Laura Trott MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 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—

• 27 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Education Secretary does not understand that her Bill will make things worse, not better. The legislation is in total chaos. At the Dispatch Box she said that pay will not be capped by the legislation, yet we now know that it will be. The Government cannot even do a U-turn correctly. Last week the Prime Minister told the Leader of the Opposition to read the pay amendment, but five days later the Government have still not tabled it. Can the Secretary of State tell me when it is going to come?

• 27 Jan 2025 · Reading in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  We know that smartphones in the classroom have a negative impact on reading and on the educational attainment of children in general. When in government, we issued guidance to try to ban smartphones from the classroom, but the latest evidence is clear that they are still far too prevalent in schools. To fix the problem, the guidance needs to be put on a statutory footing. Does the Education Secretary agree that children’s educational outcomes are negatively affected by smartphones, and if she does, will she back our amendment to ban them from the classroom for good?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Education, Health and Care Plans · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as ever, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this debate and on her excellent speech. It is obvious from everybody who has spoken how much distress the delay in EHCPs is causing across the system. What is equally striking is the postcode lottery. We know that 15 local authorities completed less than 10% of their new EHCPs within the 20-week time limit, while 27 local authorities completed over 90% within 20 weeks. That is a stark difference, which I have not seen properly explained anywhere. I hope that as part of the work the Minister is doing in the Department there is some analysis of why the differences are so big. They cannot be explained away just by volume. Obviously covid has had a huge influence, but the problems we are discussing are not new. In 2009, in the final report of his inquiry, Brian Lamb called for a “radical overhaul” of the SEND system. He cited a culture of low expectation and a system that failed to deliver what children needed. The coalition Government, who have been referred to by a couple of Members, brought forward the Children and Families Act in 2014, which tried to address some of the shortcomings. It included changes that I think most Members would agree with, such as bringing together the education and health system, trying to make it more child-focused and getting parents to have more of a role in decision making. It was intended that needs would be identified earlier, but Ofsted’s SEND inspection found that many local authorities struggled to implement the changes properly, which led to the huge postcode lottery we have seen. Layered on that has been the explosion of numbers post covid. Many children with complex needs did not attend school during covid and missed the support at school, Ofsted found, which has led to some of the distressing cases we have heard about today. In government we increased the high needs budget by more than 60% from 2019 to 2024, but we are still seeing these huge issues. There is something that I would be interested to know from the Minister. The previous Government pledged the improvement plan for SEND. I completely understand that the Minister has delayed this to have a look at it further, but can I ask about the timetable for bringing forward an alternative and what she plans to do with that? The hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) talked about the school support staff pay negotiating body. One of the concerns I have about its reinstatement, and the reason we have opposed it, is that it will affect SEND provision. The Confederation of School Trusts said: “School trusts do not all operate in the same way, and we must ensure that schools” of “all types…can benefit from the flexibility to deploy support staff…that most benefits pupils. The reforms so desperately needed to our special educational needs system rely on this, for example.”

• 22 Jan 2025 · Education, Health and Care Plans · Hansard source

  More

  I was about to wrap up because I am conscious of time and I want to ensure that the hon. Member for Chelmsford has time to speak at the end of the debate, so I will close my remarks there.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Education, Health and Care Plans · Hansard source

  More

  I acknowledge absolutely that pay was part of that, but it was also about terms and conditions and flexibility, which I do not think we have seen adequately addressed to date. I am grateful for the engagement on these issues from the hon. Member and the Minister. It is really important that we get this right, because we will need extra flexibility as we go through with the reforms that the Government will, I hope, be bringing forward. The hon. Member for Chelmsford discussed the Minister’s approach to mainstream education and the recognition that mainstream education is not right for every child. While it is always right and proper, if parents want to send their child to a mainstream school, to give them the opportunity to do that and there should be the facilities there for that to take place, parents should also have the option of a special school if that is what they prefer. We have heard a lot about mainstream schooling; I completely understand that and I support it where it is the parents’ wish. But can the Minister confirm that the Government support special school places and will increase their number if that is the parents’ wish? Some groups are concerned about being forced in one direction rather than the other, but I think choice needs to be at the heart of this system, so I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that today. I have questions about the statutory override, which were raised by the Lib Dem Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). I would be grateful if the Minister responded on that as well. I am conscious of time—

