Laura Trott
MP for Sevenoaks · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Well, that is a load of rubbish. The Secretary of State says that she is proud of the action that the Government are taking on pay. May I suggest that one of the reasons teachers are angry is that they still do not know their pay?”
“The resignation of the Prime Minister this morning was a damning indictment of the record of this Government over the last two years. Part of the Prime Minister’s legacy will be teacher morale at an all-time low.”
“We have moved so far, and things have only changed because of the unity of those on the Opposition Benches, because of Lord Nash’s brilliant campaign and because of the coalition behind Raise the Age.”
“On Friday, after Labour MPs had repeatedly blocked a social media ban for under-16s, we had a new proposal from the Government. It was not a serious response to the issue we are facing. It gave the Government three years to take unspecified action on social media, which was nowhere near good enough. Today, that has changed.”
“My right hon. Friend is always correct to be worried, but he will know that in Lord Nash’s amendment a 12-month delay was written in. I think it is reasonable to give the Government some time to bring the measure forward.”
“I welcome the Government’s constructive engagement on this issue, and we see a new proposal today that has a much more acceptable timeframe, albeit not as short as I would like. Every month of delay just leaves children more exposed to the harms of social media online.”
The complete record
Every one of 603 lines we hold for Laura Trott, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 13.
“It seems like the hon. Gentleman was at university only yesterday. If we are asking young people to take on a mountain of debt, it is important for them to know that they will get a job and have prospects afterwards. I do not think that is an unreasonable proposition, and it is one that I will argue for.”
“My hon. Friend is spot on. It is not well known that apprenticeship degrees are more oversubscribed than Oxford and Cambridge. These are things that young people want to do, and that is why we are trying to expand them. Instead of celebrating the expansion of low-value degrees, the Government should ask whether it is right to continue pushing young people down a path that leaves them with debt but no clear prospects.”
“I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening when I covered that point. The whole point is that those degrees do not lead to jobs in the creative arts industry. It is a mis-selling scandal. They promise a glittering career in the creative arts and do not actually deliver it. I think that is a problem, and I am sad that the hon. Gentleman does not think that. What are students receiving in return for these enormous fees?”
“I will not. When the hon. Gentleman tried to intervene on me recently, he accused me of jumping on a bandwagon about rape gangs, so he will forgive me for not taking another intervention from him. Too often, students are receiving minimal face-to-face teaching, limited supervision and a university experience that falls far short of what was promised. This is not a fair system and it is not a sustainable one either.”
“The Conservatives are the only party putting forward a serious plan to help young people, whether by abolishing stamp duty for first-time buyers or through our new deal.”
“Last weekend, the Government announced that they will compensate for some of the mess that they created in the form of youth unemployment when they hiked up employer national insurance contributions, but they are robbing Peter to pay Paul—exactly the sort of economic thinking that we have come to expect. They are punishing employers with a jobs tax, which one of the Cabinet finally admitted this week has caused a huge spike in unemployment, and they are giving back £3,000, but only to those who have been on universal credit for six months. Fiddling with a system that needs fundamental reform and clearing up the mess of the Chancellor’s Budget is almost a full-time job for this Government.”
“I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point. I totally agree with him that it is something that needs to be looked into and fixed. As I have mentioned, we know that 10 times as many young people want an apprenticeship at 18 as there are places available. The demand is there, but the places are not. To me, it makes complete sense to move from funding dead-end courses at universities to giving young people the opportunity to do an apprenticeship that will get them into a job, and they will emerge from that apprenticeship with no debt. We want fundamental change to the system so that at 18, young people have a choice between a high-quality university place, an apprenticeship or going into work. That is a Conservative choice. What is Labour’s response to that proposal?”
“What a mess! We need a different approach. The Conservatives believe that the system needs fundamental change. We believe that students should not be mis-sold degrees that promise the earth and deliver nothing but debt, that the freeze on thresholds is wrong, that students on plan 2 loans should only pay interest at inflation, and that young people deserve a new deal. That is what we are asking the Government to vote for today, so that young people will be put not to the back of the queue but to the front of it.”
