Neil O'Brien MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The Bill will remove the academy order. How will the intervention regime work in future? At the moment, the Ofsted handbook states that “if any key judgement is inadequate…we will place the school in a formal category of concern.” How will that work in future? If a school is in the bottom tier of one of your new categories of assessment, what will happen? Sir Martyn Oliver: The legal powers for Ofsted are that I identify to the Secretary of State a school that is in special measures or requires significant improvement. That requirement—from, I think, the Education and Inspections Act 2006—will not change. Ofsted will still be under a duty to pass that on to the Secretary of State. Very imminently, I will consult on a new framework that will strengthen and raise standards further. I am interested to see what the Department for Education will release alongside my consultation to explain those academy orders further.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q So it is still your intention to make all academies comply with the school teachers’ pay and condition document, despite what Sir Jon Coles talked about regarding the problems that that would create? Catherine McKinnell: As I said, the amendment will require all state schools to follow the minimum pay bands set out in the school teachers’ pay and conditions document, and then it will require academies to have due regard to the rest of the terms and conditions in the school teachers’ pay and conditions document. This is so that we can deliver that core offer to all state schools, but without a ceiling.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Mark, getting straight to the point, are there any amendments that you would like to see? Mark Russell: I associate myself entirely with everything that my colleague has said, but I have a couple of extra points. I would want the Bill to include a measurement of children’s wellbeing. I welcome the fact that the title of the Bill mentions children’s wellbeing, but we have no measurement of children’s wellbeing. We in the Children’s Society measure children’s wellbeing, but we are a charity; we are measuring a sample of children rather than all children. The Government talk about wanting to be child-centred. A measurement of children’s wellbeing would be real data on what real children think about their lives, and that would provide a huge amount of information for local authorities to ensure that local services meet the needs of young people. That is one thing. Secondly, I would welcome schools becoming a fourth statutory safeguarding partner, because so many safeguarding challenges are first identified by schools—I speak not just as the chief executive of a charity, but as a school governor. Thirdly, I hugely welcome the breakfast clubs and the changes to the rules on school uniform; the Children’s Society has campaigned on school uniform for many years. Those will help families. I understand why the Government have made the breakfast clubs a universal offer, but with limited funds, I would like to see secondary school children included in it, but with the breakfast clubs available first to children from families receiving universal credit. The free school meal allowance has not gone up for a very long time. We think that around 1 million children in this country who are living in poverty are not eligible for free school meals, and we know that hunger hugely limits what children can do in school and their learning. If we can change that, we will improve the opportunities for, and wellbeing of young people. Katharine Sacks-Jones: I want to focus on the provisions on children in care and young care leavers. There are some welcome steps to better support care leavers. At the moment, young people leaving the care system face a care cliff, where support falls away, often on their 18th birthday. A huge number go on to face homelessness —one in three become homeless within two years of leaving care—and that has meant a big increase in statutory homelessness among care leavers: a 54% rise in the past five years. There is a real challenge to ensure that we better support young people leaving the care system. In that context, extending Staying Close up to the age of 25 and making it a statutory provision is welcome, but we think the Bill could go further in strengthening the legal entitlement for young people leaving care. There are two areas in particular. The first is that we are concerned about the how the Bill assesses whether a young person’s welfare requires Staying Close support. Where you have those kinds of assessment, particularly in times of scarcity, the extra support is often rationed, which will mean that many young people are not eligible for it or are not assessed as being in need. We think that rationing needs to be removed. Instead, there should be an assumption that a young person leaving care does require some extra support; the question should be what that support looks like, and we would like to see the provisions in the Bill broadened to allow local authorities to provide other types of support beyond what the Bill provides for at the moment, which is largely advice and guidance. We welcome the strengthening of the care leaver local offer to include provisions around housing and homelessness. As I said, those are big issues for young people leaving care. We also warmly welcome the Government’s recent amendment on homelessness intentionality, which would remove intentionality from care leavers. We hear from young people who have found themselves homeless because, for example, they accepted a place at university in a different part of the country, and they were then deemed by their home local authority to be intentionally homeless and so not eligible for further homelessness assistance. We think that needs to change. That is a welcome step. We think the Bill could go further in looking at priority need for young people leaving care. At the