SEND Provision: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Mullane]

There are now 33 primary and secondary ARPs in the borough, compared with just 14 a decade ago. Over that period, the number of children who rely on the services has increased from around 180 to 450. Despite the creation of 230 specialist places over a four-year period, with 90 more planned by September this year, thereby increasing the proportion of children with SEND in mainstream schools, the local authority still faces a monumental challenge to provide enough places to support the needs of all the children who require them.

Over the past decade, the local authority has worked diligently to ensure that our schools are inclusive, and has aimed to place children and young people with SEND in local mainstream schools where possible. This has resulted in many of those children going on to achieve very well. Taking this approach has enabled the council to manage the dedicated schools grant high needs block within budget, despite chronic underfunding over the past 14 years under the previous Government—so much so that in 2024, Barking and Dagenham was recognised for effective practice and referenced in a What Works in SEND publication released by the Isos Partnership.

To a degree, the local authority is a victim of its own success in this area. When low housing costs are combined with exceptional SEND provision that delivers good educational outcomes, is it any wonder that the parents of children with complex needs are moving to Barking and Dagenham? Over the years, I have heard many stories from constituents who have moved to the area specifically for that reason. Most come from other London boroughs, but some are from as far afield as Cornwall.

At this point, I would like to personally thank the Secretary of State for Education for her visit to Becontree primary school earlier this year. The visit attracted positive press for our SEND provision, and highlighted the inclusive approach to SEND education in Barking and Dagenham schools.

From an outside perspective, given the sterling service provided, it might seem that the concerns and pressures that the local authority and I have portrayed are being overstated, yet under the surface the council is facing a perfect storm of increasing demand and significant funding shortfalls. In the last financial year, Barking and Dagenham faced a significant overspend, which was covered using council reserves. The local authority had the capacity to balance the budget in that way for only one year.

Although the £1 billion of additional Government funding for the high needs block in 2025-26 is welcome, it does not fully address the pressures in Barking and Dagenham. The £5.3 million uplift serves only to cover the current in-year demands, without consideration of the significant level of growth in the borough. It is clear to me that the high needs block funding allocation formula needs to be reviewed and updated to ensure that it is evidence based and better targeted.

The high needs block funding stream is still to an extent determined by historical data, and does not reflect the changing patterns of need in London, so boroughs like Barking and Dagenham find themselves underfunded compared with inner-London boroughs, while managing the increasing demand from families who have moved out of better funded inner-London areas. The crisis in SEND provision in early years and education is not due to a lack of good intent, but is perpetuated through long-term under-investment, the fragmentation of services and a degree of inflexibility that the last Government built into the system.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I am glad the hon. Lady recognises the funding disparity between inner Greater London and outer Greater London. She will be aware of the DABD charity, which is based in her constituency. It provides special educational needs support for young children during the summer, Christmas and Easter terms, but the charity has been defunded, so it cannot carry on its activities for young people based in the London borough of Havering, which the hon. Lady also represents. Will she join me in calling for Havering council to ensure that that funding continues so that those children can get the benefit the charity provides?

[Margaret Mullane]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. My seat covers two councils, and I always want the best outcome for my constituents. I agree with him and would be happy to do that.

Councils are on the frontline of service delivery in Britain and although this debate is not about broader service funding, I must take this opportunity to thank the Government and to welcome the introduction of the recovery grant as part of the most recent local government funding settlement—a move that marked a significant step change from the previous Administration. However, I return to the subject of SEND provision and funding allocation, which desperately needs a similar step change, as I begin to conclude my contribution.

The London borough of Barking and Dagenham is doing everything that the Government are asking of it, yet we are still working to a system built by the Conservatives. The last Government allocated safety valve funding based on the scale of the deficit rather than the scale of need. The safety valve agreements essentially mean that a local authority must cut its spending to meet targets; in return, it gets a contribution towards its overspend. That means that our local authority, having worked to implement inclusive strategies, often through innovative means, to reduce pressures on the high needs budget, gets nothing from that funding stream.

In comparison, authorities such as Kent, which have far less deprivation and need, have received in excess of £42.6 million since 2023-24. A fraction of that money would help Barking and Dagenham maintain and progress the inclusive service it has worked so hard to deliver over the past decade. I must say that it is wonderful to see our inclusive SEND provision under the national spotlight, being championed by Ministers, but it still beggars belief that under the current system, if a local authority manages to fly in the face of low expectation and deliver an exemplary service, it is penalised within the safety valve programme.

I hope that, as the Government get to grips with the SEND crisis facing local authorities in the coming years, a process of co-production and consultation will lead to a delivery model that incentivises the inclusive approach taken in Barking and Dagenham. Local authorities such as ours are desperately calling for a national funding formula that allocates resources based on evidence and need, bringing schools, health partners, parents of children with SEND, and the council together. I know that we can build a service that provides the best possible start in life and outstanding educational outcomes for the most disadvantaged young people in our communities. I end by repeating the Government’s mantra from last July: “It’s time for change”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) for securing this crucial debate.

Children with special educational needs have just as much potential as other children, and they deserve to have that potential nurtured. But for boroughs such as Barking and Dagenham, there is an urgent problem with SEND provision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham has eloquently described, chronic underfunding and under-resourcing of vital SEND services has led to a critical situation whereby children are not getting the support that they need and parents are facing a constant battle and excessive waiting times to secure any support for their child. Last year in the borough, only 50% of decisions on EHCP needs assessments were made within six weeks, the rest taking much longer.