“Exactly. The Chancellor gave it all away when she said that young people are at the back of the queue—that tells us all that we need to know about this Government. The Government amendment is the usual mishmash of nothingness, and I suspect many Labour Members are disappointed. The amendment welcomes “the Government’s commitment to make the system fairer and financially sustainable”, even though the only thing that the Government have done so far, which is the threshold freeze, has made the system less fair and less sustainable for young people. But don’t worry, there is more. Labour Members are today going to welcome a “target”—not any action lines, but a target—even though it is a target that the Government are currently missing, as the share and volume of under-25s starting apprenticeships in the last academic year have fallen.”
“Indeed, we now have the absurdity of the schools White Paper rightly saying that academies are the driving force behind school improvement, while in this Bill the Government are destroying academies in all but name. This is palpable nonsense. Do not try to make any sense of it—it is not possible.”
“The Education Secretary later admitted that there is a problem, but she said that more guidance can fix it. Finally, she is now consulting on whether to do a statutory ban but refusing to back our amendment, in Lords amendment 106, which would actually deliver one. I am flattered by the energy that the Education Secretary is putting into avoiding agreeing with me, but this is getting ridiculous. If the Government cannot properly argue the merits of their case, we get bad legislation. We had that problem with the Bill when it first came in. The Government still cannot justify the rationale for taking away academy freedoms—the very same freedoms that have delivered improved school standards in this country.”
“I am delighted to address the 13 amendments sent back to us by the other place this evening. The volume of Lords amendments reflects the strong feelings in both Houses about the deficiencies in the Bill, but there is a chance tonight to make change for the better. At the moment, the Government seem to do their utmost to oppose anything that they did not come up with—not on merit, but because they have retreated into a tribal bunker in which only ideas emanating from Labour special advisers or union bosses are deemed acceptable. May I suggest that this is not serving the Government very well? Let us take the phone ban. The Education Secretary has turned into a contortionist. First, she told me that a statutory ban on phones in the classroom was a “gimmick”. Then, the Prime Minister slammed it as “unnecessary”.”
“As ever, my right hon. Friend is the voice of reason in this Chamber. Turning to our amendment that deals with pupil admission numbers, Lords amendment 102, I hope the Government will try to explain why they think good and outstanding schools should be made smaller when they are oversubscribed. To be clear, that is exactly what the Government are asking Back Benchers to vote for this evening. Parental choice has been the great driver of school improvement in this country—it empowers parents to vote with their feet and encourages excellent schools—yet the Government want to turn that principle on its head. They want to cut good school places, which is bad for parents, bad for schools and, above all, bad for children. School standards are on the Order Paper this evening, and the Government want to vote against them.”
“It literally says that “All loaned or gifted branded items will be captured within the limit if they are required to be worn”, meaning that they come under the cap. That makes absolutely no sense.”
“I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. At a time of shrinking school places, it is important that it is the good school places that survive, and parents should make that choice, not bureaucrats. The Government’s inability simply to admit that they got it wrong in the Bill, and that there is a better way of achieving the outcome they want, is ever present. Lords amendment 41, which would impose a cost cap on school uniform, is palpably better than having a cap on the number of items. It is the height of insanity to insist that it should be illegal for a school to use the football kit it received for free because that would be outside of the item limit. If anyone is thinking that this cannot actually be Government policy, I suggest that they read the guidance that sits alongside the legislation.”
“That review states that, while well intentioned, this legislation would not have helped Sara, so we have brought forward amendment 44 to fix that. It ensures that consent would need to be sought from the local authority to homeschool any child who has ever had a child protection plan. That would mean that the Bill would have helped Sara, which is the Government’s stated aim, but guess what, Madam Deputy Speaker? The Government are now opposing that amendment. We are diligently doing the work an Opposition should do to improve the legislation, but it is being shrugged off by the Government—not on its merits, but because they do not want to accept anything from this side of the House. It is not good enough.”
“The whole point is whether it is compulsory or not—that is the whole point of uniform, and I was reading directly from the guidance. It makes absolutely no sense; how is a child wearing something that they have been given for free going to increase costs for parents? If the “not invented here” syndrome were not running so rampant in the Department for Education, the change made by Lords amendment 41 would already have been made. The same is true of Lords amendment 44. We all know the horrific case of Sara Sharif, which was used as a rationale for bringing forward many of the positive child protection measures in the Bill. The serious case review published at the end of last year set out multiple failings that led to Sara falling out of the system.”
