Disabled Students
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for tabling this Question for Short Debate and for raising a number of crucial issues about the lack of continuity as young disabled people progress through the education system and into the world of work. I am also grateful to him for prompting me to revisit some of the detailed work that we did on the Children and Families Bill and look again at its progress towards implementation. When I looked back at the Bill, I was reassured to see that it came out of our scrutiny process in much better shape, and with more clarity about rights and responsibilities, than when we started. In that case, it was a job well done. I agree with the noble Lord that if we get the implementation right, it will turn out to be a transformative Bill and make a big difference to the lives of many young people with disabilities and special educational needs for many years to come. The challenge for us at this stage is about implementation.
The theme quite rightly established in the Bill was the need to be proactive. There is the need to have joined-up provision and the need for agencies to talk to each other and take joint responsibility for services. This was encapsulated in the notion of the education, health and care plans. It would be interesting to have an update on the progress being made to establish these local joint mechanisms, which are needed to make the care plans a reality. Perhaps the Minister could update us about what is being put in place to monitor the rollout of the Act to ensure that it becomes a reality on the ground and, in particular, to look at what local authorities are doing to fulfil their obligations in this regard.
In the mean time, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has identified some rather glaring gaps in our new model of information-sharing and joint working. It was interesting that in the initial response to the consultation on the code of practice, which we received a copy of and which was in the Library pack, the FE sector said that it was rather in the dark as to how the plans would affect it. I am not totally surprised about that because during the course of the Bill, I did not really get the sense that it was engaged in the debate or really understood what the implications for that sector would be. It is helpful that the code has now been redrafted to spell out the FE sector’s statutory duties more clearly. For example, there are the reciprocal duties to co-operate with local authorities on arrangements for all young people with SEN; to admit a young person if the institution is named in the education, health and care plan; and to provide the right support for students with SEN disabilities.
The list of types of support which should be provided and the access to funds are also spelt out. However, underpinning the code there is also an expectation that local authorities will provide top-up funding. It is clear that there is a potential pinch point for students caught in the middle of these funding negotiations. As all noble Lords will know, local authority funding is in a particular crisis at the moment. Can the Minister explain what rights young people have to be provided with that funding to ensure that they have the right facilities when they go into college and can make their college years a success?
The code also makes it clear that colleges should be involved in transition planning between school and college to ensure a successful transition into college life. However, underpinning that again, what guarantees do young people have that the assessments of their needs that were made during their school education will be carried automatically into their time at college? What is to stop an FE college asking for new assessments to be made—trying, if you like, to delay the inevitable or to put off its responsibilities? In addition, there is also all the extra bureaucracy and resources involved and, obviously, the extra upset that will be caused to young people, who feel that the original assessment that was made about them is now being challenged. Where, then, is that reassurance of continuity which was at the heart of the Act and can we be assured that that will follow through in the way the FE sector receives students?
Meanwhile, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, quite rightly raised concerns around the changes to the disabled students’ allowance that were recently announced by the Universities Minister. That announcement goes completely against the spirit and intent of the Children and Families Act. By any measure, it is a blatant cost-cutting exercise because, as we know, it has been judged that it will result in potential cuts to DSA funding in the region of about 60%. One can see why it is attractive to the department at this stage. As a result, only those students with complex disabilities will receive support. Many students will lose access to vital equipment which helps with their day-to-day learning and will lose vital specialist support. I do not claim to understand completely all the technical challenges which the noble Lord raised this evening. They made sense when he was explaining it but I would not be able to repeat it all.
Lord Addington
If they made sense only when I was explaining them, I have failed.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
As I said, the noble Lord explained it very well and it made sense, but I obviously have a lot more to learn about the technical facilities that are out there and about how they can be embraced by people with disabilities. However, it is clear that unless the funding is there and the DSA takes account of those up-to-date technologies, we will have failed. The noble Lord made the point that students with dyslexia and dyspraxia, for example, are likely to be particularly badly affected. I also accept the point the noble Baroness raised about autism. Both of those areas are sometimes difficult to define.
One of the concerns about this is that students will undoubtedly be put off from applying to higher education, which of course used to be the case in the old days; they never went to higher education because they never felt that the support would be there. There is a danger that they will fall back on less appropriate post-school choices. The problem with that is that, if nothing else, it runs the risk of being even more expensive for the Government to support. We therefore have a challenge to ensure that every child gets the right to have the best education and the best outcomes that they will be able to succeed in.
Can the Minister explain what discussions took place between the Department of Education and BIS before the announcement was made? Does she accept that the cutbacks in DSA funding go against the whole principle of supportive and integrated progression in education for young people with SEN and disabilities? Are we sure that BIS understood all the good work that was done around the Children and Families Bill? Has it got the message and taken it on board in the way that it is beginning to review the DSA?
Finally, the support that young people receive from nought to 25 should mean a smooth transition into the world of work. We worked hard during the passage of the Children and Families Bill to put those mechanisms in place as well. Again, the noble Lord referred to better access to work placements and apprenticeships, on which we spent considerable time. However, since there are now worrying signs that Ministers in BIS have not bought into that agenda, can the Minister reassure us that that active liaison is taking place between the departments to make sure that, not just in the letter but in practice, funding and support will be made available to all young people so that they all have the best opportunities to make the best of their lives and to thrive and succeed at work? I look forward to her response.
Education: Foreign Language Teaching
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am also extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for tabling this debate today and add my thanks for her continuing commitment to making foreign language teaching in schools a success. As she said, this is a very timely debate, which allows us to be updated on the progress being made in implementing the key stage 2 proposals. As I think has been said, the noble Baroness has, quite rightly, identified the main challenges which still lie ahead.
First, I should state from the outset that we support the principle that foreign language teaching should be compulsory at key stage 2. Our record of producing young people and adults fluent in other languages over the years has been rather woeful. England continues to be ranked the worst country in Europe for the level of acquisition of foreign languages among teenagers. We have a long way to go, but we need to get the detail right. It may be that a 10-year run-in was too long, as my noble friend Lady Morris suggested, but conversely it seems that we are working to a rather tight timetable here for the implementation of the policy by September 2014. The Government have tried to make a virtue out of having a hands-off approach to schools, but on this occasion I hope the Minister would acknowledge that help is needed on this issue given the scale of the challenge ahead. I hope he is able to reassure us that steps are being taken by the department to roll the policy out successfully rather than leaving schools to do it all alone.
Secondly, as has been said, there continues to be a concern about the lack of staff expertise. Arguably, teaching a foreign language badly is worse than not teaching it at all at this level. For example, nearly a quarter of primary schools have no member of staff with a language qualification higher than GCSE. For many, that qualification was taken many years ago or, indeed, could be in a different language to the one they are now being asked to teach. Therefore there are challenges with the skills of the teaching pool. Arguably, that challenge—the language skills of existing teachers—is not something that will easily be met by September 2014. I hope the Minister can clarify how quality teaching will be assured and whether a national audit of the skills is being carried out. Do we have a sense of the scale of the problem, and how is the department addressing that issue?
Thirdly, there is the rather thorny issue of the choice of languages to be taught. When we debated the language order in Grand Committee which set the scene for these changes last year, I made it clear that we opposed the narrow range of languages which the Government intended to prescribe, and was therefore pleased when that element of the proposal was dropped. At the time I was unhappy on the basis that having a restricted list of languages would prevent us from benefiting from schools being able to adopt the languages predominant in their local community and to take advantage of that. For example, I was for many years a school governor in a part of Kennington which became known as Little Portugal because of the cluster of Portuguese shops and restaurants and, eventually, the large number of the families that came to live there. It made sense for that school to have Portuguese as its adopted second language. Indeed, the Portuguese embassy used to visit the school regularly and help with the language teaching there. In retrospect, that was a good model upon which we should build.
However, it is clear that to have a successful foreign language strategy we must have high levels of collaboration between primary and secondary school language teachers, particularly if we accept that a variety of languages will be taught at key stage 2. This has been said by a number of noble Lords this afternoon. That, again, is a challenge for the Government, and once again those strong interschool links require not only extra encouragement but extra resources. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what he is doing to encourage that collaboration.
Finally, there is the issue of the content of the primary language learning. The best language teaching I have witnessed makes the language come alive, encouraging children to communicate, perhaps imperfectly in the first instance, and to play games. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, quite rightly stressed this, and gave some exciting examples about the importance of enjoyment at that level. I argue that grammar ought to come later. I am concerned at the messages from the department that seem to concentrate too much on learning grammar and not enough on that initial speaking and communicating.
I hope that we can agree that we are all aiming for the same outcome here, which is to raise the game of foreign language teaching at primary and secondary level, and to develop more young people who are able to communicate effectively on the global stage. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord has to say about the plans to make sure that we are on track to achieve that.
Women: Sport and Physical Activity
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(10 years, 12 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for initiating this debate today, contributing in a thoughtful way and raising some important and complicated issues, as did the other speakers. We have had a very wise and well informed debate, and I am conscious that I may not be able to live up to it because, rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I can talk about sport more than I can do it. I occasionally put my running shoes on—not often enough, I am sure.
The fact is that we have been faced with some pretty depressing statistics about young women’s alienation from sport and exercise. If we are not careful, this will develop—we can already see it developing—into on the one hand an epidemic of obesity among young girls and on the other a whole strata of young women with eating disorders or who resort to cosmetic surgery as a solution. That cannot be right and it shows a real distortion in the minds of young people that that is thought to be the solution to having a beautiful body. If we allow those trends to carry on, it is predicted, for the first time since records began, that the next generation will have a lower life expectancy that the previous one—and that when we have so much good food and capacity for healthy living. It is a real challenge to us. Meanwhile, as noble Lords said, an inquiry by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Body Image heard evidence that more than half the public had a negative body image, and girls as young as five worry about how they look.
We can place clear responsibility for this at the door of the media. We have heard some examples of that this evening. But that is an easy cop-out because, in a sense, we all bear some responsibility for what has happened. All of us, to a greater or lesser degree, have subliminally absorbed some of those messages. Even people who should be more intelligent and knowledgeable seek to improve their body shape and allow their self-confidence to be damaged by images of people with a more perfect body. For example, I think I have been on a diet for most of my adult life. I am probably still on one. I am not quite sure when the last one finished and the new one started. I would like to think I am a sensible grown-up but I still allow myself to be trapped by those sorts of quick fixes about how to get my body back in shape.
As noble Lords have said, although exercise has a crucial role to play, nutrition and the whole concept of food—understanding it and a healthy relationship to it—are equally important in this whole debate. For example, schoolgirls often oscillate between skipping meals and snacking on calories at fast-food outlets. They get into a cycle of unhealthy eating and body rejection. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made the point that this is not just about girls but about all young people, yet there is a particular problem about girls. A research project by University College London showed that only 38% of girls had an hour’s exercise a day compared to 68% of boys. We can probably all identify with that: it feels about right.
How do we address this problem? We have to start with the school experience. Regrettably, we are still picking up the pieces from the early decision of the coalition to pull the funds from the school sports partnerships. For the first time, we had a successful model of school activities for all ages, combined with targets for every child to do at least two hours’ PE a week. We were well on the way to achieving that goal when the funding was withdrawn. Although some of the money has been reinstated following massive protest, it no longer has the same coverage, co-ordination or clout. In retrospect, that decision was a disaster for sport in schools, particularly as it coincided with the Olympics. It is not surprising that the recent Lords Select Committee on the Olympic and Paralympic Legacy was so critical of what had happened in school sports over that period. What steps are being taken to retrieve the situation and ensure that, going forward, we provide a comprehensive PE programme in schools?
There is another aspect of school sports policy, one that has already been touched upon, where the Government have been equally misguided. Unfortunately, Michael Gove’s decision to focus on competitive team sports has been a complete turn-off for many girls. This has been compounded by the Prime Minister’s disparaging comments about Indian dance. Sadly, both examples illustrate that the Government do not really understand the psychology of teenage girls. We have heard some examples of the problems of teenage girls and how anxious they feel about being expected to join in some school sports activities. Can the Minister reassure us that the Government have now got the message that we need a range of exercise options to ensure the widespread participation of girls in school sports?
