Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting)

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

We move on to new clause 53, tabled by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. Removing the entitlement to a high-quality core curriculum for all children by allowing schools, whether they are maintained or academies, to deviate from the national curriculum, could create an unequal system where the content of a child’s core education varies widely.

Let us be clear that what we are talking about: a requirement to teach the national curriculum does not create a ceiling; it does not force schools to teach in a particular way or prevent them from adapting or innovating, and it does not stop them adding extra content that works for their pupils. It simply says that, as a nation, this is the core knowledge and skills that we expect schools to teach their pupils, whatever their background. New clause 53 would allow a school to decide not to teach its pupils some important core content that all other children are being taught. We do not think that parents want their children’s school to be able to do that. On that basis, I ask the hon. Members to withdraw the new clause.

The hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich also tabled new clause 54. The national curriculum is the cornerstone of the education system. We are reforming it and extending it to cover academies to ensure that every child, regardless of their background or the school they attend, receives the best possible core education. I have set out already why allowing schools to opt out of the national curriculum creates a risk of an unequal system, where not all children can benefit from a strong foundation of the reformed curriculum and what it will provide, so I will focus on the additional elements in the new clause, particularly the Ofsted certifications.

There are unanswered questions about how this provision would work in practice. We have moved from single headline judgments in Ofsted inspections, but the new clause seeks to create a single judgment that would have a material impact on a school for the next decade. The fact that a school offered a broad and balanced curriculum, as all schools must, at some point in the previous 10 years does not mean that it currently does or will do in the future if it chooses not to follow the national curriculum. If, subsequently, Ofsted found the school’s curriculum was not up to scratch, the school would have the disruption and cost of suddenly having to teach the national curriculum again. Allowing more schools to deviate from the national curriculum just as we are reforming it creates a risk that some pupils will not be taught the core knowledge and skills that every young person deserves to be taught. I again invite the hon. Members to withdraw the new clause.

New clause 65 was tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham. Ensuring that schools can adapt their teaching to unique contexts and circumstances is clearly important, but the current framework already provides the flexibility that schools need and value. The national curriculum subject programmes of study already give schools the flexibility to tailor the content and delivery of the curriculum to meet the needs of their pupils and to take account of new developments, societal changes or topical issues. The reformed national curriculum will help to deliver the Government’s commitment to high and rising standards, supporting the innovation and professionalism of teachers while ensuring greater attention to breadth and flexibility. The proposed core framework would add significant extra complexity to the national curriculum, which already has core and foundation subjects, and would risk being confusing for schools. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.

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

New clause 54 would allow academies to continue to exercise freedom in the matter of their curriculum where Ofsted is satisfied that the curriculum is broad and balanced. New clause 53 would allow ongoing curriculum freedom in academies where it is needed in the interests of improving standards. New clause 44 would extend academy freedoms to local authority maintained schools, allowing them to offer a curriculum that is different from the national curriculum, as long as it is broad and balanced and certified by Ofsted.

The imposition on all schools of the—currently being rewritten—national curriculum was raised in our evidence session right at the start of this Bill Committee. As Nigel Genders, the chief education officer of the Church of England noted:

“The complexity is that this legislation is happening at the same time as the curriculum and assessment review, so our schools are being asked to sign up to a general curriculum for everybody without knowing what that curriculum is likely to be.” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 64.]

There is a parallel here in that we are also being asked to sign up to sweeping reforms to the academies order at the same time as the Government are changing the accountability framework, as the hon. Member for Twickenham correctly pointed out in the Chamber yesterday. Several school leaders gave us good examples showing why it is a mistake to take away academy freedoms to vary from the national curriculum. As Sir Dan Moynihan, the leader of the incredibly successful Harris Federation, explained to us:

“We have taken over failing schools in very disadvantaged places in London, and we have found youngsters in the lower years of secondary schools unable to read and write. We varied the curriculum in the short term and narrowed the number of subjects in key stage 3 in order to maximise the amount of time given for literacy and numeracy, because the children were not able to access the other subjects. Of course, that is subject to Ofsted. Ofsted comes in, inspects and sees whether what you are doing is reasonable.

“That flexibility has allowed us to widen the curriculum out again later and take those schools on to ‘outstanding’ status. We are subject to Ofsted scrutiny. It is not clear to me why we would need to follow the full national curriculum. What advantage does that give? When we have to provide all the nationally-recognised qualifications—GCSEs, A-levels, SATs—and we are subject to external regulation by Ofsted, why take away the flexibility to do what is needed locally?” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 72.]

Luke Sparkes, from the also very successful Dixons Academies Trust, argued that:

“we…need the ability to enact the curriculum in a responsive and flexible way at a local level. I can see the desire to get that consistency, but there needs to be a consistency without stifling innovation.” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 79.]

Rebecca Leek from the Suffolk Primary Headteachers’ Association told us:

“Anything that says, ‘Well, we are going to go slightly more with a one-size-fits-all model’—bearing in mind, too, that we do not know what that looks like, because this national curriculum has not even been written yet—is a worry. That is what I mean. If we suddenly all have to comply with something that is more uniform and have to check—‘Oh no, we cannot do that’, ‘Yes, we can do that’, ‘No, we can’t do that’, ‘Yes, we can do that’—it will impede our ability to be agile”. ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 83.]

The Minister talked about Chesterton’s fence and gave us some lessons in Conservative history and philosophy, but I point her to the same argument: this is an example of Chesterton’s fence. These freedoms and flexibilities are there for a reason. They are there to defend us against the inflexibility of not being able to do what Sir Dan Moynihan needs to do to turn around failing schools. It is no good us saying, “Here is the perfect curriculum. Let’s go and study this incredibly advanced subject” if the kids cannot read or add up. This is a very powerful point that school leaders are making to us, one which I hope Ministers will take on board.

