Neil O'Brien MP: speeches 2025

476 published records · newest first.

Speeches

16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source
More
I should declare an interest as I am named in the witness statements. As someone sanctioned by China, I was shocked to learn that the Prime Minister knew that this case was about to collapse several days beforehand, but chose to do nothing. We now know that the CPS was not far short of what it needed. The Director of Public Prosecutions told MPs yesterday that it was something like 5% short. However, we do not know exactly what the CPS was asking for—what that 5% was. We do not know why the Government would not go that bit further when they were asked to. That is what we need hear from the Minister today: why did the Government not give the CPS what it was asking for? Nobody is disputing that there is plenty of evidence. The witness statements are shocking. They tell us that China is conducting “large scale espionage operations”. Cash is said to have told Berry in a message, “you’re in spy territory now”. Yesterday, Government sources briefed The Guardian that the “civil service decided” that decisions “should be done independently of ministers”. No, no, no, Mr Speaker. The civil service does not get to decide anything; Ministers decide. The Prime Minister was not some helpless captive, unable to make sure that the CPS had what it needed. He knew, and he decided not to help. Why? Let us come back to the evidence that was provided. The Prime Minister said yesterday that he was utterly constrained by the position of the previous Government, and every expert had already contradicted the PM on this. However, we can now see that the two witness statements from this year did state the position of the current Labour Government—a direct contradiction of what the Prime Minister said yesterday. The evidence includes lines from Labour’s manifesto, and they weaken the case. They make it less clear that China is a threat to our national security. That is one of the things that changed. The Sunday Times reported on a meeting convened by Jonathan Powell with the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office to discuss this case. Until yesterday, the Government said that that was just made up. Now they admit that it happened, but they still will not come clean about what happened in that meeting, or any other meeting. In conclusion, this House needs to know what was asked for by the CPS and why it was refused, and we must see all the correspondence and the minutes. If the Government will not publish the China files, people will ask: what have this Government got to hide?
16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source
More
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the three witness statements in relation to the alleged breach of the Official Secrets Act on behalf of China.
13 Oct 2025 · Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case · Hansard source
More
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like you, I am one of the parliamentarians sanctioned by China. Like many Members of this House, I am left wondering whether it was not just our offices that were spied on, but our families, our homes and our children, and in the absence of a trial, I have no way of finding out what happened. The Minister has been asked multiple times whether he will publish the minutes of the meetings in which this case was discussed. We know from the DPP that, over months and months, the CPS asked again and again for evidence that was not forthcoming. However, without the minutes of those meetings, we are not able to find out what was asked for, why it was refused or who made that decision. What means are available to this House to get hold of the minutes of those meetings, which the Government do not want to publish? What parliamentary means do we have to get hold of the minutes of meetings in which this issue was discussed and these decisions were made, so that we can find out the truth?
13 Oct 2025 · Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case · Hansard source
More
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
15 Sept 2025 · Official Secrets Act · Hansard source
More
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I am one of the MPs who is currently sanctioned by China, and as one of the founders of the China Research Group I am one of the MPs who was spied upon here. I find it astonishing not just that this case, which was a slam dunk last year, has now been dropped, but that we are not even being told why it has been dropped. The one bright spot in this whole process has been your leadership on the issue, Mr Speaker, and in particular your decision to ban the Chinese ambassador from this building for as long as Members of this House are sanctioned. I worry that certain people will now come to you with honeyed words. How can I put on the record our thanks to you for your leadership, and also our hope that you will continue to stand strong on behalf of Members of this House?