moment, that goes up to 21; we think it should go up to the age of 25, in line with other entitlements for young care leavers. We are also disappointed not to see in the Bill the extension of corporate parenting—something that the Government have previously committed to. There are some welcome measures that will increase oversight and accountability, and help with some of the structural challenges, in relation to the provision of homes for children. We do not think those go far enough in addressing the huge issue around the sufficiency of placements for children. That issue is seeing more and more children moved across the country, moved far from their local areas and being moved frequently—a huge amount of instability. That is a big challenge. We would like to see a requirement for a national strategy that looks at the issue of sufficiency and collects better data, as well as an annual report to Parliament on progress against that strategy. Finally, to reinforce the point made by colleagues, young people’s voices are really important. The importance of considering young people’s wishes and feelings is set out in other pieces of legislation, and there are a number of areas in the Bill that would benefit from the inclusion of that, too.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Would an amendment to that effect be helpful to preserve those freedoms? Leora Cruddas: It would be very helpful to have clarity on that position. Obviously, we have not had the curriculum and assessment review report yet. I have absolute confidence that Professor Francis will be eminently sensible. She is a very serious person, and will follow the evidence; but I think we need to be careful that we are not tying ourselves into high levels of prescription in all parts of the Bill, including the national curriculum.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q 89 Thank you for coming—welcome. I want to ask for your view on the second half of the Bill, on schools. We have heard a lot of criticism of it from the Confederation of School Trusts, some of our leading trusts and, indeed, a couple of Labour MPs. What is your view on the schools, rather than the wellbeing, part of the Bill? Dame Rachel de Souza: I am the Children’s Commissioner and have been since 2021, and before that I was a school leader in the most disadvantaged areas for 20 years, so I am very interested. I am pleased to see a Bill on children’s wellbeing; it is great that we are getting some legislation on that. I was well consulted around the first part of the Bill, on wellbeing, and I was able to take the children’s voice through. I worked closely with the Department for Education and others to ensure that it was honed, refined and made really good, as I did on some bits of the schools part. But I do not think that anybody got to see the schools bit until it was published. On the schools bit, what I feel more than anything is that we now have a period of time when we need to see a vision for a new, vibrant and transformative schools system—how it will work locally, with local authorities, to do the best for children, particularly the most vulnerable children. I have a number of outstanding questions around that.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q On pay and conditions, you might think that the idea of a floor, not a ceiling, is a decent direction of travel, but to be clear, that is not where the Bill is now and it needs to change. That is my position. Leora Cruddas: Again, I would cite the Secretary of State’s evidence to the Select Committee, where she made clear that it is also her expectation around curriculum to have that floor and to be able to innovate and have flexibility above that floor.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I understand the sense of that. Catherine McKinnell: We need a proportionate response and that needs to be framed—

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  And others.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q No, but what if it is a teacher in your little schools? Nigel Genders: They will have to be resourced to do it in other ways to make it possible.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q One last point. Zooming back a bit, a few different witnesses called for a vision of where the system is going, and they intuited what the Government’s vision was from the contents of the Bill. I thought that was very interesting. I just wondered what Ministers’ view was of what had gone wrong in Wales. Obviously in Wales a lot of the different academy freedoms were never taken up, academies were not put in place and league tables were abolished. It was effectively a natural experiment going the opposite direction to England. The IFS report “Major challenges for education in Wales” is incredibly damning about what has happened there as a result. In terms of the Government’s overall theory and the vision they are trying to enact in the Bill, I am curious about why Ministers think things have gone so wrong in Wales. Why have things gone so backward? Why is the IFS report so damning? Catherine McKinnell: I am conscious that other Members of the Committee might want to actually ask about the legislation, but I am happy to set out our overarching vision.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you recognise that sometimes a school can bring someone in who might be at a later point in their career and be highly specialised—perhaps a great sportsman, an IT person or a scientist—and that if the headteacher takes the view that they would be a good person for teaching, as an alternative to having no teacher, that can be the right decision? Sir Martyn Oliver: Speaking as a previous headteacher, absolutely. Bringing in external expertise to supplement high-quality qualified teachers is clearly of benefit to children.