Birmingham Schools

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I admire the hon. Gentleman’s attempt to grab fundamental British values for the Liberal party, but I do not think he will blame me if I try to resist it.

The definition of extremism is in the Prevent strategy, and, actually, what Peter Clarke’s report says is that there was extremism, but no radicalism or extremism leading to violence. Extremism is defined as being

“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our armed forces, whether in this country or overseas.”

The hon. Gentleman may not have had a chance to read the whole report yet, but I suspect that when he does, and when he sees some of the comments that have been swapped on the WhatsApp social media site, he—like many other Members—will be very shocked.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State may not remember, but I took the Education Committee, when I was chairing it, to Birmingham for a whole week. At that time, under Tim Brighouse, Birmingham was the most improved education authority in the country. What I learnt—what we all learnt—was that the Muslim population in Birmingham, like the Muslim population everywhere else, want good education for their children, and they want it for boys and for girls.

I have not had time to study the report yet, but I can say that we need to detect the minority of Muslim opinion that is coming from, who knows, Saudi Arabia or somewhere. This is not just a Birmingham question. We must be aware of it, and alert to it. I have visited many faith schools of this type, and I know that we must be careful to ensure that girls are treated on a fundamentally equal basis to boys. They should never be disadvantaged in respect of their education in this country.

[Nicky Morgan]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is absolutely no place for segregation of boys and girls in British schools, and girls must be given every possible opportunity to do as well and achieve as much as, if not more than, boys. The hon. Gentleman’s comments are especially welcome on a day on which the Prime Minister is holding a girl summit, which is focusing particularly on early forced marriage and female genital mutilation.

I do not think that I was in the House when the hon. Gentleman was Chairman of the Education Committee, but I am glad to hear that his visit to Birmingham went well. One of the issues is that although some of the schools there were outstanding, the problems still occurred. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we cannot let up in trying to identify the problems. That is why I welcome the preventing extremism unit that has been set up in the Department, and why I will be expanding it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Timpson]

The reasons why my hon. Friend is receiving correspondence about the current SEN system are also why, under the Children and Families Act 2014, we are bringing in substantial changes to introduce, from September, a single SEN system that puts families at the centre of decision making right at the start when they require extra support. Over and above that, we are also providing an additional £30 million of new funding so that parents can have independent supporters to assist them in navigating themselves through the system, which, in the past, too many of them have found too difficult.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is aware that there is a crisis up and down the country—whether in Peterborough or Huddersfield—as many schools do not have the capacity for early diagnosis and treatment. When will he ensure that there is such capacity in every school in our country?

Children with Autism (Education)

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Birtwistle]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, but the families of the children I am talking about would totally disagree—they will no doubt be happy to meet him later to explain the serious problems they are having. I am not pushing for private education. Rossendale might well be a private school, and so too might one or two others. All I am saying is that if Rossendale can provide it, why can Lancashire county council not do the same through the state system? Why can the council not be just as good as Rossendale? I do not want to promote a private school; I want to promote extremely good education for my constituents.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman—it is difficult not to call him my hon. Friend—will know of my interest in this subject. I am sorry that I arrived a little late to this debate; I was chairing a committee at the other end of the building. I am delighted that he is making this speech. I want to make the point, having chaired the Education Committee when it conducted a major inquiry into special educational needs, that the lack of early diagnosis and early access to psychological and mental health therapy is a problem up and down the country, not just in Lancashire. The length of time it can take for a child suspected of having such a condition to be evaluated and then given the support they need is a national disgrace.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I could not have put it better myself. That is the argument I am making. We are having this debate because I was approached by three families in my constituency. I had thought that this was a small issue. I did not anticipate the flood of e-mails and correspondence I received, and not only from Lancashire, but from all over the country. I agree with it 100%.

We can sit here all day long saying that this is happening all over the country, but what are we doing about it? We need to do something. Why are children with autism and ADHD being tret in that way? As the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) has said, Lancashire county council provides education to more than 1,400 young people with autism spectrum disorder, but why are my constituents, who are up in the Gallery, being tret differently from anybody else? Why does the council not treat them in the same way? Why are their children totally different from somebody else’s? Why do they have to suffer? Why does Chloe’s mother have to suffer in that way while other parents do not?

If Lancashire county council delivers such a great service, as the hon. Gentleman says, why is it letting Chloe and her mother down? That is my issue today. I am happy for Lancashire county council to deliver the best service available in the country, but it has to be for everybody, not just the few. My purpose today is to raise the issue with the Minister and ask him to look into it and take it forward.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I will shortly come to a case where I got involved in talking about private or public provision and heard stories from the staff at the county council.

The next case is that of a young man called Jack Entwistle, a nine-year-old autistic boy who should currently be enjoying his school holidays but, unfortunately, has already been out of education for three months. He is at a critical age educationally and developmentally, but so far he has been failed by the county council. This is not just about Lancashire county council—it will be happening all over, but I have not met anybody from any other county council area with similar experiences.

