schools Bill debating the merits of being able to inspect unregistered schools without a warrant. Therefore, there are points on which I hope the Minister will accept my noble friend Lord Lucas’ invitation to explore with the chief inspector.
We had a very good debate in relation to Amendments 430 and 436 in the name of my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes. Some valid questions were raised about the Independent Schools Inspectorate, both in terms of the value of having two inspectorates and the degree of independence of the ISI. It is crucial that all parents can have confidence in the judgments of the inspectorate for their schools, obviously, but I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the department continues to have confidence in the ISI.
With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the offence of providing education or supervised activity while the registration of an independent educational institution is suspended is not committed by providing boarding accommodation (which may be prohibited separately) or activity necessary to ensure the welfare of boarders, such as supervised meals or fire safety instruction.
Lord Blunkett
“School inspections: multi-academy trustsIn section 5(2)(d) of the Education Act 2005, after “schools”, insert “and trusts””
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
In moving Amendment 435, I am grateful for the support of my noble friends and of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, who quite rightly drew attention in the last debate to anomalies that have arisen over the years that I hope we will be able to put right. Mine is a simple amendment that says that multi-academy trusts should be subject to the same inspection regime as schools and local authority children’s services. I shall be as brief as possible, otherwise the Committee will be sitting very late.
I want to take the Committee back to 1988, when the noble Lord, Lord Baker, brought forward the legislation which started the process of what was called local management of schools. Some local education authorities had had the wisdom to devolve much greater powers to heads and to free up schools to innovate before that date, but the Bill, along with bringing in the national curriculum, reinforced the importance of schools managing schools. The head was responsible for what took place in a school and could be held to account. Local management of schools was about accountability and where the buck stopped on standards being dramatically improved, with the support at the time of the better local authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, will remember that, when we were in the department from 1997 to 2001, we spent a lot of time trying to unlock the worst of local authorities’ iron grip on the throats of head teachers who were trying to get on with the job and innovate. Back in the 1980s, there had been experiments in a number of areas of local governance. Governing bodies were being brought into being and parents and communities were being engaged much more with their school.
Many changes have taken place since. From 2001, when I was pleased and proud to be the Education and Employment Secretary, we started the process of academisation. It followed grant-maintained schools, foundation schools and the greater freedom that schools had already acquired over the previous decade, and was intended to have a laser focus on improving standards and changing the lives of children in many schools which had simply let them down. That process had a life of its own over the subsequent decade and led, in 2010, to a massive acceleration of separate free- standing academies, supported by additional resources.
I am going back on the history because what then occurred was what the chief inspector at the time described as atomisation—a fragmentation of the system. Quite rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Gove, as he is now, recognised that this was not tenable and that we were ending up with flowers that were sometimes blooming but quite a lot that needed watering and nurturing.
The growth of multi-academy trusts was a natural reversion to bringing schools together and to having a superstructure that could provide support. That support has grown. Some of the best multi-academy trusts, some of which have been supported and nurtured by Members of this House, have shown precisely what can be done with the right balance of support and guidance and sometimes rigorous intervention with the local management of schools—head teachers being given their head and carrying true responsibility. Other multi-academy trusts have had a different approach, and the split between the founding board and the trust board can have interesting outcomes.
Amendment 435 is very simple. If, as is quite right, we inspect local authority children’s services and individual schools, we should also inspect multi-academy trusts. That is not a threat—it is a promise. It will ensure that the best is highlighted and that, where there are problems, they are rooted out. If a multi-academy trust is in charge of overall funding and HR, and, as in many cases, has taken to itself the power of appointments, as well as being in charge of how the curriculum is developed and applied, all those elements are about the delivery of standards for children. Not to inspect makes no sense at all.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, first, I express my support for what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has put forward in his amendment. In many respects, the amendment that I am about to speak to and the twin amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran are an elaboration and development of the principle.
We have a long-established regulatory model focused at school level and a much more recently established regime for academies and academy trusts. As the noble Lord said, there was a separate regime for local authority school improvement work, which was abolished some years ago—perhaps a good idea, perhaps not. The noble Lord said that the underlying model evolved in the 1980s and was one of high autonomy for schools, balanced by strong accountability. It is interesting that few in English education even recognise that this comparatively high level of autonomy continues today, relative to other countries.
There has been constant pushback on accountability for decades, whatever form it takes, and there have been important changes in recent years. A powerful model of autonomous school group operation has emerged with academy trusts. In these groups, some decisions and activities can sit at the centre or in schools, depending on the model adopted. There is a wide range of models, from the very highly integrated through to the highly devolved. Much good has flowed from this model—as well as, inevitably, problems from time to time—but regulation and oversight have not quite caught up. Let us remember that, for an academy, the legal entity is the academy trust, so it is the trust that carries the legal responsibility and is properly held accountable at group level, not just at school level.
On the other hand, inspection has been constrained by government policy to school level. Bizarrely, school leaders are increasingly being held accountable for decisions and actions that actually sit elsewhere in a MAT. It is unsurprising that some school leaders feel that they are bearing a disproportionate share of the accountability burden relative to their bosses.
Of course, the DfE has been extending and elaborating its oversight model for trusts, but this remains heavily reliant on self-reported and outcome data, and perhaps lacks some of the insight that comes from expert scrutiny of MATs’ central operations and professional dialogue with MAT leaders.
It is widely acknowledged that there has to be more scrutiny of MATs. Outcome measures alone do not give enough assurance that MATs are using their freedoms well to provide education with real substance and integrity and the support that enables all children to grow into resilient and competent adults.
My Amendment 436ZZB and the immediately preceding amendment from my noble friend Lady Barran are intended to draw together a somewhat disparate set of provisions to help create a coherent regime for the regulation of academy trusts. This regime would set out clear purposes and priorities for the regulation of academy trusts, although the interests of children, and parents on behalf of children, should still come first. It would recognise the varying structures of trusts and the divisions of responsibilities within them and be flexible enough to respond appropriately. It would draw on expert insights and judgments in arriving at rigorous and well-evidenced decisions and keep the various bodies involved in education regulation in alignment. DfE, Ofsted, the admissions adjudicator and others each have their own sphere, but there is further to go in thinking systemically about how to make sure that those levers fit together in the most effective and efficient way.
Finally, it is very important that there is the right level of transparency on this work—something to which the amendment from my noble friend Lady Barran draws our attention. Confidence in the system depends on making sure that people can see what is being done and understand the basis for it. Those transparency provisions are, therefore, also really important, and I hope they will be taken on board.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 435 in the name of my noble friends, led by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. In doing so, I remind the House of my interests, in particular as chair of the E-ACT multi-academy trust.
I have thought for some time that it is important that we bring forward the inspection of MATs. I was therefore delighted to see it as an election commitment from the Labour Party when it went into the last election, and I have been looking forward to the Government implementing it. It is right that the Bill is being used as an opportunity to introduce powers to do that. It would then be up to the department and the Government to do the necessary work with Ofsted to get ready for that, so that Ofsted has the expertise within its inspectorate on how MATs work—something that it currently does not consistently have. We therefore should not rush at this, and I have some nervousness about some of the other amendments that are arguing for a six-month implementation timeline. We should leave the timeline to the Government until they are confident that the expertise exists to do it.
I am also interested in whether we should define the proprietors of academies and local authorities as responsible bodies for schools, so that we can have a single inspection framework for both local authorities and academies in respect of their inspection and get more consistency across both forms of governance.
If we are inspecting those responsible bodies—MATs in this case—it is also interesting to look at whether there is an opportunity for rationalisation around inspection. Good, well-governed, well-run MATs have good school improvement capacity and good capacity to support the schools that are in their trusts financially, in procurement and in all the various aspects of running good schools. After Ofsted has carried out an effective inspection of the MAT, it then ought to be possible to use a risk-based approach to decide whether it needs to inspect all the schools in that trust. That rationalisation could then release capacity for more consistency within Ofsted. One of the main complaints about Ofsted in the school system is the consistency of the outcomes of inspections. I do not blame Ofsted; it has operated within considerable budgetary constraints and has had to take its fair share of resource cuts over the period, and that has an impact on the consistency of inspections. Anything we can do to increase capacity should be welcomed.
This goes to the importance of governance. When the noble Lord, Lord Gove—who is not in his place—was the Secretary of State and oversaw the rapid expansion of academies, to which my noble friend Lord Blunkett alluded, I do not think he properly appreciated that one of the core elements of the success of the academies that I oversaw when I was the Academies Minister under the previous Labour Government was around governance. It was from having individuals such as the noble Lords, Lord Nash and Lord Agnew, put their names to a multi-academy trust and their reputations on the line to ensure that the governance was strong. In those reforms from the noble Lord, Lord Gove, we had this rapid expansion without a serious focus on whether or not the governance was improving alongside it.
So I also encourage the Government, as part of thinking about this, to review the governance of multi-academy trusts to ensure that we have good consistency as we expand the number of MATs and seek to improve their improvement capacity. As part of that, I ask them to look at the appointment and term of office of the members of academies. The five members of E-ACT are wonderful people, and I thank them for their service, but they are self-appointed and appointed for as long as they want to do the job. It is a slightly odd arrangement in that they are the people I am accountable to as the chair of the trust, while their accountability—and to whom—is questionable.
I would be interested in a solution whereby the local authorities within which the MAT operates appoint the members, and then the trust board would be accountable through that route to the local authorities. In that way, the local authorities would not be operating schools through the trust, but the governance would be accountable to local authorities. That would bring better consistency and better accountability into the system. On that basis, I support my noble friend Lord Blunkett and his amendment.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the overall principle of this group. There are three interesting amendments, which are slightly different, and I am sure that Ministers, if they are ready to agree this—and it reflects what the Government committed to in their manifesto—will want to take it away. I think it is a sign of the maturity of the academy trust system that the governance of multi-academy trusts or the way that they are working should be inspected. Whether that is done when individual schools of the trust are inspected, when questions are asked about the running of the trust, is perhaps open for discussion, but I support the overall principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said the buck stops here. In the last group I asked who is calling the shots. We were both making the same point about accountability. In all the conversations I have had with multi-academy trust leaders in preparation for proceedings on this Bill, they are confident about the education they are offering, the schools they are running and the standards they are setting. Whether we get to the group today or not, we will talk about school improvement, and the reality is that the capacity for school improvement in England sits with our multi-academy trusts. They know a lot about the education system and, therefore, I do not think that they would be put off by being inspected.
Of course, you will not want to cut across any other regulators that the multi-academy trusts are already governed by. Many of the multi-academy trusts are set up as companies and so they are regulated by Companies House; they will be producing accounts and will be accountable in that way. There is an opportunity for this legislation to be wary of creating regulatory burden creep, but it could ask the right questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, just raised an interesting question about local authorities. I think he was talking about the inspection of local authorities, as many of them are in the same positions as multi-academy trusts. Consistency of inspection is exactly what I was asking for in the last group, and I have to say that I am slightly disappointed, unsurprisingly, by the answer that I had from the Government Front Bench on that. Consistency in accountability, and in understanding who is really responsible for the education, is important.
I am very pleased to see the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I should be very interested to see how the Government take this overall principle forward. I am sure there will be debates about it and I am sure we will disagree with some of it, but it is an important principle. It is a sign of the maturity of the multi-academy trust system, which is to be welcomed and which we will debate in the next few groups.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I also support this group of amendments, particularly Amendment 435. I am delighted to hear the support for inspection of multi-academy trusts across the Committee. I have never understood a single argument against it; we have been discussing this, probably, for five to 10 years now, and I never been even a bit persuaded by any of the arguments against it. If we have got to the point where there is cross-party agreement on this—that it needs to be done—that is to be welcomed.
They are a very important part of our school system. We have tried, over 30 years of reform, to give freedoms to schools but hold them accountable through results, inspection and regulation. There is just no argument for leaving a multi-academy trust out of that picture. So, this is good.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I speak strongly in defence of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and his Amendment 435, supported by my noble friends Lady Barran and Lady Spielman, which is long overdue. When I was the Minister in 2017, it was the first thing I tried to do, and I ran into a turf war between Ofsted and the department. It was as simple as that. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, asked why nothing has been done about it. It is because the bureaucrats were fighting each other.
The excuse then was that there were not the sufficient financial skills in Ofsted to look at the financial framework and capability of the MAT. I think that is nonsense; I think we could train a small number of Ofsted inspectors very quickly to understand the basic principles. For example, GAG pooling, which is one of the big advantages of multi-academy trusts when they essentially have one bank account. Only about a third on MATs do that. I am a huge fan of it, although I do not think my noble friend Lord Nash is. That is fine; that is part of the flexibility that the system has created, but the Ofsted inspector would need to understand that.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, made a point about it freeing up resources, and I completely agree. In the three years since I have been back as the chairman of my trust, I have had to sit through, I think, 12 interviews with Ofsted inspectors. Some 80% of what I tell them is exactly the same every single time: we have a joined-up curriculum across the whole trust and we have GAG pooling of all the money. That is all happening; the heart and brain is at the centre.
Therefore, having inspectors going round all these peripheral schools, where they will get the same answer time after time, is a tremendous waste of time. Go to the centre and, and if you are then worried about the messaging or the data you are inspecting, take a deeper dive into individual schools. If you did a single MAT inspection every three years, you would not have to go into every school.
I really cannot understand why there would not be huge support for this. Would it not be wonderful if we could bring the Committee together with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friend Lady Barran, and agree an amendment that the Minister can work with? I promise noble Lords that everyone would benefit .
Lord Lucas (Con)
My noble friend of course runs a good academy trust. Where things are not so good, you can get a lot of variability between the schools that append themselves to a trust. So this has to be judged on the occasion: you cannot just say you we will inspect the middle and not the outside; if the middle is not functioning well, the outside can really be very up and down.
I will add a couple of thoughts. First, I do not like the idea from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, of local authorities appointing. The way you gather good people together is by having a few excellent people in the middle who want other excellent people around them. Then you have Ofsted, or whoever, saying “Is this working?”. Local authorities just tend to appoint anybody, and those people do not turn up or know enough. Where I have seen local authorities appointing boards, it has been uniformly a disaster.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
I am not suggesting that local authorities appoint the boards; I am suggesting that local authorities appoint the members who, in effect, are the shareholders to whom the boards have to report on an annual basis at the annual general meeting.
Lord Lucas (Con)
Yes, but we still want responsive, interested and active people there—and that is not what you get in my experience.
Secondly, I hope that inspection will look at the connection with parents, which can be hugely different across MATs. Some parents have a real connection with the school, and the school does that interface very well. With other, more distant MATs, anything that a parent is worried about just disappears into the fog and they never really know how to work with them. A good MAT will work well with parents, and Ofsted ought to look at that.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 435, to which I have added my name. I am also happy to signify support for Amendment 436ZZB. I am less enthusiastic about Amendment 436ZZA, because it is prolix and bureaucratic —but, if the opportunity came, I would not vote against it.
What is noticeable and very welcome is the unanimity of view across the Committee on this issue, which is one of accountability. As my noble friend Lady Morris said, academies are a very important part of the school system. I have no connection with academies, unlike other noble Members who have spoken, other than as the parent of a child currently in year 10 of a school in a multi-academy trust in London. However, it is important that we have insight into what is happening within trusts to a much greater extent than we have at the moment, because there is a fundamental gap in the accountability system for school education. If schools and children’s services are inspected, why not multi-academy trusts? For that reason, we need transparency, consistency and fairness.
Ofsted needs to have the power to inspect trusts’ governance, financial stewardship, curriculum content and teacher development, and how the trust-level ethos affects children across their academies. Some tales of the way in which certain trusts operate do not look good, given some of the pressures under which children are placed. I believe that good MATs should and will welcome this.
I do not need to add further to what other noble Lords have said. This was a Labour manifesto commitment, as my noble friend Lord Knight said, so all I ask my noble friend the Minister is: if not now, when? I hope that the answer will be, “On Report”.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I very strongly support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Blunkett. I call him a friend because we have both borne the same responsibilities in the past and it looks as if his proposal has all-party support in the Committee. I assure your Lordships that that is very rare in education—very rare indeed.
Multi-academy trusts were created some years ago because of the success of academisation. So many private schools had hitherto been controlled by local authorities, which understood money, but many independent schools did not have much understanding of money until they got their budgets. There was a need for an institution to sit between the Department for Education and the educational world of schools, particularly as—as anyone who has ever served in the Department for Education as a Minister or Secretary of State knows—not many people in the department have actually run a school. It is not their particular skill; they have other skills in other matters.
I have had some experience of it because of the schools for which I am responsible—university technical colleges —of which there are now 44 with over 21,000 students. Many of these are now members of multi-academy trusts —in fact, two-thirds of them. This is quite challenging for the trusts because we are not ordinary secondary schools like the other ones that they control. We go from 14 to 18 only and tend to have a longer working day and shorter holidays, but the 14 year-olds spend two days a week—that is 40% of the time—in workshops, visiting companies or learning how to use machinery. UTCs are very different from the other secondary schools in the multi-academy trust.
Initially, I was quite concerned that multi-academy trusts would not recognise the differences, but in my experience they have. I think we had difficulty with only one of them, where all the other schools in the trust were primary schools, so there was not a great deal of experience of running a secondary school. I also discovered that the chairmen of multi-academy trusts are sometimes very able people—not quite as able or experienced as the noble Lord, Lord Knight—who have a need and an important responsibility for handling money. I strongly remember my noble friend Lord Agnew spending very long days trying to teach financial control directly to schools to ensure that they understood how to control their budgets and to get the best out of them. The best academy trusts do this, so I think they have now become part of the institution and I can see no reason why they should not be inspected.
They are not really directly responsible to anybody. I expect that the Secretary of State, but not many Secretaries of State, will spend time worrying about how MATs are run. It would be a very good idea to have a system of education for them and therefore I support that amendment.
Lord Nash (Con)
I support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Barran and Lady Spielman and support the sentiment behind them. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Knight, that we should not rush to this, because I think Ofsted inspectors will need some training on it. Many of them still do not really understand MATs, and I am a little worried about boasting too much about organisational structure; it is more the results that count and educational outcomes, the support from the centre, personal development, safeguarding, careers, enrichment et cetera. Of course, it is fairly easy to inspect for value for money by reference to comparable statistics, so that could certainly be done. In principle, I support this concept and welcome the very eloquent intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it is said that, if you have all-party support on education in the House of Lords, you should probably run with it. We have it on this occasion.
There is a major part of the education system that we are not looking at: we are not inspecting the academy trusts properly. There are some successes there, and some that are not doing as well; that is inevitable, but it is an accepted part of the system now. We should be looking at what works and what does not.
My question to the Minister is as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked: if not now, then when? If we are going to do something along these lines, getting an idea of the structure and when it is coming in would be very helpful, because it is a very important part of the structure. Whether we accept that with a sigh or a smile does not matter; it is there and we should be inspecting it. I look forward to hearing the Government’s plans in this department very soon.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this group includes a number of probing amendments to understand the Government’s thinking about MAT inspection and intervention. Over 80% of our secondary schools and over 40% of our primaries have become academies in England, with almost 1,200 multi-academy trusts or MATs and roughly another 1,000 single-academy trusts or SATs—the latter largely being secondary schools.
The amendments in this group, in the name of my noble friend Lady Spielman and I, aim to address and provide tentative answers to three main issues. The first, on which your Lordships have already touched, is that a sense of unfairness has developed, with a potential misalignment between autonomy and accountability, which are the two planks that have underpinned our school reforms over the last two decades or so. Accountability remains at the school rather than the trust level, while autonomy, particularly in more centralised trusts, rests with the trust rather than the school. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my amendments aim to address that misalignment.
My Amendment 436ZZA allows for a more straight- forward path for intervention in trusts where there is sustained academic underperformance in their schools. I agree, as ever, with my noble friend Lord Nash that we need to be looking at and worrying about outcomes for children before process.
The amendment excludes schools that have been recently sponsored, so that no disincentive is created for a strong trust to take on a weak school. Similarly, it adjusts for levels of deprivation—not in any way to dilute ambition, but to make sure that the approach is fair and feels fair—comparing trusts to groups of schools in their local area rather than to a national performance table.
Finally, the power would aim to avoid creating so-called “orphan schools” or multi-academy trusts that were not of an economic or effective size for the purposes of education. I know from my time in office that there were a handful of trusts that had schools that consistently and substantially underperformed their neighbours, and the department was genuinely constrained in its ability to intervene. We had planned to intervene in a very small number, but unfortunately the election got in the way. It was certainly not in the simplest or most streamlined way that any of us would have wanted.
Traditionally, and I think understandably, the department has been hesitant to intervene in a school or a trust without independent analysis—typically via an Ofsted report—before doing so. We did find a way to intervene via a failure of governance, but this amendment would make it more coherent, albeit we believe the power would be used rarely. Our proposal in the amendment is that the department would prepare an annual report, which would allow one to understand if there have been any patterns of failure and the scale of any problems in the system. We believe that, in practice, the power would not be used often, as intervention would send a clear message to other trusts that were underperforming that this needs to be addressed quickly in the interests of children.
