Committee stage in the Commons
Committee debated clauses 30–40 on independent school regulation, Ofsted investigation powers, teacher misconduct, and the contested proposal to require qualified teacher status in academy schools.
TMopened the debateThe Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)Lab09:25 HansardClause 30 redefines which educational settings must register with the Secretary of State — any setting where five or more compulsory-school-age children receive all or most of their education, or even one looked-after child with an EHCP, must register under the Education and Skills Act 2008 regime. Settings already captured by another regulatory regime are excepted. Clause 37 adds a regulation-making power to extend other legislation that applies to independent schools — beyond the 2008 Act — to these newly regulated institutions, subject to affirmative procedure so Parliament can scrutinise each extension separately.Clauses 30 and 37 concern the regulation of independent educational institutions. I will turn first to clause 30. All children should receive the best chances in life and an education that helps them to achieve and thrive. To support that, it is already a legal requirement for private schools to register with the Secretary of State. Registered schools are regularly inspected and action is taken against schools that potentially put children at risk of harm by providing an unsafe or poor-quality education. The clause will bring more settings that provide a full-time education into that well-established and effective regime. That will lead to more children learning in a regulated and safe setting that is subject to regular inspection. At present, private schools are regulated mainly by chapter 1 of part 4 of the Education and Skills Act 2008. The Act allows private schools to be subject to regular inspection, regulates the changes that they may make to their operation, and provides mechanisms to allow the Government to intervene in cases of severe safeguarding risk. The clause redefines the settings that are to be regulated under the 2008 Act and extends those protections to more children who attend full-time educational settings that are not schools. It will also provide clarity to those running educational settings about whether the regulatory regime applies to them. In broad terms, settings will be required to register with the Secretary of State if five or more children of compulsory school age, or one or more such child with an EHCP—education, health and care plan—who is looked after by the local authority, could be expected to receive all or a majority of their education at the institution. When determining whether the new test of “full-time” is met, the factors found in proposed new section 92(4) in the clause will be considered. Finally, in the interest of clarity, the clause provides a list of excepted institutions. Excepted institutions are not being brought…
The list of excepted institutions exempts local authority schools, special schools, 16-to-19 academies and FE colleges — but not academies and free schools. Is that a conscious choice? Why?I could pick this concern up in our next debate, on clause 31, but a related issue is linked to my concerns about this clause, so I will give the Minister a moment to reply. He mentioned the list of excepted institutions, which we find at clause 30, page 70, from line 17, and various types of institution are exempted: local authority schools, special schools, 16-to-19 academies and further education colleges, but not academies and free schools. Why? I want to check that that is a conscious choice by the Government and to get an explanation of why that is the case.
- Academies are already contractually accountable to the Secretary of State through their funding agreements and are subject to regular Ofsted inspection under the education inspection framework — the clause does not change that. I will take away the point about 16-to-19 academies and respond in due course.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, for his constructive response. He made a number of points and asked whether the clause applies to academies. It will not change the way in which academies, as state-funded independent schools run by not-for-profit charitable status trusts, are regulated. Academy trusts are accountable to the Secretary of State for Education through their contractual funding agreement, the terms of which already require them to comply with the regulatory regime established by the 2008 Act. All academy schools are subject to regular inspection by Ofsted under the education inspection framework.
- 16-to-19 academies already have the same kind of funding agreement as other academies, so why must they be explicitly exempted while non-16-to-19 academies are not?
Is that not also the case for 16-to-19 academies already? I do not understand why they have to be exempted in the Bill, but non-16-to-19 academies are not. Surely they also have the same kind of funding agreement.
These measures to tackle illegal schools — often but not always faith-based — are very welcome; they will protect children from severe harm. But the "full-time" definition in Clause 30 worries me: could it create a loophole where illegal settings simply go part-time? Clause 36 allows linked inspections, but will the Minister consider whether action on part-time settings might be needed once the legislation beds in?Thank you, Sir Edward. The measures to tackle illegal schools, which are often but not always faith-based, are very welcome, and they will protect children from severe harm. The reasons for the need for the measures contained in clauses 30 and 37 are often hidden, and they are often clustered in certain local authorities. The so-called education that takes place in some of those unregistered settings is often deeply intolerant, not aligned with British values, and not of good quality for young children. I have a question for the Minister about the definition of “full-time” in clause 30. I have a slight concern that we might be creating loopholes. Although clause 36 allows for multiple inspections where there are suspicions of links to part-time settings, I worry that we might create a situation in which illegal schools could get around the legislation by going part-time. Will the Minister consider that and perhaps whether, once this legislation has settled in, there may be need for action on part-time settings? Obviously, we do not want to capture Sunday schools, or a bit of prayer study or some study of the Koran after prayers, but I think we might need to look at this in future.
- Amendment 70 would prevent Clause 31's new suspension powers from being exercised against academies: the Secretary of State should rely on funding agreements, not this new power. The regulatory impact assessment also reveals that the changes will disproportionately affect faith-based schools — can the Minister say how large those costs are, and why the Haredim community is specifically mentioned?
This will be relatively short and sweet. Amendment 70 aims to prevent a large and, I hope, unintentional expansion of the Secretary of State’s powers. Academies and free schools are, of course, independent state-funded schools. I think that under clause 30, an academy school, but not a 16-to-19 academy, is an independent educational institution for the purposes of the 2008 Act. This amendment to clause 31 would ensure that the powers under proposed new section 118A(1) may not be exercised in relation to an academy; instead, the Secretary of State should rely on the provisions in funding agreements with the academies and free schools. Our amendment is grouped with clause stand part, so I also want to ask the Minister about something I read in the regulatory impact assessment. Page 56 states: “We have identified one possible adverse distributional impact. Based on our current understanding, the Independent Schools Standards: Registration Requirements measure is expected to disproportionately impact some religious or faith-based schools. Where in scope of the new regulation, these schools may have to meet the Independent School Standards, which may entail costs.” Will the Minister say how large those costs are, or explain why faith schools are disproportionately impacted? It may be unrelated but I also noted various references in the impact assessments to the Haredim; will the Minister speak to why that group is particularly affected by some of these measures?
- It would not be appropriate to leave children in academies unprotected by the additional powers in a regulatory regime that already applies to them. Clause 31 also introduces a new fit-and-proper-person test for proprietors, a power to direct Ofsted to inspect schools that are appealing non-registration, and — crucially — a power to temporarily suspend registration when the Secretary of State is satisfied there are breaches posing a risk of harm. Suspension would trigger a criminal offence if the institution stays open, and proprietors have a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. The burden of proof on appeal is reversed: the proprietor must demonstrate capacity to sustain compliance.
