Laura Trott MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This is farcical. Will the Secretary of State finally admit that the original pledge to hire 6,500 teachers included primary school teachers, and that the Government are now abandoning their pledge? The reality is that, according to their own website, there are 400 fewer teachers than last year.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I completely support the Secretary of State’s opening words, and my thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by the devastating incident. Government documents state that the first step in achieving their primary school readiness mission is meeting their target of recruiting 6,500 teachers. The Secretary of State claimed at the last oral questions that she has always been clear that the 6,500 teachers are in secondary schools. If that is true, can she explain how secondary school teacher recruitment contributes to improving primary school readiness for four-year-olds?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Classroom Disruption: Smartphones · Hansard source

  More

  In the other place, Baroness Smith of Malvern, a Minister in the Department for Education, said: “There is no clear scientific consensus on a negative impact from screen time and social media use on the mental health and neurological or functional development of children and young people.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 23 June 2025; Vol. 847, c. 55.] I fundamentally disagree. There is overwhelming and extensive evidence of the harm caused, so I want to know the Government’s position. Does the Minister agree with his ministerial colleague or with me on this issue?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Early Years Providers: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this interesting and thought-provoking debate. It is nice to see a degree of unanimity across the Chamber about the importance of early years high-quality provision. Let me first deal with NICs, because that issue has been raised by a number of hon. Members, not least the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes); the Lib Dem spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller); and the hon. Members for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). We know the impact that it is having on nursery settings up and down the country. It is not right that they are treated differently from the rest of the public sector, given that so much of their provision is entirely state-funded. The impact of the changes has been talked about in very clear terms in this debate. It has been described as “catastrophic” by the Early Years Alliance. We know that 52% of settings are likely to reduce the number of early entitlement places on offer, and that the changes will result in fees going up for parents. That is not what anybody here wants. I know that the Minister understands that, so in his bids to the Treasury for the upcoming Budget, will he ask—as I am sure he has already—that more relief is given to early years for the provision of NICs? One of the themes discussed by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell)—in what I hope she does not mind me saying was a really excellent speech—and by the Lib Dem spokeswoman, was outreach to disadvantaged areas with the new offer. When we had the offer for two-year-olds, which was just limited by income, the take-up was not what we wanted. Now there is a wider offer, that outreach will be important. I hope that the Minister will speak to that. There is also a link between areas of disadvantage and children who are under the care of a social worker. What more will be done to make sure that social workers are aware of the provision in their local areas, and can direct families who may need it to that provision? That is very important. We know it may provide relief for the parents and a higher quality placement for the individual child. It would be very helpful if the Minister could come back on that today. I want to talk about school readiness, because I absolutely welcome the Government’s focus in that area, which is very important. As I mentioned in my response to the Education Secretary’s statement the other day, the target we have is for the end of reception. It is therefore not really measuring school readiness as such; it is measuring the work of brilliant reception teachers, up and down the country. That is not actually what we want to measure. We want to measure the things that the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman talked about: trying to get children ready to go to school. That would reduce the pressure on primary school teachers, rather than increase it. I am sure that the Government’s intention is not to increase it, but it is what will happen as a result of that target. We need to try to get those young people ready to learn and to go to school, because it makes such a difference to their ability to learn. I hope that the Minister will consider that as part of the school readiness work that he has going on at the moment. As the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) mentioned, I would like to talk more about screens in the context of school readiness. The Government have brought forward a partnership for a national year of reading, which I think we can all agree is very positive, but the one thing that is driving the decline in reading in this country is overuse of screens by young people. I know that the Education Committee has done some brilliant work on this issue. We have to make sure that parents know that too much screen time is just not good for their children. We know that 25% of three and four-year-olds have phones. That is that is not good for them. It is delaying speech development, reading and socialisation, and that is being compounded by the reception baseline assessment now being done on a screen, which implies that children need to be able to use a screen by the time they get to reception. A recent trip to a primary school alerted me to this. The reception teacher said, “I used to ask them whether they could split this orange apart or not, to be able to check their hand-eye co-ordination. Now it’s all done on a screen.” It is just wrong. If we want a change in school readiness—all Members present are interested in that; that is why we are at this debate—we need an increased focus on reducing screen use by young children, because parents too often just do not know that it is bad for their child. They are trying to do their best, and they think it is fantastic that they can give them a screen with some games on, but actually they are stopping them from being able to play. The hon. Member for Sherwood Forest and others talked about the fact that play is crucial to early development, and we impede that by giving screens to children. This debate has been really interesting. There is a degree of unanimity on the direction that we need to go in. I hope that some progress can be made on funding for early years provision and that we can try to drive up the usage of the free offers in disadvantaged areas. We need to shift the focus on school readiness to what we need to help parents do to get their child ready for school. I hope that, together, we can shift the emphasis and try to get screens out of young people’s lives, because that is a single thing that we can do to help them with their mental health and their school readiness.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source

