Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(2 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
“(1) Where the proprietor of an Academy—(a) has breached a relevant duty, or(b) otherwise has acted unreasonably with respect to the performance of a relevant duty, the proprietor must take such steps as are necessary to remedy the breach or unreasonable action and secure the proper performance of the relevant duty.(2) Where the proprietor of an Academy has acted unreasonably with respect to the exercise of a relevant power, the proprietor must take such steps as are necessary to ensure the reasonable exercise of the relevant power. (2A) The proprietor must remedy any breach identified under subsection (1) or (2) within such reasonable period as the circumstances require, having regard to—(a) the nature and seriousness of the breach;(b) the impact or likely impact on pupils' education or welfare;(c) the complexity of the remedial action required;(d) any other relevant circumstances.(2B) Where the Secretary of State is reasonably satisfied that the proprietor of an Academy has breached a relevant duty or otherwise has acted unreasonably with respect to the performance of a relevant duty the Secretary of State may serve notice on the proprietor of an Academy specifying—(a) the breach that has been identified;(b) the relevant duty or power in question;(c) the period within which the proprietor must remedy the breach.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent Clause 49 from granting the Secretary of State the power to (1) issue a direction to an Academy that is “likely” to have breached a relevant duty, and (2) prescribe exactly how any breach should be remedied. Instead, it seeks to give Academies discretion in how they remedy an actual breach of a relevant duty.
Baroness Barran (Con)
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 State taking powers to require a trust that is at risk of not complying with the new policy on the number of branded items of uniform to do so, but it also allows her to state how that should happen. Perhaps the Secretary of State will decide that the trust should remove a branded book bag, or maybe a tie, but I find it hard to see how this can be a good use of anyone’s time, let alone the Secretary of State’s. So I have a series of amendments that seek to bring back common sense to the Secretary of State’s interventions in these minor breaches, clarity of responsibility, and a reminder that the Secretary of State has considerable powers in the funding agreement, if needed.
My Amendment 444A on page 113 of the Bill aims to bring some proportionality to the power. It makes it clear that the proprietor must remedy any breach identified under subsections (1) or (2) within a reasonable period. In judging what is meant by a reasonable period, it refers to the nature and seriousness of the breach, the impact or likely impact on pupils’ education or welfare, the complexity of the remedial action required and any other relevant circumstances. My new subsection (2B) makes it clear that the Secretary of State can specify the time period within which a breach or unreasonable behaviour must be addressed, but not the method of doing so. Without this clarification, there is a real potential for the power to be used, ironically, in an unreasonable way.
My Amendment 444B removes the ability of the Secretary of State to intervene in the case of a likely breach. It is close to farcical to think of the time, resource and legal advice that would be taken to prepare the letter to a trust with an offending book bag or tie. The writers of “The Thick of It” might use this for a future episode.
Amendment 444C makes it clear that the powers within the funding agreement should be used to address breaches. Amendment 4445—sorry, we have not got into the thousands yet, although we might by the end of this Bill. Amendment 445 again ensures that any directions from the Secretary of State are limited to statutory duties, funding agreements or charity law where there is a breach or unreasonable behaviour in relation to a relevant duty.
My Amendment 445ZA has the same effect in relation to a situation where the proprietor has acted or is proposing to act unreasonably in relation to the performance of a relevant power. I apologise that the explanatory statement on that amendment was inaccurate and referred to a duty rather than a power.
Amendments 445ZC and 445ZD again seek to limit the power of the Secretary of State to a notice rather than a direction, so that the decision about how to address a breach rests with the proprietor. Surely this is a more practical approach than the one set out in the Bill, and clearly the issue needs to be rectified to the Secretary of State’s satisfaction.
We also believe it is important to have visibility on the way these new powers are used, so our Amendment 445ZB requires the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament when the powers are used, explaining the issues arising and the actions taken. I appreciate that currently a notice to improve and termination warning notices are published by the department, but they are really only visible to those of us who read the daily emails from the DfE closely.