Amendment 70 seeks to disapply for academies the new power to suspend registration given by clause 31. It would not be appropriate if children in academies were not protected by the additional powers within a regulatory regime that already applies to them. I hope that that gives the assurance sought by the shadow Minister, and that he agrees to withdraw the amendment. Clause 31 will make several changes to the regulatory regime for private schools found in the 2008 Act. The clause has a number of distinct parts, including a new power of suspension. It may help hon. Members if I quickly summarise the most significant changes. First, the clause will allow the Government to set out, in regulations, standards requiring individual proprietors, or individuals with the general control and management of the proprietor, to be fit and proper persons in the Secretary of State’s opinion. Secondly, the clause will allow the Secretary of State to direct the chief inspector to carry out an inspection of an institution that has lodged an appeal against a decision not to register it, so that up-to-date information can be given to the tribunal. Thirdly, as discussed, the clause makes a power for the Secretary of State to temporarily suspend the registration and, where applicable, the boarding of an independent educational institution, such as a private school. That power would be used when the Secretary of State is satisfied that there are breaches of the relevant standards and she has reasonable cause to believe that, because of the breaches, there is a risk of harm to children at the institution. During the period of suspension, the proprietor would commit a criminal offence if the institution remains open, providing education or other supervised activity, or if it were to provide boarding accommodation in breach of a stop boarding requirement. In addition, rights of appeal to the first-tier tribunal against a decision to suspend registration or to impose a stop boarding requiremen…
- It is now clear this is intentional, not an oversight — academies are being brought into this new system on top of existing controls and what Clause 43 will add. That is triple dipping. I will press Amendment 70 to a vote.
We thought that it was unintentional that academies are being brought into this new system of regulation. From the Minister’s comments, it is clearly intentional. This is triple dipping: the Minister already has controls over these schools; clause 43 takes that further, and this is another thing. I therefore will push the amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.
- Clause 36 grants Ofsted strengthened powers to investigate offences under the Education and Skills Act 2008 — most commonly running an illegal unregistered school. The new powers are strictly limited to investigating specified offences: warrantless entry for inspection; a warrant route via a justice of the peace for more intrusive powers; police-assisted entry with reasonable force if necessary; and new criminal offences for obstructing inspectors. Clause 32 gives courts the power to bar anyone convicted of running an unregistered school from future roles overseeing children's education.
This group of clauses concerns actions that can be taken against those who operate an education institution in breach of the existing regulatory regime. I will discuss clause 36 first. The existing regulatory regime for private schools is found mainly in the 2008 Act. The regime requires, among other things, that settings providing full-time education are registered and subject to regular inspection. That allows the Government to intervene in cases where children’s wellbeing is at risk. Those not complying with the regulatory regime may be committing a criminal offence and may knowingly be putting children at risk of harm. Ofsted may already investigate and gather evidence of the offences to support criminal prosecution. I am sure the Committee will agree that it is vital that Ofsted has the powers it needs to investigate those crimes, and clause 36 grants Ofsted those powers. Let me be clear: the additional powers apply only in limited and specific circumstances. Ofsted’s routine activity determining school performance is not impacted by this measure. Instead, the additional powers will be available only when Ofsted is gathering evidence about the commission of the specified relevant offences. That will most commonly be in relation to investigations regarding the running of illegal unregistered schools, which is an offence under the 2008 Act. It might help Members if I quickly run through each part of the new sections. Proposed new section 127A contains the list of relevant offences. It is only during an investigation into whether offences are being or have been committed, or when evidence of offences may be found, that the strengthened powers may be used. Proposed new section 127B broadens and strengthens Ofsted’s existing powers of entry. It sets out that Ofsted may enter any premises without a warrant for the purpose of an inspection. Proposed new section 127C provides a mechanism and sets out the process whereby Ofsted may apply to a justice of the peace for a…
Sir Martyn Oliver has flagged that applying for warrants creates an administrative burden and asked for stronger powers without the warrant requirement. Will the Minister confirm that Ofsted will receive additional resource? And why has alternative provision been exempted? Ofsted regularly finds unsafe provision in unregistered AP, where some of our most vulnerable excluded pupils end up — Sir Martyn has raised this concern directly.It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I have a couple of brief questions for the Minister. Sir Martyn Oliver, His Majesty’s chief inspector, raised the question of additional resources for Ofsted because of the administrative burden of applying for warrants. I think he would like the powers to go further so that he would not have to apply for a warrant; I can see merit in needing to do so. Will the Minister confirm whether that additional resource will be provided to Ofsted? We are considering two clauses in this group, but with regard to the whole section on unregistered provision, why has alternative provision been exempted from the powers? Again, Sir Martyn Oliver raised concerns that he does not have the powers to go in and inspect. Ofsted regularly finds unsafe provision. The Government should take action in this area, because some of our most vulnerable children who are excluded from schools are being put in unregistered alternative provision, where they are not necessarily provided with a broad education and attendance records are not always taken. Real questions and concerns have been raised about alternative provision.
- The enhanced powers are available only when investigating specified offences, not for routine inspections. The majority of unregistered-school inspections already proceed on consent and co-operation, and we expect that to continue. I will write to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale on her questions, and I will take away the points about Ofsted resource.
On the hon. Member for Twickenham’s points about Ofsted, the powers are available only to investigate the commission of specified relevant offences. Our experience is that the majority of inspections of unregistered schools are conducted under Ofsted’s existing powers process and on the basis of consent and co-operation. We anticipate that that will continue even after Ofsted has been granted the enhanced powers in the measure. The powers will not be available to Ofsted when inspecting private schools against the independent school standards. The hon. Member asked about resources for Ofsted; we are working closely with Ofsted on what the powers will mean, as Sir Martyn set out in the evidence session. I will take away the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale and write to her on those matters. Question put and agreed to. Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 33 Material changes
- These are very important clauses. Illegal settings have been the scene of widespread neglect and abuse — sometimes serious sexual abuse — and they tend to be clustered in particular local authorities. The strengthened entry powers and the court's ability to bar convicted operators for life deserve the Committee's full support.
I very much welcome the clauses. The strengthened powers of entry for Ofsted are important. As I have said, a lot of the problems in illegal schools are hidden, and they are often clustered geographically. In one local authority, we may never see this problem, but in some local authorities we see it repeatedly. Illegal settings have been the scene of widespread neglect and abuse—sometimes serious sexual abuse—and the powers of entry and for a court to prevent someone who has been convicted of running an illegal school from ever doing it again are very important. I urge the Committee to support the clauses.
- Amendment 71 would delete proposed new subsection (2)(g) of Clause 33, which makes it a material change requiring Secretary of State approval whenever a school occupies a different building or part of a building for student use. As drafted, this is far too vague — does building a new wing, adding an extension, or erecting a permanent outdoor structure trigger it? A breach can lead to deregistration or restrictions, so schools face serious legal risk from minor building changes. Amendment 72 at least requires the Secretary of State to publish guidance.