Since the Minister referred to a bit of Conversative history and Ken Baker’s creation of the national curriculum in the 1980s, she will of course be aware that there was a huge debate about it and a lot of concern, particularly from Mrs Thatcher, about what many described as the “nationalised curriculum”. There was concern that it would get out of hand, become too prescriptive, too bureaucratic and too burdensome. That debate will always be there, and the safety valve we have at the moment is that never since its instigation have all schools had to follow the national curriculum. Even though academies did not exist then, city technology colleges did and they did not have the follow the national curriculum. This is the first time in our whole history that every single school will have to follow it.

In relation to previous clauses, I have spoken about getting away from the dead hand of compliance culture and moving toward an achievement and innovation culture—a culture of freedom—in our schools. Pupils at Michaela Community School made the greatest progress in the whole country three years in a row—an incredible achievement—and they did that by having an incredibly distinctive and knowledge-intensive curriculum that was completely their own. Its head, Katharine Birbalsingh, has argued in an open letter to the Secretary of State:

“Clearly there needs to be a broad academic core for all children. But a rigid national curriculum that dictates adherence to a robotic, turgid and monotonous programme of learning that prevents headteachers from giving their children a bespoke offer tailored to the needs of their pupils, is quite frankly, horrifying. Anyone in teaching who has an entrepreneurial spirit, who enjoys thinking creatively about how best to address the needs of their pupils, will be driven out of the profession. Not to mention how standards will drop! High standards depend in part on the dynamism of teachers. Why would you want to kill our creativity?

Then there is the cost. Your curriculum changes will cost schools time and money. Do you have any idea of the work required from teachers and school leaders to change their curriculum? You will force heads to divert precious resources from helping struggling families to fulfil a bureaucratic whim coming from Whitehall. Why are you changing things? What is the problem you are trying to solve?”

That is a good question; perhaps the Minister can tell us the answer.

Nor is it just school leaders who are raising concerns about this clause. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) said that the proposal to make it compulsory for academies to teach the national curriculum was “of particular concern” to her. Our three new clauses reflect what school leaders have told us. We think the clause is fundamentally a bad idea, but we are trying to find a compromise.

New clause 53 responds to Sir Dan Moynihan’s point that freedom to vary from the national curriculum can be really important in turnaround situations: we cannot succeed in other things if children are unable first to read and write. New clause 54 allows freedom where schools are delivering a broad and balanced curriculum. That worries Ministers, although we heard from the head of Ofsted the other day that schools are delivering a broad and balanced curriculum, so once again it is not clear what problem Ministers are trying to solve. We do not learn the answer from the impact assessment either. If this is just about ensuring that all schools have the same freedoms, new clause 54 would give local authority schools the same freedoms as academies, but that is not what the Government are proposing.

I hope the Minister will tell us at some point what problem she is trying to solve. Where is the evidence of abuse? There is none in the impact assessment, and Ministers have not produced any at any point so far in the process. The Government’s impact assessment says that schools

“may need to hire additional or specialist teachers for any subjects not currently delivered or underrepresented in existing curricula”,

that they may need to make adjustments in their facilities, resources and materials to meet the national curriculum standards, and that they may need “additional or specialised training” to deliver the new national curriculum. It says:

“some academies may be particularly affected if their current curriculum differs significantly from the new national curriculum”.

Unfortunately, the impact assessment does not put any numbers on the impact. Will the Minister commit clearly and unambiguously to meet the costs, including for facilities, for any schools that have to incur costs as a result of this measure?

The Minister talked about Jim Callaghan’s famous phrase, his reference to a “secret garden”. We will come on to that on a later new clause, when we will advance the case against secret lessons in relationships, health and sex education. I hope the Minister will be as good as her word; I hope she is against the secret garden in that domain. On these new clauses, we hope the Minister will listen to the voices of school leaders, her own colleagues and people who are concerned about clause 41, and tell us what the problem is that the Government are trying to solve. The Government clearly like the idea of everything being the same—they like imposing the same thing on every school in the country—but what is the problem? Where is the evidence that this needs to happen? Why are Ministers not listening to serious school leaders who have turned around a lot of schools, who say that they need this freedom to turn around schools that are currently failing kids? Why do Ministers think they know better than school leaders who have already succeeded in turning around failing schools?

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. In the light of the discussion that we had before lunch, I want to put on the record that those who are questioning these measures—certainly on the Liberal Democrat Benches—are not trying to attack standards. We recognise that, like qualified teachers, the national curriculum is a very good thing for our children. It is important that children and young people have a common core. None the less, I come back to the question that I posed earlier and the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston just posed again: what is the problem that Ministers are trying to fix with clause 41?

In oral evidence, His Majesty’s chief inspector of schools, Sir Martyn Oliver, told us that there is very little evidence that academy schools are not teaching a broad and balanced curriculum. He said:

“the education inspection framework that we currently use significantly reduced the deviation of academies because it set out the need to carry out a broad and balanced curriculum…I would always want to give headteachers the flexibility to do what is right for their children”. ––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 50, Q113.]

Given the Ofsted framework, given that our primary schools are preparing children to sit their standard assessment tests, and given that secondary schools are preparing pupils for a range of public examinations, not least GCSEs, all of which have common syllabuses, the reality on the ground is that most schools do not deviate very much from the national curriculum.

On the other hand, during the oral evidence sessions we heard that school leaders have sometimes used the freedom to deviate where children have fallen behind as a result of disadvantage, trauma, the covid pandemic or other reasons, to ensure they reach the required level to be able to engage in that broad and balanced curriculum. I ask Ministers: if an 11-year-old is struggling to read and write, does it make sense to expect them to access the full history, geography and modern languages curriculum immediately at the start of year 7? As much as I would want them to—I say this as a languages graduate who bemoans the death of modern languages in our schools—we cannot expect them to do those things until they have a basic standard of written English.

