(1 week, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship. Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing what we all acknowledge is a really important debate.
Like a lot of people in the Chamber today, one of my biggest privileges before coming to this space was serving as a corporate parent on the local authority of the place I lived at the time. Although “corporate parent” can feel like quite a stale and bureaucratic term, it is actually one of the most deeply important and human parts of a councillor’s role, making sure they are there for, championing and supporting every young person who, for whatever reason—whatever has happened to them in their life—now finds themself in their local authority’s care. There is nothing more moving or devastating than to speak to some of those young people, to see their inspiring resilience in the face of traumas that lots of people here never have to even contemplate happening to themselves, and to know the very real ways in which the current system is continuing to let them down and fail them.
We know that kinship placements, strong supportive fostering placements and adoptive placements are strongly associated with the best outcomes for young people in care, providing the best support for them to make the best start in life and later to thrive, but far too often the system is not set up to facilitate that. Young people often end up—at great cost to all of us and our local authorities—in unproductive and sometimes deeply cold private placements.
We rightly hear about the many challenges that adopted children can face, but as a proud adoptive parent, I say we also need to remember the huge joy they bring to their families and adoptive parents. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the many challenges in children’s social care. Does he agree it is vital that the Government get on with the root and branch reform of children’s social care, as they are committed to do, so that we get children into permanent, safe, long-term placements as soon as possible?
Absolutely. In a heartwarming way, my hon. Friend has reminded us of the opportunity we have if we can get the system right, to make sure that more young people who have had deeply difficult starts in life can experience the parenting, support and love that we all want for our children.
I am glad that, whether through investment or reform, the Government are committed to overcome the challenges in the system they inherited. Whether it is finally funding a long overdue and important kinship care pilot or reforming and supporting more local authorities to attract more people into foster caring, there is a lot to shout about. I am glad, albeit with some caveats, that in the context of a difficult financial and public services inheritance, we have been able at least to safeguard existing funding to keep adoption support going for the next year.
Although it is welcome that the funding is now being accessed by many more families, there is no getting away from the fact that the changing cap will have an impact on young people with SEND and their carers. Their concern is understandable. There will be lots of conversations about how we can best bring to life our broader vision and look after the young people in our care in the best way, by supporting more of them into nourishing, fantastic and thriving placements. In the meantime, we owe it to them to use every available lever to provide the fullest support possible.
I welcome that support, but what more can we do to ensure that local authorities use their virtual heads to hold schools accountable for the pupil premium placement money they are given for children in adoption and foster care placements under their watch, to widen support available to them? Where we have given local authorities more money for children’s social care, I would welcome consideration being given to how guidance could be strengthened to ensure that they are filling in the gaps. We know that is in the child’s, the family’s and all our best interests.
Like many others, I welcome further opportunities to work with the Minister. We have a number of champions of care and care leavers here. It is one of the most exciting and energising things about being an MP in this new Parliament. I know we would all be excited to work with the Minister to bring to life fully this Government’s vision of ensuring that every young person, particularly those entrusted to all of us, those society cares for, gets the support in life they desperately need.
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing such an important debate.
It is fair to say that the TV drama “Adolescence” has captured the imagination of the nation. It has shone a spotlight on our collective failure to ensure that we are keeping pace with the range of harmful content around sex, gender and relationships that young people are increasingly exposed to online. I know that for many parents, young people and those working in this profession, it just highlighted trends that have been all too apparent for quite some time. Some of the most heartbreaking moments that I have as an MP is when I speak to young people and their parents about the harms that they have been exposed to online, because we simply have not equipped them to be safe in experiencing them.
Whether from the Children’s Commissioner or from Ofsted, there are some damning statistics about the violent pornography and graphic sexual misogynistic content that young people are now exposed to, and the way in which that is bleeding into their attitudes towards women, sex and relationships in schools and later in life. There is no doubt that this has been exacerbated by a social media landscape that often atomises young people’s interactions with new ideas and narratives when it comes to sex and relationships, and whose algorithms can often prompt and reinforce harmful voices and content rather than promote critical reflection. It is little wonder that against such a backdrop, really toxic voices such as Andrew Tate, have started to take root. Although there was some good news in More in Common’s research into young people’s role models, it should scare a lot of us that 25% of 16 to 21-year-olds saw Andrew Tate as someone who young people are likely to look up to.
