Neil O'Brien MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 19 Dec 2024 · Hospice Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Over 7,000 charities and voluntary groups have written an open letter to the Chancellor warning that the national insurance increase will cost them £1.4 billion and have a devastating impact. At this time of the year, ahead of Christmas, many charities, including hospices, are trying to raise funds. I know that the Chancellor did not go into politics to be the Grinch who stole Christmas for charities, so will the Minister please look at this again, and exempt charities and voluntary groups, including hospices, from this cruel tax increase, which is sucking up good will and donations and really hurting valuable charities?

• 18 Dec 2024 · Creative Arts Education · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 18 Dec 2024 · Creative Arts Education · Hansard source

  More

  With respect, I am all ears, and it will be for the Government to say where they will find the time for those things. In principle, I have no objection, but I do not believe that the hon. Lady thinks that there is an unlimited amount of time in the school day, or that our teachers can all do endlessly more work. Of course that is not the case—no one believes that; there are choices here. If I can return to the spirit of good will and Christmas, I want to commend something good that the Government have published: the evidence pack published alongside the curriculum and assessment review. It is a good piece of work that brings some nuance to the debate that is not always there. It shows that, although the numbers doing GCSE are somewhat down for some art subjects, the numbers doing other types of qualifications are going up at the same time. A lot of the bigger changes are nothing to do with art subjects whatsoever. We see less time spent on ICT in schools and more time spent on English, maths and science. I commend to hon. Members that very good piece of work by the Government; I strongly endorse the nuance that it brings. We all want to see more of these wonderful things happening in our schools, but I also beg that everyone is honest about the trade-offs involved.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Creative Arts Education · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this debate, which, as well as being hugely informative and important, has been a pleasure to listen to. It has given us the exciting prospect of the Liberal Democrat drama club, which—given the exciting predilection of their leader, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), for doing his own stunts—holds all kinds of potential. The idea of a flautist-off between the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Stroud (Dr Opher) is another exciting prospect. We have heard thoughtful and important speeches from the hon. Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for East Thanet (Ms Billington), for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), and for Strangford. It has been an interesting debate. This will be the last education debate of 2024—barring any surprises from the Minister tomorrow—so I want to thank all the hard-working teachers for their efforts over the year. When I meet teachers, as I have been over the last couple of days, I often find that they are quite tired at this time of year. For primary school teachers, the creative activity around the nativity is the thing that finally finishes them off and leaves them ready for Christmas. I end the year in the spirit of good will, and particularly thank our hard-working teachers. In order to facilitate an answer that the Minister may wish to get from her officials, I will start by asking about a very specific thing: the music and dance scheme. On 21 November, the Secretary of State wrote to the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), to say that the Government were going to extend transitional support for that scheme: “From 1 January 2025, for families with relevant income below £45,000, my Department will ensure their total fee contributions will remain unchanged for the rest of the academic year.” In a sense, that is a pause or a stay of execution. When will the Minister make a decision on the future of that really good arts scheme, so that there can be certainty beyond the end of the academic year? Will she continue to hold down fees for those who benefit from it for the next year? Will she also commit to maintain a related project, the Choir Schools’ Association scholarship scheme? I enter those specific things into the debate at this point so that the Minister has a chance to respond. Let me now turn to the wider debate. We have talked about some of the things the last Government did, such as music hubs, which I think are widely welcomed, but—without wishing to move away from the spirit of good will and Christmas towards being the dog in the manger—of course the issue is always time. Our hard-working teachers are already working flat out. In theory and principle, I love the idea advanced by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench that it should not be an either/or, but unfortunately there are only a certain number of hours in the school day. Now, if the Minister gets a wonderfully huge sum of money from the Treasury and manages to expand the school day so that we can do all those additional things, that is wonderful—I will be the first to welcome that—but our teachers and schools face some inescapable trade-offs. As the Minister will know by now, every week there are on average four calls from different groups for something new to be put on to the national curriculum or to get more time in our schools, but they cannot all have more time. My only caveat to what Members have said today is the idea that there are creative and non-creative subjects. Some spoke about STEAM, which is a better concept, because the sciences and all those other things are creative subjects too. After a fall from 83% to 70% of pupils getting double or triple science between 2006 and 2011, it is a good thing that those subjects have rebounded to 98%. We have to be honest about what the trade-offs are. If we want to do more of one thing, we have to be clear and honest with people about what we are going to do less of—unless there is some sudden money gusher.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Prison Capacity Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Since this Government introduced their early release policy, we have seen criminals who should be in jail out on the streets enjoying themselves with champagne, with one even thanking the Prime Minister personally. Instead of letting those dangerous people out of jail, it would be much better to sort out the remand backlog and the increase of 7,000 in the number of prison places taken up by people on remand. Instead, the Government are capping the number of sitting days. The Minister says that the number of sitting days is adequate. At what point will the number of prisoners in our jails waiting on remand be returned to the pre-pandemic level? What is the date by which that will be achieved?

