Committee stage in the Commons
The Committee debated Conservative amendments on local authority direction powers and the schools adjudicator's new power to set published admission numbers, with heated exchanges on whether the adjudicator could effectively close schools by setting a PAN to zero.
NOEvidence sessions raised real concern about Clause 62: there is a potential conflict of interest when the local authority is both regulator and provider — directing hard-to-place children into schools it doesn't run while maintaining its own. Sir Dan Moynihan put it clearly: there needs to be a right of appeal to expose that conflict. Amendment 90 would require the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance on how those conflicts are identified and managed, and how children's best interests are prioritised. New Clause 45 would write into the Bill that a direction cannot take account of whether a school is a maintained school or an academy — neither change is fundamental, but both are necessary safeguards.We heard some concern about clauses 48 and 49 in our evidence sessions. One of the issues is the potential conflict of interest between the local authority being both the regulator of the local system and, at the same time, a provider of some of the schools but not others. Sir Dan Moynihan said, “there is potentially a conflict of interest if local authorities are opening their own schools and there are very hard-to-place kids. There is a conflict of interest in where they are allocating those children, so there needs to be a clear right of appeal in order to ensure that that conflict can be exposed if necessary…Some of the schools we have taken on have failed because they have admitted large numbers of hard-to-place children…I think there are schools that get into difficulty and fail because there is perceived local hierarchy of schools, and those are the schools that get those children. That is why there needs to be a clear right of appeal to prevent that from happening.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 73, Q158.] Luke Sparkes from Dixons also made roughly the same point. Amendment 90 would require the Secretary of State to set out statutory guidance on “how actual or potential conflicts of interest arising from the role of local authorities in directing admissions to schools they maintain and those they do not are to be identified and managed; and… how the best interests of children and young people are to be prioritised in all decision-making.” New clause 45 would write into the legislation: “A direction under this section may not take into account whether a school is a maintained school or an academy.” Neither measure would fundamentally change the clause, but they require a solution to address that potential conflict of interest and ensure that things are fair, and are seen to be fair.
The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 already sets out mandatory requirements on how local authorities exercise direction powers — they are a last resort, used only when normal admissions fail, and section 96 already requires the LA to choose a school within a reasonable distance that suits the child's needs. Section 97 requires consultation with the governing body, the parent and the child. Clause 62 simply extends those same rules and appeal rights to academies, so they get the same independent route to the schools adjudicator that maintained schools already have. We will update the school admissions code after Royal Assent, with full public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 90 and New Clause 45 are not necessary; please withdraw them.I rise to speak to amendment 90 and clauses 48 and 49. The clauses aim to strengthen local authorities’ existing powers to direct a school to admit a child and provide a more robust safety net for vulnerable children by ensuring that school places can be secured for them more quickly and efficiently when the usual admissions processes fall short. Amendment 90 seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance as to how local authorities may exercise their direction powers impartially and in the best interests of children and young people. I note the concerns of the hon. Members that this new power may give rise to conflicts of interests in local authorities’ dealings with the schools that they maintain and those that they do not. I also agree that it is important that local authorities exercise their direction powers appropriately and in the best interests of children and young people. I reassure hon. Members that legislation, as well as the school admissions code, already sets out mandatory requirements as to how local authorities may exercise their direction powers. They are intended for use only as a last resort and may only be used where admissions cannot be secured through the usual processes. To ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of a child, section 96 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 already requires local authorities to ensure that they choose a school that is within a reasonable distance of a child’s home and provides education suitable to their age, ability, aptitude and any specific educational needs that the child may have. Furthermore, in considering which school to place the child, there are several other factors that local authorities are already required to take into consideration. For example, local authorities are unable to direct a school from which the child has been permanently excluded, or if it would mean that the school would have to take measures to avoid breaking the rules on infant class s…
While we were in Committee on Tuesday the Education Committee heard three witnesses — Sam Freedman from the Institute for Government, Daniel Kebede of the NEU, and John Barneby of Oasis Community Learning — who don't agree on everything but all backed these provisions. Barneby was direct: Oasis follows local authority admissions because it believes in equity, and his hope is that the Bill will deliver a fair distribution of children with SEND and disadvantaged backgrounds across all schools. He also said that on the whole local authorities act responsibly in allocating pupils.I am grateful for the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. While we were in Bill Committee on Tuesday, the Education Committee was meeting—there are many people with a lot of interest in the Bill, and rightly so—to hear from three panels of witnesses. I draw the Committee’s attention to the second panel. On the panel was Sam Freedman, a senior fellow at the Institute for Government who worked at the Department for Education from 2010 to 2013 as a senior policy adviser; she is also a senior adviser to Ark schools, although was appearing in a personal capacity. Also on the panel were Daniel Kebede, who is a former teacher and the general secretary of the National Education Union, and John Barneby, who is the chief executive of Oasis Community Learning. The witnesses did not agree on everything, but all three commented on the benefits of these provisions. John Barneby said that Oasis follows “local authority admissions at the moment, because we believe in equity of offer, and we want to work in partnership. That is not the case everywhere…My hope is that, out of this policy, we will get to a place where there is a fair distribution of children with special educational needs and disadvantaged children across all schools, so that all schools are truly inclusive and have the capacity to meet the needs of all children.” He thinks the Bill will go some way to doing that. He also said that there has been a risk raised around the allocation of students, particularly with falling student numbers, but he thinks that “on the whole, local authorities act responsibly around this.”