It will not surprise the noble Baroness to hear me say that on these Benches we think that Clause 49 should not stand part of the Bill. It is not needed, it is disproportionate and it is drafted in a way that does not align to the purpose set out in the policy notes. My amendments offer the Government some ways to improve that alignment but, honestly, I think it is best removed altogether.
At a time when the Prime Minister is rightly talking about the focus on delivery, surely clauses such as this, which absorb precious ministerial and official time for little impact, should be dropped so the department can focus on much more pressing issues, such as special education needs and disabilities. I hope the Minister will think again and I beg to move the amendment standing in my name in this group.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
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 group of amendments tabled by my noble friend, along with the amendment in the name of he noble Lord, Lord Knight, would bring some much-needed balance into Clause 49 by restoring proportionality and fairness into the process while maintaining the Secretary of State’s powers to ensure that trusts do not breach their statutory duties, funding agreements or charity law. I hope the Minister will think again about the breadth of powers that the Government are proposing.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
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.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
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 which have been granted to it by its academy status.
As I mentioned, I am also a member, along with Kent County Council, of the Leigh Academies Trust. Under the leadership of Simon Beamish and Frank Green, it has grown from being one of the original CTCs, which some may remember—for full disclosure, it was originally sponsored in the 1980s by my uncle, Sir Geoffrey Leigh—to now being a MAT of over 30 schools. It is widely respected for its tremendous achievements.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
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.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
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.
Lord Storey (LD)
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 construction company would get the work from that academy. It would not go out for tender. There was a big scandal on “Panorama” about it. If that is wrong, action needs to be taken. I do not know what these breaches are, or how serious or wide they are, but it should not be just left to the academy to sort out. It should be sorted out by the Secretary of State and by her Minister in the House of Lords.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
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, Lady Barran, proposes a statutory requirement for an annual statement to Parliament on the use of this power. The Government are of course fully in favour of transparency but already publish directions and other notices on GOV.UK in a timely and detailed manner. I put on record the Government’s commitment to maintaining this approach to transparency. An annual report would duplicate this process and add no further value, while adding an unnecessary administrative burden.
Amendments 444A, 445ZC and 445ZD, all in the name of the noble Baroness, propose replacing the Secretary of State’s direction-making power with a notice procedure. These amendments replace the Government’s clear and authoritative direction-making power with a more convoluted system of self-policing duties and a notice procedure. In practice, it risks delaying intervention.
Effective oversight cannot rely on academy trusts policing themselves. The Secretary of State must retain the ability to act swiftly and decisively when serious concerns arise, particularly where trusts fail to meet their legal obligations or act unreasonably when exercising those duties. The notice procedure is very similar to the power as drafted, except it does not include the ability to issue a direction in cases of unreasonable exercise of a power. Therefore, the clause as drafted is more effective than the proposed notice procedure. When the Secretary of State writes to a trust before she decides to issue a direction, it will outline the breach, the rationale for intervention and the suggested actions to remedy the breach, and will seek representations.
Finally in this group, Amendments 445, 444B, 444C and 445ZA tabled by noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to limit the scope of Clause 49. These amendments propose to restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to issue directions to cases where a specific legal duty has been breached. In doing so, they would remove the ability to intervene where a trust acts, or proposes to act, unreasonably in the exercise of its powers, even if no explicit duty has been contravened. This would narrow the intended reach of the clause.
The Government’s intention is to ensure that a proportionate intervention is possible not only when there is a clear breach of duty but also when a trust’s conduct in the use of its powers is manifestly unreasonable. However, I have heard concerns raised by noble Lords about this clause—particularly the concerns that these amendments seek to address with regard to the broad scope of the clause. I am considering potential solutions that would preserve our ability to intervene effectively while respecting the autonomy of trusts, and I look forward to bringing a solution back on Report that addresses these concerns.
On that basis, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
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.