As my noble friend Lady Spielman said, Amendment 436ZZB builds on Amendment 435 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, but brings a very specific focus to MAT inspection. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, questioned the merit of putting details in the Bill and the prioritisation that was set out. I will say just a couple of things about that. It is important that we try to be clear about how MAT inspection and school inspection fit together. We do not want MAT inspection to duplicate or confuse school inspection. We tried to make it clear in this amendment what inspection could look at. It is, if you like, a starter for 10. Obviously, this requires a great deal of thought, but the amendment is trying to look at the effectiveness and value for money of MATs. It is not trying to say that one model is better than another.
On prioritisation, the noble Baroness talked about too much focus on schools that were significantly underperforming, but she will note that at proposed subsection (3)(a)—there is a typo in the Marshalled List; that is what I spend my time doing in the evenings, obviously, spotting typos. What should be proposed new subsection (3)(a) states that inspections must prioritise MATs
“which are seeking to enter into new partnerships with schools”.
That is a rather unclear way of saying MATs that want to grow. If you want to take on a new school, we need to be confident in your ability to manage that well. Then there are schools that are significantly under- performing and MATs which are not providing value for money.
I am sure that that wording could be improved on, and it feels like we have a great cross-party working group, if the Minister wants volunteers, to try to narrow this down. I know that officials have been thinking about this for some time, possibly since my noble friend Lord Agnew tried to introduce it almost 10 years ago. I think we have a bit of a starter in the definitions of what we are looking for in the work that we did on the strong trust framework, which sets out very clear expectations in relation to all aspects of running a good trust.
I look forward very much to the Minister’s reply. I hope she is as struck as I am by the tone of this debate, which feels slightly different from some that we have had. I agree with the call to action of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett: “Just do it now.” I know we are not allowed props in the Chamber, but I have Nick Gibb’s book beside me, because I thought he ought to be here in spirit, if not actually present. That book shows “Do it now, but keep doing it, do it well, stick at it and don’t let go”. I leave the Minister to comment on that.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
You always know that you are in for a good debate when you have a group in which four former Secretaries of State for Education contribute—in agreement with each other—accompanied by a positive bevy of Academies and Schools Ministers and a former chief inspector.
I thought that my noble friend Lord Blunkett’s setting in context of the history of how we got to this point was both enormously interesting and informative in identifying how we have arrived at this cross-party consensus about the need to bring multi-academy trusts into the inspection system. That is why the Government set out in our manifesto that that was our intention, believing, as others have argued, that it will make the system fairer and more transparent and enable direct intervention to address failure when necessary.
On Amendment 435, tabled by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, Amendment 436ZZB, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, which seeks to introduce Ofsted inspections for multi-academy trusts, and Amendment 436ZZA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which seeks to bring in a related regime of intervention for multi-academy trusts, I am grateful to the noble Lords for tabling those amendments, as this is an important matter and, as we have heard in this debate, one on which there is a large amount of consensus. I am pleased to see that there is support on both sides of the Committee for bringing multi-academy trusts into scope for inspections.
As I say, we are committed to bringing forward legislation during this Parliament to introduce the inspection of multi-academy trusts and intervention where there is failure. The inspection regime should also highlight excellence and support the spreading of good practice between trusts. Taken together, those will help to raise standards in education and support all children to achieve and thrive.
I suppose my regret today is that I am playing the role of the force of conservatism in the face of the urging by noble Lords from across the Committee to just get on with it. But I will take noble Lords through the process, which is important here. The Government believe it is important that we bring multi-academy trusts into the inspection system but also that we do it well. We want to work with the sector to get the detail right in the interests of pupils and the workforce.
There are a number of complex issues that we are working through, some of which have been raised in the debate, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to ensure that we bring forward a system that delivers for pupils and the workforce. For example, the inspection of multi-academy trusts must be delivered in a way, as several noble Lords have talked about, that works in harmony with school inspection—which is itself currently in the process of being reformed—in a way that avoids an excess burden on the school workforce and, as my noble friend Lord Knight helpfully identified, in a way that is effective but proportionate.
As I have said, we are already engaging with the sector. I hope it will encourage noble Lords that we were also pleased that Ofsted secured funds from 2026 in the spending review to build on this with further research and piloting. Ofsted’s work will continue in parallel with the Government bringing forward legislation so that we meet the manifesto commitment to bring multi-academy trusts into the inspection system during this Parliament.
I recognise that this will not be quick enough for noble Lords around the Chamber. I hope, however, that when the noble Lords on that side of the House had the responsibility of actually delivering policy, frustrated though I am sure they were on various occasions, they also understood the importance of getting it right. There is no difference of objective here between the Government and those urging speed; there is just a responsibility on the Government to ensure that this is done properly, and I hope noble Lords will recognise that.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I hope it is not breaking confidences to say that the department had done a lot of thinking about this 18 months ago, so we are not starting from a standing start. If the Minister has not seen that thinking, I am sure it is sitting on a DfE shelf somewhere and could be rekindled.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure that this will be part of what officials have been using, but I reiterate the point that there have been other, considerable changes to the Ofsted regime, many of which were announced this week. We must ensure that the work goes alongside that. We will very soon have a new White Paper on schools. That will lead to legislation that I am certain will help us to make progress on this important development, on which clearly there is consensus across the House.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I am very grateful for the final intervention by the noble Baroness opposite. Collective memory has always been a problem in government. It is nice to know that there is something on a shelf somewhere, although we have had rather an experience over the last 14 months of sometimes pulling the wrong one off it.
I thank the Minister for her reply. It is perfectly feasible to square this circle. It is perfectly feasible to put in the Bill an enabling clause that allows the department, through the White Paper and beyond, to bring forward implementation. As has been suggested by a number of noble Lords, one can then sophisticate it with guidance or, if it requires it, regulation. We have got into a mindset of having to put things in the order that they were first thought of. It is difficult to get legislative approval within government. We used sometimes to manage it, not least when my noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lord Rooker were my representatives in this House, because they used to cause absolute sodding havoc. Normally they were right.
One time, I had the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the phone demanding the resignation of my noble friend Lord Rooker for something that he had said in the House. I said, “Well, there is one surefire way of making sure that everybody knows about it, Gordon, and that is to fire him”. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for getting such a speedy response from the Minister. It is almost unknown. It gives me the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on being reappointed as the Minister for Skills. Not only that but she has it in two departments—the DWP and education. She is the most powerful Minister for Skills that has ever been appointed. I think she will make the most of it. This change is one of the most significant of the reshuffle.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to extend investigations to those qualified teachers currently teaching overseas. The effect being that should they return to the UK, or seek employment with employers who make a prohibition check with the Teaching Regulation Authority, incidents carried out overseas will be covered.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 436ZB in my name. I remind your Lordships of my education interests, particularly as the chair of the Council of British International Schools. I thank Emily Konstantas, chair of the British International Schools Safeguarding Coalition and CEO of the Safeguarding Alliance, for her assistance with these amendments. She has given me ample evidence of two safeguarding loopholes that we are seeking to close with these amendments.
First is the problem that under current legislation the Teaching Regulation Agency can act only where misconduct occurs in England. This means that it is not possible for a teacher qualified in England who then commits an offence overseas to have that included on the register. Indeed, our experience is that there is not even any means to report the offence to the TRA that the individual is a risk to children.
International schools routinely use prohibition checks upon recruitment of teachers, so this loophole is significant for them. If an individual has committed an offence in a school in one country and then goes to another, that offence is not picked up by the prohibition check. Therefore, as it stands, prohibited individuals can exploit international mobility to avoid scrutiny and teachers dismissed abroad for misconduct can return to England or elsewhere unchecked. With pupils placed at risk in this way, the integrity of the profession is undermined. My amendment simply applies the teacher misconduct regime to anyone who has at any time been qualified to teach in England and thus closes the loophole.
The second problem is the growing practice of prohibited individuals legally changing their names between organisations and across countries to evade scrutiny and justice. I am concerned about the scenario where an individual has been convicted for an offence and then changes their name. They may then train and qualify as a teacher under the new identity and with a teacher reference number attached to that name. My amendment seeks to insert reasonable efforts to investigate name changes when the Secretary of State investigates disciplinary cases. I hope that my noble friend the Minister—and I associate myself wholly with the comments just made by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in respect of her reappointment—agrees that these loopholes must be closed and will amend the Bill accordingly. I beg to move.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to Amendments 436ZA and 436ZB in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I declare my interest as honorary president of COBIS which, as the noble Lord said, is a member of the British International Schools Safeguarding Coalition.
As the noble Lord set out, these amendments would close an important safeguarding loophole by extending the jurisdiction of the Teaching Regulation Agency to accept referrals of misconduct committed by UK-qualified teachers working overseas, and strengthening prohibition checks to ensure that individuals cannot exploit name changes to evade detection.
Prohibition checks are essential to identify individuals banned from teaching due to misconduct, safeguarding concerns or professional incompetence, and yet none of these misdemeanours committed at international schools overseas can be referred to the TRA. Indeed, as the noble Lord stressed, the current system does not even provide an option for them to report such concerns to the TRA online, creating a clear gap in the information that it holds. The loopholes in the current system mean that a teacher who is returning to the UK, for instance, and should have been referred to the TRA due to potentially serious child welfare issues committed overseas cannot be reported and so no prohibition order can be made. As a result, the individual would pass the statutory check, which schools rely on as evidence that an individual is safe to work with children. In practice, that could mean a teacher dismissed for misconduct abroad would have a clear result on their prohibition check and could subsequently be hired by a school in England that had no idea of their previous behaviour and allow the teacher to resume teaching.
I am sure the Minister agrees that this situation is clearly unsatisfactory and should be addressed. I hope she is able to accept these sensible amendments, which are supported by the Safeguarding Alliance and six UK Government-recognised British school associations and would undoubtedly help further strengthen the UK’s reputation as a global leader in safeguarding.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I say, briefly, that these seem to be incredibly sensible amendments, and I hope the Minister can accept them.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak only briefly to these amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth. The misconduct regime covered in these clauses is clearly very important for the protection of schoolchildren and maintaining the highest standards both in the classroom and outside, in public perception. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition welcomes what is new in these clauses because it is right and proportionate that employers and authorities should have the ability to take action regardless of when or where an incident took place, and whether the individual was a teacher in the profession at that time.
We welcome online and independent educational settings being brought into scope in addition to the possibility of investigating a suspicion or an incident regardless of how it came to light. Ensuring that this regime applies fully and is not open to exploitation by those who seek to identify and use loopholes is critical, and the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, highlight this.
We hope that the Government will take this opportunity to assure the Committee that there will be no gaps in this section of the Bill. How will the Minister ensure that these eminently sensible amendments are addressed rigorously?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I have considerable sympathy for the concerns expressed through the amendments in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth. I hope I can provide some assurance about how the system operates in order to minimise the risks that noble Lords have identified here.
On Amendment 436ZA, Clause 45 captures individuals who are or have at any time been employed or engaged to carry out any teaching work at specific institutions in England. This clause ensures that those who commit serious misconduct are investigated where appropriate and prevented from carrying out teaching work. I understand the intention of this amendment to expand the regulatory regime to cover those who have worked overseas, although I understand that, on a technical basis, the amendment as written would not have that effect.
The existing regulatory regime applies to teachers in England and is operated by the TRA on behalf of the Secretary of State. The department’s view is that it would be wrong for the Secretary of State to regulate the teaching profession overseas. The Keeping Children Safe in Education statutory guidance already clearly sets out the legal requirements placed on schools and colleges to carry out pre-appointment checks when employing staff from overseas. This responsibility on schools goes further than the noble Baroness suggested in her remarks. It includes obtaining an enhanced DBS certificate, even if the individual has never been to the UK. In addition, schools and colleges must make any further checks they think are appropriate, so that any relevant events that occurred outside the UK can be considered. These checks would include, where available, criminal record checks for overseas applicants—the Home Office publishes guidance on that—and obtaining a letter from the professional regulating authority where the applicant has worked confirming that it has not imposed any sanctions or restrictions and/or that it is unaware of any reason why they may be unsuitable to teach.
Amendment 436ZB would introduce a new requirement for the Secretary of State to take reasonable efforts to include any changes of names on the prohibition list for the reasons that my noble friend outlined. There is already provision in legislation for the prohibition list to contain other such information in relation to the persons whose names are included on the list. Schools are already legally required to carry out a range of pre-appointment checks that can help to identify a name change. If a person changes their name, any legal documents need to be updated, such as a passport and driving licence. Keeping Children Safe in Education makes it clear that schools must verify a candidate’s identity to be sure that the person is who they claim to be, and that includes being aware of the potential for individuals to change their name. Best practice is checking the name on their birth certificate, where that is available.
I understand, as I said at the beginning, the concerns of noble Lords. I hope I have provided some reassurance about the processes that are in place. I urge my noble friend not to press his amendments, but I would be willing to continue the conversation to provide some assurance around the issues that he raised through them.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, particularly for the last sentiment in her wind-up on this small but perfectly formed debate on these amendments.
My noble friend referred to the reality that the Teaching Regulation Agency does not want to regulate all teachers overseas. That is true, but the system here in England regards it as the body that regulates those who are qualified to teach in this country. There still appears to be a loophole regarding teachers returning to this country to teach—and we should be encouraging people who have been attracted by teaching overseas to come home and teach in the English maintained sector, because we are short of teachers. Part of that must include the safeguarding arrangements to do so. I understand about enhanced certificates, criminal record checks and so on, but it is notoriously difficult, when teachers have a career across multiple jurisdictions, to ensure that you have absolute certainty that the records are complete in that respect.
I will willingly take up the Minister’s offer to meet her or whoever the Minister in the department is for safeguarding and the TRA. If I could bring along Emily from the Safeguarding Alliance, who has the expertise, so that we can discuss it, I would be very grateful. On that basis I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich
“(1A) In section 133 (requirement to be qualified), in subsection (1), after “work” insert “in relation to National Curriculum subjects only””
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 436A. I declare an interest as a governor of King’s College London Mathematics School.
Clause 46 is intended to have important consequences for the staffing of schools. As it stands, it certainly will, but I am not sure that they will be the ones that the Government expected and intended. My concern here is with the likely impact of the Bill on the teaching of vocational and technical subjects in schools and in sixth form colleges that are academies.
I believe the current Government recognise vocational and technical subjects, which of course include computer science and engineering, as central to its skills agenda, and I am absolutely sure that the Minister does. However, this Bill threatens to undermine them, because it will make it far more difficult and far rarer for schools and many sixth form colleges to provide high-quality teaching by subject specialists in these disciplines.
Clause 46 seeks to ensure that teaching in all schools is carried out by qualified staff, meaning staff with a teaching qualification. If you ask the general public whether they think it is a good idea for teachers to be qualified, they will, obviously enough, be inclined to say yes. However, if you ask them whether they would prefer subjects to be taught by subject specialists, they will also say yes. If you tell them that quite often this is not the case, especially in maths and science, they are rightly pretty horrified. In fact, I have yet to meet anyone who thinks that a PGCE is a great substitute for having a trained chef teach catering or an IT expert deliver computer science. In an ideal world this would not be an either/or, but that is not the world we live in.
It is quite often, fortunately, possible to find highly qualified professionals who are willing and interested in part-time teaching and happy to undertake some practical, classroom-related training. But these people are mostly not interested in becoming full-time, school-based teachers, or, therefore, in undertaking an extensive teacher-training programme to gain certification that simply does not make sense for them in terms of time, cost or their future careers. The more in demand their expertise is in the labour market, and therefore the higher its priority in any skills agenda, the more this is the case. For example, finding good people to teach computer science is a nightmare, with huge gaps in availability across the country. Do we really want to make it more so?
Back in 2011, I undertook a review of vocational education for the Government, and at that time, the school system was infested with a large number of low-level supposedly vocational qualifications that were very easy to pass and counted as GCSE equivalents. These have now gone, but the relevant point here is how they were taught. Not only was their content often minimal and bizarrely paper-based, but in schools they were being taught to an overwhelming extent by people with no expertise or experience whatever in the area supposedly covered. Schools just drafted in whichever teacher had some spare time in their timetable or was volunteered for the job by their head of department, so you really might find a games teacher in front of a tourism class or an English teacher delivering health and social care. In fact, you very often did. When I asked why they could not at least bring in a vocational expert, the schools would explain to me that they could not, because there had to be a qualified teacher in the classroom all the time, at double the cost. That was not 100% true even then, but schools were just not going to take the risk.
Many noble Lords have argued strongly in the recent past for the pre-16 school curriculum to become less academically focused, and government policy for 16 to 19 year-olds includes a strong focus on T-levels. I am very aware of the controversy surrounding the delisting of some existing qualifications, including some BTECs, but I do not think I have heard a single person in this House, or indeed anywhere, argue that there should not be any post-16 courses that are technical and vocational in focus. But what is the point in spending huge amounts developing qualifications with employer input and then making it hugely unlikely that, in large numbers of our schools, anyone with direct experience of the occupations involved will be able to teach the students?
FE colleges are, and for the foreseeable future will remain, the most important providers of vocational and technical courses. This clause does not apply to them, but they are not and should not be the only providers in this area, not least because FE colleges have been financially squeezed and penalised compared with schools for many years and are finding it very hard to pay competitive salaries. I am particularly concerned about sixth-form colleges which are also academies. These institutions are often really excellent, the main destination for all 16 to 19 year-olds in their area, and offer a wide range of vocational and technical options.
When this Bill was first published, I tabled a couple of Written Questions trying to clarify the exact position of 16 to 19 academies, including such sixth-form colleges. I cannot say I was terribly reassured by the answers, which seemed to have been drafted in order to avoid giving me any very clear reply. The Minister at the Department for Education informed me that QTS
“has never been a requirement for further education”,
which I already knew and had not actually asked about. She said that Clause 46
“will apply to primary and secondary state funded schools”,
but I am afraid that the explanation of what was a school carefully said that the schools included various types of institutions and did not refer to the 16 to 19 group at all. Critically, she also said that there would be some limited exemptions set out in regulations to provide
“flexibility to employ individuals with the specialist skills and experience to support the needs of their pupils”.
That last bit sounds very encouraging and very nice but, as far as I know, we have not been given any clear indication of what those exemptions are going to be.
My experience—this is why I wanted to give some history from the vocational education review—is that schools, very reasonably and very sensibly, play safe. They are pretty paranoid, they do not have the time and energy to engage with detailed and opaque regulations, and they are really not going to take the risk that their interpretation of regulations is different from the one that DfE civil servants or Ofsted inspectors will adopt.
At Second Reading, there was some indication that university technical colleges and studio schools might be treated differently, recognising their specialist nature, but there is only a limited number of these and they are each, by design, focused and specialised. So I am worried that the current provision in the Bill will drive technical and vocational expertise out of a large section of our education system and I cannot find any evidence to suggest that this price is worth paying for the supposed defect of unqualified teachers in these classrooms.
I fully recognise that the change in QTS requirements is something to which the Government are fully committed and my amendment is therefore a probing amendment. It focuses the new requirements on national curriculum subjects. That includes any national curriculum subject being taught post 16, not just in classrooms pre 16. National curriculum subjects will normally be taught by full-time staff who are making teaching their career. My amendment would free up the vocational and technical curriculum, and also music and sport, in a way that is very simple and easy for institutions to understand and act on.
I am confident that the Government recognise the need for some flexibilities, so that schools can hire individuals with specialist skills, and it must surely be preferable to organise these flexibilities in a way that does not have DfE spending months and months drawing up and tabling complex regulations. I hope that I might be able to discuss with the Minister whether and how such flexibility might be protected. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I was not going to intervene in this debate, because I find it quite difficult. I have some sympathy with the amendment that has just been moved, but my position is that teachers should have qualified teacher status. I have not got involved in the fringes of the debate because I think it is genuinely difficult to draw dividing lines. If I have to come down on one side or the other, I come down on the side of people having qualified teacher status. I strongly disapproved of the actions of the previous Government in taking away that requirement for either teachers in academies or for all teachers, I cannot recall.
I have always had sympathy with that range of subjects where, in my heart, I know that many people without QTS—instructor status or whatever—but with that practical experience could motivate children and deliver the curriculum, possibly to a higher standard and more effectively than other teachers. I know from experience as a teacher that very often what happens is that the teacher who is not a teacher of those subjects but who has qualified teacher status ends up teaching. I have sympathy with that and very much hope that, in the understanding that I think the Government have expressed, and in their promise to bring forward further information, some flexibility can be brought back around this arrangement of subjects. I am not talking about exceptions, because I do not want to go down that route; I am talking about an acknowledgement that we do not want to waste the talents of people who have got something to offer to our children. It would be a move that I would very much welcome.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak in particular to Amendments 436B, 436C, 437 and 437A. Before I became a union leader, doing the work of the devil, according to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, I was a teacher. I worked in university departments of education for over 10 years in York, Liverpool and London, and a big part of that job was to give teachers initial teacher training at MA level and at PhD and research level. I know that no education system can exceed the quality of its teachers and that the value of that training was essential.
It is not enough that teachers just have very good subject knowledge. They also need to understand professional concerns such as effective pedagogy. They need to learn about behaviour and safeguarding. In fact, initial teacher training is now completely transformed. The majority of it takes place in schools. There are various routes into QTS. It is much easier to work towards QTS while you are training or while you are a classroom assistant. Various Governments over a period of years have made the routes into initial teacher training and qualified teacher status much better. It is an important professional qualification which underpins not only the status of the profession but the quality of the education which children are getting.