Surely, the strategy has to be to start addressing the issue in early years. We have to find ways of making sport fun; anything, I would say, to keep girls moving so that they get to the point where they feel the natural high that you get from exercise. If you have not had it once or only have it occasionally, you do not crave it any more, but we all know that when you are exercising well and properly it is both physically and, in the same way, mentally rewarding. We somehow need to get them on that loop of progressive physical and mental benefit. We obviously welcome the money that the Government recently invested in primary school sports but, again, we are concerned that it has a two-year limit. I am anxious that that is not enough to ingrain a new sports ethos. Perhaps the Minister can also address that point.
If we are to be effective, we have to create a “sport for all” policy which is not just about the achievement of the most talented and able. Sport in schools should be about establishing healthy lifestyles that can lead to a healthy body weight in adulthood as well. As the noble Baroness pointed out, we need to break the cycle whereby young girls are so embarrassed about their bodies that they refuse to wear sports clothes, which they feel would expose them to ridicule. For example, a recent study found that 41% of women avoid exercise altogether because they are worried about their appearance and the clothes that they would be expected to wear. A survey by the beauty product brand Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty showed that 22% of girls would never go to a beach or a pool for similar reasons—because they are concerned about the clothes that they would have to wear in their circumstances—and that is just very depressing.
We will not break these cycles of the lack of exercise and body loathing unless we educate young women to rise above the advertising and social media hype, and love their bodies for what they are. There is a role for role models, particularly sporting icons, but it is wrong to place too much emphasis on them. What we need are images of women being active in all sorts of aspects of their lives—as second nature and as an essential part of their lives. Media coverage of women’s sports could also do a great deal to spark interest and participation. We could also do a great deal more to invest not only in women coaches but in local women’s sports clubs.
The Government’s Body Confidence campaign is a good initiative but it needs to be rolled out as part of a comprehensive PSHE curriculum. Perhaps the Minister could update us on the plans for the roll-out of this campaign. At the same time, we have to accept that health professionals need better training, so that they are better able, particularly in schools, to address the issues of obesity and body image when they talk to young people.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the use of the body mass index as an indicator of health is very limiting. Perhaps we should be looking at replacing it, or supplementing it with more accurate measures of overall health, such as cardiovascular fitness, waist circumference and body fat composition. There is a debate to be had about that. Can the Minister confirm whether such a move is being considered? Ultimately, I believe that we will only improve young women’s body image and physical health if we can find a way of making sport enjoyable again at all ages. That is our real challenge and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the issue.
Children and Families Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(11 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, in moving Amendment 242, I wish to speak also to my Amendment 244.
Amendment 242 would enable the introduction of a pilot scheme,
“to trial the registration of births within children’s centres”.
Currently, only a small number of centres offer birth registration—the practice is not widespread. Figures from the 4Children charity’s children’s centre census of 2013 suggest that only 6% of centres currently provide birth registration. Looking ahead to the next 12 months, only 13% of respondents to the census said that they expected to be offering birth registration in a year’s time.
A report from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sure Start Children’s Centres was published in July, entitled Best Practice for a Sure Start, which highlighted the positive impact that the provision of birth registration can have for centres. The report included evidence submitted by the Department for Education, which stated:
“The opportunity to register births in children’s centres is potentially a very effective means of alerting parents to the support services available and the benefits of accessing these services through children’s centres”.
The department also highlighted the experience of three local authorities which currently offer birth registration services: Manchester, Bury and York. Based on these case studies, the department identified a number of benefits of implementing birth registration in centres. First, the benefit of improved reach; there has been a concern that in the past, children’s centres were not reaching the hardest to reach, particularly young teenage mothers. It is considered that this will improve the ability to get at those hard to reach groups. Secondly, parents seem to be more likely to come back again. Once they have visited to do the birth registration, practitioners find that they come back to the service. The Benchill centre in Manchester had a re-engagement rate of 87.5% in 2012-13; which means that 87.5% of those who came for the registration must have come back again for further services.
Thirdly, there is a danger of stigma in visiting a children’s centre; people may feel that they can go only if there is something wrong with them. This, however, is a universal service. Everyone would go there to register their child, so there would be no stigma attached to it. Fourthly, practitioners talk about this as an important step forward in terms of involving fathers. Fathers will go along when the child is going to have the birth registered. I am not quite sure of the technical details as to why it is so important for fathers to be involved in the registration process—perhaps one of your Lordships can tell me in a minute—but there is a strong feeling that more fathers will be involved early in their child’s life this way. Finally, it is an opportunity to showcase to parents the wonderful services that are available to them at the children’s centres.
There is a strong case for increasing provision of birth registration services in children’s centres. This would be a very good means of doing so. It is not onerous for local authorities to deliver this. It is not costly to do. The risk is that with local authorities currently carrying such burdens, this is one trick that they might miss. This would mean families and children missing out on the benefits of it. I hope that the Minister can give a sympathetic response.
I will move on to Amendment 244, which is to do with information and data sharing. It will require NHS trusts to share data on live births with local authorities in order to facilitate greater engagement with parents through children’s centres and other outreach services. This amendment would support children’s centres’ ability to engage with new parents. Sharing the live-birth data would make a significant contribution to enabling centres to identify within their reach area the new parents with whom they have not yet been in contact; allowing them to target those parents they may have missed and reach out to them accordingly.
Your Lordships may feel that this second amendment is a little bit deficient in that it is not ambitious enough, because there are other areas that children’s centres could be advised about better—for instance, the troubled families agenda. Centres do not necessarily know about who Louise Casey is dealing with through the troubled families agenda. Also, there are things called multi-agency risk assessment conference boards, dealing with domestic violence. Again, children’s centres could benefit by being given information about what those boards know about so that they can reach out to families where there is domestic violence. So your Lordships may feel that something further should be added to this amendment and more information should be shared with children’s centres. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to this second amendment, too. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 247 to 249 in our names. In doing so, I would like to support the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, which are very much on a similar theme.
Our first amendment, Amendment 247, seeks to improve the information available on children’s centres and to hold the Government to account for their failure to deliver a vibrant network of children’s centres since coming into office. It requires the information to be published separately and regularly so that the trends can be clearly observed. The information that is collated on children’s centres is buried and inaccessible. It is tempting to say that this is deliberate since the Government do not want to admit that the Prime Minister has broken the commitment he gave before the election to protect the Sure Start network.
Thankfully, as a result of the work of 4Children and its 2013 children centre census, we now know that 566 fewer children’s centres are serving our communities, and that many of those that still exist are having to cut their hours or charge for services. This is a very long way from the concept of universal early-years provision, which was so welcomed when it was introduced by the previous Government. We would like to see the data set out in a structured and accessible form.
Amendment 248 on the issue of birth registration is similar to that raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Like him, we believe that there are very real advantages in births being registered at children’s centres. It would encourage a wider group of parents to visit the centres and become aware of the services on offer. It would also enable the staff to have a point of contact to reach out to isolated or dysfunctional families and offer them help.
We have often rehearsed the arguments in favour of early intervention to improve children’s life chances. The reports of Graham Allen and Frank Field both demonstrated that money spent on early years is cost effective in the longer term and helps children meet their full potential. The National Children’s Bureau’s literacy initiative is an excellent example of early intervention that can grow out of children’s centres, combining home visits with increased parental involvement in other well-being events and a dramatic improvement in child literacy. That is just one example.
Unfortunately, while it is possible to use children’s centres for birth registration if the local authority agrees, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, pointed out, so far only 6% of centres do that. I hope that the Minister will feel able to support our amendment, given that her own department gave evidence to the Sure Start report highlighting the advantages of birth registration at children’s centres. Our amendment requires the Secretary of State to commission an independent study into the impact on the welfare of children of requiring births to be registered in this way, supported by the option of pilot schemes to inform the study.
Finally, Amendment 249 is also similar to that of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. It requires NHS trusts to share details of live births with local authorities so that children’s centres and other early-years providers could follow up with appropriate outreach services. Again, there is good practice in some places where data are already shared. Other trusts feel that they are unable or unwilling to share and are concerned about confidentiality issues. This is where the Government could help by being much clearer about the advantages of sharing and the terms on which it should be done. How can local authorities be expected to carry out their safeguarding and child welfare responsibilities or plan adequately for local services if they are not made aware of the total picture of births in their area?
I hope the Minister will support our amendments. When this matter was discussed in the Commons, Jo Swinson reported that a short-life task and finish group had been set up to consider these issues and that it had subsequently made recommendations to the Minister. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, is now in a position to share those recommendations with us, and to tell us what action will be taken to follow it up. I look forward to hearing from her.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Will the Minister say a little more about the Jo Swinson task-and-finish group? I understand that culture and professional practice were barriers to data sharing, but did any positive recommendations come out of that group that the Government are intending to take forward, or just a list of barriers that make these things more difficult?
Baroness Northover
I think it would be best if I wrote to the noble Baroness with further details and copied the letter to other noble Lords, who will clearly be very interested in what the group reported.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 251. It would allow the Children’s Commissioner to conduct an investigation into the case of an individual child in specific circumstances which enable the commissioner to fulfil his or her primary purpose, which is defined as his or her strategic role. This principle, which underpins the existence of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, is accepted by everyone. This amendment seeks not to undermine it, but to aid the Children’s Commissioner in its pursuit.
We believe that the current proposed wording serves to undermine the ability of the commissioner to work strategically. Five years ago, Meltem Avcil, a 14 year-old girl, slashed her wrists when her bail application was turned down when she was detained at Yarl’s Wood detention centre. After self-harming, the child was handcuffed to a hospital bed. The then Children’s Commissioner for England, Al Aynsley-Green, investigated her case of self-harm. His report concluded that detaining the child for 80 days had amounted to inhuman treatment and recommended public policy changes to avoid such events occurring in the future. This is just one example of where the ability to investigate an individual case has advanced the strategic work of the Children’s Commissioner.
Another example is from Wales, where an investigation into specific cases of school exclusion led to the discovery that children were routinely informally excluded for prolonged periods in a manner that was against their interests. When this was debated in the Commons, the Minister, Edward Timpson, responded that the injunction on such investigations was to prevent the commissioner,
“becoming bogged down in individual casework at the expense of the OCC’s strategic role”.
That is an unsatisfactory response; it is clear that specific investigations can serve to aid a strategic approach.
Our amendment does not allow the commissioner carte blanche to engage in investigations or, indeed, make the commissioner feel under an obligation to investigate all individual cases which he or she receives. Instead, it is highly limiting and restricts investigations to when it is judged that they can genuinely advance the commissioner’s strategic role. Furthermore, the wording of our amendment also serves as a rebuttal to the suggestion that it would create a presumption that casework was part of the commissioner’s role and that it offered an alternate point of appeal to existing channels.
There also appears to be an element of confusion among Ministers. Mr Timpson said that it is “simply not possible” for the commissioner to investigate individual cases,
“without the commissioner’s strategic role being compromised”.
Nevertheless, in further discussion, he proceeded to point to other provisions in the Bill which allow the commissioner to,
“initiate a formal inquiry into the case of an individual child where he or she considers that it raises issues of public policy that are relevant to the other children under the separate inquiry function”.—[Official Report, Commons, Children and Families Bill Committee, 23/4/13; cols. 681-82.]
That is an apparent tacit admission that it is possible for the commissioner to investigate individual cases without compromising his strategic role. Unfortunately, the Bill makes it clear that that simply will not be possible in future. All of us accept the fundamental importance of the strategic role of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner yet it also seems obvious that this can be properly pursued only if the commissioner has the freedom fully to investigate individual cases in very specific instances. Our amendment seeks to find the appropriate wording to ensure that this can occur. I hope that the Minister will feel able to support our proposal, if not the exact wording of our amendment.