• 12 Dec 2024 · Qualifications Reform Review · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. For many years, people have worried about the huge number of different qualifications in further education. For many years, people have wanted us to be more like Germany and called for new, higher-quality, higher-funded, simpler qualifications. T-levels, introduced under the previous Government, are an attempt to do exactly that, with a higher unit of funding and much more work experience. Finally, we have a clear, prestigious qualification mirroring A-levels on the academic side. As the Minister will know from talking to Lord Sainsbury, part of the vision was to use T-levels to simplify the landscape, which everyone agrees is too complex. I think the sector will heave a sigh of relief that today’s announcement is finally out—we were getting to the point where literally any decision would have been better than continued indecision—but it leaves some huge unanswered questions. The Minister says that things will be clear up until 2027. In other words, we will be back here again in two years. We had a pause and a review. We will now have a longer pause and another review. At some point, the Government will have to decide. The sector wants certainty, but we know from the statement that it will not get that yet. The Government must spell out some kind of vision for how they plan to simplify the landscape of qualifications, which for my whole lifetime everyone has agreed is far too complicated and fragmented. The Minister said in her statement that the qualifications landscape is too confusing, even as she announced that the Government have decided to keep more qualifications, particularly overlapping qualifications. I do not want to be too mean to her—these issues are not easy. In Government, we had the Wolf review. More recently, we removed a further 5,500 qualifications that had sustained low take-up, but what is this Government’s vision to simplify the landscape? Never mind the detail, what is the rough vision, and when will they set it out? If it is not T-levels and what the previous Government were planning to do, what is it? There is also a lot more work to be done to improve T-levels. As the Minister said, the Government will allow part of the work experience to be delivered working from home, but we need much more than that. What is the plan to reduce drop-out rates, and make T-levels more appealing and easier to deliver? One of the great things about T-levels is the need to produce so much work experience—about 50% more than previous qualifications. That makes them much harder to deliver. What are the Government doing to help colleges to deliver them? On a point of process, the Government—extraordinarily, I thought—refused to publish the terms of reference for the review that has just concluded, even in response to freedom of information requests from FE Week . Will the Minister agree to publish the terms of reference now that the review has concluded? There is no reason for them not to be in the public domain. No qualification structure will work unless the review gets the funding landscape for technical education right, so will the Minister set out the funding implications of her announcement? The Government promised that they would protect public services from the national insurance increase, but first universities and, this week, nurseries and early years providers have discovered that that was a false promise. The university fee increase has been entirely eaten up by the increase in national insurance. Now, early years providers say that the failure to compensate them for the national insurance increase is “catastrophic” and will mean that “countless nurseries, pre-schools and childminders will be left with no option but to raise costs, reduce places or simply close their doors completely.” So far, the Government have refused to come clean about the cost to the further education sector of the national insurance increase—a piece of information that this House deserves to know. The Government have it, but they will not release it. When staff in non-academised colleges complain about their different treatment on pay compared with academised colleges, the Government say that there will be £300 million for post-16 education, but they will not say how much of that will be eaten up by the increase in national insurance. I hope that today the Minister will finally give this House the information that it deserves to know. The Government have the information, and this House and people in the sector deserve to know it. It is early days, but what we are looking at is ongoing uncertainty over these qualifications, no clear vision to bring about the simplification that the Government say they want, and no proper plan yet to support T-level students and providers. The House is not allowed to see the terms of reference of the review that has just concluded, or know how much the national insurance increase will cost the sector. For students and teachers alike, we have to do better than this.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Building Homes · Hansard source

  More

  Labour’s new housing target for Harborough is a 40% increase, and the target for Oadby and Wigston has doubled. Yet we can see that the overcrowding problem is worse in urban areas, and the gap between population growth and housing growth is worse in those areas, too. We can see the environmental arguments, too. However, the Minister has announced today that the new target for London is about 11% lower than the old one. In the original round of numbers, Nottingham was down 21%, Birmingham and Leicester were down 31%, and Coventry was down 50%. Can he tell me what the numbers are now for those midlands cities? Are they all still going down, even as the targets for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston are going up?

