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 5 of 13.
“I was about to wrap up because I am conscious of time and I want to ensure that the hon. Member for Chelmsford has time to speak at the end of the debate, so I will close my remarks there.”
“It was always obvious that the Education Secretary made a mistake in pausing the Act, but rather than commencing a little more of the Act to try to cover up the mistaken delay, she needs to get up and perform the U-turn in full. The Act contains much-needed protections and she must not abolish them just because they came from the Conservative side of the House. Finally, while we are at it, the Secretary of State should perform a U-turn on academy freedoms too. The Government must not take six months to realise their mistake on that one.”
“Despite the Secretary of State’s statement, we now have confusion about what is actually happening. It seems that the Government cannot even do a much-needed U-turn properly. Without the tort, what consequences will universities face if they do not protect free speech? Why is the Secretary of State unable to set out a clear decision on overseas funding? Why is six months not enough time? Can she spell out the changes the Government are thinking about making to the overseas funding measure? Can she confirm that none of those were discussed during the Chancellor’s recent visit to China? Can she confirm that there were no deals done to amend that section? That is very important. It is extremely poor timing at best and invidious at worst to consider changes to the overseas funding element of the Act so soon after that trip to China.”
“Will the Secretary of State now apologise to those who have suffered because of her inaction? We have upcoming legal action in the judicial review brought by the Free Speech Union against the Government’s decision. Considering that a concern about expense was one of the reasons given by the Government to justify their decision, how much has that litigation cost to defend? What is the financial cost of the Secretary of State’s inaction? How much taxpayer money has been spent on a partisan play-up-to-your-own-gallery move that is about to fall flat of its face in the court? Did the Secretary of State receive legal advice before she made her decision to suspend the Act? Will she release it, so that Members can see the basis on which she acted? If she did not, how can she possibly claim to have acted responsibly in this matter?”
“I pay tribute to the academics who led that fightback outside Parliament. Much like they have done with academies in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, this Government take a wrecking ball to policy without a thought for the consequences. They are much more interested in virtue signalling than in what is right for the country, more interested in listening to student union advisers than to women hounded out of their jobs. Since the Secretary of State decided to pause the legislation, gender-critical women, among others, have, in the process of vindicating their rights, racked up enormous legal fees that have caused some to remortgage their houses. Professor Jo Phoenix said publicly that if the Act had been enforced, it would have saved her from that very ordeal.”
“It should have been clear again, when more than 650 academics signed a letter to The Times decrying the decision, that pausing the Act was a mistake, but the Secretary of State still did not budge from her position. It should have been undeniable that the Government had made the wrong choice when, acting together, no less than seven Nobel prize winners and a Fields medallist later added their names to that letter, but still Labour was happy to roll out the old tropes about hate speech. Literary luminaries like Sir Stephen Fry, Tom Holland and Ian McEwan were forced to intervene. Those with natural sympathies for the Secretary of State’s own political positions were compelled to tell her that she was wrong. It is only now, after all that humiliation, that she has finally changed her footing.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was passed by Parliament prior to the election. By the end of the Act’s passage through both Houses, the Labour party had agreed in principle with the need for it; indeed, there are positive signals coming from those on the Front Bench today. However, immediately after the election, Government sources said the Act was a Tory “hate speech charter”, and paused its implementation. I ask the Secretary of State: what has changed? Does she still stand by her characterisation of the Act? It should have been obvious straightaway to anyone with even a basic sympathy for the norms of liberal education that pausing the Act was a mistake.”
“I see before me a move away from all the things that have enabled that success. The Bill seeks to turn its back on Labour’s history and take back those academy freedoms on curriculum, on pay and on behaviour. You name it, they are reversing it—all the things that have done so much to improve our education system. Step by step, the very policies that saw our schools rise up the international league tables are being reversed. I guarantee that just as we went up, as a result of the Bill we will come down those very same rankings. And who will suffer? The poorest pupils in society.”
“I desperately hope that Government Members will come to see that. Madam Deputy Speaker, you would think that a Labour Government would feel proud of the record they had on education under Blair. It was that Labour Government who innovated and made way for academies. When Blair talks about academies, he says that an academy “belongs not to some remote bureaucracy, not to the rulers of government, local or national, but to itself, for itself. The school is in charge of its own destiny.” That Blairite principle—a school in charge of its own destiny—was built on and expanded by subsequent Conservative Governments. What has been the result of this largely cross-party consensus? A thriving education system in which English children have soared up the programme for international student assessment rankings.”
