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

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

(b) after subsection (A1) insert—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(c) the outcomes of any plans.’”

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

“(c) after subsection (1), insert—

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

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

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

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

“(c) after subsection (7), insert—

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

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

“(c) after subsection (1A) insert—

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clause stand part.

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

Dame Siobhain McDonagh said on Second Reading:

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

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

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

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

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

The Children’s Commissioner has also made the same point. In her written evidence to this Committee, she says that she is

“deeply concerned that we are legislating against the things we know work in schools, and that we risk children spending longer in failing schools by slowing down the pace of school improvement.”

In her oral evidence to this Committee, she noted that

“I cannot let children remain in failing schools, so if those are going, I need to know what is going to happen. Childhood lasts a very short time, so if a child is in a failing school, how will those schools be improved, immediately and effectively?”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 42, Q90.]

She went on:

“Probably the main reason for academy orders was to try to expedite improvement quickly against a backlash. Would it not be great if we could get everyone on side to be able to act really quickly, together, to improve schools that need improving?”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 42, Q91.]

She is right.

The Confederation of School Trusts has said that the current system offers struggling schools “clarity” as they

“will join a trust, and that process can begin immediately”.

They warn that turning schools around

“can be much tougher with the mixed responsibilities of governing bodies and local authorities. We are not clear on how commissioning part-time support through the RISE arrangements makes that any easier.”

The former national schools commissioner, Sir David Carter, has warned that the

“arguments and legal actions that will arise if a school in Cumbria is told to join a trust while a school in Cornwall just gets arm’s length support will only add delay to delivering a fairer and better offer to children.”

He notes that

“The academy trust movement has been a success story. Not everywhere, admittedly, but in many more locations than we have ever seen before in my 40-year career.”

He is right, too.

Academisation works. Even the impact assessment produced by the Government says that recent data shows that

“More than 7 out of 10 sponsored academies which were found to be underperforming as an LA maintained school in their previous inspection now have a good or outstanding rating.”

Strangely, though, that impact assessment is silent on the issues that schools leaders are raising about this clause, which are a return to protracted campaigns at the local level and legal action to fight academisation.

Recently, Schools Week magazine examined just this question. It went back and looked at some of the cases in which there had been protests against academisation, and found that in all 12 schools that had seen protests but where the school had gone on to become an academy, those schools were improved by the trust that took them over. In fact, 10 were rated good at their next inspection, and one was rated outstanding. One Labour MP quoted in that Schools Week piece said that the plan in this clause would lead to

“campaigns outside every school, parents split, the secretary of state will have correspondence everywhere and a judicial review at every school. The lack of clear pathway is a bad idea for children, for parents, and for ministers.”

It is somewhat hard to get a handle on the workload that the people in the RISE teams, which are being used as a part-alternative to academisation, will face. The Government say that

“Prior to these new RISE teams being fully operational we will establish an interim support offer to our most vulnerable schools. We plan to use the existing school improvement offer structures to deliver interim support. We estimate interim support will be offered to approximately 80 existing 2RI+ schools, and up to 190 schools identified using the new triggers for intervention.”

The last statistics on the size of the RISE teams suggested that there were currently 35 staff, so can the Minister confirm that that is roughly eight schools to be turned around per member of staff?

Various Members, including the hon. Member for Twickenham, made the point yesterday that it was rather strange for the Government to be announcing their new intervention regime halfway through legislating to scrap the old one. I agree: that is obviously very odd and not desirable. The gap between policy and this legislation opens up some real dangers for schools in need of help and for the pupils in those schools. The consultation makes clear that for many schools—effectively, the old 2RI cohort—the end of the academies order through this clause will delay a much-needed handover to new management. Schools will get 18 months of work with RISE, and then will be “normally” academised if there is no improvement over that period.