“I didn’t even tell my parents until recently, because I was embarrassed, or maybe because it just seemed normal, but my mum was already pretty strict with my phone usage and if I told her what was being sent around at school, I felt like I would be in trouble and she’d take the phone away. The phone was how everyone connected, so I needed to protect it. Over time, all the sexually explicit stuff just became normal.” I remind Members that this is happening at school and, in this case, at an outstanding girls’ school. It is so far from being an isolated incident—in fact, it is the opposite. It is approaching a norm.”
“I got Snapchat when I was 12 or 13, but I remember before, my friends talking about dick pics in the changing rooms, and one said she got at least 10 in the morning. She’d put up her phone and show us by scrolling through them, just because it was funny that they would just send it. This happened after she added someone on Snapchat that she didn’t know. Others had them too. “Looking back now, I remember pretending to find everything funny, just to fit in, but actually I felt really confused and grossed out at some of the content being shared. All of this happened at school, and we probably should have talked to a teacher, but as an 11 to 14-year-old girl, you’re not going to tell your male form tutor that people were being sent dick pics in school, or that your classmates were sending porn in the form group chat.”
“The Minister says that children’s voices are rarely heard—well, I hope she listens to this testimony today. “When I was around 13 or 14 years old, one of my classmates would pull out her laptop at lunch times. She would connect her laptop through her phone’s hotspot, because the school wi-fi would block any social media, and launch up social media, because some thought it was funny to see how long it took to find an old man wanking—it was never long—or how long it took for somebody to ask them their age, and when they replied with ‘14’, they would send their Snapchat for you to add. The teachers never knew, because we were alone in our forms. “Some of my friends had access to Snapchat from very young, some even primary school, but I did not.”
“I cannot overstate to Members how damaging and dangerous that is. I was thinking about how to communicate this most effectively, and given that the Government are not listening to me, to parents or to teachers, I thought that first-hand testimony from a young person might get through. I warn you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the following account from a former pupil involves some graphic content that I sincerely wish I did not have to talk about. However, I refuse to shy away from it, because if we are exposing 13-year-olds to such content in schools, we need to be able to talk about it in this Chamber. This is testimony from a girl who was at an outstanding girls’ school that had a “not seen, not heard” phone policy. Such policies are common in many schools across the country and count as a phone ban under the Government’s definition.”
“The hon. Gentleman is arguing for things that are outside the scope of the Bill. What we know is that the change made by Lords amendment 44 would have helped Sara in a way that the unamended Bill would not have done. I am not going to push Lords amendments 2 and 21 to a vote this evening, but I reserve the right to come back to them if the Government do not engage constructively in the other place. I am grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Barran for her brilliant work on those amendments and on the wider Bill. Turning to phones, I really want Members to understand how bad things have got with phones in schools, and why a statutory ban is necessary. I know that the Government have issued revised guidance and have asked Ofsted to enforce it, but Ofsted’s guidance on this topic still allows phones to be present in schools.”
“In the place of those amendments, we have the farcical situation where the Government are asking the House to support their own amendment, which does not tell us what the Government will do or even when they will do it. No action is required by the provision being put forward this evening.”
“My hon. Friend is completely right. We need that age limit, and we need the phone ban in schools. Polling out today shows that 40% of children are shown explicit content during the school day. That is happening right now. This is an emergency. No more guidance; no more consultations—the Government should legislate, do something about it, and vote to ban phones in schools tonight. The Lords amendments on social media received overwhelming cross-party backing in the other place. They were put forward by the noble Lords Nash, Berger, Cass and Benjamin. The amendments have been extensively debated and are backed by a number of expert groups and bereaved parents.”
“This is a safeguarding issue, and we have always taken steps when it comes to safeguarding young people. Let me be clear to Labour Members: the Government can choose to do nothing based on this amendment. Ministers do not have a view on whether social media should be banned, and they have put forward an amendment that does not tell us what they will do. It is extraordinary.”