11 Sept 2025 · UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process · Hansard source
More
Mr Speaker, I thank you for granting this urgent question, and I agree with the words of the Minister about 11 September and Charlie Kirk. This is yet another extraordinary error of judgment by this weak Prime Minister. I pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition for yesterday securing justice for the victims of Epstein. This raises massive questions. It is not just that Peter Mandelson was Epstein’s “best pal” and said that he loved him, or that he brokered a deal for him while he was Business Secretary, but that, as we now know, he was working for Epstein’s early release after Epstein was convicted. The simple question is this: is the Minister now saying that the Prime Minister did not know about any of that at the point when Lord Mandelson was appointed? The Minister should not say that the boxes were ticked and the process followed—what did the Prime Minister know at the point of Lord Mandelson’s appointment? The Minister said this morning that his understanding was that all the information was present—is that correct? Did the Prime Minister know? Will the Government now publish all the documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s vetting? If the Minister says that the Prime Minister did not know at the time, when did he become aware of the revelations? Peter Mandelson quietly stayed at Epstein’s house while Epstein was in prison. Mandelson now says that he was wrong to think that Epstein was innocent. That is his defence—but Epstein had pleaded guilty. There are huge questions here. Did the US State Department give any warnings to our Government ahead of this appointment? Did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Sue Gray, give any warning? Have any employees of Global Counsel visited our Washington embassy since Peter Mandelson’s appointment? Next week will be the state visit. This is huge turmoil ahead of that, and I cannot believe that the Government have put our monarch in this terrible position. I am glad that Peter Mandelson has now gone. The Foreign Secretary has said that protecting women, girls and victims is her priority; how on earth does that square with the behaviour of the Government over recent days, squirming and twisting to try to protect Peter Mandelson, rather than the victims? To be clear, this is a Government in which we had a corruption Minister having to resign over links to corruption; a former police officer having to resign over having not been clear with the police; a housing Minister having to resign over not paying tax on a house; and now we have our ambassador to Washington in the middle of the biggest scandal in Washington. This is a weak Prime Minister, with error after error of judgment.
11 Sept 2025 · UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process · Hansard source
More
(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if she will make a statement on the process for the appointment of the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States.
11 Sept 2025 · UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process · Hansard source
More
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister says that the only reason why Peter Mandelson had to resign was the additional information that he had campaigned for the early release of Epstein. The Government are not saying exactly what they did or did not know at the point of appointment. The only way for this House to know exactly what they knew is for the Government to publish the documents relating to his vetting. If the Government will not publish those documents, as the Minister says they will not, would it be possible for this House to attain those documents using the Humble Address mechanism?
21 Jul 2025 · Teacher Recruitment · Hansard source
More
The Secretary of State just said that the Government were turning around declines in teacher numbers. Under the last Government the number of teachers went up by 27,000; under this Government it is down by 400. That is the opposite of the truth. One thing that drives people out of teaching is poor discipline, yet the Government have abolished behaviour hubs, despite the evidence that they were working. The Government said they would put in place new behaviour ambassadors, who were supposed to be in place on 4 July, but the contract has now lapsed and the position is vacant. Why the delay on this vital issue?
21 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: Funding · Hansard source
More
Parents are getting in touch with MPs across the country to ask whether existing special needs support will continue under the planned reforms. The Minister for School Standards has said that the Government will not remove “effective support”, but what does that word “effective” mean? Who will judge what is effective, and on what basis? Why will the Government not just guarantee that all children will keep the support that they currently have?
21 Jul 2025 · Post-16 Education: Skills · Hansard source
More
Yes or no?
21 Jul 2025 · Post-16 Education: Skills · Hansard source
More
Before the election, Labour said that it would allow employers to take 50% of their apprenticeship levy money and spend it on other things, but since the a while election, different Ministers have said different things about whether that is still happening. The Skills Minister said it would all depend on the spending review, but of course, the spending review was back. Will businesses be able to take out 50% as Labour promised or not?
16 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source
More