• 12 Dec 2024 · Building Homes · Hansard source

  More

  What about the cities?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Primary School Breakfast Clubs: Impact · Hansard source

  More

  Because of the increase in national insurance, the Early Years Alliance is warning of a 20% increase in fees for early years parents, which affects nurseries and things like paid-for breakfast clubs. It says that the Budget will be a “recipe for total disaster”, with up to four in 10 early years providers closing unless drastic action is taken. As a first step towards averting that disaster, will the Secretary of State now agree to publish the Department’s estimate of how much the national insurance increase will cost early years providers? If she will not publish it, why not? Does the House not deserve to have this information?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Skills Training · Hansard source

  More

  Before the election, Labour promised to let businesses spend 50% of their apprenticeship levy money on non-apprenticeships, but now Ministers say the commitment is under review. Ministers are taking away the flexibility of businesses to spend their own money on level 7 apprenticeships—a big change to the principles of the levy. Will the Secretary of State confirm when the review of her own policy will conclude, and will she rule out doing to level 6 apprenticeships what she is doing to level 7 apprenticeships?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Sixth-form Education: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Staff in non-academised sixth-form colleges are not being offered the same pay increase as staff in academised colleges. It is understood that a sum of money is available for post-16 education, but colleges have been left completely unclear about whether that sum will be enough to offset the national insurance increase or whether they will find, as universities have, that it is entirely eaten up by that increase. Will the Minister agree to publish the cost of the national insurance increase to sixth-form colleges, and if she will not publish it, why on earth not?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Higher Education: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Higher Education: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way. The hon. Lady mentioned that she thought it was good that the Government are increasing fees to allow more resources for universities. Will she confirm that she shares my understanding that overall resources are going down in real terms because of the national insurance increase?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Higher Education: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  Sorry. I misunderstood the hon. Lady; I thought she was pressing the Minister to reverse that decision and allow more overseas dependants as a way of encouraging overseas students to prop up higher education. I totally misunderstood—I thought she was pressing for something that she clearly was not. I will conclude, because I am over time. I hope the Minister will answer some of those questions. I actually sympathise with her: there is a difficult challenge here and it is a knotty policy question. I will be behind her when she makes sensible decisions, and I wish her all the best in her endeavours to tackle some of those problems, not just for our universities, but for our young people.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Higher Education: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  I just wanted to rephrase my question. Do this Government think it is okay not to answer basic questions about how much the national insurance increase is costing education providers—be they nurseries, schools or universities? Can the Minister confirm that she will answer those questions?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Higher Education: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is complaining about the lack of resources in real terms for universities. Can she confirm that because of the national insurance increase resources in real terms are going to go down, wiping out the impact of the tuition fee increase, with the price of everything going up?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Higher Education: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and to have listened to some excellent speeches this afternoon from the hon. Members for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) and for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). I took different things from all of them. I am going to concentrate on the teaching side of universities. However, I will note at the start that the previous Government put a huge amount more money into research, growing Government spending on it from £9.8 billion in 2011 to £16.1 billion, and increasing research and development as a share of the economy. I was part of that, and I am proud of what we did on that front. Turning to the teaching side, which is perhaps the most topical part of this discussion, it is absolutely the case that a number of institutions—of course, I will not be naming them today—are financially stressed and thinking hard about their future and how they operate. I know people working in some of those institutions, and it is not easy, but I want to take a step back and examine the context before we talk about those pressures. Working together with the Liberal Democrats, we brought in fees that did not necessarily work out politically for the Liberal Democrats at the time. However, it is good that we once again find ourselves in agreement that it is not sensible to simply increase fees without reform. As has been noted, the financial benefit to universities of the fee increase is wiped out by the increase in the national insurance contribution. One broken promise not to increase taxes is paying for another broken promise not to increase fees—it is a real connoisseur’s policy decision. In real