The Children’s Commissioner spoke powerfully of her own experience. She had to turn a school around by ditching the wider curriculum to get the children up to the required standard before opening up the curriculum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Where to start? I guess I should start by responding to the fundamental question that I think hon. Members are asking: what problem are we trying to solve? Fundamentally, Opposition Members—I do not refer to all of them—do not seem to have a very realistic perspective on the challenges that are very present in the education system. They cite singular examples of schools that are doing a fantastic job and that absolutely should be celebrated, but that is not reflective of the entire system.

Through this Bill and the other reforms we are looking to introduce—I think Opposition Members fundamentally agree with them, but do not wish to say so—we are trying to create a core offer for every child in this country. No matter what type of school they go to, what their background is and where they come from, children will be guaranteed a core, quality educational offer, with qualified teachers and a national curriculum core framework that gives them the basis, yes, of knowledge, but also skills and development as an individual that set them up for life.

It is an absolute myth that maintained schools are unable to innovate while following the national curriculum. The reformed national curriculum will support innovation and professionalism in teachers, and maintain the flexibility that we know is really important if schools are to meet the needs of their children. It is absolutely right that schools can, for example, choose to prioritise English and maths, if that is what their children need. However, that should not be at the expense of curriculum breadth and opportunity for young people who also need extra support.

We want every child in every state school to have a broad range of subjects and to have the opportunity to study a common core of knowledge that has been determined by experts and agreed by Parliament. I absolutely agree that it should be led by experts, which is why we have an independent panel of experts advising on the curriculum and assessment review. I absolutely recognise the strong track record of, for example, Michaela and the good outcomes it delivers for its students. I understand that, as hon. Members have rightly acknowledged, the vast majority of schools do follow the national curriculum.

It is our intention to create a common core framework right across our school system, regardless of the structure of the school. That is all we are trying to achieve with this fairly straightforward measure. To be honest, the attitude that is sometimes displayed and the fears that are being mongered just seem a little hysterical. Every child should have a high-quality education, which is all that we seek to ensure with the measures in the Bill.

[Neil O'Brien]

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

[Catherine McKinnell]

No, I did not.

[Neil O'Brien]

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

[Catherine McKinnell]

Let me be clear: I have not referred to any academy leaders or professionals in our education system as expressing views that are hysterical. I have referred to hon. Members, and I was very clear about that in my comments. I have seen far too much of that in this Committee—putting words into Members’ mouths. It is not respectful to the people we are here to represent and serve, who are working extremely hard in our school system and contributing constructively to this debate. We are open to feedback, which is why we have two consultations out on a number of the measures being considered as part of our reforms. We absolutely welcome feedback; we welcome challenge. Actually, the level of challenge reflects how important this is to the people who contribute to the discussion and debate. The hysteria I was talking about referred to hon. Members and their characterisation of some of the changes.

For the sake of a reality check, let me just say that in 2022—Members should note these statistics—of primary schools in multi-academy trusts, 64% were good and 15% were outstanding; in single-academy trusts, 67% were good and 27% were outstanding; and in maintained schools, 76% were good and 16% were outstanding. There is no difference for children’s outcomes depending on the school’s status. This is not about academies versus maintained schools or anything like it; it is about making sure that we have a framework that serves every child and that every child has a core offer as part of their education. To treat it like some sort of terrible, terrifying prospect is a mischaracterisation of the reality of both the school system and the changes we are looking to make.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. She took the words out of my mouth earlier when she challenged the right hon. Member for East Hampshire. The national curriculum offer and everything we are presenting as part of our reforms provide a floor, but not a ceiling on ambition, innovation, flexibility and the ability to give an outstanding and exemplary education to the children in this country. We celebrate and value success for our children, in whatever form it comes, whether that is an academy or a local authority-maintained school. Indeed, success comes in all those forms.

All we wish to see, through this fairly straightforward measure, is a knowledge-rich education—in answer to the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston—and a curriculum that is cutting-edge and that ensures high and rising standards for every child. That is why we launched the curriculum and assessment review to take the advice of experts on bringing the curriculum up to date. It is why we want to see the national curriculum as the experience that every child should have, and the framework that every child should experience throughout their primary and secondary education, regardless of the type of state school that they attend. And it is why we will be asking Members to support clause stand part.

Before the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston asks, I will respond to his question on UTCs because—

[Neil O'Brien]

And on whether all the costs will be met.

[Catherine McKinnell]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O'Brien]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

Academy schools: educational provision for improving behaviour

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Clause 42 will ensure that all mainstream and special state schools are subject to the same regulatory requirements and safeguards when directing pupils off site to improve their behaviour, creating a baseline between academies and maintained schools. Academy schools can already arrange off-site placements through their general powers, and in doing so they already follow the same guidance as maintained schools. However, technically there is inconsistency in the legal framework. Providing academies with the same explicit statutory power and equivalent limits and controls will strengthen the wider efforts to consistently safeguard all pupils and promote educational outcomes. It will also support consistency, scrutiny and transparency against misconduct or malpractice.

In using the power, academies will be required to follow the same statutory requirements as maintained schools, as set out in existing guidance. These include notifying the local authority where a pupil has an education, health and care plan; setting out the objectives of the off-site placement and keeping it under review; and keeping parents fully informed to meet pupils’ needs. I therefore recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Academies: power to secure performance of proprietor’s duties etc

[Neil O’Brien]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 79, in clause 43, page 102, line 37, leave out from “may” to the end of line 3 on page 103 and insert

“exercise their powers under the funding agreement to terminate or require performance of the funding agreement in accordance with its terms.”

Amendment 88, in clause 43, page 102, line 37, leave out from “directions” to the end of line 39 and insert

“as are necessary to secure compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.”

This amendment would limit the Secretary of State’s power of direction should an Academy breach, or act unreasonably in respect of, the performance of a relevant duty.

Amendment 89, in clause 43, page 103, line 2, leave out from “directions” to the end of line 3 and insert

“as are necessary to secure compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.”

This amendment would limit the Secretary of State’s power of direction should an Academy act unreasonably in respect of the exercise of a relevant power.

