Children and Families Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Storey]

My Lords, I am tempted to suggest that perhaps there ought to be some regulations regarding the times that we can perform, so that we know when we will start and finish and that we are being safeguarded correctly—but clearly that is not going to happen.

I went along to an all-party group looking at children and young performers in the media. I did not realise the problems that not only children face in terms of safeguarding. I am being told to shut up—you see, I cannot even perform.

I will make three very quick points. First, the legislation that was quite rightly introduced in the early 1960s was to protect children, but since then history has moved on. Times have moved on. Never mind a few television channels, we have hundreds of them. We are seeing the law being broken. There are television shows that are breaking the law. There are others that are playing by the outdated 1960s regulations. For example, a poor lad wins a talent competition, but because the witching hour has passed, he has to sit in the audience and cannot be part of the winning group.

I remind noble Lords of the three concepts that my noble friend Lady Benjamin spoke about: consistency, transparency and making sure that safeguarding happens. Currently, safeguarding does not happen. If we take only one thing from this rather truncated discussion, it should be that safeguarding children has to be not only about safeguarding them as individuals but about safeguarding their opportunities. It cannot be right that children in some local authorities are allowed to take part while in other local authorities they are not.

When the Minister replies—briefly, no doubt—I ask him to consider how we can make this happen, because we cannot have legislation trying to protect our young people that goes back to the early 1960s. I had lots more to say, but perhaps I can save that for another time—or, hopefully, not.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who contributed to this debate. It is a good topic and one which we have been happy to put our names to in order for it to have the best possible chance of being successful.

The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, will not mind me saying that when I first came down as a raw and untutored-in-the-cinematic-arts person from Scotland, she was one of the first people I met. She wowed me then, and she wows me now. That performance—Floella, you were wonderful.

I am very pleased to be able to support this update of legislation that was last updated in 1963. Clearly, as we have heard, the world of television and film performance has been transformed since then. As noble Lords mentioned, it is important that the legislation properly reflects the full range of opportunities available to young people and at the same time builds in safeguards that will protect them from exploitation or physical or mental harm.

However, the chance to be involved in film and television work—indeed, this also applies to stage work—depends where you live, with local authorities operating rules in a very inconsistent way. There are also huge disparities in the amount of paperwork required. We need to update the legislation. It needs to widen the types of involvement suitable for child participants and to make sure that it covers the range, as has been mentioned, away from just simply acting and singing. What a wonderful world 1963 must have been if that was all you could do. I would not know. “Stop mucking about”.

Children and Families Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I shall speak to Parts 6 to 8 of the Bill, which we broadly welcome. These changes will help improve gender equality at work and at home, and give some families greater choice about how they share their childcare responsibilities. This would be greatly enhanced if, as my noble friend Lady Drake has argued, more support can be given to grandparents. However, I also wonder whether the Bill misses an opportunity to improve independent rights of access to leave and support for fathers, and to initiate a culture change in favour of truly flexible leave and pay.

From what has already been said in this debate and particularly by my noble friend Lady Hughes, I am sure that there will be support across your Lordships’ House for a Bill that foregrounded children’s rights and benefits and, starting from that position, promoted the opportunities for fathers to care for their children, and especially to share their childcare responsibilities with mothers in the crucial early years. After all, the issue of fathers sharing care is first and foremost about what is good for children and the whole family too. It gives children more time with their fathers, which is a very good thing for both, enables women to keep a foothold in the world of work, which is better for their future work prospects than taking time out, and it is good for the couple relationship.

The new system of shared parental leave and pay will replace the additional paternity leave and pay system with a more flexible, transferable one. Mothers may continue to take maternity leave and pay as they do now, unless they choose to transfer some of this to their partner. Along with many groups and commentators, we welcome this increased flexibility. This will also help challenge many employers’ default assumptions about who will care for a new baby and in turn this may help address the regrettably high incidence of maternity discrimination in the workplace.

When the Minister responds I would be grateful if he could comment on the following issues which were raised during the consultation process, but which have not made it into the Bill.

The Consultation on Modern Workplaces says that there is strong evidence of the benefits of shared parenting and, in particular, that fathers who are engaged in caring for their children early on are more likely to stay involved. So why are no changes proposed to ordinary paternity leave and pay? The only entitlement for fathers in their own right remains at two weeks’ leave at the flat rate, assuming that they qualify for paternity leave at all. Will this not result in some fathers continuing to be unable to take any paid leave at the time of their child’s birth? Is it really satisfactory for fathers to have to rely on short- term, unpaid time off for dependants to accompany their partners at the birth?

