Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords]

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I start by paying tribute to the work of Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers in driving up the number of apprenticeships in this House. Not only is that creating brilliant opportunities, but it is setting a brilliant example, so I pay tribute to them for the work they are doing.

We have heard some brilliant speeches today, and not just from right hon. and hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches. We have heard really important questions from the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes); from the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins); and from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis). We also heard a great speech from the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). We do not always agree with the Liberal Democrats about everything, but a strength of the liberal tradition is suspicion of centralisation, which is what is in front of us today.

We have three main concerns about this Bill. First, there were good reasons why standard setting was put at arm’s length and closer to employers. As we have heard from Members across this House and in the Lords, this is centralisation, and alongside the other changes that the Government are making, it will risk directly damaging the status of these qualifications.

Secondly, the Government are doing several things that will make it less likely that businesses will take on apprentices, but rather than fixing those problems, the Government are reorganising. Skills England will be the 13th skills body in 50 years—it is yet more reorganisation, rather than a focus on the real issues, and from the Secretary of State’s comments earlier, it sounded as if there might be a further reorganisation later to boot.

Thirdly, we have real concerns that this reorganisation of the machinery of Government will lead to harmful delays in addressing some of the most important strategic issues that we face. Those concerns are borne out by the Government’s own impact assessment. As with the schools Bill, this Bill is highly centralising and does not address the real issues. There are multiple things in the skills system that we need to address, but I am slightly baffled as to why the Government are starting by creating a new agency within the DFE and abolishing IfATE.

It is worth explaining how we got to IfATE in the first place. For decades, people said that they wanted to make apprenticeships more prestigious, and part of the answer was growing higher apprenticeships. The number of people on higher apprenticeships went up from just over 3,000 in 2010 to over 273,000 last year—a huge increase—and the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) was absolutely right to talk about how good those degree apprenticeships are. They are great routes into good jobs. Indeed, the latest data shows that the median first degree graduate earned £29,900 five years after graduation, whereas a level 4 apprentice earned more—£33,800 on average.

As well as creating and boosting those higher apprenticeships, the other big change was a shift from a frameworks-based approach to a standards-based approach, and those standards meant a shift to a higher quality. They were led by employers, they had a longer duration—at least a year—and they had more off-the-job training and rigorous final assessments. That was much needed. In 2015, an Ofsted report found that even though some apprentices had been on the job for more than a year, they were not even aware that they were on an apprenticeship, such was the problem of quality. Things were being funded that did not ultimately benefit young people, but did allow employers to pay a lower wage, which was obviously concerning.

The apprenticeship levy was designed to give employers much more ownership of the skills system, and making IfATE independent of Government was a big part of that, creating a properly employer-led system. I pay tribute to the work of IfATE—the Secretary of State did not thank it for its work, but I will do so. IfATE has created and maintained around 690 apprenticeships, supporting around 750,000 people on apprenticeships last year. It created 21 T-levels and 174 higher technical qualifications and enabled employer leaders to set a strategic direction for schools in their sector, and its website is an amazing resource.

However, we now see the Government completely reversing the direction of policy. While we lengthened apprenticeships, they have cut the length of an apprenticeship to eight months. While we grew higher apprenticeships, they are abolishing most level 7 apprenticeships, and by abolishing IfATE and bringing it in-house at the DFE, they are eroding independence and employer ownership. Why are the Government suddenly moving in a reverse direction?

[Peter Swallow]

Does the hon. Gentleman not see that the Government are doing so because this is precisely what businesses are calling for?

[Neil O’Brien]

I will come on to what businesses are saying in one second. The Government are doing two things that are going to be very bad for apprenticeship numbers. First, while apprentices are exempt from national insurance, the Budget—particularly its £25 billion increase in national insurance contributions—is cutting hiring and leading to job losses across the board. What employer groups are saying about that is pretty damning; be it the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses or the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, they are warning of serious job losses as a result of the Budget. That tax increase, and the damage it is doing, is focused on exactly the type of jobs that apprentices might traditionally get, so apprenticeships are being hit by the backwash from the Budget.