  More

  When the right hon. Lady was in opposition, she criticised every announcement simply because it came from the Conservatives. Take childcare: she called the hours model that she talked about today “broken”. She said that she would have a new childcare system, and that its creation would be “like the creation of the NHS.” Yet now, in government, she trumpets the childcare system that the Conservatives designed as one of her main achievements. The right hon. Lady once dismissed family hubs as a “poor imitation”, but after last week’s chaos, what is she turning to for the Government’s reset? Yes, the Conservatives’ family hubs plans. That is why I was surprised this weekend to hear her claims that this could only happen under Labour. The irony is that this programme was started under the Conservatives—we did not hear that today—and the expansion was not in the Labour manifesto; it was in the Conservative one. Her strategy document, published today, has even lifted the name of our “Best Start for Life” plan, published in 2021. Imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery, for which I thank the right hon. Lady. Perhaps recent events have reminded her that Labour does not have a monopoly on good ideas—if indeed it has any good ideas at all. I will not take the right hon. Lady’s approach, which was opposition for opposition’s sake. I agree in principle with much of what is being proposed today, but as with free school meals and the children’s care cap, I will do my job and point out the gaps, raise concerns and expect proper answers. She might consider engaging with the questions this time, instead of falling back on a rant about the Conservatives, which frankly convinces no one and improves nothing. With that in mind, is this genuinely new money being announced today, or just a reannouncement of the family hubs money from the spending review? The right hon. Lady talks about £500 million of funding. Which financial years, and how many years, does that cover? Is the funding for new hubs only, or will it support existing ones, too? Will there be new capital funding for bricks and mortar provision? As the Secretary of State acknowledged, Sure Start had its limitations. It failed to effectively target support at those who needed it most. What is being done differently this time to avoid the same mistakes being made? When I visited a family hub in Dartford earlier this year, I was shocked to hear how many mothers were being referred to it because they faced domestic violence from their own children. These are children who have grown up witnessing abuse at home. What data is being collected through these hubs to track national tends like these, and how is that informing the Government’s response to the most pressing issues facing these families? I welcome the Government’s focus on school readiness. Children who lived through lockdown are arriving at school with speech delays and gaps in basic skills. This is one of covid’s longest shadows, but if we are serious about tackling it, we need to be honest about responsibility: what falls to parents and what falls to teachers? Teachers are stepping in where parents are not. They do it because they care, but it is not their job to potty-train, to brush teeth or to teach children to get dressed. Of course, children with SEND need tailored support—that is a different conversation entirely—but for most children, that support needs to start at home. The Government have set a target for school readiness, but it relates to the end of the school reception year. We need a target that actually reflects school readiness and what has happened at home, not the brilliant work of reception teachers. The right hon. Lady has said that her No. 1 priority was early years, but the rhetoric does not match the reality. Nurseries across the country are on the brink because of decisions her Government have made. While it is welcome that they have continued the roll-out of our early years offer, the lack of compensation for the national insurance contributions increase is forcing providers to either hike fees or shut their doors. It is no use giving out incentive payments for jobs at nurseries if providers are closing because they have been clobbered by NICs. Finally, I must raise the issue of SEND. This has been splashed across three national newspapers, and despite the off-the-record briefings from her Department, the right hon. Lady has failed to give parents any reassurance over the weekend. Parental anxiety is, as we all know, going through the roof, so I will give her one more opportunity. Can she confirm that no parent or child will have their right to support reduced, replaced or removed as a result of her planned changes? Right now, this is a Government devoid of ideas. A year in, they are defined by broken promises and U-turns. Parents need and deserve answers on what their Government are doing, and until they get them, they have every reason to doubt everything this Government have to say.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Smartphones in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State may dismiss banning smartphones in schools as a gimmick, but teachers, health professionals and parents are all calling for action to reduce children’s screen time. Every day we have new evidence of the harm that screens are doing, so why is the Education Secretary ignoring that and pressing ahead with screen-based assessments for children as young as four from September? Does she accept that that is normalising screen time for young people, which is the opposite of what we should be doing?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the confirmation that the Education Secretary does accept that primary school teachers are indeed teachers, but why is she then saying that they no longer count towards her manifesto pledge to recruit 6,500 more teachers? Is it because, contrary to the Department’s social media posts, teacher numbers are in fact going down, not up?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to welcome my old primary school teacher Mrs Case to the Chamber today—I hope we all remain on our best behaviour. My question is very simple: does the Education Secretary believe that primary school teachers are indeed teachers?