Viscount Eccles
My Lords, I have a third amendment in this group, to Schedule 6 and on a very different subject. It is proposed that the Children’s Rights Director, who is part of Ofsted, is to be transferred to the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, taking the duties and powers of the office with him. Is that already happening? If it is, will the resources that are transferred balance with the duties and the costs of carrying out those duties in such a way as to make no material difference to the Office of the Children’s Commissioner in respect of resources?
Children and Families Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(11 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
My Lords, first, I make a general point. The notion or the policy of a local offer is hugely important as, for the first time, parents and families will know what is available and it will be clear, concise and jargon-free. I have sympathy with most of the amendments that have been tabled but if we read the code of conduct it makes it clear what should happen. What is the local offer? It says clearly in the code of conduct that it must include both local provision and provision outside that particular area, given what is available in other areas. It refers to how it has to be clear, comprehensive and accessible and to engaging parents, children and young people. Hallelujah! It says that it should be easy to understand, and so on. So when the Bill is linked to the code of conduct, many of our concerns are dealt with there. Some word changes in the code would perhaps help it in some way. However, I am very much reassured, since in the code “should” is often replaced by “must”.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Low, for introducing his amendments, to which we have added our names. I speak in support of the amendments and of other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate.
We are all in our own way trying to address one of the fundamental concerns about the impact of Part 3 of the Bill. As a number of noble Lords have said, of course we welcome the principle of a published local offer—it has been widely welcomed by many in the sector—but our concern is what the local offer will mean in practice and what certainty of provision will underpin it. Like many other noble Lords, we feel that there is an urgent need to clarify this to avoid it becoming a wish list of the unobtainable.
In essence, there should be a legal duty on local authorities to provide what is set out in the local offer. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, made clear in moving the amendment, the solution could be relatively simple. Subsection (1) currently states that the local authority must publish information about the provision which it “expects to be available”; our amendment would simply switch that from “expects to be” to “is”. As I say, it is a simple solution. However, it is important because making that change will give those people who are trying to operate in this sector, under these rules, the reassurance that they need.
The document is intended to give parents, children and young people clear information about the local services and support available to them. Of course we welcome giving parents more information, but clarity and accountability are key to this information being effective. The local offer should be a document on which parents can rely and for which the local authority can be held accountable. However, how can we ensure accountability when the statement is one of expectation and ambition?
We also want to ensure minimum standards for the local offer, irrespective of where people live. We will return to that issue in a later debate today.
When this was discussed in the Commons the Minister said that the word “expects” reflects ambition rather than weakness. He said that the local offer will make it clear how parents and young people can complain or appeal if they are unhappy with any of the provisions set out in it so that the matter can be taken up with the service provider concerned. This seems a strange way to go about it. Why rely on an effective appeals system when we should be getting the provision right in the first place? This is particularly so when you consider how difficult it is for people to bring forward an appeal. You need to look only at the recent SEND tribunal statistics to realise some of the difficulties that are being experienced in this regard.
In addition, there is a worrying reliance on the detail of the arrangements to be prescribed in regulation and in the code of practice, which again makes it difficult to challenge. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that the draft code of practice repeats the get-out clause for local authorities of publishing what they expect to be available. So there is a flaw in the argument about where the information should be held and accessed.
As my noble friend Lady Wilkins said, there is an understandable concern across the sector that at a time of considerable pressure on local authority budgets, with children’s services already being cut back, parents will have no control over the services in the local offer being withdrawn in the future.
I have listened carefully to the issues around personal budgets raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the points that she raises. Our Amendment 180, which we will debate later in the Bill, will tackle these issues in a different way. We are trying to ensure that, rather than rushing into a new regime of personal budgets, with the potential difficulties that the noble Baroness identified, we take time to learn from the pathfinder experience before implementing that section of the Bill. We have to get this right.
We think these amendments are essential to making the local offer a meaningful, substantial service that would genuinely be welcomed by service users. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to reconsider his position on this basis.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I shall speak to our Amendment 124 in this group and support the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Low, has put forward in support of his amendment.
We began this debate about inclusion and access to mainstream education in Committee last week, but I am very pleased to have the opportunity to return to some of those issues. During that debate, the Minister sought to reassure us that duties were already in existence, including under the Equality Act 2010, to prevent discrimination against disabled people and that that addressed some of the issues about which we were concerned. However, I support the amendments that have been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, because she has identified some of the remaining contradictions between the Equality Act and some of the duties that this Bill is spelling out. It is important that those issues are bottomed out, and I support her amendments.
We remain concerned that, by agreeing to this wording unamended, we will be introducing a get-out clause which would allow schools to duck out of their responsibilities to provide mainstream education when requested. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, pointed out, Clause 33 places a duty on local authorities to ensure that children and young people with an EHC plan are placed in mainstream education. There are two important caveats. The first is if a place is incompatible with the wishes of the child’s parents or the young person. Obviously we support that caveat. As we have said before, parental choice and the views of young people are crucial in identifying the best educational provision for a particular child.
It seems to us that the second caveat goes against the whole spirit and intent of the Bill. Clause 33(2)(b) provides that local authorities can opt out of providing mainstream education if it is incompatible with,
“the provision of efficient education for others”.
We feel that we should have moved on from that wording at this stage.
The wording raises questions about who defines what level of disruption is incompatible with efficient education. For example, could it be argued that any child with health issues in a school environment could potentially interfere with the efficient education of others? Or could any child whose educational needs required additional attention from a teacher arguably be taking the teacher’s time away from others, thereby affecting their education? How far are we going to apply this wording?
The Minister said that the Equality Act protects against discrimination, but is there not something rather worrying about defining disabled children’s rights by the level of inconvenience that they might cause? Therefore, our amendment would remove that reference and replace it with a much more positive commitment to meet the specific needs of children and young people.
Reference has been made to the draft code of conduct. It appears to me that it adds a further reason why a request for mainstream education could be refused, and that is the incompatibility with the efficient use of resources. As I understand it, this used to be a factor that schools could fall back on, basically arguing that it was too costly to educate children with SEN in mainstream schools. However, it was removed by the previous Government in 2001, so it now appears that we are going backwards, making it more difficult to access mainstream education.
We believe that ensuring that the needs and wishes of children, young people and their families ought to be the only justifiable basis on which they should be placed in a non-mainstream setting. We acknowledge that many mainstream schools still lack the capacity to provide a good education to children with certain learning difficulties and disabilities, but surely the solution is to address those failings in a structured and positive way within a given timetable, not to give those schools an opt-out. However, we have to accept that some schools are reluctant to admit children with special educational needs or to take the steps necessary to modify their facilities, particularly with the pressure of league tables uppermost in their minds. There is no doubt that some academies and free schools are seeking to operate more stringent admissions policies. This comes back to the issues raised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission about the alignment of the reasonable adjustment duty with the duties in the Bill. We need to make sure that they are properly aligned. Our concern is that the provisions in the Bill and the draft code of conduct give schools an excuse not to make any changes.
At Second Reading, this issue was addressed with some passion by several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. We feel there is a need to address the failings in the Bill and the code in this respect. The Green Paper referred to creating a bias towards inclusion. If we are serious about that, we should remove Clause 33(2)(b). In his letter to Peers after Second Reading, the Minister referred to the fact that the Bill already provides for the wishes of children, young people and their parents to be taken into account and, of course, it does, but that misses the point if their wishes can be overridden by the needs of so-called efficient education for others or the efficient use of resources. I hope the Minister will take these issues seriously and look again at what we believe is increasingly backward-looking wording which goes so far against the spirit and intent of the Bill and that we can come back with a more positive form of words.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group, two of them on equality rights. I shall start with Amendment 125, which is a probing amendment regarding a concern of the Association of Educational Psychologists. There are two more amendments later, but I want to deal with this amendment because in answering the Minister may be able to give reassurance.
Currently any child who has special educational needs but does not have a statement must be educated in a mainstream school. There are no exceptions to this duty, which helps ensure that children and young people are not inappropriately placed in special schools. The concern is that Clause 34(3) allows special academies, including free schools, to admit children or young people permanently without them having had their special educational needs statutorily assessed or an EHC plan having been put in place for them. This proposal seems to undermine the principle that a mainstream school must be able to make provision for all children without a statement or plan and for most children with a statement or plan.
Although special academies will need to make it clear through their funding agreement that a child or young person with SEN but no EHC plan should be placed there only at the request of their parents or at their own request and with the support of professional advice, such as a report from an educational psychologist, the concern is that there is no formal role for the local authority in this process. The worry is that this proposal will make the local authority’s role of planning provision for pupils with SEN, including provision for children and young persons with EHC plans, extremely difficult.
If this proposal went through, there would be a danger that mainstream special schools would be incentivised to persuade parents that their child would be better off in a special school just because they do not want them in their schools. This would take us back to the situation that existed before the Education Act 1981. There could also be a situation where special academies increasingly enrolled pupils with less complex needs, which would beg the question of where children with complex needs would go. If this clause remains, I would question the point of mainstream places within a special school.
I fear that this proposal would result in medical labels determining whether a child secures a place in a special academy. If a special academy had been set up for a particular type of SEN—for example, SpLD or ASD/Asperger’s—would it result in an increase in the number of children being diagnosed with that condition? How can the Government ensure that there is a framework process so that inappropriate placements do not occur?
There are also concerns about the practical impact on admissions and places. Would decisions be taken solely by schools and parents, and how would educational psychologists’ views be protected and advocated? How would places be allocated within school year groups? If there was parental demand, could the funding agreement be varied to allow more non-EHC plan places? The policy also begs the key question of what the aspiration would be for a child without an EHC plan in a special academy. Would there be an exit plan? Who would set the child targets and ensure that they are making adequate progress?
This amendment has been tabled because it is hoped that the Minister will look again at the proposals and help to allay serious concerns in the SEN sector that this clause could result in children and young people being inappropriately placed in special schools. Ideally, the Association of Educational Psychologists would like to see the clause amended so that special academies are not able to admit children and young people without an EHC plan. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to dispel those doubts.
I turn now to Clause 33, which relates to children and young people with education, health and care plans, and Clause 34, which relates to children and young people with special educational needs but no education, health and care plans. Amendment 124A seeks to insert a new subsection in Clause 33 which states:
“This section does not affect the duties of schools imposed by section 85(6) of the Equality Act 2010, which places a duty on the responsible body of a school to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons”.
Amendment 126A seeks to insert a new subsection in Clause 34 which states:
“This section does not affect the duties of schools imposed by section 85(6) of the Equality Act 2010, which places a duty on the responsible body of a school to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons”.
The amendments are about ensuring that schools and local authorities are fully aware of the reasonable adjustments duty owed by schools to disabled pupils where the child has special educational needs. Some disabled pupils will have special educational needs and may be receiving support via school-based special educational needs provision or have an educational, health and care plan under the new arrangements. Just because a disabled pupil has special educational needs or an education, health and care plan, it does not take away a school’s duty to make reasonable adjustments for them.
Children and Families Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(11 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 72, the wording of which, as the Committee will note, is similar to that used by my noble friend Lady Greengross in her Amendment 71. I apologise to the Committee if it, quite rightly, thinks that I am being a bit military in my approach to Part 3 of the Bill. I am doing so because, in my experience, things work much better if they are corralled into an overall strategy.
As I mentioned earlier in our proceedings, the Bill is, or ought to be, all about child development, the heart of that being Clause 19(d), which refers to, “the need to support” every child or young person,
“and his or her parent … in order to facilitate the development … and to help him or her achieve the best possible educational and other outcomes”.
The key word in this is “development”. The current absence of a Minister for child development was the reason for my earlier question to the Minister about who was responsible, and therefore accountable, for overseeing the development of every child in the country. This concern arises from my view that the only raw material that every nation has in common is its people, so woe betide it if it does not do everything that it can to identify, nurture and develop the talents of all its people. If it does not, it has only itself to blame if it fails.