I would also add that this is a social justice issue, I think, because the fact is that the children who most need teachers who are qualified in the subjects they are teaching are, at the moment, the least likely to get them. DfE evidence to the STRB in 2025 shows clearly that pupils in schools with the highest percentage of pupil premium are more likely than other pupils to be taught by unqualified teachers and non-specialists. They receive a narrower curriculum than other pupils, are less likely to be offered physics as a subject option, and are more likely to be taught by unqualified teachers and teachers teaching outside of their subject area. That is why, over the course of last year, I established and chaired the independent Teaching Commission, whose report, Shaping the Future of Teaching, examines the causes of the teacher supply crisis, which has been two decades in the making—in particular, its effects on pupils whose start in life is disadvantaged, who most need qualified teachers to compensate for the 40% disadvantage gap that is created by poverty before they start school.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I would like to explain my Amendment 437A, which relates to qualified teachers, and to offer a different point of view from the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted—although we are both trying to achieve the same thing, I think.
The first thing to establish, if one does not unquestioningly accept the bureaucratic definition, is what exactly a qualified teacher is. We have drifted into accepting that the postgraduate certificate in education, or PGCE, is the gold standard. With the reforms made by the previous Government to the teacher training standards, the new inspection framework and the accreditation exercise, it has got better, but it is not the be-all and end-all. Is it really the kitemark that we should use as the standard for good teachers?
I put to noble Lords two hypothetical but frequently occurring sets of circumstances. A newly qualified graduate with a degree in, say, maths or one of the sciences decides that they would like to spend a year or two teaching the subject in which they have specialised. Across the corridor, a person of the same age who completed an undergraduate degree in sociology or politics but has completed their PGCE asks to teach maths. All other things being equal, who would you rather have teaching your child the specialist subject? I know which one I would choose; that is the brutal reality.
Anyway, what business is it of the DfE, sitting remotely over 22,000 schools, to be imposing rules like this? I have met heads who support both sides of these arguments. Why are we not letting them be the judge? For example, in some parts of England, such as London, it is easier to recruit PGCE graduates than it is in the provinces. How can bureaucrats in the DfE possibly know how to run a school better? We touched on that earlier. We have a mixed economy at the moment—and thank goodness we do, for reasons I will come on to in a moment.
I do not want noble Lords to think that I am dead against the PGCE. The coalition Government introduced the concept of SCITT—school-centred initial teacher training—and I have just finished my term as a trustee of the National Institute of Teaching, which is supporting SCITTs across the country that have been set up at the behest of the DfE. It has helped increase the number of graduates entering the SCITT programme; indeed, we have one in my academy trust, and we end up hiring many of our PGCE students to teach. So why fiddle around with this? What are the Government seeking to achieve, other than mouthing slogans about the need to have qualified teachers in the classroom? It is insulting to those who have studied demanding degrees and have acquired skills that are so badly needed in schools to be called “unqualified”, particularly when most of these young people could go into other, more highly paid jobs.
We turn next to the elephant in the room: the shortage of teachers in the state system. The most recent DfE data that I could find tells me that, in 2023-24, there were 22,700 postgraduate trainees, of which 21,210 achieved QTS status. However, that was down from 22,437 in the previous year and 29,715 in 2021-22. Of those 21,210 trainees, 15,900 are teaching in state schools—a drop from 21,971 in 2021-22. The data is inviolable, but perhaps the Minister has more up-to-date data.
On teacher shortages, the DfE data tells me that, in 2024-25—the most recent year—against the 21,210 to which I referred, the estimated need was for more than 33,000 trainees. Secondary recruitment was at only 62% of the target. In secondary, there are acute shortfalls in maths, physics and computing, respectively hitting only 31%, 37% and 43% of the DfE’s targets. Again, perhaps the Minister can correct me on any of this.
The next bit is what really breaks my heart; it shows, perhaps, that I have common cause with the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted. Teacher shortages are especially acute in schools with disadvantaged pupil intakes—that just breaks my heart. I came into politics 15 years ago to go for that, but it is just getting worse. There are more vacancies and they remain open for longer, so it is the poor kids who suffer. The National Audit Office tells us in its April report that teacher recruitment targets have been missed every year but one in the last 10; the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, said that it is over two decades. This is a structural problem. The DfE has missed its targets in 13 out of 18 subjects in the most recent year, despite a DfE recruitment budget of £700 million. It will be interesting to see whether that level of funding is sustained in this autumn’s Budget with all the other pressures that the Government face; I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten us on that.
This is not about having a swipe at a Labour Government—we struggled too—but they have no credible plan to turn the tide. Forcing through this new measure will just make the job harder for everyone on the front line, with children being the losers. It will deter potentially excellent teachers, particularly in specialist subjects, from spending a few years in the teaching profession if they have had to spend nine months training—and probably paying for the privilege, although I accept that there are some bursaries.
The NAO adds that the percentage of less-experienced teachers in the most disadvantaged schools is far higher than in average schools, which goes to our earlier point. They have higher staff turnover and a higher percentage of unfilled vacancies. In the interests of time, I have not talked about retention, but, broadly, one-third of secondary teachers leave within five years of joining the profession, so we need to keep filling the funnel. The only way to hold on to teachers for longer, in my view, would be to pay more in the early years—that is not really practical in the current circumstances—and to support schools in taking much stronger action on bad behaviour. From my experience, that is why many teachers, in particular female ones, leave—and can you blame them?
Then we have the cherry on the cake: Teach First. It is another great Labour invention and is responsible for pumping thousands—around 16,000—of superb teachers into the state system over the past 20 years. Some 150 are now head teachers and the proportion of Teach Firsters who go into senior leadership roles is seven times higher than for comparably qualified teachers.
What training do they get? They get six weeks and then they are on the front line. When some of these facts were presented to the Government, the best they could manage was saying, “Oh, well, you can stay, so don’t worry”. So where is the intellectual coherence? My amendment is very straightforward: it would widen the definition of what a qualified teacher is to include degree-qualified professionals who teach in this area of specialisation.
This clause is a classic example of why I get so frustrated with many parts of the Bill. We have had hundreds of hours of debate on things like this that will only make it harder for the people who are trying to improve education, particularly for disadvantaged young people.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 495, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and to which I have added my name. This amendment, after Clause 62, seeks to insert a new clause on teacher training reviews. I declare my interests as president of the LGA, chair of Sport Wales and chair of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, which is actively looking at enrichment around the school day to help children develop more skills that will help them across the whole of their lives.
It feels like we have been discussing teacher training for sport and physical activity for years. Quite often, certainly around primary-age teacher training, only about four hours of instruction are given on how to deliver physical education. It is a very difficult subject to teach because, even at the youngest age, there is a huge range of capability in children. The amendment is important because it is not just about finding a new set of Olympians and Paralympians but about developing physical activity for life. The amendment is required because of the state of inactivity in England and in the UK.
Women in Sport data shows that 80% of women are not fit enough to be healthy. The organisation ukactive has published lots of research on obesity rates in children, which seem to be creeping up and up. While I acknowledge that the school cannot do everything around encouraging children to be fit, healthy and active, it can play a huge part.
If we look to another subject, we do not expect children to be able to do trigonometry without teaching them the basics of maths; there is a path to follow. However, we expect children to play sport without teaching them the basics of physical literacy. It is really important that we learn from elsewhere. In Wales in 2012 and 2013, we came very close to giving physical literacy the same status as literacy and numeracy in schools; it would have been part of the teacher training and measured by Estyn. This is important because it is about a healthy mind, body and spirit and about developing a certain level of activity. We know people’s relationship with physical activity: they drop in and out, and girls especially drop out at the ages of 18 and 13. We have to do something to change that pattern of behaviour.
This is also really important for disabled people. Quite often, PE teachers, through a lack of experience, will still send disabled children to the library—and that is happening more and more. You would think that, on the back of some amazing Paralympic success, there would be better attempts at inclusion, but that is not happening. A number of parents write to me to tell me that their children are being excluded from PE lessons under health and safety rules. Alternatively, they are told that, because there is not another disabled child in the class, they cannot participate or play sport with anyone else, so they are excluded.
His Majesty’s Government already offer support through the Inclusion 2028 programme, which is a step forward. They have worked with the Youth Sports Trust and 50 lead schools to develop this knowledge. I would be interested to understand how that is developing. We have to develop much wider support to ensure that the patterns of inactivity are broken and that we have a fitter and healthier nation.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, whom I hope she does not mind me calling my noble friend.
I will speak to Amendments 437 and 495, which are in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, who deeply regrets that he cannot be with us today. Amendment 437 speaks for itself. I have attached my name to Amendment 495; I have worked with my noble friend Lord Moynihan on it for quite some time.
Our concerns are the weaknesses of the sport and physical literacy components of teacher training in the UK. They are most pronounced for generalist primary school teachers, who often lack sufficient training, confidence and practical opportunities. These issues are compounded by the low professional status for physical education within schools and it not being prioritised. There is also a minimum time allocation: generalist primary teachers typically receive very little training in physical education during their initial teacher training—ITT—programmes; one source cited an average of four to six hours. This is widely seen as woefully inadequate for preparing them to deliver high-quality PE.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on this group of amendments in the same vein as have my noble friends Lady Morris and Lady Bousted, and emphasise that we need qualified teachers, particularly for the most disadvantaged pupils in our country.
Some years ago, prior to the pandemic, I was for seven years a senior executive at TES—the Times Educational Supplement, as it once was. During that tenure, I set up the Tes Institute, which was a teacher training institute. It is now the fifth-largest qualifier of teachers in England. The main route that we opened up through the Tes Institute was something that we branded “straight to teaching”: in essence, it was the opportunity for people who were working as instructors, who had instructor grades of pay but had experience of teaching, to be assessed for how close to the teaching standards they would be; then a bespoke professional development programme could be devised for them so that they could reach that set of standards and get QTS.
Incidentally—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Agnew—I was surprised to learn that a PGCE did not qualify you to teach; there is not an equivalence between the two. Qualified teacher status is a separate thing, but there is an assumption within the system that a PGCE equals qualified teacher status.
The process of developing Straight to Teaching taught me that there are plenty of people who are working as instructors in our schools in this country, in effect, and who could be taken through to become qualified teachers on the job while carrying on being paid and using their experience. That could apply to those in vocational settings as well as in more academic settings; it says to me that there are routes.
Teaching apprenticeships are now being opened up for those people who have the sorts of qualifications and experience that have been discussed in this debate to be hired by schools and then, within a reasonable time, to be taken into qualified teacher status. That is something we should grab because it is important to value pedagogic training as well as subject knowledge. It is also important to value training in bullying, to which Amendment 439 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, refers. It is important that people should understand and be trained around special educational needs. It is important that they should be trained around physical literacy, as was explored by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Sater, in their important speeches. Having training programmes to achieve qualified teacher status for those people who are brought into classrooms to teach as instructors is something that we should expect as part of the move towards every teacher becoming qualified.
Finally, I support Amendment 495, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, has added her name and which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I support it in the terms that they set out around the importance of sport and physical literacy. Like them, I was a member of your Lordships’ National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee. I hope that we will have a chance to revisit what we recommended then to see whether it remains valid for a new Government to take forward.
I also support Amendment 495 on the basis of some of the other things that are listed around a review of ITT, such as financial literacy, AI literacy and media literacy. These have become increasingly important but are currently neglected in initial teacher training. Once the curriculum and assessment review has reported, it will be timely for there to be a review of whether we need to change aspects of initial teacher training in order to take account of that review.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, as a secondary school teacher, I admit that I am conflicted by this group of amendments. Noble Lords have highlighted the benefits of getting industry experts to teach in schools. At our school, we use architects to teach the architecture programme. I recently went to a UTC that gets employers to come in and set projects for students. The employers then regularly come in to look at the projects so that the students get real-world, real-industry training. It is unrealistic to expect these employers to get teaching qualifications.
I am afraid that I cannot let Amendment 438 go. I have admired the optimism and creativity of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and I acknowledge the sterling work that the elective home-schooling community is doing. Like many in this Committee, I have undertaken formal teacher training. I have QTS, which does not appear to be the gold standard any more, I am afraid. I had one disastrous attempt at home-schooling during lockdown, when I tried to teach my primary school-aged daughter maths. She is still shouting at me even now.
To say that somebody who has experienced only home-schooling can go from that to teaching 32 boisterous students in the last period on a Friday, without any formal training, and impart any knowledge at all is optimistic at best. The noble Lord, who is sadly not in his place, unwittingly belittles two years of pretty intense training for mainstream teachers.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I support the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Sater, in saying that physical education is one of those things that we all decry and think somebody else should be doing. The fact of the matter is that there are certain physical skills that you need. In racquet sports, for example, you need to know how to move your feet, how to hold the racquet and so on; I say that in front of the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, with, shall we say, a degree of fear. There are certain basic skills that you will need to get the best out of a sport and to see whether you have any potential for it—if you do not have them, you are not going to find out.
When it comes to how to integrate those abilities into PE lessons, you need some training and structure. If you turn around and say to your outside agency, “This is possible, so please make sure that it happens”, you are taking a step further forward. So a degree of knowledge is required.
We have just mentioned the fact that special educational needs are a factor. I have managed to make a couple of speeches without mentioning them, so I shall revert to the norm. If you have special educational needs but somebody who is trying to teach you does not understand what they are about, chances are you are going to fail. They may say, “Everybody take some notes”, but you may have one person who is dyspraxic so cannot do that easily and two people who are dyslexic so will not be able to read them back and will not get everything down in time. You have to have some degree of knowledge to reach them—and those are fairly commonly occurring conditions. You will need some training somewhere in this.
I do not say that the existing pathways are always there because, if they were, I would not be making this point in the first place. However, we need to have that degree of training—or at least the awareness to say, “Right, I don’t know how you do this. Can you defer and find me another pathway?” That would be very helpful. I look forward to exploring this matter, both in this Bill and in future Bills, to make sure that we get something in place that means that more teachers can become teachers of special educational needs—not just saying that they are, because more of the same does not work. What they have at the moment is failing them.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
I want to come in on this group to inject a note of pragmatism into the discussion. First, I observe that the current freedom does not seem to have created significant problems in practice. To ask that classic question, “What is the problem that the clause in the Bill is trying to solve?”
Secondly, it is absolutely right that there are excellent programmes—the noble Lord, Lord Knight, described them—to encourage people to move from instructor and teaching assistant roles into qualified teacher status. Those are excellent—they should exist and people should be encouraged, of course—but the pragmatic point is to think about all the people who might choose to be teachers but choose instead, for example, to go off and be tutors, lavishing their skills and expertise in a very small subject on children whose parents can afford to pay. They are then lost to the state system because they simply will not go down that path.
For that reason, I support the amendments put forward by my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Agnew—as well as the pragmatic amendment proposed at the start of this group by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich—as a way of making sure that the potential impact of this clause is not the opposite of what I am sure the Government intend. It is absolutely right to want both to upskill teachers and to make sure that as much teaching as possible happens with qualified teachers, but it would be desperately sad if many subjects and a lot of the potential school experience for millions of children were diluted for that purity of principle.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend. The current system does not create a lot of problems because most schools are teams. If you really need a particular skill, so you bring in someone who has that skill but lacks the other skills that one needs to teach well, the community rallies round and makes sure both that everyone works together and that the experience for the children is good. What I would like to see is not a system that says, “Go away, we don’t want you unless you have QTS first”, but one that welcomes people in and says, “Let’s bring you on”—the sort of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, was describing. Such an attitude to bringing in the skills that we need seems to me to be the right one.
There are lots of people out there who could contribute their skills if it were made possible for them to do that in a way that works for them. As my noble friend said, there are a lot of young people who tutor and do it really well and who, therefore, develop an interest in the idea that they might be teachers although they want to get there in a way that suits them. There are lots of older people in their fifties and sixties who are coming to the end of their career and know that they are not going to go anywhere else. They may be consultants in IT and just do not want to sit down and write another computer system. They would love to get involved with young people and help to bring them on. You have to make it easy for them and find a way in for them. Creating something as inflexible as this Bill does seems destructive.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, is right: there is a crisis in the supply of teachers, not just the numbers but also, as he said, in specialism. There is also the great worry that we are seeing the lowest number of people wanting to go into teaching and the highest number of teachers leaving early. But his solution is not my solution.
I have said in this House on many occasions that the most important thing in a child’s life is the quality of their teacher. We do not, as a society, value teachers. Having a qualification does not make you a good teacher. We can remember that, in the 30s, 40s and maybe even the 50s, someone with a university degree would come out of university and think they could teach. You cannot always. Occasionally, they could do it. Those who could not do it at secondary modern schools quickly tried to transfer to grammar schools, where they thought it might be easier. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, rightly said, if you have in the playground or on the sports field some challenging pupils haring around and you do not have an understanding of child development or behaviour management, you cannot cope. You would not, for example, expect someone who has a law degree to suddenly step into a court; you just would not have it. We have to work out how on earth we can ensure that people want to become teachers.
It is not just about training to become a teacher; we have to support them when they are in teaching. It is not just about salary, although that helps. It is about continuous professional development. It is about the campaigns about workload that many of us have constantly gone on about. I think that is a simple thing to solve. Teachers have said to me any number of times, “If I could just get on with the job of teaching without having to do all these other tasks”.
That does not stop visitors coming into school. It does not stop experts who have a particular knowledge being linked to a school and coming in from time to time to talk to the children. By the way, high-level teaching assistants can teach in schools. Teaching assistants at level 2 can teach, as long as they are supervised by the teacher. Maybe we should be encouraging teaching assistants to go on to become qualified teachers. We cannot have in our schools a situation where qualified teachers are undervalued and where we increasingly think the answer is to bring in unqualified so-called experts.
Turning to my amendment on bullying, I am a bit surprised that it is in this group—I think that the issue is covered in one of the later groups as well. It is worrying that currently 35% of 10 to 15 year-olds have experienced bullying of some sort. In 2023, 1.5 million children suffered bullying. Bullying happens in all sorts of ways. It can be physical, it can be emotional, it can be verbal and it can be cyberbullying. We seem to think that the important thing is to sort out mobile phones, which will stop bullying and make pupils more attentive to learning. I have a great deal of sympathy with that, as we probably all do, and mobile phones can increasingly be used for bullying pupils as well.
When a pupil is bullied, a number of things happen. It is not just physical, where there might be bruising or whatever; it is also emotional, of course. It leads to increasing absence from school. Children are frightened to go to school, because the bully might be there, so that affects their school attendance and we have talked at length about how important school attendance is. It will affect their grades when they come to do their exams. They will not be handing in homework, and so it goes on. We have to ensure that we take the whole issue of bullying seriously, which I know the Government do, and the amendment spells out some of the things that we need to do. I hope, when we come back to this at a later stage, to be able to look at it in more detail.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this group has elicited another excellent debate and, like other noble Lords, on these Benches we remain unclear what problem the Government are trying to solve. The Government’s own data shows that the percentage of teachers without a formal teaching qualification has been pretty stable in both primary and secondary schools for the past 10 years. It sits at about 1% in primary and between 1.5% and 2% in secondary, which is about 6,000 teachers out of a workforce of over 450,000. We are talking about tiny numbers, largely in specialist subjects, which has not changed over a very long time. I could not find—and I did look—any evidence that suggests that teachers without a formal teaching qualification provide lower-quality education.
That is not to disagree in any way with any noble Lord who has spoken already. We know that the quality of the teacher at the front of the classroom is the single biggest and most important influence on the education that a child receives. The Government have argued that one would not want to be seen by an unqualified lawyer or dentist. As other noble Lords have said, any of us, if asked, “Would you like your child to be taught by a qualified or unqualified teacher?”, would say, “A qualified teacher”. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, said, if asked, “Would you like to be taught by someone with a physics degree and 10 years in the industry, or someone with a degree in English and QTS?”, I think, to be fair, the answers might be different. Amendments 437 and 437A in the names of my noble friends Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Agnew of Oulton have my support, because they just apply common sense, focusing on the combination of specific subject expertise at degree level, in the case of my noble friend Lord Agnew’s amendment, and demonstrable competence in teaching.
Now, having listened to the debate, I am beginning to wonder whether, given the tiny number of unqualified teachers in the system, this whole clause is not a bit of a red herring. We have a number of routes: there is the assessment-only route to get QTS, where a school or initial teacher training—SCITT—is able to award qualified teacher status to someone who has GCSEs in English and maths and a degree, and who demonstrates suitability; they obviously read my noble friend Lord Agnew’s amendment. If we have an assessment-only route, we have higher-level teaching assistants, which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to, and we have teachers from FE colleges with QTLS, rather than QTS, who can currently teach in secondary schools—if all those routes are followed, maybe we can close what I argue is an inconsequential gap in a way that will allow the Government to say that everyone now has QTS, but it does not really change anything on the ground.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who is not in his place, talked earlier about what the public care about. I think they care about Governments focusing on real issues rather than this, which feels like a slightly confected problem.