- Clause 64 is one of the elements of the Bill we are most concerned about. The Government's own impact assessment says that where a school's published admission number (PAN) creates viability issues for another local school, local authorities should have more influence. But in a city like London with 2,700–2,800 state schools and constant cross-authority movement, how on earth is anyone to know which school is causing viability problems for another — or whether the trouble is simply the struggling school's own performance? The impact assessment openly concedes this will limit popular schools' ability to grow and will negatively affect parental preference. The Confederation of School Trusts has already flagged that the impact assessment ignores the risks of reducing PANs for popular schools. Amendment 84 would require the adjudicator to take account of a school's performance and whether it is oversubscribed. New Clause 46 would exempt high-performing schools from forced reductions; New Clause 47 would stop objections to stable or growing PANs. Without these safeguards, politicians in local authorities who have never liked the academy programme will be sorely tempted to push down numbers in academies to protect the schools they run — even if those schools are not the best.
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 50, page 110, line 4, at end insert— “(4A) Where making a decision the adjudicator must take into account— (a) the performance of the school; and (b) whether the school is oversubscribed.”
- Clause 64 ensures that where the adjudicator upholds an objection to a school's published admission number, it can then set the new PAN — a vital backstop. Amendment 84 would require the adjudicator to weigh performance and oversubscription, but mandating only those two factors and no others could hinder good decision-making: class-size regulations, physical capacity, and the wider community impact all need to be in the mix too. That is why clause 64 includes a delegated power to make regulations specifying what the adjudicator must and must not take into account — a more flexible and comprehensive approach. Amendment 83 would remove that regulation-making power entirely, which we cannot accept.
Clause 50 covers the ability of the schools adjudicator to set the published admissions number of a school where the adjudicator has upheld an objection to it. This provides an important backstop to ensure that all children are able to access a place at a school where they can achieve and thrive. Amendments 84 and 83 relate to the matters the adjudicator must take into account when deciding on a school’s published admissions number and the means by which those requirements are placed upon her. I will discuss each of these matters in turn, but there are clearly important connections between the two. Amendment 84 would requires the adjudicator to take into account the school’s performance and whether it is oversubscribed when deciding on what the school’s published admissions number should be following an upheld objection. School performance and parental demand are clearly important factors that adjudicators should consider when determining objections to published admission numbers. Indeed, previous adjudicator determinations on schools reducing published admission numbers show that the adjudicator regularly takes these matters into consideration where they are relevant to a case. However, specifying that the adjudicator must only take account of these factors and no other factors could hinder effective decision making and damage the interests of schools and communities. Although the expansion of good schools is to be celebrated, we know that in some areas schools are unilaterally increasing their admission numbers beyond what is needed, damaging the quality of education that children receive at nearby schools by making it harder for school leaders to plan the best education for their children. Therefore, it is right that the adjudicator’s decisions about the level at which to set the admission number following an upheld objection should also consider the wider impact on the community. For example, this could include potential impacts on parental choice if the quality…
- The Minister just said 'we know' that some schools have expanded 'beyond what is needed' — her words, not the adjudicator's. On what basis does she say that? Is any level of surplus capacity in a local authority area enough to trigger intervention?
The Minister talks about schools expanding “beyond what is needed”. How will she determine whether a school’s expansion is “beyond what is needed”? Is it the presence of any “surplus” school places in that local authority area?
- These are precisely the kinds of matters for the independent schools adjudicator to determine when objections are raised. Adjudicators are independent, experienced and ideally placed to take objective, transparent and impartial decisions.