The absence of any apparent child development strategy is doubly disappointing. A number of recent initiatives seemed to suggest that the development of every child was becoming the Government’s default aim. For example, the introduction of an early years foundation stage in every child’s life, concluding with an assessment, appears to be a sensible way to enable entry to a 0 to 25 pathway. During our work on the link between social disadvantage and speech, language and communication needs, the All-Party Group on Speech and Language Difficulties, which I chair, was shown four other sub-pathways that were being worked on by the Department for Education, the Department of Health and others. One covered pre-birth and the first few months of life, the second up to and including primary school, the third roughly secondary school and transition into adulthood, and the fourth was for those at risk of becoming involved with the criminal justice system. Those seemed entirely sensible and appropriate because they pulled in all the players in those processes. I should therefore be very grateful if the Minister would let me know what the current status of these four pathways is and their relationship to the 0 to 25 pathway proposed for those with special educational needs.
Logic suggests that the early years foundation stage assessments should be turned into individual health, education and care plans and 0 to 25 pathways for everyone. Default education, health and care plans for the 81.2% of children who do not need help along the way, unlike the 2.8% on statements and the 16% on school action or school action plus plans, could merely be progression through the educational system, but it would be a plan. However, the Bill as presented, instead of seizing a priceless opportunity to bring order and logic into a system that requires the co-operation and joint working of so many different ministries and agencies, by laying down a default position and then highlighting how individual necessary alternatives are to be identified and delivered, does not contain the necessary strategy and leaves a number of key requirements unresolved. These include further assessments at various stages along a pathway to identify changes of need and oversight of the whole process.
Amendment 72, about which I am extremely grateful for the detailed legal advice of David Wolfe QC, focuses on one important part of special educational provision, as well as trying to seal a potential crack in the presumed strategy. The importance of speech and language therapy was highlighted for me when, as Chief Inspector of Prisons, I was wondering what could be done with and for the more than 60% of young offenders who were found to have speech, language and communication needs. If only those needs had been identified and challenged earlier in their lives, they might never have truanted or been evicted from school, or ended up in young offender institutions. Luckily, Lady Helen Hamlyn funded a two-year trial of putting a speech and language therapist into each of two young offender institutions. The two governors of these institutions were saying, within a week of the therapists’ arrival, that they did not how they had managed before they came along.
To cut a long story short, everyone agreed how invaluable their contribution was, because at last all young offenders could communicate with education, healthcare and disciplinary staffs, which enabled individual plans to be made. Despite this, I could not persuade either the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Education to pay for them, because speech and language therapists belonged to the Department of Health, whose Secretary of State in turn refused to pay, on the grounds that all such funding was delegated to what were then called primary care trusts. The development of thousands of children has gone by default, and the same could happen to millions more if speech and language therapy is not enshrined in government child development plans.
Therefore, I welcome the Government’s apparent intention to maintain the existing position, confirmed in both case law and the current Special Educational Needs Code of Practice from 2001, which, in Chapter 8.49, says that,
“since communication is so fundamental in learning and progression, addressing speech and language impairment should normally be recorded as educational provision, unless there are exceptional reasons for not doing so”.
The new, separate definition of healthcare provision in the Bill creates a risk that speech and language therapists, because they are provided by the NHS to address this impairment, could be reclassified as healthcare provision, rather than, as currently, educational provision.
This raises two problems. First, parents could lose their right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. Secondly, healthcare provision does not have to be included in an educational health and care plan unless it is, to quote the Bill, “reasonably” required, which implies that it could be left out on cost grounds. Although Clause 21(5) mitigates the risk of reclassification, it does not remove it, and the rewording that I am proposing in Amendment 72 is designed to ensure unambiguously that the existing classification of speech and language therapy as educational provision is maintained. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, our Amendment 73 is in this group, and it has the same intent as that of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. We have just gone about it in a slightly different way. The issue is one of what should be classified as special educational provision. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, quite rightly pointed out, this is important because, by its nature, this determines what issues parents can take to appeal, and we should make that classification as broad as we possibly can.
We have debated before in Grand Committee how broad a definition we are going to apply to special educational needs, and that we believe that a whole tranche of disabled children are not classified and included in that. This issue touches on that somewhat as well. As we said at the time, it is important to get a standard classification of special educational needs and disability included throughout the Bill. We have not tabled amendments to this clause to take that on board; however, earlier clauses ought to clarify it more clearly.
Clause 21(5) sets out that healthcare provision and social care provision can be classified as special educational needs if they are,
“made wholly or mainly for the purposes of … education or training”.
However, according to many in the sector, backed up by the legal advice that we have received, there is a concern that the new definition of the phrase “wholly or mainly” sets a higher threshold than that which exists. We have heard from, among others, David Wolfe QC, the adviser mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. That is why our amendment would remove “wholly or mainly” from the clause.
The initial draft of the Bill did not include a requirement for educational provision to be wholly or mainly for educational purposes. It stated that anything provided by the health authority was health provision and that anything provided by social care was, similarly, social care provision and therefore not enforceable or appealable to the tribunal. The new wording was introduced as a result of opposition to the initial draft but we still do not feel that it deals with this problem. I think the Minister will be aware that there is considerable concern about this issue, particularly around therapies such as those for speech and language, which may be classed simply as health service provision under this clause and therefore, apart from anything else, not appealable.
In addition, we have also received the following legal advice:
“Following case law dating back to 1989 the general position has been that any provision which is directly related to an educational need can be classified as educational or medical and it is for the tribunal to decide. Guidance has been given that speech and language therapy will normally be considered educational because of its importance in communication, whereas other therapies such as occupational therapy vary according to the type of difficulty the child has and how far the therapy relates to an educational objective. Tribunals have consistently held that where a provision has a beneficial educational aspect, and is directly related to the child’s educational needs, it can be described as educational provision and specified in the statement. This aspect needs to be set out in the current bill if parents’ rights are not to be eroded. The current wording set a higher bar and reduces the rights of the child and parent”.
This issue was raised briefly in the Commons by the Conservative MP Robert Buckland. At the time, the Minister there replied that,
“the clause maintains the existing right of appeal to the tribunal for special educational provision so that parents will not lose their current protections”.—[Official Report, Commons, Children and Families Bill Committee, 19/3/13; col. 372.]
However, this is not what the experts are telling us, so it would be extremely helpful if the Minister could clarify this and work with us to find alternative wording which would ensure that we are not raising the bar and eroding parents’ rights. In his letter to us following Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Nash, wrote that,
“the Government recognises the concerns and is looking for ways to address them”.
I would be really grateful if he could tell us how far he has got in looking at ways to address these concerns, and whether he would now be prepared to find an alternative form of wording to address this issue.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment very warmly. I think that the wording of the Bill must be changed because, although I understand that the Government consider that they can rely on case law to establish the primacy of the education purpose, their own draft SEN code suggests that more firmness is needed. I quote:
“Health or social care provision made wholly or mainly for the purposes of education or training must be treated as special education provision”.
Noble Lords might say that that is all we are asking, but the fact that they have to put “must” in the code suggests to me that there is an element of doubt. I suggest that certainty is what is required in the law, and the code simply amplifies the law.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 127, I should say that I support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I pay tribute to the considerable amount of work that she has done in campaigning on the needs of severely bullied children.
As the noble Baroness said, this is a growing and worrying issue. This is backed up by a recent DfE report which identified that 47% of children reported being bullied at age 14, 41% at 15 and 29% at 16. This is a significant proportion of young people. Many report that the bullying is ongoing and for some of them it is an everyday event. There is also growing evidence that this problem particularly affects children with disabilities and special educational needs, who are, apparently, three times as likely to be bullied, with verbal, emotional and physical bullying prevalent. Again this is relevant to the debates that we have had in Committee. As the noble Baroness said, many of these children do not come to the attention of the authorities but some are so traumatised that their behaviour, school attendance and mental health begin to be affected. Figures have been cited of more than 16,000 young people at any one time refusing to attend school.
We support Amendments 74 and 217, which address these issues in a structured and helpful way. They would ensure that the Secretary of State produced a strategy and statutory guidance to prevent bullying, and provide effective recovery programmes for those affected and a temporary SEN statement to access help and support. These amendments, combined with ours, would go a considerable way towards addressing the poor educational provision and lack of consistency in meeting the needs of children temporarily unable or unwilling to attend school.
Our amendment seeks to introduce a new clause to widen out the concerns to cover children who, because they are bullied, suffer from a mental health problem or a medical condition and are unable to attend mainstream school for a period of time. We are attempting to address these widespread concerns. These issues were flagged by our colleagues in the Commons and were mentioned by a number of noble Lords at Second Reading.
In addition to the incidence of bullying, the Teenage Cancer Trust and CLIC Sargent have highlighted the fact that there are 3,600 new cancer diagnoses in children and young people every year, which can also have a significant effect on a child or young person’s education. There are other reasons why children and young people may be absent from school for a long period, including trauma, the loss of a family member or being the victim of violence or abuse at home. These children and young people should not have to suffer because of their experiences. We should do everything we can to ensure that they are able to achieve their full potential. This includes putting in place support systems and ensuring that alternative temporary education provision is as good as it would have been in mainstream education.
In his letter to Peers after Second Reading, the Minister argued that temporary access to SEN status was not the right way forward. He said:
“The definition of Special Educational Needs is deliberately broad, and it must allow local professionals the freedom to make judgements on who it applies to … However, for children who require statements of SEN it rightly takes time to make the appropriate assessments and establish the right provision. We hope and intend that the consequence of bullying can be resolved quickly … As with statements, education, health and care plans are intended for longer-term, more complicated needs, rather than for providing rapid support”.
While we understand that assessments and EHC plans take time, it is important that we also have mechanisms for addressing the needs of those children who have more immediate needs and fewer long-term needs, to make sure they do not fall through the gaps. I was interested that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said this afternoon that temporary statements are indeed available, because that certainly had not been drawn to my attention. Having that spelled out in more detail goes some way towards addressing this issue.
We believe that the amendments spoken to this afternoon provide a suitable package of support for severely bullied children and others temporarily unable to attend school. We hope the Minister will agree to reconsider the Government’s position, and to come up with a scheme that is as good as those amendments put before him today.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendments of my noble friend Lady Brinton, and would have added my name if I could have been sure of being here today to speak to them. However, here I am, very strongly supporting them.
Many thousands of children fall into the category of “severely bullied” but are invisible, for two reasons. One is that often the bullying takes place outside school, on the internet. The school does not see it happening. Unless school staff look carefully at the attendance record, or the parent is sufficiently distraught to bring it to the school’s attention, the school may not notice what is going on. The other unfortunate aspect is that often these children are quite shy; they take themselves off, rather than put up with it. They become visible to the rest of us only when they attempt suicide, or actually succeed. Then they land on the front page of the local or national newspaper. That is a tragedy.
When the school becomes aware of this problem, it often suggests to the parent that they educate the child at home. This is not the answer. Many parents are not capable, either professionally or economically, and cannot take the time off work to educate the child at home. They need specialist, professional help. Nor is it an answer to send the children to PRUs, for the reason my noble friend Lady Brinton has mentioned. Indeed, I would say it is cruel to expect these children to attend a PRU with a group of children of whom they are often frightened. They are square pegs in round holes in PRUs, because they are often children of great ability, and the provision offered in PRUs will not address their problem and allow them to achieve their academic potential.
Virtual schools can be an answer, but not the whole answer. These children need therapeutic and restorative help from well trained people. That is why my noble friend has suggested that what is needed is temporary special educational needs provision. As to the cost, yes, the sort of provision these children need is expensive, but it lasts for only a short period. If it is done well, many of these children go back into a mainstream school—perhaps a different one—after a relatively short time, during which their confidence has been built up and their mental health problems have been addressed.
