Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have been led by the evidence on this, which is clear: this measure provides real support to parents at the start of the school day, but also delivers benefits for children’s learning, development, academic outcomes and behaviour. I am delighted that in April we will start rolling out the first pilot across schools, including schools serving children with special educational needs and disabilities, demonstrating the difference that this Labour Government will make to children’s life chances.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am sure that all Members of the House share the right hon. Lady’s objective of ensuring that children get the best education and have the best educational outcomes possible, but why is she dismantling the infrastructure that has delivered improvements? We have specialist schools, schools able to attract the best teachers, and schools able to tailor their curriculum to their pupils. Why does she want to dismantle that, if she wants to improve educational standards?

[Bridget Phillipson]

That is just not the case. I invite him to read the Bill, and I will come on to further measures that we are proposing.

If we believe that every child deserves the best, that every classroom deserves a top teacher, and that every state school must be a great school, we cannot have excellence for some children and “just fine” or “okay” for the rest. We need all schools, working together, to deliver a national, high-quality core offer for all children, and to have the flexibility to innovate beyond that, so that parents know that wherever they live and whatever their local school, this Government are their child’s greatest champion. The best schools and trusts do incredible work, day in, day out, and I pay tribute to them. They are engines of innovation and civic leaders, and collaboration and improvement are central to their success. They prove that excellence already exists in the system, and it is time to spread it to all schools.

That does not mean no competition. Competition can be healthy and a spur to excellence, but competition that encourages schools to hoard best practice or to export problems to others must be replaced by collaboration, and by schools working together to solve problems and put children first. I do not just mean collaboration within trusts. True collaboration also looks outward, so that there are schools driven by a shared purpose embedded in communities. Our vision twins that deep collaboration with healthy competition, so that every child in every school can benefit from best practice.

The Bill brings reform. It demands high and rising standards across the board. We will restore the principle established by the noble Lord Baker, which is that every child will benefit from the same core national curriculum, following the curriculum and assessment review. The national curriculum was a Conservative achievement—I benefited from it—and this Labour Government will bring that legacy back for every child, giving every parent the confidence in standards that they deserve. Every child will be taught by an excellent, qualified teacher who has undertaken statutory induction. That will be supported by giving every school the flexibility to create attractive pay and condition offers to recruit and retain excellent teachers, and by backing those schools already doing that to keep it going.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Very little of the Bill applies to Northern Ireland other than clause 56, so perhaps when she sums up the debate, the Minister will explain what legislation will be subject to regulation in this House if she so decides. Having said that, I wish to comment on the Bill because, having the privilege of representing a part of the United Kingdom that consistently registers high educational standards, I want the same for the rest of the country to which I belong. I understand, of course, that there will always be people who fall through the bars and do not do as well in the education system, but it is important that a structure is in place that ensures the best for everyone.

One concern about the Bill is that a structure that has been in place for two decades, and used under successive Governments of different hues, will now be dismantled because of some ideological reasons that the Government have. I imagine I will not have time in this short speech to go into those issues, but I hope that they will be teased out and properly considered during scrutiny of the Bill.

Secondly, there has been limited consultation on home schooling, and there are real fears from people who educate their children at home about the impact the Bill might have. Much has been made of the fact that, if the Bill does not pass, children will not be safeguarded, but the fact of the matter is that there has always been legislation to safeguard children. As the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) pointed out, even with legislation in place there were still failures by the police, local authorities, social services and local councils to carry out the safeguarding that was available to them in law.

My final point is that we cannot have a Bill on children’s wellbeing, and at the same time ignore the controversy out there among the public as a result of our renewed exposure to the terrible events where Pakistani rape gangs have tortured, intimidated and abused young girls. Yet we have turned a blind eye to it.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Does the right hon. Member agree that a national inquiry into child sexual exploitation focused on grooming gangs is not only essential for justice for the innocent victims affected but would play a crucial role in societal healing in the UK, and that failing to initiate such an inquiry will leave a stain on the Government, hinder transparency and obstruct the full truth?

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. Of course, we will be, and have been, accused of having our own political agenda, wanting to stir up racism, marching to Musk’s drum and everything else, but the demand at the end of the amendment is one that every decent person should wish to support, because it would restore the trust that people have lost in seeing how this issue has been handled.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I spent seven years managing a team of barristers on a public inquiry, and I have some insight into the benefits and limitations of public inquiries. Does the right hon. Member really think that wrecking the Bill would lead to a single perpetrator being brought to justice or protect a single child from these despicable crimes?

[Sammy Wilson]

First, supporting the amendment does not wreck the Bill. [Interruption.] Secondly, there is a misconception that if we do not support the Bill, no action will be taken. There is plenty of legislation under which to take the action at present; it is simply a case of doing it and giving people the assurance that it is being done. Also, the public inquiry would ensure that those who think they can hide, deny and cover up would finally be exposed, because the House was willing to take them on and expose what has happened. That is why it is so important.

We cannot allow the situation to prevail. We know that this issue is far more widespread than was ever thought. There have been denials. Indeed, I remember the previous Member for Telford raising this issue time and again in the last Parliament and being shouted down. At that stage, although she was providing the evidence—this is what we need to expose—the leader of the Telford council was saying, “There is no need to tell the Home Office and no need for an inquiry.” Now, of course, we know what happened in Telford.

Restoring trust in politicians and the system is what a public inquiry would do. It would not have to lead to no action being taken in the meantime. I listened to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—I have great admiration for her, because she was prepared to stand up even when it meant abuse from some of her own party members—who argued that to have an inquiry would delay justice being done. As I have said, I do not believe that that is the case. An inquiry would not mean that we would stop taking action—of course, we could still take action—but it would lead to the full facts being known, those involved being exposed and action taken against them to ensure that it does not happen again. I tell the House that the longer people think that these things can be covered up and hidden and attention diverted, the less they will be prepared to do the job that they are meant to do, and we will have vulnerable people being exploited continually without the protection that they deserve.