“While the Opposition will seek to amend various aspects of what is being put forward in Committee, we do see value in it. But the other half of the Bill is the policy equivalent of a wrecking ball. It is an all-out assault on teachers, the education system and standards. It is nothing less than education vandalism and we will oppose it with every fibre of our beings. The House must be in no doubt that the Bill really matters. It destroys the consensus built over two decades in England on how to improve schools—a consensus that has led to English children being the best in the western world at reading and maths. I cannot understand why the Government would seek to reverse that progress. What are they hoping to achieve? It seems to be policy built purely on ideology. More than that, it is wrong.”
“I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding, declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay and conditions, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing including establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.” The Bill in front of us today is a Bill of two halves, one of which seeks to protect children and improve safeguarding and support for children in care.”
“I have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Lady, but she will know that the academy programme was expanded more than 50 times under the last Government, and we went up the education rankings, not down, under the previous Government. The Bill would abolish academies in all but name, and for what? Because Education Ministers think that they know better than Katharine Birbalsingh and Sir Jon Coles. Blair said in 2005 that “command public services today are no more acceptable than a command economy.” Well, someone needs to tell the Education Secretary, because that is exactly what she is proposing in the Bill. It is anti-rigour, anti-choice and anti-accountability.”
“Why on earth are they putting this into a Bill without a clear alternative failure regime in place that evidence shows is at least as good? The Bill is totally unacceptable and misunderstands why the academy order has been so important. I cannot say this strongly enough to the Government Benches: it needs to change.”
“They mention “regional improvement for standards and excellence (‘RISE’) teams”— officials sitting in the Department for Education—but in another breath they said that those teams will not be involved in failing schools. The Government have clearly totally failed; they do not understand that the reason that failing schools became academies by default is that it is the most effective intervention. If it is not mandatory, there will be lots of massive rows about what will happen to failing schools, and inevitable delays and legal challenges. What is the upshot? More time with children in failing schools not being dealt with. What is their plan for failing schools? What is their plan to protect those children from falling behind? What is the evidence that this approach is better? Have they trialled it anywhere?”
“The explanatory notes to the Bill set a new standard in double speak when they praise the “positive innovation and good practice in teachers’ pay and conditions in some academies” and say that the Government want to “ensure that local authority-maintained schools also have the opportunity to implement this”. So what are they doing? Are they giving these same pay flexibilities to local authority schools? They are doing opposite. They are taking pay flexibilities away from academies. Do not try and make any sense of this, because it is impossible. It is entirely contradictory. The Government are also removing the requirement for failing schools to be taken over by an academy, despite recognising the “strong track record of multi academy trusts…turning around failing schools”. What are they replacing it with?”
“My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. To be clear, the Bill proposes a pay cut for nearly 20,000 teachers in future years, because it imposes national terms and conditions on teachers in academies. I have to ask: what problem are the Government trying to solve? Teachers outside of national pay scales are paid more, not less. What have they got against highly paid teachers? Why on earth are the Government coming here today and telling tens of thousands of teachers that their pay is too high? It is absurd. Levelling down seems to be this Government’s priority. The flexibilities given on terms and conditions allow academies to offer things such as a longer school day. Are the Labour Government proposing to ban that?”
“I am glad that the hon. Lady has confirmed that the Labour party is, indeed, anti-academy. The Bill goes on and on—rampant centralisation in search of a cause. Why are the Government making all schools follow the national curriculum? Where is the evidence that there is a problem? Why are they putting in place sweeping powers to direct academies on unspecified things? What possible justification do they have for that? The notes say that it is to prevent “unreasonable use of power”. I say, look in the mirror.”
“That is an excellent education system, but one that aims solely for consistency is not—a system of command and control, stifling teachers, supressing innovation, with everything decided in an office in Whitehall, far away from the classrooms. It is same old Labour: consistency for all, excellence for none.”
“Sadly, I think my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I see no other reason for the academy provisions to be in the Bill. It actually says in the explanatory notes that the primary aim of this legislation is to make the education system “more consistent”. That is at the heart of the problem today, because more consistency does not a better education system make. It is a classic Labour argument: one size must fit all, lopping the tops off the tallest poppies. God forbid that schools might be able to innovate and learn from each other, and teachers might have freedoms in the classroom to try new things, backed up by a regulator that rigorously inspects and identifies failure.”
