Creative Sector: Educational Provision

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

I entirely agree with my noble friend.

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, if the Minister walks through the Members’ Cloakroom he will see a bag—I think it is on the peg of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn—emblazoned with the words, “Music makes the world a better place”. The Secretary of State for Education seems to agree because in a recent speech she revealed that she used to sing with the City of London Choir. In the same speech she said that every young person should,

“have the opportunity to discover how the arts can enrich their lives”.

Given this enthusiasm for culture, why are the Government deliberately excluding study of the arts from the English baccalaureate?

[Lord Nash]

All the evidence from around the world is that pupils need a core suite of academic subjects to engage their intellect and curiosity, so that they will then want to study a broader and more cultural range of subjects. We are investing heavily in music hubs, and I go back to my point that the take-up in EBacc is driving a much richer and more cultural curriculum in schools.

Children’s Centres

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

We will most definitely take these matters into account in our consultation. It is very important that all families have access to high-quality, flexible and affordable childcare, particularly parents with children who have special needs or are disabled.

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, every farmer in the House will know the phrase, “Do not eat the seed-corn”. If you do, you will survive this year, but next year you will starve, because nothing new has been planted. That is just what the Government are doing by cutting funding to children’s centres: they are eating the seed-corn. For short-term financial gain they are storing up problems for the future. The closure of children’s centres is a malign act and, frankly, very stupid. Therefore—patience, patience; the noble Lord’s time will come—can the Minister say whether the Government will accept that investing in our children’s future by funding children’s centres should be a national policy objective, not left to the whims and vagaries of local councils, many of which have huge financial budgetary problems?

[Lord Nash]

I accept the importance of the matter, and I was delighted to see the ECCE survey, which showed that 98% of parents were “happy” or “very happy” with the services provided by their children’s centre. I know that the Labour Party likes to hark back to a golden age of Sure Start, but in 2009 the National Audit Office reported that children’s centres then were failing to reduce inequality and many were unviable, and Ofsted reported at the same time that half were not reaching out to vulnerable families. It is essential that we reach out to vulnerable families and that the facilities are tailored in the most flexible way to reach the families who need them.

Childcare Bill [HL]

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we are recommencing our discussions on this very important and much welcomed Bill to extend free childcare by 15 hours per week. The purpose of this amendment is to require more explicit flexibility in the provision as outlined. I welcome the Minister’s assurances that there will be flexibility within the provision, but, sadly, that is not entirely clear in the Bill.

What do we mean by flexibility and why is it so important that we have put down an amendment? The Bill would be much improved if it stated that the Government intend to provide 1,140 hours of free childcare per year rather than, as stated in the Bill, 15 hours for each of the 38 weeks of the school year. It would encourage providers to think about the needs of families and their young children. Many parents have non-standard hours of work, often in low-paid work such as cleaning, hotel work or caring for older people, and some parents work shifts, particularly in the nursing profession. All those people would benefit from greater flexibility in the provision. In our view, this will not happen unless there is encouragement and incentive from the Government to do so.

In addition to trying to meet the working hours of parents, there is the additional challenge of providing free childcare during the school holidays: the 14 weeks of the year in which schools are not working. That is a not insignificant problem for many families. In those 14 weeks, they have to try to juggle grandparents, neighbours and other people who willingly give up time to help them manage their working lives and the need to provide childcare—or they have to pay for additional childcare, often, as we discussed earlier in Committee, at a very much increased hourly rate, sometimes as much as twice the rate that is paid by the Government for the so-called free hours. That is a huge challenge for many families. Flexibility during holiday times and enabling families to get out to work in times other than the traditional nine to five, which is the basic provision in the Bill, would be greatly welcomed by many families, particularly those on low pay, on whom I hope this Bill is particularly focused. I beg to move.

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 23 and 24. They would place in the Bill the current permitted staff to child ratios for childminders and nurseries. One of the central themes running through the Second Reading debate was concern about the capacity of the early years sector to provide the extra free hours. For example, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham spoke of the strains on providers not in purpose-built facilities who cannot extend their opening hours. My noble friend Lord Sawyer and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked of low pay and staff shortages. Many noble Lords spoke of the underfunding crisis in the sector and the limitations of cross-subsidy options. As we know, this point will be part of the Government’s review of the finances of the extension.

The Minister and this side have a difference of view about the health of the sector and its capacity to expand and take on new duties. I sincerely hope that we are proved wrong, but in the mean time, there is concern that the Government will look again at increasing the staff to child ratio as a quick fix to deal with the capacity issues. We believe that these amendments are necessary because of this Government’s public statements and attempts in the past to increase the ratios.

This would be all too easy in the future as the current ratios are in regulations which can be changed by the Secretary of State. We are therefore keen to provide the necessary reassurance and guarantees to parents and professionals alike that the current ratios are safeguarded. Noble Lords will recall that there was a massive outcry across the sector when it was proposed to change the ratios. It was felt that this move would compromise quality and put children’s lives at risk and, as a result, the Government had second thoughts and backed down.

However, there is real concern that with the drive to increase the supply of early years places the Government might revisit the original plan. We believe that the current ratios have stood the test of time in balancing the quality of provision with the cost to providers and therefore parents. Professor Nutbrown, who has advised the Government on early years provision, has made it clear that she would oppose any change in the ratio. She quite rightly makes it clear that good-quality provision is directly related to the qualifications and training of the staff involved, as well as their capacity to relate to the children on an individual basis. This is crucial to the well-being and development of young children.

Our proposals would ensure that a single childminder can care for up to six children under the age of eight, including a maximum of one baby under 12 months and another two children under five. By anyone’s imagination it would be quite a workload and a challenge to provide appropriate care across the age group. I looked after one of my granddaughters, aged 22 months, for part of the weekend and can certainly testify that it was challenging indeed.