As I have set out, these are matters for the school adjudicator to determine on when objections have been raised with them. Schools adjudicators are independent, which is an important factor in this process. They have significant experience of considering objection cases and they are ideally placed to take objective, transparent and impartial decisions.
- It was you, Minister, who said 'we know' that schools had expanded beyond what was needed — not the adjudicator. When I challenged that, you referred me to the adjudicator. So on what basis does the Government itself claim to know that?
It was the Minister herself who said “we know” that some schools had expanded “beyond what was needed”’; she did not say that an admissions adjudicator had determined that. In response to my challenge, she referred to the admissions adjudicator, but it was she herself who said “we know” that some schools had expanded beyond the point that was “needed”. How does she know that? On what basis does she say that?
- The clause's whole purpose is to ensure those decisions are made independently by the schools adjudicator — not by Ministers. What the hon. Gentleman is really objecting to is independent adjudication, which is precisely what this provision provides.
Obviously, the purpose of the clause is to ensure that those decisions are made independently by the schools adjudicator. I think the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that he is objecting to an independent adjudication on these matters, which is entirely the purpose of this legislative provision.
A school was built in Nottingham using public money under the previous Government, never opened, and only two pupils applied. Isn't that exactly the current system failing?We recently saw a case of a ghost school in Nottingham, funded under the previous Government, built but then never opened, because only two pupils applied to join. Does the Minister agree that that is an example of the current system failing?
Doesn't this part of the Bill go to the principle that local schools should meet local needs?Does this part of the Bill not go to the principle that local schools should meet local needs?
Is the Government's position simply 'leave it to the independent adjudicator'? Will the Government not issue guidance on the criteria the adjudicator should use?I seek some clarity. The Minister seems to be saying, “Leave it up to the independent adjudicator. They will decide.” Is she saying that the Government will not issue guidance on the criteria on which an independent adjudicator should decide?
- No, that is not what I said. A 2022 DfE report commissioned under the previous Government found that unilateral PAN decisions were identified by 89% of local authorities as a barrier to place planning — 13% said it happened regularly, 41% occasionally, and 34% rarely. LAs were more likely to report this problem with academies. This is not about removing all surplus places; it is about ensuring the number of places adequately reflects community need. Where large surplus capacity exists, it can destabilise good schools and damage parental choice.
No, that is not what I said. I was responding to the specific question asked by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston. These measures are being introduced to support local authorities with effective place planning. In answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston about how we know that this challenge needs action, a 2022 report commissioned by the Department for Education under the previous Government reported that “unilateral decisions about PANs and admissions…was identified by 89% of LAs” as a barrier to fulfilling their responsibilities for mainstream school place planning. Some 13% of local authorities reported that “this occurred regularly, 41% occasionally, and 34% rarely”. Local authorities were more likely to report that this barrier was more common when working with academies. Those are the findings of the Department’s own report, which was commissioned under the last Government. To be clear, the measure is not about removing any and all surplus places from the school system, including where it is useful, for example, in ensuring parental choice and flexibility in the system to accommodate future demand for school places. This is about ensuring that the places on offer in an area adequately reflect the needs of that local community. Where there is large surplus capacity, that can have a detrimental impact on good schools. It could result in significant upheaval for children and damage local parental choice. This is about supporting local authorities to ensure that they have the right amount of school places in their local area. There is already a statutory obligation on that. This measure will support local authorities to achieve that.
- In London, how is the adjudicator supposed to identify which of hundreds of nearby schools is causing viability issues for another — and rule out that the problem is simply the struggling school's own poor performance? Cross-borough flows are enormous. The impact assessment itself uses London's falling rolls as the rationale for the clause, but gives no methodology for making that attribution.
The Minister is talking about within local communities and within local authorities and so on. I raised the issue of how this is supposed to work in London. The Government talked about using this power where “a school’s PAN is set at a level which creates viability issues for another local school”. Local is not defined. How is the schools adjudicator to work out whether it is one school that is creating “viability issues for another local school” in a setting like London, where there are many schools nearby, or whether some of the viability issues are to do with the school’s own performance, perhaps, because it is not a very good school? How on earth is one to identify fairly in a city like this, with vast flows between boroughs, where the problem is coming from for a “failing” school?
- The challenge of falling rolls in some London boroughs makes the case even more strongly for collaborative place planning, with children at the heart of all decisions. The Bill gives local authorities more levers — including the adjudicator's ability to set a PAN once an objection is upheld — and creates new duties on all schools to co-operate with LAs on admissions and place planning.