Baroness Barran
“(a) in subsection (A1), at the end insert “unless the Secretary of State determines that no suitable sponsor is available”;(b) after subsection (A1) insert—“(A2) Where the Secretary of State determines that no suitable sponsor is available, the Secretary of State must, within 14 days, publish a plan to secure appropriate governance and leadership of the school and to secure its rapid improvement.(A3) A plan published under subsection (A2) must include—(a) the parties with responsibility for the school and its improvement,(b) the parties who will take action to improve provision in the school,(c) the resources that will be provided to the relevant parties, including who will provide the resources and when the resources will be provided, and(d) the intended outcomes of the plan, with the relevant timetables for the outcomes.(A4) The Secretary of State must report annually to Parliament on—(a) the number of times the Secretary of State has published a plan under subsection (A2),(b) the resources which have been provided as part of any plans, and(c) the outcomes of any plans.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to retain the existing requirement to make an academy order unless the Secretary of State determines there is no suitable sponsor available.
Baroness Barran (Con)
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 that because I do not feel that that is what the Bill says, as it removes the section in the Academies Act 2010 that facilitated this intervention. I hope that the Minister can explain that and reassure me.
The Government have argued that we should intervene earlier in schools that are struggling. Nobody would disagree with that; we were already doing that in the department when I was in office. Of course, if that works, it is the best outcome for children.
The other argument that the Government have put forward is that directive academy orders are too slow. I think that, if the Minister has time to dig into the detail, she will agree with me that the ones that are slow are really complicated. They may need significant financial help, which the department is struggling to find down the back of any education-shaped sofa; that might be in relation to capital or to revenue. There may be very complex governance issues, or—as in one case that I can remember, which was very slow—there may be crippling PFI contracts in place.
However, even that does not stop immediate help being put in. The Minister will be familiar with a number of cases where that has happened, often with trusts taking significant risk and commitment of resources without any guarantee that they will end up being the sponsor for the school. They do it because it is the right thing to do.
My Amendment 445B aims to address the Government’s concern about delays while still keeping the urgency that is necessary to address the weaknesses in a particular school. It says that, if
“no suitable sponsor is available, the Secretary of State must, within 14 days, publish a plan to secure appropriate governance and leadership of the school and to secure its rapid improvement”.
This would bring about the clarity and transparency that will be crucial in retaining the confidence of parents, pupils and staff. I think that that aligns with the Secretary of State’s Statement yesterday but, if it does not, I hope that the Minister can explain where the gap is.
My Amendment 446A aims to address a problem that is likely to emerge as a result of the Government’s approach—namely, an increase in the number of judicial reviews of academy orders. Schools will want to understand why they are not being given more support or more time to turn around. However valid any individual case might be, the outcome will be a slowing down and reduction in the use of academy orders, leaving pupils in failing schools for longer.
My Amendment 446B aims to reintroduce the automatic academisation of maintained schools that have received from Ofsted a significant improvement judgment, or whatever the latest language is—however the department and the chief inspector judge that to be framed—and where the RISE teams believe that a school is “significantly underperforming”.
The Bill fails to address another problem: the schools that, under the previous Ofsted framework, were repeatedly graded as requiring improvement, some as many as seven times or more. None of us in this Committee would want our child to attend or work in a school that is so stuck in a rut of underperformance. I know that the decision to intervene in the so-called 2RI+ schools—to use the secret language of school intervention—was not universally welcomed, including by my noble friend Lady Spielman, and she and I debated this many times in her previous role. The aim was to send a strong signal about the priority we put on addressing underperformance in a timely and effective way. Sadly, the Secretary of State reversed this approach very early on in her tenure.
I ask the Minister to reconsider whether this clause should stand part of the Bill, particularly given the Secretary of State’s comments yesterday. Where is the evidence that the department’s proposed approach will be more effective? Children in failing schools need urgent action, as the Secretary of State herself has said. Sometimes the leadership of that school does not want to become part of a trust, but, ultimately, we need to be clear that the interest of the pupils must always come first. I beg to move the amendment in my name.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
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 starting to untangle the mess.
Currently, schools in multi-academy trusts lack separate legal entities. Leaving it to the MAT board to decide which powers, if any, it chooses to delegate to each academy is a profoundly unequal relationship. Amendment 447 does not seek to directly prescribe how to get out of this undeniably complex situation; rather, it would create a new clause in the Bill directing the Secretary of State to set out, within 12 months of the Act passing, a report with proposals for converting academy chains, individual academies and free schools into maintained schools under local authority control.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
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, brisk and well implemented, with the maximum certainty and the minimum delay, limbo or uncertainty for all concerned.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
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.