[Mr Sheerman]

rose—

[Gordon Birtwistle]

It might be happening in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency; in fact, I am sure it is. I have been to Huddersfield, and it is a beautiful place that I would always be happy to visit, but I can talk only about the people I know.

[Mr Sheerman]

May I tempt the hon. Gentleman, who is an old friend of mine, to be more forensic? We need to do better—all of us here in the Chamber today who care about this. He is right: we all see similar cases in our constituency advice services. The real problem, right across the country, is proper early diagnosis, whether in the private or the state sector—it does not matter. What the parents want is early diagnosis so that support and intervention can then take place and the child has a chance to develop their spark of potential in the very best way. We are talking about some very, very clever kids who need support really early on in their careers. If we can share, forensically, information about where the barriers are and why early diagnosis is not taking place, we can be much more effective. We have here a very good Minister who partly trained on my Select Committee at one stage. I know that he is good on this and cares about it, and we can make a compelling case to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Birtwistle]

Absolutely. I pretty much agree with everything that has been said and most people seem to agree with what I am saying. My argument is that, although the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) have all made amazing suggestions, we do not act on them. While we sit here and talk, why are thousands of young people and families across the country suffering? I have met some of those families and they are at the edge of life. It should not have to be like that. Proper facilities should be provided.

[Mr Sheerman]

This is the first time I have risen to make an intervention in this House to say something positively nice about the Government: the Children and Families Act 2014, which was passed recently, met an aspiration that I had had for many years, namely that someone diagnosed with special educational needs will have a special relationship with evaluation until they are 25. That is wonderful and we should pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) and the Government for it. The sensitive issue, however, is what has happened to services such as child and adolescent mental health services, which seem to be falling apart up and down the country, but the Government are not reacting to that.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

I am grateful for that intervention and I will address the hon. Gentleman’s comments when I come to the end of my contribution.

Thirdly, I want to talk about a little girl called Honey, who is the daughter of a constituent of mine with a hairdressing salon near my office in Burnley. She is a lovely, lively little girl—she spends time in my office on occasion—who has very mild autism. She had to be moved six months into her final year in primary school due to trauma and threat of exclusion. Basically, she was classed as a naughty girl.

Honey’s new primary school quickly established the need for a statement of educational needs—why had it not been picked up earlier?—and had evidence from an independent educational psychologist to present to the panel. Once again, however, the Lancashire county council educational psychologist reassessed Honey and challenged the independent assessment.

No secondary school place has been arranged for Honey, despite her parents choosing Rossendale school. There may be other schools that are as good as that independent school, but Rossendale is one of the few providers catering for high-functioning ASD children in Lancashire. Honey’s parents’ preference for Rossendale was put to a panel, which rejected it. The panel suggested a special school for severely disabled children, which was named without the parents’ agreement.

Lancashire county council advised the family to look at other options, but every time the family went back to the panel, their wishes were rejected. Naturally, that has had an effect on Honey’s self-esteem, and her anxieties have increased by the rejection of her choice of school. The family therefore appealed to SENDIST––the special educational needs and disability tribunal—against the named school, and asked for Rossendale school to be named. Honey has been in front of a judge, to whom she outlined her future aspirations, of which she has many. However, the family has had no success in integrating her into the school she suggested.

Honey has anxieties and fears connected with the named school. She has now been out of school for more than 12 months, which is detrimental to her health and education. Despite her parents’ request for an annual review, that has been overlooked. Such requests should be considered natural: if somebody asks for a review, it should be accepted.

When I have attempted to speak to the county council about this matter, I have been told many stories. The lady in charge, Charlotte Finch, the SEND integrated assessment team manager, has given me confusing statements about whether Honey or any child for that matter can attend Rossendale independent school or another school of the same quality. She said that no child from Lancashire is to attend the school, but the head of the school has since told me that that is not true. Lancashire county council does send children to Rossendale school, but when I spoke to the council I was told that it did not. Such treatment has created hostility between the child’s family and the council.

Most education authorities, including Lancashire, fail to appreciate and understand the needs of autistic children that I, like countless others, have described. I must stress that those are the first three cases I was approached to help with that I have time to deal with in this debate, but they are by no means my only cases. I have been inundated—and, indeed, saddened—by cases of the many families across Lancashire and the whole country who are suffering the same plight.

Autism must be understood, as must the child in question. Information provided by Lancashire county council and other authorities suggests that they do not have data about the number of children with autism who are out of school. The way in which they store the data means that they cannot be broken down by disability, which is clearly a problem in itself.

Furthermore, there is evidently a problem with Lancashire county council’s approach to autism. According to information that I obtained from an individual involved in a professional capacity with the council, in March the head of inclusion and disability, Sally Riley, held an information and training morning for all school staff about the new SEN code, which has been mentioned today. During it, the number of tribunals was discussed, as was the council’s success in winning them. For me, that is the wrong way round: it is not for the council to win a tribunal against a child; the child should win the tribunal because otherwise they are put out of school. Why do tribunals not understand that children need help? I would be delighted if such a department head at the county council stood up and said, “I’m sorry. We’ve failed every tribunal, and every child has got the school they need.” Unfortunately, however, what is happening is the other way around. The figures highlighted that the council had won more than they had lost, which is disgraceful.