My amendments in this group follow a familiar pattern. By calling for the clause not to stand part of the Bill, I am offering the Government the logical, simple course of action. There just is no need for this clause, unless the Minister can give us evidence of the harm being done or the lower outcomes for children from teachers without QTS.
The other amendments seek to limit the damage done to schools from the clause as drafted, particularly the schools that we all care about, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, and my noble friend Lord Agnew talked about: schools in the most disadvantaged communities. My Amendment 436C would exempt shortage subjects from the constraints of the clause, and my Amendment 436B would give schools five years rather than one, in which time a teacher would have to achieve a teaching qualification. That is particularly important—I hope the Minister will comment on this—for special schools, where the percentage of teachers without a teaching qualification is often higher.
I have added my name to Amendment 436A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, which limits this measure to core subjects in the national curriculum. The noble Baroness spoke with enormous experience and insight into the potential impacts of the measure, particularly in relation to technical and vocational qualifications.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, gave the Government the answer to at least a start on reducing bullying in schools by introducing a smartphone ban, which I am hoping the Minister’s new ministerial colleague will persuade her of, because apparently in another life he thought it was a good idea.
The issue that the clause raises is a point of principle, again, about autonomy and accountability. Like all the others, it is easy to say that the clause on its own will not be too harmful; that may or may not be true, but, overall, the Bill is fundamentally centralising and will undo the ingredients that have improved English education so much over the past 14 years. We on these Benches deeply oppose the principle of clawing back the discretion that we have given to school and trust leaders. We remain baffled why the Government want to undo what has worked well and do not focus instead on areas that deserve their attention. We would rather see the expansion of freedoms to maintained schools than their withdrawal from academies.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, teaching is a profession and we are unapologetic about having a high bar for training and qualification. It is what parents, head teachers and the Government should rightly expect, which is why the Government committed to this measure in our manifesto. It will ensure that new teachers have the essential training and induction that they need to help children achieve.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
I thank the Minister very sincerely for the clarification on 16 to 19 academies, which I had so dismally failed to obtain. It would be extremely helpful if she could write to noble Lords and generally cascade the information about current flexibilities and the position of the Government on their future, because there is a lot of both ignorance and uncertainty on that out there at the moment. Given the huge challenges of recruiting people in these areas—these are people who are not planning to make a career of teaching—that would be very helpful.
I have learned a great deal from this debate, which has been very helpful, especially because there was a great deal I did not know about initial teacher training as it now stands. It has been very helpful and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Spielman
“(5A) Subsection (1)(b)(ii) does not apply in relation to an educational institution that has received an OFSTED rating of Good or equivalent in the last three years.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Agnew seeks to ensure that academies which are rated as “Good” are not required to follow the National Curriculum.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendments 440 and 442 from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. He tabled these amendments because of his concerns that the new national curriculum remains so uncertain. The interim report has given little indication of what might follow in the autumn or next year, and he believes that with that level of uncertainty these amendments are appropriate. I have taken this on at short notice and will listen to what the Minister has to say and respond.
Before I sit down, I want to give a warning. We have been here before. In 2004, the national curriculum obligation applied to virtually all schools, as very few schools were academies at that time. At that point, inspection was stripped down to remove subject-level scrutiny from most of the curriculum. English and maths in primary schools were specifically examined, but beyond that almost all subject-level inspection was removed.
What was the consequence? Over time, in primary schools and at key stage 3 there was a drastic reduction in what was taught. Various reports show that, such as Key Stage 3: The Wasted Years? from Ofsted. Primary schools, especially once the science tests were dropped in 2009, taught less and less outside English and maths.
At key stage 4, this was compounded by the equivalence concept brought into performance tables at the same time. All manner of distortions and gaming emerged in the secondary curriculum, and the DfE had to play whack-a-mole for years each time a new game popped up—some people will remember things such as the European computer driving licence, equivalent qualifications that were worth four GCSEs, double entry and so on. It would be unfortunate if we went back to that world.
I understand that the Ofsted changes that have been announced will remove the very limited subject-level scrutiny that was reintroduced in 2019 to counteract this loss of real curriculum. My concern is that the national curriculum obligation included in this clause could become a dead letter, simply because there will not be effective scrutiny to make sure that is what actually happens in practice. We could once again be in a situation where only the things that are tested—which, especially in primary schools, is quite a limited set and at key stage 3 is nothing at all—will get taught. That is a warning.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Barran’s proposition that Clause 47 does not stand part of the Bill. Clause 47 as it stands strips academies of one of their key freedoms: the ability to innovate and tailor their curriculum approaches to meet the specific needs of the pupils and communities they serve. We have clear evidence that allowing schools this freedom, with clear accountability mechanisms in place, improves outcomes for pupils.
This summer, free schools outperformed other non-selective state schools in both GCSE and A-level results, playing an important role in driving up standards, particularly in areas of significant deprivation and low educational attainment. One of the strengths of free schools has been their diversity, representing a varied range of educational philosophies and high-quality curricula.
In a recent report, New Schools Network set out a number of principles that it had identified across high-impact free schools—those with a strong track record, outstanding Ofsted ratings, strong exam results and high levels of participation, engagement, progression and achievement. Among them was a relentless focus on the fundamentals of learning, which often drew on international and well-evidenced school and curriculum models and practices, from Teach Like a Champion to Expeditionary Learning, KIP and High Tech High. Drawing on the best evidence and proven ideas of what works, schools have used the flexibility in the current system to adapt their curriculum to suit their students. They, after all, know their pupils best.
The NSM report sets out a number of examples where free schools have used their curriculum freedoms to the benefit of their pupils. Marine Academy Plymouth has developed its own curriculum around marine themes relating to the city’s coastal tradition. School 21’s curriculum is project-oriented, with curriculum and pedagogical practices allowing pupils to choose personalised opportunities for growth which fit in with their passions and interests. For children with special needs, the Lighthouse School in Leeds, the first special free school, has supported a growing network of similar institutions. Lighthouse has shared its unique curriculum with more than 50 other school leaders and demonstrated how its innovative approach has allowed it to design provisions specifically aimed at pupils with autism, while spreading best practice across the system.
Allowing this flexibility does not and should not mean a free-for-all, and that is certainly not the case now. While academies are not required to follow the national curriculum, they are required by their funding agreements to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, and of course there are further safeguards via the Ofsted inspection framework and exam system. Again, the Government are proposing changes to dilute the autonomy of academies when it is not clear what the systemic problem is that this clause is trying to solve.
As we have heard, the national curriculum itself is currently under review, which is creating more uncertainty. As a result of provisions in the Bill, academies will be forced to sign up to a new curriculum, the content of which the Government have not decided yet, without knowing if there will be suitable flexibilities within it for them to appropriately tailor their curriculum to the specific needs and contexts of their communities.
As has previously been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the breadth of powers included in the Bill would allow a Secretary of State in future to potentially be much more prescriptive and expansive in relation to the detail of any new national curriculum if they were so inclined—again, a further reduction in academies’ autonomy.
I do not believe this is the right approach. Our education system as a whole has benefited from the ability of teachers to be creative, to innovate and to adapt their curriculum to respond to the unique needs of their pupils. Unfortunately, Clause 47 as it stands is a retrograde step.
Lord Sewell of Sanderstead (Con)
My Lords, as someone who has not put down an amendment, I will give some collective memory context to what we are debating today. I support most of the amendments. I hope they will not be rejected, but we will see what happens.
Yesterday, I listened to the speech made by the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson. She rightly boasted about the legacy of Ernest Bevin and how he understood that real social mobility is about working-class people and the agency to aspire. Sadly, as she reeled off the achievements of the labour movement since Bevin, she forgot perhaps one of the most radical and important achievements from Labour: the setting up of the academies—yes, a Labour invention.
It may have been this philosophy that inspired Tony Blair in 2002 to set up the Hackney Learning Trust. This became the birthplace of the academy movement. Luckily enough, I was part of the board that was tasked to transform Hackney education. Some would say that our task was impossible; we were faced with a Labour education authority that totally failed all of its students and parents. Hackney was given the label not only as the worst education district in Britain but the worst in Europe.
In those days, boys from an African-Caribbean background were at the bottom of the heap. When I remember the early days, there was joy from the current education authority in handing us the power. Yes, there were some grumblings about what it knew about the new model of academies, but there was a real sense that this was the answer.
Our first task was to find an iconic school which was regarded as the worst performing and transform that. We set about closing the then Hackney Downs School and built the fantastic Mossbourne Academy, led by Sir Michael Wilshaw. We were given a 10-year contract. Within two years, Hackney was on its way to moving from the worst place to educate your child to the best. For African-Caribbean boys, the results zoomed to above the national average.
How did we do this? It was because of a number of factors that are in danger from this schools Bill. Great school leaders were a key element. Another was the massively high academic expectations of the students. There were also rigorous school improvement methods—no school was allowed to fail Ofsted. We were creating schools of excellence that could go toe to toe with the best of our private schools. For many ethnic-minority students, particularly black students, the context of a traditional, well-disciplined school with high expectations and great leadership—and no evidence of identity politics; that made no difference at all to them—made the difference. For me, the big difference was that we gave schools autonomy on the curriculum, discipline, hiring of staff and allocation of funding. These were key elements which drove that success. One of the things bringing us up into the highest levels of educational outcomes was that drive.
The proposal to remove automatic academisation for underperforming schools and replace it with something else is problematic. My concern is that we would probably be going back to those really dark days when schools, particularly in London, were going backwards.
I want to share a quote from one of the leaders of City of London Academies Trust. If he were here, he would probably put it as a plea. He says:
“I was fortunate to be granted the rare privilege of founding a government-funded state school in Newham, the second most deprived borough in London. Thanks to the freedoms afforded by the academies programme, that school now outperforms many independent and grammar schools. It regularly sends pupils to Oxbridge and Ivy League universities on full scholarships worth £250,000 each. I am by no means alone in this achievement. Across the country, others have used the opportunities of academisation to become beacons of hope in their communities and rank among the highest in national league tables for educational outcomes”.
I return to old Ernest Bevin and what he would have loved. He would probably have liked the academy movement and would turn in his grave at some of these new attempts to disrupt what is working for students from poor backgrounds and ethnic minorities. At the heart of some of these changes is the idea that academies are perhaps not working for the majority of the population or special needs students. I think that misses the point. We need to be creative in spreading a model that can work for all pupils, not dismantle and tinker with a great asset for social mobility. That is the key element in this.
I end with a quote from Ernest Bevin:
“I did not land on the rocks—I was launched from them”.
That is the spirit of academies, which enable schools and pupils to do their best and realise the best that they have. In London, we have created a great asset that was, in a sense, birthed by Labour. We carried it on, and we want to ensure that we have something we can be proud of. We should think again when looking at the curriculum to see whether we can find a way of ensuring that those students continue to do their best. We now have schools in London which can reach better results even than Eton. Noble Lords here who taught 20 or 30 years ago would not have dreamed of that. Now we can do it. That has come about through the way we have used academies and that process. I urge the Government not to tinker with their own success.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, as a teacher at Mossbourne, who has one child there and one who has just left, I—slightly emotionally—thank the noble Lord, Lord Sewell of Sanderstead. I cannot thank him and the Hackney Learning Trust enough. I cannot add anything to that except to quote the chair of a multi-academy trust I was talking to a couple of days ago, who said: “Education is one of the few things in this country that really works. Why do they want to dismantle it?” I can leave it at that.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise as I was not able to speak at Second Reading as I missed the start of the session for family reasons. So I hope noble Lords will bear with me as I make a contribution linked to this group and Amendment 497 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who is not in his place, but I thank him for highlighting the important issue of artificial intelligence.
I declare an interest as chair of Camden STEAM. One of the initiatives it has helped catalyse and launch this year is Camden Learning’s first-in-the-world trailblazing pilot: the London AI Campus. Developed in collaboration with Google, it aims to inspire, inform and educate students and teachers in AI and digital skills. If any noble Lords are interested in further information or, indeed, a visit to the centre, I ask them to please get in touch with me.
The Department for Education articulates its purpose as
“the department for opportunity … breaking the link between background and success”.
The national curriculum review, which is nearing its conclusion, is vital to that mission for many reasons, including, as one of its terms of reference states, in developing
“a cutting-edge curriculum, equipping children and young people with the essential knowledge and skills which will enable them to adapt and thrive in the world and workplace of the future”.
I hope the contributions in this Committee session will be helpful to Becky Francis, the chair, as she focuses on this area in the second stage of her work. She has rightly talked about the review pragmatically following a path of “evolution, not revolution”, recognising what has been working successfully, such as the advances the previous Government made in reading and maths.
However, while I support that approach, we are also in a revolution in the world of work, brought on by rapid advances in technology, with the attendant need to effectively support growth and productivity, particularly in the key sectors of the industrial strategy and in our regions. As well as the central issue of AI, which, I am sure, the noble Lord would have eloquently spoken about and has focused on, employers and respected research bodies identify creativity as critical to our future too. As raised in this House before, remedial work and investment are needed to address the consequences of previous policy decisions that have led to the Cultural Learning Alliance’s 2025 report card showing arts entries in GCSEs falling by 48% since 2010, with design and technology seeing an above 70% drop. This has led to an arts entitlement gap highlighted by the disparity between attainment in state-funded schools and independent ones.
It is welcome, therefore, that the importance of addressing these issues has been recognised and that the Prime Minister has spoken about the need to put creativity back at the heart of the curriculum. However, to be effective and up to date, that remediation has to do a number of things. One is the existing suite of qualifications in the arts being modernised to take into account the impact of technology, including artificial intelligence, and the attendant resources required to deliver the Prime Minister’s ambition. This includes capital investment, teacher recruitment and training, online learning, supporting talented children’s access to centres of specialist excellence, and so on. Critically, there is the need to address the need for the new: new qualifications and courses to deliver what is necessary for the future of work.
One of our USPs as a country is our talent in combining creativity and digital innovation—createch —which is driving change across a number of industries, creating new businesses, new roles and new jobs. Ukie, the trade body for computer games, on the back of its very successful Digital Schoolhouse project and with the support of the Creative Industries Council, has put forward a case for the development of a digital creativity GCSE as an alternative to the current computer science qualification. The inconsistent digital skills teaching in schools since the introduction of the computing curriculum a decade ago has led to a postcode lottery in digital education. These new approaches would offer young people other pathways to high-reward skills and jobs, and we wait to hear whether it will be supported as part of the review.
There is a lot to think about. At the same time, we need to move forward with launching the national curriculum. I would be interested to hear my noble friend’s views on whether, as the amendment suggests, a process of evolution and review might be needed for the curriculum so that it continues to develop in step with the revolution that is unfolding before us.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 502D, which stands in my name. I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer for his support. This amendment seeks to make financial education a mandatory part of the primary school curriculum from year 1. Why do we need it? Its aims are simple but important: to ensure that children begin to develop the knowledge and skills needed to understand and manage money from an early age.
In a world of increasing financial complexity, where our children encounter such things as targeted advertising, digital payments and online scams, often before they have even reached secondary school, it is more important than ever that financial literacy should not be left to chance. While financial education is a statutory part of the secondary school curriculum in England, it is not a requirement in primary schools. This creates a gap at precisely the stage when children begin forming lifelong money habits, and it stands in stark contrast to the rest of the United Kingdom, where such education is embedded in the national curriculum at an earlier age than in England.
The Money and Pensions Service has found that these habits develop as early as age seven, yet we wait until secondary school to introduce compulsory learning. Without embedding financial education from year 1, we risk missing the most formative opportunity to equip our children with the tools that they need to manage money with confidence and make good financial decisions throughout their lives.
According to a research report from Santander UK, at the beginning of this year, out of 2,000 pupils aged 18 to 21, only 26% reported receiving any financial education at school. Without a fundamental understanding of money management, our young people are increasingly turning to online sources for financial guidance and information, especially social media—that comes with its own risks—as they step into an age of financial independence. This cannot be right.
RedSTART Educate, a charity for primary school children that delivers financial education through progressive learning, which has now merged with Money Ready, is a long-standing campaigner for financial education to become statutory in the primary curriculum in England. It tells us that levels of financial literacy in the UK are low and falling, and highlights how awareness of debt, saving and investments needs to begin in primary schools. It is hard to believe, yet the data show, that from their programmes in primary schools 90% of children say that they now understand how budgeting can help them achieve goals and 80% of children can explain the difference between lending and giving. This is surely sufficiently compelling for financial literacy to be taught in primary schools; importantly, it will assist in dealing with the significant inequalities that exist across the country.
However, as the Social Market Foundation highlights, for financial education to make a difference, it is important to start young. Socioeconomic inequalities in financial understanding can be seen at the age of 11. According to Young Enterprise, which has called for financial education to be a core subject in primary school, only one in three primary-aged children receives any financial education, and where it is taught the provision is patchy. In other words, it is a postcode lottery.
This amendment is about establishing consistency and equity, and recognising that financial education should not depend on where a child lives or which school they attend. The Centre for Social Justice, a think tank, has called on the Government, as a minimum, to place financial education on the national curriculum for primary schools within PSHE, and the APPG on Financial Education for Young People, of which I am a vice-chair, has recommended that it be embedded in the primary school curriculum.
We also cannot ignore the link between financial literacy and mental well-being. According to the Mental Health Foundation, money worries are the single biggest cause of stress and anxiety in the UK. The earlier we can equip children with the tools to understand and manage money, the better their long-term financial resilience and emotional health will be. I acknowledge that the national curriculum is under considerable pressure, but financial education cannot be seen as an optional extra. It is a vital life skill, essential for preparing our children to live fulfilling and stable lives in an increasingly complex financial world. That is why I believe this amendment would be a valuable addition to the Bill.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to Amendment 441, which is tabled in my name. It is not the most elegant amendment that I have ever tabled, but it is designed to get the Government to set out their thinking on supporting those with special educational needs through the use of assistive technology.
I have a couple of obvious interests. The one I should declare is that I am chairman of Microlink PC, which makes adaptive technology for the workplace and education. More importantly—I show off how bad a dyslexic I am—I cannot function or deliver a letter without using it. Let us take English and somebody who is dyslexic. If you are bad enough, you will not achieve in English without having someone to dictate to unless you use assistive technology. You will fail at learning a language using the modern processes because the language-processing parts of your brain and your short-term memory do not work that way. You may have a choice of failing dramatically or just simply failing, but you are not going to achieve. Using assistive technology means that you can access that part of the curriculum, get through and possibly hand in work without having somebody else there. You have your independence.
I was trying to get the Government to set out their attitude towards this, which is a great way of addressing some of the problems of special educational needs. Get in early and get them away; they can maintain themselves and will be adaptive. If we could know about this in this part of the Bill, it would help us in the future. I hope that the Government are friendly to it.
There are all sorts of things attached to this. For instance, there are great things about not having mobile phones in school, but they are a very good platform on which to carry some of this technology. This may not be the only way forward—there may be other ways—but getting some idea of the Government’s thinking on this would probably help the forthcoming debates. It may not be a silver bullet, but it is certainly something that can help. I would be very grateful to hear what the Government’s attitude is.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 443 in my name. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for supporting it. The amendment would provide that an order or regulations made under or by virtue of any provision of the Bill that would amend primary legislation shall not apply to an academy school.
Academies’ proven success has been based on their freedom to depart from the national curriculum and to apply a curriculum tailored to their pupils’ needs. This Bill, however, is making a far-reaching change to the way that academies work, because the Government will, in future, be able to control the content and application of the national curriculum to academies. As I pointed out at Second Reading, this will be done not by primary legislation, as one would expect, but by secondary legislation that amends primary legislation. Yes, it is our old friend Henry VIII who lives on in these draconian powers, which raise real questions as regards compliance with the rule of law.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sewell of Sanderstead, gave us an inspiring scene-setter for the next groups of amendments that we are discussing. It was a taster of why the decisions that we make on this Bill matter to so many pupils and young people. This is why I urge the Government not to throw the baby out with the bath-water and, in many instances, to think again. I have my Amendment 506A in this group, which simply says that, before the Bill is passed or enacted, the Government’s own curriculum review needs to be published and consulted on.
The legislation before us requires that all schools follow the national curriculum, yet there is no agreed national curriculum. Instead, the Government want to review that curriculum, which is fair enough, but that review will not even be published before we are asked to vote “blind”. It is simply wrong for a Bill to force schools to follow a particular curriculum when we have not been told what is in it: cart before horse and all that.
More broadly, we have spent a long, long time on this Bill so far. Outside of here, the Bill is informally known as the Schools Bill, yet we have managed not to discuss the whole reason for schools—to educate children into the world of knowledge—until this point. Educating children requires us to agree on what the content of that education consists of. The curriculum is not, or should not be, an afterthought. It is key: the raison d’être for schools as vehicles used by one generation to pass on to the next the canonical knowledge of humanity. When taught well, it is our greatest tool for social mobility. It is neither a fixed body of knowledge nor frozen in aspic. It changes over time. It is often contested and can be challenged, but it is a key component of educating the young.
