School Starting Age

Debate between Annette Brooke and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Annette Brooke]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for reinforcing the case. It can be seen as an issue just for some middle-class parents who perhaps want to get their children to the top of the class. I want to reiterate that that is not the case. Unfortunately, it is about trying to shoehorn individuals into a one-size-fits-all system, and that is the problem. We must all love and make the most of the individual differences of our children both in our families and in our schools.

We must consider whether some of the issues of summer-born children can be overcome with a play-based curriculum and excellent teaching in the reception class, where the needs of individual children are being taken into account. I would like the answer to be yes, but we have changes in the primary curriculum and assessment and testing regimes, which put constraints and pressures on schools and teachers. Even with an excellent teacher, the individual interests of the child may require a start in reception at the age of five. I do not think that such a move would open floodgates because most parents want their children to fit into the system as it is. Not all summer-born children are adversely affected by being the youngest in their year and there will be variations in any effects. It is difficult to see that age-adjusting test results, as proposed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, is an entirely valid approach.

Undoubtedly, the early start to formal schooling and the testing regime in this country compound the summer-born problems, which leads me to conclude that, ideally, we need to rethink our approach to the all-important learning settings and experiences for the four to seven-year-olds. The school experience should suit the individual child; the child should not be made to fit the school because of the potential adverse outcomes over their lifetime.

Meanwhile, we have to do the best we can. We must identify the problems and cope with them within the existing system. We must have more flexibility in school starting time, and parents need to be empowered and enabled to make the best choices for their child. Currently, what is in the best interests of the child can be ignored in favour of slotting everybody into an arbitrary 12-month period.

There are so many cases that I could cite, and I am happy to talk about them with the Minister—even those relating to the transfer from primary to secondary school. The whole matter needs to be considered carefully. We must assess the scale of the problem and monitor the impact of the new advice. Having monitored the situation, we must consider whether the schools admission code needs changing in the future.

We also need to consider assessment within the early years foundation stage and how summer-born children are being assessed. This is a huge issue, but my message today is that if parents can demonstrate that they have a strong case that is in the best interests of their children, they should be empowered and enabled to allow their child to start school at the age of five as required, but in reception year.

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

I will call Alok Sharma now, but let me just say that I will be calling the Minister at 4.20, because she needs to have time to respond to the debate.

Young Runaways (Sexual Exploitation)

Debate between Annette Brooke and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing this timely debate and on leading the work on this issue. Helen Southworth, her predecessor as Chair of the all-party parliamentary group for runaways and missing children, also made an enormous contribution. The all-party group’s inquiry three years ago resulted in the action plan and then the statutory guidance on runaways. It is rather sad to hear today that that guidance is not being fully implemented, and it shows that, as politicians, our work is never finished. Even when we think that we have made progress and produced the paperwork, the action is not taking place. Perhaps worst of all, the action is patchy over the country.

The hon. Lady referred to the lack of data. It is incredible to think that most children who run away are not reported as missing to the police by their parents or guardians. The problem of the lack of data is obviously compounded by the fact that there are different police and local authority responses. Added to that we have the issue of trafficked children, of which we do not know the full extent. It is difficult to see how we can move forward without more data. What we have at the moment is raised awareness, sadly because of the stories and the prosecutions that are being reported currently. It makes us reflect on the society that we live in that these practices can happen and that we have been so unaware of them as a nation.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Why does the hon. Lady think that there is such a variation between the statistics that come from the police and those that come from central Government? Does she think that, as a society, we are trying to cover over a problem and that we are not facing the depth of the statistics? Also, does she agree that behind each of these statistics there is a vulnerable child, many of whom are hurting and who will carry that hurt to the end of their days? We had better get the statistics right, before we can know that the action plan will address the problems.

[Annette Brooke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. In many ways, he is right. However, I am not convinced that there is a deliberate cover-up. It is actually a case of our being blinkered and not recognising what is happening out there. That is why today’s debate is so timely, because sadly we have so much evidence to refer to.

I want to compliment the many organisations that work day-in and day-out on this issue. Obviously there is Barnardo’s, and its report, “Puppet on a string”, is a really important contribution. There is also the Children’s Society, which has engaged in long-standing work in this sector, and there are so many others. All of that work is important, but we must grasp the hour. People accept that there is a problem, but we are still not very good at recognising it in our own communities. It still tends to be a case of people saying that it happens elsewhere. I could easily say in Dorset, “Oh, it’s up there in the north”, but it is very important that we recognise this is happening throughout our country.