International evidence shows that fathers’ take-up of leave is influenced by whether it is earmarked for them and whether it is adequately paid. The modern workplaces consultation proposed a father quota to encourage more fathers to take leave, but this has not been included in the Bill. The Government have decided not to introduce this until the economy has properly recovered and flexible parental leave has fully embedded. When he responds, can the Minister explain what criteria will be used to determine when the economy has properly recovered and can he explain at the same time what time or volume indicators he will be using to assess whether flexible parental leave has fully embedded?

The Bill proposes that mothers and fathers may transfer leave and pay between them in blocks of a minimum of a week at a time. The consultation proposed that parents might take the new form of leave in smaller chunks or on a part-time basis if their employer agreed. This was warmly welcomed by family organisations and some employers. Part-time leave and part-time pay can have significant benefits for families, particularly those on low incomes who would like to extend the time that they can spend at home, but who cannot afford to have no income. Allowing part-time leave, topped up by wages, might allow low-income parents to transition gradually back to work. Many good employers already allow employees to come back to work after maternity leave on a gradual basis, which helps with handover periods from locum cover. Children may also benefit if they can be settled into new childcare arrangements on a gradual basis. Can the Minister explain why this “smaller chunks” provision was not included?

Shared parental leave will be available to couples only where both parents are economically active, and meet service and earnings requirements. In 2010 there were approximately 782,000 maternities in Britain, but the maximum number of fathers who may be eligible for shared parental leave will be 285,000 at most, according to the BIS impact assessment, which is 36% of all maternities. Does the Minister believe that 36% represents a satisfactory level of engagement by fathers? Currently, statutory pay rates are well below the national minimum wage and will only be uprated in line with other benefits by 1% until 2016. Does the Minister agree that this sends a poor message about how society values time spent at home with a new baby, with parents being paid less than they would receive in a minimum-wage job?

Clause 99 introduces a right for fathers and partners, including intended partners in surrogacy situations, to take two unpaid half days of leave to attend antenatal appointments. This new right is welcome, but does the Minister agree that the Bill is perhaps unnecessarily complex and prescriptive on this new right? It sets out in primary legislation that the right may be exercised on only two occasions and for a maximum of six and a half hours on each occasion. Would it not be better to provide fathers with a right to reasonable time off for these purposes and for any limits to be set out in regulations?

Finally, can the Minister comment on the proposal made by the Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee on women in the workplace that employees should be entitled to ask for flexible working from the outset, and not only after they have been in a job for six months? Does he not agree that the Bill misses an opportunity to encourage employers, including perhaps the Civil Service, to advertise jobs on a flexible or part-time basis, without which many talented people could be forced out of the labour market?

The Working Families recent survey of 1,000 parents of disabled children found that 27% of respondents were not in paid work, and more than 80% of those had given up work to care for their disabled child. Once out of work it is very hard to get back in. More than half the parents surveyed had been out of work for at least six years. Their talents and skills are lost to their employers. Their families are left poorer and the economy loses. That has led to suggestions for adjustment leave to support parents and carers through a crisis so that they can stay in work and out of poverty. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that idea.

Education Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

89ZZE: Clause 72, page 56, line 16 at end insert “or
( ) for the period until the first repayment is made, not in excess of the average cost of borrowing borne by the Government in the preceding financial year.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, Clause 72 amends the powers given to the Secretary of State in the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 to make regulations setting interest rates for student loans. As the legislation currently stands, Section 22 of the 1998 Act effectively provides that the interest rates set must be no higher than the rate required to maintain the value of the loan in real terms. If no repayments are made, the size of the loan increases in cash terms but remains fixed in value terms. Clause 72 gives the Secretary of State wide and substantial powers to set interest rates, but its intention is to move the policy of the Government away from where it currently is, and from where its independent adviser, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, recommended it should stay. It will move us from the position of a zero rate of real interest to one in which the real interest rate would be 3 per cent above RPI.