We are running short of time and many other Members wish to speak in this debate, so I will conclude. One big problem is that the family members of children in Burnley have rapidly lost confidence in the education department of Lancashire county council, just as, I am sure, families across the country lose confidence in their education authorities. We need to do something to resolve that situation. I hope that after this debate the Minister will take up the cudgel for children with autism, particularly those in my constituency. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, we need to find out what the problems are earlier and deliver the services sooner. I hope that the Minister will take that up.

Technical and Vocational Education

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, and normally I would be 100% behind him and seek to knock it out of the park, but on this occasion the Education Secretary has organised an international conference of educators here in the UK, which is not a bad place for the UK to be. However, my instincts are with my hon. Friend.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I urge my hon. Friend to continue making party political points, because they are rather good. Will he add that too many Government Members have no history of further education or technical colleagues, as I do? I did my A-levels at Kingston technical college.

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend is exactly right.

Talking of political divisions, the Government’s focus, as we have seen, has been not on the vocational demands of our education system but on tinkering with the curriculum and a free schools policy. At the Skills Minister’s favourite school, the Swedish private equity free school IES Breckland, which he has supported so much, Ofsted discovered “inadequate” teaching, poor behaviour and declining student literacy levels. The Swedish for-profit model that the Government were so keen to import has been exposed and discredited in the Skills Minister’s own backyard—responsible for one of the biggest falls in educational standards anywhere in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristram Hunt]

The hon. Lady should worry no more, because in 10 months’ time we will have a Labour Government delivering a sustainable education and skills policy.

Our motion talks of

“a new settlement for those young people who do not wish to pursue the traditional route into university”.

Let me lay out the Labour party’s ambition for Government to deliver equal status for vocational qualifications from school to university and beyond, to provide clear routes for highly skilled technical or professional careers and to have a dynamic, modern education system that will ensure that Britain can compete as an innovative, productive economy. We shall start with technical baccalaureates for 16 to 19-year-olds, in order to provide a clear, high-status vocational route through education. That is a Labour policy. The tech bacc will include quality level 3 vocational qualifications and a work placement to provide a line of sight through education into employment.

Our next policy is to ensure, unlike this Government, that all young people continue to study English or maths to the age of 18. These are the most essential of all 21st-century skills, and getting them right is fundamental to future career prospects. That does not mean asking young people to redo their GCSEs over and over again. Rather, it means ensuring that applied, functional and useful English and maths will help them to succeed with their careers. We will have slimline English and maths courses designed to complement a student’s core programme of study.

Furthermore, we think that English and maths should be part of an ambitious national baccalaureate framework for all learners. Alongside core academic or vocational learning in English and maths, we want young people to undertake a collaborative project and a personal development programme, which would nurture the character, the resilience and the employability skills of all our young people. Much of the tech bacc route will be delivered through further education colleges.

[Mr Sheerman]

My hon. Friend will recall that the Skills Commission inquiry into pathways at 14, chaired by Mike Tomlinson and Ian Ferguson, strongly recommended GCSE papers in practical English and practical maths. Does he think that that would be a good way forward?

[Tristram Hunt]

We want an education system in which those young people who wish to pursue technical and vocational pathways have a grounding in English and maths that will allow them to succeed in their own fields, and in which there is a much greater interrelationship between the academic and vocational pathways. That kind of qualification would provide exactly that.

This Government have hammered further education provision. They can find £45 million for a Harris free school in Westminster, but they have done that by slashing funding for further education learners and sixth-form colleges. That is a scandalous set of priorities. We will work with FE providers to improve teaching and to ensure that colleges focus on local labour markets. Our highest performing FE colleges will become institutes of technical education with a core mission to deliver Labour’s tech bacc and the on-the-job components of apprenticeships.

I have laid out the Government’s mendacious record of spin and subterfuge on apprenticeships. We will deal with the devaluing of apprenticeships by introducing a universal gold standard level 3 qualification lasting two years. We will ensure that every firm that wants a major Government contract offers apprenticeships. We will also ensure that employers are involved in the development of apprenticeships by giving them support over standards and funding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman mentions unemployment in Croydon. In his constituency, it has fallen by 29% over the past year, and the number of apprenticeships has increased by 170% since the election, so he should be saying thank you very much. As for the difficulties of managing a tight budget, whose fault is that? It is the fault of the Labour party, which left us with the biggest deficit in modern peacetime history.

[Mr Sheerman]

I apologise for having made a political point earlier. People outside the House are worried about the fact that we get into an argy-bargy between the two parties. [Interruption.] Come on. Surely there must be commonality of purpose in doing something for the young people in this country who do not go down the higher education route. Will the Minister please now give his attention to the further education sector? As hon. Members from either side of the House who care about this know, we must galvanise the FE sector to deliver what we want.