I do not think that is true. Looking at the evidence pack produced by the Government’s curriculum review, it is clear that some of the arguments are overstated. It is true that we reversed the decline in the number of young people taking double and triple science; that had been falling for years, and it went back up again because there was more focus on science. It is true that there are a limited number of hours in the school day, but I do not accept that we had some sort of Gradgrindian educational agenda. There continues to be a broad and balanced agenda. If Labour Members want to say that much more time should be spent on a particular subject, they should at least be clear about where it will come from. Children in England were ranked the best in maths in the whole western world in the 2023 trends in international mathematics and science study, and they moved into the top five in the global rankings for science. What happened in Wales and Scotland? We do not know, as their Administrations removed themselves from those competitions because they do not like accountability. It is the same at all levels. Whereas we favoured parental choice and autonomy for schools, balanced by strong accountability, the current Government take a very different approach. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is currently in the Lords, dilutes parental choice, and it gives local politicians more control over pupil numbers for the first time since 1988. The greater autonomy for schools that we brought in has been replaced by a tide of micromanagement of curriculum and staff, and the absurd situation where if someone wants to put up a bicycle shed they have to apply to the Secretary of State. On the other hand, the ultimate form of accountability—placing schools under new management via academy orders—is being slowed down and stopped, which has been criticised even by Labour MPs such as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). The Labour party’s attempts to mess around with Ofsted to please the trade unions have watered down accountability for parents and made things more complicated, but they have not made anybody happy; nobody is happy with what has been proposed in the end. The Government have axed all the forms of support that we were making available to schools for subjects from advanced physics to maths, Latin and advanced computing—they think they are elitist. They have also axed the behaviour hubs, even though there is clear evidence that they were working and schools that went through them were twice as likely to be good or outstanding afterwards. The reform agenda is just not there. At one point, the Government’s big answer was that they were going to employ 6,500 more teachers: they were going to increase VAT and employ all these extra teachers. The Chancellor said at the end of last year that every single penny of that VAT increase would go to education, but then, confusingly, the Prime Minister said that the money had been spent on social housing instead. It has been a long time since I studied formal logic, but we cannot spend every single penny on education and also spend that money on housing; we cannot spend it on two things. As it happens, we now know that actually there are not those extra teachers; there are 400 fewer teachers. We added 27,000 teachers under the last Government and under Labour there are 400 fewer teachers. At the point when the numbers came out showing that there were fewer teachers, the Government suddenly declared that primary school teachers do not count—that the fall of 2,900 in primary school teacher numbers did not count. Ministers implied that that had always been their intention—they said, “How dare you say that wasn’t our intention?”—but they announced this policy in a primary school, and they said they would hit their targets for early years through an increase in primary. Now they say, “Oh, numbers are falling in primary,” but numbers are falling by a lot less than when they made the pledge in the updated forecast. If we apply the same logic, half of secondary schools have falling numbers, so perhaps that will be the next way they try to monkey around with the numbers to pretend that the opposite is happening. I would not mind so much if we did not get these chirpy press releases from the Department saying, “We’re doing so well; we’ve got all these extra teachers.” There are fewer teachers—that is the bottom line in what has happened here.
16 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source
More
Everybody wants to give children the best start in life. That is why we increased spending per pupil in schools by 11% in real terms in the last Parliament, and why we doubled real-terms spending on the free entitlement for the early years. More importantly, it is why we pushed through difficult reforms to schools, which were often opposed by the Labour party. It is why we brought in the knowledge-rich curriculum, why we brought in stronger accountability, and why we pushed through the academies revolution and more parental choice. The Minister said that our record speaks for itself, and it does. Labour’s record speaks for itself as well. Between 2009 and 2022, England went from 21st to seventh in the programme for international student assessment league table for maths, while Wales—spending the same amount as before—went from 29th to 27th. [ Interruption. ] Labour MPs clearly do not like hearing this, but I am afraid I am going to carry on. In science, England went from 11th to ninth, while Wales—with same amount of money as before but run by Labour, with no reforms—slumped from 21st to 29th.
16 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source
More
There are several things to say about that. The first is that the overall number went up: the hon. Gentleman said that some were leaving, but the overall number went up by 27,000. He makes a good point about early career teachers and that is why we put in the early career framework, which I do think is a big improvement. It is not that there is nothing in what the hon. Gentleman said, but I do think it is funny for him to stand up and talk about gaslighting when the Government are pumping out glossy propaganda saying that there are more teachers, even though their own Department for Education website says that there are 400 fewer teachers. So do tell me all about gaslighting. My broader worry about the Government’s approach to giving every child the best start in life is that it misses the wood for the trees. Ministers like to talk about some of the small interventions they are making, such as the £33 million they are spending on breakfast clubs and the “best start in life” centres and the increases in spending there. But on the other side of the ledger, how is this being paid for? It is being paid for with a £25 billion increase in national insurance, and, unbelievably for a notionally social democratic Government, that national insurance increase is brutally targeted on the lowest income workers. It is incredible.