• 22 May 2025 · School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, this is absolutely outrageous. It is astonishing that we have had to summon the Government to the House today, but the Minister cannot even tell us what pay rise teachers will get and whether it is going to be funded. That does not allow us to scrutinise the matter in this House. The Government said that they would tax private schools to fund 6,500 more teachers, but the reality is that state schools have not got any of that money. Instead, we have had broken promises on compensating schools for the jobs tax, confirmation from the Department for Education itself that there will be a shortfall in teacher pay funding, which we are not allowed to discuss here today in this urgent question, and uncertainty as to what the actual pay rise for teachers will be. That is a disgrace, and it is the opposite of what people who voted for Labour expected. All that is in the final two weeks when headteachers up and down the country have to decide whether to make teachers redundant in time for September—in fact, sadly, many schools will already have made the difficult decision to let good teachers go. These are job losses on the Minister’s watch, due to her inability to provide schools with the clarity that they need. Do not just take my word for it. Dan Moynihan, from the Harris Federation, says that it proposes to make 40 to 45 teachers redundant. Jon Coles, the chief executive of United Learning, which runs 90 state sector academies, said that the trust has been left with £10.5 million a year of unfunded costs. He said: “It’s no good Treasury waving their hands and saying ‘efficiency’—that would be 400 job losses. Sector wide, that would extrapolate to ruinous harm in the one well-functioning public service: tens of thousands of redundancies.” Simon Pink, the finance director at the Elliot Foundation, which has 36 primaries, said: “This is the toughest budget…in a generation.” One secondary school headteacher has already had to cut two teaching assistant posts and a teacher role due to rising national insurance and anticipated wage rises. What is the pay rise that the Government recommend for teachers? The Prime Minister’s spokesman said on 28 April: “There’ll be no additional funding for pay.” Yesterday, the Government started to U-turn on the winter fuel allowance. Will the Minister now fully U-turn and fund the national insurance rise and agree to fully fund the pay increases, whatever they are?

• 22 May 2025 · School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on whether the Government will be accepting the school teachers’ review body’s pay recommendation for 2025-26.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Despite the Education Secretary’s best attempts to rewrite history, we Conservatives did not need a court to tell us that biological sex was real. She has on her desk the draft guidance for schools on gender questioning, and the final Cass report was published a year ago. If she is serious about protecting women and girls, why has she not published the guidance?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  That draft guidance was produced a year and a half ago. The Education Secretary wants to talk about her record. Well, let me remind her that one of her first acts on coming into post was to pause implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which would have protected gender-critical voices. She is more concerned about listening to student union activists than to women. Will she apologise to the gender-critical women who were forced to spend eye-watering sums on legal fees to fight for their rights because of her actions?