• 15 Jan 2025 · Higher Education Regulatory Approach · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was passed by Parliament prior to the election. By the end of the Act’s passage through both Houses, the Labour party had agreed in principle with the need for it; indeed, there are positive signals coming from those on the Front Bench today. However, immediately after the election, Government sources said the Act was a Tory “hate speech charter”, and paused its implementation. I ask the Secretary of State: what has changed? Does she still stand by her characterisation of the Act? It should have been obvious straightaway to anyone with even a basic sympathy for the norms of liberal education that pausing the Act was a mistake. It should have been clear again, when more than 650 academics signed a letter to The Times decrying the decision, that pausing the Act was a mistake, but the Secretary of State still did not budge from her position. It should have been undeniable that the Government had made the wrong choice when, acting together, no less than seven Nobel prize winners and a Fields medallist later added their names to that letter, but still Labour was happy to roll out the old tropes about hate speech. Literary luminaries like Sir Stephen Fry, Tom Holland and Ian McEwan were forced to intervene. Those with natural sympathies for the Secretary of State’s own political positions were compelled to tell her that she was wrong. It is only now, after all that humiliation, that she has finally changed her footing. I pay tribute to the academics who led that fightback outside Parliament. Much like they have done with academies in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, this Government take a wrecking ball to policy without a thought for the consequences. They are much more interested in virtue signalling than in what is right for the country, more interested in listening to student union advisers than to women hounded out of their jobs. Since the Secretary of State decided to pause the legislation, gender-critical women, among others, have, in the process of vindicating their rights, racked up enormous legal fees that have caused some to remortgage their houses. Professor Jo Phoenix said publicly that if the Act had been enforced, it would have saved her from that very ordeal. Will the Secretary of State now apologise to those who have suffered because of her inaction? We have upcoming legal action in the judicial review brought by the Free Speech Union against the Government’s decision. Considering that a concern about expense was one of the reasons given by the Government to justify their decision, how much has that litigation cost to defend? What is the financial cost of the Secretary of State’s inaction? How much taxpayer money has been spent on a partisan play-up-to-your-own-gallery move that is about to fall flat of its face in the court? Did the Secretary of State receive legal advice before she made her decision to suspend the Act? Will she release it, so that Members can see the basis on which she acted? If she did not, how can she possibly claim to have acted responsibly in this matter? Despite the Secretary of State’s statement, we now have confusion about what is actually happening. It seems that the Government cannot even do a much-needed U-turn properly. Without the tort, what consequences will universities face if they do not protect free speech? Why is the Secretary of State unable to set out a clear decision on overseas funding? Why is six months not enough time? Can she spell out the changes the Government are thinking about making to the overseas funding measure? Can she confirm that none of those were discussed during the Chancellor’s recent visit to China? Can she confirm that there were no deals done to amend that section? That is very important. It is extremely poor timing at best and invidious at worst to consider changes to the overseas funding element of the Act so soon after that trip to China. It was always obvious that the Education Secretary made a mistake in pausing the Act, but rather than commencing a little more of the Act to try to cover up the mistaken delay, she needs to get up and perform the U-turn in full. The Act contains much-needed protections and she must not abolish them just because they came from the Conservative side of the House. Finally, while we are at it, the Secretary of State should perform a U-turn on academy freedoms too. The Government must not take six months to realise their mistake on that one.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. To be clear, the Bill proposes a pay cut for nearly 20,000 teachers in future years, because it imposes national terms and conditions on teachers in academies. I have to ask: what problem are the Government trying to solve? Teachers outside of national pay scales are paid more, not less. What have they got against highly paid teachers? Why on earth are the Government coming here today and telling tens of thousands of teachers that their pay is too high? It is absurd. Levelling down seems to be this Government’s priority. The flexibilities given on terms and conditions allow academies to offer things such as a longer school day. Are the Labour Government proposing to ban that? The explanatory notes to the Bill set a new standard in double speak when they praise the “positive innovation and good practice in teachers’ pay and conditions in some academies” and say that the Government want to “ensure that local authority-maintained schools also have the opportunity to implement this”. So what are they doing? Are they giving these same pay flexibilities to local authority schools? They are doing opposite. They are taking pay flexibilities away from academies. Do not try and make any sense of this, because it is impossible. It is entirely contradictory. The Government are also removing the requirement for failing schools to be taken over by an academy, despite recognising the “strong track record of multi academy trusts…turning around failing schools”. What are they replacing it with? They mention “regional improvement for standards and excellence (‘RISE’) teams”— officials sitting in the Department for Education—but in another breath they said that those teams will not be involved in failing schools. The Government have clearly totally failed; they do not understand that the reason that failing schools became academies by default is that it is the most effective intervention. If it is not mandatory, there will be lots of massive rows about what will happen to failing schools, and inevitable delays and legal challenges. What is the upshot? More time with children in failing schools not being dealt with. What is their plan for failing schools? What is their plan to protect those children from falling behind? What is the evidence that this approach is better? Have they trialled it anywhere? Why on earth are they putting this into a Bill without a clear alternative failure regime in place that evidence shows is at least as good? The Bill is totally unacceptable and misunderstands why the academy order has been so important. I cannot say this strongly enough to the Government Benches: it needs to change.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have been very clear today that the Bill will destroy the education system in this country and reverse the progress that we have made, and that is why we oppose it. On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, I condemn the language that has been used against hon. Members in this House. However, he will recall that the Labour party put out a social media graphic that greyed out the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), and claimed that he said that paedophiles should not go to prison. It is incumbent on all of us in this House to be moderate in our language. This is an enormous scandal, and yet we do not fully know the number of victims or perpetrators, or where it has taken place. The previous Conservative Government set up the grooming gangs taskforce, which made more than 500 arrests in the first year. With 1,400 victims in Rotherham alone, this will potentially encompass tens of thousands of children. We therefore need a comprehensive national inquiry into grooming gangs to tell the truth.