[Matthew Hancock]

Absolutely, and I am happy to work with the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), who spoke so powerfully earlier. It is a great pity that the Front-Bench spokesman’s speech was one of unremitting negativity and, crucially, that it was based on an utter misunderstanding of what is happening in vocational education. The reforms we are pushing through are about driving up standards, having higher expectations and ensuring that more young people have the chance to achieve their potential. Instead of saying that 50% should go to university and not caring—indeed, forgetting—about the rest of them, we are making sure that all young people get the chance to succeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

People like you and I, Mr Speaker, who are interested in history will remember that about 50 years ago Harold Wilson made his great “white heat of technology” speech. I recommend that Members read it, because it leaps off the page. He was talking, as Leader of the Opposition, about how Britain must transform itself in order to be a place where all of us could share in a good life. I came into politics to secure the good life for the people of this country and, in particular, my constituents. Re-reading that speech—I had not looked at it for many years—I found it remarkable how he was looking at the changed social and economic structure. He said that there would not be any room for unskilled and semi-skilled people in our country, that a production line in Detroit could make a car with no human intervention at all—automation was coming.

Harold Wilson said what a pity it was that only a tiny number of people, who were usually from posh backgrounds and going to elite institutions, were going into higher education. He said that 10% of people, instead of 5%, should be going to university, and that we should have universities in every major town and city. Of course, before long we had the expansion of the polytechnics. Interestingly, his message started a bipartisan view of upskilling our country; there was little demur about it. There is a bit of old-fashioned stuff in the speech: the Soviets had just put a man into space and shocked everyone, and his allusion to Soviet science does not ring true today. However, he was right to say, “This is our country and its social and economic structure is changing fast.”

During my time in this House, the social and economic structure of the country has moved very fast—we can all see that. Now, fewer than 10% of people make anything, while 30% are in public services—health, education and local authorities—and 60% are in the private sector, with 1% in agriculture. That means that most people are working in the private sector. If they are looking after people—at the bottom end or the top end, young people or old people—they will be on the minimum wage or minimum wage plus. That also applies to people in retail and distribution. There are some very good jobs in the private sector. Cross-hatching that, most of the jobs are in small and medium-sized companies, not the big companies.

When I left school, I went to work in the chemical industry and worked for ICI—a big company. I had an intensive year at Kingston technical college to get my three A-levels because I was a naughty boy and dropped out of school at 16. After getting a scholarship to the London School of Economics, I had the wonderful experience of being able to get into a growth area. As a young person seeking employment, people took the time to give me advice about what I should direct myself to. They not only estimated my capabilities but said what one could earn in different professions. Too often, we do not tell young people what their future is.

We need more bold recommendations on a bipartisan level. Why cannot we go back to sharing policies? None of us have got it right on vocational and technical education. The former Labour Government put in a lot of effort, leadership and resources. We did not get everything right, but we had some success. The current Government have not had all successes, although it is absolutely true that they have made some improvements. However, there are some radical proposals that no party has listened to, although Labour is moving towards them. We should not have unemployment under the age of 25. We should be like the Dutch. Why should any young person up to the age of 25 not be in education or training, or in a job with training, getting valuable work experience? I agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that we should not allow young people to live on a little bit of housing benefit in the shadow land—that is no way to grow up. We all need to grasp that there should be no unemployment or idleness under the age of 25.

Anyone without maths and science as part of their background is never going to make it. I applaud the maths hub launched by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). We absolutely need that.

In the last few moments of my speech, I want to make another radical proposal: I want a citizenship service. People who go to university are too young and some young people remain idle for too long, so we need a citizenship service for everyone, including those at university.

The only way any of us will get what we want is by reinvigorating the further education sector. There are more than 350 FE institutions and we all have one not too far from our constituencies. We can have university technical colleges and all sorts of new-fangled things, but FE colleges will deliver the numbers we need. They have to be given that push and the resources. A lot of young people who have failed in other education pathways go to FE colleges and they need the best help available. The quality of FE maths teaching is deplorable, so let’s do something about FE.

Finally, let us not forget the parents. No one has mentioned the parents yet. A child’s parents can back them, put them up and wipe away their tears if they are being bullied at school. We learned last night that a supportive mum and dad can compensate for horrible bullying. There is something wrong when a reasonable percentage of people in this country do not get that family support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

That is an issue that the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), the Department for Transport and I will have to examine. As I understand it, under the arrangements that will prevail in 2015, this is very much a matter for the two LEPs involved to exercise their priorities.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Some really good stuff has happened under the regional growth fund, and I am glad to see the next round, but it is still not enough. We are still not getting borrowing for start-ups. New entrepreneurs are not being encouraged enough, and we are not using crowdfunding and crowdsourcing enough. What will the Secretary of State do to increase the number of young entrepreneurs who have access to capital so that they can make a difference?

[Vince Cable]

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive remarks at the beginning. On funding, he will be pleased to know that under the StartUp loan scheme, we now have 13,000 loans that have been disbursed. They operate through the Business Bank, which is also funding crowdfunding, and it is operating on a significant scale and accelerating fast.