“If it is the latter, the education section of the Bill must go. Let me come to the final part of our amendment, on a national grooming gang inquiry. This debate has been taken too far away from the victims and what is right for them. There are legitimate arguments to be had in this area, but the one I will not accept is that to call for an inquiry is to be far right. The Labour Government have to understand that they must explain their actions, not just call the Opposition names. Local inquiries, which the Labour Government say are the answer, do not have legal powers to summon witnesses, take evidence under oath, or requisition evidence. Some of the leaders of the Manchester inquiry resigned after they said that they were blocked from accessing information.”
“The whole point of academies is to drive up standards by freeing them from state control. The Bill undermines all that, which is why it would abolish academies in all but name. I urge Government Members to look at what the education part of the Bill would do. Look at the Labour history under Education Secretaries such Lord Adonis. Do not destroy something that the Labour party helped to build. The Government must get rid of the academy elements of the Bill. They will not improve the school system; they will make it worse. Do not destroy the work and policy of two decades at the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen. We must ask ourselves: who this is all about? Are we on the side of ideology, unions and bureaucrats, or are we on side of the children and teachers, and making sure that the most disadvantaged get the best possible education?”
“I am enormously grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support, and I agree completely. This is an enormous scandal, and yet we do not fully know the number of victims or perpetrators, or where it has taken place.”
“The previous Conservative Government set up the grooming gangs taskforce, which made more than 500 arrests in the first year. With 1,400 victims in Rotherham alone, this will potentially encompass tens of thousands of children. We therefore need a comprehensive national inquiry into grooming gangs to tell the truth.”
“I have been very clear today that the Bill will destroy the education system in this country and reverse the progress that we have made, and that is why we oppose it. On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, I condemn the language that has been used against hon. Members in this House. However, he will recall that the Labour party put out a social media graphic that greyed out the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), and claimed that he said that paedophiles should not go to prison. It is incumbent on all of us in this House to be moderate in our language. This is an enormous scandal, and yet we do not fully know the number of victims or perpetrators, or where it has taken place.”
“As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. There is no reason that action cannot be taken at the same time as a national inquiry—it is not an either/or. If the Government want to disagree with that, they will have to argue their case on the facts, and not simply smear any opposition to them as far right or say that parliamentary procedure means it cannot happen.”
“No, I am going to finish. This is an opportunity for MPs across the House to give victims the justice they deserve. Hon. Members have heard our arguments on the inquiry and on schools. I hope that today, when we vote on our reasoned amendment, the Government see sense on both.”
“The Secretary of State has made it clear that she would like more time spent on creative subjects, but she must ensure that does not come at the expense of an academic education. Last week’s international education stats found that English children are the best at maths in the western world. That is brilliant news and testament to the hard work of teachers and pupils. It is also down to a world-class curriculum put in place by the previous Government. Will she finally celebrate those results and instruct her curriculum review that it must not dilute academic standards and put that progress at risk?”
“The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was passed by Parliament prior to the election. By the end of its passage through both Houses, the Labour party had agreed in principle with the need for the Act. However, just after the election, Government sources said the Act was a Tory “hate speech charter”. Now I read in the papers that the Department may commence the legislation without the tort. Can I ask the Secretary of State to clear up this mess and to tell the House what her plan is for the freedom of speech Act?”
“Since the Secretary of State decided to pause this legislation, gender-critical women, among others, have racked up enormous legal fees, which have caused some to remortgage their houses. Professor Jo Phoenix has said publicly that if it had been in force, the Act would have saved her that precise ordeal. Inaction has consequences, and this delay is causing harm. Will the Secretary of State accept that, and get on with implementing the legislation?”
“I hope she can provide an update for us today on Government thinking in this area. As Members will know, the local government financial settlement for next year is looming. I must correct the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), on this point. She should look at what happened to local government funding when the Lib Dems were in government and then what happened after they left. It is important to emphasise that the Conservative Government increased the high needs budget by over 60% in 2019-20 to £10.5 billion and put in place a statutory override so that SEND-related deficits did not overwhelm council budgets. With that set to expire in 2026, what is the Secretary of State’s message to local authorities, particularly in rural and county areas, where these pressures are most acute?”