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding, declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay and conditions, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing including establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.” The Bill in front of us today is a Bill of two halves, one of which seeks to protect children and improve safeguarding and support for children in care. While the Opposition will seek to amend various aspects of what is being put forward in Committee, we do see value in it. But the other half of the Bill is the policy equivalent of a wrecking ball. It is an all-out assault on teachers, the education system and standards. It is nothing less than education vandalism and we will oppose it with every fibre of our beings. The House must be in no doubt that the Bill really matters. It destroys the consensus built over two decades in England on how to improve schools—a consensus that has led to English children being the best in the western world at reading and maths. I cannot understand why the Government would seek to reverse that progress. What are they hoping to achieve? It seems to be policy built purely on ideology. More than that, it is wrong. I desperately hope that Government Members will come to see that. Madam Deputy Speaker, you would think that a Labour Government would feel proud of the record they had on education under Blair. It was that Labour Government who innovated and made way for academies. When Blair talks about academies, he says that an academy “belongs not to some remote bureaucracy, not to the rulers of government, local or national, but to itself, for itself. The school is in charge of its own destiny.” That Blairite principle—a school in charge of its own destiny—was built on and expanded by subsequent Conservative Governments. What has been the result of this largely cross-party consensus? A thriving education system in which English children have soared up the programme for international student assessment rankings. I see before me a move away from all the things that have enabled that success. The Bill seeks to turn its back on Labour’s history and take back those academy freedoms on curriculum, on pay and on behaviour. You name it, they are reversing it—all the things that have done so much to improve our education system. Step by step, the very policies that saw our schools rise up the international league tables are being reversed. I guarantee that just as we went up, as a result of the Bill we will come down those very same rankings. And who will suffer? The poorest pupils in society.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that the hon. Lady has confirmed that the Labour party is, indeed, anti-academy. The Bill goes on and on—rampant centralisation in search of a cause. Why are the Government making all schools follow the national curriculum? Where is the evidence that there is a problem? Why are they putting in place sweeping powers to direct academies on unspecified things? What possible justification do they have for that? The notes say that it is to prevent “unreasonable use of power”. I say, look in the mirror.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Lady, but she will know that the academy programme was expanded more than 50 times under the last Government, and we went up the education rankings, not down, under the previous Government. The Bill would abolish academies in all but name, and for what? Because Education Ministers think that they know better than Katharine Birbalsingh and Sir Jon Coles. Blair said in 2005 that “command public services today are no more acceptable than a command economy.” Well, someone needs to tell the Education Secretary, because that is exactly what she is proposing in the Bill. It is anti-rigour, anti-choice and anti-accountability.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. There is no reason that action cannot be taken at the same time as a national inquiry—it is not an either/or. If the Government want to disagree with that, they will have to argue their case on the facts, and not simply smear any opposition to them as far right or say that parliamentary procedure means it cannot happen.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I am going to finish. This is an opportunity for MPs across the House to give victims the justice they deserve. Hon. Members have heard our arguments on the inquiry and on schools. I hope that today, when we vote on our reasoned amendment, the Government see sense on both.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The whole point of academies is to drive up standards by freeing them from state control. The Bill undermines all that, which is why it would abolish academies in all but name. I urge Government Members to look at what the education part of the Bill would do. Look at the Labour history under Education Secretaries such Lord Adonis. Do not destroy something that the Labour party helped to build. The Government must get rid of the academy elements of the Bill. They will not improve the school system; they will make it worse. Do not destroy the work and policy of two decades at the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen. We must ask ourselves: who this is all about? Are we on the side of ideology, unions and bureaucrats, or are we on side of the children and teachers, and making sure that the most disadvantaged get the best possible education? If it is the latter, the education section of the Bill must go. Let me come to the final part of our amendment, on a national grooming gang inquiry. This debate has been taken too far away from the victims and what is right for them. There are legitimate arguments to be had in this area, but the one I will not accept is that to call for an inquiry is to be far right. The Labour Government have to understand that they must explain their actions, not just call the Opposition names. Local inquiries, which the Labour Government say are the answer, do not have legal powers to summon witnesses, take evidence under oath, or requisition evidence. Some of the leaders of the Manchester inquiry resigned after they said that they were blocked from accessing information.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Sadly, I think my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I see no other reason for the academy provisions to be in the Bill. It actually says in the explanatory notes that the primary aim of this legislation is to make the education system “more consistent”. That is at the heart of the problem today, because more consistency does not a better education system make. It is a classic Labour argument: one size must fit all, lopping the tops off the tallest poppies. God forbid that schools might be able to innovate and learn from each other, and teachers might have freedoms in the classroom to try new things, backed up by a regulator that rigorously inspects and identifies failure. That is an excellent education system, but one that aims solely for consistency is not—a system of command and control, stifling teachers, supressing innovation, with everything decided in an office in Whitehall, far away from the classrooms. It is same old Labour: consistency for all, excellence for none.