16 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source
More
I am very grateful to be put right back in my box by Madam Deputy Speaker, and rightly so. I would not fund that by increasing taxes on low income workers by £25 billion. That means that someone who is earning £13,000 a year loses £500. It means someone earning £9,000 a year is losing 5% of their income. Ministers like to talk about the distributional impact of things like breakfast clubs and so on—they say 100,000 kids will be lifted out of poverty by something they are doing—but they will not produce any poverty analysis or any distributional analysis of the £25 billion. They are happy to talk endlessly about the distributional impacts of tiny measures, but not the £25 billion takeaway from low income working people in this country. I think it is astonishing—and I think a lot of Labour MPs will regret it later—that this is the way they have chosen to raise all this money. Let me ask a few specific questions while we are here. The Department for Education has confirmed to the specialist media that it does not hold any information on the number of children who will lose entitlement to free school meals as a result of the end of the universal credit transitional protection, yet it claims to be confident that it knows that the changes it is making will reduce child poverty by 100,000. How can the Department not know how many kids are going to be on free school meals yet be confident that it will have a positive effect? I ask the Minister to answer the question very simply: what proportion of pupils will be eligible for free school meals this year and in all future years across the forecast? How much will we be spending in real terms in each of those years? I like lots of things about the “best start in life” programme—it is a continuation of our family hubs programme—and I wonder whether the Minister could set out exactly how much will be spent on that programme in the ’26-27, ’27-28 and ’28-29 financial years. It is not a bad programme at all and we do not dislike it at all; the only thing that is not right is to pretend it is a completely new thing, when in fact it is a continuity of something that already existed. Something that is new that Ministers promised was two weeks of work experience for every child at secondary school. Can the Minister tell me how that pledge is going? It was made by the Prime Minister and was the big highlight of his ’21 conference speech. How many schools currently offer two weeks of work experience each year? Finally, I have a question of principle really. The Minister quite rightly talked about SEND, and we had an important report from the Education Policy Institute this morning about the overlap between SEND and school achievement, and the Government have said two things. We heard from a Health Minister that the Government want to see a smaller proportion of children in special schools, and we have heard from the Minister’s adviser on SEND that she thinks that they are having a conversation at the moment about not having education, health and care plans for children outside special schools, which covers about 300,000 children at the moment—60% of all children with an EHCP. Those are huge changes, but is it not the case that those two policy reforms are potentially in tension? If we tell people that they cannot get an EHCP outside a special school, more parents will want to go to the special school. Ministers have talked about there always being some kind of legal right to support for special needs, but what does that mean: if the support is not being delivered by an EHCP, how will it be delivered? I ask these questions because a lot of special needs parents are worried about that; they are concerned about what the Government are planning. Maybe they are wrong and maybe the Government have a brilliant plan on all this, and we are not against reform, but at the moment, there are big questions about the ideas that are now sloshing around in the public domain, worrying people. I encourage Ministers to move quickly to certainty on these questions so that people’s minds could be put at ease. To conclude, we are all in favour of giving each child the best start in life. We have a proud record, we made great progress, and we wish all the Government all the best, but we worry that they are too often missing the wood for the trees.
16 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source
More
The hon. Gentleman is completely right, and it is not the first time—it is generally the case that no one from Reform is present. On this issue, I am afraid that Reform MPs are chronically absent, as we say in education. I will continue with my theme. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that the huge difference in performance, and the divergence in performance, between England and Wales cannot be explained by poverty rates or ethnicity. It is to do with the reforms that were not undertaken because of trade union pressure in Wales.
16 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source
More
I am happy to take an intervention.
15 Jul 2025 · Afghanistan · Hansard source
More
As well as risking lives, this extraordinary error has cost taxpayers huge sums. The Secretary of State says that it will now cost £1.2 billion less, but what will be the total cost of all these schemes after that? First, given the extraordinary lack of transparency that this Parliament has been subjected to—and voters too—will the Secretary of State agree to publish the legal advice that led to the expansion of the ARR and other schemes so that we can properly discuss it? Secondly, the Secretary of State did not mention any official resigning or being sacked over this extraordinary episode. I think my constituents will find that quite surprising. Will he name the number of people who have resigned or been sacked over this extraordinary error, and if nobody has been, does he agree that that is wrong?