We had a bit of a stushie in Committee about who said what and when about how many graduates are not expected to repay their loans in the future, which is an important issue as it has consequences for the taxpayer. According to the letter I received subsequently from the Minister, I did not misquote senior members of the Government on this issue. However, she went on to explain that the department,

“currently estimate that around 40% of full-time students could have some of their debt written off”.

She goes on, however, that this,

“remains an uncertain estimate and if OBR projections of inflation and earnings growth change this autumn, then the figure could change again. In December last year the IFS”—

a widely respected think tank—

“estimated that the proportion could be around 50 per cent and we accept that the true figure could range from 40 per cent to 50 per cent”.

So there we have it. Whether it is 40 per cent or 50 per cent or somewhere in between—my fear is that it will be on the higher side—it is a very large sum of money indeed to carry within the national accounts.

There are still issues on which we have not had an answer. The Browne report recommended that the interest rate should be set at the rate that the Government themselves can borrow money. What therefore is the justification for the figure of 3 per cent? Why RPI was selected, not CPI? Is the 3 per cent above the RPI rate of interest Sharia compliant? What assessment has the department made of the 10 per cent drop in student applications for 2012, and does it think that the drop is linked in any way to the high fees being charged?

I have discussed this issue with the Minister since my original amendment was discussed in Committee, and I am grateful to her for giving me time to go over my concerns. However, I feel very strongly that using RPI instead of CPI is wrong, and taking powers to impose rates of up to 3 percentage points above the RPI is penalising our young people and their families. It will exacerbate social divisions, and it may deter young Muslim applicants. It will generate a high level of individual debt, which will have to be repaid over a period of, say, 25 or 30 years, and is set in the form of a contingent tax liability. A positive real rate of interest will impact in particular on mature students. It is likely to have an adverse impact on female graduates and on men in the bottom decile of earnings. It is setting students off on a lifelong debt habit, and approximately half the loans are going to be written off. I still do not really understand how a policy can be supported when it is basically a tontine of very crude proportions: half those affected by it get their loan commuted to a grant, which then becomes a deadweight charge on the PSBR, simply because they earn too little to trigger any repayments and because they happen to live longer than 30 years after the due repayment date.

However, I recognise the pressures on the system and the need to recoup some of the costs. So I offer a late Halloween deal to the Minister: why not have one rate of interest for the period when young people are studying and a different one when they are earning enough to begin repaying what they have borrowed? The change in rate from constant value to a real rate of interest could be tied to the point at which they begin repaying. This is what is set out in my amendment. I hope this version of trick or treat is an attractive proposal for the Government, and I would be grateful if, in the event they cannot accept it tonight, they take it seriously and agree to have further discussions with me about it before Third Reading. I beg to move.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, seeks to place a statutory requirement in the Bill whereby the interest rate at which borrowers are charged while they are studying and until their first repayment is no more than the government rate of borrowing for the preceding financial year. I thank the noble Lord for raising this issue, and I hope that he will find my response helpful. I will not put it in the context of trick or treat.

The current system provides borrowers who go on to earn the highest incomes with an interest subsidy while they are studying. This amendment is unnecessary because high-earning graduates are well placed to contribute to the cost of their higher education, and it also makes it unprogressive. The new arrangements that we are proposing mean that, in practice, the only people who are affected by the decision to charge a real interest rate while studying are those high-earning borrowers who pay back their loans in full. Those who do not fully pay back their loans will see that part of their borrowing written off. What is more, charging a real rate of interest is part of a progressive package of reforms, and any proposal to change this rate of interest should be considered in the round.

The changes that the noble Lord is suggesting would have a significant cost and impact on the sustainability of the new student finance package. Our analysis shows that charging students the government rate for borrowing—currently, RPI plus 2.2 percentage points—means that we would have to find a further £100 million per year. If we were to reduce this further, as has been suggested, to an interest rate of RPI only, while studying, or if we were to extend this rate until the student makes their first repayment, it would mean the costs would be even greater. The Government are committed to the progressive nature of the repayment system and want to ensure that those who earn most and can afford it contribute most towards the cost of their education. I am sure that the noble Lord does not disagree with that.

The noble Lord spoke about women being affected disproportionately. We estimate that around 35 per cent of female graduates will repay less than those on the current system. This is in large part because since women are more likely to be lower earners, they are more likely than men to benefit from the features of the progressive repayment system, including the protection afforded by the higher repayment threshold.