• 28 Apr 2025 · School Costs and Employer’s National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  Not only has the Education Secretary introduced a Bill to this place that will destroy standards in English schools, but now she has broken her promises on national insurance contributions compensation and is leaving schools in an impossible funding situation. Every MP has heard from headteachers who are stressed beyond belief at how to manage their funding. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that worried headteachers up and down the country will not have to make teachers redundant because of her broken promises: yes or no?

• 2 Apr 2025 · School-based Nursery Capital Grants · Hansard source

  More

  We welcome the Education Secretary’s announcement, but let us be absolutely clear: the policies that she is talking about represent investment of £37 million, but the Government are taking away half a billion pounds from nurseries by failing to compensate them for the national insurance increase. That will have a catastrophic effect on nurseries up and down the country, which will be forced either to close or to put their prices up. “Catastrophic” is not my word, but that of the Early Years Alliance, following Labour’s national insurance bombshell on the childcare sector. In her statement, the Education Secretary said that she inherited a “pledge without a plan”—what a load of nonsense! It is our plan that is delivering the expansion of funded childcare this autumn, and our plan that she today confirmed has already halved costs for under-threes, according to independent research. That is our plan, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is her plan that is shutting nurseries up and down the country, and that will put up costs for parents. Just last week, I hosted a roundtable with some of the unsung heroes of the sector—nursery owners. Many were in tears, struggling with very real decisions about whether they can keep their doors open. One of the owners shared with me that she is stopping her own salary so that she can continue to pay her staff the amount they deserve. Another owner was having sleepless nights worrying about how she would provide proper care for the children now that she can no longer afford the staffing costs, thanks to this Government’s decisions. It is clearly absurd for the Government to ask the sector to absorb the increases in national insurance while keeping fees the same. The consequences of that are entirely predictable: nurseries will have to either close or put up their prices. A recent survey by the Early Years Alliance said that, sadly, around 400 nurseries that it spoke to may have to close because of this Government’s jobs tax. That is what the Education Secretary’s No. 1 priority looks like. Parents will lose out too. According to the National Day Nurseries Association, increases to national insurance contributions will force nurseries to raise their fees by 10%. Those are the obvious consequences of this Government’s decisions. Will the Education Secretary finally admit today how much the jobs tax is costing the childcare sector? Will she monitor the impact of closures that happen thanks to her jobs tax on childcare availability? On the specifics in her announcement today, will she confirm the locations of the school-based nurseries and how they were chosen? Were they chosen on the basis of surplus primary places or are they in areas where we need more childcare provision? If it is the latter, how were they identified? Those nurseries will be based in schools, so is it her intention that they will mimic the school timetable, or will there be year-round provision and will their hours be longer than the school day? Will school-based nurseries be compensated for the impact of the jobs tax? If so, what will she do to address the inequity that that will cause with other providers? As the Early Years Alliance has said today “if the government is truly serious about breaking down barriers to opportunity, it must come to the realisation that increasing school-based provision can only ever be one piece of the puzzle. Failing to recognise this will simply mean that more families lose out.” It is right: under this Government, more families will lose out. While I welcome the Education Secretary’s announcement, the reality is that Labour’s decisions are making childcare more expensive and harder to find— [ Interruption. ] Hard-working families will bear the brunt of this Government’s failure. It is time for the Education Secretary to stop making broken promises and actually make early years her No. 1 priority.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this important UQ. It is utterly extraordinary that we have had to summon the Government to the Chamber to provide clarity on whether they have axed a programme that ended yesterday—or so we thought—which supports 20,000 of our most vulnerable young people. The Government have been given lots of opportunities to clarify the funding situation. The Prime Minister was asked about it in the Chamber just last week. Either they did not know at that stage, or they just did not want to tell us—or, more importantly, the thousands of young people using the programme. Even by current Department for Education standards, this is utterly chaotic. I do welcome the decision today, but can the Minister tell us when it was made? She recognises the impact that it has had on children and families up and down the country, but that impact is the result of her decisions and her delay. Can she please explain to us why this has happened and why the Government could not confirm the future of a £50,000-a-year programme sooner?