“Members for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) and for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) identified, the ballooning numbers really are a problem. I will run through the numbers, as they set out the problem we face. Nationally, council spending on SEND transport increased from £728 million in 2019 to £1.4 billion in 2024. It is projected to reach £2.2 billion by 2027-28, an increase of 57%. The average cost per SEND pupil nationally for transport has also risen by 32% between 2018 and 2024, and the number of pupils requiring transport is also growing. Councils transported an average of 1,300 pupils in 2023-24, up from 911 in 2018-19, which is an increase of 43%. I know that the Minister will be thinking about the cause of the demand, as well as what we need to do about it.”
“It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this important debate and on her very good speech. This subject impacts families up and down the country every day, and I am glad that we have been able to debate it. We have heard about the need for local provision, more specialist schools and a well-funded system, with access to education a common theme. As Members have acknowledged, under the Education Act 1996, local authorities are under a duty to provide free school transport to eligible children. That was intended to mean that no child is prevented from accessing education due to a lack of transportation, a view that I believe is shared by everybody here today. However, demand is growing, and as the hon.”
“Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) mentioned the need for capital funding. Many Members here will remember the 15 specialist schools pledged in the last Conservative Budget. Can the Minister confirm that those will be going ahead? I am conscious of the time, so this will be my final word. I pledge that we will be a constructive Opposition. I think everyone here today will be clear that we support local provision, support for parents and more capital funding, and we will support that with the Government if they bring it forward.”
“I want to make sure that there is time for a wrap-up, and we are quite close to the end of the debate, so I will continue, if the hon. Lady does not mind. Is the Secretary of State pushing the Chancellor to extend that protection or for deficits to be written off? How are the Government supporting local authorities to explore innovative solutions, such as shared transport services or alternative models, to help to manage rising SEND transport costs more effectively? Can the Minister also update us on what the total cost will be to local government of the national insurance contributions increase announced in the Budget? What is the cost of the national insurance increase specifically for home-to-school transport? Will local authorities be fully compensated for those costs? The hon.”
“When can we expect the Bill creating that to be introduced? I want the Government to succeed in this area. Children’s social care is a hidden issue, and getting it right is at the heart of solving so many problems that this country faces. I hope the Secretary of State can reassure me and the House that she will do more to bring forward a greater supply of places for looked-after children, and that an early intervention system is forthcoming, because the futures of looked-after children rely on it.”
“She said that she wants to scrap payment by results. Given that that is an early intervention programme, on the basis of what evidence is she doing so? Does she have an evaluation of what scrapping payment by results will do? We welcome much else in the statement, including the regional care co-operatives, multi-agency teams, and the enhanced role of Ofsted in the sector. On the latter, is the Secretary of State making any changes to the failure regime for children’s homes and the regularity of inspection? The Children’s Commissioner has done outstanding work on the increasing use of deprivation of liberty orders. Will the Secretary of State outline what action she is taking on that important issue? I am pleased to see the Labour Government take forward our proposal for a unique child identifier.”
“Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), commissioned by the Conservatives in government, found that profit caps would not work as it would be “relatively easy for providers to reallocate income and expenditure to maintain profit levels.” Does the Secretary of State agree? Is the 8.8% level of profit that she referred to this morning the maximum level of profit that she is aiming for? If not, what will it be? The capacity problem rests both on the availability of places and on the demand for those places. The Secretary of State has indicated that she would like to take steps on early intervention, which is obviously vital. Those were not specified in her statement, but I hope that she will bring them to the House at the earliest opportunity, as they are critical to solving the issue.”
“I note that in the most recent Budget, despite the welcome money for kinship care, there was no more money for increasing the number of places for looked-after children. That is essential; otherwise, the strategy on places set out today simply will not work. What plans has the Secretary of State made to increase the number of places for looked-after children? How much she will need to fund that? Did she ask the Treasury for the money at the most recent Budget? What is her assessment of the impact of the changes announced today on the number of places available for looked-after children? The review carried out by the hon.”
“In its 2022 report, the Competition and Markets Authority did not recommend a profit cap, because “the central problem facing the market…is…lack of…capacity.” The CMA concluded that taking measures to limit the profitability of providers would “risk increasing the capacity shortfall.” While I share the Secretary of State’s desire to ensure that we are getting best value for the taxpayer in this sector, we need to solve the capacity issue first; otherwise, ironically, she risks driving up prices and exacerbating the shortage of places. The last Government took steps at the Budget in April to address the capacity side, with £165 million allocated for building and maintaining placements for looked-after children.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I welcome the Government’s focus today on children’s social care, and on the profiteering issues that we identified and set up the market intervention advisory group to look at when we were in government. However, at the heart of the problem is a lack of high-quality places for looked-after children. That is what is causing the high cost of placements, as demand is outstripping supply.”