“I am sorry, but I will make some progress, otherwise I will get in trouble with Madam Deputy Speaker. We have an emergency, and it is hidden on children’s phones. A quarter of children in primary school have seen porn, and the vast majority access it via social media. Some 70% of teenagers have seen real-life violence online, while only 6% were looking for it. In other words, the social media algorithm deliberately serves it to them. Criminals are using Snapchat and Facebook to groom children. Child sexual abuse imagery crimes are up enormously. Snapchat is flagged in almost half of cases. Meta platforms make up a quarter.”
“In the face of that, do Members know what the Government’s consultation says? It says that children like using TikTok to post dance videos. This misguided view that social media is in some way good for children, or that its benefits outweigh the harms I have spoken about, is what has got us into this position.”
“I am sorry, but I really have to make some progress. Sextortion is also a huge issue on social media. In 2022, there were 10,000 reports of sextortion by snap. That was not in a year, but in one month, and those are just the ones we know about. Most horrifyingly of all, social media is culpable in dozens of children’s deaths. To give just one example, Ellen Roome’s son Jools took part, she believes, in a TikTok blackout challenge. That is where young children and teenagers are encouraged to hold their breath until they pass out. Jools died as a result in April 2022, and that was two years after the challenge had supposedly been removed from the platform. When I met Ellen and other bereaved parents, they said that, tragically, their bereaved group just keeps on growing.”
“Getting rid of scrolling is fine, but how does that stop children being groomed? So far, three senior Labour figures have managed to grasp the seriousness of the situation: the Mayor of Greater Manchester, the Health Secretary and the Labour leader in Scotland. They have judged this policy on its merits, and I hope the House manages to do the same tonight, because we are in a crisis. If Members across the House agree, they need to add their voices and vote for change.”
“I am sorry, but I must make some progress. I have heard Ministers argue that vulnerable children or children who are isolated need to find their community online, and I want to put that argument to rest once and for all. All the evidence shows that these children are the most likely to be exploited, groomed and harmed by social media. If a child is scared or isolated, the last thing we should do is put them on social media. It is a terrible argument, and I hope it is not repeated today. The other options that the Government present in their consultation simply do not meet the scale of the challenge. A curfew so that children can only get damaged by social media during the day does not help. Time limits so that children still see the content, but just for fewer hours, are not good enough.”
“Last week, I asked the Secretary of State a specific question about SEND funding during her statement, which she failed to answer, so I will try again with the Minister today. The £4 billion for SEND announced last week, to be paid over three years, which the Secretary of State described as “new money”, is actually from within the Department’s existing spending review settlement, isn’t it?”
“The answer should have been “never”. That is what our guidance said, and that is what the Government’s guidance should have said. In our universities, gender-critical feminists have been kicked off campus, while today the ayatollah is being celebrated as a martyr at University College London. This is completely unacceptable, so what is the Secretary of State doing to crack down on this two-tier system, or is she going to sit on her hands while an enemy of Britain is celebrated?”
“Of course, the state will miss things, but if we can set up a system that minimises the impact of this catastrophic event on young people, that is the right thing to do. I am very grateful to be part of this House today. It is these types of debate that take place in a relatively empty Chamber on a Thursday afternoon that can really make a difference to young people across the country. We have a very good Minister here, and I am sure he is about to tell us how he is going to sort this all out after many years. I commend the many voices who have spoken up today, and I am grateful to have been here for it.”
“Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) gave about the number of offenders who have suffered a bereavement was shocking. I hope and believe that this will be even more grist to the mill for the Education Minister to try to deal with this, because it is one of many areas across Government where early intervention—helping people—is not only the right thing to do but will benefit us and wider society. What we have heard today is that many children who go through this have amazing families—we have some examples of those amazing families here today—and they have people around them who will support them, help them and do whatever they can to ameliorate this catastrophic incident. But that is not true of every family.”