If this does not happen, it is not the school that pays but the state that pays later. These children’s potential has not been realised; they do not have the qualifications that they could have; they do not have the well paid jobs that they could have, so do not pay so much tax; and there may be ongoing mental health problems that have to be addressed later in life by the health service. Although the school saves money by not paying for this provision in the short term, the public purse does pay—and, of course, the person who pays most is the child themselves. We have a duty to give these children back their education and indeed their lives. Provision is available, and it could be expanded if only a more sensible approach were taken to ensuring that the funding became available for these children. It is not a lot to ask and, compared to many children who need special needs provision for the whole of their school life—which of course very often they deserve—these children require it for only a very short period. What they need is very special provision from people who really understand what they have gone through and what needs to be put into place to enable them to face an ordinary education again.
“Early-years area SEN co-ordinators
(1) Local authorities must appoint sufficient full-time equivalent members of staff (to be known as “early-years area SEN co-ordinators”) to have responsibility for coordinating provision for children in Ofsted-registered early years settings other than maintained nursery schools.
(2) In assessing sufficiency of staffing levels under subsection (1), the local authority must have regard to—
(a) the number of children with special educational needs in its area registered with early years settings to which subsection (1) applies; (b) the number and geographical location of early years settings to which subsection (1) applies.(3) Regulations may provide for—
(a) further considerations to be made by local authorities in exercising their duties under subsection (1);(b) the specific responsibilities of early-years area SEN co-ordinators.(4) The Secretary of State shall publish guidance to local authorities to assist in exercising their functions under subsection (1).
(5) Local authorities must publish information on the provision of early-years area SEN co-ordinators as part of exercising their duties under section 30 of this Act.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I am covering for my colleague here, so I am doing a double act.
Amendment 75 proposes a new clause, which very much picks up on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made in the debate about the importance of early identification. We believe that identifying and supporting children with SEN as early as possible is the most important factor in improving their outcomes, so our new clause would put early years area SENCOs on a statutory basis, like school SENCOs. It would require local authorities to employ enough of them to support all the identified needs locally. Clause 22 requires local authorities to seek to identify children and young people in their area who may have SEN. Our amendment would insert “as early as possible”, which again echoes the points we made in the earlier debate.
The professionals who work with children have a crucial role to play as the first educators with whom those children come into contact. A number of issues such as speech and communication problems, developmental delay, behavioural issues and literacy problems can be better addressed by having a good quality early years provider, meaning that children start school in a much better position than they otherwise would have. Fewer resources would then be required in later years, so the case is well made and cost effective.
However, the early years workforce is typically the least qualified in the education sector, while cuts to local authority budgets have meant that councils have cut their training budgets for early years staff by 40% since the election, resulting in many cutting back on the early years area SENCOs that they previously employed to provide advice and training in early years settings. Yet the support that they provide is now needed more than ever. A recent Communication Trust project, Talk of the Town, evidenced that, across a federation of schools, children and young people’s speech and language needs were underidentified by an average of 40%. The Communication Trust says that it,
“remains concerned over how the Bill will ensure that the mechanisms for identification will work in practice across all educational phases and also on local authorities’ ability to identify needs as early as possible, and to respond to these needs”.
The NDCS, the RNIB and Sense are also concerned that overall proposals do not place sufficient emphasis on the importance of early years support for children with sensory impairments and their families.
Labour tabled these amendments in the Commons. At the time, the Minister said that he would reflect on whether and, if so, how some of the good practice of area SENCOs could be reflected in the code of practice. As I have just hinted, I have only just acquired this brief this afternoon. I have looked at the code of practice and I am struggling to see where that might be. There is certainly reference to maintained nurseries having a role, but nothing that spells out the role that area SENCOs can have with the more diverse group of early years providers. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say about that, but I hope that we can agree that more can be done within the Bill and the code to emphasise the importance of these early years area SENCOs. I beg to move.
Lord Ramsbotham
I rise to support this amendment, and to speak to Amendments 79, 108, 116, 128 and 238. I am glad that the noble Baroness mentioned the importance of assessment and intervention as early as possible, particularly for this area. I was very struck last Wednesday, at a meeting with the Minister, when he confirmed that only just over 10 years ago, 80% of communication between young people was verbal and 20% electronic. That is now reversed, with 80% being electronic and only 20% verbal. We need verbal communication above all to enable us to engage not just with teachers but healthcare workers, family, friends and ultimately with employers and customers. If we are to enable our children to live in today’s world, it is crucial for them to communicate with each other and for those who have to engage with them to help.
Amendment 79 requires schools and registered early years settings to identify special educational needs while offering guidance on how to do so. This is very important because, as we discovered when doing the report, which I have mentioned several times, the health visitors who were doing the early assessment in Northern Ireland were extremely glad that they had been trained to do so by speech and language therapists—not that they could offer therapy, but at least they knew what signs to look for to alert them that somebody had a problem. This is very important, and it is a lesson that should be applied right across the country.
Amendment 108 extends local offers to include access to services for children who are educated in non-maintained early years settings. It should not be restricted only to those with EHC plans, which, for the vast majority of people who have children with speech, language and communication needs, do not make them eligible for any additional support. That is wrong. The people with speech, language and communication needs do need support to enable them to engage. It is not just for those on EHC plans, which, as we know, is a small proportion of the whole.
Amendment 116 requires local authorities to inform parents of what special educational needs and local office support is available to children educated in non-maintained early years settings. This is again something that should not be left to chance because, as we know, there is a vast variety of provision and a vast amount that parents do not know or understand and with which they need help. Somebody has to co-ordinate the giving out of that advice, which suggests that local authorities have a role to play.
Amendment 128 makes local authorities responsible for special educational needs provision to those who have them identified in private, voluntary and independent early years settings, and for establishing the necessary mechanisms to enable and ensure that both identification and provision are available. All those may seem very much the same, but what they are saying collectively is that there is a duty here for the local authorities to make certain that identification and provision are available for all children in the local authority area, whether they are in mainstream or PVI settings. We must not let that go by default.
Amendment 238 highlights something that else that is lacking and is not clear from the Bill. Schedule 4 to the Bill amends the Childcare Act 2006 to require the registration of childminder agencies and certain childcare providers on childcare registers. However, the Bill is currently unclear about the position regarding private, voluntary and independent providers. As nearly 80% of the early years providers come from the private, voluntary or independent sector, this seems to be a gap that needs to be filled. We must ensure that everyone is covered. I am not simply saying that there is a gap; I am trying to suggest that there may be a way out of this. I suggest that all childminder agencies should be required to employ a SENCO, and that all non-maintained providers—that is, all the PVI providers—should be required to register with one of these childminder agencies. In that way, the SENCO can relieve the PVI of what the Government have said that they do not want to do, which is to belabour it with too much bureaucratic work that it has to do. A SENCO with the same status as the others would be able to act as a bridge between these 80% of providers and the local authorities to ensure that every child is covered.
Again, this may sound complicated, but I say to the Minister that the Communication Trust and others, who have thought this through and drafted this amendment, which I am very pleased to put forward for them, are very happy to engage with officials to discuss how this might be provided for, and to make certain that the gap is covered. The Communication Trust includes those working in the area now, and we have contacts with the Local Government Association, which I know would be very happy to contribute.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I think that we all share the common ambition to improve the scope and quality of early years provision and to make sure that special educational needs are identified at the earliest possible time, as we said at the outset. I think that there is common cause there.
In several of the contributions it was asked who should be responsible for some of that identification. We feel that early years area SENCOs in the model that we have proposed could be the people to take on that responsibility, although I understand that everybody else whom noble Lords have mentioned could also play a role in that. That model has already been developed by local authorities as a way of taking on some of that responsibility, and it is important that the people in those posts are properly trained and supported. I was slightly disappointed by what the Minister said about not requiring them to be trained and qualified, because it seems to me that we have already identified a skills lack among some of these people. This is an opportunity to address that lack, and it will be a shame if we do not embrace it when we have the opportunity to do so.
Baroness Northover
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. Of course, these proposals build on what the previous Government decided to do. As I said in my response, that was the arrangement that existed before. However, we have taken it a step further, in that it is in the draft statutory guidance, and I hope that that will be welcomed by noble Lords.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I was picking up the particular point about qualifications. As the Minister has already identified, I have not yet read page 70 and I was trying to do a bit of speed-reading. I obviously need to reflect on that in a little more detail before we come back to debate this further in the House and, when I have done some more reading, I shall write to the noble Baroness if I have any more questions. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford (LD)
My Lords, Clause 25 is about promoting integration. My amendment is about effecting that integration and,
“co-operation between local authorities, schools, other educational providers and providers of health care and social care”,
but also ensuring that there are sufficient resources for that integration to take place. It is a probing amendment intended to explore issues relating to multiagency working and the local offer. Integration of services, the alignment of assessment processes and co-operation among groups of professionals works only if those same professionals, especially at the early stages of such integration, have time to get together to talk things through.
The pathfinders, which were evaluated in the June document that we have all seen, suggested that attendance by the professionals involved—the teachers, healthcare and social work professionals—was highly variable, many of them pleading that their loads were so great that they had no time to attend the meetings required. However, the reforms will not work unless a realistic approach is taken to recognise those time constraints on the professionals involved, deliberately programming in time for them to build the relationships required. Of course, that means more resources, especially in the early phases of the development of the programme—not an easy prescription at a time when budget cuts are impinging so strongly on local authorities.
The pathfinder evidence also highlights the need to develop a targeted learning and development programme for school lead professionals and/or other key workers. If the unspoken assumption is that all the new expectations will be possible because they can be discharged by school special educational needs co-ordinators, Members of Parliament need to visit SENCOs in their constituencies to ask them about their already unrealistic workloads. It is likely that far fewer teachers will opt to take on the additional responsibilities of being SENCOs if the new reforms are implemented without sufficient resources being allocated.
The question of which agency should take on the role of key workers and lead professionals needs much further explanation. The existing DfE advice about when schools should or should not be the lead professionals is very inadequate. It does not guide schools in how to decide whether they are the most appropriate agency to take on the lead. Teachers report that schools are often inappropriately named as being lead professionals because other agencies cite budget cuts as precluding them from taking the lead. Those nuances currently seem to be ignored in the Bill but could cause a considerable amount of trouble. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, we have two amendments in this group, Amendments 88 and 90B, so I shall speak to them. They would widen the scope of joint commissioning to include all aspects of support that children and young people might need by extending the definition of EHC provision and ensuring that children without EHC plans would also be included in the arrangements. I should add at this point that we support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, which would in their own way go further to strengthen the joint commissioning arrangements. I very much agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about resources.
However, before I go on to the substance of our amendments, I should like to ask the Minister about the wording of the entire clause. I should be grateful if she could put on record exactly what the clause means and what it would require local authorities and health bodies to do. I say this because the clause does not seem to be about requiring local authorities to secure services through commissioning; rather, it appears to require them to set up the apparatus through which decisions about commissioning will be taken. Obviously, that is a very great difference. It says that a local authority and partner bodies must make arrangements; it does not say that they must jointly secure provision. It does not even say that they must secure the provision that they have agreed is needed. This is especially important with regard to health, where other legislation can be used to absolve them from improving legislation on the grounds of, for example, cost. So far as I can see, there is no mechanism for anyone to challenge such decisions.
Therefore, the danger is that Clause 26 as it stands simply builds a procedural structure that really does not have any teeth. Furthermore, I cannot see any leverage by which the partner bodies will be accountable for what they decide to commission. We have not tabled any amendments on these points as it would have meant a substantial rewriting of the whole clause, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could address the point about what is intended by the wording and how partner bodies will be held accountable.
I turn to our Amendments 88 and 90B. Our concern is that the needs of families, including those where the child does not have an EHC plan, are met as completely as possible. It is important that the kind of provision subject to joint commissioning is not just the kind that goes directly to the child or young person relating to either special educational provision, healthcare provision or social care provision, but includes support for families to enable them better to support the child and their siblings. Supporting a child with SEN or disabilities can be incredibly stressful for families, and it is important that we assist and support parents and families with the tools to understand and support their child’s special educational needs or disability.