I recognise the challenge of falling rolls in some London boroughs, which the hon. Member rightly identifies. It just goes to make the case even more strongly: partners have to work collaboratively to ensure that we manage demographic changes properly and that children are at the heart of all decisions. The measures in the Bill will give local authorities more levers to help manage surplus capacity. For example, the Bill will ensure that if the schools adjudicator upholds an objection that the published admission number of a school is too high to support the community need, the adjudicator will then be able to set the published admission number for the school. Schools and local authorities will be under new duties to co-operate on school admissions and place planning as part of measures to the Bill already debated and passed.
- Falling rolls in primary will feed through to secondary. The scale of change in some urban local authorities means some schools may need to convert to special schools or early years settings — or, unfortunately, close altogether. Will it be the schools adjudicator who decides which school closes?
It is a different but related question. There are falling rolls, initially in primary over the next few years, and then it will happen in secondary. There will be some difficult choices that someone will need to make. Sometimes that will mean varying the numbers in every school, but I am afraid that the scale of the change in some local authorities, particularly in urban areas and this city, is such that some schools may convert and become special schools, for which there is demand and need. Some may become early years settings. It might be the case—I hope it will not be, as it is always a difficult thing to do—that total education capacity has to reduce. Will it be the schools adjudicator who decides the school that closes?
- Local authorities make place-planning decisions. All schools will have a new duty to co-operate with the LA. Clause 64 extends to academies the right to object to the adjudicator where they disagree, and the delegated power in the clause will let regulations set out the factors the adjudicator must consider when setting a PAN after upholding an objection.
Local authorities make decisions about place planning within their local area. There will be a duty on all schools within a local area to co-operate with the local authority on place planning and admissions. The clause and the Bill extend to academies the ability to object to the school adjudicator, which gives them the ability to present their case where there is a challenge. Clause 50, which I will come to shortly, includes a delegated power that enables the Government to make regulations that set out factors that the adjudicator must consider when setting the published admission number of the school after it has upheld an objection.
- Under this clause, could the schools adjudicator set a school's published admission number to zero — in other words, effectively close it?
To be clear, is it the case that under the clause the schools adjudicator will have the power to set the published admission number to zero—in other words, to close a school?
- Where the adjudicator upholds an objection to the published admission number, I cannot foresee a circumstance where that might be the case —
Where the adjudicator upholds an objection to the published admission number, I cannot foresee a circumstance where that might be the case—
- This is exactly the point of the clause. With some London boroughs forecast to lose one in eight primary pupils within four years, school closures are the whole purpose. At the moment a school cannot have its PAN challenged merely for keeping it the same. Under this clause, a local authority could challenge a school's decision to maintain its PAN, and the adjudicator could set it to zero. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that.
This is a substantive point. I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; we are doing the proper business of a Committee here. Let us be clear: the whole point of the clause is to address situations, such as those in London, where a local authority has one in eight of its primary school pupils disappearing within four years, and schools closures will be a part of that. The Minister said that this is not new, but it absolutely is. At the moment, a primary school cannot have its PAN challenged by the local authority if it just wants to keep it the same. In the future, under this clause, the local authority can say, “We want to close this school. We are going to challenge your decision to keep your PAN the same. We think you should shut.” Under this clause, the schools adjudicator will have the power to set its PAN to zero.
- For academies, ending a funding agreement is a matter for the Secretary of State. For maintained schools, closure is a matter for the local authority — not the adjudicator. School closures are managed through prescribed alteration processes. The Bill's purpose is to require schools, academy trusts and local authorities to co-operate on place planning; where that means closing a school, that decision will go through the proper statutory route.
It will very much depend on the local context. Obviously, it will be for the adjudicator as an independent professional to take that decision for maintained schools. To be clear, for academies it will be for the Secretary of State to end a funding agreement, and for maintained schools it will be for the local authority to determine.[Official Report, 3 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 3WC.] (Correction)
- It isn't only academies that might want to expand — maintained schools want to expand too. And when expansion isn't right for pupil numbers in the area it shouldn't be allowed regardless of school type. In Hackney in 2024, expansion by some academies contributed to the closure of local schools including St Mary's Church of England primary. Small rural schools face the same threat when another school in the county expands. Local authorities that represent rural communities need to be able to ensure schools exist across the whole area.
Thank you, Sir Edward. It seems to have been implied that only academies might want to expand, but local authority schools might also want to expand. If it is not right for the pupil numbers within the local authority area, it should not be allowed. We were asked for examples of where it has happened already. In Hackney in 2024, the expansion of some schools and academies—[Interruption.]