The argument epitomised by this group of amendments asks whether every school needs to follow the same curriculum that every school must follow, yet we do not know what curriculum we are talking about, despite how important the curriculum is. The Government recognise that, which is why they set up the review. Taking three of the amendments we have here gives us some sort of meat on what the curriculum bone might be or what the arguments might be. One calls for financial education in primary schools, which we have already heard motivated. There is one to come on education for growing food and food preparation and another on education for voting.
You might say that those curriculum-related amendments are “hobby-horse” amendments. I am not saying that in an insulting way: they suggest the interests of the people putting them forward. They could all be creative and positive in a particular head’s hands with certain groups of pupils, depending on how they were used. If you get any group of teachers, parents, adults or indeed pupils together at any time and ask what should go into the curriculum, there are always very lively and creative discussions about priorities, what should matter, and so on and so forth.
The point I am making is that, even at the best of times, the curriculum is something that is a source of dispute. It can be liberating, transformative and inspiring, but it can be—and we all know this to be true—overly ideological, propagandist, politicised and used as a device for social engineering. As I said at Second Reading, I worry when Professor Becky Francis says that her curriculum review will look at what is taught through a “social justice lens”, with an emphasis on inclusivity. I am afraid I think of some of the more divisive aspects of identity politics and some of the arguments that have been had over critical race theory in schools, decolonisation and so on. It fills me with dread.
This Government have already had to pick up the pieces of curriculum mis-steps in relation to RSHE, as parents across the UK have become shocked to discover that their children were covering highly sexualised and age-inappropriate content and that some schools were affirming children in their chosen gender identities, a form of social transitioning now broadly discredited. I commend the Government for tackling that and taking it on: the point I am making is that all of that was inspired by centralised curriculum diktats. I therefore think we have to consider what the centralised curriculum diktat for all schools will be after the curriculum review.
Professor Francis has apparently said that the review will look at the alleged problem that the curriculum is too heavy. My problem is that we are now being asked to vote on legislation in a “curriculum lite” way, with the curriculum absent, despite a hugely significant mandate that all schools must follow this curriculum.
We are told that the curriculum review will address barriers to attainment, but so far the hints we have been given into the review look to be blaming exams and a curriculum that is overly academic for creating too much stress and anxiety for pupils—something that I completely disagree with. This hints at a new assessment regime that will be less stressful, and I am afraid that that fuels genuine concerns among educators that the curriculum review might amount to a recipe for lower academic standards. As we have seen in both Scotland and Wales, which have completely upended their curriculum in recent years, attainment has plummeted, sometimes below the OECD average.
I have not yet decided whether the Bill’s Clause 47 is totally wrong-headed and should be dropped, although I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, made a very good case that was worth considering. I am sold on the idea of a common entitlement for all children, and I am not opposed in principle to a national curriculum for all. But the Government should not be rigid and there should be more flexibility. Amendment 444 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would allow for that, so I am very interested in that.
However, none of this is the point of my amendment. This Bill says that all schools follow a national curriculum but will not tell us what is in it before we are being asked to rubber-stamp it. It reminds me of one FE student I taught. He was a bit of a cheeky chap. He missed a deadline for his GCSE and he said out loud in the class: “Can’t you just pass me, miss? I’ll show you the essay when I’ve written it later”. I thought that was a bit of a cheek, and I am afraid the same cheek is being displayed by the Government. I urge them to get their essay in on time, or at least to allow us to not have to vote until we have seen the essay.
Lord Storey (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for that. It has made me think, and I will come back to some of the points she made.
In the 1970s, we did not have a national curriculum and schools could teach whatever they liked. There was only one subject they had to teach, and that was RE. Along came the William Tyndale School in London, which decided that its curriculum was going to be progressively radical and its teaching methods very child-centric. Relationships at the school broke down completely between staff and children, and the Government of the day had to step in. Then came along a Mr Ken Clarke—the noble Lord, Lord Clarke—with his national curriculum, which said that we as a society have a duty to spell out what we expect our school children to learn. The national curriculum was born. But it is not a national curriculum, because it is not taught in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, and, as we know, it is not taught in over half of our schools, because they can choose what they want to teach.
These amendments make us question what we should teach. Do we think we should teach financial education in school? I think we should, but why should it be left to an individual school to decide that? Should we not, as a society, decide that? I firmly believe that water safety should be taught in schools, but it is not down to me; it is down to individual academies to make that decision. Should we insist that every primary school pupil should have swimming lessons and be able to swim 25 metres before they leave primary school? I think that is really important—I wonder how many other people think that is important. But it is not down to us; it is down to individual academies.
I welcome the curriculum review. I did not put down an amendment saying that water safety should be included because I am not carrying out the curriculum review, but the organisation I am a patron of has written and given evidence as to why that should be the case, as I think a number of people have for financial education. We wait to see what the review suggests.
I believe that one of the strengths of academies has been that they have built flexibility into the curriculum of their choice. I am just making the case—it will not be for me to decide—that there could be an opportunity for all schools to have some flexibility when deciding their curriculums.
I will end by discussing what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said. She is right, but each individual academy that is deciding its own curriculum does not come to us and ask whether we agree with it. They just get on with it—they are just allowed to do it. Maybe the noble Baroness is right that there should be a political decision about what is taught in our national curriculum. That is a very interesting thought, and I will leave the Committee with it.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 502X, to which I have added my name and which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. This is what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, just described as a hobby-horse. I suspect that, into that description, she would put the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, with which I could not agree more. What is education for if not to equip our children to deal with the world in the best possible way? Money certainly should be part of it.
My short amendment addresses food. Currently, 25% of five year-old kids are going into primary school overweight or obese, and the figure is between 40% and 45% for those coming out of primary school. We all have to eat and we all have to deal with the food system. A previous Government said many years ago that part of the education system would include children learning to cook five savoury dishes by the time they are 15. That barely happens in schools because they do not have kitchens and there is no requirement on them to do it, and therefore it falls by the wayside.
For 10 years, I ran the London Food Board. We set up a project called Capital Growth, which was linked to the Olympics. In that time, we created 2,500 community gardens in London, of which about 500 were in schools. They were in super weird places in schools—one was in a shopping trolley round the back of the sports hut. Nevertheless, people were growing potatoes, and the kids were amazed by it, because in one bang they got a sense of nature, wonder and growing, as well as a sense of patience, effort and doing something together. I went to one particularly inspirational school, where they had 43 basic first languages, and the headmaster explained how he used beans to teach people to do maths. He had nine beans, for example, and he said, “Make three rows”, and the children would say, “That’s three times three”. A whole range of things was possible in being able to swap cultures.
This could be described as a hobby-horse, in that I believe that this is very healthy and good for children, and we do not want our children being unwell—and yet that is what is happening. We are bringing up a generation of kids who are overweight; they do not do enough exercise, but, ultimately, they are eating terrible food. You can blame parents as much as you like, but at the moment parents are poor and healthier food is more expensive. Therefore, the school, I am afraid, has to be one of the places where children are taught about and encouraged to try different foods, to learn how to cook and to understand that the fuel they put in their bodies, just like the fuel you put in a car, is extremely important to their health outcomes. If they have lousy health outcomes, they will not get great jobs, they will not have a great life, they will have sick days and they will not be useful to this country or to themselves.
This is a fundamental element of life that needs to be incorporated into school curriculums, and not just as a hobby-horse. Obviously, the subject will differ, because it depends quite a bit on the passion of the teachers. However, most schools that I know that have done this have said that it has paid off massively. I would like to see whether the Minister can find some way to incorporate this kind of teaching into the schools of the future.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in my name in this group and make the case that Clause 47 should not stand part of the Bill.
There are three main reasons for our objection to Clause 47. The first is the wider point, which we have discussed in our debates on other groups, about the value of autonomy at a school or trust level combined with clear accountability. This clause removes the autonomy that academies have had over the curriculum while disregarding the safeguards that exist via both the public exam system and the 2019 Ofsted inspection framework. Without this autonomy, we risk stifling the innovation and creativity that we have seen in recent years, where leading trusts have developed high-quality curricula and shared them freely with other schools. My noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park gave some fantastic examples, including among some of our wonderful free schools.
I am not suggesting that the Government want to see the stifling of creativity—I am sure that they want quite the reverse—but they need to explain how things will work in practice if this clause is to become law. I thank my noble friend Lord Sewell for his powerful intervention and for the extraordinary impact that he and others had on schools in Hackney; that is still being ably implemented by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton.
Secondly, the Secretary of State has tremendous powers over the curriculum, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. A future Secretary of State could use those powers to be much more prescriptive in terms of not just what needs to be in the main elements of the national curriculum—English, maths and science, in particular—but how those elements are taught, which the previously Government intentionally avoided doing. Indeed, we wanted to give all schools space outside the core subjects of the national curriculum so that they could exercise their discretion. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, that I have definitely visited schools that are busy doing beekeeping and other things of which, I am sure, she would approve. So the Secretary of State has the power to expand the national curriculum.
Thirdly, as for much of this Bill, as other noble Lords have said, we just do not see that there is a problem that needs solving in this way. My noble friend Lady Spielman was clear in her time as Ofsted’s chief inspector that some academies narrowed the curriculum too much. This was addressed by the inspectorate under the previous framework, so the system already has the checks and balances that it needs to make sure that schools cannot game the system. The picture that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, painted—that of academies teaching whatever they wanted—is not an accurate one, given that, as I said earlier, they enter public exams and are all inspected by Ofsted.
I respectfully suggest to the Minister that this clause is not needed and risks doing more harm than good. As we will debate in a later group, we would much rather recognise the strengths of maintained schools and give their leaders greater flexibility. Further, a number of schools simply do not have the facilities needed to deliver certain parts of the curriculum, such as design and technology. Can the Minister confirm that, if this clause becomes law, the department will fund the necessary investment to address these gaps?
I was very pleased to add my name to Amendment 443 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. He expertly set out the problems with the Henry VIII powers in this Bill. I know that time is short, so perhaps the Minister could write to the noble Lord—indeed, to all of your Lordships—setting out exactly the Government’s understanding of what these Henry VIII powers cover and how they could be used, not by the current Secretary of State but by a future Secretary of State, because I think that we need our legislation to protect us against all flavours of Secretary of State and government.
I am concerned that Amendment 506D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, does not reflect the reality that the Secretary of State can make all of these changes to the curriculum via regulation and can amend primary legislation.
The amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, would try to carve out exemptions for high-performing schools. I absolutely support the spirit of them.
This debate comes at a time when, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, we are awaiting the recommendations of the curriculum and assessment review. As can be seen from many of the amendments in this group, there is pressure to introduce more and more subjects into the curriculum. Apparently, in 2018, the organisation Parents and Teachers for Excellence counted 213 topics that were recommended in that year for inclusion in the curriculum. The question remains: if the curriculum is expanded, what has to come out?
Ministers in both Houses have sought to assure us that we do not need to worry about these changes, but the Minister will understand that the curriculum reforms led by the previous Government, which have contributed so significantly to our improvement in the global rankings in reading, maths and science, were hard won and hard fought. So, in addition to our principled objection to removing autonomy from school leaders rather than extending it to maintained schools, there is a deep-seated worry that the siren calls for a more progressive approach to the curriculum might gain traction despite the best efforts of the review team, which is ably led by Professor Becky Francis, for whom I have great respect.
I close not with the words of Ernest Bevin but by quoting, as other noble Lords have done in our debate on this group, from a blog written by Mark McCourt, the chair of the Advantage Schools Trust. He speaks for many of us in terms of why we all feel so anxious that the Government get this curriculum review right. He writes:
“To offer a demanding, powerful curriculum to every child is not elitist. It is egalitarian. It says to the child: you are worthy of this knowledge. You are capable of wrestling with complexity. You deserve access to the accumulated wisdom and accomplishments of those who came before you. This is your birthright and it is now yours to own and protect … We are not gatekeepers. We are door openers. And if we do not open those doors, especially for the children least likely to find them on their own, then we are complicit in keeping them shut”.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, an up-to-date, knowledge-rich curriculum is key to ensuring high and rising standards in schools, setting a clear minimum expectation of breadth for pupils. Parents have the right to expect that their child, regardless of their background, can access a consistent, high-quality core education that builds the knowledge and skills they need to thrive without the worry that some subjects may be dropped for ease.
The independent curriculum and assessment review is evaluating the existing national curriculum and statutory assessment system. Its final report will help us develop a rich, cutting-edge curriculum that secures a strong foundation in reading, writing and maths while providing breadth to give children a culturally rich education that prepares them for life, work and the future.
We want all children to benefit from that, which is why Clause 47 will require academies, which now teach more than half of all pupils, to teach that reformed curriculum alongside maintained schools. The point about the prevalence of academies is important for not just this debate but the debates that we will have on the coming groups. In this legislation, we are talking about the basic and appropriate requirements for a vast and growing majority of our schools. I have to say, a national curriculum that applies to a dwindling minority of schools is not a national curriculum.
This requirement provides a floor, but no ceiling. It will not force schools to teach in a certain way or prevent them innovating. Teachers will continue to have the flexibility to adapt to best meet the needs of their pupils.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comprehensive answer. I have heard much about good intentions and a great deal of hope being hung on the curriculum and assessment review, but not much acknowledgement of how a number of noble Lords have pointed out that this clause could backfire, especially without better controls and guards. My noble friend Lady Evans laid out particularly lucidly how academy freedoms have enriched and strengthened education. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, echoed my noble friend Lord Agnew’s concerns about the undetermined curriculum and reminded us about the essence and purposes of education and the risks of limiting the scrutiny of what is taught. We had a good case study from my noble friend Lord Sewell.
There are a couple of interesting points. Design and technology GCSE entries started dropping off in the late 1990s. Most of the decline has been the result of schools using their autonomy to structure timetables to teach less of it and to have fewer people taking those GCSEs. The safeguards were not there around design and technology for a very long period, so thinking about those controls and incentives really matters.
My fear remains that this clause may encourage lip service to the detail of the new curriculum, whatever it is. But if that comes at the expense of the intellectual energy and dynamism that have been generated in the school sector in recent years, it will drag English education inexorably backwards and, in a few years’ time, we might find ourselves languishing with Scotland and Wales in the international league tables, wondering what on earth we have done and why we ever thought that it was a good idea. Nevertheless, I understand where we are and that the curriculum and assessment review needs to report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Defence Industrial Strategy
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I place on record my support for the enormous amount of work that has clearly gone into the production of this industrial strategy. It is very evident that those at the Ministry of Defence have put their thinking caps on, done the hard work and constructed a plan based around defence’s current and future requirements. There is therefore much to be applauded. The six priority outcomes are absolutely aiming in the right direction and the commitment to strengthening the MoD’s links with SMEs is particularly welcome.
A strong industrial base is vital for the future of our Armed Forces and our defensive resilience as a whole. The need has never been more evident than today, when we have seen a Russian incursion into a NATO ally’s airspace and the largest attack in Ukraine by Russia to date. This escalation is deeply troubling and underlines the importance of swiftly putting Britain into war-fighting readiness.
This is a solid piece of work, but the caveat is this: the solid piece of work crumbles if the bricks are not cemented together. That cement is implementation at a wartime pace. What matters now is that the words on these pages are translated into missiles, drones, equipment and ships. Critical to this is procurement. The chilling reality is that procurement has essentially dried up. There have been promising words in the SDR, but we have yet to see the major procurement contracts that the MoD has promised.
Procurement is the lifeblood of a successful industrial strategy. For example, I ask the Minister: how will the Government ensure that the Typhoon factory in Warton remains open and thriving? We have heard that the Government will be opening up six new munitions factories, but they must have orders. When will they be placed?
I understand that the promised defence investment plan will detail much of the procurement endeavour, but when? The defence industry has been waiting with bated breath since July of last year, and industry must have greater certainty. I implore the Minister to do everything in his power to ensure that the defence investment plan is published as soon as possible. In that connection, will the UK’s defence orders be joining a queue or with they be prioritised over orders for export?
When it comes to the new structures within the MoD, co-ordination of accountability to the Secretary of State is paramount. At the same time, duplication must be eradicated. The SDR and this strategy both mention the creation of a number of new bodies within the MoD: UK Defence Innovation, the Defence Industrial Joint Council, the office of defence exports, a defence office for small business growth and the national armaments director.
The strategic defence review identified a 10% reduction in Civil Service costs by 2030. Can the Minister clarify how, with the addition of these new offices, the MoD will achieve that staffing cost reduction? What existing structures will be merged or abolished, and who will be auditing progress? While I am on this topic, can the Minister update the House on the progress of appointing the national armaments director?
Page 30 of the industrial strategy details nine milestones to be reached by the end of this year. I do not believe any of these have as yet materialised, and the end of the year is fast approaching. Is the Minister confident that the 2025 timeline will be met?
In conclusion, I raise an issue that will come as no surprise to the Minister—budget. My right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State and I have raised concerns about the bundling together of intelligence spending within the defence budget. That means that, despite the Government’s claims of spending 2.6% of GDP on defence by 2027, the actual money available to the MoD for defence spending is 2.2% of GDP. I am not trying to catch the Minister out, but I want to make this clear: the Government may have increased defence spending, but this level of spend is simply not enough to deliver everything in the SDR and indeed in this industrial strategy.
The Russian incursion into Polish airspace yesterday and the triggering of Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty serve as a stark warning: complacency is not an option. The contents of this strategy, which, as I have said, these Benches fully support, cannot be a prayer for the future. Wartime pace means delivering from now on and, quite simply, there is no safe alternative.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure and a challenge to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who has such expertise in this area. We on these Benches also welcome the Government’s announcement of this new defence industrial strategy. We support the objectives of both boosting defence capability and increasing economic activity within our country. As someone who has worked in the sector—I no longer have an interest in it—I can say that, in the main, the jobs in the defence sector are high-quality jobs that pay well over the national average, so they are very worthwhile jobs for our citizens. More than that, they will contribute in large measure, we hope, to the resilience and security of our country.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, I will focus on procurement. I will not repeat the questions that she has already asked, although I am very interested in the answers. It is clear that an improved framework is needed and that, in the Government’s own words, waste, delay and complexity have prevailed. Big changes are therefore needed. We also support the aims of involving more SMEs and driving innovation. These are important, but how? Section 7 of the strategy sets out some details of process, but I would suggest that, as well as process, this all requires an entire change of culture across the sector, from the MoD to the primes and the SMEs. How will the Government fast-track the necessary culture changes that we need in order to move at pace?
The implementation of a UK offset regime is welcome and the sections in the strategy are encouraging. I appreciate that consultation is needed, but I also note that there are—we hope—contracts being let already before this regime is put in. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House how any offsets will be gained from contracts that are let before then?
Similarly, a buy British focus is really good and very important. However, some contracts are being let at the moment that do the exact opposite. They are contracts that may call into question the future of established capacity in this country: capacity that, once lost, will not be regained. Can the Minister therefore ensure that these are reviewed as soon as possible to ensure that permanent damage is not being done before this strategy is implemented. I will be happy to discuss further details on that with the Minister.
In the Spring Statement, Rachel Reeves confirmed an extra £2.2 billion of UK military funding. This increase will be paid for by cuts in overseas aid, which the Minister knows we deplore. This strategy contains spending of £773 million on the Government’s estimate, but can the Minister confirm that this is not in fact new money, but money out of the pot that was announced in the spring by the Chancellor? At the time, the Chancellor also announced the new Defence Growth Board. Can the Minister say what role this will play, and indeed what role it has played in the preparation of this strategy? How does this fit with the new defence investors advisory group that is announced in the strategy?
I also seek information on the whereabouts of the Defence Growth Partnership, which has been in place for some time and shares many of the same aims, particularly around SMEs and innovation. What is its role? Is it still working and how does it contribute?
A key drag on the success of this strategy will be the lack of available skills. Part of this announcement includes skills investment, which is largely focused on five new defence technology colleges. This is also welcome, as is the emphasis on apprentices. However, what is the role of Skills England in all this, given that it was supposed to be part of the picture on the national skills programme.
Following events, it is very clear that things are moving very fast globally, and moving in the wrong direction. They underscore the vital importance of working alongside our European allies in securing the UK’s defence. As I am sure the Minister will tell us, we continue to play key roles in JEF, E3 and other groupings, while NATO is of course our foremost security defence relationship and always will be. However, more can be done to deepen the co-operation and integration with our European allies. They share security challenges and together we can build scale to rearm at pace. Will the Government, for example, now agree to seek the UK’s associate membership of the European Defence Agency?
While EU institutions have a more limited role in defence, the Security Action for Europe—SAFE—defence fund is being established by the EU Commission. Recognising the opportunity that SAFE presents, the Minister of State, Stephen Doughty, told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on Monday:
“It is a €150 billion instrument. It is very significant and could lead to significant opportunities for our defence industries”.
Can the Minister therefore update your Lordships’ House on the UK’s discussions with the Commission and the nation states on our participation in SAFE and tell us whether UK industry will be eligible to bid in the first round, which I believe is in November?
I have lots more queries, but I close by saying that this strategy is a first step and I absolutely concur with the noble Baroness that implementation is key to its success. We will happily support and work with the Government to help deliver the strategy and its objectives.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his constructive comments about the strategy and the important questions he asked. I know it is from a position of support for our overall direction. I say the same to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie; I know that her questions are from a position of overall support for the strategy, but seek clarification on how we can improve it in the interests of our country and the nation’s Armed Forces. I very much appreciate the comments from both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.