The solutions cut right across Government. I think it is be safe to say that, judging from the debates I have shared with some colleagues in this room, many of us would like Ofcom to go much further in its implementation of children’s code to ensure that we are doing much more to protect young people from exposure to some of these harms. We owe it to the young people in school right now to ensure that the curriculum is setting them up the best that it can, leveraging the best practice resources that organisations such as Internet Watch Foundation have out there already, including helping young people challenge image sharing online and ensuring that, collectively, we do not lose the moment that—
Order. Again, I apologise. I call Carla Lockhart, if she can keep herself to one minute.
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberThe data in the book to which the right hon. and learned Lady has referred is alarming. Last week in Hampton, in my constituency, the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign organised a public meeting with local parents. It was pretty full, and the data shared there was also extremely alarming. I attended as both a parent and the local Member of Parliament, and I am afraid I came away feeling even less of a liberal than before I went in, and slightly more authoritarian. However, that was mainly because allowing our children to grow up with the freedom of being away from such a toxic environment is the right, liberal thing to do.
Let me say gently to the right hon. and learned Lady, and to those on both the Conservative and the Labour Benches, that being at school is only a small part of a child’s life—it is only a small fraction of that child’s time—and we need to look at much broader measures than restricting phone use in schools. It is disappointing that during the Committee stage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, neither Labour nor Conservative Members supported Liberal Democrat proposals to make the internet less addictive for children. After the Government decided to gut the “safer phones” Bill—the Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), which had a great deal of cross-party support—a Liberal Democrat amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill offered Members an opportunity to protect young people from the doom-scrolling algorithms that are making such powerful changes to the way in which they live and interact. It is disappointing that Ministers did not seize that opportunity with both hands, and I hope they will think again as that Bill progresses through the House.
I welcome new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), which would abolish the common law defence of reasonable punishment. We need to ensure that all children are properly protected in law, so that they can grow up safe, happy and healthy. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for this for more than 20 years. We supported the law change in Scotland and Wales, and it is long overdue in England.
There is much in Part 1 of the Bill on which there is cross-party consensus. A number of amendments tabled by Members on both sides of the House seek to ensure that the Government go further in safeguarding and promoting the wellbeing of our children, which is surely one of the most important roles of Government. I hope that Ministers are in listening mode, and that even if they will not take on board some of the new clauses and amendments today, they will do so as the Bill progresses to the other place. After all, it is our duty to ensure that every child in the country not only survives, but thrives.
It is a pleasure to speak about some very important amendments and new clauses, but also about a body of work that moves forward the country’s protections and support for some of the most vulnerable people in society, which has not been done for a long time.
Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I had the privilege of being the children’s lead for the local authority on which I served. Many Members here may be the grandparent or parent of a handful of kids, but as any local authority lead will know, we are a corporate parent to many hundreds. In that role, it is impossible not to be moved by the testimonies of the young people with whom we are working. They have often undergone real moments of trauma and difficulty that would knock any of us for six. In the face of that, their resilience and their determination to better themselves should inspire us all. As guardians of the country’s collective obligation to young people in care, we owe it to them to fulfil our side of that corporate parenting role.
I am therefore extremely happy to see Government amendments 18 to 22, which widen the role of corporate parenting to other local stakeholders. As a local authority lead working with the care-experienced campaigner Terry Galloway, I was happy to take on some of that work locally. I worked with fantastic local stakeholders to broaden our obligations as corporate parents, and to bring other local government bodies into the sphere of those who were trying to do best by the young people in our care. However, it is clear that acting in isolation cannot be good enough, and that without clear legislation requiring more local stakeholders to take on that important role, we can never involve all the partners who can have such a transformative impact on young people in care at that crucial early stage. No parent would think of caring for a child as just a narrow subset of his or her role, and the state, and our obligation as a corporate parent, should be no different.
I am very glad to see these amendments; many in the House and beyond have been campaigning for them for some time, including my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who recommended some of these measures in his report on social care a few years ago. We saw very little action in this area under the last Government, but I am delighted that this Government are wasting no time in widening that obligation, and therefore widening the scope of the corporate parents who have the back of some of our young people in care throughout the country.