Government Child Protection Policy

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that ChildLine, which has been going for some years, has been a good influence. Does she believe that a neutral child line in every local authority would help to bridge the gap for children who are terrified of talking to anyone?

[Meg Munn]

ChildLine certainly makes it much easier for children to raise the issue. The work it does in providing an ear for children is the right way forward. I am not sure whether it would be appropriate for every local authority to have a child line. Some local authorities have in the past considered a phone number providing a complaints system for children being cared for within the authority. I agree that it is an enormously important area. We did not consider it this time in our report but it would be good to examine best practice and what happens in local authorities that investigate complaints they receive from children. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.

The report and recommendations are available in hard copy and also, thanks to the NSPCC, on its website. The recommendations must be set in the context of greater interministerial working, with action plans for all areas to ensure that every child who has experienced sexual abuse gets the support they need. It is only in that context of a joined-up action plan that a truly preventive model can be developed. The recommendations are for a review of the information-sharing guidelines issued in 2009; for the Home Office national working group on sexual violence against children and vulnerable people to prioritise the issue of harmful sexual behaviour—defined as abuse by children and young people against other children and young people; for the Department for Education to work with education providers and local safeguarding children boards to make sure that priority is given to specialised sexual abuse training for social workers and teachers; for better and more consistent support for victims of child sexual abuse to be available, from disclosure through the entire court process and beyond into therapeutic support; for the Government to improve whistleblowing processes by promoting the whistleblowing code of practice and improving training and support for professionals; and for the Government to work with professional disciplinary bodies and other expert bodies to consider forms of institutional duty on leaders of institutions to report allegations of abuse. I know that the Minister is committed to developing an effective service and therefore I ask for his response to the recommendations.

Finally, I want to talk briefly about the Government’s recent consultation on allowing greater outsourcing or delegation of children’s services. The all-party group did not consider that, so I am giving my personal views. Most of the responses to the consultation raised the issue of privatisation and seeking profit out of child protection services. I welcome the Government’s speedy response that the range of functions in question can be delegated only to non-profit-making organisations. I recognise that many services are already provided by such organisations, and that that can be beneficial. However, there is a big difference between providing therapeutic services to children and being responsible for the investigation of suspected child abuse. The Minister has been clear in parliamentary answers to me that local authorities will continue to be responsible for child protection investigations even if they delegate them to someone else, and will therefore remain responsible for quality.

I caution about going down that route, however. Reviews into the deaths of children over the past four decades identify the same key contributors: poor communication and sharing of information. Even more problematic is the point at which a case is referred from one local authority to another—a danger point for children and for continuity of service. Surely delegation of that responsibility would exacerbate the risks, building in another layer of accountability, monitoring and checking. I ask the Minister to consider the special nature of child protection investigations.

[Mr Sheerman]

On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that in child protection we want the best service possible? That is usually delivered by a locally and democratically accountable children’s service, maintained by highly skilled and highly trained professionals who are rewarded, led and managed well. It is about having a culture of excellence. Does she agree that the designs to introduce outsourcing could destroy that culture?

[Meg Munn]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. I know that the Minister is concerned when local authorities do not deliver that high standard. I believe strongly that this sector is the responsibility of local authorities, and that if they are failing, that should be dealt with not by delegation but by the kind of action the Government have taken in various situations. I am not judging those particular situations—it is not for me to do so—but I believe that if there is an issue with local authority services in child protection investigations it should be dealt with through the offices of the Children’s Minister and not through delegation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) not only for calling this important debate but for her assiduous work in preparing for it and for the work that she has carried out in her own constituency and Parliament on child protection. Her speech was measured; it was also moving in parts, with recollections of some of the horrific abuse that children have suffered at the hands of adults and, in some cases, other minors. She has put forward a strong and coherent argument for keeping our gaze firmly fixed on the children who are the victims in all this.

Following on from our meeting last week, I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady that I share absolutely her passion for protecting children from the appalling form of abuse she raised, as well as other kinds of abuse and neglect. That is why we are taking action not just within my own Department but right across Government to learn the lessons from past mistakes, to see how we can improve the services that are there to protect children, and to make sure that professionals have the capability and the space to spot the signs of abuse and that they know how to act on those signs.

I will try to address the points the hon. Lady raised, in particular the key recommendations of the report by the all-party group. If I do not cover a point in sufficient detail to satisfy her, I will of course write to her. Many of the report’s recommendations are directed at other Government Departments and I will endeavour to ensure that they play their full part in providing a full and proper reply.

[Mr Sheerman]

Before the Minister moves on to the specific points raised in the report, I should say that in this very room only a month or so ago there was a harrowing session on children’s access to pornography, involving some very good campaigners. Does he think that that problem might be partly responsible for some of the early sexualisation of children and the behaviour that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) described?

[Mr Timpson]

I sit as one of the co-chairs of the board of the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, an organisation that has done some excellent work in grappling with precisely the issues the hon. Gentleman raises, as well as pushing internet service providers, and others who are there to protect children online, to do more to make sure that they are protected.