Notwithstanding the points that have just been made, sometimes we, as a nation, do not praise some of the things that are happening. Yesterday I was at DSEI at the Excel centre, which I know the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will be aware of. It was a phenomenal statement about UK industry and UK business—small, medium and large—and what a phenomenal statement about the projection of British power across the globe. Many noble Lords have told me they have been, or will go, to DSEI and they too have been overwhelmed by the number of foreign visitors, armed forces and businesses that are here.
So, yes, there are questions about our strategy and how we might do better, but I challenge anybody—and this is for the audience out there, rather than in here—to not say that we have an awful lot of which to be proud in this country when we look at DSEI. I know that is a view shared by everyone, and it is an important starting point.
The strategy seeks to do more in different ways. I will try to run through many of the questions asked by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Yes, it is about trying to get to war-fighting readiness. We cannot have a situation, now or in the future, where we cannot do what we want to do because we cannot produce the equipment we need at the pace we need it. We must do better than we have done, and part of that is building our sovereign capability. Of course we will work with our international allies, but sovereign capability has been something that we have not given enough attention to over the past few decades. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked about the implementation plan. A whole chapter is dedicated to implementation. In each part, there are matrices about being held to account. The noble Baroness is right that on page 30 there are things that have yet to be implemented. I would point out that the strategy was published on Monday, but we are doing our best to get going.
On implementation, can I read directly from a note I was given, since I asked about this? An implementation team headed by a senior civil servant has been created. The Chancellor and the Defence Secretary—note to the noble Lord, Lord Fox—will hold the department to account via the defence growth board, and the Defence Industrial Joint Council will monitor delivery with our industry partners. The defence growth board will continue to exist to try to ensure, through the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary, that all the various things that are outlined in the strategy are delivered.
In relation to what the noble Baroness said, we are working hard to try to protect jobs with respect to Typhoon. We have allocated £6 billion to munitions factories over the lifetime of the Parliament, with the six additional munitions sites, to try to ensure that we can have the munitions that we need. The defence investment plan will be this autumn.
The 10% reduction in the Civil Service headcount that the noble Baroness referred to is the aspiration. The new boards and bodies that are set up will see others disappear, others amalgamated, but all of it trying to give a greater focus. The noble Baroness went through some of the new bodies. They are not in addition to the existing bodies; they are going to be more directly focused to deliver the outcome we want and will subsume some of the existing bodies. We wait to see how that happens.
On the national armaments director, we have an interim director who will be in post for a period while we recruit the new director. I am not certain of the exact timetable for that. In terms of intelligence spending and defence spending, I think the amalgamation of that is not a smoke and mirrors; it is to try to reflect the reality of the new geopolitical context of our time, where we talk about homeland defence, cyber, and the importance of our security agencies working with our Armed Forces. The totality of the defence and security of our nation encapsulates all the above, and that is the totality of the spending. The noble Baroness and others can debate whether it is enough, but that is the concept behind joining those two together—to give us a sense of how much is being spent in the sphere. I know my noble friend Lord Beamish is behind us and will know the importance of some of the work that intelligence does to keep us safe, particularly from a homeland perspective.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about fast-tracking cultural change. I totally agree with that. Let me give the noble Lord one example of that. Why does the urgent operational requirement operate only when there is a war or a crisis? Why can we not bring that same culture—I think the noble Baroness asked this when she was a Minister—that same process and that same attitude to the situation when it is not a crisis or a war? It is not about being flippant; it is not about disregarding proper financial process, but it is about saying: “Come on, let’s get these decisions made; let’s give some certainty; let’s give a drumbeat to orders”. If we can do that, we will do ourselves a favour. I am perfectly happy to meet the noble Lord and others, if he wishes, with my colleague. I will volunteer him for it with the Defence Procurement Minister, and we can discuss the point he made about offset.
Offset is a really interesting concept as we go forward—the idea of trying to have mutual benefits. If we buy abroad, how can we ensure through offset that we do not lose any benefit that may accrue or that a complementary benefit accrues to UK industry? I take the noble Lord’s point, which was on what happens before the offset system comes into effect, and we will consult on that. What happens if decisions are made now? I will take some advice on that and talk to the noble Lord and his friends.
The noble Lord also mentioned skills. Skills is a massive issue for our country. If a cultural change is needed anywhere, it is in trying to ensure that skills-based occupations, skills-based learning and skills-based opportunities are seen to be as valuable as some of the other opportunities. That the skills option is not seen in that way has bedevilled our country for decades. We are trying to deal with that through the defence technical colleges. We are going to work with Skills England and the devolved nations—he will have noticed that the devolved colleges are here.
On working with our European allies, of course we will work with them. We have the EU-UK security and defence partnership. I say to the noble Lord that we could not have entered SAFE without an EU-UK security partnership. The fact that we have that means that we can start to answer all the questions that the noble Lord has asked.
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their support; I hope that I have answered many of the questions that they asked. This is an exciting time. At the end of the day, the defence industry is on the front line with us. If we want to defend our democracy, we need to improve, extend and develop our industrial capability as well.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, as the chair of the International Chamber of Commerce UK, I am absolutely delighted with the defence industrial strategy. Back in 2019, we debated the 70th anniversary of NATO. I was the only Peer in that debate who said that our defence expenditure should be 3% of GDP, rather than 2% as it then was. I am delighted to see that the strategy says that we are going to go up to 3.5%. Does the Minister agree that, sadly, with the world that we live in now, it will probably need to go up to 5% very soon?
The strategy is very good, but it does not talk about global strategy. I am co-chair of the India All-Party Parliamentary Group. Given our skills that the Minister spoke about, is there not an opportunity to partner with countries such as India, which has defence manufacturing as a priority, to our benefit as well?
The Minister spoke about skills. What about universities? As a former chancellor of the University of Birmingham, I have seen first-hand the power of business and universities working together. There is huge potential here for defence.
Finally, on defence procurement—which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, spoke about—should it not be compulsory for everyone in defence procurement to be qualified through the Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply, which is headquartered here in the UK?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will take that last point about procurement to my honourable friend Luke Pollard MP, who is the Minister in the other place. On defence spending, the debate continues on how much it should increase, but I am glad to see that the trajectory across Europe is towards increased spending. I will focus on the global strategy. Within the department, we are also working on a refreshed defence diplomacy strategy that we will see in due course.
On India specifically, I have been to India and spoken to officials about the relationship between our two countries and the trade that may take place. The noble Lord will know that the carrier strike group is visiting India on its way back. Again, that is part of the development of relationships between us and other nations. All that is focused. Whenever a Minister goes to another country—I am going to the Philippines next week—we put defence exports and business at the forefront of what we do. The carrier strike group had defence business activity all over it when it was in Tokyo Bay just a few days ago.
We are making progress, and I know that that progress is supported by everyone. Is there more to do? Yes, but there is an awful lot happening, particularly with countries such as India.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this strategy. It is the first proper defence strategy that we have had since the strategy produced in 2005 by the noble Lord, Lord Drayson. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie: the pace at which it will be delivered is important. I must say to my noble friend that my heart sank a little bit when he started reeling off the list of committees that are going to oversee this. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is right: we need a cultural change. A possible idea would be to give each of the Minister’s civil servants a copy of the excellent book, Freedom’s Forge, by Arthur Herman, which talks about the rearmament of America in the last war. Can the Minister give assurance on the pace of delivery, and that regions such as the north-east, which, along with many others, has a proud history of supporting the UK’s Armed Forces, will be able not only to respond to it but to get investment from the MoD and suppliers?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I absolutely take my noble friend’s point on the need for pace. Even though I listed some committees, they will be the result of an amalgamation of certain bodies, so I hope that will be of some reassurance.
I thank my noble friend for his comments on the need for defence jobs and defence investment to be not only in the south and south-east but across the regions. He has been a brilliant champion of the north-east for a number of years in the other place. He has spoken to me about other industries, such as shipbuilding, with respect to the north-east and other areas of the country. As for the defence growth deals, we have seen two in England, in South Yorkshire and Plymouth, and then those in the nations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Such growth deals will ensure that the defence investment taking place will be spread across the country and benefit the whole country.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I warmly welcome this Statement, with its intent to create British jobs across the UK and make defence an engine for economic growth. I especially like—this will come as no surprise to the Minister—the reference to a union dividend. I want to probe the Minister a little on how SMEs across the UK—including in Northern Ireland, where we have a history of innovation and flexibility—can be practically helped to be part of the supply chain in those huge announcements, such as the one we saw last week with Norway. How can we practically help those companies to become part of the supply chain in those enormous deals? I congratulate the Government on that as well.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comment about the Type 26 success that our country had and the frigates that will be built on the Clyde. It is a massive success for our industry. I also thank her for her continued efforts with respect to small businesses, not only in Northern Ireland but across the whole of the UK.
I hope the noble Baroness will notice that in the defence industrial strategy we tried hard to make sure that all the regions and the nations of the UK were properly represented. In one diagram on page 33, the noble Baroness will see the number of jobs in Northern Ireland: a total of 3,300 MOD-supported direct industry, civilian and military jobs. The noble Baroness is quite right to point out that we need to make sure that it is not only Thales in Northern Ireland which is of benefit, important as that is, but the small and medium-sized businesses. I do not want to incur the wrath of my noble friend Lord Beamish, but we have set up a specific body to drive small business growth and made a commitment to ensure that billions of pounds-worth of investment in the industry is directed towards small and medium-sized businesses.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, I would like to offer a dissenting opinion, but some noble Lords will be used to that. I strongly support industrial policy, but the coupling of defence and industrial strategy needs some thought. It suggests that industrial policy is driven by military needs, whereas in fact the case for industrial policy needs to be made apart from that. To a student of economic history, it is reminiscent of military Keynesianism, which was born in the Second World War, continued in the Cold War and dropped only with the end of the Cold War. There seems to be a pattern here.
Is the Minister entirely comfortable with basing the case for industrial policy on the need to rearm, as developed in the strategic defence review? I support industrial policy, but I would not want to hinge my whole argument on the need to rearm. That itself is something that needs to be discussed quite independently of the case for industrial policy.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I know that the noble Lord has an opinion that not many people agree with, including me, but I appreciate that he puts it forward time and again in a respectful, calm and intellectual way. He is to be congratulated on that.
My argument to him would be this. There is a need to rearm and a defence industrial policy has to be geared towards the rearmament that needs to take place. I will give him one example, with which I know he will disagree. My premise is that it is a good thing that we are supporting Ukraine. Despite what we have been doing, with the defence industry as it was, we—not only us but other European countries—were not able to deliver the equipment necessary for Ukraine to do all that it wanted to do as easily as it could. That is a difficult, if not dangerous, position for us and our allies to be in.
I made this point at DSEI yesterday. I said that, as a Minister of State for the UK MoD, I do not want to be in a position where I believe in supporting Ukraine but read in the paper—as I did, going back probably a year—that Ukraine had had to withdraw because it did not have the necessary military equipment to continue the fight. That is not a situation we should be in. Part of dealing with that is to develop our defence industry and improve its capability and capacity, so we are not in a position where we cannot support those we would wish to support.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests re the defence sector. As has been said, there is much to welcome in this document, but we need a full day debate on the subject. To try to rush everything in 40 minutes or so is, frankly, ridiculous and an insult to the importance of it.
There is a small number of specific questions I would like to put to the Minister. First, there is no mention in the document—I found this disappointing—of the need to reduce the bloated number of civil servants already employed by the Ministry of Defence. What plans has the Minister got to streamline defence procurement personnel? Secondly, the very important role of the new National Armaments Director is a massive job and probably will be one of the most important in the UK. What sort of salary level are we talking about to attract the top people available? Page 18 of the strategy document, on resilience and reducing supply chain vulnerabilities, talks about an additional £1.5 billion in an “always on” pipeline for munitions. Could the Minister give me an indication of how that is arrived at? Finally, and this has not been touched on at all, have hugely important production sites in the UK, such as at Barrow, that are vital to our national defence. Is any thought being given to the protection of these key sites in the deployment of anti-missile systems and similar? There is nothing that I can see in the document about this and it is something we should begin to focus on.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. On his first point, about personnel, and his last point, about the security of sites, this is not the only defence document. There are defence documents that deal with personnel and what we might do about that. Similarly, there are reviews concerning the security of sites, partly because of Brize Norton but partly because we recognise there is a need for investment in that. He will see, over the next few months, various announcements made about the better protection of not only industrial sites but military bases—as he will with respect to personnel. That is the point I would make: not every single thing to do with defence is in the defence industrial strategy.
The National Armaments Director pillar exists only because of the defence reform we have introduced to create four pillars within the Ministry of Defence, of which the armaments director is one. The noble Lord is right about its importance. I do not know the exact figure—I can look it up and write to him—but it is the necessary salary. I remember looking at it and thinking it was a lot of money, but that is based on my idea of what a lot a money is. I thought it appropriate, let us put it that way.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will put that in writing for the noble Lord.
The “always on” pipeline is about trying to ensure that we have a situation where we can always, if we need to, step up our production much more quickly, rather than be in a situation where we have to wait two years before we can do this or that. An “always on” pipeline means, in essence, that we can get the equipment and munitions we need quickly.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, this is a very welcome strategy; I give it my full support. I will give it even more support when its theory and proposals have been turned into practicalities. The problems and delays that we have experienced in replacing war stocks that have been passed to the Ukrainians are well known and underline the need for proper resupply and resilience. One of the issues is around the recently announced building of six new munitions factories. Is the Minister in a position yet to say where they will be and when they will come on stream? Also, who is going to meet the cost of setting them up?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The state will work with others to support the establishment of those munitions factories. I am not in a position at the moment to say to the noble and gallant Lord where those six places will be; that is still a matter for discussion. As far as I am aware, that has not been resolved yet, but, if I am wrong, I will write to the noble and gallant Lord. As of this evening, I believe that there is no news on exactly where those six places will be; if I am wrong, I will write to him and put a copy of the letter in the Library to correct the record.
On the noble and gallant Lord’s more general point about munitions, he is right—this goes back to a point that a number of noble Lords have made—that we have to be in a situation where we can manufacture the equipment and munitions that we need. We must be in a position where, if we need to fight, we can fight because we have the sovereign industrial capability to do it. We are not in that situation at the moment. We are not in the place where we need to be, particularly given the current situation. The entire industrial strategy is about ensuring that the UK has the military industrial capability and capacity to do the things it needs and to fight the wars it might have to fight. I hope—I know that the noble and gallant Lord supports this—that we reach a situation where, by preparing for war, we deter war.
Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)
My Lords, one area where the UK has a unique specialism is demining. We are home to the world’s two largest demining organisations: the Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group. It is important that we continue to build on this world-leading expertise, as the unprecedented rise in global conflict means that the need for mine action has never been greater. Will the Minister consider what more His Majesty’s Government can do to uphold and strengthen the UK’s commitment to the global mine action programme?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I have met members of the Halo Trust; I am perfectly happy to meet them again if that would be of any help.
We are committed to demining and all of the various treaties on it. We are proud to be a part of that. We will continue to pursue the objectives of those treaties and of bodies such as the Halo Trust, which try to prevent mines being placed in the first place, as well as supporting demining; we are very supportive of all of that. I thank the noble Baroness for bringing up a subject that is slightly different to some of the things that we have been discussing but is still hugely important to both our country and various other countries around the world.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, in welcoming the Statement, I want to press the Minister further on the role of SMEs in defence, innovation and supply chains. Will the Government ensure that the UK’s space economy, which is vital for secure communications and situational awareness, is embedded in defence planning and procurement?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Of course. That is a really important point and another aspect of the development of an industrial strategy. On small businesses, when we launched the defence industrial strategy on Monday, I deliberately went to Drone Evolution, a small company in Caerphilly, to highlight the importance of small businesses and the contribution that they make to the security of our country. I hope that that is of some reassurance to the noble Lord.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister suggests that campaigns to boycott and target defence firms, particularly on university campuses, are based on misunderstandings. Does he acknowledge that the campaigns occur in the context of British arms sales to dubious—and worse—regimes around the world? There is Israel, of course, under the dark shadow of the indescribably awful situation in Gaza. There is also, notably, Saudi Arabia, which is infamous for its internal human rights abuses. Saudi Arabia is on track this year to beat its own awful record of executions; Reprieve reports 241 to 5 August. Then there is the slaughter that it is linked to in Yemen, as well as the abuse of women’s human rights. Yet, in the first three months of the Labour Government, £1.65 billion of arms exports to Saudi Arabia were approved. Does the Minister agree that there will continue to be resistance while such sales occur?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Let me give a general answer to the variety of points made by the noble Baroness. Of course people can campaign against what they see as the arms trade and against what they see happening in various places across the world. Of course they can campaign about Israel and Saudi Arabia; they can campaign about a whole range of different things. What the document says, however, is that the defence industry is a perfectly legitimate way of doing business in the country.
People like me, and many others, take the view that preventing people being able to offer jobs and opportunities to people at universities or through various trade fairs—that is, the inability of people to do so without fear of intimidation—is not right, either. So it is a dual responsibility. I perfectly accept that, as long as the noble Baroness or anybody else conforms to the law and is non-violent, they can protest. As we saw, there are protesters at DSEI every year—although some went beyond. They are perfectly entitled to protest as long as they keep to the law. However, people are also perfectly entitled to go to DSEI, to purchase defence weapons, and to look at and discuss with other people what more might be done to ensure that we have the equipment we need. That is the only point I would make.
There is not a moral certainty on one side or the other here; that is the point that I want to make. I am sorry to go on about this. It is the same with respect to whether the Armed Forces can go into schools, to defence fairs and all of those things. Of course they should be able to do that. All of those things are really important. It is not a case of, “These people can protest but those can’t”; it is about people mutually respecting each other’s rights to pursue legitimate activity. I respect the noble Baroness’s right and that of others to protest against what I stand for and what I say, but I also recognise that I and many other people have a right to express our view as well.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
“(1) Where the proprietor of an Academy—(a) has breached a relevant duty, or(b) otherwise has acted unreasonably with respect to the performance of a relevant duty, the proprietor must take such steps as are necessary to remedy the breach or unreasonable action and secure the proper performance of the relevant duty.(2) Where the proprietor of an Academy has acted unreasonably with respect to the exercise of a relevant power, the proprietor must take such steps as are necessary to ensure the reasonable exercise of the relevant power. (2A) The proprietor must remedy any breach identified under subsection (1) or (2) within such reasonable period as the circumstances require, having regard to—(a) the nature and seriousness of the breach;(b) the impact or likely impact on pupils' education or welfare;(c) the complexity of the remedial action required;(d) any other relevant circumstances.(2B) Where the Secretary of State is reasonably satisfied that the proprietor of an Academy has breached a relevant duty or otherwise has acted unreasonably with respect to the performance of a relevant duty the Secretary of State may serve notice on the proprietor of an Academy specifying—(a) the breach that has been identified;(b) the relevant duty or power in question;(c) the period within which the proprietor must remedy the breach.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent Clause 49 from granting the Secretary of State the power to (1) issue a direction to an Academy that is “likely” to have breached a relevant duty, and (2) prescribe exactly how any breach should be remedied. Instead, it seeks to give Academies discretion in how they remedy an actual breach of a relevant duty.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, we return. I rise to speak to the amendments to Clause 49, including my intention that Clause 49 should not stand part of the Bill. It is of course reasonable for the Secretary of State to direct academies to comply with their legal duties, but this clause goes much further than that; indeed, it cuts across the academy funding agreements that have served the sector well to date.
Once again, in a familiar pattern, we start with the question of why this clause is needed. Where is the evidence of non-performance of relevant duties on the part of academies or of unreasonable behaviour in relation to either their duties or their powers? Once again, it brings academies into line with local authority-maintained schools, despite the fact that there are already significant powers within both the funding agreements and the academy trust handbook to address any breaches. Once again, we find the Secretary of State at risk of micromanaging, rather than delegating responsibility to the trusts that run over half our schools. Once again, we have to ask ourselves: even if it is not the intention of this Secretary of State to interfere in minor matters in our schools, how might a future Secretary of State use these powers?
Finally, we realised when reading the policy notes that the penalty for non-compliance is, first, a notice to improve and then a termination warning notice—the identical powers that exist today—or, in the words of the then Minister for School Standards arguing in favour of this clause in committee in the other place,
“using a sledgehammer to crack a nut”.—[Official Report, Commons, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee, 4/2/25; col. 383.]
But we end up with the same sledgehammer to crack what looks like quite a small nut.
You could argue that this clause at best creates another layer of bureaucracy and at worst is a micromanager’s charter. A close reading of the policy notes just leaves one asking “Why?” yet again. Not only is the Secretary of State taking powers to require a trust that is at risk of not complying with the new policy on the number of branded items of uniform to do so, but it also allows her to state how that should happen. Perhaps the Secretary of State will decide that the trust should remove a branded book bag, or maybe a tie, but I find it hard to see how this can be a good use of anyone’s time, let alone the Secretary of State’s. So I have a series of amendments that seek to bring back common sense to the Secretary of State’s interventions in these minor breaches, clarity of responsibility, and a reminder that the Secretary of State has considerable powers in the funding agreement, if needed.