terms, universities are left with less as a result. The pressures alluded to by the hon. Members for Erewash and for Luton South and South Bedfordshire are now made worse by the Government’s decisions. The successes of the system, which we should note, are that it has hugely increased participation rates, causing participation in England to grow dramatically faster than in the devolved authorities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In particular, it has dramatically increased the participation of the poorest people in our society. We can measure that in three different ways. We can look at free school meals: the proportion of those on FSM going to university has doubled, while the proportion of non-FSM kids going to university has gone up by about a third. We can look at the participation of local areas metric, which is the sector’s own measure of localities from which not many people go to university. We can see that, in both absolute and relative terms, the disadvantage gap has shrunk. We can also use, as Universities Wales does, the index of multiple deprivation. Looking at the bottom fifth of the index—the fifth-poorest areas in each of the nations—we can see that although Labour-run Wales and England had similar numbers of people going to university back in 2006, at about 13% or 14%, the participation of poorer students has grown much more rapidly in England; it is up to 33%, compared with just 20% in Wales. That is because we made some difficult decisions, from which there have been benefits. Much of the growth of higher education is a good thing. My generation was the first in my family to go to university. It was wonderful; it was a great experience, and it is generally a very good experience for most people who go. Universities are a wonderful thing because of not just the research and wonderful teaching that goes on in them, but the wider benefits to the community and the impact on their local society. I remember going to the University of Huddersfield as a teenager; if somebody looked nonchalant and like a student, they could just wander in and read all these wonderful books. That is just one of benefits they bring to lots of our country. However, not all is perfect in the garden, because a university education is not cheap. We have put in a lot of resources, and while the decision to hold down the resources in recent years in order to hold down the costs for students has reduced the funding per student in real terms, it is still above the level it was at when I went to university; it is still higher in real terms than it was in 1997. But university really is not cheap for the students. The Government have just raised tuition fees to £9,535 a year. A maintenance loan for people who are not at home is £10,227, or £13,348 for those in London. After a typical three-year degree, a student is paying back £59,000, or £68,000 in London. That is a lot of money. The Government have already increased fees once in this Parliament. Having promised to reduce the cost for graduates, they increased fees instead. There must be a decent chance that fees will continue to go up from now on—unless the Minister wants to contradict me on that. Yet, over the last decade, we have worried a lot about the financial plight of younger people. Ever since David Willetts’s amazing book “The Pinch”, we have been thinking about how we can make it easier for younger people to get on in life. Having these huge amounts to repay—and, in some cases, rather high marginal rates—makes it much more difficult for them. We can see that, as has been alluded to, the point at which somebody starts repaying their loan to make the system financially sustainable for taxpayers has reduced over time. In 2005, a person had to be earning about 30% more than someone working full time on the minimum wage to start repaying. As of next April, a person can earn 2% less than someone working full time on the minimum wage and still be repaying. This has become more like a graduate tax. It is not quite like a tax—people do not repay it if they are not earning—but it is high. If somebody is a postgraduate on top of that, or has a couple of kids and ends up being hit by the high-income child benefit charge, they face extraordinary marginal rates, even on middling incomes. In the £50,000 to £60,000 range, if a person has one postgraduate loan or two kids, they can end up paying a 70% marginal tax rate as a young person. That is insane. The Government have made the decision not to reform the high-income child benefit charge, so the problem will go on and get worse. All of that context is by way of saying that, yes, there are pressures in higher education, but there are also pressures on young people; it is not easy. So before we increase charges further, increase tuition fees even more and tip in more money, we absolutely must think about reforms. Advocates of higher education, including me, say, “Look, there is a lot of higher education that is brilliant for people’s earnings and a good economic investment.” However, we know, because of the decision taken by the last Government to create the longitudinal educational outcomes database, that not everybody benefits from going into higher education, at least not economically. The seminal report on this issue by the Institute for Fiscal Studies stated that “seen over the whole lifetime, we estimate that total returns”— combining the perspective of both the taxpayer and the student— “will be negative for around 30% of both men and women.” For about 30% of people, at least in economic terms, this is not working out. Now, economics is not the only thing in life, and it will always be worth us funding some things simply for their own sake—if they are beautiful and good and we think they are nice—but let us not forget that a lot of things that are economically beneficial are also beautiful, true, interesting and worthy in their own right. For example, it is cool to know that the word “Lent” comes from the Old English