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) has raised some concerns, as has the Confederation of School Trusts, about the end of academy orders and the fact that because academisation is no longer automatic, there will once again be the prospect of legal action, lots of community campaigns against these things, and potentially quite long delays. She said on Second Reading that children in those schools do not have time to wait. Do you agree with her? Dame Rachel de Souza: I think, Neil, that you have given quite a thoughtful comment, which people new to education might not quite get. 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? I am not going to get hung up on this bit. What I want to see is the vision for how we are going to work together with the best knowledge we have about school improvement, and with a sense of absolute urgency about making sure that no child is sitting in a failing school, because childhood lasts such a short time. What makes a great school? Whatever background you are from—whether you are from the academy sector or the local authority sector—the evidence is clear: we need a great headteacher and great teachers allowed to do their jobs, with support from a family of schools, whatever that family of schools is. That is what we need.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Is that primary? Kate Anstey: There is a higher proportion in primary, but that 75% is across all. Sorry—I have forgotten your question.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Do we know whether that is the case? Nigel Genders: There is the question of how to make all that possible within the allotted hours that staff can be directed. It needs resourcing. It does not have to be teachers who provide those breakfast clubs—

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Having looked at that document, it does have a whole bunch of different maximums in it. It has quite specific maximums as well as minimums. Sir Jon Coles: The thing about the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document is that it is fundamentally a contract. Section 122 of the Education Act 2002—it happens to be an Act that I took through Parliament as a Bill manager, when I was a civil servant—essentially says that the Secretary of State may, by order, issue what is commonly known as the pay order, but the pay order includes a lot of conditions. Section 122 of the Act says that that applies as if it were a contract. Indeed, if you are a teacher in a maintained school, typically your contract will literally say, “You are employed under the terms of the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document,” so it is your contract. Therefore, the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document has to act as a contract. It has to be specific. A teacher looking it up has to be able to see, “What are my terms and conditions? Have I been treated properly?” and so on. That is how the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document needs to work, so if we have to abide by it precisely, that is what we would have to abide by. I think that officials—I speak as an ex-official—should be asked to look again at whether the Bill they have produced for Ministers does what Ministers want it to do, and whether it actually provides a floor but no ceiling, or whether there is something slightly different that would enact Ministers’ policy.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q So an amendment to bring those two things back into line—the stated intent and the actual Bill—would be sensible. David Thomas: Yes.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You said: “We accept current arrangements are fractured: introducing the Schools Adjudicator worsens rather than improves this”. What do you mean by that? Leora Cruddas: We are not sure what the intention is behind the Government’s need to bring forward the clause in the Bill that would introduce greater powers for a schools adjudicator. That is one of the conflicts of interest that we would be alive to—if a local authority could bring forward a case to resist an academy trust’s pupil admission number, that would be a source of concern for us. That is why we need this high-level decision-making framework.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Right, so you do not think that there is a particular problem out there that needs to be solved. David Thomas: No, there is not one that I can see.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q David, welcome and thank you for joining us. I want to ask you first about the national curriculum and its imposition on all academy schools. We have heard about the use of that flexibility as a form of freedom—where schools are being turned around, they might do something different for a while and diverge from the national curriculum. But I know there are also trusts and school leaders who use it on a longer-term basis—they make a conscious choice to focus on, for example, the core academics, often in situations of great difficulty, in order to secure what they regard as the most important, core things for their students that will enable the maximum number of choices later on. Obviously you have been a maths teacher—you have been in that core discipline—and I wondered whether, in an education system where parents have school choice and can choose different things that are right for their child, you thought it was legitimate for people to have different models and to have that flexibility, and whether it was useful to have that freedom from the national curriculum. David Thomas: We need to strike a careful balance. It is absolutely a central purpose of education to make sure that all children going out into society have some shared knowledge in common and can interact as a society and function in that way. That is very important. It is also important that people running schools get to look at their children, look at the challenges they are facing and have bold and ambitious visions for what they want those children to go on and do and what that community wants for itself, and that they can be flexible and go on and achieve that. That is why you need a balance of different things. At the moment we have statutory assessments that apply to all schools, whether an academy or a maintained school. We have Ofsted making sure that you teach a curriculum that is at least as broad and balanced as the national curriculum, so that you cannot go narrow. But you need to be ambitious for your children, and my understanding from Sir Martyn’s evidence earlier was that that system appears to be working for children.