Neil O'Brien MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

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

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

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

  More

  That is precisely what the Minister just said. She said that by having the amendment we would be allowed to have unlimited numbers of items for school sports teams. So it is clear that the measure bites in exactly the way that we say it does, which is why we need amendment 91.

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

  More

  I intend to press only amendment 91 to a vote. We have had an interesting and thoughtful debate this afternoon. I note again that we have heard from the Association of School and College Leaders, Government Back Benchers, the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and the Conservatives about the danger that these measures will backfire and that, in the real world, what will replace cheap, standard PE kit is more expensive, branded sportswear. That is why we wanted to exclude PE kit. I will not press the new clause to a vote—we do not have time to press every single thing to a vote—but I would like to press amendment 91.

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

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 25 Registration

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

  More

  I wonder whether there is some tension between the Minister saying that one reason we should not include section 17 children is that some of them are disabled, and then rejecting amendment 33 because it is right that all pupils in special schools should have to go through this consent mechanism because a lot of them will be disabled. Those two arguments seem to be very much in tension there. To press him a little bit on this point about not excluding those in special schools, can the Minister say roughly how long a timeline we are talking about? What sort of information will special school parents have to provide in order to win the right, as it were, to home educate? What is he going to do to stop this from being a long process in which parents of special school pupils do not have their children where they want them, with them at home, even when ultimately that is going to be the decision?

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

  More

  We will withdraw our amendment today, but overall, we are still not persuaded that the objectives that we all share for this Bill could not be met in a more proportionate and less bureaucratic way. I hope that their lordships will have further thoughts on that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

  More

  Amendment 33 would delete the requirement for children in special schools to secure local authority consent to be home educated. In contrast, amendment 35 would widen the scope of required consent from just those children subject to section 47 investigations to those under a slightly lower level of concern with social services, which are section 17 children in need. I will turn to the widening amendment first. We support the Government’s intention with this clause to give local authorities the power to withhold consent to home educate a child where it is subject to a section 47 investigation or a child protection plan, or where it is a section 17 child in need. However, we worry that the clause as drafted might not fully achieve the Government’s aims and create a bit of a conflict of interest for a local authority, so our amendment would broaden the criteria to include children in need under section 17. The Government spoke rightly of the tragic case of Sara Sharif, but my understanding is that unfortunately she would not have been protected by the Bill as drafted, as she was not the subject of a section 47 child protection plan. As the Children’s Commissioner wrote in December: “Despite there having been evidence of violence at home since birth, Sara was not under any intervention from social care when she died. The Bill must therefore go further in protecting children like her, making it impossible for a child ever known to social care for abuse or neglect to be home schooled.” That request goes a bit further than our amendment, but it is a really powerful argument. What does the Minister make of the argument that the clause should require consent for home education if a child has ever been a subject of concern? Although our amendment does not go as far as the Children’s Commissioner’s idea, I hope that it is in that spirit, in so far as it widens the scope of the clause to include more children where social workers have live concerns. I hope the Government might accept it, either here or in the other place, once they have had time to chew it over. I do not necessarily expect an immediate answer from the Minister, but I hope that he will think about it at the very least. The DFE’s child practice review panel on elective home education, which was published last year, looked at 41 cases where a child died or was seriously harmed and elective home education or a child missing education was a factor. Some 29 children were defined as being in elective home education, and six were defined as being children missing education. There was not enough information to classify the final six. Some 24 of those children had no agency involvement, never mind child protection, and some were not known to services at all. The bar of a section 47 investigation or a child protection plan is simply too high in some cases to protect some quite vulnerable children. That is the widening. Amendment 33 would provide the narrowing to not include all those in special schools. I was surprised when I was saw subsection (3), and I had to speak to quite a few people to check that I was reading it right. The right to educate children at home is quite a fundamental one, and there are a lot of circumstances where it is the right thing for a child with special needs, because of either their physical or mental health needs. It is quite a big thing to say that they are now all to be treated in the same way and lumped together under the same clauses as children of concern to social services with child protection plans. Some of these children are very sick, and the last thing that their blameless, amazing parents need is a load of bureaucracy. Sometimes, they will need to move fast. In a previous sitting I mentioned a child with incredibly intense needs who is a constituent of mine. It seems strange to require her parents to go through bureaucracy if they want to home educate her, given her incredibly high level of physical health needs. I mentioned at the start of my speech that there is a potential conflict of interest. We have heard of some examples where educating a child who is in a special school at home is discouraged, because it would increase the cost to the local authority—for example, in the provision of therapeutic or medical support at home—even though it is potentially in the best interests of the child. Can the Minister reassure me that that will not happen in future? I wondered what Ministers were trying to get at here and whether there was some sub-category of children in special schools who they were interested in. I read through the explanatory notes really carefully, but they were silent on why children in special schools are being included on a blanket basis. I am completely open to persuasion on this issue, and perhaps the Minister will say more about it, but the first time I read the explanatory notes, I thought, “What? Why on earth are we treating all the parents of kids in special schools in the same way that we treat people who are literally the subject of live social services investigations for abuse?” I will say more on the second group of amendments to this clause, but just to reiterate, we are supportive of what the Government want to do here. We want to widen it in one way and potentially narrow it in another. I am interested in hearing the Minister’s remarks.

