Neil O'Brien MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

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

  More

  Q Is the Minister prepared to commit to work with school leaders, both the ones here today and others, to generate that amendment so that they are all satisfied with where we end up? Catherine McKinnell: We are in close consultation with all of the stakeholders that we have been collaborating with to make sure we create the best framework of legislation that will deliver opportunity for all children, and we will continue to do so.

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

  More

  Q What is the problem? David Thomas: I have worked with some fantastic people—generally late-career people in shortage subjects who want to go and give back in the last five to 10 years of their career—who would not go through some of the bureaucracy associated with getting qualified teacher status but are absolutely fantastic and have brought wonderful things to a school and to a sector. I have seen them change children’s lives. We know we have a flow of 600 people a year coming into the sector like that. If those were 600 maths teachers and you were to lose that, that would be 100,000 fewer children with a maths teacher. None of us knows what we would actually lose, but that is a risk that, in the current system, where we are so short of teachers, I would choose not to take.

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

  More

  Q That is a potential problem for a small rural school. Rebecca Leek: It is a real problem for small rural schools particularly. They function really well in little pockets of two or three schools together, with maybe one executive head dealing with some of the headaches—because there are headaches—and with some things that are more systematic across the three schools. Yes, definitely.

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

  More

  Q Thank you for coming. Are there any things in the Bill that you think we should amend as it goes through? Are there things that you would like to improve further, or any ways that you would like us to change the Bill? Why don’t we start with Lynn? Lynn Perry: The coalition broadly welcomes the potentially transformational proposals that are contained within the Bill, including those for a single unique identifier, which is one of the things that the coalition has been specifically calling for over a period of time. Multiple reviews have found that information sharing between agencies is problematic, so that is one of the things that we think could really aid child protection, safeguarding and multi-agency working. I would say that to really shift the dial we need further investment in early intervention and early help across our communities, and much greater focus on embedding that consistently and universally. We also need some further clarification on some of the areas that the single unique identifier will need for effective application, I think it is fair to say.

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

  More

  Q One of the major changes in the Bill is the extension of the national curriculum, for the first time, to absolutely all schools. At the same time, the curriculum is being changed and rewritten. I have a high-level question and a specific one. The high-level one is about the different visions for our schools. One vision would stress the importance of diversity and argue that there are different ways of educating and that schools can and should do things differently. I do not know whether you buy into that vision. My second, more specific question is whether there is anything you would have concerns about being in the curriculum. I am particularly thinking of religious education and topics like that. Are there ideas out there that you would be concerned about being forced into all schools? Nigel Genders: As previous panels have said, there is a slight complexity about the timing of the Bill and the intention to bring in a national curriculum for everyone. In broad principle, I think it is right. There are one or two caveats I will go on to talk about, but in broad principle it is right to create a level playing field and have a broad and balanced curriculum across the piece for everybody. The complexity is that this legislation is happening at the same time as the curriculum and assessment review, so our schools are being asked to sign up to a general curriculum for everybody without knowing what that curriculum is likely to be. Certainly among the schools and leaders I have spoken to the hope is that through the process of the curriculum review, and certainly in the evidence we have been giving to that, we will end up with a much broader, richer balance of both academic and vocational and technical skills within the curriculum. We hope to have something of broad appeal to everybody that is at a high level, and under which everybody can find an equal place in that space. But we do not know at the moment.

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

  More

  Q But in adjusting to that, some schools might face severe adjustments or even need new capital, facilities and stuff— Leora Cruddas: That is exactly right. Under this legislation, we could end up with a high-level national curriculum framework—once again, as I said on pay and conditions, with a floor but no ceiling. That would protect the right of schools and trusts, all schools and trusts, to innovate, to be agile, to respond to local context, and to be centres of curriculum excellence—you heard Sir Jon Coles talk about his curriculum. We want to retain that notion of curriculum flexibility, curriculum freedoms.

