Education Funding: Devon

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) on securing this timely debate. After his many years on the Front Benches, it is very good for the rest of us in Devon to have him back on the Back Benches, because we face a number of challenges. His experience, energy and expertise will help us try to tackle some of these long-term challenges.

I am delighted that the Minister is in his place. He knows that I think he is a tremendous Schools Minister. In all seriousness, his rigour and commitment to increasing the academic achievements of young people in this country are appreciated up and down the country. He is making a difference, and that is tremendous. I also know that the consultation exercise on funding is genuine. I expect him to nod vehemently here. The reality is that if the funding stays as it is, it will not attract the support of a number of us here in this room, because it is unfair.

It is true to say that we have been waiting for years in Devon for a revision to the national funding formula. When the Secretary of State came to the House just before Christmas and announced that a new funding formula was about to be unleashed on the world, it seemed to be extremely good news for us in the far south-west. The expectation was that some of the overfunding of schools in other parts of the country would be corrected to improve things for those of us living in the west country. Everyone thinks it is just a place to go on holiday and have cream teas and so on, but it has genuine challenges of infrastructure, connectivity, education, social services and health that we need additional investment to help us with.

We were like thirsty men and women crossing the desert, approaching the oasis. The end was in sight. Good news was just around the corner. Sadly, when we started to look at some of the details, it was not an oasis at all—it was a mirage. That was disappointing. In the Secretary of State’s statement at the Dispatch Box, I heard her say, “Isn’t it great that over a number of years we will correct the fact that pupils in Plymouth”—I will explain the difference between Plymouth and Devon in a second—“currently receive £500 a year less than pupils in Coventry?” Coventry and Plymouth are very similar places, as they were both devastated by Hitler in the second world war and rebuilt.

We were encouraged to think that a long-standing grievance and injustice would be corrected. Even though it is true that many Plymouth schools are doing well, and I thank the Minister for that, unfortunately when we start to look at the numbers, we see how illogical they are. Schools face similar challenges with similar pupils from similar backgrounds and, as my right hon. Friend said, have transportation issues and costs on top of that, so it is crazy to learn that in many Devon schools the situation will go backwards.

My constituency is two thirds Plymouth and one third Devon, so I am partly encouraged by some of the news that the Minister has brought in recent weeks, but I am concerned about some of the outcomes in the consultation document. He will remember coming to Ivybridge Community College just before Christmas to open a new maths block. Unfortunately, I could not be there, but the reaction from the school was, “What a great man! He spoke very positively and inspired the young people.” He perhaps neglected to say that as part of the national funding review, the college—an outstanding beacon of excellence in Devon—was about to receive a cut of £203,000 from its budget. That would not have gone down quite so well in the new building opening ceremony.

Ivybridge Community College is outstanding and has been brilliantly led for many years. It is in a multi-academy trust. Three of the primary schools involved in that trust are: Stowford School, which faces a 2.75% cut, representing £37,000; Woodlands Park Primary School, which faces a 2.57% cut, representing £28,000; and Yealmpton Primary School, which faces a 1.35% cut, representing £9,000. In total, the multi-academy trust faces a cut of £277,000. It is being penalised for being outstanding and teaching kids in a most remarkable way. That simply is not good enough.

It is rumoured that the Minister carries around with him—he possibly even takes it to bed at night—a list of all the education authorities in the country, showing where they are in relation to each other and what the baseline is. It may even have different colours in it, with green for those doing well and red for those at the bottom. If he looks at that list, I think he will find—if the list exists at all—that Devon appears about an inch from the bottom of the second page. Our baseline is right down at the bottom compared with all the other education authorities in the country. We were expecting to come up his list. We were expecting to come towards the top of at least the second page, if not the first. What has happened? We are either standing still or going backwards. We are staying right at the bottom of his list of education authority funding. I am sorry to say that that simply is not good enough.

