Committee stage in the Lords
Lords Committee debated amendments to limit the Secretary of State's new power to direct academy trusts under Clause 49 (now Clause 56), remove the automatic academy-order duty for failing schools under Clause 50, and extend teachers' accompaniment rights at disciplinary hearings.
B(Clause 56 goes far beyond ensuring academies comply with legal duties — it cuts across the funding agreements that have served the sector well and creates a micromanager's charter. Where is the evidence of non-performance that makes this power necessary? My amendments bring proportionality: Amendment 444A would require any direction to be made within a reasonable period, taking into account the seriousness of the breach; Amendment 444B would remove the ability to intervene on a *likely* breach; Amendment 444C and Amendment 445 would limit intervention to actual breaches of statutory duties or funding agreements, not speculative unreasonableness. Amendments 445ZC and 445ZD replace the direction-making power with a notice requiring the proprietor to decide how to remedy matters, while Amendment 445ZB requires a statement to Parliament each time the power is used. Frankly, this clause is best removed altogether — at a time when the Prime Minister is focused on delivery, it absorbs precious ministerial time for little impact, when that energy should go on SEND.My Lords, we return. I rise to speak to the amendments to Clause 49, including my intention that Clause 49 should not stand part of the Bill. It is of course reasonable for the Secretary of State to direct academies to comply with their legal duties, but this clause goes much further than that; indeed, it cuts across the academy funding agreements that have served the sector well to date. Once again, in a familiar pattern, we start with the question of why this clause is needed. Where is the evidence of non-performance of relevant duties on the part of academies or of unreasonable behaviour in relation to either their duties or their powers? Once again, it brings academies into line with local authority-maintained schools, despite the fact that there are already significant powers within both the funding agreements and the academy trust handbook to address any breaches. Once again, we find the Secretary of State at risk of micromanaging, rather than delegating responsibility to the trusts that run over half our schools. Once again, we have to ask ourselves: even if it is not the intention of this Secretary of State to interfere in minor matters in our schools, how might a future Secretary of State use these powers? Finally, we realised when reading the policy notes that the penalty for non-compliance is, first, a notice to improve and then a termination warning notice—the identical powers that exist today—or, in the words of the then Minister for School Standards arguing in favour of this clause in committee in the other place, “using a sledgehammer to crack a nut”.—[Official Report, Commons, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee, 4/2/25; col. 383.] But we end up with the same sledgehammer to crack what looks like quite a small nut. You could argue that this clause at best creates another layer of bureaucracy and at worst is a micromanager’s charter. A close reading of the policy notes just leaves one asking “Why?” yet again. Not only is the Secretary of S…
The powers in Clause 56 are so broad they will undermine trust in school leaders and reduce academy autonomy significantly. A trust could be punished for actions it has not yet taken — directed simply on the basis of speculation by the Secretary of State. The word 'unreasonably' is left undefined, opening the door to overreach and political interference from Whitehall. The clause also lacks any independent review or appeal mechanism — something Amendment 445A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, would specifically address. These amendments together would restore proportionality and fairness while preserving the Secretary of State's core enforcement powers.My Lords, I add my support to amendments 444A to C, 445 and 445ZA to ZD, in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran, which seek to rein in the sweeping new powers currently set out in Clause 49 for the Secretary of State to intervene in academy operations. As my noble friend said, of course the Secretary of State should have the ability to ensure that academies comply with their statutory duties, but the powers currently included in Clause 49 are so broad that they will undermine trust in school leaders, significantly reduce academy autonomy and create a top-down bureaucracy with potentially over-restrictive government insight. The clause as currently drafted, for instance, allows for the Secretary of State to give directions they consider appropriate to academies if they are deemed to have acted unreasonably or to be proposing to act unreasonably. To my mind, the effect appears to be that a trust could be punished for actions it has not yet taken, with a central direction initiated simply on the basis of speculation from a Secretary of State. I may have misunderstood but, if this is the case, it surely cannot be right. In this context, the use of the word “unreasonably” is a further cause for concern. It is a vague and subjective standard, left undefined in Clause 49 as it stands, and it seems to open the door to overreach and potential political interference in individual schools and trusts from Whitehall. Without clear guardrails, it would enable Ministers to meddle in decisions that surely must properly belong to academy trustees and head teachers. As my noble friend has just said in her opening remarks, the drafting of the clause runs the risk of creating a micromanager’s charter. And the problem does not end there. The powers granted under Clause 49 are not only overly broad; they are also unchecked and have no independent review or appeal mechanisms built in—something which Amendment 445A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, would specifically address. The…
It is again not obvious why these powers are needed. The existing legislative framework and funding agreements provide ample levers to hold academy trusts accountable. If this signals a shift away from accountability and towards direct central control, we risk ending up with a Whitehall that manages the entire school system in the manner of a weak local authority of forty years ago — and I am worried about the strain that will place on the Civil Service, and the legal disputes and challenges that will consume time that should go to helping children.My Lords, I too support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran. As she and my noble friend Lady Evans have pointed out, it is again not obvious why these powers are needed. The existing legislative framework and funding agreements provide ample levers to enforce and hold academy trusts accountable. If there is an implied shift, as there appears to be, away from accountability and towards direct control and management, it is important to remember what we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, this afternoon: he laid out very clearly those underlying principles about high autonomy, balanced with strong accountability, and referred to the problems and weaknesses of some local authorities, which made it necessary and desirable to move to the model that served us well for many years. It would be deeply unfortunate if we end up with a central government that is attempting to manage the entire school system, rather along the lines of one of the weaker local authorities of 40 years ago. I am worried about the strain that this will place on the Civil Service. I have concerns about people trying to read tea leaves and decide whether a breach is likely. As others have said, it feels like a system that is almost certain to create more contention and disagreement, and more time wasted on legal disputes and challenges to action, than it is to help children by resolving problems early. I support the set of amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran.