That word “normally”, which also appears in the consultation document referring to schools in special measures—schools with greater concerns—is what will open up exactly the time-consuming legal challenges and divisive community campaigns that the Children’s Commissioner, the former national schools commissioner, school leaders and even Labour MPs have been warning about. If it is optional and discretionary, the decision can—and will, unfortunately—be challenged in court. The consultation document also sets up a particularly messy transition period, in which policy will be unchanged but no longer supported by the law because of this clause. That transition will be a gift to litigious anti-academies campaigners.

It is difficult to avoid the sense that the Government are slightly changing direction in mid air. Last summer, Ministers decided to abolish the academy conversion grant and the grant to grow strong trusts and they tabled this legislation to end the academisation order. But they now say that they are big fans of academisation. That change of rhetoric needs to be followed by another change: dropping this clause. A gap is opening up between policy and rhetoric, and the actual legislation we are debating today, which has not changed.

On page 18 of the accountability consultation, the Government say:

“we expect that mandatory intervention, through both structural intervention and targeted RISE intervention, will cover around twice the number of schools as are currently covered”

over the last two years. I am keen to ask the Minister to give us the numbers behind the claim. How many schools over the next three years does she think will get, first, a structural intervention and, secondly, a targeted RISE intervention? Those two things are very different. In the consultation, the Government refer to figures but did not give a number or specify how many would get the lower-key RISE support and how many would get the structural intervention.

If the Government are going to claim that they are effectively doing twice as much, we need at least to see the numbers so that we can compare them to what happened under the old regime. I am sure that the Minister would agree that that is a reasonable thing to ask for and that she will be able to provide us with statistics on how many schools will go through structural intervention over the next three years and how many will go through the targeted RISE intervention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“scrap the inefficient free school programme”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

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

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

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

rose—

I will give way only if it relates to the clause and the amendments, because I fear we have veered on to school funding, as opposed to academy orders.

I was going to show some solidarity with the hon. Lady, which she may find useful. This is my second Bill Committee—the first was on water—and if it is any consolation to the hon. Lady, the Conservative spokespeople blamed 14 years of water mismanagement on the five years of coalition with the Liberal Democrats in that Committee, too. My question is, would she agree that, actually, it is unfair to blame the Liberal Democrats for 14 years of education failure, given that they were only in coalition for five of those failing years?

I think it is unfair because, as I have pointed out, we saw the most damaging cuts, and the lack of keeping up with inflation—in terms of schools funding—from 2015 onwards. As Liberals, it is core to our DNA to champion education, because we recognise that that is the route out of poverty and disadvantage for everyone. No matter someone’s background, that is how they flourish in life. That is why we had such a big focus on education when we were in government. Sadly, we never saw that level of focus after we left government.

I return to clause 44 and the amendments in my name. I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston about judicial reviews. I do not share his concerns far enough to support his amendment, because a judicial review is sometimes an important safety valve in all sorts of decision making, but I recognise what he says: that all sorts of campaigns and judicial reviews could start up. Just the other day, I was talking to a former Minister who has been involved in a London school that needs turning around; they have had all sorts of problems in making the necessary changes, and were subject to a judicial review, which the governing body and those involved won. I recognise and share the shadow Minister’s concerns, and I look forward to hearing how the Minister will address them, but putting a bar on all JRs in primary legislation is possibly overreach.

I want to comment on judicial reviews. Opposition Members will be aware that the previous Government’s long-standing policy of issuing academisation orders to schools with two RIs was not in fact a duty, but can they set out on how many occasions those would have been challenged through a judicial review? Rather than them taking the time, I can tell them that there were numerous judicial reviews that held up the changes that we would have wanted to make, whether regarding governance or a change in leadership. The clause allows local authorities and local areas to choose which way to go.

The hon. Lady posed a question and answered it herself, so I shall move on.

My amendment 95 is perhaps made redundant by yesterday’s announcements, but amendment 96 talks about parliamentary oversight. That comes back to the fundamental point that I made in the Chamber yesterday, which is that we will end up passing the Bill before we see the outcome of the consultations from Ofsted and the Government on school improvement. I therefore humbly ask Ministers to at least allow Parliament to have sight of what will replace the power that is being amended, our support for which is of long standing.