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

  More

  Q There are charities, voluntary groups and various people out there funding free breakfasts, and there are paid-for free breakfasts at the moment, so the interaction of the Government-funded entitlement for the 30 minutes and those two other things will be quite complicated. Do you have any thoughts about anything that we need to do in the Bill to make that work well and to avoid the problems you have described? More generally, do you have thoughts, based on the experience of the groups that you speak to, about what it really costs to deliver this well? What is the unit cost of doing it properly? I am interested in both of those things. Kate Anstey: Around 75% of schools have some form of breakfast provision already, but, as you say—

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

  More

  Q Can I ask you about the very general powers in clause 43 that give the Secretary of State the ability to intervene on a whole range of subjects? The explanatory notes to the Bill talk about using that to intervene on relatively micro things like school uniform. Do you think that untrammelled power is desirable, or would it be more sensible to amend that to have it slightly more focused, so that the Secretary of State does not get dragged into attempting to micromanage schools from the centre? David Thomas: Clause 43, as drafted, goes beyond the explanatory notes and what Ministers have stated their intention to be. If the intention of the clause is to allow Ministers to intervene where an academy trust is breaching a power, but to do that in a way that is short of termination, that is a very sensible thing to want to do and the Government should absolutely be able to do that. If the purpose is, as it says in the explanatory notes, to issue a direction to academy trusts to comply with their duty, that feels like a perfectly reasonable thing to be able to do. The Bill, as drafted, gives the Secretary of State the ability to “give the proprietor such directions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”. I do not think it is appropriate for a Secretary of State to give an operational action plan to a school, but I think it is perfectly reasonable for a Secretary of State to tell a school that it needs to follow its duty. I think there is just a mismatch between the stated intention and the drafting, and I would correct that mismatch.

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

  More

  Q Do you mean universal within the school—everyone has access to it? Kate Anstey: Yes, exactly. Take-up of breakfast clubs varies, but the fact that it is universally available is very important. I would say that it feels like secondary school pupils need more attention. They are being missed in the Bill. More could be done to support those families. There is also the issue in primary schools of how much support breakfast clubs can provide in terms of childcare, which is much more needed at primary level, but secondary school pupils certainly need support. They need support to get to school and they need food available as well.

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

  More

  Q There are lots of other big challenges in the sector at the moment: attendance, discipline and lots of other things. Is there anything else that you would like to either amend in the Bill or add to it? David Thomas: I have concerns about limiting the number of people with unqualified teacher status who are not working towards qualified teacher status.

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

  More

  Q But there is no certainty after that. Kate Anstey: Yes, there is no certainty after that. The costs cannot land on families—we know that that will be a major barrier—but they also cannot land on schools, which need to know that they can continue that provision.

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

  More

  Q That was a superbly diplomatic answer—particularly the end of it. I will come on to Dan. You talked about QTS freedoms and the importance of being able to employ mature people in STEM and the like, and the risk that not having that freedom might put some of them off. I will just ask you about the freedoms on curriculum and things like that, and how those are being used by academies and trusts at the moment to find solutions that are right for individual situations. My impression is that those freedoms are quite often used to focus on core subjects in areas of high deprivation where there is great difficulty, and to have a model that works in those areas. It seems quite important for you. Sir Dan Moynihan: We have taken over failing schools in very disadvantaged places in London, and we have found youngsters in the lower years of secondary schools unable to read and write. We varied the curriculum in the short term and narrowed the number of subjects in key stage 3 in order to maximise the amount of time given for literacy and numeracy, because the children were not able to access the other subjects. Of course, that is subject to Ofsted. Ofsted comes in, inspects and sees whether what you are doing is reasonable. That flexibility has allowed us to widen the curriculum out again later and take those schools on to “outstanding” status. We are subject to Ofsted scrutiny. It is not clear to me why we would need to follow the full national curriculum. What advantage does that give? When we have to provide all the nationally-recognised qualifications —GCSEs, A-levels, SATs—and we are subject to external regulation by Ofsted, why take away the flexibility to do what is needed locally?

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

  More

  Q On that front we are in agreement. My question is whether the Minister would be prepared to limit that to schools’ actual duties, rather than just anything that the Secretary of State sees fit to direct them to do. That is the worry. It is not an “in principle” objection to it. It is a problem that the power is so untrammelled. Would she consider listening to the point that was made on that? Catherine McKinnell: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about a point that he has made on that or a point that—