These clauses go to the very essence of what an academy is. I know a sponsor who told me that if Clause 56 passes in its current form, he would want to hand his academy back to the state — and I cannot believe that is what the Government intend. The London Academy in Edgware, one of the original sponsored academies I served as trustee, became one of the top 55 schools in the country precisely because of the flexibilities academy status gave it, including an admissions policy that prioritised pupils eligible for free school meals. The Leigh Academies Trust has grown to over 30 schools by being trusted to run its own affairs. Central government control of schools is not the answer.My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Barran. I have not spoken in Committee and apologise for not being available to speak at Second Reading. Although I supported many of the arguments earlier today in respect of teachers’ qualifications, curriculums and so on, I chose to speak on this group of amendments because these clauses go to the essence of the academy and negate much of what an academy is about and what it wishes to do. These amendments are particularly important. It is a bit disappointing that there are so few of us loyal troopers in the Chamber tonight to address this extremely important issue about the core of how academies are run. I will disclose my interest in a second, but I was propelled to speak because I heard from one sponsor whom I know well that, if these clauses come through, he would want to hand “his academy”, as he calls it—the academy that he sponsors—back to the state. I cannot believe that this is what the Government want to achieve, but inclusion of Clause 49 may well lead to that. It would be a tragedy for our children’s education. I am a huge admirer of academies. I was a trustee of the London Academy in Edgware and am currently a member of the Leigh Academies Trust in Kent. A member is a peculiar status within an academy, but that is what I am. I am not a governor or a trustee; along with the county council, I am a member. The first, the London Academy in Edgware, was one of the original sponsored academies. It replaced a failing school in Edgware and was sponsored by the philanthropist Peter Shalson. In 2023, thanks in no small part to the excellent head, Paddy McGrath, it became one of the top 55 schools in the country. Importantly, over 50% of the students are eligible for the pupil premium and the admission policy prioritised students eligible for free school meals. This was a fantastic achievement. It has been obtained not least because of the flexibilities that it has been afforded and the freedoms w…
- The tremendous improvement in children's education delivered by academies is clear empirically. Control of schools by central government is not the answer — I hope the Government will listen to Lady Barran and agree with her amendments.
I am only repeating what was in print; I do not know why. Clearly, when one looks at the academies, one can see the tremendous success and improvement to education to the benefit of children in this country. Control of schools by central government clearly and empirically is not the answer, so I hope the Government will listen to my noble friend Lady Barran, whose dedication to this sector I salute, and agree with her amendments.
The research simply does not show that academies alone are improving standards. The Education Policy Institute has looked at this every year since 2017 and its conclusion is consistent: some academy chains are very good and some are poor; some maintained schools are excellent and some are doing less well. Overall there is no premium for the academy sector. It is simply untrue to say all the improvement is in one sector — the evidence does not support it.My Lords, I do not want to prolong the debate, but I have to answer the charge that it is simply the academies that are improving standards in education, and maintained schools are not. Research in the area does not show that to be the case. Since 2017, I think, the Education Policy Institute has had a yearly look at the performance of academies and state schools. Last week I looked at the one for this year and, although I cannot remember the exact figures, the general conclusion was the same that it has been every year: there are some very good academy chains and there are some poor academy chains; there are some very good maintained schools, and some are doing less well. When you look at the results in the round, there is no premium, overall, for the academy sector. The noble Lord may shake his head, but I will happily write to him with the research. I do not want to prolong things, but I just could not sit here and take that remark again. I thought we had discussed it over dinner; now I am saying it in the Committee so that it is on the record. It is simply untrue to say that all the improvement is in one sector of schools and that there is no improvement in maintained schools. That simply is not the case; the evidence and the research simply do not support that.