Secondly, the Government are planning to move funding from apprenticeships to other areas. In opposition, Labour talked about allowing employers to spend 50% of their apprenticeship levy funds on other things. As the election drew nearer, that commitment seemed to be disappearing. On 20 November, the Minister said that the commitment to 15% was “currently being reviewed”, but just weeks later, on 9 December, the Secretary of State said that the Government were still committed to “50% flexibility for employers”. It would be interesting to hear from Ministers whether that 50% still stands now.

Given that the levy funds £2.5 billion of spending, 50% is a lot of money to potentially move out of apprenticeships. We can argue about whether that is desirable, but all things being equal, it will certainly cut funding for apprenticeships. We might also be wary that it will undercut the purposes of the levy and have high dead-weight. In fact, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out:

“In principle, this could help employers to pay for other forms of training that they and their employees would find valuable. But the history of these wider training subsidies, such as the former Train to Gain programme”—

a programme under the last Labour Government—

“suggests that the result is often that much of the spending goes on training that firms would have provided—and paid for—even without the subsidy.”

The apprenticeship levy, whatever its flaws, did at least attempt to address this problem of dead-weight and discouraged freeriding by large firms, so that firms that invested in their workers did not lose out to those that did not. Since the levy was introduced in 2017, real-terms spending on apprenticeships and work-based training has increased in real terms by about a quarter, from £2 billion to £2.5 billion.

In a written answer to me, Ministers have confirmed that the Department has a forecast for the number of apprenticeship starts, but they have also said that they will not publish it. If it was published, it would surely show that removing possibly half of the funding would lead to a substantial drop in the number of apprenticeships. Perhaps that is why we are not allowed to see it. Those same reasons are why the Government are going back to shorter apprenticeships and away from the higher level, reducing quality and cutting length to try to offset the hit to numbers from other Government policies.

There are bits of this agenda where we share the same goals. We all want to see more SMEs offering apprenticeships and more young people getting apprenticeships. Although on average twice as many people started apprenticeships each year under the last Government as under the previous Labour Government, we still wanted that to be much higher. Although we are interested in the same questions, we have quite different ideas for how we address them. Part of the Government’s answer is to abolish the highest level of apprenticeships in order to redistribute the money.

The level 7 apprenticeships that the Government are axing currently account for just 9% of apprenticeship spending, but a lot of good things will potentially be lost by abolishing them. I have been contacted by firms worried about the abolition of the solicitors apprenticeship, which is a great way into the law for people from less privileged backgrounds. One firm worried about that is Bolt Burdon Kemp, which told me:

“This will really impact social mobility into sectors like law, accountancy, and consulting. The traditional route into law is expensive and therefore without the apprenticeship scheme many would not be able to afford to do so. We also believe it will have a wider detrimental impact on the reputation of apprenticeships.”

It has taken such a lot of effort to get that route going, and it would be a huge shame to lose it.

Likewise, level 7 apprenticeships are opening up great jobs and leadership roles in the public sector, too. Some 56,000 people started apprenticeships in the public sector last year. More than half of management apprenticeships at level 7 are in health and education. In fact, they were identified as having a key role in the NHS’s own long-term workforce plan. Public services will lose out, as will ambitious apprentices.

Because level 7 apprenticeships are a small part of funding, I am worried that the Government will now go after level 6 apprenticeships, which is a much bigger share of spending. A lot of employers are worried about that, too. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State sighs as I say that. Presumably when the Minister gets to her feet, she will promise that they will not do to level 6 what they will do to level 7. It sounds like Ministers will be clear when they stand up, will they not, that they definitely will not do that to level 6 apprenticeships.

The last Government moved to make it more attractive for SMEs to take on younger people. From April, 16 to 21-year-olds have had 100% funding, rather than requiring the 5% employer contribution. We need to build on that by cutting bureaucracy and making it easier and more attractive to take on young people. Building on that would be more sensible than reorganisation, centralisation and the defunding of higher apprenticeships. This Bill abolishes IfATE and gives the Secretary of State significant powers as a result, but it says nothing at all about the new body, Skills England, which is intended to be at the centre of the skills landscape under this Government. That has been a pretty unwelcome surprise to some in industry.