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q What I am getting at is that we need to change the Bill as it is currently drafted by officials, in order to achieve those things. Leora Cruddas: Yes, I would say that was true.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a quick one for Leora on academies’ freedom with the curriculum. Some trusts not far from my constituency have used those freedoms quite strongly. They have deliberately focused on the core academics. In some cases, they do not necessarily even have the facilities to provide the national curriculum—if they are to be made to do that immediately—because they have focused on getting the core academic stuff for kids in situations of deprivation. Are you aware of others? There are definitely schools and trusts out there that are using those freedoms around the national curriculum, are there not? Leora Cruddas: There definitely are trusts that have used their freedoms around the national curriculum. I would say it is not unreasonable for a state to want a high-level national curriculum framework—that is not an unreasonable position—

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to ask you about a few other issues, including pay and QTS. As a headteacher, you have used academy freedoms, and you have also worked in a global shortage subject, mathematics. I do not know what you think of the Bill more generally and whether there are things beyond what we have talked about already that you would amend, or what you think of the general tenor of the Bill—trying to take away academy freedoms and make things more similar. What do you think of the Bill’s direction of travel and what would you amend, if you were able to control it yourself? David Thomas: On pay and conditions, I agree with the Secretary of State’s stated intention to spread the freedom to innovate, and to make teaching a more attractive profession, to all schools. I think we are only scratching the surface as a profession of what it means to offer flexible working within education. I do not think anyone has really mastered that, and it is a really big challenge. We need to be allowing the maximum freedom for people to be able to innovate. Of course, we have just done an experiment in what happens if you tell lots and lots of schools that they do not need to follow the statutory teachers’ pay and conditions: people only ever exceed it and offer things that are more attractive, because you want the very best teachers in your school. I think it is essential that we have that freedom, and it is not enough for a Government to say that their intention is to grant that in a future statutory teachers’ pay and conditions document. It needs to be there in legislation for trusts to know that will be the case, which is really important for both pay and conditions. If you want to nail flexibility and offer that to teachers, you need to be able to trade off around conditions to make something more flexible. I think that is really important, and I agree with the Government’s intention, but I do not think that the Bill, as drafted, achieves that at the moment.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Good afternoon. Thank you for bearing with us while we voted. During the course of the day we have been discussing free school meals in secondary schools. It is obviously desirable to give lots of people free breakfasts, but there has been a bit of a debate about how to prioritise in a situation of inevitably scarce resources. We heard from Mark Russell that, if given the choice, rather than go for a universal obligation in primary schools, he would have the roll-out of breakfast clubs in more secondary schools targeted at schools with high levels of deprivation. Should we focus first on areas of deprivation and secondary schools with deprivation? Obviously, we would like to have infinite money. What do you think of his argument? Kate Anstey: We certainly welcome the introduction of free breakfast clubs in the Bill. We speak to children and families in schools extensively and carry out extensive analysis. We know that where breakfast clubs are provided freely, they make a huge difference to low-income families —they make a big difference to lots of children, but to lower-income families disproportionately. The fact that provision is universal is very important; we know that removes a lot of barriers for parents. Where there is any kind of targeted approach, there are issues around stigma and families are less likely to use provision.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We have limited time. Can you please just answer the question. I have incredibly limited time.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q On unit costs, I saw in the Government document that there was an initial grant—a lump sum—but the unit cost was about 65p per session per child. I know that there was the lump sum as well, but that struck me as being not a huge amount. I do not know what it really costs to deliver these things in practice in a lot of other places. Kate Anstey: It is probably worth speaking to organisations; I am sure that Magic Breakfast will be able to speak more to that. There are certainly economies of scale that can help you bring down costs, but again, our area of expertise is free school meals, and schools are struggling with the funding that they have for free school meals. I would imagine that 65p might be a struggle for schools—I do not know. You would have to have conversations with some of the providers about that.