We do not want to have a negative impact on disadvantaged groups, and that is why the Government are committed to ensuring that our universities remain open to everyone with the ability to succeed in higher education. Our equality impact analysis indicates that our student funding reforms will not have a negative impact on protected groups. With our new repayment terms, we estimate that around a quarter of graduates— those on the lowest incomes—will pay less than they do on the current system.

The noble Lord asked about Sharia-compliant loans. We are actively investigating the possibility of introducing an alternative finance system and are working with organisations such as the Federation of Student Islamic Societies and the National Union of Students. We are clear that we want a single student loan system that can meet the needs of the majority of students, where possible. We will seriously consider proposals to change the administration or presentation of the system in ways that can address the doubts that members of some faiths might have about accessing student finance. However, any proposals would need to ensure that the overall financial outcomes for government are the same and that all student loan borrowers are treated the same in accordance with existing legislation. It is important to get this right, and I know the noble Lord agrees with me that it may take a little longer, but the outcome must be absolutely right.

The noble Lord raised the RPI/CPI question. No single measure of inflation is appropriate for all purposes. It is important to view the package of reforms in the round. We need a student finance system that is progressive, sustainable and affordable for the taxpayer, and that is what we have delivered. A measure of inflation that brought in lower contributions from the highest earning graduates would require us to be less generous with the progressive elements of the system that protect our low earners.

The Government’s student finance package is progressive and sustainable. It rebalances investment in higher education so that there is less public subsidy and a greater contribution from those who benefit the most. This can only be right. Our proposals create a system that provides more generous support for students from lower-income households and protects low-earning graduates. We believe that this is a fair deal. For those reasons, I cannot accept this proposal but I am very happy to continue meeting the noble Lord to discuss his concerns further.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that and in particular for her closing remarks about continuing the discussions. I think it would be worth having a further round of that. I gather there is a date now in the diary and perhaps we can pick it up at that point.

I would like to make three small points, and one at the end. First, it was good to hear that the difference in the cost to the public sector of going from 2.2 per cent to 3 per cent was only £100 million a year. I say “only” in a casual, flippant way—of course it is a lot of money, I understand that, but it is not a lot if one has to balance the impact and the damage done because of the increase. I think that is worth bearing in mind. I am grateful to have that information and I will think about it.

Secondly, the Minister said that the proposed changes will not have an adverse impact on admissions, but I think I am right in saying that the reduction in admissions reported last week was highest among mature students and women. That is a worrying sign. It may not be reflected when the full admissions figures come in, but even at this early stage of admissions, which is primarily for medicine, veterinary science and Oxbridge, those reductions are worrying and we need to bear them in mind.

Thirdly, on the point of whether or not the loans as currently proposed are Sharia compliant, I am grateful to the Minister for saying what she did on that. This is something that we perhaps could do by correspondence because we share a common wish that this works out well and that there is not an artificial or even a real division between the systems of loan that are appropriate across the whole country.

Finally, although it is fantastic that both full-time and part-time students who go on to higher education will be able to do so free at the point at which they enter the system, there is a price to pay for that. Underneath all the rhetoric, the truth is that this is a progressive system only because out of it will come a very large number of people—perhaps 50 per cent of the cohort—who do not earn enough to go on to a statutory repayment basis. It is a sort of race to the bottom and a crude way of depressing wages, and that cannot be right. There must be a better way of getting this across. If the progressive nature of this is really a way of separating out those who are benefiting from higher education and get more than the average wage in the country from those who do not, the phrase that is being used—those who earn more should contribute the most—begins to sound more like a graduate tax than anything else. Having said that, I hear what has been said tonight and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 89ZZE withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 89ZA in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Sharp of Guildford, and myself. We are of course delighted that the Government have accepted that the statutory payment due date for all those studying part-time will be the April which falls four years after the start of their course. A potential injustice has been avoided and the change represents a step towards breaking down the barriers to part-time study.

Once this Bill becomes law, the situation seems to be that part-time fees are set to go up from about £1,000 per annum, which is the latest DES figure, to £6,750. Part-time students will not be eligible for maintenance loans or grants as they are at present but such students will have to borrow to pay the much higher fees that are going to be charged. I worry about this radical change to the current position and whether the existing range of part-time students, who are mainly mature, female and people who say that they missed out the first time around, will continue to enrol on part-time courses.