I know that this is a problem facing all boroughs, but it is particularly acute in Barking and Dagenham, which has a higher proportion of people applying for EHCP needs assessments than other boroughs. In my constituency, which is home to the boroughs of both Redbridge and Barking and Dagenham, the rate of disability is far higher in wards such as Marks Gate, which is the only ward in Ilford South that falls under Barking and Dagenham.

Against this backdrop of underfunding and comparatively high demand, Barking and Dagenham has a lot to be proud of. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham said, in 2024 the borough was recognised for effective practice in a report by What Works in SEND. However, there are some problems that good practice and perseverance cannot fix. The crisis in SEND stems from the wider issue of changing demographics and an outdated funding formula that has not kept up. Ilford South and the boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and Redbridge may be outer-London areas, but they are facing inner-London problems.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Member mentions Barking and Dagenham and Redbridge, but Havering is also in outer Greater London, and Marks Gate is next to Collier Row, as he knows. We are all underfunded. There is a total disparity when it comes to funding for outer Greater London areas. Will the hon. Member back my ongoing campaign for fairer funding not only for special educational needs but for a range of areas, because our boroughs on the edge of London and in Essex constituencies which fall within Greater London are not getting our fair share of resources?

[Jas Athwal]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. As a matter of fact, as leader of Redbridge council, I campaigned for many years for outer London funding to be fairer. Outer London has inner-London problems, but we are not getting our fair share of funding. I would be happy to get involved on the funding needs of outer London. I mentioned Barking and Dagenham and Redbridge because my constituency falls in both of them, but I agree that other outer London boroughs such as Havering will suffer similar consequences.

Our outer-London boroughs face inner-London problems that diminutive outer-London funding packages cannot fix. If we are to fully support all children by providing them with the tailored support that they need, and if we are to unlock their potential, we need serious reform. I stand with my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham in calling for three key reforms.

First, we need a change to the outdated funding formula that puts boroughs such as Barking and Dagenham, Redbridge and Havering on the back foot. Secondly, we need more funding for additionally resourced provisions, so that children with special educational needs can be supported in mainstream schools, and can reap the benefits of learning in a mainstream environment—benefits that include a reduction in emotional distress, and better educational outcomes—while teachers are given the resources they need. Thirdly, we need a more streamlined process of needs assessment, so that parents are not left alone to fight for the provision that their children need and deserve.

Every child has the right to thrive, to achieve their dreams, and to be supported in their environment, even if they learn a little differently, but SEND provision is struggling. We owe it to children to fix the system. We owe it to their parents to support their children to thrive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I know the hon. Gentleman cares passionately about this issue, and he is clearly keen to see the expansion of provision. As he knows, we are investing in the capital estate in the round, and supporting mainstream schools to expand. We have already given local authorities the funding, and we hope that they are working with their local schools to increase capacity. Obviously, the building of any additional schools is considered in the light of that, because we need to ensure that the right provision is available for the children who need it. We are giving close consideration to that, and are working closely with local authorities, whose duty it is to make sure that they have the places to meet those needs.

We have announced that the details of our longer-term approach to SEND reform will be set out in the schools White Paper in the autumn. We are not wasting any time on this. We are already working to ensure that children and young people get the support they need; we are building a robust evidence base about what works to drive inclusive education, and we are creating the expert advisory group for inclusion, led by Tom Rees. We are introducing new regional improvement for standards and excellence—RISE—advisers, who will work with mainstream schools to ensure that they become more inclusive.

We are extending PINS—partnerships for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools—to a further cohort of mainstream primary schools, so that we build teacher and staff capacity to identify, and better meet, the needs of neurodivergent children in mainstream school settings. We are prioritising early intervention and inclusive provision in mainstream settings, because early intervention prevents unmet needs from escalating, and is the best way to support all children and young people to achieve their goals alongside their peers. We are committed to working with the sector and our partners to ensure that our approach is fully planned, and developed in partnership with families, stakeholders and the entire sector, which needs to deliver these reforms.

The number of education, health and care plans has increased each year since their introduction in 2014, with over 630,000 children and young people having an EHCP as of January 2025. Over time, flaws and lack of capacity in the system to meet lower-level need have put additional strain on specialist services. That has had a really detrimental impact on the experience of accessing support through the EHCP process, and has contributed to pushing up costs and creating an increasingly unsustainable system. The latest data shows that in 2024, just over 46% of new EHCPs were issued within the 20-week timeframe. The Government want to ensure that EHC need assessments are progressed promptly, and that plans are issued quickly to provide children and young people with the support that they need to achieve positive outcomes.

Independently commissioned insights published last year showed that extensive improvements to the system using early intervention and better resourcing of mainstream schools could have a significant impact, with more children and young people having their needs met without an EHCP, and in a mainstream setting, rather than in a specialist placement. We have listened to parents, local authority colleagues and partners right across education, health and social care. We are considering really carefully how to improve the EHCP process for families, and are reflecting on what practices could or should be made consistent nationally.