10 Jul 2025 · Educational Attainment of Boys · Hansard source
More
In Leicestershire, where I am from, it is the last week of term, so as we come to the end of the school year—my children’s primary school has only just broken up— I want to thank all the teachers and other staff in our schools who have worked so hard this year, for both our boys and our girls. We as MPs go in and teach for an hour or something like that and realise how hard it is, so we pay tribute to all of them. I also want to say thank you to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who led us off with an absolutely brilliant speech—it really was a genuinely brilliant speech. I saw my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is no longer in his place, go across the Chamber to congratulate him, so I am sure the Whips will have him on defection watch now. Indeed, everyone has given brilliant speeches, despite the three-minute time limit. When the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) said that he would give us his entire second PhD in two minutes and 15 seconds, I was a bit nervous for him, but he made a good fist of it, so well done everybody. This is a very timely debate. People have already talked about the recent reports from the Centre for Social Justice, and there has also been some great work by the Higher Education Policy Institute. It is also a very important debate, and one in which we must not be insular. There is a global trend; in fact, the OECD says that 56% of university entrants across the entire developed world are now women, which is a huge change right across the industrialised economies. In fact, women are the majority of entrants to university in every single OECD country now, which would have been mind-blowing in the 1970s. Those trends can be seen here in England and Scotland, and across the entire UK. A few Members have talked about the intersections of gender, ethnicity, class, income, and so on and so forth. Those intersections are interesting, and they show us powerfully how important culture is. For example, among white boys who were not on free school meals, 38% went to university. Among Indian girls who were on free school meals, 68% went. That is totally against the trend of income, and it shows the power of culture. We can see the big differences between girls and boys at every level of the income distribution. The culture for boys when it comes to education, particularly working-class boys, is pretty disastrous. I remember exactly what it was like—I was in it at school—and it has many origins, including perhaps the toxic Victorian cult of effortless brilliance. Some people, such as Mike Emmerich in Manchester, blame it on our early industrialisation, and there is still a lingering bad idea that a man’s job has to involve physical effort but not using the brain. It is deeply embedded in our culture. Indeed, I sometimes think we need to bribe J. K. Rowling to rewrite “Harry Potter” with Ron as the diligent swot and Hermione as the loyal pal. Of course, it is not J. K. Rowling’s fault—she is a great hero. That unhelpful framing of boys as undiligent goofballs is in a billion aspects of our culture, from ads to films to books, and it is not at all helpful. There are two things Members have often said in these debates over the eight years I have been here. The willingness to engage in this debate has massively increased over that time. Some people say that the performance of boys in the education system is pretty inseparable from the performance of the system as a whole given that they make up half of all people. That is broadly right, and a rising tide lifts all boats. On the other hand, there are good cases for doing things specifically to try and improve the attainment of boys in education—both those things are simultaneously true. First, we can see the difference that structural reforms make if we compare different bits of the UK. I will not relitigate old arguments, but for lots of different reasons, the Labour Government in Wales decided not to do the structural reforms that happened in England over the Blair period and our period in government. They did not do academies, accountability measures or the knowledge-intensive curriculum. The results were startling. A report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies called, “Major challenges for education in Wales” points out that—amazingly—disadvantaged children in England are now doing better on PISA than average children in Wales. There is a huge gap. From 2009 to 2022, England went from 21st to seventh in the PISA league table on maths, while Wales went from 29th to 27th. On science, England went from 11th to ninth, while Wales went down from 21st to 29th. There is a big looming gap between England and Wales. What does that mean for girls and boys? On PISA, for both England and Wales, we see that boys do better than girls on maths and science, but boys do worse than girls on reading. That gap between England and Wales is now so big that on reading, boys in England do better than girls in Wales, and on maths and science, girls in England do better than boys in Wales, so the absolute level matters. We must remember that while we have talked a lot in the debate about relativities, ultimately, it is the absolute performance that we really care about. We want to raise both levels, particularly given that we are in a global economy. Secondly, I turn to what we will do specifically to try to improve the performance of boys, and I will give a few relevant examples. It has already been mentioned that reading for pleasure is down most sharply among boys. That is one reason why we will continue to press for action not just to get phones out of our schools, but more widely, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) said, to tackle the public health and educational problems being caused by the wider shift to a smartphone-based childhood, including on issues such as the age of consent for social media. I encourage Ministers to fight the good fight on all that stuff. We know that boys are much more likely to end up in trouble or in fights at school. I remember that was the worst single aspect of when I was at secondary school. A few Members have mentioned exclusions. I am always a bit wary of that—that is the symptom rather than the cause. Getting behaviour and discipline right is crucial for boys, who are often the victims of violence and fights. I will not relitigate all this stuff, but we had a schools Bill that did not have anything to say on discipline. The Government rejected our amendments to add provisions on behaviour. They have abolished the behaviour hubs, which were working. It went from one third of the schools that went through the hubs being rated good or outstanding to two thirds