There must be one member of staff at a nursery for every four children aged two and three and one for every eight children over the age of three. We would also set out the minimum qualifications for these staff members in regulations. Again, the ratios as they stand sound fairly challenging. But they are necessary not just to support the crucial period of early years development but to provide safeguarding and protection for vulnerable children. Nursery staff already work under considerable pressure and we should not be tempted to add to it. So we believe that it is necessary to protect the current ratios and putting them in the Bill would guarantee that if any changes are proposed in the future they would have to come to Parliament and be subject to extensive parliamentary scrutiny and debate. We believe that that would be the right way forward.

[Lord Northbourne (CB)]

My Lords, might I ask in the context of this debate what the Government mean and we mean by quality in childcare? Is it the quality of childcare only or the quality of childcare and the relationship between the adult and the child? I respectfully submit that one of the most important factors in childcare is the relationship that develops between the child and the carer.

The Government have adopted the early years formula and put a lot of money into it. I think that they are absolutely right to do so, but I suggest that to some extent this Bill in mechanising, as it were, the management of the care of children runs the risk of losing the relationship by which a very young child learns to love, care and interrelate with other human beings. I wonder if the fact that so often we are losing that relationship in the early years is not the cause of some of our troubles in family life later on as the young people get older.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, having just spoken from a point of view sympathetic to providers, I now come forward as a paid-up member of the trade union of local authority leaders. I suppose that that is a switch from Dr Jekyll to Mr Hyde, since local authorities have not always been the flavour of the month in my noble friend’s department. However, they do try honourably every day to assist in the provision of high-quality education, and I hope that that will be recognised as work on this legislation goes forward. Local authorities are not the enemy: they are often part of the solution.

This is a probing amendment—that is very clear. We are told that further regulations are to be produced requiring each English local authority to provide all sorts of as yet unspecified information. Governments have a terrible habit of requiring information from people, and I am afraid that local authorities sometimes do as well—I plead guilty to that, although I have tried to eradicate it. Every piece of information asked for that is not germane is a burden on business and a burden on the setting. It should be avoided unless it is of overwhelming social benefit. Filling in forms, answering emails and getting involved in chit-chat about whether information is expressed in the right way all take time away from administering, teaching and other important jobs. I hope that providing this unspecified information, whatever it is to be, will not add administrative burdens and costs to local authorities above the minimum level and certainly that it will not prove a burden on the providers and small settings.

The policy statement so helpfully circulated by my noble friend refers to the fact that, under existing legislation, local authorities currently provide a certain amount of useful information: the hours of the setting, where there is one; costs, if people wish to declare them; and other similar items. You can go on your local authority website and find out about nursery settings in your area. The policy statement goes on to say that although the new regulations will require more information, it will not be very different from what is already provided under the existing system. If that is the case, why have this regulatory power? How is it going to be used? Once we have given it away to the Government, or whoever, is there not a risk of regulatory creep as one Government succeed another? I do not think it is necessarily enough to pass a law that everything should stay the same. I ask for an assurance that over the course of the Bill we can have a dialogue about the burden that providing information imposes both on local authorities and on providers.

I conclude with one point that goes back to the position of the provider—particularly those providers that may be on the fringes of staying in the scheme. The more you press them for information, the more they become unwilling to give it, the more careless they get about filling in what they are doing and the more coercive systems can become. None of that is intended, but with accretive creep it could happen. If we are to have regulation then let us be absolutely clear about the boundaries, let us not take it too far and let us never consider that quality is necessarily assured by regulation. Regulation may be part of it, but quality is assured by good service and is tested and assessed in this sector by Ofsted. If this policy is as successful as my noble friend hopes, and anybody in this country is enabled to choose the care they want, then quality will also be provided—perish the thought—by the market, because no one will be constrained from making the childcare choices they want, and logically the good settings will succeed and the bad settings will not. So, please: let us have restraint on regulation. As we go forward I would be grateful for an assurance that my noble friend will talk to local authorities and providers about finding the right balance in the regulations required, lest we get into a merry-go-round of demand, counterdemand and otiose administration. I beg to move.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, in responding to the debate on the first group of amendments the noble Baroness asked whether I had recovered from my daughter’s wedding, which took place last Thursday. We ended it yesterday with a family lunch. As the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and I agreed last week, in Wales a wedding can last a number of days. In my daughter’s case that was certainly true.

My noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen cannot be with us this afternoon, so I shall speak to her Amendment 37. It is a straightforward amendment, which would place a duty on each local council to share information directly with partner agencies in the area, including children’s centres. In my experience, something as simple as this is all too often overlooked when we consider a measure such as the Bill. To digress for a moment, I know from personal experience of the National Health Service in the past couple of years that structures are often in place that actively work against information sharing, to the detriment of a patient.

With this amendment we have the chance to ensure that this does not happen with the Childcare Bill. Information about childcare services is crucial and can be complex. Sources of information vary from the formal, through local authority networks, to the informal, by word of mouth. We welcome the Government’s intention to ensure that parents can access information about childcare and other services through a range of sources in a local authority area. The amendment suggests that the requirement on local authorities to publish this information could go further to ensure that those who would benefit most from childcare support are made aware of good-quality care. Children’s centres can and do work hard to reach parents. Action for Children’s parent champions for childcare, based in children’s centres, can give personal support and advice, which is often much needed.

There is much merit in the amendment. I hope that the Minister, if she cannot accept it today, will at the very least reflect on it and come back to us on Report.

Childcare Bill [HL]

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister and I have something in common: we are both in celebration mode. I believe that it is his wife’s birthday. Unfortunately, business in this House prevents him from being with her this evening but I am sure that we would all want to send her many happy returns. For my part, I have to leave before the Committee finishes its business tonight. My youngest daughter is getting married in the morning and I have to catch a train to Wales this evening.

I turn to Amendment 2. My noble friend Lady Massey posed a key question when she spoke on Second Reading on 16 June. She asked:

“Who is the Bill for?”.—[Official Report, 16/06/15; col. 1115.]