Section 102 of the 2008 Act requires the proprietor of an academy to make an application to the Secretary of State for the approval of a material change, as defined in section 101 of that Act. Clause 33 introduces a new definition of material change, which adds to the list of material changes in the 2008 Act. Proposed new subsection (2)(g) will require the notification of the Secretary of State when there is “a change of the buildings occupied by the institution and made available for student use”. Some of the things in the proposed list are reasonable things for the school to have to apply to the Secretary of State for—if it is a complete change of the proprietor or a change to the age range, or if it stops being a special school or moves to a completely different location, that is fine—but the idea that schools should have to apply to the Secretary of State if there is a change of the buildings occupied by the institution is too vaguely defined. If I build a new building or get some new bits stuck on the end of one of the wings of my school, do I have to apply to the Secretary of State? It is not clear from a natural reading of proposed new subsection (2)(g). We worry that this will end up with even minor changes requiring approval from the Secretary of State, which is not necessary. Given that a breach of the provision can lead to an academy being deregistered as an independent educational institution, or the imposition of restrictions on the academy, it seems excessive. Amendment 71 seeks to delete paragraph (g), which would be the best outcome, while amendment 72 seeks at least for the Secretary of State to provide guidance. Will the Minister provide some reassurance that we are not going to end up with schools feeling like they have to apply to the Secretary of State every time they build a new building, move out of one wing or add an extension to another? It seems like a recipe for unnecessary bureaucracy, creating legal risks for academies that really should…
- Currently there is no prior assurance that new buildings used by private schools are safe for students — we have found children in buildings that are unsuitable and in some cases unsafe. The change is necessary and proportionate. On guidance, the Department already publishes non-statutory guidance on material changes and we intend to update it ahead of commencement.
Amendment 71 would make changes to clause 33, which, among other things, requires private schools to seek prior approval from the Secretary of State before they occupy a building and make it available for student use. The amendment is intended to remove this new requirement. I appreciate that there may be concerns regarding new burdens on private schools, but let me explain why the change is necessary. Currently, a change of buildings occupied for student use, either at or away from the registered address, is not a material change. This means that there is no prior assurance that new buildings are safe for student use. Unfortunately, we see examples in which private schools are inspected and children are found in buildings that are unsuitable for their education and, in some cases, unsafe.
- Does this apply to academies as well as private schools?
The Minister keeps talking about private schools, but am I right in thinking that this also applies to academies?
- The National Association of Special Schools is concerned that material-change applications face undue bureaucratic delays, causing some students to lose suitable provision. Will the Minister commit to service-level agreements so that requests are expedited?
The National Association of Special Schools is concerned that schools seeking to make material changes sometimes face undue bureaucratic delays that mean some students end up losing out on suitable provision. Will the Minister assure the association that service level agreements will be put in place so that requests can be expedited?
- The Minister keeps saying "private schools", but these clauses cover all independent educational institutions — including academy schools, which are state schools. And proposed new subsection (2B) means that any change to "part of a building" or a "permanent outdoor structure" must be notified. A school that puts up a bike shed would potentially have to go to the Secretary of State. That is not proportionate.
The Minister keeps saying “private schools”, but we are talking about independent educational institutions. As I understand it, that includes academy schools, which are state schools. The Minister also keeps talking about proportionality. Proposed new subsection (2B) states that, for the purposes of proposed new subsection (2)(g), the Secretary of State would have to be notified of any change to either “part of a building” or a “permanent outdoor structure”. If a school wanted to build a bike shed, it would potentially have to go to the Secretary of State. That does not seem proportionate at all. Perhaps the Minister can answer that point.
- The provision does apply to academies — I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that.
I assure the shadow Minister that the provision does apply to academies, so I thank him for raising that point. Clauses 33 and 35 make important changes to our material change regime, so I hope the Committee agrees that they should stand part of the Bill.
- The Minister has confirmed this applies to academy schools. Requiring a state school to notify the Secretary of State every time it changes part of a building or erects a permanent outdoor structure is not proportionate. A school that put up a gazebo would have to apply. I press the amendment to a vote.
I wish to press the amendment to a vote. The Minister has confirmed that the provision applies to academy schools. It is not proportionate—to use the Minister’s term—to require the Secretary of State to be informed of a state school changing part of a building, or building a permanent outdoor structure. A school that put up a gazebo would have to go to the Secretary of State. That is not proportionate; it is an error. The rest of the clause is totally reasonable, but on this point it is unreasonable, so I want to press the amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.
- Clause 39 strengthens the teacher misconduct regime in three ways: it allows the Secretary of State to investigate serious misconduct that occurred outside a person's teaching employment; it extends the regime beyond schools and sixth-form colleges to FE colleges, special post-16 institutions, independent training providers, online education providers and independent educational institutions; and it enables the Teaching Regulation Agency to receive referrals directly from departmental officials rather than waiting for a third party to act.
The Government take very seriously the protection of children and young people, particularly when they are receiving their education. We know that teachers are the single most important in-school factor in a child’s education. We also know that the overwhelming majority of those teachers are highly competent and never engage in any form of serious misconduct, but the reality is that some teachers do commit serious misconduct and it is vital that, when this occurs, it is dealt with fairly and transparently. That is why we have robust arrangements in place for regulating the teaching profession. The overriding aims of the teacher misconduct regime are to protect children and young people, to help to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession and to uphold proper standards of conduct. This reflects the expectations placed on teachers throughout their career, both inside and outside school, as set out in the published teacher standards. The current teacher misconduct regime was established in 2012. Since then, we have made a number of changes to the processes and procedures to take account of relevant case law and High Court judgments, including changes to the publicly available teacher misconduct advice, which sets out the factors to be considered by professional conduct panels when dealing with cases of teacher misconduct. We have also amended the funding agreements of further education colleges, special post-16 institutions and independent training providers, so that, like schools and sixth-form colleges, they do not employ prohibited teachers. There is, however, more that we need to do to ensure that children and young people are protected, and the only way we can do this is by making the amendments proposed in the clause. The clause allows the Secretary of State to consider whether it is appropriate to investigate serious misconduct that occurred when the person was not employed in teaching work, but we will ensure that cases are taken forward only when…
The expanded misconduct regime is right and proportionate — being able to act regardless of when an incident occurred or whether the person is currently a teacher is welcome, as is bringing online and independent educational settings into scope. On a procedural point: the Committee is supposed to scrutinise the Bill line by line, yet a number of factual questions I have raised — on elective home education, optional uniform items, breakfast clubs — have gone unanswered without any commitment to write. Will Ministers write in response to outstanding questions, or must we put down written parliamentary questions?First, I will ask the Minister a bit about process. The questions we ask in Parliament are often rhetorical; we do not expect answers to them from Ministers, and nor do we get them, but this is the Committee stage of a Bill’s passage, known as line-by-line scrutiny, where quite often he questions we put are questions about facts or the intent of the legislation. I have asked a number of questions at different points in this Committee stage that have not been answered, but nor has the Minister necessarily been saying, “I will write to the hon. Member in response.” Does he intend to do that, or, if any questions have been left hanging, are we required to put down a written parliamentary question to which the Minister will respond? For the avoidance of doubt, what I am about to say is not in the category of question that requires a factual response or note of intent. The misconduct regime covered in the clause is clearly exceptionally important for the protection of children, public confidence and maintaining the very highest reputation of the profession. I welcome what is new in the clause, because it is right and proportionate that we should be able to take action regardless of when the incident took place and whether the individual was a teacher in the profession at that time. I also welcome online education and independent educational settings being brought into scope, as well as the ability to investigate a suspicion or an incident regardless of how it came to light. I want to ask the Minister about something related to the regulatory regime. It would not technically require primary legislation, but there are quite a lot of things in the Bill that do not require primary legislation to be effected. I am referring to the matter of vexatious complaints. In the world we live in, particularly with the influence and prevalence of social media, we have heard teachers express the feeling that sometimes, in a small minority of cases, complaints may be made against a teache…
- The TRA does not deal with complaints; it considers only allegations of the most serious misconduct. Any incorrectly referred complaint will go through an initial triage process to determine whether the TRA should progress it or redirect the complainant elsewhere.