I have some questions to leave with the Minister. Why are the Government regulating part-time fees when the existing system seems to be working? If a university is setting a fee which it thinks the market will bear and the Government are prepared to extend its voucher system to part-time students, why put in an inducement to raise that fee, which will be hard to resist, to £6,750? Why not try it for a year or two and, if necessary, regulate at that point if it is not working?

As has already been said, not all university part-time course structures fit neatly across four years and not all students wish to study at the same level of intensity each year. It must be to the student’s advantage to study at the pace that best suits their lifestyle and commitments. Universities have reacted to that by becoming more flexible in terms of evening and weekend study, and study outside the traditional academic year.

Given that, I have some sympathy with the case that has been made by million+ that it would be much more helpful for students if universities were able to charge part-time fees on a pro rata basis linked to the credits undertaken and the full-time fees set by the university for the course in question.

HEFCE currently provides £368 million to institutions to support them with the additional costs of attracting and retaining students from the most deprived areas and those in receipt of disabled student allowances. The early years allocation from this fund has led it to attract 20 per cent of its newest students from the 25 per cent most disadvantaged communities in the country, 12,000 current students with registered disabilities and 18,000 students who access higher education through targeted access, taster and opening programmes. When the Minister replies, perhaps she will reassure us that the earmarked funding of this nature will continue. I look forward to hearing the answer to these questions.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend and the noble Lord for their warm welcome to the Government’s response. The amendment in the names of my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, seeks to extend the repayment due date. I also thank them for championing this point and apologise for the delay in arranging a meeting with my right honourable friend the Minister for Universities and Science and myself. As noble Lords know, I take pride in delivering on my commitments and I am sorry that there has been this delay.

My right honourable friend has listened carefully to the debate in this House. He has considered all the arguments and has asked his officials to have those further discussions. While we are not able to accept the amendment as it was laid, I am pleased to confirm that through secondary legislation we will set the repayment due date for part-time students as the April which falls four years after the start of their course or the April after a student leaves their course if that is sooner. A letter has been laid in the House Library to this effect, and I am pleased to note that this change has been resoundingly welcomed by the sector.

My noble friend Lady Brinton asked about widening participation. To ensure a fair deal for poorer students, we have announced a new £150 million national scholarship programme to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds. I will write to my noble friend on HEFCE’s widening participation funding. I also hope that she and the noble Lord will take the opportunity later this week to discuss this and all other issues raised by noble Lords today with my right honourable friend.

My noble friend and the noble Lord asked about regulation. My noble friend proposes a more rigid system of regulation than that put forward by the Government. We do not believe that there is evidence that such a system is needed. Our proposals establish a common framework within which higher education institutions have flexibility to set their own pricing. They need to be sensitive to the level of pricing that potential students will bear. Part-time students may simply not accept charging over and above the relevant proportion for their full-time equivalent. Our proposals protect students by ensuring that their loan will cover the full amount charged and by securing investment in widening participation and fair access. We will of course carefully monitor the new system and, if we need to, we will review and revisit it.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about the regulatory burden. This cap will enable higher education providers to set their own charges as they do now but up to a maximum amount specified in regulations. We do not believe that this will cause an unnecessary regulatory or administrative burden. Our proposals establish a common framework.

I look forward to further discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Sharp. This week, my right honourable friend will speak to them and I hope that we will have some fruitful discussions. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.

Education Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Edmiston, on his maiden speech.

Tucked away at the back of the Bill are two clauses that deal with higher education—namely, the regulations that deal with interest on student loans and the fee regime for part-time students. Given that we are shortly due a White Paper on higher education, this seems rather odd. Clause 72 amends the powers given to the Secretary of State in the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 to make regulations setting interest rates. At present, the 1998 Act provides for interest rates to be no higher than needed to maintain the value of the loan in real terms. The Bill repeals that provision and the new regulations will permit interest rates to rise to several percentage points above base. This will surely act as a major disincentive to students from disadvantaged backgrounds to enter higher education. It may also impact on diversity and equality issues.

It is clear that the Government have got the fee levels likely to be charged in higher education courses plain wrong. They had assumed an average fee of perhaps £7,500 but some 80 per cent of institutions that have already announced their fee levels have plumped for £9,000 per annum. The combination of the higher than predicted fees and the introduction of a penal rate of interest will cause a massive problem to our public finances as well as being a disincentive to students.