In the Commons, the Minister said that there was nothing precluding joint commissioning arrangements from covering other services for children and young people with or without SEN, and that support for families needing social care services was provided for under Section 17 of the Children Act 2004. He added that the duty in Clause 26 relates to joint commissioning arrangements for children and young people with SEN, and where the services are needed to support the child’s family as part of that package, that might be included in the arrangements.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To recap, I was talking about the support that was given to the families of children with special educational needs. I have referred to the fact that the Minister in the Commons referred people to the Children Act 2004. In summary, our point is that if we are going to have a Bill like this that aims to be transformative, it really should put all the responsibilities in one place. Just saying, “Well, this is already covered in bits of other Bills and guidance here and there”, is not the point at issue. If we think that support for families is important, and I know from other meetings with the Minister that he believes that, they should all be covered in the Bill. That is why we tabled these amendments, because we would like to see all these provisions brought together so that it is clear in the Bill exactly what people’s rights are, including the extension of support to the families of children with special educational needs. I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 100. Its purpose is to provide encouragement to local authorities to work together to commission services for children and young people with low-incidence needs. For very low-incidence conditions, such as sensory impairment, it may not be appropriate to expect that specialist provision is made available in every local authority area. For that reason, there should be regional support services co-funded by a number of local authorities across the geographical area. The department’s Green Paper on special educational needs and disability stated:
“We know that greater collaboration between local areas can also help local professionals to plan, commission and deliver the best services for children and young people with SEN or who are disabled and their families, as well as helping to secure best value for money … we will explore how we can encourage greater collaboration between local areas”.
The Bill creates new duties on health and education services to work together and collaborate. However, it says little about the importance of joint working across local authority boundaries, despite the obvious potential benefits to services to children with special educational needs. Children with sensory impairments have a low-incidence special educational need and disability, or LISEND. The National Sensory Impairment Partnership, NatSIP, has defined a LISEND as,
“A need which has the potential to have an adverse impact on learning and development unless additional measures are taken to support the child/young person … The prevalence rate is so low that a mainstream setting is unlikely to have sufficient knowledge and experience to meet these requirements. Settings will need to obtain specialist support and advice on how to ensure equitable access and progression (against national standards) … The prevalence rate is so low that any formula for allocating specialist resources for additional needs, which is based on proxy indicators of need, will not reflect the true distribution of children and young people identified as having low incidence SEND”.
Children with a LISEND are a diverse group in terms of their needs and the nature of the support they require. There is often a lack of expertise in those needs in local authorities and/or insufficient capacity. Indeed, although local authorities are required by Section 7 of the 2006 Department of Health deafblind guidance to identify and provide specialist assessments for deafblind children, the identification rate is only three MSI children per 100,000, but Sense figures suggest that the rate should be 31 per 100,000. These figures indicate that local authorities do not have sufficiently qualified assessors, and that deafblind children and young people are receiving generic assessments that fail to address their specific needs. Deafblind children are also not receiving adequate specialist support in many areas. The Consortium for Research into Deaf Education—CRIDE—found that 18% of services employed two or fewer teachers of the deaf, and 8% employed one or fewer teachers of the deaf. Fifteen per cent of services reported that each visiting teacher of the deaf was supporting, on average, 80 or more deaf children, and 7% had a ratio in excess of one to a hundred.
Baroness Northover
The noble Lord made a very cogent case before and my noble friend was sympathetic to what he said. It will always be the case that, at any one time, there will be debate as to what is essential, what ought to be provided and what will best help children or any member of the population, and, therefore, debate about what the NHS or any other provision ought to cover. As I said, the noble Lord made a cogent case and my noble friend responded sympathetically, so it is a matter of let us watch this space. As I have mentioned, the NHS mandate includes a specific objective that children and young people with SEN have access to the services set out in their care plans. I hope that is reassuring.
I have referred to pathfinders and the wording in the clause reflects the fact that the parties involved are expected to follow the arrangements made unless there is good reason to depart from them. Allowing that flexibility will enable partnerships to adapt to accommodate unique circumstances or changing priorities locally which the arrangements may not have anticipated.
Noble Lords may be anxious that this flexibility could mean that partners have to have only some of the arrangements in place before achieving any agreement. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that this is not the case and is certainly not the legal effect of these provisions. Clause 26(4) makes it clear that these partnerships have the clear function of securing the care that children with SEN need. Therefore they must be able to agree a clear course of action in every case. This point is backed up by the new draft SEN code of practice.
There may be other elements that I need to address. I turn to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made about transparency. We certainly agree with her point about needing transparency for parents but we do not think that we should replicate other legislation in the Bill. I am sure she will be disappointed about that. The place to bring this together, we feel, is in the code of practice, and that is what we have sought to do. Again, that is something that comes up in legislation all the time: should we make reference to previous Acts or should we include it in the new Bill? We feel that the draft code of practice helps to bring everything together very clearly, and I hope that she will accept that.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Earlier the Minister made the point that we do not want lots of detail in the Bill and I think that we all understand that you cannot spell out everything in a Bill. However, we thought our amendments on this issue were rather neat and not full of detail. Our proposals, about providing any other provision deemed necessary to meet the special educational needs of the child or young person, were intended to include the family context and so on. That was not about too much detail—obviously the detail can be spelt out in the code—but it was to provide a route in for families to feel that they were included in the Bill. I take the Minister’s point about not having too much detail but I do not think that our amendment could be found guilty of that.
Baroness Northover
I was actually thinking more of my noble friend’s amendment. My noble friend Lady Sharp is always clear and to the point, so far be it from me ever to suggest that she might add detail that was best put elsewhere.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, spoke about local authorities working across boundaries. I assure her that we agree that, working together, local authorities can secure more cost-effective, high quality provision for children and young people with the most complex needs. Many authorities already have such arrangements in place and we encourage it through the new draft SEN code of practice, which includes, in section 4.4, a specific section on regional collaboration. As the noble Baroness spells out, it is in local authorities’ interest to do so. The provision stipulated in education, health and care plans will reflect individual need and local authorities will have to ensure that it is provided.
The noble Baroness highlighted effectively how there may be just one or two children with particular needs in one area, and it makes a lot of sense to collaborate with those in other areas. That is why Clause 30 sets out that local offers must cover provision outside the local authority area for children and young people for whom the authority is responsible. Making this an explicit part of the local offer will mean that authorities have to take steps to make these arrangements up front, and allow parents to challenge whether the best arrangements are being made. For specific cases, Clause 31 goes further and requires other local authorities to comply with requests for co-operation, as long as doing so does not compromise their own duties. That provides a further spur for local authorities to consider in advance suitable joint arrangements for providing for children and young people with specific needs.
I hope that I have covered most of the points raised by noble Lords. If I have not, then obviously I will write to them. In the mean time, I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendments.
Children and Families Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Review of impact of under-occupancy penalty on prospective adopters, prospective special guardians and foster parents
Before the end of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must—(a) carry out a review of the impact of the housing under-occupancy penalty on prospective adopters, prospective special guardians and foster parents, and(b) publish, and lay before both Houses of Parliament, a report of the conclusions of the review.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 40 focuses on the impact of the underoccupancy charge on would-be adopters, special guardians and foster parents. We know that there is a widely held concern about the negative impact of the housing underoccupancy charge or, as we call it, the bedroom tax. The plight of those who are unable to move to smaller properties, or who need the extra accommodation for obviously justifiable reasons, is regularly highlighted in the media.
However, I want to concentrate our concerns today on a very specific consequence of the new charge, which is how it impacts on the already chronic shortage of existing and potential foster carers. As noble Lords will know, the bedroom tax restricts housing benefit to one bedroom per person or per couple living as part of a household. Tenants affected will face a 14% cut in housing benefit for the first “excess” bedroom and a 25% cut where two or more bedrooms are underoccupied. The average loss of income is estimated to be around £14 per week. Our concern is that foster children are not counted as part of the household for benefit purposes and therefore that, technically, all foster carers could face cuts in housing benefit.
This matter was raised by our colleagues in the Commons and last-minute changes announced in Committee by the Minister mean that foster carers are allowed one additional room in their homes, as long as they have registered as a foster carer or fostered a child within the past 12 months. This means that around 5,000 foster carers would be exempt from the bedroom tax, and obviously we welcome that concession. However, foster carers with more than one child will still face the bedroom tax. The reforms still apply to foster carers who have two or three bedrooms for fostering children.
Carers in this situation can apply to a discretionary housing fund for support with their housing costs but because of its discretionary nature, this is not guaranteed—and carers will have to reapply for this benefit every six weeks, even if they have fostered a child on a long-term basis. We do not believe that this is satisfactory. It shows a lack of joined-up thinking by the Government, given the current acute shortage of foster carers. We believe that if the rules remain as they are, foster carers will be deterred from providing foster care for more than one child at a time. This means, for example, that children in foster care are more likely to be separated from their siblings. With there already being a shortage of foster carers in the UK, these reforms are likely to mean fewer new recruits coming forward and children’s well-being suffering as a result.
Our amendment is simple and modest. It would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of the bedroom tax on foster carers to see what impact this is having on this group and to report back to Parliament on the conclusions within one year. When this was debated in the Commons, I understand that the Minister agreed to take this proposal away and think about it again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
I understand that the purpose of this amendment is to ask us to conduct this review. As I know that noble Lords are anxious to move on to the justice provisions, which my noble friend Lord McNally will be covering, it might assist the Committee to know that the Government are committed to conducting an independent assessment of the impact on these particular groups and will be commissioning this shortly. We agree with the noble Baroness that this is very important, and a report on the outcome will be published within the timescale that her amendment calls for—within a year of Royal Assent of the Bill. We will place a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. I hope that noble Lords will find that intervention helpful.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the Minister for that clarification. I was coming to that point. The clarification I was seeking was: will there be just one review, the DWP review that the Deputy Prime Minister announced yesterday, or will there be a separate review within the Department for Education? I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification that it will be placed in the Library, but on an important issue such as this we need some assurance that there will be an opportunity for Parliament to debate the conclusions rather than just read them. Perhaps the Minister could clarify those points, which is what I was going to ask him to do anyway. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the mover of this amendment but also to the Minister for this very good news. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, took great trouble during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill to consult the interested parties around foster care but I have a couple of questions for the Minister. What is the situation for families who are providing supported lodging for young people at university for whom they wish to keep a room open when they return? More generally, what is the position for families providing supported lodging for older young people who have left foster care but whom they still wish to support?
Lord Nash
My Lords, I should like to reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to helping people foster, adopt and be special guardians to some of the most vulnerable children. We want to ensure that government policy supports this aim. As has already been pointed out, on 12 March my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced an easement of the treatment of foster carers under the housing benefit policy to remove the spare room subsidy. Foster carers are now allowed one additional room under this policy, as are those who have a child placed with them for adoption. That will ensure that many foster carers will no longer be affected by removal of the spare room subsidy.
Adopted children, those placed for adoption and those being looked after by special guardians are treated as part of the family in the same way as birth children, so these children’s bedrooms are also included in the bedroom assessment for the household. Prospective adopters and prospective special guardians awaiting a child being placed with them are treated differently. This is because these are temporary situations. People in these circumstances will be able to apply to the local authority for short-term assistance from the discretionary housing payment fund. My honourable friends the Minister for Children and Families and the Minister for Welfare Reform have written to local authorities highlighting that these groups should be a priority for discretionary housing payment funding. The measures the Government have taken should ensure that foster carers, prospective adopters and prospective special guardians are not unfairly treated by the removal of the spare room subsidy.
The Government are committed to conducting this review and it will be placed in the Library. It will be a matter for noble Lords as to whether or not they wish to debate it. The Government have commissioned a separate report from Ipsos MORI but, in answer to the noble Baroness’s question, we will be having our own report on this matter.
I shall write to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in response to his questions about supported lodging. So far as concerns the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, we will talk to the Welsh Government regarding our review of foster carers, and I will write to the noble Lord further about this. In those circumstances, I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the information that he has given about the fact that there will be two different reviews. I could make the point that, of course, within a year a considerable amount of damage could already have been done not only to the incomes of the lowest paid and the poorest people in our society but potentially to the availability of foster and adopter volunteers. Having said that, I am grateful that a review is taking place. I think that we all need to have the evidence, and we need to have some empirical research that shows us the extent to which this is happening.