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

  More

  Q Thank you for being here. I want to direct my first question to Jon and Dan. You have both been quite critical of the loss of academy freedoms in this Bill. Could I persuade you to say a bit more about why that matters? Why do those freedoms matter? What do they enable you to do? Do you accept reassurances from the Government, who are saying, “No, no, you’ve misunderstood: the Bill doesn’t reduce your freedoms; it just increases other people’s freedoms”, or do you think that it would be helpful to amend the Bill further in order to ensure those freedoms? We will start with Jon and then go to Dan. Sir Jon Coles: My top concern is about pay and conditions freedoms. We take schools that have got themselves into serious difficulty and look to turn them around. If you want to turn around schools that have failed seriously—often generationally—to give children a good standard of education, clearly you need to attract very good people to come and work in those places; the quality of a school is never going to exceed the quality of its teachers. Therefore, the things that we do with pay and conditions are designed to make sure that we can attract and retain the very best teachers to do the toughest jobs, which I think is our fundamental role as a trust. I think we really need those freedoms. They are very important to us. Obviously, that applies to this Bill, in relation to schoolteachers’ pay and conditions, but it also applies to the Employment Rights Bill, in relation to the school support staff negotiating body. Those are fundamentally important to us. I have been hugely encouraged by the Secretary of State’s remarks that what she wants is a floor but no ceiling, and that is something that we can absolutely work with. I hope that that is what we see coming through. At this moment, that is not what the Bill says; it says that we have to abide by the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document. I think there is an ongoing conversation to be had about whether that is where we end up, because that is not quite a floor but no ceiling.

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

  More

  Q Thank you to our witnesses for their patience while we voted. I was asking you about what you wrote in Schools Week , Rebecca—you said that the Bill was “not good legislation” and described it as “micromanagement” and “stifling”, and you talked about your experience of using some of those school freedoms. I wonder whether you could say more about why you think that is the case and what you think the problem is with the Bill. Rebecca Leek: One of the things about the school sector is that it is incredibly complex, so you have to have complex solutions for complex systems—if you know anything about systems thinking. To support such a complex system, there needs to be room for agility, so the reason why I was writing that—we will talk about my specific experience as well—is that I know quite a lot about systems theory and governance. I have written a book on governance, subsidiarity and why it is important to have flexibility and agility in localities. That comes from theoretical knowledge about how to create good systems that meet the needs of very complex things, which is what schools are. I cannot impress on the Committee enough how much diversity there is in the school system, and how much there is the need for agility. As a headteacher on the frontline, my dominoes can topple within a term: I am in a small school; I lose two senior teachers; a safeguarding issue happens because something in the locality changes, and I suddenly have to find a pastoral lead, because there are more safeguarding issues; I am trying to get more engagement with some of the local services, which might be struggling because they are undercapacity; and there is a recruitment crisis with teachers, honestly, and also with headteachers—hence I am an interim headteacher, as we can never recruit headteachers, because it is such a hard job, given so much grit in the system. There is that fundamental need for agility. I do therefore have a concern, and my colleagues share that. I speak to headteachers and CEOs all the time in Suffolk—I met a trust last week and spoke to a CEO of a trust with 12 primary schools on the phone yesterday. We went over some of the things in the Bill. We know that the agility that the academies legislation and other changes brought into the system have helped us to be very adaptive to certain circumstances. Anything that says, “Well, we are going to go slightly more with a one-size-fits-all model”—bearing in mind, too, that we do not know what that looks like, because this national curriculum has not even been written yet—is a worry. That is what I mean. If we suddenly all have to comply with something that is more uniform and have to check—“Oh no, we cannot do that”, “Yes, we can do that”, “No, we can’t do that”, “Yes, we can do that”—it will impede our ability to be agile around our school communities and our job.

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

  More

  Q That is very helpful. You have run both types of school and have said that when you were running local authority-run schools, you were often told, “No, we cannot do that”, even when the action would solve a problem and benefit our pupils, and even though you can see the academy down the road doing exactly that. What sort of freedoms are the most valuable? What have you found with those academy freedoms that the Bill is eroding? Rebecca Leek: There are a few specific things, and some other things. I had to step in as an interim headteacher in Ipswich just prior to covid. I did not have an early years lead and we had Ofsted six weeks in: we got RI—with good for leadership and management, thank you very much—but I still did not have an early years teacher. I needed to solve that incredibly quickly, so I liaised with three different agencies and made contact with various different people. There was someone who was not a qualified teacher, but who had been running an outstanding nursery. She had decided to stop running it, because of her work-life balance, and she thought she might want to work in a school. I took her on, and although she was not qualified, she was really excellent. I was able to do that because it was an academy school, and it was not an issue. In a maintained school, there is a specific need for a qualified teacher to teach in early years, so I would not have been able to take her on. That is just one example. Another example is that maintained schools, I think under the 2002 legislation, must have a full-time headteacher—they must have a headteacher at all times. In a small rural school, that is financially a real burden, and it is one of the reasons why I am not a permanent headteacher. Last year, I was an interim headteacher. I came to an agreement with those at the local authority that I would do it on four days a week, and they kind of accepted that—it was a bit of a fudge, because it is actually non-compliant. They asked, “Will you carry on?”, and I said, “No, because I am not going to be full-time.” At the moment, I am three days a week and, again, it is okay because I am interim—academies can have great flexibility around leadership arrangements.