Children and young people with SEND frequently require access to additional support from a broad, specialist workforce right across education, health and care. To support the demand, in partnership with NHS England, we are funding early language support for every child: ELSEC. This is trialling new ways of working to better identify and support children with speech, language and communication needs in their early years and at primary school. I have seen this in practice, and seen the difference it makes to not just the children who participate in the programme and clearly thrive as a result, but the teaching workforce, who grow in confidence and in their ability to untap and unlock children’s learning. It is having a great impact, and we are keen to see the results of the pilot, the roll-out, and the impact taking root in schools.

Continuing to ensure a pipeline of speech and language therapists is essential. That is why we have introduced a speech and language degree apprenticeship. It is in its third year of delivery, and it offers a really excellent alternative pathway to the traditional degree route into a successful career as a speech and language therapist. Of course, we need many more such therapists. It takes a vast workforce, from teachers to teaching assistants, and from early years educators to allied health professionals, to help children and young people thrive, and we are investing in each of those areas to improve outcomes and experiences across the country. I am aware of the ten-minute rule Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham, which is on this very issue, and is due to be presented in the House tomorrow.

High-quality teaching is central to ensuring that pupils with SEND are given the best possible opportunity to achieve in their education, so to support teachers, we are implementing high-quality teacher development. It begins with their initial teacher training, continues into their early teaching career, and carries on right through to middle and senior leadership. We want to offer professional development to all teachers, so that they have the skills to support all pupils to succeed, including those with SEND. The partnership for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools is also deploying health and education specialists in the workforce to upskill primary schools, so that they can support neurodivergent children. The support operates on a whole-school level and is not reliant on a diagnosis. That support is there for all children, depending on their needs.

Local authorities need support with their educational psychology services, and we are investing over £21 million to train 400 more educational psychologists. As these trainees complete their studies, they will be able to join the workforce and support local authority education services, including by contributing to statutory assessments. We know those assessments are a big challenge, and workforce shortages are a huge barrier to delivering our ambition for an inclusive mainstream education system.

[Andrew Rosindell]

A lot of positive things are being said that will be welcomed on all sides of the House, but does the Minister acknowledge the concerns of the hon. Members for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) and for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) and me about the huge disparity in funding for boroughs such as Barking and Dagenham, Redbridge, and Havering, in particular? We are not getting our fair share. Will she please help outer-London boroughs get a fairer share of the cake, because at the moment that is simply not happening?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I recognise the challenge that the hon. Member and others have set out. We are looking at the national funding formula. Obviously, this cannot happen as fast as one might want, because it is important to maintain stability in the system, and changes from year to year can create challenges for local authorities and schools. We have to look at the system carefully and introduce any changes in a careful and considered way, and that is what we are doing. We are taking on board the representations that we are receiving about the funding currently in the system.

One other area that we are focused on is capital funding to expand the estate. Many mainstream settings are going above and beyond to deliver specialist provision, but we want to ensure that all capacity is maximised. Where a local authority identifies a school that could provide more places or make more provision, we need to ensure that it has the capital to support that. That is why we have allocated £740 million for the 2025-26 year to deliver those additional places in mainstream and special schools and other specialist settings, or to adapt buildings to make them more accessible and more appropriate for providing inclusive mainstream education.

The Department’s spending review has confirmed the funding for reform of the SEND system; we will set out the details in the White Paper in the autumn. We recognise that local authorities will need support during the transition to a reformed SEND system, so we will commence a phased transition. We will work with local authorities to manage their budgets and deficits. That will come alongside an extension to the dedicated schools grant statutory override up until the 2027-28 financial year, because we recognise the time it will take to put this right. We will provide more details on this by the end of the year.

We are running out of time, but I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham again for bringing this matter forward, and to thank all who have contributed to the debate. We have made a clear commitment to addressing the challenges, so that we can help children and young people to achieve and thrive. I am determined that progress will be made on this issue. I conclude by recognising all those who work in our education, health and care systems, and who work for our children and young people with SEND in Barking and Dagenham, and right across the country. We all want to deliver the best for children and young people, including those with SEND, so that they have the best start in life; and we want to prepare them for life, work and the future. The Government will continue to work to that end.

Question put and agreed to.

Support for Bereaved Children

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

I would like to inform hon. Members that the parliamentary digital communications team will be conducting secondary filming during the debate for its series of procedural explainers.

I will call Andy Carter to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for bereaved children.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating the debate. I want to talk about a subject that has affected almost all of us at some point or that will do so in the future: grief, and particularly the grief experienced as a result of being bereaved of a parent. Grief is unique; it is both an experience and an emotion, and it comes in many forms, whether it be for the loss of a family member, a friend, a colleague or even a beloved pet. In fact, the only commonality shared between people when they grieve is the pure uniqueness of that experience.

Like many colleagues, I know that it is difficult, to say the least, to lose a parent. It is something that we will all experience in our lives, so we can only hope and pray that it comes later rather than sooner. Tragically, for some people, that is not the case. They lose their mum or dad during childhood, and that is the area I want to focus on.