That is very kind, Sir Edward. I absolutely agree with you. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire made a number of points with regard to the Teaching Regulation Agency. He will know from his time as Education Secretary that the TRA does not deal with complaints; it considers only allegations of the most serious misconduct. Any complaint that has been incorrectly referred to the agency will now undergo an initial triage process, which ought to determine whether a referral should be progressed by the Teaching Regulation Agency or whether it is more appropriate to redirect the complainant to another service.
Do you expect the number of misconduct hearings to increase considerably? Schools are already burdened — what provision is there for reimbursement?Does the Minister expect the number of misconduct hearings and cases brought where teachers are subject to potential dismissal to increase considerably? I am concerned that the consequences of the Bill will be huge for many schools and that they will be burdened with a huge cost. Does he expect the numbers to go up?
- Not a single teacher I have met has been free from some form of vexatious complaint at one point in their career. The Bill's expansion of the misconduct regime raises real concerns about an already cumbersome and costly dismissal process for schools. Will the Minister say whether schools will be reimbursed? And will past business problems — say, a bankruptcy — count against someone seeking to run a school under the new fit-and-proper-person test?
Let me state on the record that I have not met a single teacher who has not received some form of vexatious complaint at one point in their career. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will speak to this issue when he responds. The Bill expands the scope for potential dismissal. Dismissal processes are incredibly cumbersome and costly for schools, so will the Minister speak to what provision he will make for schools to be reimbursed for what they are going through? The Bill also expands the capacity to look back into the previous career of someone who has started up a school. Would bankruptcy, for instance, prevent someone from being considered worthy of running a school? Will the Minister therefore also speak to whether a perfectly reasonable business experience might cause the Secretary of State to intervene?
- Amendment 73 would give new teachers a five-year grace period before QTS is required in academies. The Government's own impact assessment estimates the measure could affect 700–1,250 entrants a year — around 1–2% of all entrants — and acknowledges that "some schools may struggle to find the teachers that they need". Yet the Department has produced not a single shred of evidence that non-QTS teachers are poor teachers. Examples from evidence sessions show the opposite: Sir Martyn Oliver used non-QTS professional rugby league players across Wakefield schools; headteacher Rebecca Leek employed an outstanding early-years practitioner who ran a nursery but lacked QTS; Julie McCulloch from ASCL acknowledged that sometimes a non-QTS teacher is better than no teacher. Amendment 74 would protect existing non-QTS academy teachers if they move school. Amendment 75 would retain the freedom for shortage subjects. Where is the evidence that this is a problem worth making primary legislation to fix?
Sir Martyn Oliver gave us a good example of how the current freedoms are used on our first day of evidence. He said: “In the past, I have brought in professional sportspeople to teach alongside PE teachers, and they have run sessions. Because I was in Wakefield, it was rugby league: I had rugby league professionals working with about a quarter of the schools in Wakefield at one point.” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 49, Q108.] When he said that, I thought about when I was being taught rugby league not far away in Huddersfield, and how much we would have loved it if the professionals had come from Fartown to teach us. We were never told what the rules of rugby league were, nor was it revealed to us that there was a different type of rugby. It would have been amazing to have the professionals with us. That is just one example of how schools use non-qualified teacher status teachers in a brilliant way to bring in people who would otherwise never be in state schools. Former headteacher David Thomas told us on the same day: “I have concerns about limiting the number of people with unqualified teacher status who are not working towards qualified teacher status.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 92, Q199.] He also said: “I have worked with some fantastic people—generally late-career people in shortage subjects who want to go and give back in the last five to 10 years of their career—who would not go through some of the bureaucracy associated with getting qualified teacher status but are absolutely fantastic and have brought wonderful things to a school and to a sector. I have seen them change children’s lives.”––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2025; c. 92, Q200.] Rebecca Leek from the Suffolk Primary Headteachers Association gave another good example, telling us: “I had to step in as an interim h…
The evidence cited mentioned professionals working *alongside* qualified teachers — there is no prohibition on that. Is the hon. Member acknowledging that distinction?The hon. Member has twice referred to professional sportspeople, and the quote he read out at the beginning of his speech mentioned their contributing “alongside” teachers. Does he acknowledge that there is no prohibition on professional sportspeople or other experienced, inspiring professionals contributing alongside teachers? The issue is when they do so without that input. I kindly invite the hon. Member to correct that point.
- The hon. Lady has missed the point. Clause 40 will make it illegal for academy schools to *employ* people without QTS to do exactly the kind of work Sir Martyn said he had found so valuable.
The hon. Lady has completely missed the point. This clause means that academy schools will no longer be able to employ people without QTS to do exactly the kind of inspiring things that Sir Martyn, at the start of our first evidence session, said he had used them so brilliantly to do.
- The Sir Martyn Oliver quote said "alongside" teachers. Having people there alongside teachers is not prohibited — I am sure the Minister will clarify.
The quote was “alongside” teachers. Having people there alongside teachers is not prohibited. I am sure that the Minister will clarify that matter if I am mistaken.
- To be clear: the clause makes it *illegal to employ* someone without QTS, whether they work alongside others or not. No one has offered a single shred of evidence that non-QTS teachers are bad teachers or that this is one of the top problems requiring primary legislation.
To be clear, it will be illegal to employ them if they do not have QTS. People can turn up, but they cannot be employed. I do not know whether the hon. Lady is deliberately trying to muddy the water, or whether she has just missed the point. I notice that the Minister has not chosen to intervene. To be clear, the clause will stop Sir Martyn and people like him doing exactly what he said he had found it useful to do: employing non-QTS teachers, alongside teachers, to come and give back to their community. During the course of my remarks, nobody has offered me a single shred of evidence that non-QTS teachers are bad teachers, are somehow a big problem in our schools, or are one of the top problems that we need to address. The clause will make things harder for schools, and it will mean that fewer pupils get a good lesson. Our amendments aim to stop this piece of vandalism, which is something that the unions wanted, that Ministers have given them, and that will be bad for our schools and our children.