Amendment 77, in clause 43, page 103, line 3, at end insert—

“(2A) Where the Secretary of State exercises functions under this section, the Secretary of State must make a statement in the House of Commons which explains the actions taken and the reasons for taking such actions.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament each time the Secretary of State uses the powers in this clause.

Clause stand part.

[Neil O’Brien]

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

[Catherine McKinnell]

Nonsense.

[Neil O’Brien]

It is not nonsense. It is your legislation. Sorry, let me correct the record: it is nonsense. This is nonsense legislation that we are being asked to pass.

Now we come on to something really serious that school leaders are warning us about, which is another completely out-of-control piece of centralisation. As drafted, the Bill will create the power for the Secretary of State to direct academy schools to do pretty much anything. Leora Cruddas, of the Confederation of School Trusts, has suggested a way to bring the currently unlimited clause 43 power under some limits:

“We do have concerns about the power to direct. We think it is too wide at the moment. We accept that the policy intention is one of equivalence in relation to maintained schools, but maintained schools are different legal structures from academy trusts, and we do not think that the clauses in the Bill properly reflect that. It is too broad and it is too wide. We would like to work with the Government to restrict it to create greater limits. Those limits should be around statutory duties on academy trusts, statutory guidance, the provisions in the funding agreement and charity law.”

That is precisely what Opposition amendments 88 and 89 would do. We are not against Ministers having a new power to intervene to get schools to fulfil their duties, but that is different; it is narrower than the current drafting. It may just be that when officials have gone away and tried to turn Ministers’ intentions into legislation, they have gone too far.

David Thomas, a successful headteacher, has made the same point:

“If the purpose is, as it says in the explanatory notes, to issue a direction to academy trusts to comply with their duty, that feels like a perfectly reasonable thing to be able to do. The Bill, as drafted, gives the Secretary of State the ability to ‘give the proprietor such directions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate’. I do not think it is appropriate for a Secretary of State to give an operational action plan to a school, but I think it is perfectly reasonable for a Secretary of State to tell a school that it needs to follow its duty. I think there is just a mismatch between the stated intention and the drafting, and I would correct that mismatch.”

I am not surprised that school leaders are concerned. The Government’s own policy summary notes make it clear that they intend to use the power to reach into schools and intervene on pretty much anything that the Department wants. They give the following example:

“The academy trust has failed to deal with a parental complaint and has not followed its complaints process. Therefore, the issue may be escalated to the Department to consider. In such cases, the Secretary of State could issue a compliance direction to ensure the trust addresses the complaint appropriately”.

It is crystal clear that the Government are taking a power to direct any academy school, without limit, on any issue they see fit. That is such a big move away from the whole idea of the academies programme—the idea of independent state-funded schools.

There are two ways of fixing the problem. Amendments 78 and 79 would simply delete the bit that is excessive, proposed new section 497C(1)(b); amendment 77 would require a statement to be made when the powers are used. Alternatively, amendments 88 and 89—this is, broadly speaking, the suggestion made by the Confederation of School Trusts—would be more incremental reforms. They would retain the text about direction but, in two relevant places, would limit it to

“compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.”

The impact assessment for the Bill says that if schools do not comply with the new orders from the Secretary of State, the trustees may be found to be in contempt of court. This charge may come with punishments including fines. It is also possible that, in very extreme cases, individuals found in contempt of court could face a custodial sentence. Helpfully, the assessment says that that should be very rare, but what a long way we have travelled from the whole idea of academies as independent state schools!

That has been the theme as we have gone through the Bill: again and again, we are moving away from a culture of entrepreneurialism, can-do spirit and freedom—going out there and solving problems and making the magic happen for kids—and towards a compliance culture that is all about dealing with what the Secretary of State wants and clicking our heels when they say jump. Since 1988, we have been on a cross-party journey away from micromanagement and towards greater autonomy for schools.

[Catherine McKinnell]

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

[Neil O’Brien]

It is always a bad sign when someone has to misrepresent completely what their opponent is trying to say. Allow me to address that point directly by, once again, reading what Leora Cruddas of the Confederation of School Trusts told the Committee:

“We accept that the policy intention is one of equivalence in relation to maintained schools, but maintained schools are different legal structures from academy trusts, and we do not think that the clauses in the Bill properly reflect that. It is too broad and it is too wide. We would like to work with the Government to restrict it to create greater limits.” ––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 81, Q169.]

That is what our amendments seek to do.

To take the temperature out of the discussion, let me say that I do not have a problem with the Government having a new power of intervention to cut across their funding agreements with academies—although that is a big step, by the way. My problem is with the completely unlimited nature of the power. I am thinking about the effect of getting away from micromanagement over time. The sixth-form college I went to had become brilliant because it had managed to use the freedoms in the 1992 reforms to take a huge step away from micromanagement, but some of the older teachers there still remembered the days when they had to ring up the town hall if they wanted the heating turned up. Imagine that absurd degree of micromanagement. Terrifyingly, some schools in Scotland are still experiencing that insane degree of micromanagement; teachers there are currently on strike because their concerns about discipline are not being taken seriously, so we can see that freedom has worked in England.

I do not think that this was the intention of the Ministers, but the drafting of the clause is far too sweeping. It gives an unlimited power. I see no reason why the Ministers should not accept the suggestion from the Confederation of School Trusts, which our amendments seek to implement, that we limit that power in certain reasonable ways. It is fine for Ministers to be able to intervene more, but we need some limits. I am sure that the current Secretary of State wants only good things, but a bad future Secretary of State should not be able to do just anything they want.

The Ministers started from a reasonable point of view, but it has gone too far. I hope that they will work with the CST to turn the unlimited power into a limited one. Perhaps they will even accept our amendments, which would do exactly that.

[Munira Wilson]

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

[Neil O’Brien]

I did not say that.