The more I see and try to understand this measure, the more I begin to wonder that myself. The noble Baroness said that any Bill with “child” in the title must reflect—as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—that the rights of the child are paramount. I share her view. Good childcare should be child focused and offer learning and developmental opportunities. Otherwise, what is the point of it?

I share the fear expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—a blunt-speaking Yorkshirewoman if ever there was one. On Second Reading, she said that the Bill’s focus was on providing means to encourage women into work. While that might be laudable, the primary focus must be on its impact on children’s lives and not just on the future of the labour market. If, in the end, all we get from this Bill is a very costly system of babysitting and nothing else, we will have failed every family who wants the opportunity of meaningful, progressive and fully rounded childcare in which the child’s development can be the central objective.

Amendment 2 gives us an opportunity to persuade the Government to refocus the Bill and put the child at the heart of this measure. It places a specific duty on the Secretary of State to promote childcare and underpins that by requiring the Secretary of State to,

“promote the progressive development of persons and institutions which provide childcare”.

Those objectives go hand in hand. The first without the second would be worthless.

That brings me to a key point highlighted in the report of the Select Committee on Affordable Childcare, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood. Paragraph 25 stated that the committee and its witnesses were concerned,

“about the lack of coherence in the Government’s stated objectives for childcare policy”.

Witnesses appearing before the committee had flagged up the trade-offs necessary to achieve the separate policy strands. These were highlighted as,

“improving child outcomes, narrowing the attainment gap, and facilitating parental employment”.

The committee concluded, after listening to witnesses, that there was no evidence,

“to suggest that the need for such trade-offs was … acknowledged by Government”.

It formally asked the Government to clarify,

“how competing aims between the policy strands are prioritised, and what mechanisms are in place between Government departments to address the necessary trade-offs”.

Could the matter have been resolved and perhaps a different paragraph 25 put in the report? If the then Exchequer Secretary and now Employment Minister, Priti Patel, had turned up to give evidence it might have been. However, like some latter-day Louis XIV, she wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, and said:

“I have concluded that it would not be appropriate for me to attend”.

I do not know the lady—I know nothing ill of her and I am sure she is a very good person. However, it is becoming typical of the attitude of this Government to refuse to submit Ministers to the scrutiny of Parliament. If we cannot hold the Executive to account, who will? That is why we come here every day. Ministers and the Government must understand the need to co-operate with the House, with noble Lords, and not to resist our legitimate scrutiny role. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, spoke for all when he wrote back to the Minister expressing his disappointment that the Minister refused to attend. He went on to say that what is best for child development may not be best for enabling parents, and especially mothers, to maintain their attachment to the labour market.

I have been greatly encouraged by the response that the Minister gave at the start of this debate. He is clearly wanting and willing to engage with the House and with noble Lords on all sides to make this a better Bill. I invite him to assuage the fears expressed by my noble friend Lady Massey and other noble Lords and state without equivocation that this Bill is about childcare—a childcare service that is centred and focused on the child. The benefit of helping parents into work is a bonus, but it should not be the main objective of the Bill.

Childcare Bill [HL]

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, some Second Reading debates attract a very large number of speakers. We may not have had a very large number today but, my goodness, we have had contributions of the highest quality. The Minister should consider himself a lucky man to have such knowledge and experience from all sides of the House to help him make this somewhat thin Bill, lacking in detail, a better one.

Like my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I give the Bill a welcome—but, like her and many other noble Lords, I give it a very conditional welcome. The Bill stands before us in gargantuan splendour, all six clauses testimony to the titanic venture the Government intend to embark on. There is just so much room for comment—although, sadly for the Minister, this is by virtue not of the thorough and comprehensive nature of the Bill itself but of the conspicuous absence of much of what it purports to be. It is a missing Bill. Its objectives are worthy and noble, but in 20 years’ service in this House and the other place I have never seen a Bill so lacking in detail and so dependent on secondary legislation to give its ambitions practical meaning and outcome.

The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, has written in many academic accounts of this House that our essential function is to act as a scrutinising body for legislation that passes through the Houses of Parliament. But I ask the Minister: how can we carry out this crucial function if we are given very little to work with by the Government? With so much of the Bill covered by regulation that we have yet to see, we are completely in the dark as to how this measure will achieve its objective. So far as the regulations are concerned, despite many attempts to solicit information from the Government, answer came there none.

The Government must understand that if they want to get this flagship piece of legislation on to the statute book, we must see the regulations and have an opportunity to consider them in the context of the Bill. I am convinced that the Minister understands that, although after our very useful meeting yesterday with him and his colleague, the Minister for Childcare and Education in the other place—for which we thank him—it is clear to me that his colleague needs a crash course in understanding how this House works. An example is the funding review. It was only yesterday that the Government issued their call for evidence to be submitted to their review on the cost of providing childcare. Responses have to be submitted by 10 August. Perhaps the Minister can outline the timetable for digesting and publishing the findings. He has spoken of the autumn, but the autumn is a long period: when in the autumn? We had an assurance from the Minister yesterday that the findings will be made public.

We know that the Government want to take legislation through both Houses, gain Royal Assent and pilot the scheme next year, prior to its full launch in 2017. They have precious little time. Charities and sector bodies have stated that funding underpins the central needs of childcare provision, ensuring that it is both accessible and satisfactory. There has been no serious indication on the part of the Government that they acknowledge the necessary trade-offs between cost and quality in childcare. It would be a disappointing outcome if the Government were to continue on a path that would stretch limited resources and undermine conditions of good care in order to push more parents into the labour market.

This Second Reading debate has had one key characteristic: an almost endlessly repeated request for more information. The Minister and his staff will be working overtime to answer so many questions by the time we get to Committee. I have a few more for the Minister. There is already a lack of childcare for disabled children. How will the Bill help this? Together with the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, I was a member of the Parliamentary Inquiry into Childcare for Disabled Children, which found compelling evidence that policy developments to improve the affordability and quality of childcare provision have to date failed to take into account the reality of childcare for disabled children. The inquiry found that disabled children are being denied the opportunities for educational and social development that non-disabled children enjoy, and that parents are being denied the same opportunity to choose to return to work.

