Neil O'Brien
MP for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of the constituency of Harborough, Oadby & Wigston, Declares that the petitioners oppose any proposal to extend the boundaries of Leicester City Council in a manner that would incorporate the communities of Great Glen, Wistow, Newton Harcourt and Little Stretton into…”
“In the Government’s own consultation about the expansion of Leicester, nine out of 10 people said that they were against it. Now, with millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money wasted so far, Ministers are having to do a complete reworking of this whole chaotic, undemocratic process, amid accusations of gerrymandering.”
“The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt and reconsider any proposals for the expansion of Leicester City Council's boundaries, and to ensure that the views of local residents are fully considered before any changes are implemented, thereby protecting the character, ide…”
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt and reconsider any proposals for the expansion of Leicester City Council's boundaries, and to ensure that the views of local residents are fully considered before any changes are implemented, thereby protecting the character, identity and independence…”
“In the Government’s own consultation on whether to expand Leicester, nine out of 10 people said no. Tens of thousands of people signed petitions against it, yet until Ministers hit this legal snag they tried to press on anyway.”
“Eleven thousand people in Oadby, Wigston and Great Glen recently voted in a referendum against joining the city of Leicester. Ministers know that people do not want this locally, and yet they are forcing it on them anyway.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Neil O'Brien, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 12.
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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).”
“Member for Dulwich and West Norwood), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“I am not saying that all universities are awash with cash, but it is worth saying that up-front real-terms funding per student is still substantially above the level of the pre-fees era, even as student numbers have exploded. There are many wonderful, valuable courses in our universities, which I hope will expand and prosper, but young people in Britain are now facing really large repayments and high marginal rates, which make it difficult to get on in life. We need to do right by our universities, but we also need to do right by our young people. I believe that reforms offer scope to get them a much better deal. We should look first to reforms, rather than simply increasing the burdens on young people. That is why we are sceptical about these regulations.”
“The Minister will have seen the extremely concerning reports in the press, particularly The Manchester Mill , about the attempts to pay huge sums of what is effectively taxpayers’ money to relatives of the university’s managers, and to what appears to be a shell company in Casablanca. Can the Minister assure me that he is investigating those concerning allegations? I am very sympathetic to the plight of staff at universities where the leadership have got them into financial difficulties, be it through taking out ill-judged, expensive loans, overspending on buildings or becoming overdependent on one particular group of overseas students—I am sympathetic to universities and lecturers more generally, as it is a hugely important job.”
“Where we see that only very small fractions of the money loaned out by the taxpayer is paid back, it often means that the courses are not that great for either the taxpayer or the student, who may feel that their degree has cost them a lot without necessarily taking them to where they hoped. Yet the Government seem to have looked first at jacking up young people’s fees, and they seem to have given up on reforming the system to weed out courses that offer low value for money. Speaking of value for money, one university that will benefit from these regulations is the University of Greater Manchester.”
“Some subjects, such as medicine, law and economics, offer a springboard to very lucrative careers…However, a significant minority of mostly men are likely to not see positive returns as a result of going to university…lifetime earnings returns remain low or negative for subjects such as creative arts and English.” Today’s Times has a report based on my freedom of information requests to the Student Loans Company. That in itself is telling: the whole process of assessing public spending on higher education needs to be radically more transparent. We should not need to rely on freedom of information requests just to get this data, but now that we have it, it reveals the vast variations between higher education institutions in the share of loans that are being repaid.”
“It has considered how graduate earnings are evolving for those who study at different types of institutions and on different types of courses, and it has tried to compare that with counterfactuals for people with similar prior characteristics. It looked at how many people saw their earnings boosted by a degree and what the costs were, and worked out the net benefit for the individual and the taxpayer, and it combined these perspectives to get a final score. The conclusion of its 2020 report was that “seen over the whole lifetime, we estimate that total returns will be negative for around 30% of both men and women.” That is a huge share for whom it is proving not to be worth it. The IFS also noted that “While getting an undergraduate degree is worthwhile financially for most students, there is significant variation across subjects.”