[Munira Wilson]

There was that suggestion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

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

[Munira Wilson]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

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

[Catherine McKinnell]

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

[Neil O’Brien]

For all the reasons we have just rehearsed, I am keen to push amendment 88. Ministers may well vote against it today, but I hope that later on in the process they will listen to what school leaders are saying. There is a group of amendments, but I intend to push only amendment 88 to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 78.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 88, clause 43, page 102, line 37, leave out from “directions” to the end of line 39 and insert

“as are necessary to secure compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.”—(Neil O’Brien.)

This amendment would limit the Secretary of State’s power of direction should an Academy breach, or act unreasonably in respect of, the performance of a relevant duty.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 44, page 103, leave out from line 25 to line 8 on page 104 and insert—

“(a) in subsection (A1), after ‘measures)’ insert ‘unless the Secretary of State determines that no suitable sponsor is available’;

(b) after subsection (A1) insert—

‘(A2) Where the Secretary of State determines that no suitable sponsor is available, the Secretary of State must, within 14 days, publish a plan to secure appropriate governance and leadership of the school and to secure its rapid improvement.

(A3) A plan published under subsection (A2) must include—

(a) the parties with responsibility for the school and its improvement;

(b) the parties who will take action to improve provision in the school;

(c) the resources that will be provided to the relevant parties, including who will provide the resources and when the resources will be provided; and

(d) the intended outcomes of the plan, with the relevant timetables for the outcomes.

(A4) The Secretary of State must report annually to Parliament on—

(a) the number of times the Secretary of State has published a plan under subsection (A2);

(b) the resources which have been provided as part of any plans; and

(c) the outcomes of any plans.’”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 81, in clause 44, page 103, line 28, at end insert—

“(c) after subsection (1), insert—

‘(1ZA) The Secretary of State must make an Academy order in respect of a maintained school in England if—

(a) Ofsted has judged the school to require significant improvement; or

(b) a Regional Improvement for Standards and Excellence team has judged the school to be significantly underperforming when compared with neighbouring schools with similar demographics.’”

Amendment 82, in clause 44, page 103, line 28, at end insert—

“(c) after subsection (7), insert—

‘(7A) No application or petition for judicial review may be made or brought in relation to a decision taken by the Secretary of State to make an Academy order.’”

Amendment 95, in clause 44, page 103, line 28, at end insert—

“(c) after subsection (1A) insert—

‘(1B) Before deciding whether to issue an Academy order in respect of a maintained school, the Secretary of State must issue an invitation for expressions of interest for suitable sponsors.

(1C) The Secretary of State must make an assessment of whether or not to issue an Academy order based on the established track record of parties who responded to the invitation issued under subsection (1B) with an expression of interest in raising school standards.’”

Amendment 96, in clause 44, page 104, line 8, at end insert—

“(10) Before the amendments made by this section come into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing—

(a) the mechanisms, including Academy Orders, by which improvement of school standards can be achieved, and

(b) guidance on the appropriate usage of these mechanisms.”

Clause stand part.

[Neil O’Brien]

The Bill ends the automatic conversion of failing schools into academies. That measure was put in place because it became apparent that the most effective way to turn around failing schools at scale was to put them under new management. It also became apparent that when there was a question of discretion and choice, that opened the way for bitterly divisive local campaigns and time-consuming legal action.

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) said on Second Reading:

“I know from bitter personal experience that any change to the status of a school can become highly political. The current system, in which failing schools automatically become academies, provides clarity and de-politicisation, and ensures a rapid transition. I fear that making that process discretionary would result in a large increase in judicial reviews, pressure on councils and prolonged uncertainty, which is in nobody’s interests.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 902.]

She also said on the “Today” programme that the end of the academies order will mean that

“the DFE will find itself mired in the high court in judicial review. When we tried to transfer our first failing school to a Harris academy we spent two years in court, and children…don’t have that time to waste.”

Rob Tarn, the chief executive of the Northern Education Trust, has made the same point:

“If there’s no longer a known, blanket reality…There is a risk that, where it’s been determined a school needs to join a strong trust, it will take much longer and we will go back to the early days of academisation when people went to court.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

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

[Neil O’Brien]

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

[Catherine McKinnell]

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

[Neil O’Brien]

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

[Catherine McKinnell]

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

[Neil O’Brien]

I am trying to get the Minister to de-conflate her own statistics. The Government want to present the statistic in a deliberately conflated way and I am trying to get it de-conflated. This is the Government’s statistic; I am not offering it. I would like to have some sense from them of how many schools—they must have the figure to make the claim—are going to go through structural interventions so that we can compare the future regime to the previous regime. The Ministers are the ones making the claim that this will intervene on more schools; I am not claiming that. I think it is reasonable to ask for the numbers behind the Government’s own claims, which they did not have to make.

There is an irony behind all this. Ministers have said that they worry about having different types of schools and they want things in the system to be generally more consistent. Currently, the school system is a sort of halfway house: about 80% of secondary schools are now academies, but fewer than half of primaries are—so just over half of state schools are now academies; most academies are in a trust and so on.

In the absence of this Bill we were gradually moving over time, in an organic way, to get to a consistent system based on academies and trusts, which would then at some point operate on the same framework. But the Bill effectively freezes that halfway: it is ending the academisation order and enabling local authorities to open more new schools again. I have never been quite clear about why Ministers want a situation where they do not end up with an organic move to a single system but remain with the distinction between academies and local authority maintained schools, particularly given the drive for consistency elsewhere in the Bill.

In the past, there have been people in the Government who have held anti-academies views, or at least been prepared to bandwagon with anti-academies campaigners on the left. When running for leadership of the Labour party, the Prime Minister said:

“The academisation of our schools is centralising at its core and it has fundamentally disempowered parents, pupils and communities.”

That was not long ago; there he was, on the bandwagon with the anti-academies people.

Likewise, the Deputy Prime Minister said she wanted to stop academy conversion and

“scrap the inefficient free school programme”.

