(1 day, 22 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.