- The hon. Member for Portsmouth North said this risks a "race to the bottom" — yet the Secretary of State herself said on The News Agents that a fantastic non-QTS teacher can be better than a poor QTS teacher. Headteacher Rebecca Leek described using an outstanding nursery-owner without QTS in an academy: that was a race to the top, not the bottom. There are good reasons people do not get QTS — and by closing state schools to them while leaving independent schools free to hire them, it is state schools and their pupils who lose out.
I thank my right hon. Friend, and I completely agree with him about the respect due to teachers. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North mentioned a “race to the bottom”, yet that is not what the Secretary of State is saying, and there is no evidence in any of what the Government are doing that there is a problem with the quality of non-QTS teachers. Indeed, we heard from Rebecca Leek at the start of our proceedings that it was a race to the top. She was getting one of the best people—she happened to be running a nursery and had not gone into teaching; but she knew all about the early years and was one of the best people one could possibly get, even though she was non-QTS. Another hon. Member on this Committee has said that there was “no reason” not to get QTS, but in many cases, there are reasons. Perhaps someone is at the very end of their career and is not going to go through all the bureaucracy to do that, in order to do the last two years of—[Interruption.] It was said—
- Sometimes people want to give back but cannot afford a PGCE or apprenticeship route. By making it harder for them to go to state schools, it is state schools — not independent schools — that will miss out.
To finish the point, sometimes there are reasons. Sometimes people want to give back; but by making it harder for them to go to state schools, it is state schools that will miss out—not independent schools or others.
- A Policy Exchange report put the cost of getting all non-QTS teachers to qualified status at over £120 million — six times the Government's budget for stuck schools. The headteacher at Debenham high school sighs in frustration at having to find QTS for his Spanish teacher. Will the Minister confirm the estimated cost and whether the Department will cover it, or will schools be left to foot the bill?
I will not bore everyone with another rendition of the credit of non-QTS teachers. I will just say that I spent Friday at Debenham high school. When I spoke to the headteacher, he sighed in frustration at suddenly having to look down the barrel and find qualified status for his language teachers. He has a Spanish teacher who works at the high school who he will now to need to train. I know we are having an argument about immigration policy in this country, but trying to stop foreign teachers coming to this country and teaching in schools in Suffolk is not how the problem will be solved. My point is about costs. A Policy Exchange report suggested that getting all non-QTS teachers trained was going to cost in excess of £120 million—six times the budget that the Government have allocated to solving stuck schools, and six times the budget we are going to spend on getting teachers to jump over regulatory barriers. So can the Minister confirm the estimated cost of getting teachers qualified status and whether the Department will cover that cost, or will the Government just end up burdening schools with the cost of getting over this regulatory hurdle?
As a former teacher with QTS and now a parent of children at both a maintained primary and an academy secondary, I do not care what type of school they go to — I care that they get a good education from qualified teachers. Expecting a qualified teacher and expecting an outstanding education are not contradictory; they go hand in hand.It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I was not going to speak in this debate, but I have sat here in increasing bafflement—a bit like the debate we had in a previous sitting on branded school uniform items. I think most ordinary families watching or listening to this debate will share my confusion. We have heard time and again from Opposition Members about whether the measure is needed. I have QTS—I was a teacher in a previous life 10 years ago—but I am speaking as a parent. I have one child at a maintained primary school, and my eldest child is at an academy secondary school. I do not care what kind of school they go to, as long as it is a good school and they get a good education with good outcomes. For me, this is about expectations and high standards. As a parent, I am entitled to expect that both my children are taught by qualified teachers.
- If you were a parent with children at an FE college, would you have the same expectation — and do you understand why FE, 16-to-19 academies, UTCs and studio schools are all exempt from this requirement?
If the hon. Gentleman were a parent at an FE college, would he have the same expectation, and does he understand why all these other schools are exempt?
- In an ideal world, of course I want whoever teaches my children to be qualified. QTS is already required in maintained schools, and bringing academies into line does not change what is available — specialist adults, like rugby league coaches from St Helens, can still come into both maintained and academy schools to work alongside teachers. That will not change.
In an ideal situation, of course I want whoever is teaching my children to be qualified, and I do not think that is an unfair expectation. Going back to a point that has been made, we have heard that that is already the situation in maintained schools. To bring what may be the conclusion of the debate back to its start by mentioning the rugby league—which I am very happy to talk about for many hours, if anyone will indulge me—in my constituency of St Helens North, our rugby league club does outstanding work across the community including in both maintained and academy schools, with children across the borough getting access to high-quality sports coaching. That will not change. At maintained schools across the country, pupils have access to specialist adults coming in and teaching them all sorts of things in the presence of qualified teachers as well. That will not change. This is about high expectations. Like the debate we had about branded items, most parents and families listening to this will be absolutely baffled at the Opposition and at how much time we are spending talking about something that, to most parents, should be a standard expectation —that the people teaching their children are qualified.
- Where have these proposals come from? The entire sector — and the Children's Commissioner — appears to have been blindsided. Teachers and school leaders tell me their priorities are SEND, the recruitment and retention crisis, children missing from school, and mental health. To quote Sir Dan Moynihan from oral evidence: "It is not clear what problem this is solving. I have seen no evidence to suggest that academy freedoms are creating an issue anywhere. Why are we doing this?" What is the problem the Government set out to fix?
I note your comment about speaking specifically to the clauses and amendments under consideration, Sir Edward; I wanted to start with some comments that relate both to this group and to several clauses that follow, so that I do not try the Committee’s patience by repeating myself. My comments relate in general to the various academy freedoms with which these clauses are concerned. I want to take a step back and ask this question: where have these proposals come from? The entire sector and indeed the Children’s Commissioner seem to have been blindsided. When I speak to teachers and school leaders, at the top of their priority list is sorting out SEND, the recruitment and retention crisis, children missing from school and children’s mental health. Parents tell me that they just want their schools funded properly so that they are not being asked to buy glue sticks and tissue boxes. Not once have I heard a maintained or academy school leader or parent say to me that the biggest problem in our schools that we need to sort out is the academy freedoms. This was reflected in the oral evidence that we heard. To quote Sir Dan Moynihan, “It is not clear what problem this is solving. I have seen no evidence to suggest that academy freedoms are creating an issue anywhere. Why are we doing this?” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 75, Q160.] I ask Ministers that very question. What is the problem that the Government were seeking to fix when they drew up this clause, and several subsequent clauses, in relation to the academy freedoms they are trying to diminish?