I thought that the Minister’s response on whether there would be a debate was thoroughly inadequate. On a matter such as this, given that it has already been acknowledged that there is a potentially serious issue here, I should have thought that he could have taken more steps to determine that we could debate the findings. Nevertheless, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although I shall no doubt come back to it at a future stage.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I cannot think of anybody in this room who would not be in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. It was brilliantly presented in one of the most compelling speeches I have ever heard. With that in mind, unless anybody is prepared to contradict me by saying that they are not in favour of what they have heard, I hope that we can proceed and hear what the Government will do about this.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I am sorry to delay proceedings further. I want to say a couple of sentences. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for his perseverance on this issue and the extremely powerful case that he has made this afternoon. This idea of independent guardians is becoming an increasingly important theme in our debates on this Bill and it is a model that is gaining more and more credibility. My noble friend made reference to the support of the Joint Committee on Human Rights for the concept and the issue was also identified recently in a Commons Education Committee report on child protection.
In addition to the Scottish examples to which my noble friend has drawn our attention, that report identified that this concept has also been in operation in the Netherlands for some time, and there may well be lessons that we could learn from that. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments but there are very powerful ones why we should consider these sorts of policies. First, it would clearly help the children themselves. We have heard how that might happen in terms of providing quality advice and guidance. Secondly, I should like to think that such a measure would go some way to deterring potential traffickers in the future if they felt that when they trafficked children here, those children would have an alternative authority figure with whom they could associate and be aligned. It would be nice to think that the measure could deter traffickers pursuing their dastardly policies in the future. Thirdly, surely this is an area where early intervention and support could prevent children being drawn into greater social and criminal problems in the longer term. Therefore, there are all sorts of savings to be made if we intervene earlier. I do not want to extend the debate. I again thank the noble Lord and hope that he perseveres with this issue.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 47 to 52. Despite the number of amendments, this is about one very short point: that in Part 2 of the Bill, which at long last we are getting to, Clause 10 is headed,
“Family mediation information and assessment meetings”.
These meetings are required before a relevant family application is made to the court.
I say at once that I am entirely supportive of the Government’s approach in trying to get parents to agree on their children and to get those who have had failed relationships to agree on how to dispose of any cases they may wish to bring. The problem is the word “mediation”. I have heard from various sources, particularly from lawyers, and one has to bear in mind that there is no longer legal aid in private law cases. Therefore, both parties will be litigants in person and one quite simply has to recognise that we are talking about people who have parted, some of them in extreme acrimony, and all with the real trauma of a failed relationship. They would not be in the family court if there were no failed relationship.
Many of them, I think the majority, are very sensible about making the arrangements that have to be made after their relationship is over, but there are some who need some help and they will not get it from lawyers any more. There is also a small minority, perhaps no more than 5 %, who absolutely cannot agree on anything and take their failed relationship, covered in acrimony and hate for each other, into the arena of the family dispute in the family court. They fight over the house, they fight particularly over the children and they use the arena of the children to fight through their failed relationship. Sitting as a judge, as I did in this area for 35 years, I can tell you how many acrimonious failed relationships came through my hands.
For a minority of people who are brought to a meeting, which is a requirement before you go to court, mediation is like a red rag to a bull. They absolutely will not accept it, but they will have to accept an information and assessment meeting, which is thoroughly sensible. The word “mediation” may well mean that a number of people will refuse to go to the meeting. They are not going to meet the other party or agree on anything and, therefore, they will not go.
All that I am asking for in this long list of amendments is to take out the word “mediation”. I say to the Minister that of course one expects and hopes that the information and assessment meeting would lead to mediation, probably in the same meeting, if it is possible to achieve, but you will not want to stop the ability to give information and assess what is going on by imposing the stumbling block of the word “mediation”. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, we have Amendments 47, 50 and 52 in this group. I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Baroness has said in introducing her amendments, and have some sympathy with the points she makes, but we are approaching the issue in a slightly different way.
We accept that mediation is not always appropriate or of sufficient quality but we support the central thesis in Clause 10 that parents should attend mediation before making a court application. We believe that there are clear advantages, particularly to children, in avoiding the adversarial nature of court proceedings wherever possible, but accept that there will be exceptions.
Our first amendment simply adds flexibility to the clause to ensure that where the court considers it unreasonable families are not required to attend mediation, information and assessment meetings. While we believe that mediation, and ADR more generally, can be very useful means of resolving disputes, they are not appropriate in every type of situation—for example, in cases of domestic violence or child abuse. We are therefore proposing amendments for making clearer the process for deciding on exemptions whereby you do not have to be involved in mediation.
This point was picked up in David Norgrove’s family justice review. At the time, he said:
“There would also need to be a range of exemptions for those for whom an application to court was urgent, or for whom dispute resolution services were clearly inappropriate at the outset. The regime would allow for emergency applications to court and the exemptions should be as in the current Pre-Application Protocol”.
When these issues were debated in the Commons, the Minister stated that the Government had invited the Family Procedure Rule Committee to draw up rules specifying areas where exemptions to the proposed procedure would be appropriate, including domestic violence. The Minister also identified at that time other areas where exemptions might be relevant. These included: a need for urgency; where there is a risk to the life, liberty or physical safety of the applicant or their family; when any delay would cause a risk or significant harm to a child; or where a miscarriage of justice might occur. At the time, we welcomed this commitment. However, we requested that the draft rules be made available to Parliament before scrutiny of the Bill is over. We have now received the letter and its attachments from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, which again states that the Family Procedure Rule Committee will be invited to make rules on these matters. Given that we still have not seen the rules, we ask the Minister again: when will these be made available? How can we be expected to judge whether this provision is sufficient to address our concerns in their absence?
Our second two amendments in this group would insert a definition of an “approved mediator” as someone who satisfies defined training and quality standards assurances and would specify that a mediation, information and assessment meeting would always be held with an approved mediator. These amendments originate from concerns expressed to the Justice Committee in pre-legislative scrutiny that the quality of mediators is often far too low. They tie in with the concerns we have just touched upon: that mediators might have to screen for domestic abuse and safeguarding concerns, which require specialist skills. For example, the Children’s Commissioner for England has highlighted research showing that around 50% of all private law cases involve domestic violence or child abuse. For this reason, it is crucial that mediators are trained and skilled in spotting these issues. It is also important that mediators are trained to listen to and draw out the voices of the children and young people involved.
When this was discussed in the Commons, the Minister said that he had asked the president of the Family Division to revise the existing pre-application protocol to make it explicit that family mediators must be approved by the Family Mediation Council. He said that meant that they would also have to adhere to the code of practice of that council. However, we do not believe that the provision in the code of practice is strong enough. We emphasise again that concerns have been raised about the quality of mediators, even working under this code. We would prefer that safeguards be set out in the Bill.
Although we agree with the aim of the clause and welcome the provision as far as it goes, I hope that the Minister will understand our ongoing concerns and agree to give further consideration to incorporating the additional safeguards set out in our amendments.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 50 and 52, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, which would ensure that any mediator who is to deal with family disputes through a family mediation, information and assessment meeting—known somewhat inelegantly as a MIAM—would have to be approved and would need to have undergone relevant training and quality assurance. I also signal my support for Amendments 46 to 49 and Amendment 51, as tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, which would remove the introduction of compulsory mediation.
Currently, of course, attendance at a MIAM is voluntary. Solicitors make a referral to a mediator, allowing clients to receive legal advice prior to the mediation process. Since April 2011, parties have been required to send an FM1 form to the court alongside court applications to show that they have considered or attempted mediation. I should also point out that there is currently no regulation of mediators and that many have no formal training, although of course many are also qualified solicitors.
Under Clause 10, attendance at MIAMs will be made compulsory. There is great concern that this may be used to further domestic abuse in certain cases. Since MIAMs will be compulsory, mediators will be given the task of screening for domestic abuse and children’s safeguarding issues, yet without training there can be no knowing whether the skills these mediators possess will be appropriate or adequate to undertake such work. Legal aid will still be available for mediation but since legal aid has been withdrawn for private family law cases, except those involving recent domestic abuse, parties will be entering into the mediation without having received prior legal advice. That puts children and abused adults in a particularly vulnerable position.
Finally, since the majority of parents settle contact arrangements between themselves, the cases which go through to the courts process are by necessity the most complex and the most likely to involve abuse. Forcing parties through mediation in these circumstances would be highly damaging and potentially dangerous. At the very least, accreditation of mediators should be made compulsory. I urge the Minister to accept these amendments.
Arts: Contribution to Education, Health and Emotional Well-being
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the contribution of the arts to the nation’s education, health and emotional well-being.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this debate. As I have been told that I have only one bite of the cherry, I thank noble Lords in advance for what I know will be a very fascinating and learned debate.
Two weeks ago, we had an excellent debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, on the contribution of the arts to the economy. The case was made then by a number of noble Lords that the contribution of the creative industries to jobs, growth and tourism is considerable, but often understated. Yet we have a reputation globally as world leaders and innovators in the arts and it will be undoubtedly one of the drivers for future economic growth and prosperity. This point was echoed in a recent Arts Council report that showed that there was a four-fold return on every pound invested in the arts.
I am very pleased that this is the case but even if it was not, I believe that the investment would be worthwhile. That is why I was prompted to table this Question. I want to make a different case—the arts for their own sake, for what they provide to our civilisation and the benefits they impart to our well-being as a nation. This should be a sufficient reason to celebrate, to defend and to invest in our arts culture. It is why I share the concern expressed by many arts leaders that Maria Miller’s recent speech focused so heavily on the economic benefits that could accrue from our arts activities. For example, she said that arts organisations should,
“demonstrate the healthy dividends that our investment continues to pay”.
In other words, they have to keep making a profit. This demonstrates some flawed thinking. If we invest only in arts that are guaranteed to make a profit, we damage the very innovation and creativity that has generated our reputation for excellence in the first place. However, one of our challenges is that, while it is relatively easy to measure the economic contribution of the arts, it is a much bigger challenge to provide evidence of the wider benefits to society. I was struck when preparing for this speech by how many research projects have recently been launched to measure difference aspects of the impacts of the arts on our lives. This is obviously to be welcomed, but it will take time.
I also have considerable sympathy with the advice of my noble friend Lord Howarth to the recent Culture, Health and Wellbeing International Conference. He suggested that they should not wait for the holy grail of a definitive, conclusive report on the benefits of the arts, but should pool the existing research findings which already demonstrate a positive impact on health and well-being. It is also helpful that the National Alliance for Arts Health and Wellbeing has been established, supported by the Arts Council, to draw together the case for the positive impact of the arts on health and well-being. It has been working with the Office for National Statistics, which was famously and quite rightly asked by the Prime Minister to measure the factors which affect well-being.
Incidentally, it is a bit worrying that the funding cuts may result in that well-being research being scaled down. Nevertheless, since the Windsor conferences in 1998 and 1999, we have increasing evidence of the positive impact of the arts on health outcomes. For example, the Art Council reports that singing has been found to affect the hormones that facilitate emotional balance. The use of music in cardiovascular units led to reduced anxiety and to improved blood pressure and heart rate. Patients who experience visual arts and live music on trauma and orthopaedic wards stayed in hospital, on average, a day less. A recent large-scale study in Norway showed that visits to the theatre, concerts, art galleries and museums result in better health and well-being, and that the more often people engaged in cultural activities, the greater the health benefits.