word for “lengthen”, because plants grow in the spring, which is when Lent is. That is the origin of the word, and it is cool to know things like that. It is also cool to know how to build an ion drive, how monoclonal antibodies work or innumerable other things in the hard sciences and other subjects as well. We will always want to spend on some things that are just worth it in their own right, but the question is how much. If we are spending £20 billion a year on student loans, and let us say, hypothetically, that the IFS is about right, and that about 30% of that is not worth it, that is £6 billion. That is about 10 times what we spend on the Arts Council. How much do we want to spend on higher education that is not economically beneficial? Should thinking about some of those courses not be the first port of call before just increasing taxes on young people? We could potentially do things to reform the system, as the last Government were starting to do, which would be of benefit to both the young person and the wider economy. We are not doing a young person a favour if we put them on, for example, some creative arts course and say, “This will be great for you. You are going to be the next Jony Ive. You are going to design the next iPad. You are going to have great outcomes. This degree is going to take you where you want to go”, when that is not true. Some people have fantastically low earnings. They feel like they have been lied to; they feel like they have been mis-sold something. Thankfully, that is not the median experience of students, but it is the experience of quite a lot of students. We have to worry about that. I am totally sympathetic to those who say, “Let’s find more resources for the best of HE,” but we also need to have the conversation about HE that is of lower economic value—if I can call it that—before we just start increasing taxes even further on young people who are so hard pressed already. There are many questions about how exactly we would do that, and lots of technicalities, but in principle that should be our first port of call. Finding those resources would either let us do more in high-value higher education or let us help the perpetual Cinderella sector that is further education, or we could take the burden off of young people a bit more. It is not for me in this debate to set out our entire vision of how we would reform HE, so I have a couple of questions for the Minister. In particular, I want to encourage her to talk about a decision taken this week by the Office for Students to stop accrediting new institutions. That has numerous consequences that are bad. First, it is a block to brilliant new entrants such as the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering in Hereford, Dyson and other places that have come in and been brilliant additions to the higher education sector. It also potentially locks very large numbers of young people out of student support. What estimate has the Minister made of the number of young people who will now not be able to access student support as a result of that decision by the OfS this week? Secondly, how long will this “pause” go on for? I saw Ministers defending this decision, and it was initially presented as a pause. I hope it is not a permanent end to any new entrants coming into the sector. Will the Minister tell us a little about when she plans to end this pause? We have been playing a game of cat and mouse across Parliament about the national insurance increase. Bizarrely, one Department—Defence—has answered the question of how much the national insurance increase will cost it. Defence can answer it, but seemingly no other Department can. The questions I asked the Department for Education a month ago about how much this is costing schools, universities and so on have somehow not been answered. The same is true across about 50 domains in Government. We cannot have a meaningful Parliament and we cannot have meaningful discussions in this building if the Government are not prepared to answer basic questions about the consequences of their own policies. The Government want to say, “We are giving you this wonderful increase in spending” in whatever field it might—maybe it is childcare or schools or something outside education—but that actually turns out not to be true. The university sector has worked that out for itself. We know exactly how much the Government are putting in, because of the fees increase, and we can see that that seeming gift is completely wiped out by the national insurance increase. The Government are giving with one hand and taking away with the other. In other sectors, they are just refusing to answer the question. That is really poor. When the Minister stands up today, can she promise me that she will finally answer the question I asked a month ago, not just for higher education, but for childcare and schools, and tell us the most basic information that taxpayers and voters deserve to know? How much is the national insurance increase going to cost our public services? Why do the Government think they cannot answer this question? It is genuinely disgraceful. I have every sympathy with those who are under financial pressure in higher education institutions. In some cases there has been misadventure, where people have taken out ridiculous loans that are now rolling over, or they have become very exposed to one type of overseas student. I was intrigued to hear the contributions from the hon. Members for Erewash and for Luton South and South Bedfordshire, encouraging the Government to allow more students’ dependants as a way of selling higher education. I remember a speech in this House—I think it was yesterday—where one hon. Member stood up and condemned the open borders experiment of the last Government. I thought, “This is a wonderful, road-to-Damascus moment from the Labour party. They finally agree with people like me and do not want to endlessly increase immigration in an attempt to prop up high education.”

• 2 Dec 2024 · Children and Bereavement · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I too thank Mark and Winston’s Wish for their work with bereaved children and all the practical help they provide. I also thank John Adams, who is trying to make something good come out of something absolutely terrible. I am grateful to everyone who signed the petitions that brought about this important and sobering debate. When we think about these issues, we naturally think about people we know who are either going through or have been through terrible bereavements. I have a family friend with two boys the same age as my children; they are dealing with the loss of a wife and mother, and they all deserve a medal just for getting through the day. We also think about the ways that people overcome the adversity of these situations. I have a friend who life was shaped by losing his father at a young age, but he has made his life more extraordinary; he has become a wonderful, very strong person as a result of that early terrible experience. Hon. Members shared similar examples. The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) was incredibly open and told a compelling story about her experiences. She has been there; she is trying to take those terrible experiences and make something good out of them. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) has had an extraordinary life in many ways and is an incredible person; he too has taken a hard thing and made something good of it. I pay tribute to all other Members who have taken part in this important debate. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) did a brilliant job of setting out the situation. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) made some compelling points, particularly about the joining up of data, and the hon. Members for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) made really important speeches. To give a bit of a sense of hope, I want to mention some of the changes that have happened in recent years. The 2017 Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health set in train the provision of more support in schools. That included the offer to every state school in England of a grant for a senior mental health lead to start the process of improving mental health support in our schools. That was then built on in more recent years by the rolling out of mental health support teams in schools and colleges in England, helping more young people access that incredibly important support. When we left office we had got to about 400 mental health support teams in schools and colleges across England. I know the current Government will want to continue to roll out that support more widely. I remember from my time as a Health Minister the way we were changing the treatment of mental health—first the commitment to give it parity of esteem with physical health and the mental health service standards, and then a 50% increase in the amount of money that we spent on it between 2018 and now. I do not take away from the fact that the demand is ever growing—there is still unmet need out there—but one of the important things that comes from this debate, of course, is that the resource is of no use unless we can connect it to the young people in need. The hon. Member for Walthamstow gave powerful examples of children who have literally seen their parents murdered. It seems the most obvious thing in the world that support would swing into action at that point, but it does not because we do not have that joined-up approach to data. That was something that the last Government was working on from 2016. There were ongoing efforts to try to build a unique child identifier. I know that the current Government—this is not something we have any ideological disagreement about—want to finish that work and give us a joined-up approach. Through the private Member’s Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West, we have the opportunity. The Department has the exciting opportunity of primary legislation, if it is needed, to make things happen. We can start to bring together the things that it seems so obvious should happen. We can bring together the knowledge that is dispersed through different bits of the public sector in our schools, our coroners and so on into a proper structured approach to help young people going through a hellish situation. I pay tribute to the people who signed the petition to make this debate happen and to all the people, some of whom are here today, who have worked on this for many years to provide transformative help and who have excellent ideas, which I know the Government will want to take up. We will support them and the Government in doing that.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Holidays in School Term Time · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I declare an interest: as a parent of two primary school children, I am acutely aware of the cost of doing anything fun with small children. Like other Members who have spoken, I wince when I look at the cost of going on holiday anywhere and see that it is radically cheaper just a few weeks before the school holidays, so I completely understand the motivation behind this petition and why so many people have signed it. I echo what the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) said about the importance of those memories. I will have the memories of being on the north coast of Scotland this summer with my small children forever. I will come to what we can do to make it easier for parents, but I will first touch on the very good speeches and interventions from the hon. Members for Lichfield, for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). I agree that we have a major school attendance issue, so we need to address the petition in that context. People often think, “Well, if we’re out a bit, it’s not so bad. Being absent a lot is a problem, but is being absent a bit really a problem?” The statistical truth is that it is a big problem, unfortunately. If there is a 10% decrease in pupils’ attendance at school, the number who get a GCSE grade 5 or above in English and maths halves: 55% of those in the 0% to 5% range of absence get grade 5 or above, but only 22% in the 10% to 15% range do so. What seems like not a huge decrease in attendance has a huge impact. As Members who are former teachers expressed well, those pupils lose the thread, start to fall behind and find it difficult to follow the sequence of what others have already learned, so the problems compound. That is why it is a problem for them not to be in school when they need to be. When the Conservatives were in office, we took steps to address this major challenge, which has become particularly acute since the pandemic. Schools have always had a duty to keep a register of children not in school, but we worked with local authorities to make it more accurate and we committed to making it statutory. In January, we committed to double the number of attendance hubs to support about 1 million extra children with attendance. We did things at different levels. We invested £15 million in one-to-one monitoring for 10,000 children with particularly severe attendance issues. For a wider group of pupils with quite serious attendance problems, we put an extra £200 million into the Supporting Families programme—an early intervention programme—taking the spending to £700 million a year. As the issue overlaps to some extent with special educational needs, we increased spending on the high-needs block by 70%—£4 billion extra a year. People may say, “It’s not enough because the need is ever expanding,” and I completely understand that. We need to do more, but it is worth noting that that money has gone in. We also need to tackle the root causes of the growth of demand. I am sure the Government agree with that and want to do more about it. We were making progress on the attendance challenge. In school year 2022-23, we had 440,000 fewer persistently absent pupils than the year before, but there was still a long way to go because the patterns of attendance had not got back to pre-pandemic levels. In truth, even before the pandemic, although the proportion of pupils with good attendance was about 70% in primary school, in secondary school it dipped down in years 9 and 10 to just above 60%, and the problem was radically compounded after the pandemic. There are a lot of different bits to this—people working from home with their kids there, or taking days here and there; people having the challenge of wanting to go on holiday; and much more serious social problems, with children who are routinely and significantly not in school a lot of the time—but we cannot lose sight of, and would do a disservice to parents if we did not share with them, the evidence that what might seem like small amounts of non-attendance have pretty bad effects on pupils’ attendance. I am absolutely not saying, however, that nothing can be done; Members have alluded to some of the ideas. The hon. Member for Lichfield did a good job of talking to all the different people who care about the issue. He mentioned the Parentkind idea about when the school terms are, and I have some experience of that in Leicestershire: we are out of step with everybody—for historical reasons to do with how the factories used to shut in Nottingham, Derby and Leicester, we finish our school year a week earlier than everyone else and go back a week earlier than everyone else. The last Government looked at whether, as Members have suggested, we could do more to stagger school holidays around the country. Obviously, Scotland often has different holidays, but the challenge—I have direct experience of this—is where we have a border. There was a brief moment when schools in the city of Leicester and Leicestershire had their holidays at different times, which was a massive pain for parents, because of course if they had one kid in school, but one needed looking after at home, they could not go on holiday. I think there is potential in staggering holidays, and I understand why local authorities might want to explore that to give parents the benefits of finding cheaper holidays, but I would add that caution is needed. If we create borders with parents’ kids on either side of them, we can create problems for the parents, rather than making any of the problems better. I am entirely sympathetic: the Government could do a huge array of things to make it easier to go on holiday, such as improve the cost of living for parents, and think about the taxes on holidays and on flying in this country. I am supportive of schools, and of course they have to be compassionate and sensible, in particular about bereavement as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole pointed out, as well as using their discretion. My own schools on the edge of Leicester do a good job of using their discretion to be sensible about the fact that they are often juggling the festivals of at least four different major world religions at the same time, which is not easy. We also have to be careful and honest with parents about the risks of deciding not to attend school and to miss a couple of weeks, which might not seem like a lot, but which we and the educators in the Chamber know can have a particularly bad effect on kids’ education. We must balance our desire to make things cheaper for parents with our desire for children to get a good education. We must continue the work—which I am sure the Government will do—of ensuring that we get school absence under control, because it is such an important driver of overall achievement.

• 21 Nov 2024 · Midland Main Line Electrification · Hansard source

  More

  It is marvellous that we now have the electric lines energised up through Market Harborough to Wigston, and we are looking forward to our electric trains arriving next year. Even better, we have Spion Kop bridge staying open. Will the Rail Minister meet me to ensure that we avoid any risk that future electrification works lead to a further withdrawal of late and early services to Market Harborough? The last train back from London is already far too early, so we need to avoid the works having any further damaging impact.

• 21 Nov 2024 · Midland Main Line Electrification · Hansard source

  More

  3. What recent estimate she has made of when electrification of the midland main line will be complete.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Apprenticeships and T-Levels · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister talked about introducing flexibility where appropriate—it sounded like perhaps only in some sectors. Is it still the intention for all employers to be able to use 50% of their apprenticeship levy for things that are not apprenticeships?