The case for a concerted government plan to tackle the inequality faced by this group is a strong one. The scarcity is caused by two major factors: a lack of consistent funding to meet the additional costs of providing childcare to disabled children; and a workforce that is poorly qualified to provide quality childcare. Without addressing these issues, it is likely that disabled children will continue to be disadvantaged by childcare provision that does not take account of their particular needs. This is a question of equality. If we are introducing a new entitlement, we must ensure that it is accessible to all children and that the settings are properly supported so that they can include disabled children with additional needs.

On other matters, how will the Bill ensure that more trained and qualified staff will be available? How will capacity through recruitment and retention be improved? Almost half of independent nurseries do not employ early years teachers. How will this help incentivise nurseries to employ them? How is the impact of childcare on child development being measured? The Bill’s clear objective is to enable parents of young children to find and remain in work—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. There is nothing wrong in that, but an investment of tens of millions of pounds should do more than simply pay for childminding. Surely good childcare should be child-focused, offering learning and developmental opportunities.

We must make sure that standards will not be sacrificed for affordability, that the work interests of parents do not override the development needs of the child and that, ultimately, the poorest and neediest in our society will benefit most from these proposals. I am thinking here of those parents who need to work to provide for their families and those children, such as those with special needs, who will benefit from the proper attention and care.

The Bill will help only those parents in work with childcare. What measures are planned to help those looking for work? The consultation on funding has just been launched. Will it consider the actual cost of childcare? How many providers are already finding it difficult to stay in business? What modelling has been done to ensure that additional hours provided at a payment level which is at best marginal will not drive more providers out of business? The 30 hours a week will now surely cover lunchtime. Is the cost of the lunch to be included in the free 30 hours? Many providers will not have facilities to provide lunches; this could be a capital cost. Will there be help for this? The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, made this point.

The level of regulation-making powers that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State is unprecedented for a Bill of this size. Why is this, and when will the draft regulations be published? What plans are there to consult on the regulations and who will be consulted? How are the Henry VIII powers in Clause 2(2)(d) to be justified? Is the Bill being rushed through without sufficient time and preparation?

I will not comment on a lot of the remarks that noble Lords have made, but I will highlight one or two points. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham highlighted the problems of childcare during holidays. I was discussing with my eldest son this weekend the problems that he and his wife are going to have in the summer finding childcare provision and being able to afford it. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, welcomed the pilot projects that will be undertaken. They are worth while. When I sat in the other place, I was for a time on the Public Accounts Committee and time and again we saw government schemes go awry because they had not been piloted—so clearly piloting is a good idea. My noble friend Lady Andrews made an important point about the ability under the regulations for the Secretary of State to set up a quango. She is right that it should be in the Bill and not covered just by regulations.

The noble Lord, Lord True, has been a good friend of the Government. He talked about the Government’s manifesto commitment and aspiration but then warned about a rushed skeleton Bill—one that gives Ministers enormous regulatory powers, which he called draconian. Those were wise words and good advice from a government supporter, and I hope that the Minister and the rest of the Government will take heed.

Ultimately, we are being asked today to pass a hollow piece of legislation. We go into Committee in two weeks to consider—what? Without details of the regulations, the Bill is little short of a blank cheque. The Government are playing a dangerous game and if they are not careful, this cheque will bounce and their creditworthiness on the key issue of childcare will be wiped out. I am sure that that is not what the Minister or any Member of the House wants. It is certainly not what the Opposition are seeking. However, the Government have to wake up and listen.

Schools: Health and Well-being

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

The noble Baroness raises an excellent point, particularly in relation to schools for special educational needs. I know that caring for animals and growing plants can be very helpful. The School Food Plan refers to all schools being encouraged to have plant-growing programmes. I can assure her that across the country there are many other examples of what she has talked about.

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will have heard the wake-up call from the head of NHS England, Simon Stevens, last week when he told us that one in 10 children are obese when they begin primary school, and that that rises to one in five when they leave. Currently we spend more on obesity-related healthcare than we do on the police, the Prison Service, the fire service and the criminal justice system. Does he agree that child obesity cannot be tackled in isolation? What do the Government propose to do across all departments so that we have a proper strategy to respond to what Mr Stevens now calls the new smoking?

[Lord Nash]

I agree entirely with the noble Lord about the seriousness of this issue. We are doing what we can in schools. As I said, this is a key focus for the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health. Many of my department’s priorities are designed around the need to reduce childhood obesity. However, despite our programmes, it still seems to be an issue. We will be publishing our plan on this shortly.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, I have to admit that this is not the Queen’s Speech I had hoped to be debating today but the electorate have made their decision and we are where we are.

For me, raising academic standards is clearly of the utmost importance in any education policy. However, the Government should also recognise the essential role that schools play in children’s broader development. Schools must be given the freedom to prepare pupils for adulthood. This means teaching about the importance of strong and positive relationships, educating children about respect and tolerance, and safeguarding children through clear messages about online safety and bullying.

Church schools make up a third of the maintained sector in England. They are popular with parents and play an important role in educating children from deprived and minority backgrounds. In light of this, it is important that measures in the Education and Adoption Bill take account of the views of education leaders in the church sector. Their expertise is invaluable and I hope that the Minister can confirm that they will be consulted in advance of the Bill being brought before Parliament.

This would also be an appropriate point for the Government to remove the arbitrary restrictions on school admissions, which are currently preventing many new church schools being opened. The Minister will be aware that in areas of the country, there is a strong demand for new Catholic schools. However, the church is not able to meet this demand through building free schools because they are subject to a 50% cap on faith-based admissions, which means that some of the Catholic children needing places would be turned away. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that parents should have the option of sending their children to a church school, if they wish to do so. I hope that the Government will review this situation at the earliest opportunity.