My party and I are not supporting these amendments. When academies were created, we sat through endless meetings attacking the maintained sector. I never heard the advocates for academies praise a maintained school, nor acknowledge any academy failure. That has changed — and I pay tribute to Lady Barran for that evolution in language. But if there is a breach, it should not be left to the academy alone to sort out: the Secretary of State should be able to make the final decision. The 'Panorama' documentary about academy proprietors directing contracts to their own companies was a real scandal — action must be possible when it is needed.I shall briefly talk generally about all these amendments, which I and my party are not supporting. I ought to declare an interest as a governor of the King’s Academy, Liverpool. I was there at the beginning, when academies were started for a particular reason by the then Labour Government in very deprived communities and were then seized on by the coalition Government, including by David Laws from my party. We would sit through endless meetings, where there were always attacks on the maintained sector, about how wonderful the academies were. I never, during those early days—or even recently—heard the noble Lord, Lord Nash, who is not in his place, or the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, who is not in his place, say, “This academy is doing a really good job but, guess what? This maintained school is doing a really good job”. I never heard any criticism of any other academy. People can nod their heads, but if you look at the record, that was the case. I remember us pushing, for example, that we should inspect multi-academies. Oh no, we could not do that. I remember trying to suggest that we have an external look at the finances of multi-academy trusts—“Oh no, you can’t do that”. Thank goodness, we have moved on considerably since those days, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, because, during her time as Education Minister, she went to visit maintained schools, and her language and the language of her party has changed considerably. I very much appreciate that. If there is a breach—I am not sure how serious or how weak the breaches are—the Secretary of State should be looking at it and making the final decision. It should not be just left to the academy or the multi-academy trusts themselves. One recalls that “Panorama” documentary about how proprietors of academies—it was a limited number, thank goodness—were ensuring that some of the work for their academies was going to companies that they owned and that were their own companies. So a repair or constructi…
Lady Barran may have been reading an old version of the policy notes — they were updated when the Bill came to the Lords, so please do check and write to me if there is still a discrepancy. Clause 56 fills a real gap: at present the only remedy when a trust breaches a legal duty is a termination warning notice, which is disproportionate for serious but isolated breaches. A direction allows early, proportionate intervention, with court enforcement only as a last resort — the same powers that exist for maintained schools. On Amendment 445ZB, we already publish all directions on GOV.UK promptly; a statutory annual report would duplicate that and add burden without benefit. On Amendments 445ZC and 445ZD, replacing directions with a notice procedure risks delaying intervention and leaves trusts policing themselves. That said, I have heard the concerns about the clause's breadth and I am considering solutions that preserve effective intervention while respecting trust autonomy — I look forward to bringing something back on Report. I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw.My Lords, I turn to the amendments in this group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Before I get into the detail of the clause and the amendments, I say to her that we believe that she may have been reading from an old version of the policy notes, because they were updated when they came to the House of Lords, and the policy notes are therefore correct in relation to the items that she was talking about. If she wants to check whether that is the case and drop me a line, I would be more than happy to follow that up if it is not the case. This group covers the clause relating to ensuring effective oversight and accountability of academy trusts. Clause 49 introduces a power for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to an academy trust where it is failing to comply with its legal duties or acting unreasonably when exercising these powers. Currently, when a trust is in breach of a legal duty, the Secretary of State can only issue a termination warning notice, which may be disproportionate for significant but isolated breaches. This measure will allow the Secretary of State to direct academy trusts to ensure that they meet their legal responsibilities and to address instances of unreasonable conduct where necessary. It offers a clear and proportionate route to ensure compliance. If a trust does not respond to a direction, the Secretary of State may apply to the courts to ensure the matter is resolved, reflecting similar powers already in place for maintained schools. This will be used, where appropriate, to help implement key provisions in the Bill, such as those relating to curriculum, admissions and uniform, if necessary. Most academy trusts perform well and meet their legal obligations. However, where they fall short, the Government must be able to act in a targeted and proportionate way. Clause 49 allows for early engagement, proportionate intervention and enforcement through the courts only when necessary. Amendment 445ZB, tabled by the noble Baroness,…
- Two rays of sunshine in one day at this late hour — I am extremely grateful for the Minister's closing remarks, not just from tiredness. The issues with this clause are real, but I will not belabour them, and I very much welcome the commitment to bring something back on Report.
My Lords, we have had two rays of sunshine in one day; we should celebrate, at this late hour. We now know how to wear the Minister down. We will be starting at 9 am next week. In all seriousness, as the Minister can hear, I am extremely grateful; it is not just tiredness. There are some issues with this clause, so I will not belabour those but will just welcome very much her closing remarks. I thank my noble friends Lady Evans, Lady Spielman and Lord Leigh for their contributions. I offer, as my noble friend Lord Leigh did, my thanks to the Leigh Academies Trust for taking on part of what was a very troubled school on the Isle of Sheppey, which is a particularly challenging community. We wish the trust and the pupils every success.
- Clause 58 is the clause that worries me most, because it risks directly damaging children's education — not intentionally, but by ignoring the impact sponsored academies have had on the most difficult schools. Over 2,796 sponsored academies now exist in England, more than 23% of secondary schools, and MATs have produced extraordinary turnarounds. Yet this clause removes the section of the Academies Act 2010 that makes academy orders the default for schools in special measures. The Secretary of State's own Written Ministerial Statement yesterday seemed to say academy orders would continue as the default — so which is it? My Amendment 445B addresses the Government's concern about speed: if no suitable sponsor is available, the Secretary of State must within 14 days publish a plan to secure governance and rapid improvement. Amendment 446A addresses the likely increase in judicial reviews if the process becomes discretionary. Amendment 446B would reintroduce automatic academy orders for schools that Ofsted finds lack the capacity to improve, or that RISE teams identify as significantly underperforming. Children in failing schools cannot wait through prolonged legal uncertainty.
