My Lords, I turn first to Clauses 54 and 55, the latter of which the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, opposes standing part of the Bill. Together, they extend local authorities’ current powers to direct maintained schools to admit a child to enable them to direct academies in the same way.

There are important elements of this Bill that are about future-proofing the system. As I explained last week when talking about the nature of the national curriculum, if, quite rightly, a Majority of our schools, or schools that are teaching the majority of our children, are academies, and if, as we do as a Government, we want to continue the progress to see more academies developing and opening, we need to future-proof the system. At the moment, local authorities can direct admissions in the particular circumstances in which they need to do so in only half of schools, and in the future in even fewer schools than that. The proposals enable the school admissions code to set out additional circumstances in which directions can be made to ensure school places for vulnerable children can be secured more quickly and efficiently.

Enabling local authorities to direct into academies without needing to make a request via the Secretary of State will help to reduce delays in securing vulnerable children a school place. It is right, as the noble Baroness says, that there is a route to direct into an academy, but that requires making a request to the Secretary of State and an average, as I understand it, of 38 days for that to be determined. That is a long time for a vulnerable child to be without a school place.

These clauses will also create a more streamlined directions process for children who have come out of care, or where the fair access protocol—the local process to secure places for unplaced and vulnerable children—has failed to secure a child a school place. Together, these measures will help provide a more robust and consistent safety net for vulnerable children, ensuring that no child falls between the cracks.

Amendment 452 from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, seeks to amend the circumstances in which local authorities can direct admissions and places certain requirements on academy admissions, and Amendment 452ZA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, requires local authorities to not take into account a school’s academy status in these decisions. Noble Lords are, of course, absolutely right that it is important that these decisions are made in the best interests of the child and that impartiality between types of schools should be maintained.

Legislation already contains protections to ensure that local authorities’ powers of direction can be used only in limited but deserving circumstances. As well as consulting with the child’s parents and schools, local authorities must ensure that decisions are made in the child’s interests, including ensuring that the school is suitable to the child’s needs. These decisions and proposals are all about children’s needs; people who have decided to devote their career to looking after children and our schools are not bureaucrats, as the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, continues to keep calling them, which I think is a shame. I hope that he does not mean it in the disparaging manner in which he continues to use it.

Public law principles already prevent local authorities taking account of irrelevant factors when taking decisions, such as whether or not a school is an academy. Of course, we recognise the point made by noble Lords about the potential for a conflict of interest here, which is why this measure will also give academy trusts a new right to object to the independent schools adjudicator where they disagree with a local authority’s decision to direct a child into their school.

Amendments 450 and 453, tabled by my noble friend Lady Longfield, are on arranging managed moves through fair access protocols. My noble friends have made some important and useful points about the way in which managed moves might be appropriately organised. But I certainly also agree with my noble friend Lady Longfield. As I think I spelled out in the previous group, it is absolutely right that we should maintain a close eye on and improve oversight of pupil movement. That is why we are already doing so by strengthening accountability through reforms to Ofsted and the annual reviews of safeguarding, attendance and pupil movement, including off-rolling.

My concern about my noble friend’s amendments is not the intention but the practicalities. These amendments would require the fair access protocol to be invoked in almost every situation where a pupil moves permanently to another school. From my noble friend’s introduction, I do not think that that was her intention, but that would be the effect of the amendment. That is not the intended function of fair access protocols and would likely delay vulnerable pupils accessing a school place.

I turn to amendments related to Clause 56 on published admission numbers—PANs—and where the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has indicated that she intends to oppose the question that Clause 56 should stand part of the Bill. Clause 56 provides that, where the adjudicator upholds an objection to a school’s PAN, they can specify the new PAN to be included in the school’s admission arrangements. Here we had a very important and helpful Intervention from my noble friend Lady Bousted, who pointed out the duty that local authorities have to secure sufficient places for children within the areas where they have responsibility. It is therefore important for us to ensure that local authorities have the ability in reality to be able to do that.