Bereavement is a complex challenge to navigate at any stage in life, but going through it during childhood has its own unique challenges. The raw wound of loss carries a heavy burden, and we must ensure that it is handled with delicacy and in the manner that best suits the grieving child.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to support students (a) preparing for and (b) taking vocational exams during the covid-19 outbreak.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to support students to sit their (a) technical and (b) vocational exams in 2021.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)]

Students due to undergo assessments in 2020-21 deserve the opportunity to progress successfully on to the next stage of their lives. That is why, alongside Ofqual, the Government are currently consulting on the alternative arrangements needed for vocational and technical examinations due to take place from April onwards. In the meantime, we are investing over £400 million to support access to remote education and, having already delivered 700,000 laptops and tablets to schools up and down the country, we are now rolling out the programme to 16 to 19 year-olds in colleges. The majority of FE providers will be invited to order their devices by the end of January.

[Andrew Rosindell [V]]

As my hon. Friend will know, schools and colleges—for instance, Havering college in my constituency—were asked to make their own decisions about whether or not students should sit vocational exams in January, meaning that some exams went ahead while others were cancelled. What measures are the Government taking to ensure that students will not be unfairly disadvantaged, whether they were able to sit their exams or not?

[Gillian Keegan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question because it gives me the opportunity to make one thing absolutely clear to the House: no student will be disadvantaged by their decision either to sit their January assessment or to defer it. That means that, for those learners requiring a licence to practise, which can be fulfilled only through practical assessment, that assessment can go ahead, and, indeed, many did. Launched on Friday, Ofqual’s consultation is seeking views on what the alternative arrangements should be and how those alternative arrangements will ensure fairness for all learners and give everybody the opportunity to progress on to their next stage.

Covid-19: Educational Settings

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Lady raises an important point, and it is something that I have already raised in discussions with Ofqual. We obviously have to make that judgment call in line with the whole system. We do not want the whole system of awarding to be dictated by the date when youngsters get their grades, but it will be one of those issues that is in active consideration, because, as she says, it gives students more time if there is a need for appeals, and it also gives them more time to make the best choices for them and their future.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) [V]]

The Secretary of State should know the incredible dedication and self-sacrifice shown by teachers and staff throughout Romford and Havering since the start of this pandemic. Their determination to reorganise the schools to keep everyone safe and to continue to provide the highest standard of education must be commended, but with schools now closing as part of the lockdown, they will have to do everything they can to move classes for the majority of students online to minimise the impact on their education. However, as in-person teaching will still be going ahead for vulnerable children and the children of critical workers, will my right hon. Friend please clarify whether only one parent or both need to be critical workers in order for their children to continue to attend school in person?

[Gavin Williamson]

I very much join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to not just the teachers in Romford, but all those support staff who open up the schools, welcome the children and are such an important part of the fabric of that school community. In answer directly to his question, if one parent is a critical worker, it is deemed that they would have access to that school place for their child.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nick Gibb]

Academisation takes place when a school is put into special measures by Ofsted. We want high standards throughout our school system. The academies programme has resulted in standards improving in schools. When we came into office in 2010, 68% of schools were graded good or outstanding. Today that figure is 86%—in part, due to the very successful academisation programme.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

T7. The Minister will be aware that 9 March is Commonwealth day. Will he undertake to ensure that all schools across the United Kingdom celebrate the Commonwealth’s history, that assemblies and special lessons take place, and that schools are encouraged to fly the Commonwealth flag for Commonwealth week?

[Nick Gibb]

I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about this issue. The curriculum gives teachers and schools the freedom to use specific examples from history to teach pupils about the history of Britain and the wider world, and this does mean that there are opportunities to teach pupils about the Commonwealth and Britain’s overseas territories.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the central importance of the early years when it comes to social mobility. We know that the gaps between the rich and the poor develop very early on, which is one reason this Government are spending more than any previous Government on early-years education and childcare. There are 154,000 two-year-olds benefiting from early-years education in a programme that was never available to any child before 2010. But we can do more. I want to ensure that we integrate our approach with helping to support parents in what happens at home because, particularly in the very early years, what happens at home is crucial to what happens later at school.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

T7. The Secretary of State has said many times that school funding is increasing, but what reassurance can he give to the teachers and parents of Squirrels Heath Infant School in Romford, who have told me only today that, among many other schools in the London Borough of Havering, they are having to take drastic measures just to stay afloat? Will he meet me to try to resolve this?

[Damian Hinds]

First, I thank the staff at Squirrels Heath for what they do. I totally acknowledge the pressures there are on school budgets and I know that it is difficult managing these budgets. It is also true that, compared with other countries in the world, we spend relatively high amounts on state education at both primary and secondary levels. However, I will of course be very happy to meet my hon. Friend.

Support for Deaf Children: South Gloucestershire

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Chris Skidmore]

I thank the Minister for making that absolutely vital point. We have these accusations of school funding cuts and less money going to young people. Will he finally nail this lie once and for all? Across the country and in South Gloucestershire more money is being spent on special educational needs and our primary schools. Cuts are not taking place; the Government are investing in our future.

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order. We are running out of time. The Minister needs to wind up very quickly.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, who wonderfully articulated the position of the Government. It is absolutely correct.

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

Free Childcare

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 12th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Is Ruth George present to move the motion? [Interruption.] I remind hon. Members that they should be here on time so that debates can begin in a timely fashion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order. I advise Members that there is now a four-minute limit on speeches, until the Front-Bench speeches begin.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I will definitely take only four minutes, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) on obtaining what is a key debate. I do not doubt that she has had feedback; I have had similar feedback in South Suffolk, where we have excellent provision. It is difficult for me to avoid receiving representations, particularly from Yorley Barn, a beautifully located nursery in my constituency, in a village called Little Cornard. The proprietor, Donna Row, recently came up and made representations while I was dropping my three-year-old twins off at the nursery. She made the key point that she feels funding is going down while, as has been said, core costs are rising.