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

  More

  Q We have heard from four or five different school leaders today alone that the Bill needs to be changed to deliver what the Government are committed to rhetorically, not just on pay and conditions, but on the national curriculum. They say that “It is nice that this is your intention” and “It is nice that this is what you say”, but four or five distinguished school leaders have said, specifically, over the course of the day, that the Bill needs to be amended. Will the Ministers work with those school leaders now to produce those amendments? Catherine McKinnell: I want to say first that the Government’s mission through the Bill—

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

  More

  Q Thank you all for being here, and welcome. My first question is to Leora. We heard in the last session some concerns about taking away academy freedoms on pay, the curriculum and QTS. In some of the things that you have written, you have also raised concerns about two other things. The first is clause 43, which is a sort of general power to direct academies on a range of subjects. The policy summary notes to the Bill indicate that that will be used for some not particularly high-level things, such as school uniform and the like. Do you have concerns that the general power is a bit untrammelled at the moment? Might it be sensible to table some amendments to that, so that we have some proportionality and do not have the Secretary of State being constantly sucked into intervening in schools and being pressed to do so by lots of different activists? Leora Cruddas: The first thing I should say is that we really welcome the children’s wellbeing part of this Bill. There are a lot of good things in the Bill. We do have some concerns, as you say, about the schools part of the Bill, including, as you have heard from my colleagues, about pay and conditions. We welcome the Secretary of State’s clarification on that in her evidence to the Education Committee. We now need to work with the Government to make sure that the clarification around direction of travel is reflected in the way that the Bill is laid out. We do not think that the Secretary of State’s intention is properly reflected in the clause as it stands. We do have concerns about the power to direct. We think it is too wide at the moment. We accept that the policy intention is one of equivalence in relation to maintained schools, but maintained schools are different legal structures from academy trusts, and we not think that the clauses in the Bill properly reflect that. It is too broad and it is too wide. We would like to work with the Government to restrict it to create greater limits. Those limits should be around statutory duties on academy trusts, statutory guidance, the provisions in the funding agreement and charity law.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents, particularly in Great Glen, have just experienced devastating flooding. Under the last Government, we opened up the flood recovery framework so that they could get grants to protect themselves. When will they be able to access that money under this Government?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  We already knew that the Government wanted to abolish our local district and borough councils in Leicestershire without consulting local people. We now know that the proposal will involve a significant expansion of the boundaries of the city of Leicester—something demanded by the Mayor of Leicester that would lead to significantly higher council tax for my residents. Within days, thousands of local people have signed a petition started by me and other local MPs who are against the proposal, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who cannot be here today. My local districts and boroughs are against it, so will the Government at least agree to hold a local referendum in Leicestershire before imposing this proposal from London that local people do not want?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Public Finances: Borrowing Costs · Hansard source

  More

  I think that I heard the Chief Secretary say that the Chancellor has not gone to China. Will he confirm first that she is still planning to go? Secondly, if she has not gone to China yet, why is she not here? Lots of people would like to hear from her. Thirdly, has the Chancellor talked to the Governor of the Bank of England about market turbulence at any point in the last seven days?

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

  More

  I am. On a happy note, I also got to see the best of state education. I went to an amazing sixth form that benefited from the freedoms that the Conservative Government gave it. I pay tribute to the inspiring principal of that college, Kevin Conway, who helped so many kids in Huddersfield in his lifetime. I saw what state education could be. I saw the best of it. Freedom works, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would not be here today if it did not. I am heartbroken by the Bill. It genuinely trashes the cross-party reforms that we have had over 30 years. We can see they have worked, yet we are trashing them. I am begging Ministers—begging them—to change their minds.