My Amendment 444A on page 113 of the Bill aims to bring some proportionality to the power. It makes it clear that the proprietor must remedy any breach identified under subsections (1) or (2) within a reasonable period. In judging what is meant by a reasonable period, it refers to the nature and seriousness of the breach, the impact or likely impact on pupils’ education or welfare, the complexity of the remedial action required and any other relevant circumstances. My new subsection (2B) makes it clear that the Secretary of State can specify the time period within which a breach or unreasonable behaviour must be addressed, but not the method of doing so. Without this clarification, there is a real potential for the power to be used, ironically, in an unreasonable way.
My Amendment 444B removes the ability of the Secretary of State to intervene in the case of a likely breach. It is close to farcical to think of the time, resource and legal advice that would be taken to prepare the letter to a trust with an offending book bag or tie. The writers of “The Thick of It” might use this for a future episode.
Amendment 444C makes it clear that the powers within the funding agreement should be used to address breaches. Amendment 4445—sorry, we have not got into the thousands yet, although we might by the end of this Bill. Amendment 445 again ensures that any directions from the Secretary of State are limited to statutory duties, funding agreements or charity law where there is a breach or unreasonable behaviour in relation to a relevant duty.
My Amendment 445ZA has the same effect in relation to a situation where the proprietor has acted or is proposing to act unreasonably in relation to the performance of a relevant power. I apologise that the explanatory statement on that amendment was inaccurate and referred to a duty rather than a power.
Amendments 445ZC and 445ZD again seek to limit the power of the Secretary of State to a notice rather than a direction, so that the decision about how to address a breach rests with the proprietor. Surely this is a more practical approach than the one set out in the Bill, and clearly the issue needs to be rectified to the Secretary of State’s satisfaction.
We also believe it is important to have visibility on the way these new powers are used, so our Amendment 445ZB requires the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament when the powers are used, explaining the issues arising and the actions taken. I appreciate that currently a notice to improve and termination warning notices are published by the department, but they are really only visible to those of us who read the daily emails from the DfE closely.
It will not surprise the noble Baroness to hear me say that on these Benches we think that Clause 49 should not stand part of the Bill. It is not needed, it is disproportionate and it is drafted in a way that does not align to the purpose set out in the policy notes. My amendments offer the Government some ways to improve that alignment but, honestly, I think it is best removed altogether.
At a time when the Prime Minister is rightly talking about the focus on delivery, surely clauses such as this, which absorb precious ministerial and official time for little impact, should be dropped so the department can focus on much more pressing issues, such as special education needs and disabilities. I hope the Minister will think again and I beg to move the amendment standing in my name in this group.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to amendments 444A to C, 445 and 445ZA to ZD, in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran, which seek to rein in the sweeping new powers currently set out in Clause 49 for the Secretary of State to intervene in academy operations. As my noble friend said, of course the Secretary of State should have the ability to ensure that academies comply with their statutory duties, but the powers currently included in Clause 49 are so broad that they will undermine trust in school leaders, significantly reduce academy autonomy and create a top-down bureaucracy with potentially over-restrictive government insight.
The clause as currently drafted, for instance, allows for the Secretary of State to give directions they consider appropriate to academies if they are deemed to have acted unreasonably or to be proposing to act unreasonably. To my mind, the effect appears to be that a trust could be punished for actions it has not yet taken, with a central direction initiated simply on the basis of speculation from a Secretary of State. I may have misunderstood but, if this is the case, it surely cannot be right.
In this context, the use of the word “unreasonably” is a further cause for concern. It is a vague and subjective standard, left undefined in Clause 49 as it stands, and it seems to open the door to overreach and potential political interference in individual schools and trusts from Whitehall. Without clear guardrails, it would enable Ministers to meddle in decisions that surely must properly belong to academy trustees and head teachers.
As my noble friend has just said in her opening remarks, the drafting of the clause runs the risk of creating a micromanager’s charter. And the problem does not end there. The powers granted under Clause 49 are not only overly broad; they are also unchecked and have no independent review or appeal mechanisms built in—something which Amendment 445A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, would specifically address.
The group of amendments tabled by my noble friend, along with the amendment in the name of he noble Lord, Lord Knight, would bring some much-needed balance into Clause 49 by restoring proportionality and fairness into the process while maintaining the Secretary of State’s powers to ensure that trusts do not breach their statutory duties, funding agreements or charity law. I hope the Minister will think again about the breadth of powers that the Government are proposing.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I too support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran. As she and my noble friend Lady Evans have pointed out, it is again not obvious why these powers are needed. The existing legislative framework and funding agreements provide ample levers to enforce and hold academy trusts accountable. If there is an implied shift, as there appears to be, away from accountability and towards direct control and management, it is important to remember what we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, this afternoon: he laid out very clearly those underlying principles about high autonomy, balanced with strong accountability, and referred to the problems and weaknesses of some local authorities, which made it necessary and desirable to move to the model that served us well for many years. It would be deeply unfortunate if we end up with a central government that is attempting to manage the entire school system, rather along the lines of one of the weaker local authorities of 40 years ago.
I am worried about the strain that this will place on the Civil Service. I have concerns about people trying to read tea leaves and decide whether a breach is likely. As others have said, it feels like a system that is almost certain to create more contention and disagreement, and more time wasted on legal disputes and challenges to action, than it is to help children by resolving problems early. I support the set of amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Barran. I have not spoken in Committee and apologise for not being available to speak at Second Reading. Although I supported many of the arguments earlier today in respect of teachers’ qualifications, curriculums and so on, I chose to speak on this group of amendments because these clauses go to the essence of the academy and negate much of what an academy is about and what it wishes to do.
These amendments are particularly important. It is a bit disappointing that there are so few of us loyal troopers in the Chamber tonight to address this extremely important issue about the core of how academies are run.
I will disclose my interest in a second, but I was propelled to speak because I heard from one sponsor whom I know well that, if these clauses come through, he would want to hand “his academy”, as he calls it—the academy that he sponsors—back to the state. I cannot believe that this is what the Government want to achieve, but inclusion of Clause 49 may well lead to that. It would be a tragedy for our children’s education.
I am a huge admirer of academies. I was a trustee of the London Academy in Edgware and am currently a member of the Leigh Academies Trust in Kent. A member is a peculiar status within an academy, but that is what I am. I am not a governor or a trustee; along with the county council, I am a member.
The first, the London Academy in Edgware, was one of the original sponsored academies. It replaced a failing school in Edgware and was sponsored by the philanthropist Peter Shalson. In 2023, thanks in no small part to the excellent head, Paddy McGrath, it became one of the top 55 schools in the country. Importantly, over 50% of the students are eligible for the pupil premium and the admission policy prioritised students eligible for free school meals. This was a fantastic achievement. It has been obtained not least because of the flexibilities that it has been afforded and the freedoms which have been granted to it by its academy status.
As I mentioned, I am also a member, along with Kent County Council, of the Leigh Academies Trust. Under the leadership of Simon Beamish and Frank Green, it has grown from being one of the original CTCs, which some may remember—for full disclosure, it was originally sponsored in the 1980s by my uncle, Sir Geoffrey Leigh—to now being a MAT of over 30 schools. It is widely respected for its tremendous achievements.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I am only repeating what was in print; I do not know why. Clearly, when one looks at the academies, one can see the tremendous success and improvement to education to the benefit of children in this country. Control of schools by central government clearly and empirically is not the answer, so I hope the Government will listen to my noble friend Lady Barran, whose dedication to this sector I salute, and agree with her amendments.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to prolong the debate, but I have to answer the charge that it is simply the academies that are improving standards in education, and maintained schools are not. Research in the area does not show that to be the case. Since 2017, I think, the Education Policy Institute has had a yearly look at the performance of academies and state schools. Last week I looked at the one for this year and, although I cannot remember the exact figures, the general conclusion was the same that it has been every year: there are some very good academy chains and there are some poor academy chains; there are some very good maintained schools, and some are doing less well. When you look at the results in the round, there is no premium, overall, for the academy sector.
The noble Lord may shake his head, but I will happily write to him with the research. I do not want to prolong things, but I just could not sit here and take that remark again. I thought we had discussed it over dinner; now I am saying it in the Committee so that it is on the record. It is simply untrue to say that all the improvement is in one sector of schools and that there is no improvement in maintained schools. That simply is not the case; the evidence and the research simply do not support that.
Lord Storey (LD)
I shall briefly talk generally about all these amendments, which I and my party are not supporting. I ought to declare an interest as a governor of the King’s Academy, Liverpool. I was there at the beginning, when academies were started for a particular reason by the then Labour Government in very deprived communities and were then seized on by the coalition Government, including by David Laws from my party. We would sit through endless meetings, where there were always attacks on the maintained sector, about how wonderful the academies were. I never, during those early days—or even recently—heard the noble Lord, Lord Nash, who is not in his place, or the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, who is not in his place, say, “This academy is doing a really good job but, guess what? This maintained school is doing a really good job”. I never heard any criticism of any other academy. People can nod their heads, but if you look at the record, that was the case.
I remember us pushing, for example, that we should inspect multi-academies. Oh no, we could not do that. I remember trying to suggest that we have an external look at the finances of multi-academy trusts—“Oh no, you can’t do that”. Thank goodness, we have moved on considerably since those days, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, because, during her time as Education Minister, she went to visit maintained schools, and her language and the language of her party has changed considerably. I very much appreciate that. If there is a breach—I am not sure how serious or how weak the breaches are—the Secretary of State should be looking at it and making the final decision. It should not be just left to the academy or the multi-academy trusts themselves.
One recalls that “Panorama” documentary about how proprietors of academies—it was a limited number, thank goodness—were ensuring that some of the work for their academies was going to companies that they owned and that were their own companies. So a repair or construction company would get the work from that academy. It would not go out for tender. There was a big scandal on “Panorama” about it. If that is wrong, action needs to be taken. I do not know what these breaches are, or how serious or wide they are, but it should not be just left to the academy to sort out. It should be sorted out by the Secretary of State and by her Minister in the House of Lords.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I turn to the amendments in this group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Before I get into the detail of the clause and the amendments, I say to her that we believe that she may have been reading from an old version of the policy notes, because they were updated when they came to the House of Lords, and the policy notes are therefore correct in relation to the items that she was talking about. If she wants to check whether that is the case and drop me a line, I would be more than happy to follow that up if it is not the case.
This group covers the clause relating to ensuring effective oversight and accountability of academy trusts. Clause 49 introduces a power for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to an academy trust where it is failing to comply with its legal duties or acting unreasonably when exercising these powers. Currently, when a trust is in breach of a legal duty, the Secretary of State can only issue a termination warning notice, which may be disproportionate for significant but isolated breaches. This measure will allow the Secretary of State to direct academy trusts to ensure that they meet their legal responsibilities and to address instances of unreasonable conduct where necessary.
It offers a clear and proportionate route to ensure compliance. If a trust does not respond to a direction, the Secretary of State may apply to the courts to ensure the matter is resolved, reflecting similar powers already in place for maintained schools. This will be used, where appropriate, to help implement key provisions in the Bill, such as those relating to curriculum, admissions and uniform, if necessary.
Most academy trusts perform well and meet their legal obligations. However, where they fall short, the Government must be able to act in a targeted and proportionate way. Clause 49 allows for early engagement, proportionate intervention and enforcement through the courts only when necessary.
Amendment 445ZB, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, proposes a statutory requirement for an annual statement to Parliament on the use of this power. The Government are of course fully in favour of transparency but already publish directions and other notices on GOV.UK in a timely and detailed manner. I put on record the Government’s commitment to maintaining this approach to transparency. An annual report would duplicate this process and add no further value, while adding an unnecessary administrative burden.
Amendments 444A, 445ZC and 445ZD, all in the name of the noble Baroness, propose replacing the Secretary of State’s direction-making power with a notice procedure. These amendments replace the Government’s clear and authoritative direction-making power with a more convoluted system of self-policing duties and a notice procedure. In practice, it risks delaying intervention.
Effective oversight cannot rely on academy trusts policing themselves. The Secretary of State must retain the ability to act swiftly and decisively when serious concerns arise, particularly where trusts fail to meet their legal obligations or act unreasonably when exercising those duties. The notice procedure is very similar to the power as drafted, except it does not include the ability to issue a direction in cases of unreasonable exercise of a power. Therefore, the clause as drafted is more effective than the proposed notice procedure. When the Secretary of State writes to a trust before she decides to issue a direction, it will outline the breach, the rationale for intervention and the suggested actions to remedy the breach, and will seek representations.
Finally in this group, Amendments 445, 444B, 444C and 445ZA tabled by noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to limit the scope of Clause 49. These amendments propose to restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to issue directions to cases where a specific legal duty has been breached. In doing so, they would remove the ability to intervene where a trust acts, or proposes to act, unreasonably in the exercise of its powers, even if no explicit duty has been contravened. This would narrow the intended reach of the clause.
The Government’s intention is to ensure that a proportionate intervention is possible not only when there is a clear breach of duty but also when a trust’s conduct in the use of its powers is manifestly unreasonable. However, I have heard concerns raised by noble Lords about this clause—particularly the concerns that these amendments seek to address with regard to the broad scope of the clause. I am considering potential solutions that would preserve our ability to intervene effectively while respecting the autonomy of trusts, and I look forward to bringing a solution back on Report that addresses these concerns.
On that basis, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, we have had two rays of sunshine in one day; we should celebrate, at this late hour. We now know how to wear the Minister down. We will be starting at 9 am next week. In all seriousness, as the Minister can hear, I am extremely grateful; it is not just tiredness. There are some issues with this clause, so I will not belabour those but will just welcome very much her closing remarks.
I thank my noble friends Lady Evans, Lady Spielman and Lord Leigh for their contributions. I offer, as my noble friend Lord Leigh did, my thanks to the Leigh Academies Trust for taking on part of what was a very troubled school on the Isle of Sheppey, which is a particularly challenging community. We wish the trust and the pupils every success.
Baroness Barran
“(a) in subsection (A1), at the end 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.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to retain the existing requirement to make an academy order unless the Secretary of State determines there is no suitable sponsor available.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I am optimistic for a hat trick from the Minister. Clause 50 is one of the clauses that leave me most worried about the Bill because it risks directly damaging the education that children receive. Again, that is obviously not what Ministers intend, but it appears to ignore the impact on the school performance of sponsored academies—to be clear, not every single sponsored academy, but I know that the Minister will agree that, overall, the evidence shows a really important impact on the lives of children in those schools.
To be clear, I do not think that anyone on my Benches thinks that autonomy is a magic bullet to solve the problems of any school, whether or not it is failing. The key is how that autonomy is used. Some MATs have used their autonomy to focus on developing really great and deep expertise in turning around struggling schools, supporting staff and transforming outcomes for pupils. Others have focused on developing great curricula. There are lots of other examples; of course, there are also examples of professional generosity in the maintained sector, too.
There are now 2,796 sponsored academies in England —more than 23% of our secondary schools. As we have heard from a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Sewell earlier, trusts have led to extraordinary turnarounds in some of the most difficult schools in our country; I pay tribute to everyone involved in that critical work. However, Clause 50 changes that. No longer will a failing maintained school automatically join a strong MAT. In her Written Ministerial Statement, published yesterday, the Secretary of State wrote:
“Subject to the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, structural intervention through issuing of academy orders will continue to be the default approach for schools in special measures, because no child should be left in a school that does not have the capacity to improve”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/9/25; col. 29WS.]
I am genuinely confused by that because I do not feel that that is what the Bill says, as it removes the section in the Academies Act 2010 that facilitated this intervention. I hope that the Minister can explain that and reassure me.
The Government have argued that we should intervene earlier in schools that are struggling. Nobody would disagree with that; we were already doing that in the department when I was in office. Of course, if that works, it is the best outcome for children.
The other argument that the Government have put forward is that directive academy orders are too slow. I think that, if the Minister has time to dig into the detail, she will agree with me that the ones that are slow are really complicated. They may need significant financial help, which the department is struggling to find down the back of any education-shaped sofa; that might be in relation to capital or to revenue. There may be very complex governance issues, or—as in one case that I can remember, which was very slow—there may be crippling PFI contracts in place.
However, even that does not stop immediate help being put in. The Minister will be familiar with a number of cases where that has happened, often with trusts taking significant risk and commitment of resources without any guarantee that they will end up being the sponsor for the school. They do it because it is the right thing to do.
My Amendment 445B aims to address the Government’s concern about delays while still keeping the urgency that is necessary to address the weaknesses in a particular school. It says that, if
“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”.
This would bring about the clarity and transparency that will be crucial in retaining the confidence of parents, pupils and staff. I think that that aligns with the Secretary of State’s Statement yesterday but, if it does not, I hope that the Minister can explain where the gap is.
My Amendment 446A aims to address a problem that is likely to emerge as a result of the Government’s approach—namely, an increase in the number of judicial reviews of academy orders. Schools will want to understand why they are not being given more support or more time to turn around. However valid any individual case might be, the outcome will be a slowing down and reduction in the use of academy orders, leaving pupils in failing schools for longer.
My Amendment 446B aims to reintroduce the automatic academisation of maintained schools that have received from Ofsted a significant improvement judgment, or whatever the latest language is—however the department and the chief inspector judge that to be framed—and where the RISE teams believe that a school is “significantly underperforming”.
The Bill fails to address another problem: the schools that, under the previous Ofsted framework, were repeatedly graded as requiring improvement, some as many as seven times or more. None of us in this Committee would want our child to attend or work in a school that is so stuck in a rut of underperformance. I know that the decision to intervene in the so-called 2RI+ schools—to use the secret language of school intervention—was not universally welcomed, including by my noble friend Lady Spielman, and she and I debated this many times in her previous role. The aim was to send a strong signal about the priority we put on addressing underperformance in a timely and effective way. Sadly, the Secretary of State reversed this approach very early on in her tenure.
I ask the Minister to reconsider whether this clause should stand part of the Bill, particularly given the Secretary of State’s comments yesterday. Where is the evidence that the department’s proposed approach will be more effective? Children in failing schools need urgent action, as the Secretary of State herself has said. Sometimes the leadership of that school does not want to become part of a trust, but, ultimately, we need to be clear that the interest of the pupils must always come first. I beg to move the amendment in my name.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 447 and 447ZB, which appear in my name. I must begin by apologising to the Committee and the Minister for failing to introduce my amendments in the group before the break. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for picking up the slack. My only explanation is that it has been a long 24 hours.
This Bill, as currently drafted, sits in an awkward position. On the long-term disastrous policy of academisation—too often forced academisation and rarely resisted successfully by local and school communities —the Bill makes half a U-turn. It ends the presumption that all new schools must be an academy and removes the duty to force schools into multi-academy trusts. As the National Education Union has said, this a welcome shift in policy. But this is not a full U-turn but a half U-turn. It leaves far too many schools stuck, pointed awkwardly at 90 degrees across the flow of history, like a vehicle on a traffic island with fast-moving lorries approaching from both directions.
The Bill does not provide the option for schools and their communities that are unhappy in their current situation to leave multi-academy trusts and join the local authority system or other groups that are better suited to their needs. Making that provision would provide the chance of escape and allow schools to get out of the iron grip of dangerous and failed ideology into the empowered position of local choice and decision-making—the kind of devolution that the Government say they are in favour of.
This is an area of policy that the Green Party, as on so many others, has been leading ever since it resisted from the start the disastrous push to free schools and academies that has fragmented our systems and seen enormous sums flowing into fat cat executive pay—something we may come to in the next group—and big supply profits hoovered up by multinational companies on the contractor bandwagon. These two amendments take two possible approaches to dealing with this and starting to untangle the mess.
Currently, schools in multi-academy trusts lack separate legal entities. Leaving it to the MAT board to decide which powers, if any, it chooses to delegate to each academy is a profoundly unequal relationship. Amendment 447 does not seek to directly prescribe how to get out of this undeniably complex situation; rather, it would create a new clause in the Bill directing the Secretary of State to set out, within 12 months of the Act passing, a report with proposals for converting academy chains, individual academies and free schools into maintained schools under local authority control.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I want to speak briefly on academy orders and to support Amendments 445B, 446 and 446A. My noble friend Lady Barran rightly said that I did not support the extension of academy orders to those schools that require improvement. I remember writing to the then Secretary of State to warn him that, among other things, it would place inspection under impossible pressure, and I think that my assessment was borne out.
This Government were quick to change their regulatory policies to remove their dependence on overall inspection judgments, so that those judgments could be removed. What we have seen over the past year is interesting, because it has shown that the sector also dislikes opaque and unpredictable processes, such as are now operating. With the loss of clarity, every intervention decision potentially becomes just the opening salvo in a long war of attrition.
I experienced quite a few of these sadly sometimes misguided parent campaigns to defend a school that was in fact in a desperate state and where the parents simply did not realise quite how bad it was. I know how debilitating some of these situations can be for all concerned and how drastically they can delay the kind of work and action that is needed to sort things out for children. Getting things sorted out for children typically also sorts things out for staff, making their jobs doable again.