As a result, there is clearly more enriched research into the causal link between exposure to pornography and possible impacts on behaviour, attitudes and boundaries among children. We are learning more about how one affects the other and it would be remiss of us not to look more carefully at what more we can do to try to prevent some of the appalling consequences of exposure to online pornography and other forms of abuse that children, unfortunately, find more readily accessible now than was the case in the past.

[Mr Sheerman]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Timpson]

Very briefly—I want to address the hon. Lady’s points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sheerman]

Just to push the Minister on that, my constituents are appalled not only about online pornography but about what is available on their television screens through Freeview. What will he do about that?

[Mr Timpson]

That is another area of advanced technology where we cannot simply maintain the status quo in our response, especially as smart TVs are becoming more prevalent on the market. A strand within the UKCCIS board is working specifically on how we can better ensure that anything broadcast through that medium is controlled more readily than it has been in the past. Of course, we need to do much more work to keep up with fast-moving changes in technology. I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman with more details if that would be helpful.

The all-party group’s report recommends a whole host of important considerations for various parts of Government to take forward. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley touched on a number and I will address a few in the time I have available. One was about information sharing—an issue that goes to the heart of the problems that underlie the failure that too often occurs in child protection. Anyone who sits down and reads a serious case review will see a common theme, as information sharing is often at the heart of why things have gone horribly wrong in the particular case.

The report recommends that guidelines on information sharing should be reviewed to ensure that professionals are clear about when data should be shared in the interests of children. I entirely agree that early sharing of information is key to providing effective early help to vulnerable children and adults. Of course, changing structures alone will not make children, or indeed adults, safe, and it is not enough simply to improve IT systems. It will be skilled professionals, who can identify problems early, working together under locally agreed and enforced arrangements, who will bring about effective information sharing.

In a number of initiatives, local partners are working in innovative ways to share information and knowledge about a child and their family, resulting in the better delivery of co-ordinated services. One such model, which I know the hon. Lady will know of, is the multi-agency safeguarding hub, or MASH, which can draw on information across all agencies, enabling them to provide a better informed referral process. Local authorities such Staffordshire, which was recently rated good by Ofsted, have made effective use of the MASH model to strengthen local partnership working and to provide better safeguarding services for children.

An independent report into the effectiveness of MASH was commissioned by the London safeguarding children board, and found that turnaround times for child protection cases involving children with high or complex needs had almost halved in some areas since the London MASH programme began in 2011. However, that is just one model, which allows services to work together in a co-ordinated way.

The hon. Lady referred to the statutory guidance published last year—the “Working Together to Safeguard Children 2013” guidance. That was revised to try to make the legislation and its requirements as clear as possible so that all organisations know what the law says they and others must do. The guidance provides the essentials to enable and encourage good cross-agency working so that all organisations understand what they should do to provide a co-ordinated approach to child protection.

The all-party group notes that different Departments lead on different aspects of the work to protect children from abuse. I understand the point; if responsibilities are not clear, whether in local or national Government, I will be happy to explain from the national perspective how my role fits with those of my colleagues. When I met the hon. Lady last week, I gave her what I hope was a clear read-out of where that responsibility lies. My Department has overall responsibility for reforms to the child protection system, professionalising children’s social care services and making life better for children in care and leaving care.

Bringing about the sort of changes we want in tackling sexual abuse of children requires a much broader programme of work involving several Departments, and that is reflected in the recommendations in the all-party group’s report. That is why the Government set up the cross-Government national group on sexual violence against children and vulnerable people, its purpose being to take forward much of the urgent work needed to address the missed opportunities to protect children and vulnerable adults. That national group is a board of leading experts from relevant agencies: the inspectorates, the police, voluntary and community organisations and senior colleagues from across government. Through the group, the Government are committing resources and important energy to meet significant safeguarding challenges, including child abuse, trafficking, missing people and child sexual exploitation, as well as managing sex offenders and tackling online pornography and paedophile literature.

[Mr Timpson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In my previous job as a family barrister, all too often I came across the whole issue of intrafamilial sexual abuse that she spoke about. There is an opportunity through the group’s action plan to raise the matter more readily within it and to consider harmful sexual behaviour among young people where it is more likely to occur, and what our response is on the ground. I am happy to give her an undertaking to raise the matter in that group so that it is much more at the forefront of the thinking not just of the action plan, but the following action. Although the issue does not receive the same level of interest as some more high-profile cases, it is more embedded in society and we must find better ways to talk about it and ways to tackle it.

The hon. Lady alluded to the all-party group’s recommendation for my Department to ensure that higher priority is given to specialised training for social workers and teachers in spotting the signs of sexual abuse, including through the work of local safeguarding children boards. This is an area on which several LSCBs have made good progress. For example, last year I visited Oxfordshire county council, which has delivered specialist training for staff across agencies on child sexual exploitation, on the back of some horrific cases in the city of Oxford, as well as producing a professional handbook and a screening tool to help staff to spot the early signs of grooming and to take action.