I want briefly to focus on Suffolk, because while I accept that many broader political and national arguments are made, there is a national funding formula by which our county seems to have been particularly disadvantaged. The sense of unfairness in Suffolk is compounded by what has happened with the schools formula over the years.

I want to quote from a couple of my providers. A particular issue in Suffolk has been the drive for graduates in early years. This is from Springfields pre-school. Amy Jacobs emailed me to say:

“All research has pointed towards the positive outcome for children who attend an early years setting that is led by an early years graduate. Suffolk…were therefore extremely proactive in encouraging settings to employ graduates to run their settings. This was supported in the early years funding and we were paid £4.24 per child per hour in order that we could pay our staff”

at that rate. She goes on to say that they now receive only £3.87 per child per hour.

I should add that this is something that all Suffolk Members have been working on, and I am grateful to the Minister, who has taken the time to meet us and go through our concerns with his officials in great detail. We also held a meeting at County Hall, for which unfortunately I was ill and unable to attend. However, again, the core point is that funding seems to be lower at a time when costs are rising, so we as MPs have been trying to understand exactly why that is happening and whether it is driven by factors at a county level or because of the national formula.

I will quote from one other provider. Cheryl Leeks, who runs Woodland Corner, said:

“As you are aware, Suffolk County Council reduced our funding for 3 and 4-year-old children by 11% on 1 April with only 7 week’s notice. Historically the rate received from SCC has been higher than the rate we charge for non-funded children—or additional hours. We were always keen to have funded children as we used to receive £4.24 and a block funding allowance of £550 per term.”

She goes on to say that only £3.87 per child per hour will now be provided.

There are complexities—that is showing one side of the picture—but the key point for us in Suffolk at county level is that we feel that, in comparison to other counties, and particularly neighbouring counties, we seem to be doing particularly badly. Like all Suffolk MPs, I received a note from Gordon Jones, the cabinet member for children’s services at Suffolk County Council, with a table of all our neighbours who get a better allocation than we have received through the early years national funding formula.

This issue is obviously important to me personally because I have children in early years, but in Suffolk we have had a huge amount of feedback from very worried providers. I support in principle the drive for 30 hours—it is really important for our economy to achieve the dynamism we want and flexibility in our labour market that we have this greater provision—but there are clearly issues to address. I believe the Minister is aware of that. I do not want to go on too much longer, because we are in the middle of a discussion about it with him. I simply say that we would like him to recognise that there are these pressures not just of the money going down but of costs going up.

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) on securing this important debate. The issue of properly funded, decent childcare has a huge impact on families in my constituency and across the country. It would be good to be able to welcome the Government’s actions on that and their commitment to 30 hours’ free childcare, but I see, from talking to both parents and childcare providers in my constituency, that there are clearly serious problems with the proposals and how they are being implemented.

First, the funding is simply inadequate. The shortfall in the Government’s commitment is detrimental to childcare providers. Last week, I spoke to the manager of a successful and popular nursery in Enfield Southgate. She told me that the Government’s plans make her fearful for her business. The inadequate money from the Government will put a terrible strain on the way in which her nursery is run. She told me that parents who used to pay for her nursery privately are now accessing the 30 hours’ childcare, but the shortfall in money from the Government to fund that will put wages and staffing costs under considerable strain. She also told me that if she were to decide not to offer the 30 hours to parents, she would lose out to other companies that will be offering it.

That hard-working nursery manager feels caught in a double bind: does she offer the 30 hours’ free childcare and risk her business making a loss, or does she avoid offering it and go under because others, who doubtless feel similarly trapped, will be offering it? We know from the excellent research done by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) that the fears of that nursery manager are not the exception; they are now the rule. Research also shows that three quarters of childcare providers expect the Government’s policy to have a negative impact on their business; fewer than 7% believe that it will be positive.

The Pre-school Learning Alliance estimates that there is a 20% shortfall between the amount the Government are giving local authorities to fund the scheme and the actual cost to nurseries.

Worse still, the Government are proposing that funding levels will stay the same until the end of this Parliament, even though the cost of wages, rents, pensions and much more are likely to rise during that time. Why should nursery managers and childcare providers such as the one I referred to in Enfield Southgate shoulder the financial risk caused by the Government’s ill-considered plans? The proposal of free childcare is far from free if hard-working childcare providers are carrying the cost, to the extent of even being put out of business. That is not to mention the anxiety and disruption caused to parents and children when a trusted childcare provider goes out of business, sometimes at short notice. If the 30-hour offer is to be truly free for both parents and providers, it must be funded properly now and in the future.

The other serious flaw in this pledge is that it will not help those who need it the most. I know from talking to my constituents that many parents welcome the prospect of 30 hours’ free childcare, especially those who are struggling in low-paid, insecure work. However, those who need help could easily slip through the net with this scheme, not least because of the many technical problems that parents are experiencing. After having huge technical problems accessing the scheme, one constituent contacted me last week to say:

“This is the government’s flagship childcare scheme and it’s an utter shambles with no prospect in sight of a resolution.”