We talked about the evidence that those programmes worked when Labour Members asked for it. The Deputy Prime Minister said that the free schools programme is inefficient, but the average Progress 8 score of a free school is 0.25. That is a fantastic score, getting a quarter of a grade better across all subjects, which is beating the national average. That is what the Deputy Prime Minister thought was so inefficient, but the opposite is the truth. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are not the only ones: the Culture Secretary spoke at an anti-academies conference. The Energy Secretary said that free schools were the last thing we need—but actually, for many kids they are the first. When Ministers in this Government say that they just want more options, and that they are still prepared to fight all the usual suspects to put failing schools under new management—even where left-wing local campaigns are against it—we start from a bit of a sceptical position, because of the relatively recent comments made by senior Ministers.

We do not have to imagine the future. The other day, we saw a choice: we saw a straw in the wind. Glebefields primary school in Tipton was issued with an academy order after being rated less than good twice. The DFE previously told Glebefields that the Education Secretary did not believe the case met the criteria to revoke academisation, despite the change of policy before us. The school threatened legal action and the Secretary of State changed her mind. I worry that there will be many such cases, as well as court cases, and that too many children will find themselves in schools that are failing them, and in need of new management that they will not get.

Ultimately, our amendments seek to limit the damage of this clause, but fundamentally we think that it is a mistake. We worry that, in a few years’ time, Ministers will realise what some of their Back-Bench colleagues already realise: why this clause is a big mistake.

[Munira Wilson]

On clause 44, Liberal Democrats have long supported the position that a failing school, or one that Ofsted has identified as requiring intervention, should not automatically be made an academy. That is our long-standing policy position, so when the Bill was published I welcomed that measure.

However, I felt the need to table amendments because, as I stated yesterday in the Chamber, I was concerned that we were being asked to take away the automatic provision of issuing an academy order without knowing what the school inspection regime would be, and were therefore being asked to legislate in a vacuum. I still think that it is wrong that this legislation started to be considered before we had yesterday’s announcements, but I recognise that the Government have now made them.

I was quite taken, in the oral evidence session, in which we heard from various witnesses, not least by Sir Jon Coles, who said he would like to see what Government policy is underpinning this particular measure, and what the Government’s school improvement policy is. I think the jury is still out on what we heard yesterday, but the fact that we have had a policy announcement negates, to some extent, amendment 95 in my name. It sought to ensure that there was something in place, so that if there were not an automatic academy order, the Secretary of State would invite bids from successful academy trusts that had a track record of turning schools around.

I say to the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston that academisation is not a silver bullet. He has enjoyed quoting many times the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, who spoke out against her own Front Bench, but she even said herself on Radio 4 in the interview that he cited—which I listened to very carefully on the day it was broadcast—that academisation is not a silver bullet. I have not seen it in my own constituency, but I note that the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) pointed out on Second Reading that she worked in areas in the north-west where there were some schools with very vulnerable pupils that had not been improved by being switched from academy trust to academy trust. Clearly, it is not always the correct answer. I therefore think it is important that Ministers set out the whole range of options that are available to ensure that we can turn schools around—and turn them around quickly—because our children deserve the best possible opportunities to flourish and thrive.

Some questions were posed on that yesterday, and I am sure that Ministers will address it over the coming weeks—although I welcome comments today—but, with the RISE teams that are being put in place, the number of advisers is really quite small for the number of schools.

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

[Neil O'Brien]

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

[Munira Wilson]

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

[Neil O'Brien]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Munira Wilson]

In a moment. I will make this point, because I wanted to pick up on it in the oral evidence session when people were asking questions about attainment, but we ran out of time. The pupil premium was a Liberal Democrat front-page manifesto policy in 2010. That was implemented and it has helped disadvantaged pupils. After 2015 it was not uprated in line with inflation, and that is why our disadvantaged children up and down the country are now getting less money, in real terms, to support their education. We have seen a widening attainment gap since covid in particular.

So, I will take no lectures from the Conservative Benches on supporting disadvantaged pupils. It was our policy on free school meals, and our policy on the pupil premium, that came to bear. Actually, it was after 2015 that we saw funding cuts. The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston boasted that per-pupil funding was raised; the Conservatives only got it back to 2010 levels by the time they left government in 2024. I am sure that Members across this room, when they visit their schools, will hear stories about the funding pressures.

[Neil O'Brien]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Munira Wilson]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Neil O’Brien]

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

[Catherine McKinnell]

We greatly value the role of trusts in the school system. Indeed, we recognise the improvements they have brought, particularly for disadvantaged children. We recognise the excellence and innovation seen right across our schools and trusts. As I said earlier, we also recognise that a lot of the capacity to drive improvement across the system exists within those academy trusts, and we will harness that.

Without single headline grades, Ofsted will continue to identify those schools that require significant improvement or are in special measures and it will be able to make judgments to inform the level of support that should be given. If a school in special measures does not have the leadership capacity to improve, the proposal subject to consultation is that it should be immediately moved towards academisation. Where a school does have the leadership capacity to improve, for the next year, while we are building up the capacity of the RISE teams—as I said, 20 began work yesterday, but we recognise we are not up to full capacity yet—it will be issued with an academy order. However, once we have the RISE teams to go in and support the leadership team to drive improvements within those schools, we will put in that support, rather than going straight to an academy order.

[Catherine McKinnell]

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

[Neil O’Brien]

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

[Catherine McKinnell]

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

[Neil O’Brien]

How many will go through academisation?

[Catherine McKinnell]

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

[Neil O’Brien]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

No. The idea that a one-trick-pony approach to improving schools will get the required outcome is simply not borne out by the facts.

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

[Neil O’Brien]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

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

[Neil O’Brien]

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

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will need to write to the hon. Gentleman to answer that specific question, as I think it is more complex than he identifies. There are obviously schools that we know are underperforming, and that is where we want to target our resources. Those in special measures and those that require significant improvement will undergo academy conversion over the next 12 months. We probably have the number for that, but ongoing Ofsted inspections will identify new schools that will fall into that category, and they will need to be academised. We cannot predict that, and it would not be fair for us to do so.