My Lords, I am optimistic for a hat trick from the Minister. Clause 50 is one of the clauses that leave me most worried about the Bill because it risks directly damaging the education that children receive. Again, that is obviously not what Ministers intend, but it appears to ignore the impact on the school performance of sponsored academies—to be clear, not every single sponsored academy, but I know that the Minister will agree that, overall, the evidence shows a really important impact on the lives of children in those schools. To be clear, I do not think that anyone on my Benches thinks that autonomy is a magic bullet to solve the problems of any school, whether or not it is failing. The key is how that autonomy is used. Some MATs have used their autonomy to focus on developing really great and deep expertise in turning around struggling schools, supporting staff and transforming outcomes for pupils. Others have focused on developing great curricula. There are lots of other examples; of course, there are also examples of professional generosity in the maintained sector, too. There are now 2,796 sponsored academies in England —more than 23% of our secondary schools. As we have heard from a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Sewell earlier, trusts have led to extraordinary turnarounds in some of the most difficult schools in our country; I pay tribute to everyone involved in that critical work. However, Clause 50 changes that. No longer will a failing maintained school automatically join a strong MAT. In her Written Ministerial Statement, published yesterday, the Secretary of State wrote: “Subject to the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, structural intervention through issuing of academy orders will continue to be the default approach for schools in special measures, because no child should be left in a school that does not have the capacity to improve”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/9/25; col. 29WS.] I am genuinely confused by…
This Bill sits in an awkward position on academisation — a half U-turn that ends the presumption of new academies and removes the duty to force schools into MATs, but does not give schools already in MATs the option to leave and return to local authority control. Amendment 447 would direct the Secretary of State to publish, within 12 months, proposals for converting academies and free schools into maintained schools. Amendment 447ZB takes an alternative approach. Schools and their communities should have the chance of escape from failed ideology into genuine local choice — the kind of devolution the Government say they believe in.My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 447 and 447ZB, which appear in my name. I must begin by apologising to the Committee and the Minister for failing to introduce my amendments in the group before the break. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for picking up the slack. My only explanation is that it has been a long 24 hours. This Bill, as currently drafted, sits in an awkward position. On the long-term disastrous policy of academisation—too often forced academisation and rarely resisted successfully by local and school communities —the Bill makes half a U-turn. It ends the presumption that all new schools must be an academy and removes the duty to force schools into multi-academy trusts. As the National Education Union has said, this a welcome shift in policy. But this is not a full U-turn but a half U-turn. It leaves far too many schools stuck, pointed awkwardly at 90 degrees across the flow of history, like a vehicle on a traffic island with fast-moving lorries approaching from both directions. The Bill does not provide the option for schools and their communities that are unhappy in their current situation to leave multi-academy trusts and join the local authority system or other groups that are better suited to their needs. Making that provision would provide the chance of escape and allow schools to get out of the iron grip of dangerous and failed ideology into the empowered position of local choice and decision-making—the kind of devolution that the Government say they are in favour of. This is an area of policy that the Green Party, as on so many others, has been leading ever since it resisted from the start the disastrous push to free schools and academies that has fragmented our systems and seen enormous sums flowing into fat cat executive pay—something we may come to in the next group—and big supply profits hoovered up by multinational companies on the contractor bandwagon. These two amendments take two possible approaches to dealing with this and s…
- I support Amendments 445B, 446 and 446A. I was right to oppose extending academy orders to schools requiring improvement — I warned the then Secretary of State it would place inspection under impossible pressure, and the Government quickly changed their regulatory approach to remove dependence on overall judgments. But the loss of clarity has created its own problem: every intervention decision now risks becoming the opening salvo in a long war of attrition. Parent campaigns to defend schools that were in fact in a desperate state are debilitating for all concerned and drastically delay the action children need. RISE teams and their predecessors have never been found fully satisfactory — each starts with school leaders but morphs into generalist officials. The consequences of failure must be clear, brisk and well implemented, with maximum certainty and minimum delay.
My Lords, I want to speak briefly on academy orders and to support Amendments 445B, 446 and 446A. My noble friend Lady Barran rightly said that I did not support the extension of academy orders to those schools that require improvement. I remember writing to the then Secretary of State to warn him that, among other things, it would place inspection under impossible pressure, and I think that my assessment was borne out. This Government were quick to change their regulatory policies to remove their dependence on overall inspection judgments, so that those judgments could be removed. What we have seen over the past year is interesting, because it has shown that the sector also dislikes opaque and unpredictable processes, such as are now operating. With the loss of clarity, every intervention decision potentially becomes just the opening salvo in a long war of attrition. I experienced quite a few of these sadly sometimes misguided parent campaigns to defend a school that was in fact in a desperate state and where the parents simply did not realise quite how bad it was. I know how debilitating some of these situations can be for all concerned and how drastically they can delay the kind of work and action that is needed to sort things out for children. Getting things sorted out for children typically also sorts things out for staff, making their jobs doable again. We also now have years of experience of RISE teams and their predecessors. None has been found to be fully satisfactory. Each incarnation starts by recruiting school or MAT leaders but, over time, tends to morph into being a team of generalist officials who are not themselves equipped to provide support and, sometimes, struggle to identify the most appropriate alternative sources of help. I therefore support the proposals for improvement made by my noble friend and urge the Government to think hard about how to make sure that the consequences of failure—it is important that we can recognise failure—are clear, b…
- For the record, here is a relevant voice on this issue: "I have serious concerns about the proposal to change the pathway for turning around failing schools. 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." That is Siobhain McDonagh, in Hansard on 8 January 2025, column 902.