The Minister will be pleased to hear about one thing that is happening in my area at the moment. My four secondary schools in Plymouth—two in Plympton and two in Plymstock—and Ivybridge Community College in Devon are consulting with parents, staff and everyone else about becoming a large multi-academy trust over the next 12 months or so. That is what the Government are seeking to inspire. It is all very exciting and I fully support it, but the four schools in Plymouth, which are having their budgets increased, are coming together with an outstanding school in Devon that is having its budget slashed. It teaches children from similar backgrounds who are from exactly the same golden triangle of Plympton, Plymstock and Ivybridge. It makes no sense and there is no logic or reason to it.

I am afraid that the Minister, of whom I am a great fan, must look again at the formula and tweak it in some magical way. I realise it is difficult when applying such a formula. For years no one has understood what either the local government or the education funding formulae are all about. I know it is very difficult. One cannot just take £100 and put it there. I urge the Minister to look again at the formula, because the formula that we have seen and the proposed education settlement for the next two years are simply not acceptable.

I want to conclude on this point. I had a meeting with my Whip yesterday. He is a very fine man and we talked about the future and how well the Government are doing. Of course, this was on the back of a most outstanding speech by the Prime Minister yesterday, setting out a clear, strong and coherent vision for this country, which many of us can get behind. However, I said to my Whip, “There are a number of things coming down the track about which I need to give due notice.” It is wrong for any colleague to say to the Government, “I don’t like what we are about to do tonight; I am going to vote against it.” Proper notice needs to be given. That is the mature way forward, but I wish to send a clear notice, if I may, Mr Hanson, to my Whip, to the Government and the Minister, and perhaps the Parliamentary Private Secretary can take a little note and send it to the Education Whip. If the education funding settlement does not change in relation to Devon schools and if there is no significant uplift in whatever format it comes in six, nine or 12 months’ time to be voted on by the House, whether in a statutory instrument Committee or wherever else it might be, I will vote against it.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Hear, hear!

[Mr Streeter]

The settlement that is being proposed for Devon schools is simply illogical and unfair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

There is an employers’ group that is preparing and working on the introduction of a graduate-entry apprenticeship scheme for teachers, so there will be opportunities for schools to use that funding and indeed spend more than the money from the apprenticeship levy on training teachers and also support staff and other technical staff that help schools operate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) described his constituency as in part inner city, where there are significant areas of deprivation. The Government are seeking to tackle that, not least through improving education. Social mobility lies at the core of the Government’s objectives, and that is one reason why schools in his constituency are seeing an overall increase of some 4.4% in funding, which he was magnanimous enough to acknowledge.

We are using a broad definition of disadvantage to target additional funding to the schools most likely to use it, comprising pupil and area-level deprivation data, prior attainment data and English as an additional language data. No individual measure is enough on its own; each addresses different challenges that schools face. When a child qualifies under more than one of those factors, the school receives funding for each qualifying factor. For example, if a child comes from a more disadvantaged household and they live in an area of socioeconomic deprivation, their school will attract funding through both the free school meals factor and the area-level deprivation factor. That helps us to target funding most accurately to the schools that face the most acute challenges.

[Mr Streeter]

The Minister has said that this is a genuine consultation exercise, but I am not hearing too much in terms of a willingness to amend the national funding formula. I understand that that will be tricky, but will he confirm that if a sufficiently strong case is made he is prepared to look again and that changes might be made?

[Mr Gibb]

I am seeking to explain the reasoning behind why we place such emphasis on deprivation and low prior attainment—that is something that will affect the grammar schools in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport—and why we place such emphasis on helping children with English as an additional language. This is a Government driven to improve social mobility.

This is a genuine consultation. I have set out the explanation as to why we produced the formula for consultation that we did. We are listening to the responses—we will be going through and reading the written responses and we will listen to debates such as this one in the consultation process—and where we can make changes that address unfairnesses revealed through that process of course we will make changes to the approach we are taking. The decisions we are taking are driven principally by social mobility and ensuring that children from the most deprived parts of our country are properly funded at their schools to ensure that they make progress and fulfil their potential.