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

  More

  To be clear, instead of having an appeal to, say, the adjudicator, the only appeal would be to the Secretary of State, who would be acting in a judicial capacity in that respect.

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

  More

  Just to confirm what the Minister is saying, under the clause if passed, school sports teams will not be able to require pupils to own the items. In the future, schools will only be able to loan items for school sports teams to their pupils, so there will be quite a big difference.

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

  More

  This is a very straightforward amendment. It adds that where a local authority refuses consent, it must provide the parents or carers of the relevant child with a statement of the reasons for the decision, including an assessment of the costs and benefits to the child. Of course, we hope that would happen anyway, but we are just making good practice part of the legislation.

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

  More

  I will just register this point again for Ministers to consider. A lot of people are surprised to learn that although a school will pay for a child to enter GCSEs and the like, home educators do not enjoy that benefit. If we want to make it easier for people to home school their children properly, rather than their children just being out of school, we need to address that long-standing issue. I wonder whether Ministers will consider that point?

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

  More

  The principle of having a register for children not in school has long-held cross-party support. However, as I outlined in the debate on clause 24, there are very different groups of children who may be educated at home. In our eagerness to safeguard vulnerable children, we must also make every effort not to stigmatise or treat as suspicious parents who make a positive choice to home educate their children. In clause 25, subsections (c) to (e) of proposed new section 436C of the Education Act 1996 require a lot of very specific details from parents, such as the amount of time they spend providing education for their child. In the Bill that we brought forward when in Government, we used a rather broader approach, citing such details as the means by which the child is being educated. The drafting of the proposed the new section seeks to make all home schoolers provide a pretty extraordinary level of detail, on pain of breaking the law. We understand the intent, but our amendments seek to make that a bit more proportionate and a bit less intensely onerous for legitimate home-schooling parents. Amendment 62 would take out the requirement on parents to specify how much time a child spends being educated by each parent—something that would likely vary from week to week in many cases, and would also be slightly invasive into people’s home lives if the parents are not living at the same place. Amendment 63 would add a de minimis floor of six hours a week, so not every single tiny appointment or 30-minute piano lesson has to be recorded, but only the substantive bits of education outside the home, which is more to the original intent.

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

  More

  I worry that local authorities are going to drown in a sea of information; rather than having simple information they can use to make a decision; they will have so much that they will be wading through it and everything will be slowed down.

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

  More

  The amendment would set up a right of appeal. A lot of other measures in the Bill have rights of appeal—we have discussed some of them in earlier sittings—and such an appeal would not hold up an order because the amendment specifies that “During the appeal period, the school will be responsible for the education of the child.” However, the amendment would give the school the right to an appeal where a completely inappropriate child is ordered to attend it. Although we support the principle of the clause, we have a number of concerns. First, subsection (2) of the proposed new section 436I of the Education Act 1996 sets out points that the local authority must consider when deciding if a school attendance order is appropriate. Those points include considering “how the child is being educated and what the child is learning, so far as is relevant in the particular case”. I hope the Minister agrees that this needs careful thought, in consultation with families. There is a slightly Orwellian ring to the idea of a local authority deciding what it is appropriate for a parent to teach their child. In practice—as Members have said—many parents of children with special needs do not home educate as a positive choice but because their child was not thriving in the local school. Those parents might find it overbearing to have this kind of scrutiny of their efforts. What does the Government plan to do to allow them to have input into this approach? Will the Minister confirm the maximum prison sentence for failure to comply with a school attendance order? Proposed new subsection 436P(8) of the 1996 Act states “level 4” and my understanding is that could be as much as 51 weeks. Given everything we know about the impact on a child of imprisoning their parents, will the Government reconsider the potential sentence, since, in many cases, it would result in a child or children being taken into care?

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

  More

  Although we still think it would be better to have an appeal to an independent adjudicator rather than the Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 27 Data Protection Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  Sounds good.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 24, page 47, line 6, at end insert— “(8A) Where a local authority refuses consent in respect of a child who meets the criteria for Condition A, the local authority must provide the parents or carers of the relevant child with a statement of reasons for the decision. (8B) A statement of reasons provided under subsection (8A) must include an assessment of the costs and benefits to the child.” This amendment would require a local authority to submit a statement of reasons when they do not agree for a child who meets Condition A to be home educated.