To get the current situation on the record, I looked around for evidence and found a quote that is helpful in our deliberations on this issue. The quote is: “I have serious concerns about the proposal to change the pathway for turning around failing schools. I know from bitter personal experience that any change to the status of a school can become highly political. The current system, in which failing schools automatically become academies, provides clarity and de-politicisation, and ensures a rapid transition. I fear that making that process discretionary would result in a large increase in judicial reviews”— as has been mentioned— “pressure on councils and prolonged uncertainty, which is in nobody’s interests”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/25; col. 902.] I think that encapsulates the situation quite neatly. It is from Siobhain McDonagh, speaking on 8 January 2025. It can be found in column 902 of the relevant Hansard; I am providing the reference since my earlier remarks were challenged. So I will put them on the record as well: they came from the Spectator on 5 February. I believe that Siobhain McDonagh summarised the situation very fairly.
Amendment 446 is an interesting idea. A successful maintained school taking over a nearby failing school keeps an effective model within the maintained sector — it accepts that academies are part of the landscape while acknowledging they are not the only successful part. Some of the worst schools today are academies precisely because they were forced to convert from failure; some of the best converter academies jumped ship when things were going well. We need options, not a single prescribed path.My Lords, very briefly, what draws me to say something here is Amendment 446. It is an interesting idea that is inspired by academies, if you like. When you have a successful maintained school and it is close, you take over and you have a nice successful model that is still in the maintained sector. We have been saying, in effect, that we accept that academies are part of the landscape. The fact is that they are not the only successful part of the landscape, because a maintained school must have done reasonably well to remain a maintained school, so it has been successful. If we are interested in success—and not running up a political flag, whatever colour we choose—it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Let us also remember that some of the worst schools now will be academies because they have been failing and they come down, and some of the most successful ones are the ones that jumped ship because they had nice catchment areas and all was going well, so they became independent. That is one of the realities. So I hope that, when we look at how we improve schools that go wrong, we have other options because, if we dig into the academy system, we can find serial failure even there.
- Many academy trusts have driven improvement — I have said so on every occasion, as has the Secretary of State. But academisation is not a panacea: even excluding sponsored academies, pupil attainment in MATs and maintained schools is similar. Around 40% of maintained schools identified for conversion take over a year to become academies — time during which underperformance continues. Clause 58 therefore replaces the duty to issue academy orders with a discretionary power. For schools Ofsted finds lack the capacity to improve — currently two-thirds of those failing inspection — we will continue to issue academy orders. Where a school has the capacity to improve, from September 2026 we will rapidly deploy RISE teams as the first intervention. After 18 months without significant improvement, structural change remains on the table. As Rebecca Boomer-Clark of Lift Schools put it, structures don't raise standards, people do. The amendments from Lady Barran would in different ways reintroduce a statutory duty and undermine the core flexibility Clause 58 provides.
My Lords, I turn now to the amendments in group 10, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lord Blunkett. Although my noble friend is not here, I will respond to that amendment, given that it was addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman. We have heard much today about the positive impact that high-quality trusts have made on the educational outcomes of children. This Government acknowledge these achievements—in fact, I have done so on every occasion that I have had the opportunity to, as has my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. What we are concerned about is how we can ensure improvement. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was right when he said that what we need here is a range of appropriate methods in order to ensure the quickest possible improvement. That is what the Government are aiming to do here. While many academies and trusts have driven improvement throughout the system, academisation is not necessarily a panacea. In fact, even when sponsored academies are excluded, pupil attainment in multi-academy trusts and maintained schools is similar. Furthermore, the process of converting these schools can in itself be slow. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is right to say that that is because, in many cases, it is very complex. Nevertheless, that may well be a period in which the improvement that we would all want to see has not been able to be pushed. Around 40% of maintained schools identified for conversion take over a year to become academies—time during which pupils continue to experience underperformance. It is for those reasons that Clause 50 has been included in the Bill.
- The Minister spoke about 40% of schools identified for 'conversion' — could she clarify, for the sake of Hansard, whether she means 'sponsorship'? Conversion is a choice to become an academy; if there is a delay in voluntary conversion, that often sits in DfE capacity. Sponsorship is when a school has failed. Will she clarify in writing?
My Lords, the Minister spoke about 40% of schools identified for “conversion”. I just wonder, for the sake of Hansard, whether she meant “sponsorship”. Conversion is a choice to become an academy, and if there is a delay, my experience is that that might be situated somewhere in Sanctuary Buildings’ capacity, whereas sponsorship is when a school has failed. Maybe she would like to clarify that in writing.
- I will clarify in writing. But I maintain the point — which the noble Baroness herself conceded — that the process, whatever prompted it, is often not as speedy as we would want. For maintained schools lacking the capacity to improve we will continue to issue academy orders; where there is capacity to improve, RISE teams deploy first.