More broadly, the Department for Education is taking forward a broad range of work to improve the skills and knowledge of front-line professionals. Isabelle Trowler, the first chief social worker for children and families, is leading work to define what a child and family social worker needs to know to practise effectively. That includes being able to identify and respond to sexual abuse and specific forms of child sexual abuse. If the hon. Lady would like to talk to the chief social worker about that area of her work, I will do what I can to make that arrangement. A final draft of the knowledge and skills document will be completed in the summer, following which we will consult widely to ensure that it accords with other people’s views.

Higher education institutions that deliver social work degree courses are required to ensure that newly qualified social workers are able to analyse and evaluate information, assess risks and intervene appropriately, so that they can give effective support to children and young people who have experienced sexual abuse. Following Sir Martin Narey’s review, we are overhauling the training and education of social workers to give trainees the expertise they need and employers more confidence in newly qualified recruits.

We have also launched the new fast track front-line training programme to attract the brightest and best to social work. We have spent more than £400 million on the social work bursary and our Step Up to Social Work programme—I have just announced the fourth cohort—is to ensure that we have enough highly skilled staff to meet demand.

[Mr Sheerman]

I remember when all three of us—the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley and I—were on the same Committee, and one thing that we were really worried about when we looked at the training of social workers was their experience on the job. So many of them did not have relevant experience in a demanding local authority team. Is the Minister doing anything about that work experience?

[Mr Timpson]

Part of the issue is recruitment and part is retention and keeping experienced social workers on the front line not just managing cases, but being involved in the daily work required to ensure that families keep children safe and make progress. The assessed and supported year in employment programme—the ASYE—enables newly qualified social workers to feel supported enough to gain that experience and not drift out of social work because of the pressure they are under.

We also now have principal family social workers moving into all local authorities so that there is a lead social worker, who may previously have moved up into management all too readily. One advantage of some of the flexibilities of delegated functions is, as in Staffordshire with the Evolve YP social work practice scheme, a much flatter management arrangement so that senior social workers are active in the expertise and professionalism that brought them into social work in the first place.

The all-party group also recommended that the Government should lead on providing better and more consistent support for victims of child sexual abuse. It must be right that every victim of sexual violence has access to adequate service provision that meets their individual needs and supports them in coping and recovering, particularly in relation to children. To help children who have been trafficked, the Home Office has announced proposals to trial specialist independent advocates, and I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware of that. A new code of practice for victims of crime came into force in December 2013 and will give victims of crime clear entitlement from criminal justice agencies and will better tailor services to individual need. It contains a section dedicated to the needs of children and young people.

The Government’s review of ways to reduce the distress to victims in sexual violence trials was published on 31 March and recognises the benefits of specialisation of those involved in sexual violence cases. It proposes that the bodies responsible for professional conduct and practitioners should be encouraged to develop an accreditation system for defence advocates that is open and transparent. I will write to the hon. Lady with more details of that.

The hon. Lady touched on sexual abuse in institutions and rightly highlighted the importance of preventing sexual abuse in those environments, ensuring that those who have concerns about children can raise them. As she will know, my Department, like all Departments, takes historical abuse very seriously indeed. That is why Lucy Scott-Moncrieff is providing quality assurance independently on all the investigations that derive from schools and children’s homes. She will report to the Secretary of State later this year about the lessons she learns from those investigations. That will be very helpful in informing the Government’s next steps in tackling sexual abuse in institutions.

The all-party group made recommendations on the whistleblowing process, on which local authorities should have a strong policy. Time prevents me from going into more detail about that.

I thank the hon. Lady for her continued interest in this vital area of our work in this place. I am happy to continue to work with her to try to improve things in future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely do agree. It is important to bear in mind that the All Saints school in Reading was outstanding in every category when it was inspected by Ofsted. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to ensure that the quality of education that Reading parents enjoy continues to improve.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that what we need in education is a balance between free schools and academies and a role, as there surely must be, for local democracy? Is this the resistance that the Prime Minister has to the expansion of the free schools programme: that there is not enough local democracy in it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

I am delighted that, like many other places in the country, the number of apprentices in Harlow is increasing, and the number of employers taking on apprentices is increasing. During the last year, the increase in those applying for apprenticeships through the apprenticeship vacancy website rose by 50% to 1.5 million, not all of them in Harlow, but many. The culture of apprenticeships is on the rise again in Britain.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Has the Secretary of State noticed the groundswell of opposition to the proposal that the Government might privatise child protection services in local authorities? Has he clearly got the message from people as diverse as Professor Eileen Munro and Caitlin Moran in The Times that that is an unacceptable place for privatisation?

[Michael Gove]

I have enormous respect for both Eileen Munro and Caitlin Moran in The Times, and I have been influenced by both of them in different ways. I should stress that we are not proposing the handing over of services that are there to protect vulnerable children to people who are after a fast buck. We have an innovation programme that has been endorsed by many leading organisations, charities and third sector organisations that work with the most vulnerable children. The problem at the moment is that far too many local authorities either require improvement or are very poor in the way in which they look after these vulnerable children. We need to work with external organisations to ensure that those children have the best possible future.