“At £60,000 of earnings, graduates with kids, particularly postgraduates, face marginal rates in the 58% to 73% range—the kind of rates that used to apply only to super-taxes on the very wealthy. One way things have changed since the launch of fees is that we have much better data, particularly thanks to the creation of the longitudinal education outcomes dataset under the last Government. This lets us look at a degree’s value added compared with something else, and something else can sometimes be better. The latest data shows that the median first-degree graduate earnings five years after graduation are £29,900, compared with £33,800 for level 4 apprentices; the apprentices are earning substantially more. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has taken the deepest look at this question.”
“Effectively, one broken promise on fees is paying for another broken promise on tax. The Secretary of State’s website still has the ironic headline, “Graduates, you will pay less under a Labour Government”, but in reality they are paying higher fees and more tax, too. The current system produces some incredibly high marginal rates for young people. Those who have a postgraduate loan, or who pay the high-income child benefit charge, face incredibly high marginal rates, even on middling incomes. Sadly, the new Government have abandoned plans to reform the HICBC, so this problem will not go away any time soon. Graduates have 51% of their income taxed away at just £50,000 of earnings, a sum which will not feel like being rich for those renting in an expensive city.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. Through these regulations, the Government are increasing tuition fees to £9,535 a year. The maximum maintenance loan for students not living at home is £10,227, or £13,348 in London, so after a typical three-year degree, a graduate will need to pay back up to £59,000, or up to £68,600 for those who studied in London. If the Government continue to raise fees in the same way throughout this Parliament, those figures will increase to about £66,400 in the rest of the country, or £76,900 for those who studied in London. Those are two very large numbers. As it happens, this year’s fees hike has not made universities any better off because the cost of the national insurance hike wipes out the benefit to the sector of the decision to increase tuition fees.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“To answer the question that the hon. Member for Derby North asked directly, subsection (2)(b) says the policy “is to be implemented as the relevant school leader considers appropriate.” I think this is—”
“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?”
“It seems to be pretty incontrovertible that one of the main causes of that is the rise of the smartphone-based childhood. This provision could be an important first step towards tackling that massive national crisis. I hope that at some point Ministers will think again about the provision when they have more time to reflect. The guidance on its own is not working; we can see from the data that it is not changing things enough. That is why I will press the new clause to a Division. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.”
“In the US, the overwhelming majority of states either already have a ban or are on their way legislatively to getting one. The US is ground zero for a lot of these problems, and it is interesting that it is moving to take decisive action. I think we will, too. For Ministers, there will always be a load of people who want to come to them and say that, “It’s all very complicated—I have been working with the industry,” “It’s correlation not causation,” or, “We should just let be.” There are things in the Bill where the Opposition have been critical of the Government for being more directive than we think is appropriate for the subject. On this issue, however, we think the subject is so important. In this House, we now all talk constantly about the mental health crisis among young people—it is such a big thing.”
“We have had an important and interesting debate, and we have heard a mix of arguments—some better than others, I think. The argument about drafting does not hold water. Subsection (2)(a) talks about students, subsection (4) talks about pupils, and subsection (2)(b) would allow a policy to be implemented in a sensible way. If Members do not agree with the new clause, they can just say so, rather than find lawyerly arguments against it. However, there were some good points made. More than one thing can be a problem at a time, and this new clause is not the silver bullet. There are lots of problems with smartphone use outside of schools, as well as other things on top of that that we need to do. That is why I talked about this as a beachhead—as the first thing we should do. It is interesting that all over the world things are changing.”
“I will speak about new clause 51 at the appropriate moment, but it is about encouraging Ministers to go further on the discipline agenda, which I know they want to do. It is so vital to academic achievement in our schools, but it is also vital to a decent childhood, to not having to live in fear and to an orderly society.”