Lord Addington (LD)
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.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
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.
Baroness Barran (Con)
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.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
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 special measures, but would give the Secretary of State discretion to act differently if that is their judgement. As I am sure my noble friend would recognise, Clause 50 already provides the Secretary of State with the wide-ranging flexibility to intervene as they think best, specifically on merging schools. The Secretary of State already has the power to require a maintained school to take steps to join a federation, which is similar in effect to a merger. We do not believe that my noble friend’s amendment is required.
Amendments 445B, 446A and 446B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to retain or reintroduce a statutory duty to issue academy orders, albeit with varying conditions or constraints. Each of these amendments would, in different ways, undermine the core purpose of Clause 50, which is to provide the Secretary of State with the flexibility to determine the most appropriate intervention for each school based on its unique circumstances.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
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?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
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.
Baroness Barran (Con)
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.
Baroness Bousted
“1A In section 120(1)(a), after “teachers”, insert—“(aa) academy schools Chief Executive Officers’ pay,””
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
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 efficiently they run their trusts. I would not expect the pay of a CEO or other non-teaching staff to increase faster than the pay award for teachers”.
In 2019, my noble friend Lord Agnew wrote again to the chairs of boards of trusts in a letter headed “Excessive High Pay to Employees”, requiring information from those trusts on the salaries and bonuses paid to individuals in those trusts earning more than £100,000. This might not happen too often, so it is perhaps a little noteworthy that I entirely agree with my noble friend. I entirely agree that the pay of CEOs and other non-teaching staff should not increase faster than the pay award for teachers. But my amendment is more conservative than that, with a small C. It would simply put the pay of MAT CEOs and single academy trust CEOs within the remit of the School Teachers’ Review Body, as is teacher and school leader pay.
I gave evidence to the STRB for over 20 years, both as general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and the joint general secretary of the National Education Union. The process of giving evidence is rigorous. STRB witnesses are required to submit detailed written evidence to the board on the pay awards that they feel are necessary and just for teachers and leaders. The evidence takes into account the relative pay rises of other workers in the public and private sectors, the state of recruitment and retention in the teaching profession and a host of other wage economy evidence. The STRB then holds in-person oral sessions where witnesses are required to elaborate and build on their written submissions. The review body then considers all the evidence it has been given, including evidence from the Department for Education, and makes a recommendation to the Government which the Government must then decide whether or not to accept. All this amendment would do is put in place the same rigorous arrangements for CEOs of single and multi-academy trusts.
This is a necessary step because there has been an inflationary spiral in CEO pay. Schools Week, the trade newspaper, conducts an annual executive pay investigation, which this year included 1,800 trusts. What this analysis found was that the gap between the CEO and other staff in multi-academy trusts is widening the pay gap. Sixty-four CEOs earned more than £200,000 a year. Five multi-academy trusts registered increases of over 20% or more in CEO pay. Now these pay rises may be justified. The problem is that the taxpayer does not know the reasoning behind them and we do not have an agreed definition of what the job description of a CEO is. How is it different from a head teacher? What is the job weight and how is it weighed by the boards, by the governing bodies?
The danger in a lack of appropriate regulation of CEO pay was well articulated by Sam Henson, deputy CEO of the National Governance Association, who remarked that salary benchmarking for CEOs was
“in some cases, leading to inflationary spirals”.
He added that the benchmarking exercises
“don’t come with an accompanying narrative on how this deals with the massive pressures the sector is under, namely money being … in short supply, ongoing recruitment and retention challenges, and insufficient accountability”
for this role.
Lord Hampton (CB)
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.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
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 sectors. Under the NHS’s maintaining high professional standards framework, doctors and dentists are entitled to be accompanied by representatives from defence organisations such as the MDU or the MPS. This has not undermined the role of unions in healthcare; rather, it has ensured that highly scrutinised professionals are not left unsupported at crucial moments. It is only right that teachers, who work to and conduct similar levels of public and institutional scrutiny, should be afforded the same basic protection.