In its briefing on the Bill, the Construction Industry Training Board noted that this was

“contrary to the previous characterisation of Skills England that was outlined in the…King’s Speech…and contrary to the vision for Skills England to be an independent body, established in law, with a cross-governmental role”.

The CITB makes an important point. IfATE existed to serve all employers—public and private—and across every Department. In contrast, Skills England will be a part of the DFE. The CEO of Skills England will be a job share between two civil servants who are currently running post-16 skills at the Department. I am told by former Ministers that they are good officials, but this is a recentralisation into the Department—as was pointed out by both the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire.

[Luke Murphy]

May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question that I asked some of his colleagues earlier? In 2011 the last Government set up the Standards and Testing Agency, whose predecessor was a non-departmental public body that became an Executive agency, like IfATE. It sets statutory assessments for school pupils and develops professional skills tests for trainee teachers. The last Government did something very similar to this. Why was it okay then, but is not okay now?

[Neil O’Brien]

That is an important question. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to go into the history of apprenticeship regulation in England, which dates back to 1536. I will not detain the House with all the details, but suffice it to say that that was a move from one arms-length body to another, so it was different from this. None the less, IfATE was better than either of those things, which is why we ended up there.

The very act of a further reorganisation is likely to compound the effects of the Budget and the decision to move apprenticeships money into other projects. Indeed, according to the Government’s own impact assessment, there may be a drop in apprenticeship starts while IfATE’s functions are transferred to the Secretary of State. It says:

“The transfer of function from IfATE to the DfE could potentially cause a temporary slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process resulting from the bill.”

It also says:

“This may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners, who rely more heavily on these pathways for career advancement.”

So there you have it, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government are moving money out of apprenticeships, and the Budget will also hit numbers, but instead of focused action to boost numbers for young people, the Government’s response has been to reduce quality, cut length and axe level 7 apprenticeships to try to prop up overall numbers. Now we have yet another reorganisation —one that takes us away from an independent, employer-led system, and one that will risk, in the Government’s own words, cutting apprenticeship numbers and hitting the most disadvantaged. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Breakfast Clubs: Early Adopters

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. The previous Government substantially expanded access to breakfast clubs in primary and secondary schools, and crated the holiday activities and food programme. The national school breakfast programme has been running since 2018, and 85% of schools now have a breakfast club, with one in eight having a taxpayer-funded breakfast club. In March 2023, the previous Government announced £289 million for the national wraparound childcare funding programme, some of which is being used to fund breakfast clubs. That was part of a much wider expansion of free childcare that saw spending on entitlement to free childcare more than double in real terms between 2010 and 2024.

I was struck by the comments made by Mark Russell from the Children’s Society during the evidence sessions for the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Given the resource constraints, he said taxpayer money should be focused on rolling out free breakfasts to a greater number of deprived secondary schools, rather than providing a universal offer in primary schools. He said:

“I would like to see secondary school children helped, and if the pot is limited, I would probably step back from universality and provide for those most in need.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 55, Q122.]

With that in mind, I want to draw attention to the uncertainty created by the Government’s refusal to commit to funding the existing free breakfast provision in secondary schools beyond next year, and likewise the holiday activities and food programme. A number of charities have called for Ministers to guarantee that funding beyond next year, and I join them in asking the Secretary of State to give that guarantee. Getting rid of the existing free breakfasts would mean a cut in provision for deprived children at secondary schools, so will the Secretary of State guarantee to continue them?

According to a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies last year:

“Based on the experience of the national school breakfast programme, the estimated annual cost today would be around £55 per pupil participating for food-only provision and double that (around £110) for a ‘traditional’ before-school breakfast club. Labour’s manifesto offers £315 million overall in 2028; this could be enough to fund all primary school pupils under a food-only model, or 60% of pupils if the party plumps for a traditional breakfast club with some childcare element.”

Will the Secretary of State respond to that point made by the IFS? Do the Government plan food-only provision? If not, how does she plan to close that funding gap?