Even more disturbing is the fact that to be eligible for the scheme, a parent must earn more—

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a four-minute time limit. I call Liz Twist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) for securing this much needed debate. We have heard some interesting and important contributions. I will just go through a few of them; unfortunately, time does not allow me to mention everyone.

My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak powerfully claimed that the pilot schemes were not actually working as the press said, and that there were nursery closures. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) acknowledged that there is a problem and tried to understand why. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) would like to meet the Minister and providers. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Sandy Martin), for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). We also heard a powerful statement by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford)—I look forward to my invitation to Scotland. We also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker), who gave all sorts of information about portal difficulties and nursery managers saying that they will be closing.

We have had a wide-ranging debate, so I am going to use my contribution to touch on the most pressing issues. I hope that the Minister will use his closing remarks to answer in detail—regrettably, getting clear information from him to date has been slightly challenging to say the least—because both the Labour party and the Conservatives agree that we need more funded childcare. I stress that the problems raised with the policy are not because we disagree with the policy in principle. However, nearly as soon as David Cameron announced the offer at the 2015 general election, worries that it was underfunded came to light. The Government pushed on the delivery, and the voice of concern about the potential impact became louder.

The Pre-school Learning Alliance found a 20% funding shortfall. The Social Market Foundation and the New Economics Foundation have said that this version of free childcare is regressive. Research from Ceeda shows that nearly half the childcare settings are currently recruiting staff, but four out of five say that they are struggling to fill vacancies. If this were any other industry, we would be talking about a recruitment crisis. The Sutton Trust has warned that, as it stands, the 30 hours of free childcare offer widens the gap between disadvantaged children and their wealthier peers before they start school, as it benefits wealthier families. The Social Market Foundation shows that of the extra money that the Government are pumping into early years, 75% is being spent on the top 50% of earners and less than 3% will go to the most disadvantaged. Many providers have left or are in the process of leaving the sector. Will the Minister include in his summing-up how many Ofsted good or outstanding providers have left the sector in the past six months?

We are now well into the first term of this policy, and the Minister has told us that 216,384 parents have their codes for this term. However, just last night he told me via a written answer that 71% of parents had had their codes validated, but the Department for Education claims that the figure is now 90%, so which is it? Do we take the Minister’s word or the Department’s? I would welcome an intervention if he could clarify which is correct. If the figure is 90%, that leaves 20,000 children without a place during this August term, which will obviously be the quietest, as more children come of age later in the year. Does the Minister share our concern that the sector will struggle to provide places as the year rolls on, because of lack of funding?

We have talked about signing-up codes. To deal with an eligibility code, the application system has to be fit for purpose, which it clearly was not as the August deadline approached. The system’s inadequacies have left parents stranded. There is confusion between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and local authorities as to when the deadline for validating the code is. A constituent of mine has a code that is eligible until 7 December, but as she did not receive the code until 15 September the local authority has said that it cannot fund her place, and all the while HMRC is telling her that there is no problem and that she should be receiving her place. There is no clarity even on issues as simple as the deadline. It seems like amateur hour to me.

Variations from local authority to local authority are becoming a theme, with one authority planning to retain some disability access funding even though that should be passed on in full to providers. Another local authority is charging a provider for every minute that parents dropped off late and collected early, with the charges amounting to £4,000. Others require all providers offering funded places to receive an annual visit from the local authority’s early years team, which is what we all thought Ofsted was supposed to be there for. Getting payment out of local authorities is proving a struggle. Issues include refusing to pay monthly, bringing headcounts forward at short notice and requiring new email addresses and bank accounts in order for payments to be received.

The Minister knows full well that that is not an acceptable way to treat small businesses and microbusinesses. An issue that I have raised with him is that settings will charge for extras such as trips out, nappies and lunches in order to pay their staff and keep the lights on—to stay afloat. Can he guarantee today that there will not emerge a two-tier system whereby parents who cannot afford to pay for the extras do not have access to the policy? Does the Department intend to monitor the additional charges placed on parents, and will he commit to reporting on that? Will he consider a cap on those charges, or will it be a case of parents who cannot afford the extras being sent to the end of the waiting list?

If there is one thing noticeable by its absence, it is that the Minister never wants to talk about the quality of childcare. The Labour party has a policy to move to a graduate-led workforce and to put child outcomes at the heart of early years policy, by funding our policies properly. It is curious to me that the Conservatives do not have the same goals. Often, the highest-quality provision comes in the form of maintained nursery schools, many of which are seeing numbers drop, as they cannot offer 30 hours because of the cost of lunch provision. Nursery schools, which are often in the most deprived areas, provide excellent care, closing the gap between the most deprived children and those more fortunate.

Many children from deprived communities currently have access to quality nursery schools that employ qualified nursery school teachers. Those schools do a tremendous job of enhancing those children’s life chances, but they assure me that they will not be able to fund the continued employment of those qualified teachers. It is important that we distinguish between childcare and early years education. Save the Children is concerned that 40% of nurseries that took part in the pilot reported a loss in profits and, therefore, a threat to their sustainability. When I asked how many children were registered with maintained nursery schools for this academic year, the Minister was unwilling to share that information. Will he do so today?