I will clarify that in writing. I maintain the point, which the noble Baroness herself conceded, that often the conversion process, whatever prompted it in the first place, is not as speedy as we would want in order to drive improvement. Clause 50 has been included in the Bill so that the swiftest action can be taken to improve schools causing concerns. For maintained schools that lack the capacity to improve—currently two-thirds of the total of schools that fail their Ofsted inspections—we intend, as has been highlighted during the debate today, to continue to issue academy orders, because they need a fresh start. Where Ofsted has determined that a school has the capacity to improve, from September 2026 we will rapidly deploy RISE teams—our school improvement support—as the first intervention rather than defaulting to structural change. I will address the opposition from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to Clause 50 standing part of the Bill. Clause 50 replaces the current duty on the Secretary of State to issue an academy order for any maintained school judged to be in a statutory category of concern by Ofsted with a discretionary power. This represents, as I have suggested, a deliberate and considered shift in our approach. It reflects the Government’s commitment to a more flexible and swift approach to school improvement. As Rebecca Boomer-Clark of Lift Schools recently put it, structures do not raise standards, people do. Strong schools working together in strong partnerships will continue to make the difference. Clause 50 gives effect to this shift. It enables a more responsive approach, one that prioritises timely support through RISE, while retaining the option of structural change if a school does not show significant improvement after 18 months of targeted support. Amendment 446, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blunkett, seeks to introduce a statutory presumption of structural intervention, through either structural change or merger when a school is in…
- The Government has said it has 'no immediate plans' — that is a statement of a future possibility. Given how hard it is to get parliamentary time for Bills, would the Government consider future-proofing by including the mechanism for schools to exit MATs without requiring it to be activated now?
I am taking some encouragement from the Minister’s remarks. I wrote down and underlined that the Government have no immediate plans. That is interesting, because it is a statement of a possibility for the future. We all know how hard it is to get parliamentary time to get Bills through Parliament—the Government will certainly attest to that. I ask the Minister to consider future-proofing. Would it not be a good idea to provide the potential here, without the necessity to activate it, and set up some mechanism for the possibility of getting the kind of diversity that she says she is looking for?
- I also said the proposals run contrary to our policy. I would not want the noble Baroness to run away with anything that is unlikely to happen — so no.
I also said that the proposals run contrary to our policy. I would not want the noble Baroness to run away with anything that is unlikely to happen—so no.
- I am reassured by the Minister's final remarks. It is important to set ideology aside and look at the results, and at the people delivering them — in schools across the country. I agree with Lady Spielman: we need a system with clarity that is, in her words, brisk, well-implemented and with minimum delay. The Minister's clarity on Ofsted judgments about schools lacking the capacity to improve is helpful, and I appreciate it — though it will be interesting to hear Lady Spielman's reflections on whether that places great pressure on inspectors. The Minister makes a fair point about the 2RI+ power and judicial reviews. Until we see the proof of the pudding we will remain concerned, but I beg leave to withdraw.
I am very reassured by the Minister’s final remarks. I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was in the Chamber when I tried to respond to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted. It is important to set aside one’s ideology and look at the results, and at the people who are leading those results, in our schools all around the country and celebrate them I thank my noble friends Lady Spielman and Lord Leigh for their reinforcement and support for my amendments. I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lady Spielman that we need a system with clarity which, in her words, is brisk, well-implemented and with minimum delay. That is important and, I think, what the Minister hopes will happen. I appreciate the clarity that the Minister brought in relation to Ofsted judgments which say that the school in question lacks the capacity to improve. It will be interesting to hear my noble friend Lady Spielman’s reflections on that and whether that puts great pressure on Ofsted inspectors to avoid that judgment. But that is for another day and another time. The Minister makes a fair point about the 2RI+ power and the fact that those decisions—which I have to say I feel quite proud of—were not judicially reviewed. The context is perhaps a little different, but the Minister has brought helpful clarity to the Government’s intention. Until we see the proof of the pudding, we will remain concerned. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
- My amendment is simple: it brings the pay of multi-academy trust and single academy trust chief executive officers within the remit of the School Teachers' Review Body. CEO pay has been rising in an inflationary spiral — this year sixty-four CEOs earned over £200,000 and five MATs registered pay increases of over 20%. The taxpayer has no insight into the reasoning behind these awards and there is no agreed definition of the CEO role. Rigorous STRB scrutiny — with written and oral evidence, independent consideration, and a recommendation to Government — is the right mechanism to bring proportionality. Lord Agnew, when Academies Minister, was so concerned about this that he twice wrote to chairs of trusts and called them in to justify excessive awards. I entirely agree with him that CEO pay should not increase faster than the pay award for teachers.