“We will support the Government if they seek to drive up apprenticeship starts and improve vocational education, and we will work as hard as we can with them on improving the current absence rates, because we know they are hitting disadvantaged children.”
“Will the Minister please confirm today that the increased costs from employers’ national insurance contributions will be taken into account by the Government in the funding formula? Otherwise, we are going to have a real crisis with provision. The Minister needs to recognise that and take it away if she cannot answer now. More broadly, this has been a helpful and interesting debate. Education is an area where we need to work together to make progress for disadvantaged children. I say to all Labour Members that the Conservatives will drive that forward by insisting on high academic standards and the rigorous holding to account of schools for their performance, and by ensuring that the curriculum is knowledge based and drives children forward.”
“I very much echo the comments from the hon. Member for Twickenham about the importance of early years. I will quibble with her about the funding that has gone into early years, which obviously increased massively under the last Government, but we have a real problem now with early years funding. The national insurance contributions change will have a significant impact on the sector. It will means that, in contrast to what the Prime Minister said today, costs for parents will go up. Also, childcare provision has had no guarantees that the Government’s funding formula will include provision for the increased cost from NICs. Obviously, under the previous Government we set it up so that the minimum wage increases will be taken into account.”
“We will very much support the register, which I believe is going to be in that Bill, but when will that Bill be brought forward and how does the Minister intend to make it work? The speeches made about young carers by the hon. Members for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) were very moving and absolutely right, and I am interested in the Minister’s comments on them. The mention by the hon. Member for Twickenham of state special schools was important. I was pleased to see that they have not been paused, but given the speech given last week by the Secretary of State, will the Minister confirm that she still believes in the principle of having separate special schools? Will they be continued and will parents have the choice as to whether they send their kids to them?”
“Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) that once skills have gone, it is very difficult to get them back. What is the Minister doing to safeguard specific high-value and rare skills, particularly in the craft area? I hope she answers correctly the brilliant contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on free school meals, holiday activities and breakfast clubs, all of which are crucial to driving forward the progress of disadvantaged children. I share interest in the question asked by the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) on when the children’s wellbeing Bill will be introduced. The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), mentioned the importance of driving down the number of absences, which we absolutely want to do on a cross-party basis.”
“Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) that we need to be careful about what we do in this area, because the worst thing we can do for disadvantaged children is dilute academic standards. I will get to the meat of the debate now because I think I have covered that. We are all interested in the number of apprenticeships going up. I would be interested to know from the Minister how much apprenticeship start numbers will go up and whether the Government stand by the pledge to spend up to 50% of the apprenticeship levy on other types of training. That was committed to before the election. I am not clear as to whether that is still the case now, so it would be helpful for the Minister to give some clarification on that specific point. I agree with the hon.”
“We are never going to get anywhere if we talk about a toxic legacy on education under the Conservatives. We all want to make progress on this stuff. In 2010, we were behind Germany and France in PISA; now we are ahead. Obviously, we can contrast that with what happened in Wales and Scotland. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) was absolutely right that the SNP has failed to close the gap for disadvantaged children. If we are going to make progress, which we all want to do, on raising educational standards and helping disadvantaged children, it is important to look at why some things have gone well, and one of the reasons is a knowledge-based curriculum. I say to the hon.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on securing the debate and on his focus on the specific issue—it was a very good speech. I echo the commendation from him and the hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) of the work of colleges and the important things they do. I will get the ding-dong out the way. I gently point out to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe that apprenticeship starts under the Conservatives went up quite considerably from 2010 to 2022-23, from 279,000 to 337,000. I am sure he will want to reflect that in his closing remarks. I also want to pick up on something said by the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin).”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I say how delighted I am to be in the role? We will be a constructive Opposition working in the best interests of young people. In that spirit, I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that the Government’s early years funding rates for all age groups will increase to reflect the changes in employer national insurance contributions. Will she give us a figure for how much that will cost the Department for Education?”
“There has been a lot of discussion about our record in government. Under the Conservatives, England climbed international educational league tables, but what happened to Labour- run Wales? It fell. Under the Conservatives, youth unemployment went down and school standards improved —that is the record of the Conservative Government, which we are proud to defend. Does the Secretary of State agree that academisation was one of the driving forces behind that very good school improvement?”