“What gets measured gets managed, but at the moment we have far too little data on the state of discipline in our schools and in alternative provision. That is why new clause 49 provides for an annual report, and it locks in the current national behaviour survey, which is so important and creates wider and regular reporting of Government action on this subject. Endless polls show that it is one of the top issues facing teachers. It is one of the most important things to them, and we know that it drives good people out of this most valuable profession. New clause 50, which I will not move today, would create an annual report on alternative provision for exactly the same reason, as well as for reasons concerning achievement and behaviour in AP.”
“We have a run of new clauses here—49, 50 and 51—and I will speak about them at the appropriate moment. I will not move new clause 50 in the interests of time. During lockdown a lot of parents, including me, gained an even greater respect for the teaching profession, yet we do not treat teachers like other professionals. We do not expect doctors or lawyers to put up with the kind of abuse that is sadly still far too common for schoolteachers. The Bill does many things, some of them good, but as an editorial in the TES pointed out, it is strangely silent on discipline and the right of teachers and pupils to have a safe place to work. To fix that, we have tabled these new clauses, which can be taken together. The first concerns properly managing and measuring the situation.”
“New Clause 51 Duty for schools to report acts of violence against staff to the police “(1) Where an act listed in subsection (2) takes place which involves the use or threat of force against a member of a school’s staff, the school must report the incident to the police. (2) An act must be reported to the police where— (a) it is directed towards a member of school staff or their property; and (b) it takes place— (i) on school property; or (ii) because of the victim’s status as a member of a school’s staff. (3) The provisions of this section do not require or imply a duty on the police to take specific actions in response to such reports.” — (Neil O ’ Brien.) This new clause would create a duty for all schools to report acts or threats of violence against their staff to the police.”
“I echo those words, Mr Betts, and I thank the Minister for them. I was pleased to hear the Minister’s positive comments about the National Behaviour Survey, though we have a paucity of data about this most vital issue, and it would be better to go much further. I also agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, who spoke so powerfully about the impact of bullying. One can never be too much on that absolutely vital issue. We will not press the new clause today, but we look to the Government to go beyond what already exists, and at least to maintain what exists now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.”
“It is sometimes good to make a credible pre-commitment to things, and people need to know it is never acceptable to do those things. They need to know that there will be automatic consequences and that they should not expect that people will just turn the other cheek. People who are trying to help them—dedicating their lives to helping them—should not be used as punch bags. That is only one of the things we need to do, but this new clause is about resetting expectations around behaviour. If the Government will not support the new clause as drafted, we hope that they will support some version of it.”
“NASUWT notes: “A culture where there are no consequences for poor behaviour is not setting up pupils well for adult life and fails the employers’ duty of care towards its staff”. It also says: “The wholesale adoption of the restorative approach to pupil discipline has definitely been a problem”. Mike Corbett of NASUWT said: “You can’t offer a quiet chat and no serious consequences for this level of disruptive behaviour.” We find ourselves, on this matter, in total agreement with the teaching unions and their wise words on this subject. In England, a Channel 4 exposé sadly showed the incredible extent of the problem and why we need to do far more to address it. We want those who would lift their hands to a teacher and engage in an act of violence, intimidation or threat to know that it will absolutely be reported to the police.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This new clause is a continuation of the debate we were just having. It is time to ensure that all acts and threats of violence against teachers are reported to the police. It is very clear from the drafting of the clause that we are not looking to criminalise children, but we should not expect teachers to suck up abuse that we would never expect other professionals to. If we log what is going on, we have a chance of avoiding things that can escalate over time. At the moment in Scotland, members of NASUWT are taking industrial action because of the failure of authorities to create discipline. The unions say that teachers “report being told at debriefing meetings that their lessons are ‘not fun or engaging enough’” That is absolutely extraordinary.”
“We think that something along those lines would be useful, and I am keen to push this to a vote, but I know the Minister will think about everything extra that she can do to try to create a safe workplace. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”