Turning to health, the interaction with migration policy is likely to re-emerge as a prominent issue in the coming months. During the last Parliament, steps were taken to restrict the availability of free healthcare for people from overseas, particularly those with irregular immigration status. Striking a balance between protecting the finite resources of our National Health Service and protecting the most vulnerable migrants is a significant challenge to any Government but should legislation be introduced to implement new charges or strengthen eligibility checks, it must be handled with sensitivity. I am sure the House would agree that medical professionals should never be expected to act as immigration officers. It is also important that migrants receive clear information about exactly what they are entitled to.

Particular concerns have been expressed about migrants who experience trafficking, domestic abuse or female genital mutilation. No one wants to see the recent advances in tackling these horrendous crimes undermined by inadvertently restricting victims’ access to medical care, especially considering the crucial role that doctors and nurses play in identifying those affected. Above all, we should not allow the exaggerated perceptions of so-called health tourism to obscure reasonable discussion about eligibility for NHS services. It is of course essential to address the very small number of people who seek to exploit our system, but never at the expense of those genuinely in need. Will the Minister outline what changes the Government are considering to affect how migrants can access healthcare, and what safeguards will be included?

The Government have announced a full employment and welfare Bill. As a vice-president of the National Autistic Society, I welcome any proposal that addresses disability employment. Certainly, only 15% of people with autism are now in full-time employment. The Government have exempted benefits relating to the additional costs of disability from their freeze, but I am not sure as to the status of the employment and support allowance. The Bill will also freeze working-age benefits, tax credits and child benefit and reduce the level of the benefit cap. I know that the National Autistic Society hoped that the Government would use this opportunity to honour their manifesto pledge and halve the disability employment gap. Unfortunately, there is no mention of this in the Queen’s Speech. If the Government are to achieve their stated aim of full employment, reducing the disability employment gap will be crucial to doing this. According to the Office for National Statistics, the employment rate currently stands at 73% but for people with disability it falls to 48%. Can the Minister tell the House whether measures will be brought forward to address the disability employment gap?

The Bill will also contain changes to welfare, in particular a lowering of the welfare cap and a freeze on the majority of working-age benefits. The National Autistic Society tells me it understands that the personal independence payment will be protected, but what about employment and support allowance? As well as being given to those with a disability who cannot work, this allowance is a crucial benefit for those who are able to work but need additional support to stay in employment. Does this mean that the personal independence payment is exempt and can the Minister confirm whether the employment and support allowance is also exempt? More broadly, I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify what steps will be taken to prevent people being forced into poverty as a result of lowering the benefit cap. While no one denies that difficult spending decisions have to be made, the escalating levels of child poverty, food poverty and housing insecurity demonstrate that the impact is all too often falling on the most vulnerable. Ultimately, the savings achieved will be of marginal significance to overall deficit reduction. If the cap is to be lowered, would this not be the appropriate point to look at some flexibility to account for variations in family size or regional housing costs?

I have no doubt that the House will give the most careful and positive scrutiny to the Bills that the Government will bring forward from the Queen's Speech. We will support them where it is justified to do so but seek to amend and improve them if we think it necessary. If I may conclude by being presumptuous, I say to the Minister: do not reject a good idea which improves a Bill, simply because the Government did not think of it first.

Early Years Intervention

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Massey is to be congratulated on securing this debate, and she has most powerfully set out her case highlighting the range of interventions that would help in early years. I agree with much of what she has said and share her ambitions, although I come to this issue from a different point of view. This is because, in my experience, the common factor that has influenced and failed so many people today is the lack of a role model, support, guidance and someone going that extra mile during their early years.

A year or so before I retired from the Commons, I visited a village school in my constituency and the headmaster said to me, “Do you know, Don, when I came here to this school no one expected anything from me because no one in this village has been to university? Not because they are dull or stupid but simply because they never had the opportunity”. He said that he had had a conversation with a mother a week previously, and said to her, “Work with me. Your son is going to university”. She said, “University? You’re off your head. That’s not for the likes of us”. This story illustrates what I call the poverty of ambition—“College and university is not for the likes of us”. It is to our shame this view is widespread, especially in the south Wales valleys where I come from.

That was not always the case. I grew up in a small mining village called Abersychan. Education there was seen as a pathway out of poverty. People consumed learning and the opportunities to learn as if their lives depended on it and, if they were miners trying to get out of the pit, their lives would certainly depend on their success in learning. Education and learning were breathed as if they were oxygen. What the state or the county council failed to provide, the miners’ welfare at the top of High Street certainly provided. The Abersychan miners’ welfare was not just a place to have a game of billiards or a Friday dance, it was a library—newspapers were there. It was the centre of debate and argument; all sorts of societies met within its walls, and there were classes on every subject one could imagine. Most of the students attending the classes were miners looking to education to give them a better life—a chance to get out of the pit. There was certainly no poverty of ambition among these lads. On top of that—this might not be seen as the measure of success or achievement by today’s standards—five lads from the small village of Abersychan got to the House of Commons. Two even managed to get into your Lordships’ House. It is important to bear in mind that such effort is crucial.

Now, not everyone wants to, or should, go to college or university, but everyone should have the best possible chance. Ambition should not be seen as a sin. Social mobility is not something that should be shunned or despised. Perhaps those of us like me who are moving on a little in years and have seen many great changes in our lives should be at the forefront of encouraging those younger to reach out and achieve, and be ambitious, bold and confident. We have to be role models drawing on our varied experiences and backgrounds. We can do all the things that noble Lords have spoken of in this debate, but one thing we must make sure that we do is have an open system of education in this country that continues throughout it.

Just because we close most of our schools at 4 pm from Monday to Friday and entirely at weekends, and thus deny the public access to wonderful facilities that they have spent millions of pounds providing, it does not mean that we have to shut down education at 16, 18 or 20-plus. I had a constituent living in the village of Markham who got a university degree at 82. When I called on him, he set up a new challenge: “Parlez-vous Français?” he said. He had started to learn French. These opportunities have to be grasped. If I had one opportunity to do something positive to help the early years, I would start with the parents and grandparents, making sure that they were the role models and pushed ahead to give those following them a good chance.