- So the decision-maker is the adjudicator, not the local authority. Where is the line of democratic accountability?
So it is not the local authority; it is the adjudicator. I am wondering, as we are talking about serving communities, where the line of democratic accountability is.
- The ideal is that local authorities and schools co-operate locally to set PANs at the right level — that is where democratic accountability lies. Where that breaks down, the adjudicator is an independent arbitrator whose framework is set in law and in guidance subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The adjudicator's decisions are transparent and they are bound by law.
The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps questioning the very long-standing process—it has been in existence for quite some time—for the role of the adjudicator in making these decisions where it cannot be decided within a local authority area on a collaborative basis. Obviously, the ideal situation is that local authorities and all the schools within the area are able to co-operate and collaborate to ensure that any individual admission number is set at the right level for the local community, taking into account the broader context. There is clear democratic accountability in that. Where that process breaks down, the adjudicator is there to be an independent arbitrator. Those requirements are set out in law; the framework that they work to and the factors that they consider are set out in guidance that is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is clear and transparent, and the adjudicator is bound by the laws in that case.
- If the adjudicator is now responsible for ensuring the number of school places in an area is fair and sufficient, does the adjudicator also have a say in allowing a new school to open?
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do mean these questions genuinely, in the spirit of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill and trying to ascertain unintended consequences, intent and so on. If the adjudicator now has responsibility for ensuring that the number of school places in an area is what is needed and is fair, does the adjudicator also have a say in allowing a school to open?
- I cannot envisage a scenario where an adjudicator would adjudicate on the opening of a new school. The adjudicator acts only where an objection is made to an existing published admission number.
I cannot envisage a scenario where an adjudicator would adjudicate on the opening of a new school. If it adjudicates on the published admission numbers of existing schools, I cannot foresee a scenario where there would be an appeal to the adjudicator for a school that does not exist.
- There is nothing in the Bill to stop a local authority objecting to the first-year PAN of a brand new school and asking the adjudicator to set it to half — or even to zero. The clause applies to new schools too.
If I can put it in my words, there is nothing in the Bill to stop the local authority applying to the adjudicator to stop the first year PAN of a new school. If I say, “I want to open my new school and the PAN is going to be X,” the local authority could say, “No, I think it should be half of X.” There is nothing to stop that, even in the first year. It could even be that the local authority says, “No, the first year number should be zero.” There is nothing in the Bill to stop that happening, so, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire says, it does apply to new schools.
- The logic runs like this: the adjudicator is tasked with making sure one school isn't making another unviable. If a new school then proposes to open, that will make the problem worse. Logically, shouldn't the adjudicator be able to veto that new school?
It may help if I say why I asked the question. The adjudicator will be worrying, “I need to make sure that a school over here isn’t creating unfairness or making another school unviable because there are too many school places in this area.” If someone else comes along and says, “I’m going to open a new one,” that will make the school even more unviable. Logically, if I am the adjudicator and the Government are tasking me with making sure that we are not making schools unviable, surely I should be able to veto a new school coming into the community.
- I'm asking directly: could the adjudicator stop a new school opening, on the grounds that the adjudicator has been tasked with preventing excess capacity that might make existing schools unviable?
No, I am asking directly: could the adjudicator stop a new school opening on the grounds that we have tasked the adjudicator with making sure that there is not excess capacity in an area, which might make one or more schools unviable? Logically, surely the adjudicator ought to be able to stop the problem getting even worse—in the eyes of Ministers—by refusing a new school opening.
- I will have to take that question away and write to the right hon. Gentleman with a response.
I will have to take away that question, and I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with a response. Obviously, the adjudicator currently has a role in certain cases—for example, where a local authority is involved in the foundation of a school. I will look at the specific example that he raises, and I am happy to write to him with a response.
- Thank you for the offer to write. Can the Minister also confirm: if a school is unhappy with the adjudicator's decision on its PAN, what does the appeal process look like?
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her offer to write on this point. To avoid disturbing her flow any further, can I ask her to explain something? If a school is not happy with the decision of the adjudicator on its PAN, what will the appeal process look like for that school?
- Adjudicators' decisions are legally binding and publicly available; they are appointed by the Secretary of State, who is accountable. A school unhappy with a decision would need to bring a legal challenge — judicial review. The purpose of the clause is to simplify and make more transparent the levers local authorities have for place planning, reducing the number of disputes that arise in the first place.