We have roughly 312,000 children at schools that we have already identified as struggling schools that are not getting any support or intervention. We are directing targeted, mandated RISE support to them. Clearly, future schools will unfortunately fall into those categories as more Ofsted inspections are undertaken over the next year. I therefore do not have the exact figure as to how many will fall into whichever category.

We obviously hope that schools will benefit from the universal RISE service that we will bring forward to support all schools to improve, regardless of their process. That, however, is part of the consultation; we will look to roll it out in due course.

To be clear on the number of RISE advisers, we recognise that 20 seems like a small number, but they will be the facilitators of a much larger army of school improvement expertise that we know already exists in the system. That will be put together with schools that require support. By April, we will have 50 advisers as we are undertaking a recruitment process to bring in the best of the best for school improvement support. They will not deliver the school improvement but will ensure that school improvement is made available and matched up with schools that need it.

As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire will know, the national leaders of education, who are school improvers, were deployed for a basic 10 days. That was obviously valuable, but RISE will draw on a much broader range of institutional capacity, and it will bring in more than one provider. There will be more help and expertise, and there will be more time and more money. We are not going to waste any time. We are investing in making sure that children do not spend one more day in a school that is not giving them the outcomes they deserve. I hope the Committee will agree to the clause standing part of the Bill.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am keen to press the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

Amendment 47 would, very simply, make the Secretary of State’s recommendations on pay and conditions a minimum for all schools, whether maintained or academy schools, as the Secretary of State and Ministers have now confirmed was their intention with the Bill. I note that, since I tabled this, new schedule 1 has been tabled. I question why we need a separate order-making power, with all the complexities set out in the new schedule—I am sure the Minister will address that—but I think we are at one in saying that the recommendations should be a floor not a ceiling.

I return once again to the data laid out in the House of Commons Library document on the Bill, which suggests that there is very little variation in pay between maintained schools and academies. Again, I am not 100% sure why we need the new schedule; I just think we should have a floor for all schools. I think it is great that where schools have the means, they are able to pay a premium to attract teachers in shortage subjects, challenging areas or schools that may have had their challenges, but, as we all know, the reality is that most schools are massively strapped for cash—most headteachers and governors I speak to say that. The idea that they are all going to be able to pay a premium is for the birds. None the less, those schools that are able to should absolutely have that freedom.

[Neil O’Brien]

We have been on quite a journey on this clause. At the Education Committee on 15 January, the Secretary of State said that critics of the Bill were confused. She said:

“It has become clear to me that there has been some confusion and some worry about what I have said in this area, so today I want to be absolutely clear that all schools will have full flexibility to innovate with a floor and no ceiling on what that means.”

The fact that, subsequent to that, we have pages and pages of Government amendments to their own Bill suggests pretty powerfully that it was not school leaders and critics of the Bill who were confused.

This is a very significant measure. The impact assessment notes that an Employer Link survey conducted in 2021 found that over 28% of employers varied in some way from the school teachers’ pay and conditions document. Freedoms have been quite widely used. As Sir Jon Coles said in evidence to this Committee, just because people are using the freedoms does not necessarily mean that they know they are using them. Some of the innovations are great—they are things we all want for our teachers and schools. For example, United Learning, Jon Coles’s trust, was paying 6.5% on top of the national pay and conditions to retain good people. Dixons was innovating with a really interesting nine-day fortnight, so that teachers in really tough areas got more preparation time. This is really powerful innovation that we do not want to take away.

The Secretary of State called for a floor not a ceiling and said that she wanted

“that innovation and flexibility to be available to all schools regardless of type.”

We think that is a good principle and we agree about extending it to all schools. That is why our new clause 7 would extend freedoms over pay and conditions to local authority maintained schools as well. Given that the Government said previously that it would be good to have the same freedoms for everybody, we assume that they will accept the new clause so that we can have the floor not a ceiling for everybody, not just academies.

If a floor not a ceiling is right for teachers, surely it is right in principle for the other half of the schools workforce. Surely, school support staff—actually, they are the majority of the workforce in schools—are not worth any less than teachers, and the same principles should apply to them. This is critical. Lots of trusts are using the advantages of scale to make back-office savings and efficiencies, and ploughing them back into additional benefits and pay to support really good staff. I hope that Ministers will support our new clause 64, when we come to it, and accept that the principle that they have applied to teachers should apply to everybody else in our schools, too.

[Ellie Chowns]

I warmly welcome the proposal to ensure that there is a level playing field for pay for teachers who teach in different types of schools. Does the Minister consider that now is the time to take a similar approach to addressing pay for leaders of schools? I found it pretty jaw dropping to hear recently that the pay and pension of a CEO of a well-known multi-academy trust topped £600,000 per year. I took the trouble of having a look at that particular academy trust and found that it has 168 people on salaries of over £100,000, and it covers just 55 schools.

It is clearly not sustainable for the pay of leaders of multi-academy trusts to continue to increase in proportion to the number of schools in those trusts. If that approach was taken to salary setting, the Minister herself would be on millions of pounds a year. We had an interesting discussion earlier about the difference between correlation and causation. There is worrying evidence—I have seen interesting analysis from Warwick Mansell, for example—showing correlation between the prevalence of non-QTS teachers and high pupil-teacher ratios in multi-academy trusts and high levels of executive pay. That strongly suggests that such trusts are diverting or channelling more funding into higher executive pay rather than frontline teaching, which is surely of concern.