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

  More

  I am pressed for time, so I will see if I can get to the hon. Lady at the end. Our amendment is also the first opportunity that MPs will have during the Bill’s proceedings to vote for a proper national inquiry into the grooming gangs. As the Bill goes through, we will seek to make further amendments to ensure that this much-needed inquiry happens. The current discussion started when Oldham asked for a national inquiry into what happened there. It did so because a local inquiry would not have the powers needed: it cannot summon witnesses, cannot take evidence under oath and cannot requisition evidence. We have already seen the two men who led the Greater Manchester local investigation resign because they were being blocked, yet the Government say no to a national inquiry and say that there should instead be local inquiries. But there have been years over which they should have happened, and they have not happened. In many cases, the local officials are part of the problem and even part of the cover-up, so they cannot be the people to fix this. [ Interruption. ] Members are chuntering from a sedentary position, but take, for example, the case of Keighley, where my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has been calling for an inquiry for years. [ Interruption. ] Last night, while Ministers were here saying that there should be a local inquiry, in Keighley they were blocking a local inquiry—even as they spoke. So that is not the answer. The Government hide behind the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. It was an important first step, but what it was not and never intended to be was a report on the grooming gangs. It barely touches on them. It looked at half a dozen—just half a dozen—places where grooming gangs have operated, but there were 40 to 50 places where grooming gangs operated ,and the voices of the victims in those places have never been heard. [ Interruption. ] Having a proper national inquiry does not stop anyone getting on and implementing the recommendations of the Jay report. Indeed, one of the recommendations of the Jay report, recommendation 4, is to increase public awareness. Without a national inquiry, it is clear that we will not get to the bottom of this issue and that the people who looked the other way or covered up will not be held to account. So far, how many people in authority have been brought to justice or held to account? The answer is zero. [ Interruption. ] Tonight, we have a chance to change that.

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

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some people really do not want to hear the voices of the victims. [ Interruption. ] Even though no one in authority has been held to account, the Government seem to think that there is nothing further to be learned. I do not think that is right. This afternoon, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said that there should a national inquiry if victims wanted one. Victims are calling for one, so what are we waiting for? There are real challenges that we should be facing: recruitment, discipline and attendance. Instead, we have a Bill that just takes us backwards. As one of the nation’s leading educators, Sir Daniel Moynihan, said today on “World at One”: “We are worried in the sector about what the problems are that the changes are designed to fix. We can offer better pay. It’s not clear why constraining that solves a problem. Why academies…should be constrained beats me…We’re hoping that some of this will be amended. It would be a terrible shame if the reforms that Labour introduced over 20 years ago…were watered down.” Likewise, the Confederation of School Trusts is warning that the loss of academy freedoms proposed in the Bill risk making it “more difficult for trusts to do the hard work of improving schools in the most challenging circumstances”. I remember what state schools were like in the ’80s and ’90s. In my school, it was chaotic, with loads of fights, discredited progressive teaching methods, failed kids and good teachers being ground down. [ Interruption. ] You think it is funny, but the life chances of the kids I was at school with were flushed away by your disastrous ideology. [ Interruption. ]