We debated a similar issue during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, and I anticipate that the same concern may be raised again today—namely, that widening accompaniment rights risk “lawyering up” disciplinary procedures. With respect, that is a mischaracterisation of both the amendment and the current legal framework. The law already imposes clear limitations on the role of a companion in such hearings, and this amendment would not alter those parameters. It would not introduce legal representation into the room.
Indeed, it is worth noting that, under the current law, a teacher who is a union member may be accompanied by a lawyer, provided that individual holds union officer status, without the need for employer approval. Yet a teacher outside a union has no statutory right even to a trained non-legal companion. That is the imbalance this amendment seeks to address.
As unions themselves often emphasise, far from escalating matters, the presence of a trained companion often helps to prevent conflict, reduce procedural errors and resolve issues before they spiral. This is about fairness, not formality; it is also about extending protection, not creating confrontation. It is not about undermining unions; it is about extending a basic protection to all teachers regardless of their affiliations.
This is a modest and reasonable proposal that would not diminish the role of unions. Rather, it acknowledges that freedom of association includes freedom not to associate. No teacher should be disadvantaged for choosing an alternative form of professional support. If we believe in individual liberty and procedural fairness, we should not turn a blind eye to a group of professionals facing complex, often career-defining moments, unsupported.
This amendment would impose no additional financial burden on schools. On the contrary, it is likely to result in savings in both time and resources that would otherwise be spent on facilitating teachers to bring colleagues to hearings.
Lord Storey (LD)
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.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
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.
Baroness Barran (Con)
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 lack a legal right to do so, and on occasion are refused by employers. This amendment would provide a mechanism to regularise the good practice that is already seen in the sector and ensure that it is spread equally.
The amendment has another spin-off benefit. The Minister will be aware—I think my noble friend Lord Nash talked about this—that schools are seeing an increasing number of complaints being generated by AI. Complaints might be generated using an LLM, but they cannot be resolved in the same way. It is therefore important to ensure that workplace hearings are efficient and effective and keep pace with that very regrettable trend.
I cannot support Amendment 447A—I see that the Minister is smiling in surprise. In the good tradition set by my noble friend Lord Agnew, I also spent some time writing to chairs about CEO and senior leadership team pay. I disagree with the Minister that this should be resolved through the STRB.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
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 trusts that do not demonstrate value for money or improved pupil outcomes. We will monitor our approach, ensuring proportionality and impact when keeping that under review.
Amendment 448, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would remove the statutory ceiling on teacher pay and allow maintained schools to depart from the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document. I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment, which is in the spirit of what our clauses attempt to achieve, but there is a significant difference between our clause and what the noble Baroness is proposing.
We both agree on the importance of removing the pay ceiling, but it does not need to be in the Bill to achieve that. There is a well-respected process through the Education Act 2002 which already provides for the Secretary of State to determine pay levels through secondary legislation. That is precisely what we intend to do following Royal Assent and a statutory consultation process, through the usual schoolteachers’ review body process. The Bill and our subsequent reforms to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document will achieve the aim of creating a pay floor with no ceiling and increasing innovation for all schools.
Amendment 448A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would expand teachers’ rights to be accompanied at disciplinary or grievance meetings by representatives of professional bodies which are not trade unions. I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord and others in raising this matter. As we have heard, noble Lords are aware that the Department for Business and Trade is responsible for the policy in this area.
Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 already provides adequate protections in respect of the right to accompaniment for all workers, including teachers. I am aware of the outcome of the vote on Report of the Employment Rights Bill on a similar amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and that the Department for Business and Trade will set out its latest position on that issue in due course.
With regard to teachers specifically, we believe that creating a statutory right for teachers separate to the process that I have just outlined covering all workers could raise concerns under the European Convention on Human Rights, as it would treat them more favourably than other workers without clear justification. We therefore have no plans to amend the position for teachers.
These clauses are about ensuring that the Secretary of State has the right tools to uphold standards and protect pupils, while also supporting the teaching profession through fair and consistent pay arrangements. I hope that given the assurances and additional information that I have provided, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.