Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Neil O'Brien and Amanda Martin

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments.

We have spent a great deal of time in Committee hearing from Opposition Members about autonomy: headteachers’ autonomy, school autonomy, and school leaders knowing exactly what is best for their pupils and communities. Subsection (2)(b) of the new clause states that the policy

“is to be implemented as the relevant school leader considers appropriate”,

but that means that the school leader could choose not to ban mobile phones for anybody in their school; there are exemptions, and they could decide that that is what they need. But that was not what I was going to talk about.

The use of mobile phones in schools should be decided at school level. It should reflect school values, processes and procedures, and not be decided in a directive or legislation from Government. Deciding it at school level would allow for the reasonable use of phones and technology, and it would allow for a balanced approach to technology. It could involve the school community in a discussion about what the phones and technology are being used for—a simple ban would not do that—and could include conversations about digital wellness and promoting healthier relationships, both offline and online, and a healthy approach to using technology at school, in the workplace and in the wider world. If we banned kids from using phones in school, we probably should ban people in their offices and in meetings from using them, because they do not pay attention either. Given how often we look up and see people not even bothering, how on earth can children learn while using mobile phones and technology in a measured and supportive way?

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the Birmingham study from February, which was mentioned previously. It found that banning smartphones in schools did not directly improve student academic performance or mental health. However, that research indicated that excessive phone use correlates with negative outcomes, yet there were no significant differences between the kids who had bans in their school and those who did not. It is about the wider picture, which has been talked about. I also draw the Committee’s attention to a survey conducted in November 2024 of over 1,000 teachers. One in five believed that a school-wide ban would not improve the relationships and attainment levels of children, and 41% agreed that they used smartphones as a teaching tool within their classrooms.

[Neil O’Brien]

The hon. Lady talks about the use of pupils’ own smartphones as a teaching tool in class. Does she have any worries about the equity of that? What happens to the kids who do not have smartphones in those situations?

[Amanda Martin]

That is a good point. Although we have to resource our schools properly to ensure appropriate iPads and computers that can be used, we would not want the situation the hon. Member described to continue either. We must ensure that schools are resourced.

We have talked about disruption in classrooms, and 20% of teachers said that the unauthorised use of mobile phones was one of the main causes. However, chatter and not sitting still accounted for 80% and 75% respectively, and disrespect to other pupils was much higher than the use of mobile phones. When asked whether a whole-school ban would improve learning, 18% felt that it would, but actually 57% felt that a class size reduction would improve behaviour much more. We need to give our schools the autonomy to have that conversation with their communities and to involve their students. We have student councils and we have parent groups, and we must involve them in the conversations on mobile phone use in schools so that we can teach digital wellness now and for the future.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Neil O'Brien and Amanda Martin

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O’Brien]

This is a substantive point. I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; we are doing the proper business of a Committee here. Let us be clear: the whole point of the clause is to address situations, such as those in London, where a local authority has one in eight of its primary school pupils disappearing within four years, and schools closures will be a part of that. The Minister said that this is not new, but it absolutely is. At the moment, a primary school cannot have its PAN challenged by the local authority if it just wants to keep it the same. In the future, under this clause, the local authority can say, “We want to close this school. We are going to challenge your decision to keep your PAN the same. We think you should shut.” Under this clause, the schools adjudicator will have the power to set its PAN to zero.

[Amanda Martin]

Will the hon. Member take an intervention?

[The Chair]

Order. You cannot intervene on an intervention.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Neil O'Brien and Amanda Martin

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O'Brien]

To be clear, it will be illegal to employ them if they do not have QTS. People can turn up, but they cannot be employed. I do not know whether the hon. Lady is deliberately trying to muddy the water, or whether she has just missed the point. I notice that the Minister has not chosen to intervene. To be clear, the clause will stop Sir Martyn and people like him doing exactly what he said he had found it useful to do: employing non-QTS teachers, alongside teachers, to come and give back to their community.