Paul Bertram, headteacher at Buxworth primary school in Derbyshire, told Schools Week that he had to pull out of the pilot scheme as it left him with a £9,000 funding shortfall. The charity Magic Breakfast said:

“if it is expected that 100 per cent of people can access a traditional breakfast club setting, with the appropriate staffing, then the Government is many, many millions away from the budget that we would expect that would require.”

Will the Secretary of State say how many schools applied to be part of the pilot, but subsequently pulled out? A number of journalists have asked that question. How many of the schools chosen to take part in the pilot already have a breakfast club, and how many already have a free breakfast club? Looking at the first 100 on the list, 71 have a breakfast club and 13 have a free breakfast club, but what are the numbers overall? If pupils need to have a one-to-one teaching assistant, how will funding for that work?

Ministers say that the policy

“will save parents up to £450 a year”.

The Secretary of State said that again today, but Ministers used to use a figure of £400. To give £450 to all 4.5 million pupils in primary schools would cost over £2 billion a year. In contrast, the pilot will cost £33 million. Labour’s manifesto said the programme will spend £315 million by 2028, which would mean a spend of £70 per primary school child, not £450. Will the Secretary of State explain the discrepancy between the planned spend and the much larger benefits that Ministers are claiming?

Parents on lower wages are bearing the brunt of the £25 billion increase in national insurance; as the Office for Budget Responsibility and the IFS have pointed out, that increase will directly hit wages, which even the Chancellor has now acknowledged. The biggest losers from that tax increase are those earning less than £15,000 a year. People who are among those most affected by the £25 billion tax increase may not feel better off from the £315 million of planned spending, so it is vital that we are clear about what Ministers are really claiming and on what basis.

I mentioned that 85% of schools already have a breakfast club. The new requirement to offer free school breakfasts in all primary schools will interact with that existing provision in different ways. Many school breakfast clubs currently run for an hour on a paid-for basis, and I hope most will continue to provide at least the period they are providing now. However, if the breakfast club is provided for, say, an hour or more, the school will have to charge for the first 30 minutes of that hour, but not for the final 30 minutes, which is likely to give rise to considerable complexity. Will Ministers agree to report on the length of time that clubs are running in these schools, and on any reduction that this change may inadvertently bring about?

Taxpayer-funded breakfasts for those who really need them are helpful, but there are a number of questions about Ministers’ plans and their claims about the scheme, so I look forward to the Secretary of State’s answers.

[Bridget Phillipson]

The shadow Minister asks a number of questions, but at no point did he welcome the massive investment and the benefits that this provision will bring to children across our country, including in his own constituency—not a word of support. I hope when the breakfast club in his constituency opens, he might take time to visit that school and see the massive benefits being delivered to children and families.

Before I respond to the number of detailed questions that the hon. Gentleman asked, I note once again how disappointing it was that the Conservatives voted to block the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Let us remind ourselves what that would have meant. It would have completely stopped the roll-out of free breakfast clubs we are announcing today; they will be rolled out across England subject to the progress of the Bill. It would have stopped us limiting the number of branded uniform items that schools can demand, which again will save families hundreds of pounds at a time when we know that they are under real pressure. Most shamefully of all, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that it would have stopped dead some of the most far-reaching child protection measures in a generation, just so that the Conservatives could grab a cheap headline.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the national school breakfast programme and the investment there. That programme is an online platform from which schools can order food. It covers 75% of food only; it does not cover wider costs, and schools are required to contribute the remaining 25%, so there is a significant difference in what we are setting out. One in seven of the schools in the pilot scheme that we are announcing today have no before-school provision. The rest have a mix of paid-for provision or, in many cases, school breakfast clubs where caps are in place and the numbers are limited. The breakfast clubs we are introducing will be free and available to every child and every parent who seeks to take them up. That is why it is estimated that parents will save £450 a year.

When it comes to evidence of the roll-out, the hon. Gentleman has said on many occasions that he is interested in evidence-based policymaking. The evidence is very clear that the impact is greatest at primary school level, and we would think that he would recognise that.

The purpose behind the early adopters is not simply to demonstrate to parents the difference that a Labour Government are bringing and a real difference to children’s lives; they also allow us to test really effectively what works ahead of a full national roll-out. That is why we want to work with school leaders as part of this programme to ensure that all children are able to benefit from universal free breakfast clubs across our country, including children with SEND.