Child Slavery

Debate between Annette Brooke and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on a moving speech—perhaps the most moving that I have ever heard in this Chamber. I think we all share an abhorrence of child slavery.

I, too, started by reading the Save the Children report “The Small Hands of Slavery”—it is an emotive title—and came across the disturbing statistics involving such large numbers. That was back in 2007. What progress are we making? As the hon. Gentleman said, the report states that 8.4 million children are trapped in the worst forms of illegal, degrading and dangerous work. It also identified the eight most prevalent forms of child slavery: child trafficking, commercial sexual exploitation, bonded child labour, forced work in mines, forced agricultural labour, child soldiers and combatants, forced child marriage and domestic slavery.

The hon. Gentleman provided many tragic examples from around the globe. It is, of course, a tragedy that there is such a variety. Our children are our most precious asset, and it brings tears to the eyes to think of children suffering in such ways. More recently, Save the Children published the report “Children on the Move”. We must remember that in high-profile conflict situations, such as in the middle east, children are particularly vulnerable to certain practices.

There is so much to be done. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must consider the problem from the UK’s perspective, looking outwards as well as inwards and across Departments. Clearly, in order to tackle it, we need national, international and strong local action. We need to consider poverty reduction. This Government’s commitment to increasing the proportion of GDP spent on aid must be welcome, as it is well targeted to reduce poverty. We need education, legislation—legislation must be appropriate, but it is also important that it is put into practice—and resources for prevention and rehabilitation. Those principles can easily be applied to tackling problems in the UK. In my brief contribution, I will concentrate on trafficking, but I recognise fully the scale of the issue.

Research by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre discovered that at least 287 children in this country were identified as potential victims of trafficking between March 2009 and February 2010. More than one third were brought to Britain for the sex trade. Amazingly, 18% were made to cultivate cannabis. I must admit that I have learned a great deal from reading ECPAT UK’s representations about the use of child labour in cannabis cultivation in this country. It makes us realise that we can tackle such issues. It must be possible to track them down and take suitable action.

[Dr McCrea]

Has the hon. Lady seen the CEOP study on strategic threat assessment? It states:

“There are only a handful of UK police forces which have units designated and trained in running investigations into trafficking.”

Does she believe that more should be done initially to change that?

[Annette Brooke]

I certainly believe that more must be done on a range of issues. I will address the hon. Gentleman’s point shortly.

Sadly, many of the victims identified go missing again and are obviously re-trafficked. We must bear that in mind. We need, of course, to think about what is happening in the countries sending these people. We need international co-operation.

It is interesting that, under the Labour Government, we finally signed up to the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, which came into force in April 2009. There had been questions over a long period from both sides of the House about when we were going to ratify the convention, but we did do so.

I hope that we will have some better news about the EU directive on human trafficking, which the European Parliament approved in 2010. So far, the Government have decided not to opt into it, which I find really difficult to understand. The UK and Denmark are the only EU states not to have opted in, even though we are told that everything we do complies. As I understand it, the directive improves existing EU legislation and provides better protection for trafficking victims, more rigorous protection measures and tougher penalties for traffickers. Signing up to the directive would make a clear statement about our Government’s support for trafficked women and Ministers’ willingness to provide protection and secure convictions.

An organisation called Care claims that this country is not really doing everything it could and that it is not doing everything in the directive. It says that forced begging is also trafficking. It says that we cannot prosecute crimes outside Britain. It says that Britain fails to provide universal access to safe accommodation and medical treatment for victims, fails to investigate cases after a victim withdraws a statement and does not always offer proper protection of victims in criminal proceedings. Those are all things that I believe we should be able to do.

As I understand it, the directive has a specific focus on child victims, so it is very relevant. It provides them with greater care and protection. It also directly calls for the UK to introduce a system of guardianship for trafficked children. I wonder whether that is the problem preventing us from signing up to the directive. Again, I want to be fair to both Governments. I have long argued for a system of guardianship for children who are unaccompanied asylum seekers, and I have tabled many amendments in Committees dealing with Bills on children, always to be defeated. We should not see this as a political issue, because we all need to work together.