During the course of my remarks, nobody has offered me a single shred of evidence that non-QTS teachers are bad teachers, are somehow a big problem in our schools, or are one of the top problems that we need to address. The clause will make things harder for schools, and it will mean that fewer pupils get a good lesson. Our amendments aim to stop this piece of vandalism, which is something that the unions wanted, that Ministers have given them, and that will be bad for our schools and our children.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston talked about bottom lines and evidence. At the moment, the attainment gap between those who achieve and those who do not is widening across our country. For a number of years, and since the previous Government—the right hon. Member for East Hampshire was in fact—

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

I would like to understand whether the classes that are covered by teaching assistants and cover supervisors are included in the ratio of qualified or unqualified teachers, because things happen on a daily basis in our classrooms, and teachers are not always registered as the registered teacher—they might be covering a class or they might be a teaching assistant who has been asked to step up. I was asked why, and I was not able to answer at the beginning, but the Government still believe that the answer to the “Why?” question is that we need to ensure that all our children are taught by qualified teachers to get the best education. During the early 2010s, the gap across all school stages began to gradually close, but the attainment gap has since widened, with 10 years of progress wiped out—that is from a February 2024 Sutton Trust report.

[Neil O’Brien]

The hon. Lady says that all of our pupils deserve a QTS teacher, so why are the Government exempting those in further education, 14 to 19 and 16 to 19, academies, university technical colleges, studio schools, non-maintained schools and early years settings? If it is so desperately important, why are they exempting the settings that have more non-QTS teachers? The hon. Lady thinks that is a mistake, presumably.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Neil O'Brien and Amanda Martin

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O'Brien]

If we get rid of the PE tops for the older kids, we will end up with branded sportswear stuff. [Interruption.] If Members want to intervene, they can do so.

I watched the kids in a London secondary school arriving for school the other day, and it was really apparent from watching them that the expensive thing for their parents was not the uniform, but the expensive branded coats that they were wearing over them. All the fashion brands were on display. I worry that we are missing the pressure that is put on parents to get this stuff when we take out uniforms. It is ironic that the word used in the legislation is “branded” school uniform, when fashion brands—real brands—will fill the space that Ministers are creating by trying to micromanage schools.

I will talk about sports teams and amendment 91, which I will press to a vote. There is a specific problem here. The explanatory notes to the Bill state that an item of branded uniform will be considered compulsory if a pupil is required to have it

“to participate in any lesson, club, activity or event facilitated by the school during that year. This means that it includes items required for PE and sport. This applies whether the lesson, club, event or activity is compulsory or optional (i.e. even if an activity is optional, if a pupil requires a branded item of uniform to participate”,

it will count towards the cap. It is clear that that means that if there is a sports team and it has a kit, that would count towards one of the three branded items. The explanatory notes make that absolutely clear.

If there is more than one school team, the problem is even worse. If a school had a sports team for athletics, rugby, swimming, football or whatever it might be, pupils would use up the entire limit of items doing that. This is effectively as good as a national ban on having school sports team kits. This is micromanagement gone wrong.

[Amanda Martin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil O'Brien]

I would also welcome an intervention from the Ministers if they want to say why this is wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

Having taught in schools and had schools sports teams, we have kits within the school. When pupils represent their school teams, the kits are washed and given out to the children, because that means that all children get a chance to participate. Schools might not have the same football or rugby team. Those kits belong to the school and are taken in and washed, so it does not stop children of all abilities and backgrounds representing their school.

[Neil O'Brien]

That is another hugely helpful intervention, because it lets me say two things. First, the clause as drafted does not help, because it uses the words “to have”. Unless the Government accept our amendments, the fact that the kits are being given does not make any difference, because the legislation does not say that. Secondly, there is an implicit assumption in the hon. Lady’s intervention that all schools will, from now on, have to pay for all this themselves. It is generous of her to make the huge funding commitment to schools that she has just mentioned, but unfortunately I do not think that the Ministers have come up with the money to do what she says.