While I welcome the moves to ensure equitability across teacher salaries in all types of state school, is it not time to address pay inequalities and excessive pay in certain leadership functions in multi-academy trusts in particular? I note that the Public Accounts Committee drew attention back in 2022 to the DFE not having a handle on executive pay in the sector. I would warmly welcome the Minister’s comments on whether the Government have any intention to take action to address this.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Neil O’Brien]

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

[Catherine McKinnell]

Yes, I was going to come to that point, because it is welcome that the hon. Gentleman focused on school support staff. He is absolutely right that they are integral to any successful school. However, we do not intend to amend the provisions, because we are legislating for the school support staff negotiating body in the Employment Rights Bill, and we are creating a new system for support in 2025. Rather than try to amend the existing one, we are creating a new negotiating body for them. It makes sense that the outcomes from the new body will apply in same way to all state-funded schools in England.

The primary legislation does not commit us to a one-size-fits-all approach, and so there will be flexibilities for local circumstance to be able to flex above minimum agreement. Again, there will also be a floor but no ceiling for school support staff. We will continue to work with the sector, during and after the passage of the Bill, to ensure that the school support staff negotiating body meets the needs of all school types. The shadow Minister’s intervention and focus on school support staff is absolutely welcome.

In response to the specific question of why we need a separate order-making power, we have clarified the objective by tabling an amendment that requires all academy schools and alternative provision academies to pay their teachers at least the minimum level of pay set out in secondary legislation. Subsequent reforms to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document will ensure there is no ceiling on the maximum that maintained schools can pay for their teachers.

The amendment will also require academies to have regard to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document, ensuring an established starting point for all state schools while giving confidence that existing or future changes benefiting teachers and pupils can continue. Maintained schools will continue to follow the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document, but the Government are committed to making changes to the document following the Bill’s passage, to remove the ceiling and build in flexibility so that all schools can innovate to attract and retain the best talent.

We absolutely want to ensure that the freedoms that academies have enjoyed will continue. Indeed, they will be extended to maintained schools. In terms of examples used, such as the nine-day week—

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am extremely grateful for your flexibility on this matter, Sir Christopher. I have a very short contribution to make on clause 46. It is a minor technical change that sensibly tidies up legal provision that is no longer necessary. The clause repeals section 128 of the Education Act 2002. That section enabled maintained schools in education action zones to apply to determine their own pay and conditions for teachers. However, as education action zones have not existed since 2005, the most appropriate action is to repeal section 128 of that Act entirely.

Although the legislation to create new education action zones remains in place, the effect of the clause is negligible given that no education action zones currently exist. If any new ones were subsequently created, as a result of this clause they would no longer be able to opt out of the statutory pay and conditions framework, which is entirely consistent with the Government’s new approach to teachers’ pay.

[Neil O'Brien]

Sir Christopher, you are a superb Chairman. You are also a very kind and thoughtful one for those of us who are not quick enough on the draw.

I will not make detailed comments here. We are abolishing something that was set up in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, and it struck me that there are related ideas that the Minister might want to pick up rather than abolish.

As well as the education action zones that we are discussing here, the Blair Government had another go at that same idea in the 2002 Act and enabled huge amounts of school freedom in particular areas to bring about improvement. Although lots of work was done on that legislation and it was passed through the House, and lots of work was done to implement it, there was a change of Secretary of State and, strangely, the powers, although they are on the statute book, were never commenced.

We, as the Opposition, do not have the power to commence them, but I would recommend to the Minister that she does. I think there is a great opportunity here to get some innovation into the system. New clause 67, when we come to it, may look familiar to Ministers and to DFE lawyers, because I am afraid we have stolen it—it is a straightforward rip-off of 2002 Blair era reforms.

Even though in this clause abolishes a bit of Blair-era reform, we encourage Ministers to get back on the reforming horse and to return to that spirit. We hope when we come to that new clause that Ministers will spot what we are trying to do.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I note the spoiler for amendments to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47

Co-operation between schools and local authorities

Question proposed, That clause 47 stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Clause 47 creates a new co-operation duty for schools and local authorities. It aims to strengthen how schools and local authorities work together on school admissions and place planning.

Collaboration and co-operation on these issues is vital to ensuring that all children, especially the most vulnerable, can receive a school education. The clause places a duty on mainstream state schools and local authorities to co-operate with each other regarding their respective school admissions functions. It also places a duty on mainstream, special and alternative provision state schools to co-operate with local authorities regarding their place-planning functions.

For the admissions and place-planning system to function effectively, co-operation between schools and local authorities is essential. For example, local authorities need to regularly engage with local schools to produce and deliver proposals for ensuring that there are sufficient school places.

That process normally works well and we know that the vast majority of schools and local authorities already work together effectively to ensure that there is sufficient supply of school places and that local admission systems are working to support parent choice and allowing children to achieve and thrive. However, until now there has been no general duty on schools and local authorities to co-operate on these important issues.

In some instances, that has led to some schools and local authorities acting unilaterally or unhelpfully in regard to admissions or local place planning, without recognising the impact of their decisions on local communities. These new duties will send a strong message to schools and local authorities about the importance of co-operation on school admissions and place planning. As a result, we expect that schools and local authorities will seek to act more collaboratively on these issues, for example, sharing information in a timely manner and ensuring that they are working together in the best interests of the local community.

The absence of specific duties on co-operation also means that there are limited options available for the Secretary of State to intervene where a school or local authority is refusing to co-operate on these issues. Formalising a need to co-operate as a statutory duty will provide a mechanism to address such a situation. Where a school or local authority is failing or refusing to co-operate, the Secretary of State will be able to use her existing and planned enforcement powers to intervene, for example by considering directing the party at fault to take specific steps to comply with their co-operation duty.

[Neil O'Brien]

I will be quite brief. Clauses 47 to 50 are all of a piece, though it is the last of them, clause 50, that we have the greatest concerns about. In the interest of time, I will reserve my comments on the other clauses until later.

On clause 47, I just want to note my concerns that a rather vaguely defined duty to co-operate should not be abused by local authorities, and that a school’s failure to co-operate to the satisfaction of the local authority should not be used as a trigger for some of the rather alarming powers in clause 40. I just mark my concerns on this one, particularly about the vagueness of the duty to co-operate. I will return to more specific concerns on later clauses.