I acknowledge the concerns about the schools block ring fence and the level of flexibility between schools and high needs raised in the debate, given that Devon has in the past moved funding from the schools block to the high-needs block to support its high-needs pressures. We recognise that some continuing flexibility between the schools and high-needs blocks will be important in ensuring that the funding system is responsive to changes in the balance of mainstream and specialist provision.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon for the important work he and the WESC Foundation do for children and young people with visual impairment. The reforms of high-needs funding and the additional funding we are providing this year and next year support the most vulnerable children in the country who are supported by high-needs funding.

In order to give my right hon. Friend time to respond, I will conclude. I am enormously grateful to him for raising this issue and to other hon. Friends and right hon. and hon. Members for airing their concerns and issues about funding of schools. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends are reassured that the Government are committed to reforming school funding and delivering a fair funding system for children in Devon and throughout the country.

School Funding Formula and Northern Schools

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Colleagues, we move on to our next debate, which is also about an important matter: the school funding formula, which the Government have introduced and we are all very excited about.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the school funding formula and Northern schools.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter—it is a first for me. The circumstances of the debate are strange in so far as I originally put in for a one-hour or 90-minute debate, knowing that many parliamentary colleagues were exercised about this topic. I did not win the lottery for an Adjournment debate, but a half-hour slot became available and Mr Speaker offered it to me, so I thought I would go ahead and try to condense this important subject into half an hour. However, I do apologise, Mr Streeter, because you could have had a range of eloquent speakers addressing the subject but unfortunately you will have to listen simply to me droning on. I am sure this will be the first of many such debates for the Minister, because the national funding formula will be contentious in many places, not only in the north, and I dare say he will have an opportunity to rehearse some well-tried Department for Education lines in defence of it.

The Government set themselves a laudable task: to close the north-south gap in educational attainment. I am a little sceptical about the gap because “the north” is often seen from London as an undifferentiated mass. I was brought up on BBC weather forecasts in which the presenters went into great detail about the weather on the south coast and in London, and then they would glibly say, “but in the north it will be” and use that blanket label for the entire area anywhere north of Watford. The tendency is to see the north as a homogenous culture, possibly peopled by men in flat caps with whippets and living with constant drizzle. However, I looked further into what the Government meant by the educational gap—I had to address what the evidence showed—and, if we control for factors such as income and deprivation and exclude pockets of genuine excellence, we see that outcomes for northern secondary schools are inferior to those found in London and the south-east. Primary schools show less evidence of a northern problem.

I am not sure whether the difference we see would be so stark if we excluded those areas that have benefited from schemes such as the London challenge, which has been a successful concentration of money and resources. I met recently with Anne Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner, whom the Government charged with testing some of the assumptions underlying the project. The principal one seems to be the belief that if we have an educational problem, it is capable of an educational fix. The commission has suggested that other things could be taken into account: for example, parents in the north could be a bit pushier.

In a report for the previous Chancellor, Sir Nick Weller, who works for an academy chain, suggested unsurprisingly that the north could do better with more academy chains—and, incidentally, better teaching. Proponents of grammar schools have not been slow to suggest that what we need in the north is more grammar schools. The Minister will be aware of the study done by ResPublica in Knowsley, which suggested that grammar schools might be a panacea. However, to my certain knowledge, Knowsley has had grammar schools since 1544—I was once a pupil at Prescot grammar school.

The harsh reality is that, in order to change aspiration in the north, we need to do more than change school structures, because the reality that dawns on adolescents in the north is that opportunities are more limited compared with those they might face in the south, regardless of the education they receive. That is why so many young people gravitate to the south, particularly after their degrees; why there are more start-ups in the south; why the south is a magnet; and why the south has critical mass. Young people’s aspirations are simply less when there is less around them to aspire to—it is a chicken and egg dilemma. If we factor in limited parental optimism based on a degree of experience in the north and the limited opportunities available to those who are industrious but not especially talented, is it surprising that the optimism of childhood dwindles as schooling progresses and aspiration and attainment falls? I suggest that correcting that is beyond the scope of the school system alone; it involves regeneration of the whole community to which the child belongs.