Amendment 80 would retain the existing duty to issue an academy order where a school is judged to be in a category of concern by Ofsted. However, it provides an exemption to the duty in cases where the Secretary of State is unable to identify a suitable sponsor trust for the school.

Amendment 81 would not alter the repeal of the existing duty to issue academy orders to schools in a statutory category of concern; it would replace it with a duty to issue an academy order to schools assessed as requiring significant improvement or assessed by a RISE team to be significantly underperforming in comparison with their peers. Where a school is judged as requiring special measures, the Secretary of State would have a choice as to whether to issue an academy order, to deploy a RISE team or to use another intervention measure.

The amendments acknowledge the spirit of our proposal, which is to repeal the duty to issue academy orders and so to provide more flexibility to take the best course of action for each school. We recognise that in some cases the existing leadership of a failing school is strong and, with the right support, has the capacity to improve the school. Repealing the duty to issue an academy order means that in such cases we will have the flexibility to provide targeted support to schools, for example through RISE teams, to drive school improvement without the need to change the school’s leadership. I acknowledge the spirit of amendments 80 and 81 and the support for greater flexibility, but they would undermine the objective of enabling greater flexibility when intervening in failing schools. I therefore ask the hon. Members not to press them.

As set out by the Secretary of State yesterday, is it not the case that RISE teams will make the faster, earlier interventions to help schools improve before the situation gets so bad that these orders are given? Is that not exactly the point we are trying to get to?

Absolutely. The hon. Lady has put it very well. I was going to come to the detail of how the RISE teams will work, as I appreciate some questions have been raised. Fundamentally it needs to be understood that RISE will be a very different service from previous education improvement services that have been referenced. There will be more days, more money and better quality, because RISE will draw on the very best available school improvement capacity within the region, much of which lies within our academy trust leaders themselves.

I have a genuine question, as they say on Twitter. Quite a lot of teachers and school leaders have asked me, what is the difference between people joining a RISE team and national leaders in education?

Genuine delay of response, on the basis that I will come to that in my comments, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s interest.

Amendment 82—tabled jointly in the names of the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich—means that where the Secretary of State decides to issue an academy order to a school, the decision cannot be challenged by judicial review. The amendment looks to address the concerns that have been raised that repealing the duty to issue academy orders will lead to delays in school conversions and improvement, due to legal challenges against the Secretary of State’s decision.

I do not accept the challenge that repealing the duty to issue academy orders will lead to unacceptably high numbers of legal challenges. As part of our future intervention process, we will set out a robust and lawful policy which will set out the circumstances in which we will issue an academy order to a school in a category of concern, and that will help ensure that all decisions taken to intervene are in the best interest of the individual school and its circumstances. However, there should be the possibility, and ability, for those impacted by decisions to issue an academy order to challenge that decision where it might have got it wrong. I therefore respectfully ask that the Members withdraw that amendment.

I now turn to amendments 95 and 96, tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham. Amendment 95 seeks to require the Secretary of State to invite expressions of interest from potential sponsor trusts prior to issuing an academy order to a failing school. It then requires the Secretary of State to assess the track record of potential sponsors identified as regards school improvement. Amendment 96 would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament, setting out the different mechanisms that can be used to secure school improvement, and guidance on the appropriate usage of those mechanisms, before measures can take effect. The Department already has an established practice on publishing clear policy and guidance on the methods used to support and intervene in schools. In particular, the support and intervention in school guidance makes clear the various intervention powers that may be used when a school is underperforming and the circumstances in which they may be used. In most cases, failing maintained schools subsequently converted to academies have shown improvements. The last published data shows that since 2010, 68% of previously maintained schools, now academies, improved to a “good” or “outstanding” in their latest Ofsted inspection. Conversely, that does show that 32% did not.