The cost to public funds is the face value of the loans in any one year less the present value of future repayments. I know that that is a bit technical and I might have to repeat it if noble Lords did not get it. It basically means that if fees are higher, the loans will be higher. If the interest rates are 3 per cent or more above base, the likelihood that graduates will repay the debt in full is reduced. The present value of future payments goes down. According to figures from the Houses of Commons Library, if the assumed fee loan averages £8,500, there will be an additional cost to public finances of about £870 million per annum. To keep public spending constant, you would have to apply a real interest rate of 4.1 per cent. If the loan is £9,000, as it is turning out to be, real interest rates would need to rise to 5.2 per cent.

Your Lordships will recall that the recent Browne report recommended a real interest rate of 2.2 per cent—a lot less than is now being contemplated by the Government—for those earning above the threshold and a safeguard to ensure that those making relatively small repayments did not see the balance of their loan increase. It is striking that no such protection is offered in the Bill. Allowing tuition fees to rise to £9,000 a year at the same time as cutting teaching budgets is bad enough but designing a system of loans and repayments that increases the cost to the Treasury while justifying it as an austerity measure is a scheme surely worthy of an episode of “Yes, Minister”.

Unfortunately, it gets worse. According to a report in the Guardian this week, almost a quarter of a million fewer overseas student visas are to be issued in the next five years as the result of changes to the student visa system. The Home Office estimates that this will cut overseas student numbers by 25 per cent, putting a clear message out to the world that foreign students are not welcome here and putting at jeopardy a quarter of the estimated £40 billion of student fee income which currently flows into our universities.

Clause 73 introduces capping of part-time fees payable by higher education students. I have two points on this. Traditionally, fees from the part-time sector were always set rather late in the year. This will have to change. Part-time students often already work and many have family commitments, so they surely need to know what the fee arrangements are going to be at an early point in order to decide whether they can afford to go ahead with their studies. Also, the prospect of loans being available in this sector—which we welcome—means that the Student Loans Company will need the new regulations to be provided early enough for it to process applications alongside full-time loans. With loans comes the problem of repayment. Many part-time students may face the prospect of repaying their loans before they finish their courses. At present, they have to start repaying after three years if their income is above the required level. This seems very unfair as no full-time student needs to start repaying until their course has finished.

Many of the points on higher education that I have made today will need to be discussed again when we see the imminent White Paper. These clauses are but one aspect of future policy. We seem to get this in chunks. We now know, because of statements made during the discussions on the Bill in another place, that the White Paper will,

“explore and give rise to the implementation of broader changes to the character and nature of higher education”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/4/2011; col. 974.]

What does that mean? It is a trailer. It is interesting because it raises issues such as the length of courses, contact time, remit of institutions and the possibility of private providers entering into higher education. I hope that the Government will make available a serious amount of time to discuss the White Paper when it comes along. We certainly need it.

Education: Special Educational Needs

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, it is a great honour and privilege to address your Lordships’ House for the first time, in this important debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, whose long and distinguished contribution to public life includes, of course, the seminal Warnock Report on Special Education of 1978. I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, about what a pleasure it was to hear her give us both an insight into the thinking during the initial discussions on that report—somewhat regretful, I gather—and an update on her thinking on where things have got to since 1978.

My contribution to this debate will be about schools for children who have a SEN statement which identifies behavioural, emotional and social difficulties as their primary need. As is traditional with a maiden speech, however, I start by thanking the many people who have facilitated my arrival in this House. In particular, I acknowledge the staff, not only for putting on a very effective and informative induction programme but, at every level, for being so informative and helpful in the early days and weeks of my time here. I have already benefited from the work of the Library staff, which is simply superb, and I also thank my sponsors, my noble friend Lord Evans and my noble friend Lord Haskel, who has also acted as my mentor.

