Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lauren Sullivan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. To be clear, the Bill proposes a pay cut for nearly 20,000 teachers in future years, because it imposes national terms and conditions on teachers in academies. I have to ask: what problem are the Government trying to solve? Teachers outside of national pay scales are paid more, not less. What have they got against highly paid teachers? Why on earth are the Government coming here today and telling tens of thousands of teachers that their pay is too high? It is absurd. Levelling down seems to be this Government’s priority. The flexibilities given on terms and conditions allow academies to offer things such as a longer school day. Are the Labour Government proposing to ban that?

The explanatory notes to the Bill set a new standard in double speak when they praise the

“positive innovation and good practice in teachers’ pay and conditions in some academies”

and say that the Government want to

“ensure that local authority-maintained schools also have the opportunity to implement this”.

So what are they doing? Are they giving these same pay flexibilities to local authority schools? They are doing opposite. They are taking pay flexibilities away from academies. Do not try and make any sense of this, because it is impossible. It is entirely contradictory.

The Government are also removing the requirement for failing schools to be taken over by an academy, despite recognising the

“strong track record of multi academy trusts…turning around failing schools”.

What are they replacing it with? They mention

“regional improvement for standards and excellence (‘RISE’) teams”—

officials sitting in the Department for Education—but in another breath they said that those teams will not be involved in failing schools.

The Government have clearly totally failed; they do not understand that the reason that failing schools became academies by default is that it is the most effective intervention. If it is not mandatory, there will be lots of massive rows about what will happen to failing schools, and inevitable delays and legal challenges. What is the upshot? More time with children in failing schools not being dealt with. What is their plan for failing schools? What is their plan to protect those children from falling behind? What is the evidence that this approach is better? Have they trialled it anywhere? Why on earth are they putting this into a Bill without a clear alternative failure regime in place that evidence shows is at least as good?

The Bill is totally unacceptable and misunderstands why the academy order has been so important. I cannot say this strongly enough to the Government Benches: it needs to change.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady concede that the academisation process has meant that the off-rolling that we have seen up and down this country has led to the crisis in SEND? That is the whole point of how the academy system has, apparently, improved standards. It has not—it has decreased inclusion. Will she please show us how the academy system has helped our children who are now stuck at home because they have been off-rolled?

[Laura Trott]

I am glad that the hon. Lady has confirmed that the Labour party is, indeed, anti-academy.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lauren Sullivan]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Neil O’Brien]

I am pressed for time, so I will see if I can get to the hon. Lady at the end.

Our amendment is also the first opportunity that MPs will have during the Bill’s proceedings to vote for a proper national inquiry into the grooming gangs. As the Bill goes through, we will seek to make further amendments to ensure that this much-needed inquiry happens. The current discussion started when Oldham asked for a national inquiry into what happened there. It did so because a local inquiry would not have the powers needed: it cannot summon witnesses, cannot take evidence under oath and cannot requisition evidence. We have already seen the two men who led the Greater Manchester local investigation resign because they were being blocked, yet the Government say no to a national inquiry and say that there should instead be local inquiries. But there have been years over which they should have happened, and they have not happened.

In many cases, the local officials are part of the problem and even part of the cover-up, so they cannot be the people to fix this. [Interruption.] Members are chuntering from a sedentary position, but take, for example, the case of Keighley, where my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has been calling for an inquiry for years. [Interruption.] Last night, while Ministers were here saying that there should be a local inquiry, in Keighley they were blocking a local inquiry—even as they spoke. So that is not the answer.

The Government hide behind the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. It was an important first step, but what it was not and never intended to be was a report on the grooming gangs. It barely touches on them. It looked at half a dozen—just half a dozen—places where grooming gangs have operated, but there were 40 to 50 places where grooming gangs operated ,and the voices of the victims in those places have never been heard. [Interruption.] Having a proper national inquiry does not stop anyone getting on and implementing the recommendations of the Jay report. Indeed, one of the recommendations of the Jay report, recommendation 4, is to increase public awareness. Without a national inquiry, it is clear that we will not get to the bottom of this issue and that the people who looked the other way or covered up will not be held to account. So far, how many people in authority have been brought to justice or held to account? The answer is zero. [Interruption.] Tonight, we have a chance to change that.