Covid-19: Children

Baroness Morris of Yardley Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Morris of Yardley]

That this House takes note of the case for the urgent levelling up of opportunities available to the children of the United Kingdom which have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular with regard to (1) education and skills, (2) health, (3) inequality, and (4) the elimination of child poverty.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to introduce this debate on a very important topic. It is a widely drawn debate, and having seen the speakers’ list, I look forward to good contributions from knowledgeable people on a whole range of issues that affect children and young people. I suppose we will disagree with each other as the debate goes on—we should do, because these are contentious issues in some cases—but I do not doubt that everybody who has chosen to speak in the debate is committed to the well-being of children and young people, wants the best for them and wants life for children in the future to be better than it is at the moment.

Children have had a rough deal in the pandemic, though I am not sure whether they have been the most affected group. It is not a competition; I am not sure what is to be gained by pitting one group of our population against the other to see who has fared worse. But as adults, we have a natural obligation to look after children—in fact, it is a legal and moral duty. It has been our inability, as adults, in whatever role we have, to do that as well as we would have liked that leads us to be more concerned and worried about the effect that the pandemic has had on children.

I do not believe that these children are a lost generation. They will grow up to be a generation of adults that does wondrous things: they will be teachers, doctors, business leaders and parents, who shape society with exactly the same opportunity we have had. Do not talk them down. There is a real worry that, in talking about the lost generation, expectations will be fulfilled; no one would want that to happen. But how easy it is for them to become a great generation depends a great deal on what we do now, as we come out of the pandemic.

Even before the pandemic, we were a country that probably had greater inequalities than any other country in the developed world. In poverty, in health and in schools, the inequalities that seem to be structural in our society have bedevilled us for decades. If you are poor, you are less likely to be healthy; and if you are poor and not healthy, you are less likely to do well in school; and if you do not do well in school, you are less likely to be able to take advantage of opportunities as you grow older. When you put that structural inequality in the United Kingdom together with the economy of austerity that we have had in the decade prior to the start of the pandemic, you realise that children went into the pandemic with an unequal chance of thriving.

It was not easy for any child: whether rich or poor, and from whatever part of the country, it was not easy. But when services closed in March, some children were hit worse because they depended more on those services and institutions than others did—children who depended on schools for space to study, books to read or food to eat; young people who felt safer, more valued and more cared for at school than at home; and children whose parents relied, week in and week out, on social services and healthcare professionals for help and support in bringing them up. Thousands of aspirational parents from low incomes and with few facilities at home found that their working partnership with their children’s teacher was disrupted. All those things happened above and beyond children not having their lessons taught.

It would have been difficult to promise, going into the pandemic, that no child would suffer; that we would, during that year, be able to make sure that no child was left behind. Anybody who said that was sowing false expectations. But these are children—these are the people for whom we have a responsibility. What we needed at that point was a Department for Education that performed better than it ever had before, and better than it ever dreamed that it could. That is the quality of the leadership we needed and the quality of the vision we wanted.

I saw that quality elsewhere in government: rough sleepers were taken off the streets and into hotels in a remarkably short period of time; the furlough system got money in people’s pockets in a few months; the help for creative and art institutions came through in a bigger amount than they might have expected; and there was the vaccination programme. People speak well of those initiatives, and our citizens are proud of what the Government were able to do. But when you look at the department that was charged with being the best it could be for our children, you do not see that story. You do not hear people say what a wonderous thing it was and what great services it delivered during the pandemic.

I would make one exception to that: the Oak academy was a real success. It will last for years and leave a legacy for teachers to use in future. But that was universal provision; every child benefited from the Oak academy. The other initiatives were targeted at the most disadvantaged children, and they were not successful, such as the laptops that should have been in children’s homes. I talked to teachers as the summer holiday started; they were still chasing worn-out laptops from local businesses because they were not getting them from the Government. Schools were made to drop the systems they were running themselves and take up the Government’s free school meal vouchers—and they did not work by summer school. On the catch-up programme, only half the number of schools anticipated were involved and fewer than half of the children were from less advantaged backgrounds. In all that time, the DfE managed, in one month from mid-March, to send 150 documents to head teachers telling them what to do.