When the Minister last spoke in the Chamber, he mentioned that he would like to get the 5,500 dormant childminders “back into that business”, but how will he do that if their wraparound care is not necessarily part of the 30 hours provision? Childminders are often highly qualified women with a level 3 national vocational qualification who have been Ofsted-assessed. I have been told categorically by a number of constituents that the county council funding provided means that they will go bankrupt. They are just going to throw in the towel—why bother?

I encourage the Minister to think again about a major injustice to childminders in this roll-out. His Department has relaxed the parent-child ratio for childminders who provide wraparound care. Is it the Government’s intention to relax that further in an attempt to make the funding work? Is that the way forward for childminders? How many freelance working parents have been excluded from the entitlement because they cannot guarantee that they will work more than 16 hours a week on the national minimum wage? The reality for many working parents in my constituency is that their employers will not guarantee them those hours, and nor can they, which makes it even harder for parents to return to work.

In the Chamber, the Minister said:

“There are colleagues in the House from places such as York, Northumberland”—

he goes on to list them—

“which have been in the pilot for a year. I have not heard a peep from anyone saying that the scheme is not working, so obviously the pilot has been successful.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 173.]

As my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak mentioned, those nurseries are having trouble squaring the circle. When papers, experts, providers and think-tanks all say that the policy is not sufficiently funded to work, surely it is time to reassess and ramp up the finances so that it is properly funded?

I have been startled by the number of providers who have said to me that they will not be able to take on children who need extra support. If such a child presented, they would put the child on a waiting list or gently suggest that there might be a better setting for them. That is discriminatory, but not unexpected when nurseries are budgeting to try to stay afloat, rather than to offer the best, most comprehensive service.

In conclusion, there is little doubt that the 30 free hours of childcare will be a welcome relief to many parents. It will bring childcare costs down for many parents, particularly at the upper end of the income scale, as research by Nursery World and the Resolution Foundation found recently. However, there is no getting away from the fact that this policy is chronically underfunded. No matter which way we look at it, providers are going to pay the price. The sector is known for its quality and passion—it transforms young people’s lives—and if the Government put that in peril with this policy, I suspect that they will not be forgiven lightly. As the Minister is well aware, tens of childcare providers are in this Chamber who would like to hear his views. Will he rethink his offer to come and meet them, as he originally intended?

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Does the hon. Member for High Peak wish to exercise a short right of reply at the end?

[Ruth George]

Yes, if there is time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Lady raises a very important issue. It is one of the very few explicitly statutory requirements that young people in secondary school have to be taught about the dangers of HIV. I share her concern. We need to improve the quality of PSHE education throughout our system.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware of the huge pressure on school places in the London borough of Havering and in all outer London boroughs at the moment, particularly with the new bulge classes being imposed on primary schools, such as Gidea Park primary school in my constituency. What extra funding and support will the Government give to schools that face such pressures at this time?

[Nicky Morgan]

Havering local authority received £23 million of basic need funding for places between 2011 and 2015, which helped to create nearly 3,000 new places. It has also been allocated a further £47 million to create the places needed by 2018. I should also say that we are pleased that a new free school is scheduled to open in Romford this September. Concordia Academy will provide 630 additional primary places in the area, and I hope my hon. Friend will work with other providers to encourage more free schools to be built in the local area.

Autism Sunday Campaign

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I would like to begin by asking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to pass on my thanks to Mr. Speaker for selecting this debate this evening, and to express my gratitude at having been given the opportunity to inform the House about Autism Sunday, also known as the international day of prayer for autism and Asperger’s syndrome.

I declare an interest. I am a patron of the Romakey International Education Services charity based in my constituency. That charity provides young people with learning disability and autism with the necessary support to move from school into independent adulthood.

Autism Sunday was established to highlight the need to understand autism, and was one of the first global events of its kind. It was launched in 2002 here in the United Kingdom, with an historic service at St. Paul’s cathedral. The size of the issue cannot be underestimated. In my own borough, the London borough of Havering, it is estimated that there are over 1,412 adults on the autism spectrum. Nationally, there are over 750,000 people with autism, and it is estimated that there are up to 65 million people with autism around the world.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining a debate on this important subject. Does he agree that alongside Autism Sunday, initiatives such as the world Autism Awareness Week, which is from 2 to 8 April this year, are pretty important? Does he welcome what the National Autistic Society is doing in that week—launching a public awareness campaign, because it is important that we continue to increase awareness of autism, and understanding among the general public, particularly as the incidence seems to be on the increase?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her helpful intervention. Of course, we can work in our constituencies to make people aware of the effects of autism, but national organisations such as the National Autistic Society are doing a brilliant job of promoting more understanding of the issue across the United Kingdom.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the House for consideration? A large number of my constituents also have autism or autistic children. About 2,000 children in Northern Ireland have been waiting more than 20 months for a diagnosis. It is clear to me as an elected representative, and probably to the hon. Gentleman as well, that early diagnosis is critical if children are to get the correct treatment and the help they need. Does he agree that greater priority needs to be given to autism diagnosis, especially given the rising number of autistic children and adults across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: more needs to be invested in diagnosis. I commend him on the work he is doing in Northern Ireland to ensure that there is more awareness of this condition.

Autism Sunday was founded by British autism campaigners and committed Christians, Ivan and Charika Corea, who live in Buckhurst Hill, in Essex. It began as a small acorn of an idea, hatched in their front room, but today it has grown into a major global event celebrated in many countries throughout the world. This year, it will take place this coming weekend, on Sunday 14 February.