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

  More

  The Minister is very kind to give way. She has raised the issue of house ties; if a school is already at its limit of branded items for the year, and halfway through the year a child is offered a branded house tie, that would be an additional item, would it not? That would take them over the limit, so how is that supposed to work?

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 69, in clause 26, page 63, line 18, at end insert— “(7) A school may submit an appeal against a school nomination notice to the School Admissions Adjudicator for the reasons given in this part and for any other reason. (8) During the appeal period, the school will be responsible for the education of the child.” This amendment allows schools to appeal nomination notices.

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

  More

  That is another hugely helpful intervention, because it lets me say two things. First, the clause as drafted does not help, because it uses the words “to have”. Unless the Government accept our amendments, the fact that the kits are being given does not make any difference, because the legislation does not say that. Secondly, there is an implicit assumption in the hon. Lady’s intervention that all schools will, from now on, have to pay for all this themselves. It is generous of her to make the huge funding commitment to schools that she has just mentioned, but unfortunately I do not think that the Ministers have come up with the money to do what she says. We know why there are school sports teams. We do not expect English, Scottish or Welsh football teams to have a single kit. There is a reason why teams have a kit, yet that will effectively be banned by the clause. Amendment 91, which I will press to a vote, would exempt school sports teams. The DFE’s current suggestion on what schools should do in this situation is to give pupils kit, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth North said, but even that would not work under the clause unless the Government accept amendments 29 and 30. We have also tabled the amendments because the Bill as drafted potentially bans schools from asking children to wear “more than three” compulsory branded items even if the school has provided them for free, which is obviously bizarre. That is why our amendment would change “have” to “buy”. That brings me to amendment 31, which is a practical one to correct what I think is a drafting error. At the moment, if a child grows out of, or loses, or damages a branded item, then parents will not have to replace that item within the academic year because the Bill says that they cannot be asked to “have more than three” items during a school year. If schools are allowed to require three branded items, then they should obviously be allowed to require that those items are replaced otherwise, effectively, uniform policy becomes unenforceable. Instead of all this backfiring micromanagement, our new clause 25 points toward a different, more effective way to reduce costs for parents. Some 70% of schools already offer second-hand uniforms. Our amendment just aims to get schools doing what many others already are. As the parent of primary school children, I know how much is already passed on from sibling to sibling and from family to family outside school, though that is something that is obviously much less likely to happen with non-uniform items. Finally, it says in the notes of the Bill that parents can make a complaint to the Department and that “The department will be able to act when it is found that a school has not complied with the limit”. I feel that Ministers should have better things to do with their time than to try and fail to micromanage schools and determine whether the PE kit at Little Snoddington primary school is compliant. After so many attempts at micromanagement, I just worry that this is going to backfire and the cost in the end to parents is going to be higher.

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

  More

  If they drop the book bag, other bags will likely be more expensive. My kids are quite young, so they are not very brand-aware, but we will end up with a request for a branded bag and something more expensive. [ Interruption. ]