The best quality of education comes not through obsessing about structures but from getting the right people in place. Requiring QTS across all state schools is simple common sense: parents deserve to be reassured, regardless of which type of school their child attends, that they are getting the best quality education. The amendments are unnecessary.It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I rise to support clause 40 and to argue that the amendments under discussion are unnecessary. I very much welcome this measure. It underpins the ambition that the Government have to ensure that every child gets the best quality of education. Although this will not necessarily be a shared view, the top quality of education comes not through obsessing about structures, but about getting the right people in place. This is simply a common-sense proposal to ensure that, across the board, no matter the structure of the school, parents can be reassured, and as children set foot in that school they can be reassured, that they are getting the best quality education.
- When I take my car in for repair I want someone who is actually qualified to fix brakes — the stakes of getting it wrong are high. When I visit a GP I want someone who is qualified. Saying that subject expertise alone is sufficient implies that QTS adds nothing — but what about pedagogy, class management, assessment, feedback and differentiation? Those skills do not come automatically with subject knowledge.
I will make some progress and then will be happy to give way. I ask Opposition Members to reflect on the logical fallacy of applying this laissez-faire approach in a way that they probably would not do—or at least I hope they would not do—for other professions. I think it is uncontroversial to ask for assurance that, when I take my car in for repair, I am not just giving it over to someone who is enthusiastic about car repairs, but is actually qualified. The stakes of that going wrong are high; someone who does not know how to fix brakes will cause significant risk. When I visit the GP, I want reassurance that I have not just got someone who has done health tech, had a great 20-year-long career in that, and has decided to swap over and offer their expertise there. I want someone who is absolutely qualified in that practice. I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North said: no one doubts the quality of subject experts. No one doubts that those with significant top-quality experience can come in and be absolutely inspirational, but by saying that that is enough, Opposition Members suggest that qualified teacher status adds no value to that subject expertise. What about the skills in effective student development, pedagogy, collaboration, class management, assessment, feedback and differentiation? Those are not things that come naturally with subject expertise.
- Emily Maitlis put it to the Secretary of State on The News Agents: "You can have a terrible teacher with qualified status, but a fantastic teacher who is not qualified — can't you?" The Secretary of State replied, "Absolutely." Do you agree with her?
If the hon. Member takes a moment later today to listen to the Secretary of State’s interview on “The News Agents” podcast, Emily Maitlis said, “You can have a terrible teacher with qualified status, but a fantastic teacher who is not qualified…can’t you?” The Secretary of State’s response was, “Absolutely”. Does the hon. Member agree with her?
- If someone is not performing up to scratch, the answer is to deal with that individual teacher — not to remove the qualification requirement for everyone else.
What I agree is, that if someone is not performing up to scratch, the response should not be to remove the qualification for everyone else, but to deal with that individual teacher and drive up standards within the school. That is once again, completely common sense.
- We train teachers for a reason, and parents expect their children to be taught by qualified teachers for a reason. Some of the dismissive attitudes we have heard from the Opposition are insulting to the professionalism of our qualified teachers.
Does my hon. Friend agree that we train our teachers for a reason? Would he agree that parents expect their children to be taught by qualified teachers for a reason? Would he agree that some of the dismissive attitudes that we have heard from Opposition Members are insulting to the professionalism of our qualified teachers?
- It is deeply concerning that QTS is treated as so unimportant — and unsurprising that the profession feels undervalued after 14 years of the previous government. Would an Opposition Member logically suggest hospital directors should decide for themselves whether a surgeon is suitably qualified, or would they expect a common framework? I suspect — and hope — the latter.
I fully agree that it is deeply concerning that qualified teacher status is so unimportant to them. However, it is unsurprising that the profession is in the state it is and feeling utterly undervalued after the last 14 years. I simply do not understand why qualified teacher status in all schools is such a low priority for some. The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston mentioned that is the prerogative of good headteachers to have that freedom. Would he therefore logically suggest that it is the freedom of every hospital director to decide whether someone is suitably qualified to carry out surgery, or would they ask for an independent agreed common framework of training and qualification for surgeons? I suspect, and hope, it would be that. The response, as I have said, to the recruitment and the shortage issue is not to lower our ambitions. I think back to the evidence session in which we heard from Sir Martyn Oliver—His Majesty’s chief inspector at Ofsted—who actually said that appointing a non-qualified teacher to role was a “deficit decision”. Those were his words, not mine. He said that it would not be his first choice, no matter how well it worked, and that non-QTS staff should supplement fully qualified staff, not replace them. I ask the Opposition to reflect on that. This proportionate, reassuring measure is restoring common sense. It is once again restoring the value of teaching as a profession, alongside the other measures that have been taken on teacher pay, teacher prestige and investment in schools, although those were certainly not taken in recent years.
- The foundation of QTS matters enormously, and reforms to the core content framework of initial teacher training and the early career framework were rightly important. But with only 62% of secondary ITT targets hit last year — 30% in physics, with dramatic shortfalls in business studies, design and technology, music, computing and chemistry — this is a strange moment to raise barriers to entry. Over 14 years, the share of the teaching workforce without QTS barely moved: it was 3.2% in 2010 and 3.1% last year — and 85.6% of those without QTS in 2010–11 were not on a route to QTS. What is the problem that makes this worth primary legislation?
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen. I enjoyed his speech and I think he made several very good points, a number of which the Opposition would agree with. We certainly agree with the importance of the foundation of qualified teacher status, and a lot of work rightly went into reforming the core content and framework of initial teacher training, as well as the early career framework. Those are incredibly important foundations for a successful career in teaching. With the present Government’s plan to recruit just 6,500 teachers over the next five years, which is a material slow-down compared with the Parliament just ended, it should be more straightforward to hit those recruitment targets, but I do not think this discussion is really about the numbers that we can recruit into the teaching profession. It is about getting the right people, which the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen also said. It is not about obsessing over having the structures but getting the right people, and this is about getting the right people in front of children in school settings. By the way, presuming we are not just talking about academics, that also applies to sport, music and art.
- Which is better: an English graduate with QTS teaching maths, or a maths graduate without QTS teaching maths?
Can my right hon. Friend answer me this question? Which is better, an English graduate, with QTS, teaching maths in a primary or secondary school, or a maths graduate, without QTS, teaching maths in a primary or secondary school?
- The best of all worlds is someone who is both a subject specialist and a really inspirational qualified practitioner — and those three things often come together. But sometimes choices have to be made.
I think this is where the whole House comes together. The best of all worlds is to have someone who is both a subject specialist, with their own excellent academic record, and QTS, and who is also a really inspirational practitioner. Of course, those three things come together on many occasions, but sometimes there are choices that have to be made.
- Surely the right people are those who bring subject expertise *and* want to be best prepared to direct the curriculum — which means getting qualified?