Almost 20 years ago, I came across an extraordinary statistic and was shaken by it. In the United States, 80% of people in work have been back in a learning situation or classroom since leaving school. The figure was 56% in Germany and Japan, and 30% in the UK. That is the measure of how far we have to go. We have to invest in upskilling and training our people. That is the best way to ensure that young people, in their early years in particular, have role models on whom they can focus and who can say that they can achieve these things, too. This is the best medicine that can cure the sickness of poverty of ambition. Invest in upskilling and training our people to ensure that they have opportunities to use the liberation that education and learning can bring to their lives. Will this make a difference for young people? I bet it will. I have never been more certain of anything in my life.

Children and Families Bill

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 4, 5 and 33, I commend the Minister and his officials for engaging with noble Lords on all sides on the issue of a single point of appeal.

Amendments 4 and 5 move some way towards putting in place the missing piece of the jigsaw: a unified system of redress. Noble Lords, and indeed the Minister, have spoken of the exasperation that many families feel when they are up against a system that too many feel is adversarial. A petition organised by the National Autistic Society secured 15,000 signatures in support of a single point of appeal. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society. Many families have battled the bureaucratic quagmire to gain access to support that they desperately need.

To date, we have not had a cogent explanation as to why the First-tier Tribunal, which sits in the Health, Education and Social Care Chamber, cannot hear appeals on all three elements of the education, health and care plan. Joining up redress across the three services is undoubtedly a complicated business, and the review of complaints and appeals promised by the Government, together with the pilots testing an expanded role for the tribunal, will provide us with an opportunity to work out how best to achieve our common objective. The consequences of not doing this have been spelt out and the Minister has certainly listened.

Turning to Amendment 33, the review of resolution of disagreements, together with the pilots testing an expanded role for the tribunal, will provide a pivotal opportunity to fully overcome the barriers to creating a unified appeals process. The Government’s policy statement about the review uses different terminology to describe the scope of the review and pilots. The review and pilots must consider the full range of options, including both appeals and complaints. This is vital for ensuring that parents trust the new system and that in the long run it will be truly responsive to the needs of children, young people and their families. The review and the pilots must include the possibility of the tribunal hearing both complaints and appeals, which should be fully explored.

It is welcome that the amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor to lay the resulting report before Parliament. This is an important way of ensuring scrutiny and further informed discussion around these key areas. However, the amendment to Clause 74 does not outline any duty to consider the findings or to reflect the findings in regulations. This leaves the outstanding question as to what duty there will be on the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor to respond to any recommendation to undertake definitive action as a consequence. In his opening remarks, the Minister went some way to try to explain how that will happen. I will read Hansard carefully and I hope that we will all end up in the same place at the end of the day.

I commend the Government on the substantial progress that has been made in the Bill. However, there is an outstanding concern about the transition from education to adulthood, particularly for young people and young adults with autism. Transition is a key focus of the Bill. At present the draft code of practice makes no reference to the Autism Act 2009. The draft code should signpost professionals towards this Act and the statutory guidance so that they can understand the needs of and their duties towards children and young people with autism. Will the Government consider signposting that within the code of practice and ensure that these reforms are adequately reflected in the transition section of the renewed autism strategy, which the Government are now about to undertake?

On Second Reading, I said that the House had the potential to turn the Bill into a landmark piece of legislation. Noble Lords on all sides have worked hard to ensure that the Bill achieves its stated intention: the improvement of the system of special educational needs for children, young people and their parents. To be fair, the Government have listened and worked constructively with those who sought to make changes. The Bill is intended to create a person-centred system which deploys a joined-up approach to delivering education, health and care needs for children with special educational needs. For that, we are all most grateful.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I am not very good at accolades, but I just add to what has been said about the Minister’s capacity to listen and respond. It has indeed been remarkable and extremely helpful, so I hope that he will forgive me for asking a few more questions—it is in my nature.

I turn to the question of mediation. I had a number of exchanges with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about the definition of mediation. I hope that the Minister can say for the record that mediation here has the widest definition. We know that some mediators operate a particular structure of mediation which can be very narrow and unhelpful to some of the programmes that are being developed. There are some innovative programmes of intervention on the mediation spectrum, and I hope that those are what we will have under the helpful government amendments.

On a rather unhappy note, all those provisions will be costly at a time when local government is facing further cuts. I know that the Local Government Association—I declare an interest as vice-president—is concerned about the implications. With the best will in the world, those who wish to provide services are sometimes inhibited from doing what they would like by the sheer cost. I noticed that the Minister mentioned a sum in his introduction. Perhaps he could clarify that—it went rather quickly across my thinking. We need to know whether some of the money will be clearly ring-fenced for local authorities to use for those very specific pieces of work.

On the review of tribunals—again, I think this is utterly remarkable—if the Government are able to achieve that joined-up piece of work, then we are well on the way. I am not sure that I would call it the holy grail of joined-up services, but it is what we have all been working towards for a very long time, and we are much further along the track than we have ever been.

I hear what the Minister said about the end date, but can he say when the start date is likely to be? The start date is really important in relation to the amount of time that will be available before the end of the two or three years, whichever is to be proposed.

Again, I add my gratitude to that of others for what we have achieved in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will take as much interest in its implementation as in its legislation.

Children and Families Bill

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Wilkins (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my strong support to Amendment 181. My noble friend Lady Hughes has just refereed to Jane Raca. Anyone who has read her book, Standing Up for James, will know that there is an urgent need to improve the current system of support for families with disabled children. However, the Government’s proposals for appeals risk creating an even more complex system than already exists, with different appeals or challenges having to be made simultaneously, as we have heard, about different parts of the EHC plan to different bodies.