Teachers tried to compensate for that. I heard too many stories of teachers taking school meals round to children’s doors; of teachers trying to fix worn-out IT kit; and of teachers who spent their time knocking on kids’ doors, to make sure they were safe. While they were doing that, they were not teaching children. All this meant that the children from the least advantaged backgrounds ended up having less time in the classroom. Some 80% of children from private schools got live, online lessons; almost 60% of children in state schools from more affluent backgrounds got the same; and 40% of children from less affluent backgrounds found themselves with online lessons. Of course that will lead to an achievement gap. Whether it is stated by Ofsted, the NFER or EF, it does not matter, I am not going to argue about the degree of left-behindness: no one I have heard from says that those children were not left behind.

The same is true of health. Although one of the consequences of the pandemic has meant that we cannot collect the statistics, I do not think anyone disagrees that reported mental health difficulties and the demand on services have increased. The one figure we do have shows that infant mortality in all four nations has increased as well. The figures for poverty show that one in three children in Birmingham is on free school meals, and one in five schools in our country has now opened a food bank.

However we went into the pandemic, we are emerging from it with a generation of children who have lost learning, have less confidence and feel greater insecurity. That is what the Government’s catch-up programme had to address—that was the task. Unless it can meet those needs, overcome those obstacles and see a future for those children, it is not worth its name.

They made a good start: they appointed one of the best educationalists I know, in Sir Kevan Collins. No one who has worked with Sir Kevan would not want to work with him again. He has decades of experience and has never shied away from a hard fight or a tough task. He must have, over those months, developed a programme that got the approval of both the Department for Education and the Prime Minister—without that, it would never have been presented to the Treasury. All that was wrong was that the finance was not agreed. What message does that give to our nation about how much we care about children and young people? Having a departmental leader who did not deliver during the early stages of the pandemic and a Prime Minister who would not give the money to sign off the catch-up programme hardly fills us with confidence about what the future will be for this generation.

What we are left with now is basically a meagre programme of tutoring and a very small amount of money going into teacher development for teachers and early years. We can argue about the money—whether it is more than Holland, less than America; whether it is this amount per day, or that amount per year—it is not enough. I have not met one teacher or one citizen who said, “That’ll do; that’ll give us a good start and set us on our way”. It is not enough and will not do enough things. Boris Johnson should not have said in his press release, “We will make sure no child is left behind.” Gavin Williamson should not have said in his press release that he is “incredibly proud” of this programme. It is not a programme of which our Government should be proud.

It is no good saying that the money is on its way; that will be too late. Look at the damage done in 12 months; it will just potentially cause more damage as well. That is why Labour, through our shadow spokesperson, Kate Green, has put forward a far more wide-ranging programme that brings together not just education but includes health, recreation and leisure, small-group tutoring for all children, more professional development, as promised by the Government, breakfast clubs and extending free school meals, a good education recovery premium and proper mental health support. But it is not just about the money. What really worries me in this debate is that it is about the lack of ambition and the lack of a vision for our country.

I remember when I was a Minister—anyone who has been in that position will feel the same—that it is often difficult to bring about the big changes you want, because the time is not right: the public are not ready for it; the arguments have not been made; there are too many people who oppose it; there are too many conflicts in taking those policies forward. We have all been there, but at the moment there is a public wish for change in how we provide services for children and young people. The people are inviting their Government to be bold. The argument has been made; we just need a department that will seize the opportunity.

We have changed as a nation. We are a different nation coming out of this pandemic than we were going in, and I think that all of us better understand the barriers to learning. All of us now know that children are poor and that makes a difference to what they can achieve and how they live their lives. I hope that I never again hear the idea that the problem for poor children is that they go to poor schools and have the worst teachers, because very often the reason those schools are not at the top of the list is because of the barriers they have to work with, with children, to overcome. I think that is understood in a more widespread way in our country than it used to be.