Very briefly, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree therefore that the right people we are talking about are not just those who quite rightly often have a stellar career in another area of subject expertise? Would they not be right for children and for schools if they wanted not only to bring that expertise but to do everything they can to be best prepared to direct the curriculum, outcome and chances of those children by being qualified?
Those sportsmen and sportswomen can inspire — but many at the elite of their game would not understand the difficulties for children who are less talented. Teaching requires pedagogy and differentiation. If someone really wants to give back, a PGCE gives on-the-job training. We should not be racing to the bottom with our kids.And a cracking football team, I will add. Absolutely, those sportsmen and sportswomen can inspire, but actually many of those at the elite of their game would not understand the difficulties for those children who may not be as good at that sport, so therefore it is about their learning of pedagogy and differentiation. They could absolutely enhance learning, but actually becoming a teacher would need a qualified teacher status. If someone is really committed and wants to give something back, they can spend a year of their time on a PGCE to get that on-the-job training. We should not be racing to the bottom with our kids.
- Covid lockdowns showed very clearly that professional knowledge and workplace experience is no substitute for being a teacher. There is a fundamental difference between subject-matter expertise and the ability to teach.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his patience with our multiple interventions. However, I believe they are very necessary. Does he agree that the experiences of hundreds of thousands of parents during covid lockdowns, when schools were closed, show very clearly that having professional knowledge and experience in the workplace is no substitution for being a teacher? As someone who home-schooled a two-year-old and a six-year-old, trust me when I say that that experience gave me even more respect for the qualified teachers of this world. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a fundamental difference between subject-matter expertise and the ability to teach?
- Agreed 100%. What teachers learn about pedagogy during training cannot be replicated by reading books or an online course. Covid rightly renewed or enhanced respect for the profession and for what great teaching can do.
I agree with the hon. Lady 100%, just as I agreed with what the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen said entirely. Of course, there is not just a material difference between not being a qualified teacher and being a qualified teacher. It is like night and day, and what teachers learn about pedagogy and the experience they get during that time cannot be replicated on an online course or by reading books. She is right, too, that during covid millions of people up and down the country quite rightly developed, renewed or enhanced their respect for the teaching profession and for what teaching is capable of doing.
The Football Association does not let people coach football — even Saturday league — without being a qualified coach. The analogy of using an unqualified specialist falls down on that very point.As the parent of a former footballer, I know that the Football Association does not let people coach football, even Saturday league, without being a qualified coach, so the right hon. Member’s analogy falls down.
- It is entirely reasonable to require that people in an educational role are either qualified or on a route to qualification. If someone wants to contribute to educating young people, why would they not want to make sure they have the skills to do so?
No, I am making my point, which is that it is entirely reasonable to require that people who are in an educational role are either qualified to take that role or undergoing the process of qualification. If somebody wants to be a teacher and wants to contribute to educating our young people, I see no reason why they would not want to make sure that they have the skills to do that. [Interruption.] I let the right hon. Gentleman finish his sentences.
Amendment 73 could deny new teachers high-quality training and induction during the critical early years of their careers, and it would create a perverse incentive for unqualified teachers to leave or move schools before the five-year deadline rather than gaining the support they are entitled to. Schools will still be able to recruit unqualified teachers and will have three terms to secure them a place on a route to QTS — that gives adequate flexibility without embedding lower standards. QTS ensures that teachers understand how children learn, can adapt to pupils with SEND, and can develop effective behaviour management. It is remarkable that we are having to justify the importance of teacher training.Thank you, Sir Edward. I rise to speak to amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and the hon. Member for Twickenham, and to clause 40 stand part. Turning first to amendment 73, I do appreciate that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston has some concerns about clause 40. However, this amendment could deny new teachers high-quality training and induction, which is based on the evidence of what makes good teaching during the critical early years of their careers. Moreover, the amendment would apply to schools maintained by local authorities and special schools, which are already required to employ teachers who have or are working towards QTS—a system, I might add, that is working quite effectively. As well as ensuring subject knowledge, QTS ensures that teachers understand how children learn, can adapt their teaching to the needs of children in their class—particularly and including those with special educational needs—and can develop effective behaviour management techniques. It is remarkable that we are having to justify the importance of teacher training.
- On Amendment 74: we agree existing non-QTS academy teachers should not be disrupted. Subject to the Bill's passage, we will exempt in regulations any teacher employed by an academy school or trust before September 2026. Teachers who move to a different employer after that date will need to obtain QTS. On Amendments 75 and 94: embedding lower QTS standards for shortage subjects in primary legislation would create uncertainty — the requirement could flip year to year depending on ITT recruitment data — and would affect maintained schools and special schools that already require QTS. The targeted retention incentive of up to £6,000 after tax for maths, physics, chemistry and computing teachers in disadvantaged schools addresses the recruitment challenge without compromising standards.
They will be updated to apply to the academies sector. Turning to amendment 74, I appreciate the intention of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to ensure that the clause does not impact the working arrangements of unqualified teachers already working in academies. We agree that the requirement should not impact existing employment arrangements in academies, but we need to do that in a way that does not inadvertently affect the way that legislation already applies to local authority maintained schools and special schools. We will, subject to the passage of the Bill, provide an exemption in regulations for any teacher who commences their employment with an academy school or trust prior to September 2026. Those teachers who move to another employer after that date will need to obtain qualified teacher status. We will set out an exemption in regulations for teachers who are employed to teach in a primary or secondary academy setting. That will mean that we are able to provide schools with reasonable time to prepare for any necessary changes to their recruitment procedures following changes to primary legislation. On amendments 75 and 94, I recognise the challenges around teacher recruitment that we have inherited. However, the solution should not be to embed lower standards for shortage subjects in primary legislation. The amendments would create uncertainty for schools and teachers, as the teachers that schools employ could move in and out of the requirement to hold qualified teacher status depending on each year’s initial teacher training recruitment data. They would also change the requirements for qualified teacher status in local authority maintained schools and special schools, which are already required to employ teachers with qualified teacher status. Under clause 40, schools will continue to be able to recruit teachers without qualified teacher status for any subject and then support those teachers to gain qualified teacher status through an app…
- The Government have chosen to exempt FE, 14-to-19 academies, 16-to-19 academies, UTCs, studio schools and non-maintained early years settings — clearly recognising the importance of pragmatism in those cases. The same argument that drove those exemptions is an argument for exempting shortage subjects.
It seems to me that the Government recognise the importance of pragmatism and that that is why they have chosen to exempt FE, 14-to-19 academies, 16-to-19 academies, university technical colleges, studio schools and non-maintained early years settings, and I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that. I put it to her that the same argument that has caused Ministers to pragmatically exclude those types of schools is perhaps also an argument for excluding shortage subjects.
- QTS is the professional qualification for primary and secondary schools. It currently applies to maintained schools and special schools. These proposals extend it to all primary and secondary state-funded schools. The existing exceptions in legislation will continue — they are being carried across to the academy sector, not newly created.
