Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (Establishment of Schools) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

Lord Addington Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, remembering the bit of the Bill we did when we started this, I think this is quite a sensible provision. There is no great disagreement in principle on this, certainly on my part. We have a mixed economy for schools, and indeed the previous Government discovered, when they wanted everything to become academised, that even people who were good long-serving Conservatives were not that keen on getting functional schools converted across. We have a mixed economy, and it seems to be largely accepted that, until we get around to a radical reform or until the wind changes, it will stay as that.

I do not know what councils and local authorities having some capacity to expand or change the school system will mean with falling school rolls, but the emphasis on pupil referral units and special schools is quite sensible, as this will undoubtedly be part of a more coherent picture of dealing with those who will not succeed in mainstream schools. The autism lobby might be interested in the potential here, because the huge costs involved in transporting people to appropriate special schools might be addressed here, at least in the medium term. That is probably more hope than expectation, but it would certainly be something that allows that to happen.

On pupil referral units, whatever is happening at the moment, more people seem to be failing and rejected by mainstream schools, and they need somewhere where they can be addressed. I do manage to make everything about special educational needs, do I not? The high number of needs identified in people on the way to or in pupil referral units is a reality. Those who are not succeeding at school tend to be rejected in the majority of cases. So this is a sensible suggestion, if we accept that we have this mixed relationship in where schools come from. As such, I have no objection to this; indeed, I have a little bit of hope.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing today’s statutory instrument, which makes amendments consequential to the provisions of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act. I record His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s support for one measure within these regulations. These regulations will make it easier for teachers and local authorities to transition into new pupil referral units, making it easier to create those new PRUs.

We support the expansion of alternative education provision, particularly for those who need additional help. Indeed, in government, we supported PRUs and general alternative provision. We oversaw an increase in independent alternative provision pupils of 156% in the seven years leading up to the 2024 election. Alternative provision academies doubled in our final 10 years in office, and these in particular are more likely to be judged outstanding by Ofsted and have better attendance than other state-funded alternative provision, as they can combine academic freedom with tailored pastoral support. We therefore support regulations enabling the expansion of alternative provision.

However, although some of this instrument supports the expansion of alternative provision education, which so benefited from the freedoms the Conservatives gave it, other measures in this SI simultaneously enforce the Government’s crackdown on the freedoms of academies. The Academies Act 2010 ushered in the most substantive education reforms in a generation. It introduced the academy as the presumptive model for any new school, a provision that was introduced into legislation the following year. This SI now repeals that free school presumption, instead allowing an array of new schools to be proposed.

The success of academies was one of the proudest achievements of the last Conservative Government. By the end of our time in office, England’s performance in global PISA rankings had improved from 27th to 11th in mathematics and from 25th to 13th in reading. That improvement lies primarily with academisation. Pupils attending early sponsored academies achieve on average one GCSE grade higher than those in predecessor schools. Seventeen out of the top 20 English secondary schools with the highest Progress 8 scores are academies or free schools, as are 84% of the top 50.

It was, prior to the last election, a cross-party consensus that giving schools the freedom to compete and innovate was the key to improving their standards. Simply comparing England’s results to those of Wales and Scotland proves this hypothesis. We believe that removing the academy as the default is ill advised. It will serve only to slow the improvement of educational standards to the detriment of future generations. With luck, the next Administration will realise that mistakes have been made and change tack to the right course of action but for now, we will have to continue our constructive challenge for what we see as the right decision.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contribution to this discussion today. I know from previous experience that both noble Lords are passionate about education and understand its importance for our young people. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his particular reference to the mixed economy and the ability to respond to particular circumstances as they arise. He quite rightly referenced, for example, falling rolls, which is an issue that is working its way through primary schools at the moment and which will be going into secondary schools for a substantial number of years; of course, that has an effect. I am interested in his comments about the autism lobby. I know he will keep us up to date with his thinking around that, but from my own experience—

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I will let the noble Baroness know that I do not have to keep noble Lords up to date; it is going to let everybody know.