“On overall data collection, when a death is reported, it is linked to one individual rather than to a wider database. Change will need to be made on that, and the referral to the pathway is critical, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West said. She also mentioned that that now happens in cases of suicide. I hope the Minister will take that up today, because we have seen that it can work. It may take time, and I think we all acknowledge that government is difficult—it is not easy to wrangle different Departments together—but that could definitely be taken forward. Before preparing for this debate, I had not realised what the figures are for the outcomes for bereaved children, and I was quite shocked. If we have not gone through this catastrophic event, it is too easy to overlook the impact it has on young people. The statistic that the hon.”
“Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), whose APPG does incredible work on these matters, mentioned good practice in schools. We should think about how to collate it more systematically. We are quite effective when it comes to education policy, through the Education Endowment Foundation, which picks up what works from an academic perspective and shares good practice among schools. By and large, that is missing in the special educational needs and disabilities space, but it is also missing here. We have heard about good practice, which I am sure exists up and down the country—the hon. Lady mentioned Oakwood primary school—but there is nowhere to share it effectively. Will the Department think about how to take that forward? I am sure that there will be guidance, and I am just as sure that it could be made better.”
“Governments have historically been bad at cross-departmental data collection, as we know. That has been grappled with over time, but there has been no clear solution to date. I have seen such working function more effectively on occasion, such as in cross-departmental working committees on something specific. I offer that up to the Minister as a suggestion that might work. For example, in recent years there have been changes to implement a “no wrong door” policy on reporting a death. That took a lot of time. Previously, when reporting a death, as I am sure many in this Chamber have unfortunately had to do, people had to go to multiple Government Departments before the death could be recognised. That has been changed for the better, and I hope that something similar could be adopted in this case. The hon.”
“May I say what a privilege it has been to be part of this debate, and how much I admire all those who have spoken about their personal stories? I do not underestimate for a second how difficult it is, but suffering a catastrophic event and trying to make other people’s lives better is about the most admirable thing someone can do. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for putting it in place. She is so self-evidently right in what she says: there needs to be a general strategy, and we need data to be made available. It is worth thinking about why those things have not happened to date, and making suggestions about how we can overcome those barriers in future.”
“When pressure is put on schools not to exclude, we have seen tragic cases of how wrong it can go, such as that of Harvey Willgoose, and we must not make the same mistake again. There is much more to cover—funding reform, admission codes and work I would actually praise such as on maternity pay—but I dare not risk your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I close by saying that we support the principle of reform, but there is precious little clarity for SEND parents today.”
“On that theme, the White Paper says: “Our best school trusts…innovate and drive excellence in standards”. Well, they used to be able to do that, but the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill takes away their ability to innovate in the curriculum, on who they employ, on the terms and conditions of employment, and even on uniforms. Again, I am delighted by the turnaround from the Education Secretary, but I ask that that is reflected in the legislation she is putting through the House. I fundamentally disagree with the proposal in the White Paper to emphasise inclusion when it comes to suspensions and exclusions. That is the wrong approach. If a pupil is behaving in a way that makes fellow pupils or a teacher unsafe, it is utterly wrong to hesitate to exclude because of inclusion.”
“Lastly on SEND, Ministers repeatedly failed over the weekend to give clarity on reassessments, so I will give the right hon. Lady one more opportunity. Will she rule out any child who currently has an EHCP having it removed—yes or no? Turning to the wider schools issue, we have the absurdity of a White Paper saying that trusts will be the main driver of system-led improvement, but the Department proposing, in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, to remove the academy order by which underperforming schools are taken over by trusts. Either trusts are a driver for improvement of schools or they are not. I think they very much are a driver, and it seems the Education Secretary now agrees, so will she, with the zeal of a convert, disavow her earlier sins and reinstate the academy order?”
“Unbelievably, the workforce plan for 6,500 teachers—incidentally, it will not deliver 6,500 more teachers—says nothing about special educational needs provision within the workforce, perhaps because it tries to ignore primary schools altogether. On wider funding, the Government have still not said how the £6 billion black hole in SEND funding, identified by the Office for Budget Responsibility, will be filled. The latest I read today in the Financial Times is that the money will come from councils. Would the right hon. Lady care to confirm that? Are the funding pots announced today new money, or will they be coming from the Department’s existing overall budget? Has the DFE’s budget expanded beyond what was set out at the spending review at the Budget, and if so, by how much? Will these reforms save money, and if so, over what time period?”