In her book, Jane Raca recounts the situation of her local vicar’s family. The Tomlinsons have six children, including Edmund, who is 14 and severely autistic. Ed does not speak and has no sense of danger or of what is socially appropriate, He is very often awake at night, meaning that Matthew and Joanna, his parents, have very little sleep. Although Ed’s statement provides for him to attend a weekly boarding school for autistic children, he is at home every weekend and all school holidays. Despite that, his parents receive just 27 nights’ respite a year, which they try to eke out during the school holidays. They got that only when they broke down completely in front of their GP.

That is far too little support but, as Joanna Tomlinson says, she just did not have the strength to fight for what the family needed and for Ed’s needs to be looked at holistically. The Bill holds out hope for that. Joanna knew that her local authority would not have agreed to fund both the education and the social care provision, and that she would have had to fight to appeal on both fronts. The Bill will perpetuate that unless we accept these amendments. If we do not, parents will still have to face three different processes if they wish to challenge the content of EHC plans. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment.

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, I will just add a few words. This multilayered system of appeal is absolutely insane and crying out to be altered. In Wales, we have a word, “dwp”, which means stupid or daft in the head. If a Nobel prize were awarded for daft bits of red tape, this would get it. Surely the Government must see the common sense and logic of reducing this down to one system of appeal and stopping all the battles that people who have children with special educational needs or disabilities, or children who are autistic, must have to appeal a decision that they think is not just, right or in the interests of their child.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments concerns appeals and mediation. I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I begin with Amendment 181, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, and the noble Lord, Lord Low.

As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, noble Lords will know that the Bill is designed to bring education, health and social care together, for the first time, in a joint enterprise to commission and make appropriate provision for children and young people with special educational needs. The child or young person and their family will be at the centre of the new arrangements and have an enhanced role in deciding what is in the EHC plan. That will improve the experience of children, their parents and young people, and the Bill will give them a more active role in agreeing the provision that should be made and ensuring that it is made. This is the joined-up system that the Green Paper talked about creating. We believe—and certainly hope—that this will make the system less adversarial and mean that fewer people will want to appeal to the tribunal.

This improvement in parents’ experience of the system is being borne out in the pathfinders. For example, in Hartlepool, the new process of assessment is wholly transparent, with children, parents and young people fully involved at all stages and able to contribute to the content of the EHC plan alongside professionals. It also includes a simplified complaints and comments procedure to help parents and young people seek redress across all areas of the process locally, if it should become necessary. That is just the sort of innovative local arrangement that we want to see, improving the relationships between parents, young people and local authorities, and facilitating local resolution of disputes. However, it would be silly to deny that, despite the improvements the Bill will bring, there will continue to be people who are unhappy about the provision set out in EHC plans. I quite understand that for those among that cohort who want to complain about two or more elements in the EHC plan, it would seem simpler to be able to appeal to one place, the tribunal, so having the tribunal as a single point of redress initially sounds attractive. However, there are reasons why I think this would be the wrong course to take.

It would not be right to expand the tribunal’s remit to cover all health and social care provision set out in EHC plans. We have already debated at some length, when dealing with earlier clauses, why it would not be right to create an individually owed duty for the social care provision in a plan. That could lead to the marginalisation of other children in need under Section 17 of the Children Act and harmfully affect local authorities’ ability to make the necessary social care provision across all children in their areas. Extending the tribunal’s remit so that it could deal with social care appeals could potentially mirror that unwanted consequence even if there was not an individually owed duty. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, said, we have rehearsed these arguments and I do not wish to go over them again, but I am sure that we will return to this issue on Report and I am very happy to discuss it further with noble Lords in the mean time.

I say that it would “potentially” mirror that unwanted consequence because including appeals about social care in the tribunal’s remit as the Bill is currently drafted would change the nature of the decisions the tribunal could take. Whereas the tribunal would be able to tell local authorities what special educational provision must be set out in a plan, without an individually owed social care duty the tribunal would be able to take judicial review-type decisions only about social care provision. That is, the tribunal would have jurisdiction to review only the local authority’s decision, with powers to quash and remit it for further consideration—consideration which might result in the local authority making the same decision.

Your Lordships may well be saying to yourselves, “There’s an individually owed duty in health under this Bill, so at least you should extend the tribunal’s remit to cover health”. However, that individually owed duty in health is a duty to make the health provision set out in a plan following clinical judgments taken in the light of the wider duties of clinical commissioning groups and the NHS to secure services to meet all the reasonable health needs of all children. Widening the tribunal’s remit to cover health would undermine these commissioning arrangements. It would establish unequal treatment of children with serious health needs by giving a privileged position to those with SEN. It would be difficult to justify children with SEN and health difficulties having stronger rights of redress than, say, children with cancer, neurological conditions, long-term conditions such as epilepsy or diabetes and mental health conditions who do not have SEN. To avoid creating these inequalities between children and young people, it would be better if the existing and well established routes of complaint in health and social care were used rather than the tribunal.

In social care, Section 26 of the Children Act 1989 provides the framework for the complaints procedure for those under 18 which local authorities must establish. In health, the relevant legislation prescribes that a responsible body must acknowledge the complaint within three days and they must offer the complainant the opportunity to discuss the timing and procedure for resolving the complaint. Once that has been agreed, the complaint must be investigated and, “as soon as possible” after completing the investigation, a written report must be sent to the complainant explaining how the complaint has been considered, the conclusions of the report and any remedial action which has been taken or is proposed to be taken. This procedure could cover both what provision is set out in a plan and complaints about delivery of the plan. Of course, it is vital that the parents of children with EHC plans and young people with plans, particularly the smaller group who want to complain about more than one area of the plan, know how to do so. The Bill makes provision for parents and young people to be given information about the routes of complaint that are open to them. Clause 26, headed “Joint commissioning arrangements”, requires local authorities and clinical commissioning groups to work together to offer joined-up advice, information and responses to families and to establish a clear complaints procedure relating to education, health and care provision. The outcome of that work will be available through the local offer.