We know why there are school sports teams. We do not expect English, Scottish or Welsh football teams to have a single kit. There is a reason why teams have a kit, yet that will effectively be banned by the clause. Amendment 91, which I will press to a vote, would exempt school sports teams. The DFE’s current suggestion on what schools should do in this situation is to give pupils kit, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth North said, but even that would not work under the clause unless the Government accept amendments 29 and 30. We have also tabled the amendments because the Bill as drafted potentially bans schools from asking children to wear “more than three” compulsory branded items even if the school has provided them for free, which is obviously bizarre. That is why our amendment would change “have” to “buy”.

That brings me to amendment 31, which is a practical one to correct what I think is a drafting error. At the moment, if a child grows out of, or loses, or damages a branded item, then parents will not have to replace that item within the academic year because the Bill says that they cannot be asked to “have more than three” items during a school year. If schools are allowed to require three branded items, then they should obviously be allowed to require that those items are replaced otherwise, effectively, uniform policy becomes unenforceable.

Instead of all this backfiring micromanagement, our new clause 25 points toward a different, more effective way to reduce costs for parents. Some 70% of schools already offer second-hand uniforms. Our amendment just aims to get schools doing what many others already are. As the parent of primary school children, I know how much is already passed on from sibling to sibling and from family to family outside school, though that is something that is obviously much less likely to happen with non-uniform items.

Finally, it says in the notes of the Bill that parents can make a complaint to the Department and that

“The department will be able to act when it is found that a school has not complied with the limit”. I feel that Ministers should have better things to do with their time than to try and fail to micromanage schools and determine whether the PE kit at Little Snoddington primary school is compliant. After so many attempts at micromanagement, I just worry that this is going to backfire and the cost in the end to parents is going to be higher.

[Amanda Martin]

While I have the utmost respect for the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, I want to draw his attention to the real world of parents, the cost of uniforms, the impact of negativity on pupils. As a former teacher and a parent of three lads who did not all go to the same school, so could not always have their clothes passed down, I am really pleased to see clause 23. We have heard from the Children’s Commissioner that this is an issue for so many children, through her big ambition conversation on behalf of children. We also see a BBC survey that notes how senior teachers, and I have been one of these, have helped parents buy uniform and have provided school uniform. That is done by so many staff in our schools across the country and it also shows the cost of the hardship that parents and families are under.

The Children’s Society also note in their support that this is “practical and effective”. They do not see it as red tape, as lines being drawn, or as schools being held to account. They actually see it as a real, practical and effective way to help children and to help parents afford uniform. It does not stop schools stipulating a school colour or a standard of uniform, relating to their own uniform policy. It stops uniforms costing the earth. Many parents have emailed me, and one parent said that they stagger the cost of uniform across the year—buying one now and getting another next time, when they get paid. That leaves children—I am guilty of it myself— wearing uniforms that are too big, and that they never grow into. Or worse still, if the uniform is passed down, it might be worn out because siblings have worn it, or a cousin has worn it, or a neighbour has worn it before donating it to the kids. The clause stops children feeling self-conscious and really uncomfortable in school. It gives them a sense of dignity while they are in their school place and—we all know— if they feel pride in who they are and feel confident, it helps with learning and with being able to take part fully in education.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Neil O'Brien and Amanda Martin

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O'Brien]

Q A quick question for Julie. You said it was not clear whether the Bill currently delivers a floor, not a ceiling. Would you welcome it if we all passed an amendment to make that very clear?

Julie McCulloch: Yes.

[Amanda Martin]

Q What is the importance in the Bill of providing a clear legal basis for sharing information with the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children?

Paul Whiteman: We absolutely support that. A statutory duty for schools and educators to be consulted in that respect is necessary, and it will widen the voices within that. After all, it is in schools that children are most present and visible, and teachers and school leaders already play a role in noticing changes and issues.

Julie McCulloch: We feel the same way. I would simply add that it is a growing set of responsibilities on schools—burden is not the right word, because schools absolutely need to do it. We are hearing a lot about the pressures on designated safeguarding leads in schools. While we also welcome schools’ having a statutory role here, we need to recognise that schools will need support and sufficient resources to deliver that.