One thing new Members are not short of is advice, which is offered on a regular basis. It is warm and friendly, not threatening. One of the key decisions for new Members is of course the point at which they give their maiden speech: when to do it, on what topic and how it should be pitched. On this issue, advice to the new Member is divided. Many people recommend getting your maiden speech over with as soon as possible, but just as many say, “Hold on. Wait for the right topic”. I decided to hold on but I confess that, as the days passed, my mentor, my noble friend Lord Haskel, has been getting more and more agitated. Recently, he started making suggestions about what I should speak on. The first—which I did not object to, but turned out not to work—was that I should initiate, which I thought was a big step for somebody so new, a debate on the threats to our honey bees from pesticides and disease. I keep bees, so I have a little to say on that. The Library confirmed for me that this House has not debated the issue since May 2009. That is two whole seasons of honey making. What a joy it would have been to regale noble Lords with my success in honey making, out at my house in Buckinghamshire. I had even begun to develop a rather complicated metaphor involving Parliament as a successful hive. You may imagine how I anticipated describing the queen being superseded by another only a few months ago, and interesting roles as drones and worker bees for the various parts of your Lordships’ House. Another time, perhaps.

My noble friend Lord Haskel’s second suggestion was that I should wait for some of the constitutional reforms due to arrive in this House shortly. This is an interest of mine because when I worked in a think tank we did a number of pieces of work on constitutional reform, which I think have been helpful. When I was working in the policy unit at 10 Downing Street just before the election, it was part of my brief. As Members may have noticed, with so much of that material having been picked up and espoused by the coalition Government, I would probably have something interesting to say as we went forward to discuss it.

However, luckily, I became interested in special education, and I declare an interest as a governor of the Chiltern Way Federation, a special school in Bucks. This debate caught my attention. To my noble friend Lord Haskel's great relief, I resolved to speak today and got him off the hook; so much so that I am afraid that the excitement may have been too much for him and he is unable to be present to hear the results of all his coaching and support.

The Chiltern Way Federation is currently composed of two highly regarded special schools for boys aged 11 to 16, and each school has 65 students on roll. All of these boys have a statement of special educational needs which identifies behavioural, emotional and social difficulties—BESD, in the jargon—as the primary need. Both schools are permanently oversubscribed, forcing Buckinghamshire County Council to seek out-of-county placements for a considerable number of children, at great expense to the ratepayer. As Buckinghamshire currently makes no provision at all for BESD girls, some 20 out-of-county placements have to be found for them, at a cost which I estimate must be about £1 million a year.

Traditionally, a school's distinctive contribution was to be found in excellent learning, provided through excellent teaching. The task of BESD schools, therefore, should be said to be providing all that excellence, with the added dimension of trying to manage and improve very challenging behaviour. However, if we are to be successful in getting the best outcomes for our children, the simplistic notion that BESD schools can deal with bad behaviour within the school day, as a sort of add-on in splendid isolation, needs to change. As the Warnock report was not allowed to point out all those years ago, there is a link between deprivation and educational failure that is pervasive and remains central to the issue today.

It may seem strange to find extreme deprivation in lush and leafy Buckinghamshire but it certainly exists. I have been struck by the fact that a disproportionately high number of our students come from poor homes, where in many cases there is or has been a history of alcohol or drug dependency and/or mental health problems, and where there may also be a history of criminal activity within the family. In this context, the work done on early intervention over the last few years by my friends in another place, Iain Duncan Smith and Graham Allen, has many valuable lessons for what we face in the BESD sector.

In my brief involvement with the Buckinghamshire BESD schools, I have been hugely impressed by the work done by the staff day in and day out. I also acknowledge the excellent support offered by the local authority, both in funding and through its specialist advisory staff. The previous Government’s report, Every Child Matters, has provided a common and widely supported policy framework for their work. I hope it will continue to be the touchstone for the Government going forward. I confess that I knew virtually nothing about the BESD sector, or indeed special education, before I became a governor. My motivation for accepting the position, which will be shared by many noble Lords, was simply to give something back. Seeing these schools develop and flourish in the last few years has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life.

I close by asking the Minister to take on board three points that will be helpful as he responds to the debate. First, I echo some of the points that have already been made about the need for one proper definition of BESD, since all the services involved—health, social care and education—have slightly different ones at present, which simply causes confusion. Secondly, could the Minister do as much as he can to ensure that BESD schools are treated as a distinct sector by his department, and that the work they are doing to ensure that every child matters is properly supported for what it has achieved and can achieve? Finally, I have explained the steps that we have taken in the Chiltern Way Federation to work with parents and students in school, and that we work with a range of other service providers, including health, social services and the police. It occurs to me that the Minister might enjoy visiting our schools to see this approach in practice and the partnership that works around it. If so, I would be happy to facilitate such a visit.