I am also glad to see the Government amendments that strengthen information sharing. I have had to read a great many difficult serious case reviews involving young people all over the country, so I know that there has been tragic incident after tragic incident owing to failures in information sharing, and the failure of agencies to work together effectively. Strengthening information sharing and multi-agency working must be a core element of bettering our obligation to safeguard young people in all local authority areas, and it will be truly welcome to see that in the Bill.
Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill will strengthen our obligation to care leavers. No parent would expect their obligation to young people in their care to end when they reached the age of 18, and the state should be no different. Perversely, a child leaving care could be ruled intentionally homeless, but a stronger and more widely available care offer for those who are leaving care will empower local authorities throughout the country to do more to live up to the obligation that we all have, as parents, to do right by young people long into adulthood. A number of amendments could be made to strengthen that provision; the Government may not be bringing them forward today, but I am sure that we will continue to revisit proposals as we monitor how this new obligation for local authorities plays out.
The need to do right by young people cannot end when they turn 18, so we must think about how we can continue our role as corporate parents long into children’s lives, when they are young adults. Many of the young people with whom I worked as a local authority lead would welcome extra support, and I am sure that many will welcome the start that the Bill is making today.
Alongside that, it is a fact pretty well appreciated across the House that the overly bureaucratic care system has not always done enough to recognise the importance of wider family networks at really important moments in young people’s lives, so the clauses bringing forward stronger commitments on family group decision making, recognising the important role of kinship carers, and strengthening the educational support available to those in kinship care, are truly welcome. So too—although not in this Bill—is the Government’s record financial commitment to expand the kinship care pilot and ensure that we start to understand the value that wider financial support could have in enabling more young people to be looked after by members of their wider family network, rather than falling into more formalised care.
I think the hon. Gentleman will find that what the Government committed to do was some research.
I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the Minister did not just commit to do some research; he committed to bring forward a statement on some really important aspects of online health on which the Government had not formally commented before. I gently suggest that if the Opposition are so clear—
Of the six Education Secretaries we had between 2019 and last year’s election, did any of them propose banning mobile phones in schools—or is this the latest bandwagon from the Opposition?
I thank my hon. Friend, who could not have put my next point better.
I completely recognise that this is a really important topic—it is important for parents and schools right across my constituency, too—but I am afraid the idea that, having had 14 years to bring this forward, the Conservatives have suddenly had a damascene conversion to the idea that this is something that cannot wait and must be delivered now, at a time when there is not a clear consensus among educational professionals or parents about the best way to bring such a ban into effect, feels disingenuous at best. I share lots of their concerns and, over time, I hope to be able work across this House to bring forward good protections to that effect. What I simply will not do is indulge this attempt to turn the issue into an opportunity for the Conservative party to posture, because it had so long and did so little on this work.
In conclusion, I am very glad to be supporting a Bill that delivers step changes in protections for young people, steps changes in support for care leavers and a step change in support for kinship carers. For too long, we have not done enough to look after some of the most vulnerable young people in our society, and I am glad that this Bill and some of the Government amendments underline our commitment to ensuring that we do far better on this front than the last Government did.
I urge Members to ensure that they keep their language respectful at all times.
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberAssessment clearly has an important role to play in supporting achievement and development within schools. We will consider how the reformed curriculum and assessment will affect schools. We recognise the importance of supporting schools through any changes that come forward in the interim and final report.
From the rise of Andrew Tate to the re-emergence of Tommy Robinson, lots of young people I speak to are concerned about the extremism and conspiracy theories that they are encountering online. Last month, an important report from Public First and the Pears Foundation highlighted the need to do more to empower schools and teachers to tackle those things in the classroom. How will we use the curriculum review to make the most of this moment to empower young people to feel safer in online spaces?
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We already provide guidance and resources to help and support teachers to recognise some of those challenges, to intervene swiftly where necessary, and not to tolerate a culture that excuses harm and the experiences of women. Schools must be places where all young people can thrive and be ready for work and life. We will ensure that the curriculum and assessment review reflects that.
(3 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this important debate and for powerfully setting out so many of the failures that families in my constituency will be all too familiar with.
There is nothing more heartbreaking than speaking to people in my constituency who have been let down by the national failures of the SEND system: the young person who has been out of school for far too long, with all the impact that has on their mental health and development, just because there is no school suitable for them in our local area; the family who have often had to step back from work to fight for the bare minimum legal entitlement of support that their young person needs to thrive at school; or the far too many of our schools that, despite going above and beyond, know they are not being set up to succeed when it comes to supporting far too many pupils with additional needs.