My Lords, I am aware that it is very late at night indeed. I have waited a long time to bring the amendment but, anyhow, it is not a long speech. The amendment is very simple. It makes one addition to the Bill, and that is to bring chief executive officer pay, usually of a multi-academy trust, but it might be of a single academy trust, under the remit of the School Teachers’ Review Body. This is a necessary step to advance the good use of public money in the provision of education for the nation’s children. As we know, this is, or at least it was, a cross-party concern. My noble friend Lord Agnew is not here, but when he served as Academies Minister in the last Government, he was highly concerned about the apparently exponential rise in the pay of multi-academy trust CEOs. Indeed, so grave was his concern that, on two occasions, I think, he wrote to the chair of trustees of MATs that were awarding what he considered to be excessive pay rises to their CEOs and called them into his office to meet them and hear the justification for the awards. If he were here, I would have assured my noble friend that I would have very much liked to be a fly on the wall at those meetings. In 2018, my noble friend wrote a letter to the chairs of academy trusts in England saying: “I want to emphasise the priority that I attach to the responsibility you and your boards have to ensure that your executive teams manage their budgets effectively and deliver the best value for money. This is particularly important when looking at the pay of your senior leadership teams”. He added that the then chief executive of the Education Skills and Funding Agency had written to a number of single academy trusts where remuneration for a trust employee was over £150,000 and he would be writing to all MATs where this applied too. He added: “I believe that not all boards are being rigorous enough on this issue. CEO and senior pay should reflect the improvements they make to schools’ performance and how effic…
I support Amendment 448A. Referrals to the Teaching Regulation Agency have more than doubled in three years; one in four teachers faces an allegation at some point in their career. The process severely impacts mental health and the ability to do the job. Without legal clarity, whether a school allows a trained companion depends entirely on the goodwill of individual heads — the practice is inconsistent. Exercising equal working rights should not depend on union membership.My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendment 448A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to which I have added my name. I must declare an interest in that I have been a member of teaching unions, but somewhere along the line, I let that slip. I confess that as this Bill goes through, I am learning a lot about education. I did not realise that as a non-union member, I was not naturally entitled to legal representation if a complaint was made against me. That does not sound entirely legal to me. I believe that unions do a good job and are a necessary part of teaching for many people, but being part of a union should not determine whether a teacher feels safe and supported. Amendment 448A promises important improvements to working conditions within the teaching profession. Referrals to the Teaching Regulation Agency have more than doubled over the past three years. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, is about to point out, one in four teachers is subject to an allegation from a student or parent at some point in their career, and, as a result, many are subject to disciplinary investigations and hearings. This puts pressure on teachers in what is already a highly pressurised job. The process of investigation can severely impact a teacher’s mental health or their ability to fulfil their job. This issue demands careful attention to prevent a worsening of the recruitment and retention crisis. Teachers need to be able to raise their own concerns, grievances or requests for flexible working arrangements. Many schools already allow trained companions, but that is exactly the problem: it depends on the good will of individual heads. Without legal clarity, the practice is inconsistent. Exercising equal working rights should not be dependent on union membership.
No individual should feel compelled to join a union solely for the legal protection it affords at a disciplinary or grievance hearing, yet evidence shows many teachers do exactly that. There are teachers who prefer independent support, who are uncomfortable sharing sensitive information with colleagues, or who simply choose not to participate in collective structures — and they face formal proceedings unsupported. Doctors and dentists under the NHS's framework are entitled to accompany by defence organisations like the MDU; teachers working under comparable public scrutiny should have the same basic protection. Amendment 448A would not introduce legal representation — it would merely regularise the good practice that organisations like Edapt already provide informally, so that the presence of a trained companion is a right and not a favour.My Lords, I, too, would like to speak in support of Amendment 448A, which I believe represents a significant step forward in promoting fairness within the teaching profession. Just as there are many reasons why an individual may choose not to join a political party, there are likewise numerous legitimate reasons why a teacher may opt not to join a union. Although I fully support the right of teachers to join trade unions, it is deeply concerning that many feel they must do so merely to secure access to appropriate representation when facing formal proceedings. No individual should feel compelled to join a union solely for the legal protection it affords, yet evidence from representative surveys indicates that many teachers do precisely that, joining primarily for legal support in the face of allegations. At its core, this amendment is about one fundamental principle: teachers’ access to support in formal disciplinary or grievance proceedings should not be contingent on their politic beliefs or union membership status. At this juncture, I should declare an interest, in that my wife, who is the chair of a board of governors for a foundation school, is currently in the process of a disciplinary procedure. The issue before us is the basic right to be accompanied. At present, this right is extended only to union members or those who can identify a suitable colleague. But what of the many teachers—an increasing number—who, for entirely valid reasons, can access neither? These are not theoretical concerns. There are teachers who prefer independent forms of support; teachers who are uncomfortable sharing sensitive or personal information with colleagues; and teachers who, as is their right, choose not to participate in collective structures. Tens of thousands of such professionals exist in our education system. They are not exempt from the formal process, yet they are expected to face them alone. This is a question of fairness. We already recognise this principle in other s…
- This is not an anti-union amendment, far from it. It is an equal opportunities issue: every teacher has the right to choose who accompanies them at a disciplinary hearing, whatever their union membership status.
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 448A in my name. I do so as a former membership secretary of the NUT and a former member of the National Association of Head Teachers. I could not have said it any better than the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Ashcombe. This is not an anti-union amendment, far from it. It is an equal opportunities issue, where the teacher has the right to choose who they want to accompany them if they have to face a disciplinary hearing.