Adjudicators’ decisions are legally binding and publicly available. Ultimately, adjudicators are appointed by the Secretary of State, who is accountable for those decisions. That responds to the question from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire about democratic accountability. I presume that the outcome in the case that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston raises would be a legal challenge to the decision. Obviously, he and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire are testing the possible outcomes of this measure to the very limit, which comes across as rather extreme in most cases. The purpose of the clause is to simplify, clarify and make more transparent the levers that local authorities will have to set planning numbers in their area, ideally to reduce the number of challenges and issues that arise.
I'm the only London MP here other than the Government Whip, and I have real sympathy for both sides of this argument. A director of children's services in a borough neighbouring mine told me there is already a funding application in the pipeline for a new free school in an area where an existing academy has just decided to expand its PAN. The director welcomes the duty to co-operate, but the question from Damian Hinds is not theoretical: would the adjudicator urge Ministers to reject the free school application because an existing academy is already expanding? That needs clarity from Ministers, even if it comes after today's debate.Other than the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Lewisham North, I am the only London MP in the room. There has been a lot of discussion about London schools and the challenges that we have, and one of the reasons why I have been listening quietly is that I have a lot of sympathy for both sets of arguments that have been put forward. I want to pick up on the point about new schools opening in areas where there may already be surplus capacity. In defence of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, I do not think that this issue is just theoretical. I talked to a director of children’s services about a borough —it neighbours the one containing my constituency—where there is already a funding application in the pipeline for a new free school. At the same time, an academy has just decided to expand its PAN. That director of children’s services was saying, “Actually, I welcome the duty to co-operate,” but it throws up the question posed by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire: would the adjudicator urge Ministers to turn down the application for the free school because an existing academy is already expanding its PAN? I do not say that to make a political point; it is a genuine question that will need some clarity from Ministers, albeit subsequent to this debate.
- The Office of the Schools Adjudicator can only act where there has been an objection to a published admission number — it cannot decide whether to open a school. For new school proposals put forward by a local authority outside the invitation process, those will be decided by the schools adjudicator to avoid conflicts of interest; the legal framework for those decisions will be set out in guidance. If there is a challenge to an adjudicator's decision, the route is judicial review. I will confirm in more detail in writing how the interplay with PANs works in practice.
I appreciate that the hon. Lady refers to a real potential scenario, although I would certainly put it in the hypothetical category at this stage. The Office of the Schools Adjudicator can only take a decision in relation to a PAN where there has been an objection. That is the point I was making. It cannot decide whether to open a school; it can take a decision only where an objection is made specifically to the adjudicator on the basis of the published admission number. Subject to the passing of this Bill, new school proposals put forward by the local authority outside the invitation process—I do not believe we have got to those clauses yet; we are coming to a whole additional debate on that—will be decided by the schools adjudicator, to avoid any conflict of interest and to ensure that any objections to the proposals are considered fairly. Obviously, it will have the legal framework within which to operate in order to make those decisions. That is an established part of the current system. For other possible scenarios, we will provide guidance on the factors that we expect decision makers to take into account in the variety of decisions that may be required. That will be based on the existing guidance for opening new schools and will include the vision for the school, whether it is deliverable and affordable, the quality of the education, the curriculum and the staffing plans. Those are all the factors taken into account when determining the opening of a new school.[Official Report, 3 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 4WC.] (Correction) However, I appreciate the challenge on published admission numbers, in particular, being a factor to be taken into consideration. As I said, I will confirm in more detail how that might work in practice, but the fundamental point is that it will be set out in guidance. If there is a challenge to a decision by an adjudicator, that will be by way of judicial review. Moving on, new clause 46, tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and…
- We have a fundamental disagreement with Clause 64. This is a major mistake — one of the worst clauses in the Bill. It strikes at school choice and at forty years of foundational school reform. We also object to the process: big questions about what fairness means should be settled in primary legislation, not handed to the Secretary of State to resolve through regulations with limited scrutiny. I am pressing Amendment 84 and New Clause 46 to a vote.
I pay tribute to the Minister for the reasonable way in which we have conducted this important debate. We have a huge disagreement with clause 50, which we think is a major mistake. We also have concerns about the process. We believe that it is better for this House to debate these big issues about what fairness is and looks like, and for that to be dealt with through the transparency of primary legislation, rather than its being left to the Secretary of State at any given moment to pass these things in regulations. I am therefore keen to press amendment 84 and new clause 46 to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.