When she described the system as “lose, lose, lose”, the last Conservative Education Secretary could not have been more right. In my local area, those painful failures are absolutely present at the local authority level too, whether in Hertfordshire county council’s shocking failure to deliver EHCP plans, laid bare by Ofsted in recent years, or in Central Bedfordshire council’s planning failures when it comes to specialist places, which is causing chaos for some of my local schools. From Ivel Valley school, whose redevelopment is now in doubt, to local schools that found out that their inclusion centre was being paused when developers did not turn up when they were meant to, it is clear that councils need to do much, much better with the tools already in their grasp.
As a former teacher and local authority lead, I know that national change is needed too. The extra money prioritised in the Budget—£1 billion for the high needs block and £750 million for adaptations—is crucial, but much wider work is needed. We need clear accountability frameworks for local authorities and schools that hold them much more accountable for SEND and inclusion. Whatever the school structure, driving up standards should never come at the expense of an inclusive approach to admissions and exclusions.
I share my hon. Friend’s concern that far too many children in our part of the world miss out on years of education as a result of this crisis. In setting out many of the reforms we need to see, will he join me in urging the Minister to bring forward those reforms as swiftly as possible and to provide a clear timeline so that parents in our constituencies can look forward to them?
Absolutely. It is really welcome that this has been a priority, right at the heart of the Government’s early decision making on education, and we need the pace to continue.
It is clear that much further work will be needed on workforce planning. It is fantastic that we finally have a Government who are taking an interest in this issue and commissioning a survey to understand where the workforce shortages are, but it will be crucial for them to put in money to support the resolution of the challenges, especially in edge-of-London constituencies like mine, where all too often the resource is dragged into other authorities as a result of London weighting. We need to make sure that health partners are playing an ambitious role, too. Deprioritising health budgets is a false economy that only leads to increased pressures on education budgets.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this important debate. As Members have said, we seem to discuss SEND in this House pretty much on a weekly basis, and rightly so.
I am the vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and I do cross-party work with colleagues in this Chamber and beyond to ensure the experiences of constituents are heard in this place. I, too, have a number of special schools in my constituency—both state and independent.
Hon. Members will have to forgive me for not talking about every single contribution that was made today. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his comments about sensory and calming rooms, and I hope the Minister will take them into account. Likewise, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), whose commitment to education in his constituency is obvious. I hope the Minister will consider the statutory changes that he asked for. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling), whose moving and heartbreaking story touched us all and will have resonance with all our constituents.
Clearly, special educational needs and disabilities are extraordinarily important. That casework fills my postbag, and a lot of it comes from my predecessors, which demonstrates how long some of these cases can go on for. The Conservative Government’s reforms, through the Children and Families Act 2014, marked a significant shift in raising awareness, changing the narrative and addressing educational shortfalls in the system that, under a previous Administration, had failed to adequately make legislative changes for SEND children. The Act created EHCPs, a vital tool for allowing parents to receive the support that they need for their children in the education system.
Only a minority of SEND pupils actually have an EHCP. According to data from the Department for Education for 2023-24, 1.6 million pupils in England had SEND conditions. Of those, 1.2 million received SEND support without an EHCP, meaning that 400,000 had an EHCP. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is: in her plans, what happens to the other 75% of SEND pupils?
Nearly 17% of independent school pupils are receiving SEND support, but only 6% of those have a formal EHCP. I want to quote the Prime Minister, who shared the Government’s supposed plan for SEND pupils who do not have an EHCP, or are in the process of acquiring one. In June, the Prime Minister told LBC listeners that:
“Where there isn’t a plan, then that exemption doesn’t apply.”
Will the Minister confirm that the 93,000 children in the independent system who receive SEND support with no formal EHCP are not included in her plans, as the Prime Minister outlined in June?
The 2014 Act was a step change. Now, we need a further step change from this Government. In the Public Accounts Committee’s recently published inquiry into the SEND emergency, it was revealed that the Department for Education does not fully understand the root causes behind the surge in demand for EHCPs. In my area, between 2019 and 2024, EHCPs increased by 63% in Surrey and 93% in Hampshire—well above the national average. In the Committee’s inquiry, the Department admitted that it had not adequately examined the barriers to promoting inclusivity in mainstream schools.