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

  More

  I rise today, as we pass the halfway point of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, to find that we still do not have the impact assessment. The Bill has passed Second Reading. It is totally pointless having an impact assessment of a measure if it is produced after has Parliament debated it. The Ministers would make the same point if they were still shadow Ministers, so I make it to them now. I do not understand what the hold-up is. The last Government substantially expanded access to breakfast clubs in primary and secondary schools and created the holiday activities food programme. The national school breakfasts programme has been running since 2018, and in March 2023 the then Government announced £289 million for the national wraparound childcare funding programme, which helps to fund breakfast clubs, among other things. That was part of a much wider expansion of free childcare that saw spending on the free entitlement double in real terms between 2010 and 2024, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, including things such as the 30-hours offer, the two-year-old offer and the expanded childcare offer. We will not vote against the clause and will not push our amendments to a vote, but I was struck by the comments made by Mark Russell of the Children’s Society, who said that given the resource constraints, he would have focused on rolling out breakfast clubs to a greater number of deprived secondary schools, rather than on a universal offer in primary. He said: “I would like to see secondary school children helped, and if the pot is limited, I would probably step back from universality and provide for those most in need.” –– [ Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 55, Q122.] I draw attention to the uncertainty being created by the Government’s refusal to commit to funding the existing free breakfast provision in secondary schools beyond next year, and likewise to the uncertainty being created around the holiday activities and food programme. A number of witnesses in our first oral evidence session called for Ministers to guarantee that funding beyond next year, and I join them in asking Ministers to give us that guarantee, or at least give us some sense that the provision targeted on deprived schools will be maintained. To that end, our amendment 28 would lock in the existing provision in secondary schools and secondary special schools. There are arguments for specifically targeting needy secondary school pupils. According to evidence submitted to the Committee by Magic Breakfast: “The extension to secondary pupils in special schools would not require a significant amount of additional resource”. It would require about 2.2% of the budget. What did Ministers make of the suggestion by Magic Breakfast to make secondary special schools a priority? The Government have made primary schools their priority. Amendment 26 would require the Government to report properly on provision. Groups such as Magic Breakfast are calling for careful measuring and monitoring of the programme, which is what we need. In Wales, we saw a commitment brought in in 2013 to reach all primary schools, but by last year, 85% of disadvantaged pupils were still not being reached by the provision. Obviously we do not want that to happen here. The Secretary of State must collect data on who is getting breakfasts and on the impact. As Magic Breakfast said in its evidence to the Committee, “if the Government policy doesn’t significantly impact” behaviour, attendance, concentration, academic attainment and health and wellbeing, “then the Secretary of State should consider the efficacy of the policy roll out.” That is why we want special monitoring. The programme is landing on top of a complex existing patchwork, as the Minister said. Some 85% of schools already have a breakfast club, and one in eight of all schools, including secondary schools, have a taxpayer-funded breakfast offer. The new requirement being brought in by the clause will interact with the existing provision in lots of different ways. Many school breakfast clubs currently run for an hour on a paid-for basis, and I hope that most of them will want to continue to run for at least the period that they run now. Now, if a breakfast club is provided for an hour or more, the school will have to charge the first 30 minutes but not the final 30 minutes, which unavoidably leads to complexity. On the other hand, we do not want schools to focus on just delivering the new statutory 30 minutes then pull the earlier provision, which is useful for parents. Schools will have to do a lot of agonising as they think all this through, and they will have to manage it carefully. In some cases, where the demand is very high, schools may struggle get all the children fed in 30 minutes—lunchtime is normally longer than that. That is one reason why Magic Breakfast is calling for advice and guidance, which I hope the Minister will consider. Amendment 27 asks for a report on funding, because there is still a lot of uncertainty around that. According to a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies last year: “Based on the experience of the national school breakfast programme, the estimated annual cost today would be around £55 per pupil…for food-only provision and double that (around £110) for a ‘traditional’ before-school breakfast club. Labour’s manifesto offers £315 million overall in 2028; this could be enough to fund all primary school pupils under a food-only model, or 60% of pupils if the party plumps for a traditional breakfast club with some childcare element.” The Government are just at the pilot stage, and we just want to make sure that the lessons are learned about the very real costs of this policy in different places and settings, be that for on-site provision, off-site provision, expensive or cheaper places to live, or small rural primaries. They will all have different costs and the funding will have to reflect that. Hopefully all of these problems are surmountable, as this is obviously a good thing, but we want careful monitoring to make sure that the policy is actually making changes and having the positive impacts that people hope for, and to avoid any unintended consequences.

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

  More

  That is a very helpful intervention, because it lets me say what I was about to say next. We obviously want to reduce the cost of school uniform, but really, we want to reduce the cost of clothing children overall. If we have the kind of backfiring effects that a number of Members on both sides have pointed out, we will not achieve that.

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

  More

  I would also welcome an intervention from the Ministers if they want to say why this is wrong.

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

  More

  The hon. Lady is quite right to point out the tension between wanting to avoid micromanagement and saying that if we are in the business of prescription, we might do some sensible things. I wanted to offer a positive suggestion rather than simply critique what the Government are doing, which is why that is there. Indeed, a lot of schools are already doing it. I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but one reason why Whitehall micromanagement is a bad idea is that rules dreamed up by civil service mandarins in London often go wrong when they make contact with the real world. That is exactly what has happened here. I have no doubt that Ministers’ intentions for clause 23 are good, but it will have the opposite effect to the one they intend. It may well make things more expensive for parents—not less. That will hit many schools. Ministers said, in answer to a written question, that “based on the Department’s 2023 cost of school uniforms survey of parents, we estimate that one third of primary schools and seven in ten secondary schools will have to remove compulsory branded items from their uniforms to comply”. Instead of measures the Government could have brought forward in the Bill—things that the polls show are teacher priorities such as discipline, as Teacher Tapp shows—we will have at least 8,000 schools spending their time reviewing their uniform policy. Worst of all, this may well end up increasing costs for parents overall. Many secondary schools will respond to this new primary legislation by stopping having uniform PE kit, at which point, highly brand-aware kids will push parents to have stuff from Adidas or Nike or whatever instead, which will be more expensive. What do we think that school leaders will get rid of in response to the new rules? We know that according to the Government, lots of them will have to change their uniforms in response to this. In a poll of school leaders last year, more than half said that the first things they would remove in the event of such restrictions would be PE kit, but uniform PE kit is cheaper than sportswear brands; it is nearly half the price for secondary school kids. I worry that the Government have a sort of tunnel vision here. They want to cut the cost of uniform, but we really want to cut the cost of clothing children overall. The problem is that when we get rid of uniform, particularly PE kit, what will fill the space is often more expensive and worse.