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I had hoped that, during the Commons stages of the Bill, the Government would listen to the vast number of respected voices from the education sector who have warned repeatedly that this ill thought through Bill is nothing short of a disaster for education standards in this country. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State failed to listen to the Children’s Commissioner, who warned that children will spend longer in failing schools because of this Bill; or Katharine Birbalsingh, who argued that if passed— [ Interruption. ] That is how they treat one of the best headteachers in this country. She warned that if passed, “the impact on our children, especially our most vulnerable, will be seismic.” The Secretary of State will not listen to the former chief inspector of Ofsted, who described the Bill as a “many-pronged assault on school standards”, or to Lord Harris, who supported the party at the last election and said that the Bill will only harm “the most disadvantaged families.” Even some of her own Back Benchers have asked the Secretary of State to think again. Why does she think she knows better? Instead of engaging constructively with that criticism, the approach from the Secretary of State has been to resort to personal attacks. In response to Amanda Spielman’s suggestion that there should be an analysis of the impacts of autonomy in schools before a legislation abolishing it is forced through the House of Commons, a Government source went on the record to denigrate a former senior public servant in the most personal of terms. Did the Secretary of State sign off that briefing? In her own opinion piece in the Telegraph today, the Secretary of State told me and the shadow team to get out of London. She appears not to have noticed the work of Star Academies, Delta Academies Trust, United Learning, Trinity and Inspiration Trust, among many others. Those are brilliant trusts that are changing the lives of young people and she so casually dismisses them. I have a suggestion for the Secretary of State in return: she should visit Wales. Wales, where the Labour Party have been in charge for 26 years; Wales, the blueprint for her reforms; and Wales, which currently finds itself at the bottom of the rankings for the whole of the UK in maths, English and science. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said today that his party would never do anything to harm social mobility, yet the Bill will be devastating for social mobility. Labour Members need to understand the consequences of the Bill. The evidence, should they care to read it, is overwhelming. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said very clearly that the differences in policy and approach have led to the terrible outcomes in Wales for disadvantaged young people. Indeed, disadvantaged young people in England do as well as the average child in Wales. Yet these are the policies that the Government want to implement in England. How on earth can they justify imposing the same policies and approach that have been such a disaster in Wales? The Bill undermines, at a single stroke, all the work that has been done by successive Governments of all parties, headteachers and trusts over so many years. Academy trust heads have been abused during this debate and attacked by unions in this process because they dared to want better for young people under their care. Former Labour and Conservative Education Secretaries, who have driven through reforms in the face of fierce opposition, are being undermined by the Bill. I cannot believe that the Government will undo all of that for no reason. There is no evidence whatsoever that their proposals will improve a single school. In fact, the evidence is clear that they will make things worse. The Secretary of State is putting ideology and the interests of union bosses over what is best for children and parents. This is a Bill of two halves. The first is on safeguarding, and we absolutely agree with the principle of that, but the second is the policy equivalent of a wrecking ball. It will destroy the consensus built up over two decades on what improves schools. It is discredited, it is disastrous for school standards, and we will never stop fighting it. Question put , That the Bill be now read the Third time.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  How on earth can the Secretary of State justify spending £90 million on a one-year contract for advertising and media while cutting a £4 million Latin excellence programme mid-year that is helping to improve school standards in some of the most deprived areas of the country? Does that not show that the Secretary of State’s priorities are all wrong?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State is spending £90 million on advertising. She is cutting not just Latin programmes, but computing hubs, language hubs and advanced maths. Are those also less important than her advertising budget?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Multi-academy Trusts: Management Accountability · Hansard source

  More

  One of the key metrics for holding schools and trusts to account is pupil numbers; parents vote with their feet. Why is the Secretary of State stopping good schools from being able to expand in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill? That will stop competition and accountability, erode parental choice, and drive down standards.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Hey!