That said, we all recognise that education plays a key part in regeneration. It is worth funding, and it is worth funding properly. I am far from believing that good funding is a sufficient condition of educational progress. Were that so, many schemes in the past would have worked far better than they have done. If we think about the money spent over the years in places such as Knowsley to provoke better educational outcomes, we would expect far superior outcomes to those we got. I do, though, note that, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research, £900 less is spent per primary school pupil in the north and at secondary schools that figure goes up to £1,300. That could go part of the way to explaining the significant difference in outcome. However, it is probably fairer to regard good funding as a necessary rather than a sufficient condition. In that respect, the Government’s revision of the school funding formula leaves a little to be desired. Indeed, its effects in some places will probably be catastrophic.

I recognise that no one will oppose a national school formula in principle because it sounds fair on paper, given that we have the effective nationalisation of school funding anyway through the dedicated schools grant. The current situation looks unfair and anomalous partly because of national decisions, but also because of the history of local decisions. We must look at that and see where that has led us.

When local education authorities were important—I do not suggest that they are not important at the moment—some bravely took decisions to sustain or increase budgets while others, less concerned about education, cut school funding to appease ratepayers and council tax payers. A feature of the new system is that that degree of discretion has simply gone, and councils charged with regeneration have lost all real leverage over the educational system. That is regretted by councils now, and clearly it will be also be regretted later on by city region cabinets and by Mayors as they get their hands on the levers of power, because they will want to prompt regeneration but they will lack some of the active levers that would enable them to do that.

I was a council leader in Sefton borough, and during tough years in the 1990s and so on we put money into school funding, sometimes at the cost of other services, because we regarded that as a high priority, and schools were therefore well funded—in fact, they were so well funded that sometimes the council dealt with its financial problems by borrowing from the schools’ balances. However, that was something we could do locally; it was a way in which we could emphasise our commitment to education in the area.

However a new formula is dealt with, it will obviously not please everyone. There will be winners and losers; but the background to the present situation is somewhat unpromising. The cost pressures on schools, such as national insurance, pension increases and school-based inflation, significantly outweigh the projected funding settlement for the sector. The Minister knows—and I think that we will all get to know—that the National Audit Office has vividly set that out. Its report will be investigated in greater detail at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, probably next week. To give the House a flavour of it, the NAO concludes that despite modest real-terms increases, the cost pressures on schools and increases in pupil numbers will result in a real-terms reduction of something like 8%. That is the NAO’s figure, not mine or that of a think tank or political party.

National Funding Formula: Schools/High Needs

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman sets out some of the challenges that we continue to face in our education system. That is precisely why the national funding formula makes sure that resources go to schools that are in more disadvantaged areas and those that have cohorts of young people and children who are starting from furthest behind. That is not only the sensible approach; it is the right thing to do for those children and schools. For too long, that has not been built into the school funding formula. That is what we are trying to resolve today. This is the second stage of the consultation. There are 14 weeks for everyone to look at whether the way in which we have blended the different criteria is right. I think that it is.

In addition to what we are announcing today, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have launched six opportunity areas to look at how we can ensure that we have excellent education in those parts of the country where we still have not seen enough improvement.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

Both Plymouth and Coventry were bombed heavily during world war two, have areas of deprivation and have similar demographics. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that the discrepancy of £500 per pupil per year simply cannot be justified? Her statement will be warmly welcomed. May I ask for maximum clarity at the earliest opportunity on what schools in my constituency will get in 2018 to help them prepare for the September 2017 budget, which is likely to be challenging?