Once it is decided that an academy order should be issued, the Department already has established processes in place to identify the best sponsor for each failing school. Using the high-quality trust framework, the Department identifies trusts with the expertise and track record in delivering high-quality and inclusive education and the capacity to rapidly transform the performance of the school. The Department will consider the individual school characteristics and the school’s improvement needs in order to match the school with the right trust. We will continue to ensure that we identify the best possible sponsor match for failing schools that receive academy orders to maximise the potential for school improvement. The Department already has these well-established practices, so I do not believe the amendments are necessary to achieve the outcome that they seek. I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Twickenham not to press them to a vote.

Turning to clause 44, for too long, the only solution to tackling failing schools has been to force them to become academies. Although it is true that many schools have benefited from academisation, it is not the right approach in all cases. Academisation can be disruptive and costly, and it may not be necessary where a school’s existing leadership has the capacity to make the necessary improvements, if it just had the right support to do so. There are also circumstances where there just has not been a strong academy trust for a school to join, which has meant children continuing to wait for their school to be improved and continuing to be disadvantaged by doing so.

That is why we are repealing the duty to issue academy orders to local authority maintained schools that are in a statutory category of concern. Instead, we will have a choice between academising or providing support with the new regional improvement for standards and excellence teams. Where it is clear that academisation is the best way to achieve improvement for a particular school, we will not hesitate to pursue it. Where academisation may not be the best option, particularly when the school has existing strong leadership, it will receive support from a RISE team to improve without the disruption that academisation causes for pupils and parents.

Let me respond to some of the questions. The hon. Member for Twickenham rightly acknowledged that the consultation issued yesterday set out the process that will interrelate with the changes that we seek to make through legislation today. Clause 44 repeals the duty to make an academy order for maintained schools that are causing concern. As we said, that will give us more flexibility to address a school’s performance issues. We launched the 12-week consultation yesterday, seeking views on the school accountability principles, including the structural intervention that sits alongside Ofsted’s consultation.

We outlined our policy for intervention in schools causing concern, and we now seek to legislate to provide the ability to pursue the outcome of that consultation. Whatever the outcome, we believe that repealing the duty to issue academy orders to give us that flexibility of approach is the best option. I know that the hon. Lady agrees, and we will use the responses to the consultation to inform the precise balance of use between the intervention options. We will be clear about those options and that approach to minimise any legal challenge that may be brought in respect of decisions taken.

The long-term objective of the measure is obvious: children get only one childhood, and it matters deeply that they get the right school and the highest quality provision in that school through their childhood. We are absolutely determined that improvement, when it is needed, will be delivered as fast as possible. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said, academisation can be a very slow process. Indeed, it can take time to match a school with a strong trust, and it can take time for the legal processes to go through. What we seek to do with the RISE teams is to intervene at the earliest point at which a struggling or failing school is identified, and to put that support in place as fast as possible.

We do not accept the challenge that this will result in intolerable delays to school improvement—quite the opposite: it will ensure that support can be put in at the fastest opportunity. To give some statistics, between January 2022 and December 2024, 40% of all schools in a category of concern took over a year to convert to sponsored academies, and 23% took more than two years. Although some of the concerns existed before the current regime of directed orders was introduced, it still takes too long and there are too many children in those schools that are not getting the support they need to improve. Even where they have the capacity within the school to improve, they do not have the support to do so.

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

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

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

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

We have heard various things from the Conservative spokespeople, including from a sedentary position. I just heard the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston say something about the Prime Minister. I want to put on the record what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions recently:

“Parents and teachers know that we introduced academies. Parents and teachers know that we are driven by standards. We are committed to standards—they are part of the future—and we will continue to focus on them.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 1000.]

It is really important that words are not being put in the mouths of Members, particularly when those Members are not in this room.

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

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

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

How many will go through academisation?

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

rose—

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

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

rose—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am keen to press the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.