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman and thought his earlier question was spot on. There is much that needs to be improved, but that is much less vague than Skills England, which is what we have in front of us at the moment. There are risks of distraction, with the time and cost involved in creating a new agency in the Department for Education. If the Government were serious about progressing quickly with the urgent strategic issues that I accept are needed in skills reform, the most effective step would be to build on the success of IfATE, rather than dismantling it. Instead, the Bill threatens to undo much of the progress made under successive Conservative Governments in building a world-class apprenticeships and technical education system. It is fiddling for no reason, change for no purpose and, as is so often the case with this Government, the opposite of what is required.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak on a piece of legislation that poses more risks than benefits and proves that there is not parity of esteem for technical and academic qualifications within the Government. The Secretary of State is putting forward a Bill that allows her personally to write each apprenticeship assessment. Just in case you think I am exaggerating, Madam Deputy Speaker, we can see it in the explanatory notes. The Bill provides “the option for each standard and apprenticeship assessment plan to be prepared by the Secretary of State”. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you imagine the outcry if this was done with history GCSEs? If it were a Conservative Government taking these powers, there would be howls of outrage from the Labour party. It is extraordinary that the Government are, contrary to the words of the Secretary of State today, cutting out employers and giving sole discretion to the Secretary of State. They would not allow it with academic qualifications; we must not allow it with vocational ones. I acknowledge the statement made in the other place about clarifying the situations when the Government envisage the Secretary of State intervening, but the specific criteria for using this power should be on the face of the Bill. At the moment, the Secretary of State has carte blanche to do whatever she likes, and we know from the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that that is a very bad idea. Can the Minister confirm that there will be some restrictions, and will the Government put those on the face of the Bill? The Bill is another manifestation of the Department for Education’s centralisation spree. As with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, everything must be controlled by the Secretary of State, and no innovation is allowed. The Bill abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education—shortened to IfATE—and transfers its functions to the Secretary of State, in effect absorbing them into the Department for Education. The Government say that they will set up Skills England, but there are no details on the plans for Skills England in the Bill, or on how the Government’s proposed changes to the funding of skills-based qualifications will work in practice. Simply creating a new agency will not address any of the issues that we need to address within the skills system. Even putting aside my severe doubts about the wisdom of progressing down this road in the first place, the very least the Government could provide the House with is some information on Skills England itself in the Bill. The only thing we know from debates in the other place—the Secretary of State has confirmed it today—is that Skills England will not be on a statutory footing and therefore will unquestionably be less independent than IfATE. Can the Secretary of State explain why this is an improvement? This matters because the framework document published in the autumn is, at best, vague and, at worst, silent on the role of employers. There are some statements in the section on aims saying that employers will be engaged in the preparation of occupational standards, but it does not say how. Does the Secretary of State think that she knows better than employers? I urge her to explain why employers are so much less visible in the framework document, or to agree to amend the Bill. Reducing the role of employers will harm the apprenticeship system. The change will also create unnecessary turmoil in the skills system. A cross-party amendment was passed in the other place to try to minimise the impact that this uncertain upheaval will have. The amendment will delay the provisions of the Bill to ensure that Skills England has time to set up before taking on its role and to ensure that the administrative duties do not get in the way of providing quality apprenticeships. That seems the bare minimum of what we would expect, and I hope the Government will not oppose that amendment, because to do so would be absurd. The skills system needs a stable landscape, but the Bill presents real risks with no obvious benefits: risks that the Government will erode standards in our skills system by removing the relationship with the employer and replacing it with diktat from the Secretary of State; risks of poor leadership by replacing a good organisation, which is liked by employers and apprentices, with an unknown and undefined body.