The new code of practice will require that impartial information, advice and support should be commissioned through joint arrangements and should be available through a single point of access with the capacity to handle initial phone, electronic or face-to-face inquiries. It will also encourage clinical commissioning groups to ensure that relevant information is available at this single point of access as well as to include information on their local health offer on their own website. A one-stop shop will be simpler and much more parent and young person-friendly than potentially having to go to more than one place for advice on a range of issues, including how to complain.

My noble friend Lord Storey made the point that the system may be confusing. I reassure him that we are looking carefully at the best ways of achieving a single point of access to address this, and I would be happy to discuss this further with noble Lords. We share noble Lords’ concern to ensure that parents can find their way to the right route of redress easily.

Amendment 182 was tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones. When this amendment was debated in another place, it was pointed out that some of the information requested by it is already published by the Ministry of Justice on its website, including the number of appeals registered against each local authority. We are happy to explore with the Ministry of Justice the idea of jointly publishing data on the SEND tribunal and, as part of this work, whether the information could be expanded.

However, some of the information that is being asked for by this amendment, such as the amount local authorities spend on defending each case, would just increase contention in the system rather than reduce it. Highlighting how much money was spent on legal representation could create real tension between parents and local authorities. We know, anecdotally, that each party often says that they engaged legal representation only because the other side did. If this amendment is designed to highlight poor practice by local authorities and to provide a basis for improving it, I believe the Bill already provides other avenues for doing so. Children, parents and young people will be able to highlight what they feel is inadequate provision through their role in the local offer. Local authorities will be jointly commissioning services with clinical commissioning groups to make sure that the right provision is available. The Bill is promoting better assessment arrangements, which, as I say, will mean that fewer parents and young people will want to appeal to the tribunal and the mediation will offer the chance to resolve differences before appeals are registered. In view of what I have said, I urge the noble Baronesses not to move the amendment.

Amendment 272, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, relates to a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I reassure noble Lords who may be concerned that we have preserved the grounds for appeal and extended them to young people over compulsory school age. The appeal regulations set out clearly and in one place for the first time the mechanics for notices related to appeals, the powers the tribunal has when deciding appeals, time limits for compliance with tribunal decisions and what happens with unopposed appeals. We are currently consulting on these regulations and will take account of responses when we finalise them. They will be laid in the House for approval by negative procedure.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that the tribunal’s powers when deciding appeals should be in the Bill rather than in secondary legislation and asked for an explanation of why this approach is being taken. Alternatively, it suggested that the regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure, as Amendment 272 seeks. We have put the tribunal’s powers in regulations to make them simpler for the reader of this legislation. Instead of having the tribunal’s powers to determine appeals scattered over the legislation, as they are in the Education Act 1996, we want to bring them together in one place, along with the mechanics for how we expect an appeal to proceed. Given that this is what we are seeking to achieve by these regulations, I believe that the negative resolution procedure is proportionate.

Government Amendments 183 and 184, regarding mediation, are in this group. It is important that the whole of the mediation process set out in the Bill is seen by parents and young people to be independent of the local authorities. There are two stages to the mediation process. First, the parents or young people contact a mediation adviser to be given information about the mediation process. Currently, the Bill makes clear that the mediation adviser cannot be someone who is employed by a local authority. If the parent or young person decides to go to mediation, the local authority must arrange it within 30 days. Currently there is no parallel provision in the Bill to make clear that the person who conducts the mediation must also be independent of the local authority. These amendments make the necessary changes to the Bill to ensure that mediators will be independent.

I hope that my response on all the issues that noble Lords have raised reassures them and that they will feel able not to move their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, no one in this Grand Committee could doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has won the argument. He has been passionate and powerful; it is simple, common sense and perfectly logical. I say to the Minister: be bold. He should set aside the brief that his officials have given him and say that he simply agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I promise that the sky will not fall in, and the Government will not continue to be in the position of defending the indefensible.

I will now say a few words in support of Amendment 192. Clause 62 refers to using the best endeavours to secure special educational provision, and Amendment 192 would reinsert the graduated response. The key is ensuring that children get the support that they need to access the curriculum, whether this is through a single category or a more graduated response. The system that we are losing is popular and is understood and trusted by parents and educators. It ensures that children and young people get the support that they need. As I understand it, the draft code of practice replaces school action and school action plus with a single SEN, the SEN support. As I understand the Government’s argument, they see the creation of a single SEN category as a way of improving the identification of SEN youngsters. If we accept that, will the Minister explain how this will improve the educational outcomes for children and young people with SEN?

The Government’s preferred route will be hugely disruptive, with teachers and SENCOs being diverted from their core role of providing high-quality education. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, and want to see clear evidence that this will improve outcomes for children. If there is no evidence, why do this?

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford (LD)]

My Lords, I also support the noble Lord, Lord Low, in Amendment 192. While the new draft code of practice certainly indicates that the responsibility is for schools to individualise the provision that they make for those with special educational needs, the old categories of school action and school action plus were nevertheless useful in identifying and putting down some precise markers in this graduated response.

It is perhaps useful to quote the old SEN code of practice on what school action plus was:

“At School Action Plus external support services, both those provided by the LEA and by outside agencies, will usually see the child, in school if that is appropriate and practicable, so that they can advise teachers on new IEPs with fresh targets and accompanying strategies, provide more specialist assessments that can inform planning and the measurement of a pupil’s progress, give advice on the use of new or specialist strategies or materials, and in some cases provide support for particular activities”.

There is particular concern about the readiness of SENCOs within schools to take on the role of the outside specialist. Schools can still pull in and employ outside specialists, but the number of specialists available through local authorities has been much decreased because of pressure on local authorities, and so it is not always possible for them to access this outside speciality these days.

If we look at the pathfinder results, there were frequent references to the need for further workforce development and support for the cultural change that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, referred to. That highlights the fact that there needs to be support for teachers. Appropriate support is vital. Training for teachers is vital, too, but training also takes resources, not least because when teachers go on training courses they need somebody to replace them in the school. I ask the Minister to look favourably on this amendment, which makes a lot of sense.