We also now have years of experience of RISE teams and their predecessors. None has been found to be fully satisfactory. Each incarnation starts by recruiting school or MAT leaders but, over time, tends to morph into being a team of generalist officials who are not themselves equipped to provide support and, sometimes, struggle to identify the most appropriate alternative sources of help. I therefore support the proposals for improvement made by my noble friend and urge the Government to think hard about how to make sure that the consequences of failure—it is important that we can recognise failure—are clear, brisk and well implemented, with the maximum certainty and the minimum delay, limbo or uncertainty for all concerned.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
To get the current situation on the record, I looked around for evidence and found a quote that is helpful in our deliberations on this issue. The quote is:
“I have serious concerns about the proposal to change the pathway for turning around failing schools. 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”—
as has been mentioned—
“pressure on councils and prolonged uncertainty, which is in nobody’s interests”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/25; col. 902.]
I think that encapsulates the situation quite neatly. It is from Siobhain McDonagh, speaking on 8 January 2025. It can be found in column 902 of the relevant Hansard; I am providing the reference since my earlier remarks were challenged. So I will put them on the record as well: they came from the Spectator on 5 February. I believe that Siobhain McDonagh summarised the situation very fairly.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, what draws me to say something here is Amendment 446. It is an interesting idea that is inspired by academies, if you like. When you have a successful maintained school and it is close, you take over and you have a nice successful model that is still in the maintained sector.
We have been saying, in effect, that we accept that academies are part of the landscape. The fact is that they are not the only successful part of the landscape, because a maintained school must have done reasonably well to remain a maintained school, so it has been successful. If we are interested in success—and not running up a political flag, whatever colour we choose—it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Let us also remember that some of the worst schools now will be academies because they have been failing and they come down, and some of the most successful ones are the ones that jumped ship because they had nice catchment areas and all was going well, so they became independent. That is one of the realities. So I hope that, when we look at how we improve schools that go wrong, we have other options because, if we dig into the academy system, we can find serial failure even there.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I turn now to the amendments in group 10, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lord Blunkett. Although my noble friend is not here, I will respond to that amendment, given that it was addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman.
We have heard much today about the positive impact that high-quality trusts have made on the educational outcomes of children. This Government acknowledge these achievements—in fact, I have done so on every occasion that I have had the opportunity to, as has my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh.
What we are concerned about is how we can ensure improvement. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was right when he said that what we need here is a range of appropriate methods in order to ensure the quickest possible improvement. That is what the Government are aiming to do here. While many academies and trusts have driven improvement throughout the system, academisation is not necessarily a panacea. In fact, even when sponsored academies are excluded, pupil attainment in multi-academy trusts and maintained schools is similar.
Furthermore, the process of converting these schools can in itself be slow. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is right to say that that is because, in many cases, it is very complex. Nevertheless, that may well be a period in which the improvement that we would all want to see has not been able to be pushed. Around 40% of maintained schools identified for conversion take over a year to become academies—time during which pupils continue to experience underperformance. It is for those reasons that Clause 50 has been included in the Bill.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Minister spoke about 40% of schools identified for “conversion”. I just wonder, for the sake of Hansard, whether she meant “sponsorship”. Conversion is a choice to become an academy, and if there is a delay, my experience is that that might be situated somewhere in Sanctuary Buildings’ capacity, whereas sponsorship is when a school has failed. Maybe she would like to clarify that in writing.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will clarify that in writing. I maintain the point, which the noble Baroness herself conceded, that often the conversion process, whatever prompted it in the first place, is not as speedy as we would want in order to drive improvement. Clause 50 has been included in the Bill so that the swiftest action can be taken to improve schools causing concerns.
For maintained schools that lack the capacity to improve—currently two-thirds of the total of schools that fail their Ofsted inspections—we intend, as has been highlighted during the debate today, to continue to issue academy orders, because they need a fresh start. Where Ofsted has determined that a school has the capacity to improve, from September 2026 we will rapidly deploy RISE teams—our school improvement support—as the first intervention rather than defaulting to structural change.
I will address the opposition from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to Clause 50 standing part of the Bill. Clause 50 replaces the current duty on the Secretary of State to issue an academy order for any maintained school judged to be in a statutory category of concern by Ofsted with a discretionary power. This represents, as I have suggested, a deliberate and considered shift in our approach. It reflects the Government’s commitment to a more flexible and swift approach to school improvement. As Rebecca Boomer-Clark of Lift Schools recently put it, structures do not raise standards, people do. Strong schools working together in strong partnerships will continue to make the difference. Clause 50 gives effect to this shift. It enables a more responsive approach, one that prioritises timely support through RISE, while retaining the option of structural change if a school does not show significant improvement after 18 months of targeted support.
Amendment 446, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blunkett, seeks to introduce a statutory presumption of structural intervention, through either structural change or merger when a school is in special measures, but would give the Secretary of State discretion to act differently if that is their judgement. As I am sure my noble friend would recognise, Clause 50 already provides the Secretary of State with the wide-ranging flexibility to intervene as they think best, specifically on merging schools. The Secretary of State already has the power to require a maintained school to take steps to join a federation, which is similar in effect to a merger. We do not believe that my noble friend’s amendment is required.
Amendments 445B, 446A and 446B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to retain or reintroduce a statutory duty to issue academy orders, albeit with varying conditions or constraints. Each of these amendments would, in different ways, undermine the core purpose of Clause 50, which is to provide the Secretary of State with the flexibility to determine the most appropriate intervention for each school based on its unique circumstances.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am taking some encouragement from the Minister’s remarks. I wrote down and underlined that the Government have no immediate plans. That is interesting, because it is a statement of a possibility for the future. We all know how hard it is to get parliamentary time to get Bills through Parliament—the Government will certainly attest to that. I ask the Minister to consider future-proofing. Would it not be a good idea to provide the potential here, without the necessity to activate it, and set up some mechanism for the possibility of getting the kind of diversity that she says she is looking for?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I also said that the proposals run contrary to our policy. I would not want the noble Baroness to run away with anything that is unlikely to happen—so no.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am very reassured by the Minister’s final remarks. I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was in the Chamber when I tried to respond to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted. It is important to set aside one’s ideology and look at the results, and at the people who are leading those results, in our schools all around the country and celebrate them
I thank my noble friends Lady Spielman and Lord Leigh for their reinforcement and support for my amendments. I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lady Spielman that we need a system with clarity which, in her words, is brisk, well-implemented and with minimum delay. That is important and, I think, what the Minister hopes will happen.
I appreciate the clarity that the Minister brought in relation to Ofsted judgments which say that the school in question lacks the capacity to improve. It will be interesting to hear my noble friend Lady Spielman’s reflections on that and whether that puts great pressure on Ofsted inspectors to avoid that judgment. But that is for another day and another time.
The Minister makes a fair point about the 2RI+ power and the fact that those decisions—which I have to say I feel quite proud of—were not judicially reviewed. The context is perhaps a little different, but the Minister has brought helpful clarity to the Government’s intention. Until we see the proof of the pudding, we will remain concerned. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Bousted
“1A In section 120(1)(a), after “teachers”, insert—“(aa) academy schools Chief Executive Officers’ pay,””
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, I am aware that it is very late at night indeed. I have waited a long time to bring the amendment but, anyhow, it is not a long speech. The amendment is very simple. It makes one addition to the Bill, and that is to bring chief executive officer pay, usually of a multi-academy trust, but it might be of a single academy trust, under the remit of the School Teachers’ Review Body. This is a necessary step to advance the good use of public money in the provision of education for the nation’s children.
As we know, this is, or at least it was, a cross-party concern. My noble friend Lord Agnew is not here, but when he served as Academies Minister in the last Government, he was highly concerned about the apparently exponential rise in the pay of multi-academy trust CEOs. Indeed, so grave was his concern that, on two occasions, I think, he wrote to the chair of trustees of MATs that were awarding what he considered to be excessive pay rises to their CEOs and called them into his office to meet them and hear the justification for the awards. If he were here, I would have assured my noble friend that I would have very much liked to be a fly on the wall at those meetings.
In 2018, my noble friend wrote a letter to the chairs of academy trusts in England saying:
“I want to emphasise the priority that I attach to the responsibility you and your boards have to ensure that your executive teams manage their budgets effectively and deliver the best value for money. This is particularly important when looking at the pay of your senior leadership teams”.
He added that the then chief executive of the Education Skills and Funding Agency had written to a number of single academy trusts where remuneration for a trust employee was over £150,000 and he would be writing to all MATs where this applied too. He added:
“I believe that not all boards are being rigorous enough on this issue. CEO and senior pay should reflect the improvements they make to schools’ performance and how efficiently they run their trusts. I would not expect the pay of a CEO or other non-teaching staff to increase faster than the pay award for teachers”.
In 2019, my noble friend Lord Agnew wrote again to the chairs of boards of trusts in a letter headed “Excessive High Pay to Employees”, requiring information from those trusts on the salaries and bonuses paid to individuals in those trusts earning more than £100,000. This might not happen too often, so it is perhaps a little noteworthy that I entirely agree with my noble friend. I entirely agree that the pay of CEOs and other non-teaching staff should not increase faster than the pay award for teachers. But my amendment is more conservative than that, with a small C. It would simply put the pay of MAT CEOs and single academy trust CEOs within the remit of the School Teachers’ Review Body, as is teacher and school leader pay.
I gave evidence to the STRB for over 20 years, both as general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and the joint general secretary of the National Education Union. The process of giving evidence is rigorous. STRB witnesses are required to submit detailed written evidence to the board on the pay awards that they feel are necessary and just for teachers and leaders. The evidence takes into account the relative pay rises of other workers in the public and private sectors, the state of recruitment and retention in the teaching profession and a host of other wage economy evidence. The STRB then holds in-person oral sessions where witnesses are required to elaborate and build on their written submissions. The review body then considers all the evidence it has been given, including evidence from the Department for Education, and makes a recommendation to the Government which the Government must then decide whether or not to accept. All this amendment would do is put in place the same rigorous arrangements for CEOs of single and multi-academy trusts.
This is a necessary step because there has been an inflationary spiral in CEO pay. Schools Week, the trade newspaper, conducts an annual executive pay investigation, which this year included 1,800 trusts. What this analysis found was that the gap between the CEO and other staff in multi-academy trusts is widening the pay gap. Sixty-four CEOs earned more than £200,000 a year. Five multi-academy trusts registered increases of over 20% or more in CEO pay. Now these pay rises may be justified. The problem is that the taxpayer does not know the reasoning behind them and we do not have an agreed definition of what the job description of a CEO is. How is it different from a head teacher? What is the job weight and how is it weighed by the boards, by the governing bodies?
The danger in a lack of appropriate regulation of CEO pay was well articulated by Sam Henson, deputy CEO of the National Governance Association, who remarked that salary benchmarking for CEOs was
“in some cases, leading to inflationary spirals”.
He added that the benchmarking exercises
“don’t come with an accompanying narrative on how this deals with the massive pressures the sector is under, namely money being … in short supply, ongoing recruitment and retention challenges, and insufficient accountability”
for this role.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendment 448A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to which I have added my name. I must declare an interest in that I have been a member of teaching unions, but somewhere along the line, I let that slip. I confess that as this Bill goes through, I am learning a lot about education. I did not realise that as a non-union member, I was not naturally entitled to legal representation if a complaint was made against me. That does not sound entirely legal to me. I believe that unions do a good job and are a necessary part of teaching for many people, but being part of a union should not determine whether a teacher feels safe and supported.
Amendment 448A promises important improvements to working conditions within the teaching profession. Referrals to the Teaching Regulation Agency have more than doubled over the past three years. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, is about to point out, one in four teachers is subject to an allegation from a student or parent at some point in their career, and, as a result, many are subject to disciplinary investigations and hearings. This puts pressure on teachers in what is already a highly pressurised job. The process of investigation can severely impact a teacher’s mental health or their ability to fulfil their job. This issue demands careful attention to prevent a worsening of the recruitment and retention crisis. Teachers need to be able to raise their own concerns, grievances or requests for flexible working arrangements. Many schools already allow trained companions, but that is exactly the problem: it depends on the good will of individual heads. Without legal clarity, the practice is inconsistent. Exercising equal working rights should not be dependent on union membership.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I, too, would like to speak in support of Amendment 448A, which I believe represents a significant step forward in promoting fairness within the teaching profession. Just as there are many reasons why an individual may choose not to join a political party, there are likewise numerous legitimate reasons why a teacher may opt not to join a union. Although I fully support the right of teachers to join trade unions, it is deeply concerning that many feel they must do so merely to secure access to appropriate representation when facing formal proceedings. No individual should feel compelled to join a union solely for the legal protection it affords, yet evidence from representative surveys indicates that many teachers do precisely that, joining primarily for legal support in the face of allegations.
At its core, this amendment is about one fundamental principle: teachers’ access to support in formal disciplinary or grievance proceedings should not be contingent on their politic beliefs or union membership status. At this juncture, I should declare an interest, in that my wife, who is the chair of a board of governors for a foundation school, is currently in the process of a disciplinary procedure.
The issue before us is the basic right to be accompanied. At present, this right is extended only to union members or those who can identify a suitable colleague. But what of the many teachers—an increasing number—who, for entirely valid reasons, can access neither? These are not theoretical concerns. There are teachers who prefer independent forms of support; teachers who are uncomfortable sharing sensitive or personal information with colleagues; and teachers who, as is their right, choose not to participate in collective structures. Tens of thousands of such professionals exist in our education system. They are not exempt from the formal process, yet they are expected to face them alone. This is a question of fairness.
We already recognise this principle in other sectors. Under the NHS’s maintaining high professional standards framework, doctors and dentists are entitled to be accompanied by representatives from defence organisations such as the MDU or the MPS. This has not undermined the role of unions in healthcare; rather, it has ensured that highly scrutinised professionals are not left unsupported at crucial moments. It is only right that teachers, who work to and conduct similar levels of public and institutional scrutiny, should be afforded the same basic protection.
We debated a similar issue during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, and I anticipate that the same concern may be raised again today—namely, that widening accompaniment rights risk “lawyering up” disciplinary procedures. With respect, that is a mischaracterisation of both the amendment and the current legal framework. The law already imposes clear limitations on the role of a companion in such hearings, and this amendment would not alter those parameters. It would not introduce legal representation into the room.
Indeed, it is worth noting that, under the current law, a teacher who is a union member may be accompanied by a lawyer, provided that individual holds union officer status, without the need for employer approval. Yet a teacher outside a union has no statutory right even to a trained non-legal companion. That is the imbalance this amendment seeks to address.
As unions themselves often emphasise, far from escalating matters, the presence of a trained companion often helps to prevent conflict, reduce procedural errors and resolve issues before they spiral. This is about fairness, not formality; it is also about extending protection, not creating confrontation. It is not about undermining unions; it is about extending a basic protection to all teachers regardless of their affiliations.
This is a modest and reasonable proposal that would not diminish the role of unions. Rather, it acknowledges that freedom of association includes freedom not to associate. No teacher should be disadvantaged for choosing an alternative form of professional support. If we believe in individual liberty and procedural fairness, we should not turn a blind eye to a group of professionals facing complex, often career-defining moments, unsupported.
This amendment would impose no additional financial burden on schools. On the contrary, it is likely to result in savings in both time and resources that would otherwise be spent on facilitating teachers to bring colleagues to hearings.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 448A in my name. I do so as a former membership secretary of the NUT and a former member of the National Association of Head Teachers. I could not have said it any better than the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Ashcombe. This is not an anti-union amendment, far from it. It is an equal opportunities issue, where the teacher has the right to choose who they want to accompany them if they have to face a disciplinary hearing.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly, because we had much the same debate in the Employment Rights Bill. In the Employment Rights Bill debate on this subject, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, explained the Government’s position. I made the point that, in my experience, when people—particularly young people—are in disciplinary procedures and meetings, their preferred choice of person to accompany them is invariably a parent, for obvious reasons. I tried to table an amendment to suggest that relatives, whether or not they are professionally qualified, should be allowed to accompany people in such circumstances. That got lost in the heat of the Employment Rights Bill, but I invite the Minister to consider whether a relative might be included as a professionally qualified person for this purpose.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak to Amendment 448 in my name and to support Amendment 448A in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Hampton, to which I have added my name.
Amendment 448 would extend to maintained schools the freedoms that academies enjoy in relation to their staff’s pay and conditions. I cannot see a strong reason not to do this. Again, this is about trusting school leaders to make the right judgments for their team. My amendment is clear that the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document should act as a floor and not a ceiling in relation to teacher pay. I acknowledge and thank the Government for the important amendment they tabled in the other place that established this final point in relation to academies.
Amendment 448A has already been ably and nobly spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Storey, and my noble friend Lord Ashcombe. As other noble Lords have said, the amendment aims at the fundamental fairness that all teachers have the right to be accompanied by a certified companion. Teachers who are members of a trade union should feel well served by the representation that they pay for, and that is something that we welcome. It is also fair and reasonable to say that there would be some teachers who would choose not to join a union for a whole range of reasons, including disagreeing with strike action or a union’s political objectives. The Minister will be very familiar with some of the recent demands from unions—we heard some of them tonight, including abolishing Ofsted and returning academies to local authority control. It is fair to say that some people could reasonably disagree with these. This amendment seeks to ensure that teachers who, for whatever reason, are not union members can be accompanied by a trained and certified professional companion.
The amendment would tidy up the existing situation where trained companions from organisations such as Edapt are routinely admitted to hearings in schools but lack a legal right to do so, and on occasion are refused by employers. This amendment would provide a mechanism to regularise the good practice that is already seen in the sector and ensure that it is spread equally.
The amendment has another spin-off benefit. The Minister will be aware—I think my noble friend Lord Nash talked about this—that schools are seeing an increasing number of complaints being generated by AI. Complaints might be generated using an LLM, but they cannot be resolved in the same way. It is therefore important to ensure that workplace hearings are efficient and effective and keep pace with that very regrettable trend.
I cannot support Amendment 447A—I see that the Minister is smiling in surprise. In the good tradition set by my noble friend Lord Agnew, I also spent some time writing to chairs about CEO and senior leadership team pay. I disagree with the Minister that this should be resolved through the STRB.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, we turn now to the amendments in the final group, group 11, which relate to teacher pay and conditions. Clause 51 supports our commitment towards creating a statutory pay floor, guaranteeing that all teachers in scope will not be offered pay below a minimum level, giving all schools the flexibility to attract and retain the teachers they need.
I turn to Amendment 447A in the name of my noble friend Lady Bousted; I am very glad that we got to this group, so that my noble friend was able to propose her amendment. She has been a stolid supporter of this debate, not only today but during Committee, and I recognise that and thank her. Her amendment proposes extending the remit of the School Teachers’ Review Body to include academy trust chief executive officers. We very much recognise and welcome my noble friend’s expertise in education and note that she raises an extremely important point: we must ensure that public money drives the best outcomes for children. We set very clear expectations for robust processes and justifiable salaries when recruiting executives. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and in fact from my noble friend, about the actions of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew; I suspect that maintaining that focus on value for money is an important part of this debate for all noble Lords.
Furthermore, for transparency and accountability, the department also engages with trusts where executive pay is deemed an outlier, publishing the names on GOV.UK. I have not, due to my policy responsibilities, signed any letters or had any meetings without coffee, as it appears have rightly happened, but, as the noble Baroness rightly argues for, I have no doubt that the department is maintaining the pressure to ensure that public money is effectively spent and reflects improvements and standards for children rather than the interests of the leadership of trusts.
I recognise that drive for action. I reassure my noble friend that the department works with trusts that do not demonstrate value for money or improved pupil outcomes. We will monitor our approach, ensuring proportionality and impact when keeping that under review.
Amendment 448, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would remove the statutory ceiling on teacher pay and allow maintained schools to depart from the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document. I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment, which is in the spirit of what our clauses attempt to achieve, but there is a significant difference between our clause and what the noble Baroness is proposing.
We both agree on the importance of removing the pay ceiling, but it does not need to be in the Bill to achieve that. There is a well-respected process through the Education Act 2002 which already provides for the Secretary of State to determine pay levels through secondary legislation. That is precisely what we intend to do following Royal Assent and a statutory consultation process, through the usual schoolteachers’ review body process. The Bill and our subsequent reforms to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document will achieve the aim of creating a pay floor with no ceiling and increasing innovation for all schools.
Amendment 448A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would expand teachers’ rights to be accompanied at disciplinary or grievance meetings by representatives of professional bodies which are not trade unions. I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord and others in raising this matter. As we have heard, noble Lords are aware that the Department for Business and Trade is responsible for the policy in this area.
Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 already provides adequate protections in respect of the right to accompaniment for all workers, including teachers. I am aware of the outcome of the vote on Report of the Employment Rights Bill on a similar amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and that the Department for Business and Trade will set out its latest position on that issue in due course.
With regard to teachers specifically, we believe that creating a statutory right for teachers separate to the process that I have just outlined covering all workers could raise concerns under the European Convention on Human Rights, as it would treat them more favourably than other workers without clear justification. We therefore have no plans to amend the position for teachers.
These clauses are about ensuring that the Secretary of State has the right tools to uphold standards and protect pupils, while also supporting the teaching profession through fair and consistent pay arrangements. I hope that given the assurances and additional information that I have provided, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.