The Conservatives have no plan for education except preserving the tax breaks for students in private schools, whereas we have a plan to give every child the best start in life. If they are going to spend the next five years defending their record, we will get on and deliver the change that this country voted for. We made a promise to the people of this country, and today we are delivering on the promise we made.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

Over the past 30 years we have had something that is quite unusual in politics: a degree of cross-party consensus about education in England. Schools in England have been improved by the magic formula of freedom plus accountability. It started in the late ’80s, was accelerated after 1997 by Labour and was accelerated further under the Lib Dem-Conservative Government in 2010. And it worked: England improved not just compared with the rest of the world, but compared with Scotland and Wales, where the opposite agenda was followed—academies were banned, league tables were abandoned and a progressive curriculum was installed.

Between 2009 and 2022, England went from 21st to 7th in the PISA league table on maths, while Wales went from 29th to 27th. On science, England went from 11th to 9th, while Wales slumped from 21st to 29th. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out in a searing report titled “Major challenges for education in Wales”, amazingly, disadvantaged children in England are now doing better than the average child in Wales. Earlier, the Secretary of State talked about what the Bill would do for the working class. We have seen what Labour’s agenda has done for the working class in Wales.

It was a similar story in Scotland, which collapsed from 15th to 25th in maths and from 11th to 26th in science. Other comparisons tell us the same. The trends in international mathematics and science study found that from 2011 to 2023, England’s rankings were all maintained or improved to become among the best in the western world. Meanwhile, what happened in Scotland and Wales? We do not know, because they withdrew from the test after bad results in 2007.

Yet despite all that evidence, the Bill in front of us today takes us backwards. Never mind the things we did—the Government are undoing the best things that the last Labour Government did. As educators have pointed out, it is totally unclear what problem Ministers think they are trying to fix, but it is clear that it will cause problems, because it takes away academy freedoms and starts rolling back the academy programme.

One important freedom that the Bill takes away is the freedom to pay more on top of the national salary scale to retain more good teachers. The biggest school trust in the country, United Learning, uses those freedoms to pay 5.6% above the figures set out in the Government’s national terms. The leader of that trust, the former DFE official Sir Jon Coles, has warned that what the Government are planning will be damaging and will make it harder to retain good teachers.

Schools employing at least 20,000 teachers will be hit by the end of this freedom. Even the Government have sort of recognised the problem, saying:

“We recognise the good practice that academy trusts have developed over the years, but good practice shouldn’t be limited by administrative structures.”

This is bizarre. If it is good practice, why are the Government not extending those freedoms to all schools, rather than taking them away from academies? The DFE is trying to say that their new law will not affect teachers’ pay. Why then are the Government passing it? What is the point of it? If it is so good, why have they told Schools Week that it will not apply to senior staff?

Ministers are compounding the problem by taking away freedoms over QTS. About 13,600 teachers do not have QTS at the moment, and a lot of those who enter state education without QTS—about 600 a year—go on to get it. However, the fact that teachers can join state schools without having it up front reduces the barriers to entry and makes it easier to recruit to state schools. The Treasury estimates that this policy will cost schools up to £127 million for the existing stock of teachers and £43 million for the flow of new teachers each year, but there will be no compensation for this cost.

The bill also ends academies’ freedom to vary from the national curriculum. This freedom promotes genuine diversity in our schools; not all children learn in the same way, and parents can currently choose what is right for their child. It also protects educators from endless meddling by well-meaning politicians and interest groups. In Scotland, the imposition of the ironically named but disastrous “Curriculum for Excellence” has been one of the main reasons why Scotland’s schools have plummeted down the international league tables. Many schools will now have to spend a lot of time churning through Labour’s brand-new curriculum to work out whether they comply. It is another move away from a culture of teacher empowerment and towards a tick-box compliance culture, and a backwards move. What problem are Ministers trying to fix here? They have admitted in a written answer that they do not even know how many schools will be affected by this policy. It is bizarre. They are leaping without even bothering to look. As well as cutting back all those other freedoms, the Bill also gives the Secretary of State a terrifying, sweeping new power to boss academies about on any subject of her choosing where she thinks a school is behaving unreasonably.