Free Schools (Funding)

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Education Committee. I absolutely confirm that the evidence shared with him was 100% correct.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Surely the point of this urgent question is to ask the Secretary of State to clear up the unholy row not with the Opposition, but between members of the coalition. What is being lost is the right of children to have a decent education. Primary school places must be delivered where they are needed, not where they are not.

[Michael Gove]

I have enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman and he makes three important points. First, as we have just heard from the Chairman of the Education Committee, the Minister for Schools has confirmed to the Committee that the hon. Gentleman once chaired that spending on free schools augments basic need funding. Secondly, he is absolutely right that we both share a desire to ensure that there are more good school places where they are needed across the country. Free schools are playing a part in that. As I pointed out in my statement and as I know he welcomes, free schools, academies and communities are all contributing to the fact that our teachers are delivering more good and outstanding lessons than ever before, and that no child is without a primary school place.

Catholic Schools (Admissions)

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Damian Hinds]

I will happily do so: I contend that the ethos and character of Catholic schools, although they are not the only factors, are key contributors to the performance of such schools in all senses. It is categorically not the case that Catholic schools get better results by being some sort of middle-class filtering service.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing this debate. I associate myself with his remarks on the tragedy in Leeds, which is close to my constituency. It is an awful thing to happen.

I press the hon. Gentleman on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello). When I chaired the Select Committee on Education, we found real evidence that many Christian schools, both Catholic and Anglican—I am an active Christian myself—manage to get far fewer people from poorer backgrounds than one would expect from any interpretation of the population both inside and outside the Catholic community. There is evidence, and surely the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) must worry about that.

[Damian Hinds]

That would be a worry. I never had the privilege of serving under the hon. Gentleman’s distinguished chairmanship of the Education Committee, although when I subsequently served on the Committee, we had a session on similar matters, and we did not find that to be the case. Depending on our point of view and the point that one is trying to make, we can draw boundaries around schools in different ways. We can draw an immediate boundary or a wider boundary. A little later, I will go through some of the actual statistics on the intake of Catholic schools.

[Mr Sheerman]

The hon. Gentleman is being kind in giving way again. The Education Committee’s report—I am looking at the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), who was a member of the Committee at the time—recommended a mandatory code for admissions, which made a difference. Under the mandatory code, schools have to obey a fair admissions policy. That is why, when the Education Committee returned to the matter, many of the problems had been resolved.

[Damian Hinds]

Catholic schools and all maintained, state-funded schools are, of course, subject to fair admissions procedures, which I will address later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I acknowledge: there are 2,000 Catholic schools in this country, and one of them is the London Oratory school. When these stories come up, they always centre on literally a handful of schools, virtually all of which are in west or south-west London. They are in no way representative of Catholic education as a whole, whether in location, resident population or type of school and so on.

[Mr Sheerman]

We all know why London Oratory became so well known: Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, sent his children there. I always defended that, because he was, as I understand it, the first Prime Minister ever to send his children to a state school. To put the record straight for anyone reading the report of this debate, before the reforms, when I was Chair of the Education Committee, the crucial thing was not just the number of children on free school meals, but the numbers of looked-after children and children with special educational needs. Things have not much improved, but I have to put on record, as a lay canon at Wakefield cathedral, that we often found that Anglican schools were worse than Catholic schools.

[Damian Hinds]

That is probably a road that we do not want to go down today. Overall, notwithstanding the poster child cases that can be found on occasion—

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

The trade deficit actually narrowed in 2013, so I repeat that I do not think it is right to take just the figures from February. We have specifically been helping the chemical sector recently. The energy package announced in the Budget will make a significant difference in freezing the carbon price floor. We are giving the chemical industry more help by exempting it from the renewables obligation and the feed-in tariffs. The energy taxes are being cut, which will significantly help both the chemical and the steel industry.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What steps he is taking to ensure that universities remain financially sustainable in the long term.

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

Our higher education reforms have increased university income and reduced costs to taxpayers. In 2011, universities received £7.9 billion of income for teaching. Next year, they will receive £9.9 billion. Universities are now well funded, on a sustainable basis for the long term.

[Mr Sheerman]

The Minister will be surprised to hear that I do not agree with relative complacency. I am a member of the Higher Education Commission and we are taking evidence on the long-term financial viability of our higher education sector. Time and time again, the Higher Education Policy Institute, the vice-chancellors, Lord Baker, Charles Clarke and everyone else who gives evidence to the commission say there is a serious, deep problem. We are not getting any British post-graduates as a result of the £9,000 a year. Something is deeply wrong. Will the Minister act before it is too late?

[Mr Willetts]

We now have record numbers of people applying to university. The funding is going to the courses that students choose. We are getting rid of controls on numbers of students. This system is financed by graduates—not students, but graduates—paying money back. That is the right way to finance our higher education. It is the system that all three parties have ended up proposing when they had to confront the realities of financing higher education. It is the right way forward for our young people.