[Justine Greening]

After the statement, we will publish a lot of detail in relation to individual schools. We will take the draft final formula and apply it to individual schools’ budgets, so all Members will be able to look at all the schools in their constituency and see, notionally and illustratively, how the formula will operate. Of course, when the funding formula comes in, it will apply against the up-to-date pupil numbers and pupil data, but we want to be very clear with the House about how it will work on the ground. I encourage all Members to look at the data for their own communities. They show that although no school will get exactly the same under the new formula as it has had in the past, it will be much fairer.

Apprenticeships Funding

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. The Institute of the Motor Industry described the original cuts as a “car crash”. I suppose a U-turn is not a bad idea when faced with a car crash, but that organisation is still warning that a lot of employers in the motor industry simply will not be able to cope with the existing shortfall in funding and the complexity of the existing frameworks. The Minister really needs to do more work on that if he is to answer the criticisms that have been levelled by both employers and potential apprentices.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Let me give an early reminder that interventions should be brief.

[Mr Lammy]

Absolutely. Nissan might have decided to stay, but it may look again at the decision if apprentices do not come forward and participate in the industry. That is very important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Colleagues, Front-Bench speeches will begin at 10.30 am, which gives us 40 minutes for the eight people who have caught my eye, so there are five minutes per speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman quite correctly anticipated that we are one speaker down, so each Member now has six minutes to speak, not five. Well done to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Derek Thomas]

That is a fantastic point. When I stood in the election and finally won, I met and worked with local businesses, and they kept telling me that they need courses provided by the college to provide the workers they need and the training their young people need. It is important that businesses lead the way in ensuring that they have the skills they need to move forward.

We have massive vacancies in Cornwall, and clearly we cannot continue like this. The modern apprenticeship programme, if communicated properly and successfully delivered, gives young people the opportunity to train locally, work locally, live locally, shop locally—in my part of the world, it is important that we look after our local retailers—and go on to raise a family locally. Rather than just welcome the Government’s ambitious target regarding the number of apprenticeships, it is essential that we meet it, simply because we do not have the people to do the jobs whom we need at the moment.

I heard the points that the right hon. Member for Tottenham made about funding. However, the great challenge we face is to engage more small businesses to take on apprentices. It makes sense that the Government are focusing on and prioritising funding, meaning that 90% of all funding for small businesses will be met by the Government. It makes sense that small businesses do not pay anything towards training people under 18 years of age. The real challenge is not so much the amount of money but how it is spent, as well as improving links between our schools and employers, so that young people and their families are aware of the opportunities available to them in the areas where they live. That would have a significant impact on the skills gap in west Cornwall and across the country. I welcome this debate, but I argue that we should concentrate on how we equip and enable young people to do apprenticeships, rather than fall out about the money available.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I call the one and only Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

On a point of order, Mr Streeter. The Minister is reliant on the new standards, which only just over 3,000 apprentices have taken up. More than 99% are on the current frameworks, which is the subject of the debate, and the Minister has not addressed that at all. He is trying to hoodwink the House.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

That is not a point of order. The Minister may continue.

[Robert Halfon]

The right hon. Gentleman should check his statistics. There have been more than 4,000 starts on standards, and 400 standards are in development. Many frameworks are going up, and we are putting a huge amount of money into uplifting the STEM frameworks. That is what employers want, and we are designing an employer-led system.

We are raising the prestige of apprenticeships, helping the socially disadvantaged, and introducing the levy to change behaviours and so that the cost is borne evenly throughout society. We will reach the target of 3 million; as I said, we have had 619,000 since May last year. We are raising the quality of apprenticeships through the Institute for Apprenticeships and through degree and higher apprenticeships, which many thousands of people have taken up.

The Government are transforming the country into an apprenticeship nation. I am proud of the work that has been done, and of the officials who have worked hard to ensure that we listen to employers, as we said we would when we first announced the levy.