That is particularly concerning for the three SEND schools in my constituency—the Ridgeway school, Hollywater school, which is currently expanding due to Hampshire county council’s funding, and the Abbey school —which are now under extreme pressure from the exodus of children, once educated in the independent sector, who are now entering the mainstream system. I am also worried by the lack of provision and support given to independent special educational schools, which is affecting three schools in my constituency: More House, Undershaw and Pathways. Those three schools educate nearly 1,000 children with complex SEND needs, and, without these independent schools, my local state schools will crumble under the pressure.
While the Government’s £1 billion for SEND is entirely welcome—this funding injection will be a positive boost for local authorities—we have seen that the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education are not listening to those parents of children who do not have an EHCP and are educated in the independent sector. Therefore, I ask the Minister—
I am under a lot of time pressure, and I want the proposer of the motion to be able to get in, so I will not. I have to leave time for the Minister too, and I really want to hear her answers to my questions.
As I was saying, I would therefore be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that she has engaged with parents and teachers in this situation. And what steps is she taking to ensure that vulnerable children do not suffer the greatest because of this Government’s policy?
Despite the—I have to say—utter nonsense we heard from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), the Conservative Government launched a review of the SEND system in 2019 to end the postcode lottery, and committed an extra £700 million in the year 2020-21, an 11% increase on the year prior. Moreover, to ensure that children and young people received the most appropriate support for their needs, the national SEND and alternative provision implementation board was established.
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.
I welcome the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes). He has not just secured this debate, but shown leadership on this issue long before he became an MP.
Apprenticeships matter to me, and not just because I have seen at first hand the impact they can have on young people’s lives. I also recognise that they are crucial for delivering on this Government’s agenda. We will not have the construction skills needed to get Britain building again, from key infrastructure to affordable housing, without action on apprenticeships; our workforce will not have the skills they need to seize the benefits of the green transition, from retrofitting to green manufacturing, without action on apprenticeships; and, crucially for me, we will not live up to our aspiration to be less agnostic about the type of growth, the type of jobs and who benefits from them for the first time in a long time in this country without action on apprenticeships.
I am lucky to have some fantastic businesses and training providers in my constituency, and to have had not one, but two Secretaries of State visit them with me. First, the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation came to visit Cadent, to see the incredible pride that its apprenticeships took in the skills they were learning at their training centre in Hitchin. Secondly, the Secretary of State for Education came to see the fantastic charity Amazing Apprenticeships, founded by Hitchin resident Anna Morrison CBE, which agitates for better action and ambition around apprenticeships, and supports more young people to access them, not just locally but across the country.
When I speak to those apprentices, it is clear that they have huge pride in their work and in the opportunities available to them. What is also clear is the greater optimism they now have for their own futures as a result of their apprenticeships. That is an optimism that I want more people in my constituency to have.
From speaking to employers and to Anna Morrison, it is clear that there is more we can do, from making sure that we improve functional skills, to ensure that employers have confidence in them and more young people can access them, to making sure that as we expand the huge opportunity that foundation apprenticeships can provide, we also support more employers and particularly more SMEs to offer them, so that they can truly be a stepping-stone for more young people into apprenticeships. We must also ensure that we build on the greater awareness that young people now have of apprenticeships and turn that into a greater number of apprenticeship starts. Heartbreakingly, that number declined under the last Government. Young people deserve a lot better and I look forward to working with the Minister to make sure they get it.
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I recognise that children go to placements with plastic bags, and it is heartbreaking. What a fabulous thing the hon. Member has raised.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that approximately 3.8 million people experienced destitution in 2022, including approximately 1 million children—nearly triple the number in 2017.
The second factor was the withdrawal of universal early help. Sure Start was withdrawn at different speeds and to differing degrees around the country, as local authorities removed their discretionary spending due to a loss of revenue support from the previous Government. It went from being a universal service to a targeted one. The spending on early help is now £1.8 billion a year less than it was in 2010. Here is the kicker: we are now spending more on children’s residential placements than we are on early help.
Early help did exactly what it said on the tin: it provided parents with health and wellbeing support, parenting advice, childcare and learning, and support for children with special needs. There were benefits to social care and to health. Indeed, an Institute for Fiscal Studies study found that Sure Start prevented so many children from being hospitalised that it saved the NHS the equivalent of a third of the entire Sure Start budget. The IFS also stated that Sure Start almost certainly delivered benefits significantly greater than its cost.