of those schools, yet the hubs have been axed. On forthcoming policy, as the hon. Member welcomed, boys have 71% of all EHCPs. We know the Government have said they are looking at ending EHCPs outside of special schools—that is, about 60% of EHCPs or over 300,000 children. We are not at all against reform of special needs provision. The Health Minister has said that the Government want to see a smaller proportion of pupils in special schools, too. Given these issues are now being debated in the public domain, as Ministers think about reform, they will need to move fast—as I am sure they will want to—to answer the big questions about the ideas they have put out that in some cases are causing parents worry. For example, how will the parents of these boys—and they are mainly boys—know that their child will get what they need if they do not have an EHCP? Is there not a tension between wanting fewer pupils in special schools and ending EHCPs outside them? What did the Minister mean when she said that effective support will not be removed? What does “effective” mean? These are all questions that I am sure the Minister is thinking about. They are crucial for boys; they are crucial for everyone, to be honest. I totally understand why Ministers are looking at this. According to the IFS, we increased funding by nearly 60%, or £4 billion in real terms, between 2015-16 and 2024-25—that is a fast rate of increase. But of course, it is vital that we get the right answers and certainty for parents as soon as possible. I will end with a couple of questions to the Minister. In opposition, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to improve employability—we have talked about young men who are NEETS—and said, “We will reinstate two weeks of compulsory work experience”. How many schools are delivering that now? What is the Government’s target to be delivered and by when? When will schools be seeing the £85 million that was promised in the Labour manifesto to fund that? Likewise, in opposition last year, the Government announced plans to help schools develop young male mentors and to teach pupils how to question the material they see on social media, particularly from people such as Andrew Tate. This is a rare example of total agreement between both sides of the House. We completely agree that we need to push back against terrible role models for boys —they are total, total, total losers teaching boys totally terrible ideas. We hope there will be an opportunity to prosecute some of those people, too. What has happened to the pledge to get mentors in place? Let me pick up on something that the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), said in her excellent speech. She talked about the gender pay gap. I think this is interesting and it needs careful analysis. For 18 to 29-year-olds, the gender pay gap now does not exist. It is actually negative for the youngest of that group and it appears to get bigger with age, but it is actually not a gender pay gap per se—it is a motherhood pay gap. I commend the work of Ruxandra Teslo. I am sure the Chair of the Select Committee is very familiar with it. She shows that the later women delay having children, the higher their income and, unfortunately, the fewer children they get to have. I think I am in agreement with Department for Education Ministers in thinking that that is unacceptable and must be changed. On that rare note of terrifying consensus, let me draw my remarks to a close by once again congratulating the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, who is quite right to bring this debate to the House. He gave an excellent speech. I am struck by the way the debates on this issue have changed even in the time I have been here. It is more clearly identified as a problem and by synthesising the arguments in such an excellent way today, he has helped to propel the argument forward.
8 Jul 2025 · Generative Artificial Intelligence: Schools · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I knew as soon as my brilliant and learned right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) secured this debate that it would be well worth attending and very interesting, and it has proved to be exactly that. It builds on important work that has already been done by POST and Ofsted, as well as by the DFE officials who wrote the recent guidance, and it further increases the level of public debate and improves our knowledge. I would echo a lot of what other Members have said about the pros and cons, the opportunities and threats, because there is a delicate balance between those things. We heard really good speeches from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Swindon North (Will Stone), as well as a brilliant intervention from the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm). There was a particularly good and thoughtful speech from the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), with which I agreed 100%, as indeed there was from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin). Of course we want students to learn about AI and how to use it effectively. It is a very effective research tool in the right hands. On the other hand, we want them to understand that it is not always right, despite its godlike quality and the incredible smoothness with which it lies. We must also teach them to understand that it is not a substitute for original thinking. They must have the ability to do their own research. We must avoid having cardboard cut-out students who regurgitate a particular way of framing issues. We heard from the hon. Member for Guildford about the MIT study that used brain measurement experiments to show a decline in critical thinking. Of course, this debate is nested in a wider debate about the use of screens and technology by our students and educators, and that study reminds me of a similar one, which discovered that a student’s simply having a smartphone on them reduced their retention of information from an educational video. The effect of these things can be quite subtle. It was not being on the phone, but just having it on them that reduced their attention. The wider rewiring of childhood and of the student experience is operating on several levels, of which AI is just one. According to a study by the Higher Education Policy Institute, more than half of HE students now use AI to help write essays—I suspect that figure is rather higher by now. One vice-chancellor I spoke to said that he thought we would end up going back to more handwriting in exams to avoid cheating, which is now incredibly present. I was amused by a social media post the other day that said, “Lots of discussion about how on earth we will spot AI cheating,” with an image of an essay that began with the wonderful words, “I