We know that, in some areas, schools set PANs that do not offer enough places to meet local needs. Equally, in areas of falling pupil rolls, some schools increase or retain PANs beyond what is needed. This can make it harder for the local authority and school leaders to plan effectively, hurting pupil outcomes. I know that there is concern among noble Lords that the impact of this would be, somehow or other, to prevent the quality and parental choice about which all of us are, I think, concerned. However, as my noble friend Lady Morris pointed out, if it is difficult or impossible for local authorities and school leaders to plan effectively, that may in itself have the effects of hurting pupil outcomes and damaging other good schools—and, in doing that, limiting parental choice. We all agree that we want to protect and promote all those things.

This measure will be supported by changes to regulations and to the School Admissions Code to enable local authorities to object where a PAN is increased or retained; and to create new rules to ensure that quality of provision and parental choice are key considerations throughout. On the point about using regulations, in the department’s discussions with the representatives of trusts, there has been strong recognition that it is appropriate, in these circumstances, to do this through the regulations approach. Of course, that also enables us both to continue that consultation and to make sure that those regulations and the School Admissions Code do what all of us, from different types of schools, want to see delivered here. Alongside changes to regulations, this clause will help create a clear legal framework for how decisions on PANs are made to ensure that all local children have access to an education where they can achieve and thrive.

I turn to Amendments 453A, 453B, 457A and 457B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I assure noble Lords that a combination of changes to the statutory admissions code and new regulations will ensure that quality and parental choice are key criteria in any decision on PANs and that other relevant factors are given due consideration. In most cases, pupils will be best served by high-performing schools growing or retaining existing PANs, but such decisions also need to consider the interests and quality of education of children who are already enrolled in other good local schools.

Rather than a rigid, inflexible approach, it is important that admission authorities, local authorities and the adjudicator are able to take into account the totality of local circumstances to ensure that the needs of all pupils in the community are met. As I have suggested, we consider that these matters are best addressed via the regulations that are provided for in Clause 56. We want to work with the sector to develop these regulations to ensure that they are clear and comprehensive and best meet the needs of pupils and schools.

Amendment 454, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, seeks to introduce a route for admission authorities to appeal a decision made by the adjudicator. Of course, the adjudicator already exists—and did so under the previous Government and the one before them, in which I and other noble Lords were Education Ministers at various points—as an independent body appointed by the Secretary of State. It will take an impartial view on the objection from the local authority at the end of a rigorous statutory process. Creating a separate appeals panel would duplicate its role. Of course, in extremis, admission authorities can already challenge an adjudicator’s decision through a judicial review.

Finally, on Amendment 502YC in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I have to say that we covered quite a bit of this last week in our interesting and lengthy discussions. The amendment would mean that maintained schools could be exempted from or could modify statutory teacher pay and conditions and the national curriculum if they were considered to be performing well. As we discussed last week at length, of course we share the aims of this amendment: ensuring a national curriculum that can improve—and not just maintain—its current ability to innovate, and ensuring that our provisions around pay and conditions are a floor and not a ceiling. We want to ensure consistent and high standards across all schools. This amendment would propose a fragmented approach that is contrary to our commitment to create a core guarantee of quality for all children.

Through our wider reforms, we want to ensure that the ability to innovate and the flexibility to adapt to local needs are available to every school, not just a select few, without compromising on this core standard.

Regarding the curriculum, as we discussed last week, the Bill ensures that the core national curriculum, once reformed, will be an entitlement for children in academy schools as well as in maintained schools. It will provide the solid and broad foundation of knowledge, skills and attributes that young people need to thrive, which they are entitled to receive in full, whatever school they attend. However, the reformed national curriculum will still give schools, including academies, the flexibility to tailor their teaching to the specific needs of their pupils and communities, continuing to give them space to innovate without a ceiling.

On the matter of pay and conditions, the Bill enables the establishment of a pay floor to help to ensure a competitive pay offer for all state schoolteachers. This is crucial for recruiting and retaining the best teachers, who are integral to driving high standards in our schools. Through our wider reforms to teacher pay and conditions, we will spread best practice and innovation across the state school system by removing the ceiling on pay, as is the case for academies, and introducing greater flexibilities for all state schools—for example, enabling more flexible working for teachers, as we have discussed when previously considering this area.

I hope that, given the assurances I have provided, my noble friend Lady Longfield will feel able to withdraw her amendment.