As a nation we have come to terms with the importance of digital technology and know that we have to make the leap. As a nation, we are no longer prepared to put academic excellence ahead of a child’s mental health. We have learned to value a broader range of activities—the sports, the arts and creativity for children. We have been reminded of what our values of compassion, citizenship, care, giving and receiving have been. I think we appreciate now that the best thing we can give our children is the resilience and the commitment both to themselves and to others that has been so much needed during the pandemic. People want something different. It is an invitation to the Government to be bold.

I am reminded of the last opportunity when that probably existed, which was at the end of the Second World War. People wanted change. There was an invitation to the Government to be bold. They wanted a different world, and I think back to what changes there were for children in those Acts: school nurses, dental checks, school meals, eye checks, school milk, orange juice. In education, whatever you think about it—and I did not like it—the tripartite system was a massive change, as was free secondary education for all. We had the introduction of child benefit, the development of council housing, the beginning of municipal, local authority leisure facilities. Looking round, we were the beneficiaries of that; we are the levelled-up generation. It is us, sitting here, at our age, who are the levelled-up generation, and we ought to remember what that has done for us and make sure that that is what we do now for the next generation.

It needs an umbrella such as the welfare state. Whether you call it a children’s plan or whatever you call it, it needs to be a range of activities that are brought together. I do not mind who leads it, I just want somebody competent to be in charge, to take us forward. I do not think the DfE, health or the Department for Work and Pensions can do it alone: it has to be people who work together. If we had a children’s plan now, and if the Prime Minister undertook that every policy his Government look at will be viewed for its impact on children and making this a more equal society, we might actually get somewhere. I do not claim to have all the answers to this, but I am as confident as I can be that unless we take this radical, bold route, we will not deliver for our people and we will not be able to successfully respond to the call for a different sort of society. Here are my starters for 10, and I am sure we will hear others throughout the debate.

I wonder whether the new office for health promotion could have, at its core, looking after children. I really am persuaded—as an educationalist, I must say—that if children were healthier, a lot of other things in education would be easier as well. So, can we charge the office for health promotion with putting children’s health at its centre? Can all children’s services be based on school sites, so that they are more easily delivered? Is it too difficult to have a regulation that means children should not live in flats without gardens, but should live in houses with spare space around them? Can we not provide money to local authorities so that they do not have to close swimming pools and other leisure facilities? Schools must change as well. Have we not learned that children need computers? Can we not give every child that starts school a laptop computer in the way that I was given an exercise book and a textbook to take home? It is the equivalent for this generation, under what could be a children’s plan.

To be honest, the curriculum has not changed for 30 years, and one more push for a year 1 phonics test will not get us out of this pandemic. We need a curriculum that is broader, that values creativity, values sport, and, more than that, understands how they all fit together so that children can flourish. It is not that children need to do those things; it is that children are complicated beings—they need those things to come together so that they can be at their best. I think that people have turned back or spoken aloud. I do not think anyone in this country ever lost their values or their vision of what kind of country we could be; I think, in a strange way, that the pandemic has given them permission to talk about it and say how important it is. I think that adults want a school system that works with parents and the wider community to instil citizenship and values in our schools.

The trouble is that the Minister could stand up and say that all those things are done already—and she would be right, as there is little tick box for each of them that she can tick off, but it does not deliver. It is not big enough, bold enough or delivered in a way that excites people and manages to do what it should do for children and young people. I am not confident at the moment that the Government understand the extent of the challenge or have the will and the wisdom to take us forward, but I am entirely confident that that is what is needed. I very much look forward to the contributions in the debate today, because I suspect that if we can put them all together, we will have been of great assistance to the Minister and her department in taking forward a plan for children and young people for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

On a personal level, I thank everyone for their birthday wishes. I am sure I can speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Coaker in saying that neither of us could think of a better way of spending our birthdays than with the 42 people who have been part of this debate.

On a more serious note, I thank the speakers for their contributions to this really good debate. I have learned a great deal. Every Member who spoke has shown a concern and passion, not just for children but with some really good ideas of what we can do to improve things. There has been cross-party agreement, first, about the importance of this area; secondly, that it is not right as it is; and, thirdly, that it is worthy of prioritising to try to get it right.