In the UK, the Taking Part survey has reported that taking part in the arts and cultural activities once a week has a positive effect on an individual’s well-being. UK museums and art galleries are increasingly involved in art and cultural activities, providing a welcoming non-clinical setting to support initiatives for those with mental health, dementia and learning difficulties, with measurable benefits. I recently visited a groundbreaking project at the Geffrye Museum, providing a safe and stimulating environment for adults with learning difficulties. The Dulwich Picture Gallery’s initiative entitled “Good Times” provides a range of communal activities for an increasingly isolated and vulnerable ageing population. I have been impressed by the outcomes of the Men’s Room charity in Manchester which provides creative expression for young men previously involved in crime or homelessness. All this evidence confirms what we intrinsically know to be true: that creativity, whether active or receptive, lifts the spirits and increases a sense of well-being.
The same can be said for the contribution of the arts to education. The Henley report on cultural education showed that young people involved in the arts at school also performed better in other subjects. The impact of the cultural activity spilled over into other aspects of learning and behaviour. Henley made the point that the highest-achieving schools—including, of course, the private schools—tend also to offer a high standard of cultural education. He also quoted the outcome of a United States longitudinal study of education which showed that:
“Students with high involvement in the arts, including minority and low income students, performed better in school and stayed on longer than students with low involvement”.
These themes were echoed by the national curriculum review expert panel, chaired by Tim Oates, which identified that art and music lessons not only had intrinsic worth, but also brought,
“benefits to pupil engagement, cognitive development and achievement, including in mathematics and reading”.
So a good arts education enhances other educational outcomes. It also produces young people with the life skills and creative innovation increasingly in demand from employers.
This is why there continues to be frustration at the failure of the Department of Education to embrace and champion these principles. The original EBacc proposals completely sidelined arts education. Even in its new format, teachers report that less time is being allocated to teaching creative subjects. The new national curriculum, while a considerable improvement on earlier drafts, does not, for example, have any meaningful inclusion of dance, drama or film. While we welcome many of the steps outlined in the belated government response to the Henley report, it feels like it is too little, too late. Obviously we welcome initiatives such as the new National Youth Dance Company, the music hubs and Artsmark, but there is a sense that creative learning is moving out of mainstream education and into extra-curricular activities, when the opposite should be happening.
t would also be good to see the Government do more to address the inequalities in access to the arts, both for young people and for adults. Initiatives such as the Paul Hamlyn programmes to widen the demographic profile of those regularly accessing the arts are hugely important, but more needs to be done by Government to make the arts relevant to the widest possible audience.
I hope that I have been able to demonstrate this afternoon that there are widespread benefits to both individuals and society from being immersed in the arts. However, it would be a great shame if we had to put a price on all those benefits. Art funding should not just be about economic returns, but also the less tangible advantages: that it raises our quality of life, improves our sense of well-being and contributes to our future success as a nation. Ultimately, none of these issues matters as much as a belief in art and creativity for its own sake. However we choose to express it, art is what makes our nation civilised, it shapes our identity and it informs our heritage. If we are always looking over our shoulder at balance sheets to justify expenditure, we risk losing the essence of what makes the UK such a special place to live.
I hope that the Minister, in responding, is able to reassure the House that the widest contribution of the arts, and the contribution that they make to society, will be reflected when future funding of the arts is considered.
Economy: Culture and the Arts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for securing this debate and to everybody who has contributed. There is enormous art expertise in this House, yet it seems that it is all too rare that we get an opportunity such as this for an in-depth discussion. We have proved our worth with that expertise today.
At the outset, I endorse the central proposition that we are debating. The fact is that the arts and culture contribute enormously to the economy, and that is backed up by statistics from the department and by numerous external assessments that have been made over the years.
A number of noble Lords have cited statistics this afternoon and I do not want to bore the House but I will add a couple of my own. The department itself calculated that the creative industries account for 6.2% of the goods and services in the economy and £16.6 billion in exports. A more recent study has estimated that the sector accounts for 1.5 million jobs and contributes £70,000 a minute to the UK economy. A number of noble Lords have made reference to the Arts Council report. The most recent report on the economic impact makes a very powerful case, showing how investment reaps return, with every per cent of government arts spending yielding four times as much towards GDP.
In addition, as we have heard, the arts are a major reason why overseas visitors come to Britain, with our heritage sites being a major draw and nearly half of them planning to attend a music, theatre or opera event. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, also made an important point, reminding us that it is also a reason why businesses globally choose to locate here, as they appreciate the artistic culture that we have.
In a recent debate here on the role of arts projects in regional regeneration, we heard about their enormous economic impact on cities—for example, Liverpool, the European Capital of Culture, which generated £800 million for the regional economy; the Birmingham Creative City initiative, which aims to create 100,000 new jobs by 2020; and the Sage Gateshead, contributing £146 million to the north-east economy. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, reminded us today of the roles of The Lowry and the BBC MediaCity in helping to regenerate Salford.
For everyone involved in the arts, those economic benefits have been recognised and celebrated over many years. Indeed, when my noble friend Lord Smith coined the phrase “the creative economy” in the early years of the previous Government, it was precisely to emphasise that, far from being a drain on the nation’s resources, investment in the arts created growth, jobs and economic returns, as well as providing a broader social dividend.
So what are we to make of the recent speeches of Ed Vaizey and Maria Miller acknowledging the value of the arts to the economy? First, it might be said that they have come to the table rather late in the day, when a considerable amount of damage to the arts has already been done. This was, as I understand it, Maria Miller’s first speech on the arts in seven months as Culture Secretary. Set against the backdrop of the cuts to arts bodies made by her predecessor, there hardly seems to be a sense that the interests of arts and culture are being driven from the front.
A number of noble Lords rightly raised concerns about the impact of further cuts. That point was made very powerfully by my noble friend Lady McIntosh. It will be interesting to hear how the negotiations with the Treasury for a further 10% or 15% cut are progressing. Perhaps the Minister could update us on this.
Secondly, it would be interesting to know how successful Maria Miller has been in persuading her colleague, Eric Pickles, the Local Government Minister, that the arts are the bedrock of our future local cultural success. It is at a local level that young people are first exposed to the opportunities that involvement in the arts can bring. It provides training, experience and inspiration, and, yes, provides a platform for the next generation of Oscar winners. A number of noble Lords raised concerns about cultural devastation already occurring locally. We heard from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, that the Local Government Association has calculated that by 2020, up to 90% of local culture budgets will have disappeared. That has to be a cause of concern for us.
Thirdly, if the UK is to have a thriving cultural economy, surely it has to start in schools. However, by any measure, Michael Gove’s tenure in education has been a disaster for the teaching of creative arts in schools. Thankfully, we have now seen the demise of the ill conceived EBacc proposals, which had no place at all for arts subjects, but the new proposals for the curriculum are similarly weak. Instead of making space for creativity in subjects such as art, design, music and drama, there is an emphasis on learning facts by rote, and a transmission of knowledge from adults who possess knowledge to children who do not. There is hardly any space for creative knowledge. Under this model, curiosity, interest and experimentation are squeezed out, despite evidence that those are exactly the skills that the next generation need to be successful. What representations have been made to the Department for Education and Skills about the ongoing need for a broad arts education to provide the seed corn for our next generation of artists?
I said at the outset that I agreed with the central premise of the debate. Of course, the arts have a significant role to play in the future of our economy. However, you cannot start from that position. The economic benefit should only ever be one driver of a successful arts policy. If the funding of the arts is to become predicated on a guarantee of commercial success, you inevitably end up with an inferior product. This would be epitomised by a West End full of musical revivals, for example. As several noble Lords have pointed out, who would have invested in a puppet show of First World War horses if the box office had to be guaranteed? I agree with my noble friend Lord Puttnam and others who are alarmed at Maria Miller’s singular focus on economic outcomes. New works, new blood, new thinking, irreverence and risk-taking must be allowed to flourish if we are to maintain our place as a global centre for arts excellence. With risk-taking there has to be the chance of failure or, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, put it, of there being ponies that do not quite make the final fence. That is all part of the experimentation that must be at the heart of the creative arts.
There is something more fundamental and unquantifiable about the contribution of the arts in the UK. As a number of noble Lords have struggled to express, the arts are at the heart of our well-being and our quality of life. They make us laugh, or cry. They unite us in a strong sense of shared emotion at a concert, play or gallery. Books or poetry can provide individual solace, inspiration or relaxation. I could go on, but the point is that the creative arts are a central part of our lives and identity and, yes, our civilisation. As my noble friend Lord Smith wisely put it, they are about everything that makes life worth while. We should not have to put a commercial price on that.
Finally, we need to recognise that creativity is not only the preserve of arts and culture. It also lies at the heart of our wider business success. This is why the CBI has been so concerned about the sidelining of arts subjects in schools. It recognises that future global business success will be built upon creative design, originality, communication skills and an ability to think laterally. My noble friend Lady Kennedy reminded us of Steve Jobs’ words about hiring artists and designers, rather than simply programmers, to create his products. That example is replicated time and time again across the business sector. This is why there is concern that the arts have been left to languish in a diminished DCMS. Their place at the heart of our economic revival should be recognised centre stage, with business and Treasury support. It is not surprising that commentators are beginning to speculate whether DCMS has a future at all, given its seeming inability to fight its corner successfully on these issues. Perhaps the Minister could shed some light on whether there is any truth in these rumours.
We have had a good debate today, with some very eloquent contributions. Quite rightly, we have identified the need for balance when measuring the contribution of the arts. Yes, they make a vast and growing contribution to the economy, but we should equally celebrate the contribution of the arts to our individual and collective well-being. With that in mind, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate.
Ethical and Sustainable Fashion
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for initiating the debate and echo the thanks for her enthusiastic leadership and for the fashion inspiration that she has given to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ethics and Sustainability in Fashion, of which I am also a member. I declare an interest as a board member of WRAP, which, among other things, as we have heard, manages the Sustainable Clothing Action Plan on behalf of the English, Scottish and Welsh Governments.
This is undoubtedly a complex area in which it is difficult to be an active and responsible consumer. In the short time that I have available, I will highlight a couple of ways in which government can make a difference at a UK level.
First, it remains surprising that the Government pay so little attention to the fashion sector, as it is a major player in our economy. As the recent WRAP report, Valuing our clothes, identifies, clothing accounts for around 5% of the UK’s annual retail expenditure, with consumers spending £44 billion a year on buying clothes, or around £1,700 per household.
Many UK clothing producers, particularly small businesses, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh identified, are putting ethical and sustainable fashion at the heart of their business models. They are making a point of celebrating quality manufacturing, greater longevity, respected craft skills and locally sourced materials. However, to expand further they need greater investment in production skills, improved training and a higher status, which would encourage the next generation to believe that the sector has a future. Will the Minister update the House on the steps being taken by BIS and other departments to build up our UK textile capacity and attract the brightest and best young people into UK sustainable textile production and design for the future?
Secondly, a wholesale shift towards sustainable and ethical fashion means that all the major production and retail businesses in the sector have to commit to change. I am very proud of the work being done by WRAP in the Sustainable Clothing Action Plan to sign up a list of companies prepared to work towards ambitious targets on sustainability by 2020. Already, major retailers such as John Lewis, Primark and Marks & Spencer are involved. Together they are addressing a range of environmental challenges such as the overuse of scarce water in production, the fact that a third of discarded clothing goes straight to landfill and the short lifespan of most clothing with resulting demands, as we have heard, for endless new purchases to fill the wardrobe.
The Sustainable Clothing Action Plan is providing businesses with practical tools to deliver change, such as how to accurately measure the environmental footprint of the clothes they produce, how to design clothes with a longer active life, how to give consumers consistent information so that they can see the benefit of changing their behaviour and how sustainable business models can bring financial benefits as well. For example, it has worked out the financial advantages of retailers providing repair services for their own garments, extending clothing hire services, offering a buy-back and resale section within their stores and providing clothing exchange events among consumers.
I echo the congratulations of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to WRAP and Defra on being awarded the Global Leadership Award in Sustainable Apparel in Sweden in January. Will the Minister confirm that this work continues to be a priority for Defra and that WRAP’s work will continue to be funded? Will he reassure the House that, contrary to rumours, environmental sustainability will remain a key priority in Defra’s current review of its priorities?