Our own Prime Minister has personally supported Autism Sunday, stating:

“I would like to express my support for Autism Sunday. As many as one in a hundred people could be affected by some form of autism, and it is important that we recognise and raise awareness of the difficulties and challenges that they can face.”

Autism Sunday is now a permanent fixture in my constituency.  Ivan Corea is a teacher at the Frances Bardsley Academy For Girls. When he joined the school in 2009, he set about creating awareness of autism, not only in the school, but across the whole of our local community in Havering.

In January this year, that culminated in a very special event in Havering town hall, when the mayor of Havering, Councillor Brian Eagling, and the leader of Havering Council, Councillor Roger Ramsey, presented a civic award to the Frances Bardsley Academy For Girls autism and disabilities club and to the school’s autism ambassadors, many of whom are here today watching our proceedings, for reaching out to the most vulnerable sections of society in our local community.

The club has been working in partnership with local autism campaigners Ade and Ronke Ogunleye, who run the RIEES Autism Club based at the Romford Baptist church. That work has received praise from the leader of the council, Councillor Roger Ramsey, who stated:

“To my memory, there has never been such a successful relationship between a secondary school and a local charity regarding autism in this borough and the FBA”—

Frances Bardsley Academy—

“Ambassador Programme has been of supreme service to the community. Through volunteering in the community, members have helped support those with autism, as well as their parents and carers, who are often just as much in need of support.”

The Frances Bardsley autism and disabilities club has been working closely with the Step Up To Serve charity, whose patron is His Royal Highness Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales. Charlotte Hill, the chief executive officer of the charity, which is running the #iwill campaign, said:

“We are delighted that the Frances Bardsley Academy for Girls Autism & Disabilities Club has pledged to support our work, and shared their progress during #iwill week to inspire others to take part also. If we are to make involvement in social action the norm for 10-20 year-olds we need partners to commit to tangible actions just as they are doing. The involvement of the FBA Autism Ambassadors of the Autism & Disabilities Club will undoubtedly help us progress towards our goal.”

I must pay tribute to the school’s headteacher, Julian Dutnall, who was recently presented with a special award by RIEES for showing outstanding leadership in promoting charitable giving at the school. Frances Bardsley has a thriving charity committee raising funds for a number of local, national and international charities, and Julian Dutnall has talked about the need for students to give back to the community and the need to show compassionate leadership to the most vulnerable sections of our society.

The chair of governors of Frances Bardsley Academy for Girls is the Rev. Father Roderick Hingley, who also serves as priest of the church of St. Alban Protomartyr in Romford. He has been hugely supportive of Autism Sunday. When Ivan Corea approached Father Hingley with regard to establishing the first ever Havering Autism Sunday service at St.Alban’s church in 2010, he saw the need to reach out to parents, carers and the autism community, and agreed to host the annual service. I have witnessed at first hand the moving partnership between the Frances Bardsley autism ambassadors from the sixth form and young people with autism—surely a model of how a school can make an impact in this area.

All this work has certainly helped to act as a catalyst for change in the London borough of Havering. Frances Bardsley Academy for Girls is fully behind Autism Sunday 2016. Indeed, class 7E created school history by organising the first ever year 7 assembly on Autism Sunday, finishing with a flourish as they sang the Nimal Mendis song for autism, “Open Every Door”. In so doing, they have raised much more awareness of the condition with their peers. I would also like to mention the assistant headteacher, Julie Payne, who has led school assemblies on the importance of Autism Sunday, and music teacher Amy Johnson and the Frances Bardsley chamber choir, who always perform on Autism Sunday and will do so this year,.

As the MP for Romford, I am immensely proud of what has been achieved so far, but there is still a long way to go before all adults with autism start receiving the care and support they need. For example, in a recent National Autistic Society survey, 70% of adults with autism said that they are not receiving the help they need from social services. Furthermore, only 23% of those who did have contact with social workers felt that they had a good understanding of the condition and its effects. This must change. The Government’s current review of the implementation of the strategy is a unique opportunity to urge local authorities and Ministers to ensure that they live up to their commitments.

Times are challenging, but that must not be used as an excuse for failing to meet obligations to adults with autism and their families. With the right support, many adults with autism can work for and participate in their communities. Difficulties in communication and social interaction might mean that someone with autism finds it hard to find and keep a steady job. They might find it challenging to prepare a CV, or find that they need support in preparing for an interview. Moreover, once they have a job, they might find it difficult to work with people who do not understand the complexities of their condition.

A number of barriers to successful implementation of the autism strategy have been identified. The good news is that there will be simple yet effective solutions to these challenges. For example, an innovation fund would support local authorities to improve the services currently available to adults with autism and help them to develop an understanding of the best way to deliver services and highlight areas of best practice. An autism awareness scheme would also allow volunteers and community groups to tap into resources that would help them to develop a programme of autism awareness and training in their local areas. That can be achieved in the simplest of ways, through things such as adaptations to public buildings and local businesses, autism awareness training for front-line staff in public services and more autism-friendly activities.

I conclude by urging the Minister to consider my proposals. In so doing, I commend to the House the work of the Frances Bardsley Academy for Girls autism and disabilities club and the important concept of Autism Sunday, which is a beacon of light and compassionate leadership in action in my constituency, reaching out to those who need that support most of all.