• 3 Feb 2025 · School Accountability and Intervention · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Schools Minister for advance sight of her statement, and I echo her words: our thoughts and prayers are with the parents of the 15-year-old boy whose life was so tragically cut short, and with the teachers and pupils at All Saints Catholic high school. We are promised today a better and faster approach to school improvement, but what we have in front of us is a proposed system that is slower and weaker. The Secretary of State repeatedly talked about a new era today. It is a new era: one of regression, confusion and poorly thought out policy. We have had that consistently with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill over the last few months. The Education Secretary said that the Bill did not cut pay. It did. The Government said that the Bill would not reduce school choice, yet their own impact assessment says that it does. Now we have a speech that says that academisation is a key driver of rising standards, yet the Government are taking away automatic academy orders in the Bill. Once again with the Secretary of State, there is a gap between her rhetoric and the reality. The reality is weaker accountability, weaker standards and a slower response. The Minister, whom I respect, has been sent out in the place of the Secretary of State, who is happy to give a speech to a think-tank but not to the House, to try to sell the nonsense that the proposal will mean faster school improvement, when the Secretary of State’s own document released today shows an 18-month delay in turning around schools. Instead of immediate new management in a failing school, which is what happens at the moment, the Secretary of State proposes to get a team of Department for Education bureaucrats to come in for 18 months. Only after they make no improvements will the Education Secretary consent to actually getting a new team in place to lead the school. What will that mean? More children in failing schools for longer. As the Minister says, we know what works to turn around failing schools. A good academy trust taking over a failing school is the best intervention we can make to turn schools around. There is no evidence whatsoever that the approach proposed today, with a delay and with a RISE team going in, will be any better. Can the Minister confirm that she has no evidence that her approach of delaying the academy order will be better? Can she point to where her proposed approach has been trialled effectively? It is unconscionable to foist a new system into place that is not evidenced and that will make things worse, not better. The loudest criticisms of ending the automatic conversion of failing schools into academies do not even come from the Opposition, but from the Children’s Commissioner, a former schools commissioner, school leaders and even Labour MPs. A Government Back Bencher has said, “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.] I agree. We have consistently seen that where the academy order is not mandatory, there are endless legal delays. Just last week, the Secretary of State revoked an academy order after the school threatened legal action. That is exactly what those who have raised concerns said would happen—it is utterly shameful. I ask the Minister: how many cohorts of children have to pass through a failing school before the Secretary of State will take action? How many children will they fail before they do something? Academisation works—even the Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill admits that. But what is Labour’s much-anticipated grand alternative? New regional school improvement teams. What is in the place of expert academy trusts with proven leadership taking over schools? The Minister talked of 20 advisers. To put that in context, the Harris academy trust alone has over 90 expert staff focused on school improvement. Does the Minister really think that 20 people is sufficient? How does that compare with the number of people in the Department’s communications team, for example? What is happening to all the schools due to receive structural intervention from the beginning of this year? Are we replacing new management with vague advice? All this is doing is creating a weaker system and uncertainty and delay, and it is children from the most deprived areas who will suffer the most. On Ofsted, the Government claim that parents and teachers wanted clarity. In response, we have moved from four to five ratings, multiple different categories, including one more for safeguarding, and no overall score. The new system being proposed today is complicated and pleases nobody. The Association of School and College Leaders has said that the new grading system is “bewildering”. What is the Minister’s response? Another day, another chaotic reset attempt from this Government. It is educational vandalism, however they try to dress it up. The Children’s Commissioner said last week that the schools Bill would leave children “spending longer in failing schools”. Minister, she is right, isn’t she?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is making its way through the House of Commons—indeed, we are well into the Committee stage—yet still we do not have an impact assessment to show what effect it will have. That impedes the ability of Members to properly scrutinise the Bill. Therefore, I seek your advice on what more we can do to force the Government to publish the impact assessment.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the right hon. Lady’s words on Holocaust Memorial Day. Just today, another voice came out against the disastrous academy proposals in the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The Children’s Commissioner said in a scathing letter that ending the academy order to turn around failing schools will mean “children spending longer in failing schools”. The Secretary of State’s own Back Benchers have said that ending the academy order would be a huge mistake and would weaken standards. Instead of running all her policy past unions, which are more interested in their own power than in teachers’ pay, will the Education Secretary listen to the Children’s Commissioner, her own Back Benchers and headteachers up and down the country when—