“On funding, I note the £1.6 billion pot for inclusive mainstream provision over three years, which equates to £24,000 per year per school if divided evenly across every school in England. That is nowhere near enough for the extra work that schools will have to cover to write individually tailored ISPs for every SEND child. This is a mammoth burden to place on schools—one that I do not necessarily think is misplaced, but £24,000 a year is not enough to help them manage it. It is not a recipe for inclusion, but a recipe for disaster. Can the Education Secretary tell schools what additional funding will be available to help them hire extra SENCO support to help them deal with these pressures?”
“There will be around seven packages of support when someone gets an EHCP, but we are not told what these packages of support are, how people qualify for them or how much money will be associated with each. That makes it quite difficult to judge how effective the new system will be, let alone legislate for it. Many questions also spring from the individual support plans, or ISPs, which will take place in schools. It is not clear from the document what will trigger an ISP, nor the funding that will be associated with it. At the moment, schools generally have to cover the first £6,000 of support before an EHCP is triggered. What will be the new threshold for schools to cover?”
“I thank the right hon. Lady for advance sight of her statement, and her officials and advisers for briefing me over the weekend. I pay tribute to those who have pulled together a 300-page document, which I will now attempt to scrutinise in the five minutes that I have available to me today. I turn first to SEND. The principles of more support in schools, evidence-led packages, early intervention, and more speech and language therapists are welcome, but despite the 300 pages there is still much that we do not know. We do not know exactly how children will qualify for an EHCP in the future, and no clear eligibility criteria for the so-called specialist provision are set out.”
“It is a disgrace that a Jewish Member of this House had his visit to a school cancelled following pressure and intimidation from pro-Palestinian protesters. That is abhorrent antisemitism. Over the weekend, the Secretary of State announced a welcome investigation into the trust, alongside Ofsted action. She said that she would “leave no stone unturned”. In that spirit, what is the right hon. Lady doing to address the role of the National Education Union in trying to prevent the visit?”
“I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s words. Bristol NEU publicly celebrated the cancellation of the visit from the hon. Member for Bristol North East (Damien Egan), describing it as a “win” and boasting that it sent a “clear message”. Over the weekend, the head of the NEU claimed that the visit taking place “at the height of the genocide in Gaza” was a mitigating factor for excluding a British Jew from the school. That is inexcusable. I will gladly meet the right hon. Lady. Will she also back my call for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to look into the NEU, and will she ask it to investigate these outrageous statements?”
“Can the Secretary of State confirm whether other concerns were raised about Mr Chan previously, whether by other nursery staff or by parents, and what checks have taken place on safeguarding procedures at this nursery chain subsequent to this incident? Lastly, according to reports, the perpetrator in question had 26,000 indecent images of children and 16 nursery devices at his home. Was it standard practice for these devices to be removed from the site? Why did nobody notice, and why was he allowed to have so many devices? Is the Education Secretary considering revised guidance about the use of devices in early years settings? I stand with the Secretary of State, officials and the police as they do all they can to seek justice for victims. We in this House will do all we can to ensure that this never happens again.”
“It would be helpful to understand whether the Education Secretary is considering such a step. Thirdly, this investigation was triggered by a member of staff at the nursery raising concerns. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether those concerns were investigated immediately by the nursery, at what stage Ofsted was notified, and what steps Ofsted took? Is the Secretary of State content that a rigorous and timely process was followed by Ofsted? It will seem unbelievable to most people that this abuse was able to go on under the noses of other staff and in the daytime, without anyone else being aware.”
“I would be grateful if the Education Secretary would confirm that she will raise this matter with the Home Secretary. Secondly, I understand that closed circuit television was in use at the nursery, but the footage was wiped during the time it took for these serious abuse offences to come to light, so we do not have access to it. This is terrible, because with that CCTV, it might have been possible to identify affected children more easily, and to spare hundreds of parents the unimaginable terror that their children might have been affected. Obviously, this links to my first point about the delays in accessing the devices, but given that in other nursery abuse cases it has also taken time for offences to come to light, looking at the retention guidance for CCTV in nurseries seems a sensible step.”