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

  More

  Over the past 30 years we have had something that is quite unusual in politics: a degree of cross-party consensus about education in England. Schools in England have been improved by the magic formula of freedom plus accountability. It started in the late ’80s, was accelerated after 1997 by Labour and was accelerated further under the Lib Dem-Conservative Government in 2010. And it worked: England improved not just compared with the rest of the world, but compared with Scotland and Wales, where the opposite agenda was followed—academies were banned, league tables were abandoned and a progressive curriculum was installed. Between 2009 and 2022, England went from 21st to 7th in the PISA league table on maths, while Wales went from 29th to 27th. On science, England went from 11th to 9th, while Wales slumped from 21st to 29th. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out in a searing report titled “Major challenges for education in Wales”, amazingly, disadvantaged children in England are now doing better than the average child in Wales. Earlier, the Secretary of State talked about what the Bill would do for the working class. We have seen what Labour’s agenda has done for the working class in Wales. It was a similar story in Scotland, which collapsed from 15th to 25th in maths and from 11th to 26th in science. Other comparisons tell us the same. The trends in international mathematics and science study found that from 2011 to 2023, England’s rankings were all maintained or improved to become among the best in the western world. Meanwhile, what happened in Scotland and Wales? We do not know, because they withdrew from the test after bad results in 2007. Yet despite all that evidence, the Bill in front of us today takes us backwards. Never mind the things we did—the Government are undoing the best things that the last Labour Government did. As educators have pointed out, it is totally unclear what problem Ministers think they are trying to fix, but it is clear that it will cause problems, because it takes away academy freedoms and starts rolling back the academy programme. One important freedom that the Bill takes away is the freedom to pay more on top of the national salary scale to retain more good teachers. The biggest school trust in the country, United Learning, uses those freedoms to pay 5.6% above the figures set out in the Government’s national terms. The leader of that trust, the former DFE official Sir Jon Coles, has warned that what the Government are planning will be damaging and will make it harder to retain good teachers. Schools employing at least 20,000 teachers will be hit by the end of this freedom. Even the Government have sort of recognised the problem, saying: “We recognise the good practice that academy trusts have developed over the years, but good practice shouldn’t be limited by administrative structures.” This is bizarre. If it is good practice, why are the Government not extending those freedoms to all schools, rather than taking them away from academies? The DFE is trying to say that their new law will not affect teachers’ pay. Why then are the Government passing it? What is the point of it? If it is so good, why have they told Schools Week that it will not apply to senior staff? Ministers are compounding the problem by taking away freedoms over QTS. About 13,600 teachers do not have QTS at the moment, and a lot of those who enter state education without QTS—about 600 a year—go on to get it. However, the fact that teachers can join state schools without having it up front reduces the barriers to entry and makes it easier to recruit to state schools. The Treasury estimates that this policy will cost schools up to £127 million for the existing stock of teachers and £43 million for the flow of new teachers each year, but there will be no compensation for this cost. The bill also ends academies’ freedom to vary from the national curriculum. This freedom promotes genuine diversity in our schools; not all children learn in the same way, and parents can currently choose what is right for their child. It also protects educators from endless meddling by well-meaning politicians and interest groups. In Scotland, the imposition of the ironically named but disastrous “Curriculum for Excellence” has been one of the main reasons why Scotland’s schools have plummeted down the international league tables. Many schools will now have to spend a lot of time churning through Labour’s brand-new curriculum to work out whether they comply. It is another move away from a culture of teacher empowerment and towards a tick-box compliance culture, and a backwards move. What problem are Ministers trying to fix here? They have admitted in a written answer that they do not even know how many schools will be affected by this policy. It is bizarre. They are leaping without even bothering to look. As well as cutting back all those other freedoms, the Bill also gives the Secretary of State a terrifying, sweeping new power to boss academies about on any subject of her choosing where she thinks a school is behaving unreasonably. As well as taking away school freedoms and leaving us with academies in name only, the Bill also hacks back the academies programme; in doing so, it hacks back accountability, which has always been the flipside of school freedoms. In 1997, one of Labour’s first moves was to publish a list of failing schools and start intervening in them. After trying other things, it became apparent that the best way to intervene was to make the schools academies and put them under new management. This Bill, of course, abolishes the academy order, under which failing local authority schools are turned into academies. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), in her superb speech, gave a great explanation of why abandoning this central Blair-era reform is such a mistake. Of course, the very best way to turn around a struggling school is to make it part of a strong trust. However, the Government have abolished the academy grant and the trust capacity grant that support this process. They hope instead that a bit of advice from some DFE officials will do the trick of turning around failing schools—but that centralist approach has been tried, and it failed. The Bill takes us back to local authorities setting up new schools, which, at best, sets up a messy situation. However, I am particularly nervous about it in the context of the other measures in the Bill, which reverse the reforms of the late 1980s. Those reforms, for the first time, enabled the best schools to grow, unshackling them from local authorities, and ushered in the era of parental choice, which is itself a powerful motor for school improvement. Clause 50 gives a local authority the ability to object if good schools want to grow, or even if the academy is proposing to keep its published admission number the same. In the context of falling pupil numbers, it will be tempting for local authorities to prop up unpopular schools—particularly local authority-run ones—by sharing out the pupils from more successful schools. Rather than the normal split between a regulator and a provider, local authorities will be both. Politicians in some local authorities have never liked school freedom, and it will be very tempting for them to push down numbers in academies to protect the schools they run. Earlier, we heard the former Labour leader, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), welcoming the Bill for exactly that reason—the same reasons he welcomes it are the reasons parents are right to fear it. The Bill is a massive step backwards. There are huge, real issues that need tackling in schools, but the Bill does not help with them and, in lots of cases, hinders them. Our reasoned amendment today makes this clear.