My hon. Friend is giving a moving account of the structural factors that underpin the rise in personal trauma that has led to more children in the care system. Those placed in the formal care system get access to therapeutic support directly, whereas those placed with kinship carers do not have the same level of support, often because of anomalies in how they are treated. Does my hon. Friend agree that now is a good time to review the level of therapeutic support available to those in kinship care, who might have experienced exactly the same personal trauma as those in the more formal care system?
I do agree. It appears as though the Government are expanding the services available to children in kinship care, and that sounds like a good thing. I would like every child in care to have therapeutic support, because they all need it. They have all been massively traumatised by something.
The next question is: why has the number of residential placements increased so much faster than the number of children in care? The answer is simple: the number of foster families has remained fairly flat in the same period, despite the significant efforts of authorities and independent fostering agencies to attract new carers.
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI find the notion that parents will not be able to understand more information about their child’s school a bit insulting to parents, who care deeply about their children and their education. Parents tell us they want more information, not less. A one-word judgment does not adequately sum up a school. The Ofsted proposal is to report on nine different areas, all of which are key ingredients of a child’s education. That may enable schools that perform in an exemplary or a very strong way on some measures to be given due credit—where they are tackling attendance or behaviour issues—so that they can share best practice. This will be a self-improving system and we will recognise good practice, but we will target—laser-focused—areas that need to improve.
In spite of the broken state of SEND provision in my constituency and across the country, I have had the real privilege of meeting some schools that are going above and beyond to support pupils with additional need, but not all schools, whether it in their approach to admissions, provision or exclusions, are being held to the same standards. As well as this Government’s welcome investment in SEND reforms, how will our changes to accountability ensure that every school is held to the highest possible standards on inclusion?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight inclusion, and that is one of the great opportunities presented. The report card system will look at a range of practice across a school, and inclusion is a part of the proposals. We need to see a more inclusive mainstream system, and better co-operation and collaboration at a local level to ensure that every child, regardless of their special educational need or disability, has access to the excellent education that will set them up to thrive.
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this important debate.
When a child lacks, for a single day, the support that they need to thrive at school, that is a day’s potential that will forever be wasted. The sad reality for too many children in my constituency is that too many days’ potential is being wasted. This Government recognise the need to move urgently on this issue, and the investment of £1 billion into the high-needs block in the Budget and the £750 million for school adaptations must be welcomed, but it is clear, looking at ECHP performance, that specific and focused work is needed. Across the country, just 50% of ECHPs were delivered within the statutory timeframe last year, so this is far from an isolated problem. We need to ensure that we have robust improvement plans for local authorities so that all are achieving the best outcomes and not allowing that national challenge to be an excuse to tolerate failure.
We also need to build out the workforce strategy; I welcome the recent news from the Minister of research commissioned to make sure that we have a good understanding of the drivers of the problem, and of investment in more educational psychologists. We need to make sure that we are thinking through the workforce requirements for EHCPs. It is not always apparent where an educational psychologist is needed and that can delay delivery in those cases where they are not. We need to also ensure that health partners are fully prioritised here; health partners have not always played their part, and that must end. Fundamentally, we need to make sure that we are meeting needs much earlier, so that fewer children need these assessments in the first place. I know that the Minister shares that ambition and I look forward to working with her to make it a reality.
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate and for her tireless work campaigning of this issue. It is really encouraging to be joined by so many colleagues from across the House to speak about issues relating to SEND.
I rise to highlight some of the shocking stories that families locally have shared with me about the challenges and pressures that special educational needs and home-to-school transport are causing for them in their day-to-day lives. It cannot be right that so many are not getting the support they need, whether they sit in or outside the statutory framework, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock highlighted.
In Central Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, the rural context has been exacerbated by both authorities’ failure to appropriately place-plan at a local level. That has created difficult choices for the authorities and heartbreaking realities for families and young people, who are travelling too far at too great a cost to access the schools they need. Some are being shut out of the transport support that they need due to their age.
I welcome this debate and the possible reforms to the statutory framework. I look forward to working with colleagues right across the House to ensure that we bring about the holistic reform the area desperately needs.