As well as taking away school freedoms and leaving us with academies in name only, the Bill also hacks back the academies programme; in doing so, it hacks back accountability, which has always been the flipside of school freedoms. In 1997, one of Labour’s first moves was to publish a list of failing schools and start intervening in them. After trying other things, it became apparent that the best way to intervene was to make the schools academies and put them under new management. This Bill, of course, abolishes the academy order, under which failing local authority schools are turned into academies. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), in her superb speech, gave a great explanation of why abandoning this central Blair-era reform is such a mistake. Of course, the very best way to turn around a struggling school is to make it part of a strong trust. However, the Government have abolished the academy grant and the trust capacity grant that support this process. They hope instead that a bit of advice from some DFE officials will do the trick of turning around failing schools—but that centralist approach has been tried, and it failed.

The Bill takes us back to local authorities setting up new schools, which, at best, sets up a messy situation. However, I am particularly nervous about it in the context of the other measures in the Bill, which reverse the reforms of the late 1980s. Those reforms, for the first time, enabled the best schools to grow, unshackling them from local authorities, and ushered in the era of parental choice, which is itself a powerful motor for school improvement. Clause 50 gives a local authority the ability to object if good schools want to grow, or even if the academy is proposing to keep its published admission number the same. In the context of falling pupil numbers, it will be tempting for local authorities to prop up unpopular schools—particularly local authority-run ones—by sharing out the pupils from more successful schools. Rather than the normal split between a regulator and a provider, local authorities will be both. Politicians in some local authorities have never liked school freedom, and it will be very tempting for them to push down numbers in academies to protect the schools they run. Earlier, we heard the former Labour leader, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), welcoming the Bill for exactly that reason—the same reasons he welcomes it are the reasons parents are right to fear it.

The Bill is a massive step backwards. There are huge, real issues that need tackling in schools, but the Bill does not help with them and, in lots of cases, hinders them. Our reasoned amendment today makes this clear.

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I am going to allow the shadow Minister to finish, but I will hear him. He is perfectly within his rights if he chooses not to give way.

[Neil O’Brien]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some people really do not want to hear the voices of the victims. [Interruption.]

Even though no one in authority has been held to account, the Government seem to think that there is nothing further to be learned. I do not think that is right. This afternoon, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said that there should a national inquiry if victims wanted one. Victims are calling for one, so what are we waiting for?

There are real challenges that we should be facing: recruitment, discipline and attendance. Instead, we have a Bill that just takes us backwards. As one of the nation’s leading educators, Sir Daniel Moynihan, said today on “World at One”:

“We are worried in the sector about what the problems are that the changes are designed to fix. We can offer better pay. It’s not clear why constraining that solves a problem. Why academies…should be constrained beats me…We’re hoping that some of this will be amended. It would be a terrible shame if the reforms that Labour introduced over 20 years ago…were watered down.”

Likewise, the Confederation of School Trusts is warning that the loss of academy freedoms proposed in the Bill risk making it

“more difficult for trusts to do the hard work of improving schools in the most challenging circumstances”.

I remember what state schools were like in the ’80s and ’90s. In my school, it was chaotic, with loads of fights, discredited progressive teaching methods, failed kids and good teachers being ground down. [Interruption.] You think it is funny, but the life chances of the kids I was at school with were flushed away by your disastrous ideology. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The shadow Minister will know that I did not flush away any child’s life chances. Perhaps he is bringing his remarks to a conclusion.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am. On a happy note, I also got to see the best of state education. I went to an amazing sixth form that benefited from the freedoms that the Conservative Government gave it. I pay tribute to the inspiring principal of that college, Kevin Conway, who helped so many kids in Huddersfield in his lifetime. I saw what state education could be. I saw the best of it. Freedom works, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would not be here today if it did not.

I am heartbroken by the Bill. It genuinely trashes the cross-party reforms that we have had over 30 years. We can see they have worked, yet we are trashing them. I am begging Ministers—begging them—to change their minds.