- We had much the same debate on the Employment Rights Bill. In my experience, when people — particularly young people — face disciplinary hearings, their preferred choice of companion is invariably a parent. I tried to table an amendment allowing relatives to accompany employees regardless of professional qualification; that got lost in the Employment Rights Bill. I invite the Minister to consider whether a relative might be included as a qualified companion under this amendment.
My Lords, I will speak very briefly, because we had much the same debate in the Employment Rights Bill. In the Employment Rights Bill debate on this subject, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, explained the Government’s position. I made the point that, in my experience, when people—particularly young people—are in disciplinary procedures and meetings, their preferred choice of person to accompany them is invariably a parent, for obvious reasons. I tried to table an amendment to suggest that relatives, whether or not they are professionally qualified, should be allowed to accompany people in such circumstances. That got lost in the heat of the Employment Rights Bill, but I invite the Minister to consider whether a relative might be included as a professionally qualified person for this purpose.
- Amendment 448 would extend to maintained schools the pay and conditions flexibilities that academies already enjoy — the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document should be a floor, not a ceiling, for all schools. I also support Amendment 448A: the amendment tidies up the existing situation where trained companions from bodies like Edapt are routinely admitted to hearings but lack any legal right to attend, and are sometimes refused by employers. There is also a new urgency: schools are seeing increasing numbers of complaints generated by AI-assisted tools, and those complaints cannot be resolved the same way; efficient workplace hearings with proper support are more important than ever.
My Lords, I am delighted to speak to Amendment 448 in my name and to support Amendment 448A in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Hampton, to which I have added my name. Amendment 448 would extend to maintained schools the freedoms that academies enjoy in relation to their staff’s pay and conditions. I cannot see a strong reason not to do this. Again, this is about trusting school leaders to make the right judgments for their team. My amendment is clear that the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document should act as a floor and not a ceiling in relation to teacher pay. I acknowledge and thank the Government for the important amendment they tabled in the other place that established this final point in relation to academies. Amendment 448A has already been ably and nobly spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Storey, and my noble friend Lord Ashcombe. As other noble Lords have said, the amendment aims at the fundamental fairness that all teachers have the right to be accompanied by a certified companion. Teachers who are members of a trade union should feel well served by the representation that they pay for, and that is something that we welcome. It is also fair and reasonable to say that there would be some teachers who would choose not to join a union for a whole range of reasons, including disagreeing with strike action or a union’s political objectives. The Minister will be very familiar with some of the recent demands from unions—we heard some of them tonight, including abolishing Ofsted and returning academies to local authority control. It is fair to say that some people could reasonably disagree with these. This amendment seeks to ensure that teachers who, for whatever reason, are not union members can be accompanied by a trained and certified professional companion. The amendment would tidy up the existing situation where trained companions from organisations such as Edapt are routinely admitted to hearings in schools but la…
- We very much recognise Lady Bousted's expertise and the importance of ensuring public money drives outcomes rather than executive pay. We already publish names of trusts where pay is an outlier and engage directly with them, and we monitor our approach for proportionality. On Amendment 448, removing the statutory ceiling on teacher pay does not need to be in the Bill — the Education Act 2002 already allows the Secretary of State to determine pay levels through secondary legislation, and that is precisely what we intend to do following Royal Assent. The Bill and subsequent reforms will create a pay floor with no ceiling for all schools. On Amendment 448A, Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 already provides adequate accompaniment rights for all workers including teachers. The Department for Business and Trade is responsible for this policy area and will set out its position on the similar amendment voted on during the Employment Rights Bill. Creating a statutory right for teachers separately from that framework could raise ECHR concerns by treating them more favourably than other workers without clear justification — so we have no plans to amend the position. I hope Lady Bousted will withdraw.
My Lords, we turn now to the amendments in the final group, group 11, which relate to teacher pay and conditions. Clause 51 supports our commitment towards creating a statutory pay floor, guaranteeing that all teachers in scope will not be offered pay below a minimum level, giving all schools the flexibility to attract and retain the teachers they need. I turn to Amendment 447A in the name of my noble friend Lady Bousted; I am very glad that we got to this group, so that my noble friend was able to propose her amendment. She has been a stolid supporter of this debate, not only today but during Committee, and I recognise that and thank her. Her amendment proposes extending the remit of the School Teachers’ Review Body to include academy trust chief executive officers. We very much recognise and welcome my noble friend’s expertise in education and note that she raises an extremely important point: we must ensure that public money drives the best outcomes for children. We set very clear expectations for robust processes and justifiable salaries when recruiting executives. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and in fact from my noble friend, about the actions of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew; I suspect that maintaining that focus on value for money is an important part of this debate for all noble Lords. Furthermore, for transparency and accountability, the department also engages with trusts where executive pay is deemed an outlier, publishing the names on GOV.UK. I have not, due to my policy responsibilities, signed any letters or had any meetings without coffee, as it appears have rightly happened, but, as the noble Baroness rightly argues for, I have no doubt that the department is maintaining the pressure to ensure that public money is effectively spent and reflects improvements and standards for children rather than the interests of the leadership of trusts. I recognise that drive for action. I reassure my noble friend that the department works with t…