As the hon. Member is aware, qualified teacher status is the professional qualification for teachers in primary and secondary schools. Currently, it applies to local authority maintained schools and special schools. Under these proposals, it will apply to all primary and secondary state-funded schools in England. As he is aware, there are currently some exceptions to that in legislation. Those exceptions will continue to apply as the requirement is applied to the academy sector. On the second part of the hon. Member’s question—
- The Government are exempting 14-to-19 academies, 16-to-19 academies, UTCs and studio schools — all of which are academies. So this is not applying to all academies; it is applying to only some, and those exempted ones typically have higher proportions of non-QTS teachers. If the pragmatic case for exempting them holds, why does it not apply equally to shortage subjects in ordinary secondary academies?
The second part of my question was about the settings the Minister has chosen to exclude—let us be clear that this is a new exclusion from a new rule. They are settings where the share of non-QTS teachers is typically higher. We are still looking for the explanation of why some schools are different from others. These are schools with kids of the same age—schools with 14-year-olds—but some will have the new requirement and others will not. I am just trying to get Ministers to explain the logic of that. It seems to be pragmatic: there are not enough QTS teachers in those schools and Ministers do not want to create a problem by applying their new rules to those types of settings, of which there are many. I am just trying to make the same point about shortage subjects. I do not know if the Minister can see the connection.
- UTCs, studio schools and city technology colleges offer a particular curriculum or technical focus and need flexibility to employ specialist teachers. This Bill deals specifically with primary and secondary schools. FE and early years settings have their own professional statuses — early years teacher status and QTLS. The exemptions reflect those settings' different character; they are not a general pragmatism argument that applies to shortage subjects in mainstream secondary schools.
I wonder if it would be helpful if I finished my comments, and then I will be more than happy to come back to the hon. Gentleman’s question if I have not answered it. I am currently responding to the amendments tabled by various Members, and then I will set out the rationale for clause 40. I would be more than happy to answer specific questions at the end if I have not anticipated them, which I hope to do. Under clause 40, schools will continue to be able to recruit teachers without qualified teacher status for any subject and then support those teachers to gain qualified teacher status through an appropriate route. We are updating the regulations to clarify that they will have three terms to secure a place on an appropriate route to QTS. We believe that will give schools adequate flexibility for circumstances in which they need to recruit a subject expert who does not have qualified teacher status, but can be on a route to gaining it under these requirements. We are focused on ensuring that we have enough qualified teachers available for schools. Obviously, the best recruitment strategy is retention, and that starts with making sure that teachers who are currently teaching have access to high-quality training and induction support. We have a range of measures beyond the Bill to address the recruitment and retention of teachers in shortage subjects, including a targeted retention incentive, worth up to £6,000 after tax, for mathematics, physics, chemistry and computing teachers in the first five years of their careers who choose to work in disadvantaged schools. I have considered amendment 76, in the name of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, but amending clause 40 in that way would build a loophole into the changes that the clause seeks to make, so the amendment effectively seeks to remove the clause. Clause 40 demonstrates our commitment to qualified teacher status and the professional status of teaching. High-quality teaching is the most important…
- Across the public sector — civil service, police, social work — we are trying to make it easier for talented people to move in from other careers. Here we are moving in exactly the opposite direction. I withdraw Amendment 73 but press Amendment 75.
I wish to press our amendment 75. To explain that briefly, across the public sector, be it in the civil service, the police or social work, we are trying to make it easier for talented people to come in from the outside, yet in this field we are moving in exactly the opposite direction. The Government are offering pragmatism in some fields, but not in the case of shortage subjects. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 73, but I am keen to press our amendment 75. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed: 75, in clause 40, page 99, line 23, at end insert— “(1A) In section 133 (requirement to be qualified), after subsection (1) insert— ‘(1A) Where a person is carrying out such work for the purposes of teaching a shortage subject, the requirement in subsection (1)(a) does not apply. (1B) For the purposes of this section, “shortage subject” means any subject in relation to which the Department for Education’s recruitment targets for initial teacher training have been missed in the most recent year for which such statistics exist.’”—(Neil O’Brien.) Question put, That the amendment be made.
- Amendment 94 largely achieves the same end as Amendment 75, so I will not press it to a vote. But let me be clear for the record: Liberal Democrats believe qualified teachers are crucial. The purpose of Amendment 94 was to prevent unintended consequences — when a specialist teacher is unavailable, I would rather children had someone with subject knowledge in front of them than go without. We fully support the Government's intentions.
My amendment 94 largely seeks to do the same as the amendment on which we have just voted, so I do not propose to press it to a vote, but if I may, Sir Edward, I will just say one sentence about it. Given some of the comments by Government Members, I want to clarify on the record that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that qualified teachers are crucial. The purpose of my amendment 94 was to prevent unintended consequences. When a specialist teacher is not available, I would rather children had somebody in front of them with the knowledge to teach them than went without—that is why we tabled amendment 94—but we absolutely agree with the Government’s intentions. I was troubled by the suggestion that we wanted to lower standards in schools, or anything like that. Qualified teachers—excellent teachers—are critical to children’s outcomes.
- Every child is entitled to a core education that builds the knowledge, skills and attributes they need to thrive, regardless of which school they attend. Clause 41 therefore requires academies to follow the national curriculum in the same way as maintained schools. This does not prescribe every detail of what is taught — the reformed curriculum will leave all schools plenty of scope for innovation and empowers rather than restricts. It will commence only after the independent curriculum and assessment review has concluded and we have responded to its recommendations.
Parents and children have a right to expect that every child will receive a core education that builds the knowledge, skills and attributes they need to thrive, regardless of the school they attend. Our reforms will create a richer, broader curriculum that will ensure that children are prepared for life, work and the future. We want all children to benefit from the reformed curriculum, so the clause will introduce a requirement for academies to follow the national curriculum in the same way as maintained schools. That does not mean prescribing every last detail of what is taught and how. The reformed curriculum will allow all schools plenty of scope for innovation. It will be designed to empower, not restrict, academies and other schools, and will ensure that teachers have the flexibility to adapt to the needs of their pupils. The measures will be commenced only after the independent curriculum and assessment review has concluded and we have responded to its recommendations and developed a reformed curriculum. The clause will give every child guaranteed access to a cutting-edge curriculum that will provide an excellent foundation in reading, writing and maths, and ensure that they leave compulsory education ready for life and ready for work. I hope the Committee agrees that the clause should stand part of the Bill. New clause 44 was tabled by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. G. K. Chesterton famously said, “You should never take down a fence until you know why it was put up.” The national curriculum was established in the late 1980s to ensure that children receive a broad, high-quality education. It provides a strong foundation, regardless of background or the school attended. It is not about meeting an abstract standard; it is about making sure that all children have access to the knowledge and skills necessary to thrive in society and the economy of the future. The national curriculum also enables credib…