cannot help you to write this assignment. It would be wrong of me to do so.” It had clearly been written by a very honest AI, but it had been handed in by the student none the less. It is perhaps more important than ever that we teach students to understand what is real and not real in the online world. There has recently been discussion about a new band called The Velvet Sundown. Sir Jeremy, I cannot quite place when you came of age—perhaps somewhere between the new romantics and the grunge period. I will not assume where you stand on that spectrum, but this band sounds a bit like a mashed-up version of Creedence Clearwater Revival. It sounds okay—it is not bad—but it is very derivative, and all the pictures of the band look kind of AI-y. However, the band denies it. The interesting thing about the episode is that it is not possible to say definitively whether it is real or not—and there will be many such cases, some of them very important. We see AI-generated images from the middle east; people are told that things have happened when they may not have happened. We see fake bot accounts playing a role in our politics. A surprising number of accounts in the UK suddenly disappeared during the recent Israeli strikes on Iran. What does that tell us about the interference in our democracy empowered by AI? Of course, there are opportunities in students’ use of AI, but there are also risks. There are important benefits from learning to handwrite. A surgeon I spoke to recently talked about his worries about the future, with fewer children learning the fine motor skills that are learned with handwriting. Let me turn to educators’ use of all this. It is very exciting. If someone had asked me 15 years ago about AI in schools, and technology in schools and universities more generally, I would probably have been unabashedly, straightforwardly enthusiastic. The attractions are obvious, whether for the production of lesson plans, the personalisation of learning, the translation of languages, the avoidance of marking and repetitive work or the reduction of workload, which is crucial for teacher retention. It is all very exciting, but of course there are risks, which have been illustrated well in the debate. I am excited by some of the models that bring human judgment together with AI. It is probably slightly invidious to single out a particular group, but No More Marking is an interesting model. It is doing lots of things that bring together teacher judgment and AI tools. It talks about “human in the loop” models, and that is potentially the way that these things will need to move forward. Of course, we have also heard about the difficulties of assessment in the new era. We have talked a bit about the dangers of AI use in exams in which computers are used. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire talked about the quaint language in the legislation, which refers to “word processors”. Perhaps word processors are exactly what we need. For those who really need it, we should dig out some of those things from the ’80s and ’90s that can do nothing other than function as a typewriter. However, it is not just about exams. The interim curriculum and assessment review included a suggestion that we might have more coursework, but while there was always scope for cheating and social biases in coursework, those dangers have increased. I think that Becky Francis, who is running that review, is conscious of the risk. I share my right hon. Friend’s scepticism and concern about the move to an all-online examination system, and the way that would iterate back through our school system. I think that is a very dangerous way to go. The Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, brilliantly explained some of the wider concerns about cognitive and attention damage caused by some of these tools. There is a famous philosophy experiment by John Searle called the Chinese room. He talks about what machines do and do not experience, and what they can and cannot do. In the experiment, Chinese characters are fed into one end of a box, somebody looks them up in a table and feeds Chinese characters out of the other end of the box, and nothing is truly understood inside the box; it is just inputs and outputs. In a sense, we run the risk of putting all our children in the Chinese room, where they are set a task, perhaps even using AI, they go away and use AI to find a plausible answer for their coursework, exam, homework or whatever, and the real cognition—the real learning—does not happen in the middle of that process. We have also talked about some of the other risks, and that brings me to the final thing that I want to talk about: the fact that this debate is nested in a wider set of discussions about screen time, social media and students’ relationship with technology, all of which are magnified by AI. I will not relitigate the discussions we have had with the Government about our case for a complete ban on phones in our schools. I think that the AI dimension makes the argument stronger. AI makes some of the issues about deepfake porn and intimate image abuse even more acute than they already were, but this thing about cognition and AI that we have talked about is also an issue about technology more generally. It is known that people understand better and take in more information from material written on a piece of paper than that on a screen. There are wider issues, to which I have already referred, about what the excessive use of technology does to a person’s ability to take on board information—and, indeed, to present it. Recently, the DFE surveyed last year’s GCSE students and their parents about the things they wanted students to have done more of at school. One of the things at the very top of the list was presenting information, public speaking and marshalling an argument. That is one of the great 21st-century skills—it is what we are all doing now. I pity the wonderful and long-suffering people who write Hansard , because my speech today consists of a series of scrawls and arrows; it looks like a Jeremy Deller painting, and they will never decrypt it. The ability to put together an argument, and not just to use Ctrl+V and Ctrl+C, is one of the critical skills of the 21st century. It is vital that we do not drift into a world in which we do not learn those skills because we outsource our thinking to an outboard motor in the form of AI. I hope I have brought out some of the pros and cons in this important debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said at the very start, this is not an issue on which there is a great degree of partisan conflict. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how we can make the best of these exciting new technologies and avoid some of their downsides.