[Mr Lammy]

It is disappointing that the Minister has said nothing about funding cuts. He has been reliant on the extra £2.5 billion that he said is coming in. He is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Will he confirm that there will be funding cuts that will lead to deserts—

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. We must move on from this excellent debate to a debate on another interesting subject.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Education and Adoption Bill

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). I am sure his former schoolteacher would have been proud of what he said. I found much to agree with in his speech, although it was possibly an error of judgment to describe one school in his constituency as a favourite—he may get some letters and emails from governors of other schools.

If I were an Ofsted inspector I would declare both maiden speeches this afternoon absolutely outstanding. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) and the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) on them—they were very powerful speeches.

I will talk about adoption. I very much welcome the rationalisation we will see as a result of the Bill. Quite a few parts of the charitable and not-for-profit sector could do with some rationalisation. Perhaps it should happen from the bottom up, but from time to time it requires a nudge from the top, so I welcome that measure. There are some wonderful adoption agencies in the United Kingdom, but there are a lot of them and we would like them to work more closely together.

The broad thrust of my short speech is that I want to put the case for families who adopt to have better access—perhaps even priority access—to services later in life. Most of the input to, scrutiny of and support for the adoption process comes up front and in the immediate aftermath of the adoption. After that, it is all too common for families who have adopted to feel abandoned as events begin to unfold in the precious young life in their care over the months and years ahead. My remarks chime with the intervention by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who talked about her own experience in this matter.

I have come to that conclusion based on a number of constituency cases, as well as the experience of a member of my wider family who has adopted a child. I can well remember attending the families day for would-be adopters, at which it is stressed that in almost every case any child being adopted will have gone through at least three major traumatic episodes—abandonment, violence or abuse of some other kind. It is for that reason that the significant decision is taken—it is never taken lightly—to intervene and take that child away and hand him or her to another person.

Watching TV programmes about people now in their 70s trying to reconnect with children they handed up for adoption in the 1960s perhaps gives us a false impression of modern-day adoption. In those days, more often than not, a young mother was forced to hand over a much loved baby within just a few days of birth, because of societal or parental pressure; those children would often go on to flourish in their new homes. Today, a child handed over for adoption has probably—not in every case, but probably—already experienced trauma of one kind or another, possibly lasting months or years. It is almost certain that the trauma of those early years will find its way to the surface one, five or 10 years later.

In truth, adopting a child involves a giant leap of faith. The new parents do not really know much about that child, their DNA, what drugs or alcohol the natural parents may have been on, or the truth about the trauma that he or she suffered and its impact on that young life. It is perfectly understandable why it is that hard-pressed social services departments breathe a sigh of relief once a child is adopted—I can imagine that happening—and move on to their next crisis. I do not blame them: they are very hard pressed. That is one reason why clause 13 could transform adoption, if there is a greater rationalisation in the adoption services.

I believe not just that rationalisation is important but that we need to go further. I welcome the recent decision that looked-after children, including adopted children, will get priority treatment in accessing the school of their choice. I also welcome the fact that they attract the pupil premium. My argument—and this could be the Bill to make this happen—is that looked-after children should receive priority treatment from other services, particularly mental health and social services, all the way through their lives.

Why would that be fair? First, the whole point of our welfare system is surely to put vulnerable people back into the position that the rest of us are in. Secondly, as I have said, it is almost inevitable that where there has been trauma in a young life there will be personal repercussions later on that will require particular attention and support. Priority access to health and other support services would help both the child and the hard-pressed, good-hearted people who have opened their home and taken the child in. Thirdly, we are talking about a statistically small group of people. The impact on everyone else would be minimal, but on that small group it would be significant. Priority treatment should last not just through the teenage years, but for life.

As the Bill wends its way through its stages here and in another place, I hope some positive things might be added. In particular, I ask the Front-Bench team to think about giving children who have been adopted priority access to services later in life. I realise that there are many positive stories about adoption—my own family is determined that ours will be one of them—but we should not underestimate the scale of support needed as a child comes to terms with the trauma of early years.