I want to make two or three points in closing. First, I acknowledge the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, because I did not mention children with disabilities. I realise that this is what happens: it tends to be a bolt-on and if you make a mainstream speech, you tend not to include those groups. We should never get to a position where the voice of a group that finds it difficult to have its voice heard is further excluded because the voice of another group that finds it difficult to get its heard rises to the top. It is not a competition between the voices of the poor and the voices of people with disability. The noble Lord’s speech was a timely reminder for my thinking to be more integrated than it sometimes is.

Of all the speakers, perhaps my noble friends Lord Puttnam and Lady McIntosh said the most about us acknowledging the people who have delivered the services. Again, as we finish the debate I put on record my thanks to not just the teachers and school leaders, and everyone who works in schools, but all those who have worked with children’s services over the last two years. Their contribution has been immense and their energy levels must be almost sapped. They must be hugely frustrated in some ways about what they have not been able to achieve, but we are immensely proud of what they have been able to.

I will refer to the Minister’s speech. I thank her, as ever, for her detailed consideration, careful listening and very thorough responses to what we say. I have never questioned her commitment to her portfolio; she is a shining example of really caring about the job that she does. But I want to take two points, because they lead into the most important thing in regard to this debate.

First, on the evidence base, tutoring is evidence-based. Ironically, it was the Education Endowment Foundation, set up by Kevan Collins, which proved that. We had the man leading the project telling us all that tutoring was evidence-based, but nowhere in that evidence does it say that by itself it is enough. That is the crucial thing: by itself, it is a grain of sand within what needs to be done.

I get frustrated when Ministers say to me, “But we are looking at the evidence, and it points to tutoring”. I cannot argue with that, but it is not enough. It is the same with the resources: I end up thinking that all those billions of pounds, which I cannot even imagine, are not enough because they have not delivered the results. The best analogy that I can think of is: if Ministers were to go to a school that was bottom of the performance tables and it said, “But we have tried our best. We have done everything. We have done this, that and the other”, the Minister would say, “You are at the bottom. This is not good enough”. This is exactly the same.

Whatever money has been spent, you have to look at the output, not the input. I am not arguing with the billions spent, but I am looking at what this has achieved and saying that it has not delivered the goods. That has to be the agenda for going forward. With respect, if I was a Minister, I would be defending the actions of the Government, but we need a sign from them that they are also thinking that it is not enough. If they can say to us, “We know that it is not enough”, I would give them a bit more credit for what they have done—I really would. It is not enough and we need some further thinking.

For my last point, I will mention some other noble Lords’ speeches to illustrate it because they really struck my mind. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who spoke about health, and to my noble friend Lady Sherlock, who spoke about benefits. I then listened to my noble friend Lady Drake. They all spoke early on, shortly after I did, about kinship carers. I try to speak in most education debates in the House of Lords, and I say to myself that I do it because I care about and am interested in children. Before those noble Lords spoke, I did not know about what they said: I did not know as much detail on the mental health of children as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, told us about, I had no understanding of the complexity of child poverty that my noble friend Lady Sherlock told us about, and I had not really thoroughly understood how kinship carers can get left out. That is a problem because they care about children too.

Those three people speak in the House time after time because they all care about children. I rarely speak in the same debates as them because we discuss not children but the separate siloes. I speak in the education debates, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, speaks in the health debates and my noble friend Lady Sherlock speaks in the debates on pensions and benefits. That is just an illustration.

As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, who of course has a first-class background in this area, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the big win here is changing the machinery of government to deliver for children. Given the way that the Department for Education, the lead department for education, is structured at the moment, it will not work. We need something bigger than that—whether it is a Cabinet Minister for children or not I do not know, but there are enough good minds for us to do the thinking, as has been shown in this debate. That is where I want to take us next.

Let us not argue about what has been achieved but instead take from this the joint and shared ambition that I have heard to do more and do better. The machinery of government that we have at the moment does not quite deliver that, but, in this House alone, there is enough good will, energy, experience and expertise to at least take us to the next stage. I thank all Members for their very valuable contributions. I have learned a great deal and I will go away and think about this. Meanwhile, I beg to move.

Motion agreed.