7 Jul 2025 · Government Performance against Fiscal Rules · Hansard source
More
A £6 billion hole has been opened up because those on the Labour Front Bench cannot get those on the Labour Back Benches to vote for their own policies. As a result, No. 10 is today conspicuously refusing to rule out a wealth tax. If we tell business people and wealth creators that their money will get taxed if they leave it in this country, we drive even more investors away. Is it not the case that even if this measure is not ultimately put in place, over the next couple of months the speculation about a wealth tax itself will drive investment away from this country?
3 Jul 2025 · Children with Allergies: School Safeguarding · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) on securing this important debate, which he opened by telling a frightening story about his own child. I am sorry that he is also suffering in a smaller way this afternoon, but we never would have known; he did a good job of making his case. We also heard good speeches from the hon. Members for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins), for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling), which included stories about their own frightening experiences and fears of social exclusion. As other Members have done, I thank some of the groups that do great work on this subject, including the Benedict Blythe Foundation, the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, Anaphylaxis UK and Allergy UK. When I was the Minister for public health, I met some of the parents and others who had lost loved ones, and those who were working with these campaign groups. I was struck by not only the fear that people experience that something bad or terrible will happen, but that sense of people being excluded or missing out, or feeling that they cannot do things because they are not getting the information or protection they need. That is a hugely important part of the discussion. I will touch on some of the things that the previous Government did, not to say that everything is fixed—of course it is not—but to talk about how we got to this point. One thing that made a big difference was the creation of Natasha’s law in 2019, which requires all prepackaged food products to display all the key 14 allergen ingredients in bold. We started to join up the discussion across Government—something Members have called for this afternoon—with the expert advisory group for allergy. There is potentially scope to go further, and a number of Members have talked about the argument for an allergy tsar. I am sympathetic to the idea of having, in some way, shape or form, better cross-Government join-up of policy; it is a sensible thing that we need. In schools, we introduced a duty on governing boards to make arrangements to support pupils with medical conditions, so that they are all supported to actively play a part in school life. In practical terms, in 2017 we changed the law to enable schools to have their own supply of adrenalin auto-injectors for use. There is scope to go much further, but half of schools have them, up from relatively few before that change in the law. Of course, a conclusion from this debate is that there is lots of scope for pens to be available in more schools, and for us to do more to ensure that they are in date and that everyone knows where they are so they can be used at a useful point. One of the bigger things we did was bring in the statutory school food standards in 2015, which removed things like nuts as an acceptable snack. We got all schools to do a risk assessment of the way they handle these issues. We also updated the allergy advice for schools more broadly to emphasise the importance of awareness-raising about common allergies and to get more staff to recognise symptoms, particularly anaphylaxis. Again, as hon. Members have pointed out, there is scope to go further to improve the training of teachers across the board. One thing that has not been mentioned so far is the ongoing debate about Owen’s law, and the availability of information about ingredients in restaurants and settings where food is not prepackaged. It is a complex debate, but there is clearly scope to do better and to ensure that children and people of all ages feel more included in our society. I wish Ministers well in coming to a landing on some of these questions. Even just the discussion about them and the campaign itself is doing a lot of good to get providers to change their behaviour and to be more inclusive. There has been progress, but, as Members have said, there is a lot more to do in our schools to ensure that children are kept safe and can play a full part in school life and in their broader community, without having to worry or constantly duck out of or be excluded from activities that they want to be part of. This has not been a politically contentious debate. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the next steps.
3 Jul 2025 · Poverty · Hansard source
More
Churches across the country are doing amazing work tackling poverty, but they could be doing more. Many of my constituents will be surprised that the Church Commissioners have already spent £5 million on Project Spire when it is not within their charitable objectives, and that they plan to spend £100 million when the Charity Commission has not signed that off. Why are the Church Commissioners doing something that is not within their charitable objectives?
3 Jul 2025 · Music Education · Hansard source
More
The Minister talks about the next financial year. Can she be clear about which school years are covered? People going into the start of the school year in September 2026 will be covered, but the Government have not made a commitment for those starting in September 2027—I just want to check that that is correct.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →