Childcare Bill [Lords]

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I am delighted to hear about the work of the nurseries in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Yes, I can give him that assurance. The national funding formula review will apply not only to schools but to early years, and it will include the high-needs block of funding as well.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The doubling of hours for childcare is great, but how will we ensure that the quality of the care that our children receive will be doubled up? How will we ensure that there are sufficient places, and that they are of the right quality?

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. We are, of course, doubling the entitlement to free childcare for two-year-olds, which originally applied to 20% who were the most disadvantaged, and now applies to 40%. The sector responded by creating an additional 230,000 places over the last Parliament. It has already risen to the challenge, and will do so again. I shall go on to say something about the way in which families will respond to the entitlement and how they will use the additional hours—I am sure that other Members will speak about that as well—but we know that there is already spare capacity in the system.

Further Education

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

I want to make two points in response to the motion. First, it is not quite as simple as just funding. Secondly, we need to have a plan to afford an increase in funding.

Wiltshire college recently invested £21 million in a new Chippenham campus, which will bring long-term local economic benefits. It is a fantastic space for students to learn in. It has an excellent reputation and I am sure it will go from strength to strength, but it needs more pupil funding. Sixth-form colleges in my constituency are also suffering, in particular Abbeyfield school, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray). Like countless others, it suffers from the burden of private finance initiative funding of its sixth-form building.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I make a brief intervention to say that my own further and higher education college, Bromley college, is in dire need of funding?

[Michelle Donelan]

I thank my hon. Friend for echoing my comments.

The school is also running a growing deficit, which is putting a real strain on its finances.

Spending on 16 and 17-year-olds is 22% lower than spending on 11 to 16-year-olds, and spending on 18-year-olds is a further 17.5% lower. I urge the Chancellor to address that in the spending review, and to ensure that funding for 16 to 18-year-olds is brought into line with the Department’s ring-fencing. It is a shame that the debate was not delayed until after the spending review, when we could have had a more productive and informed discussion.

We must bear it in mind, however—and I do not think this point has been stressed enough by Opposition Members—that a good FE offering is not just about funding We need to consider far broader issues in our education system, and think about its links with our national productivity. I therefore welcome the Government’s productivity plan. Increasing funds will not fix everything. Today’s debate only serves to highlight the fact that Labour seriously believes that simply throwing money at a problem will be a cure-all when it really will not. The truth is that we have a crisis in our career education system. We still have no tangible link between the education system and the workforce, because our school funding system is still a postcode lottery. The Government are trying to resolve deep-rooted, complex issues, and the topic of the debate is therefore far too simplistic.

Having spoken to local businesses throughout my constituency, I am well aware of the recruitment challenges that they face, given the lack of appropriate skills. According to a recent survey by the Institution of Engineering and Technology, six out of 10 companies said that skills shortage was a threat to their business in the United Kingdom. Simply pumping money into FE will not resolve the problem. It is true that courses have been removed because of a lack of funding, but because students may opt for other courses, they are not always financially viable. So what is the answer? Do we pump money into them to prop them up, or do we encourage our students to opt for the courses that will lead to jobs?

International Women’s Day

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Jo Swinson)]

It is a great pleasure to respond to this important and enjoyable debate and to follow the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). I join her in congratulating the wide range of groups and organisations that do so much to campaign for the rights of women and girls, particularly on the subject of representation, which is key to this whole agenda.

We have heard excellent speeches today from Members on both sides of the House, although not quite enough men have contributed to the debate. I hope that in future years more of our male colleagues will be tempted to take part, and I offer my sincere thanks to those hon. Gentlemen who have taken part today.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I should like to intervene at this point.

[Jo Swinson]

I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend.

[Bob Stewart]

One of the reasons I came to listen to the debate today was that I want to applaud women. In my experience—I am talking about my military experience—they are not just equal; they are sometimes at a higher level. Women are fantastic at running operations rooms, for example. They are better than men at doing that. Also, I often used to choose a woman, rather than a man, to run a negotiation or a mediation. On international women’s day, we should not only applaud women for being equal but emphasise the fact that they can be much better than men at doing some things.

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend makes the case for having diversity within teams so that a wide range of skills can be brought to any given task.

We need to strike the right balance in these debates between celebrating progress and harnessing energy for change. It is right that we should celebrate the great progress we have seen in the past five years. We have seen a huge increase in the number of women on company boards, for example, and the first woman bishop. Also, the First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), has done excellent work to propel up the international agenda the issue of preventing sexual violence in conflict. We have seen changes in employment law to extend the right to request flexible working and to introduce shared parental leave. Tax threshold changes have taken 3 million people out of taxation, 58% of whom are women, and there has been new legislation to criminalise forced marriage, to expand the definition of domestic abuse and to introduce new stalking offences. And of course, there are more women in work than ever before.

However, we should not kid ourselves that it is all fine, because it is not. It is not okay that three quarters of company directors in the FTSE 100 are male. It is not okay that girls and women face a continual stream of sexist insults and abuse, as documented by the Everyday Sexism project. It is not okay that there is still a 19% gender pay gap. It is not okay that two women a week are killed as a result of domestic violence. It is not okay that 40% of teenage girls report being coerced into having sex. It is not okay that a pregnant MP who dares to aspire to a Cabinet role should be subjected to a sexist diatribe by various sections of the media. And it is not okay that three quarters of MPs are men. So we still have a lot more to do.

In the debate today we have heard not only celebration but a call to arms for the tasks and battles ahead. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), the former Minister for Women and Equalities, has undertaken excellent work to ensure that revenge porn is properly criminalised and that action is taken in that regard. She made the case for a House of Commons Select Committee on women and equality, as has the all-party parliamentary group for women in Parliament. That is long overdue. There seems to be an obvious gap in our Select Committee structure and, although this is not a matter for the Government, I hope that the powers that be in the House will give the matter serious consideration when the new Parliament convenes in a few weeks’ time.

We have also heard that more progress is needed on finding ways of celebrating women around Parliament, including perhaps through portraits. We heard many good suggestions from various contributors, and I am sure that Mr Speaker and others will look at them with interest in Hansard.

We heard from the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) about a range of issues. She talked movingly about how women, whatever they decide, will always feel that they have made the wrong decision. It reminded me of a piece I heard on Radio 4’s “The News Quiz”, where Sandi Toksvig, in an answer, said, “Of course women cannot get it right, can they? If they have no kids, they are heartless. If they have children and stay at home, they are lazy. And if they have children and go out to work, they are selfish.” In response to silence from the other panellists she then said, “It’s not a joke. It’s just a rant.” I very much enjoyed that rant, and she was just stating a point of fact: women are judged for whatever they decide to do. We should be much more accommodating in recognising that people make different decisions.

The hon. Lady also talked about how women are still doing two thirds of the unpaid work, and I wholeheartedly agree that that is one of the major barriers to equality. It is one of the reasons why I am so enthusiastic about the changes we have made to introduce shared parental leave, because I do not believe we will be able to get equality in the workplace until we get more equality at home. Interestingly, Sheryl Sandberg points out in her excellent book “Lean In” that one of the important choices a woman makes for her career if she wishes to have a family is what the partner she chooses to do so with is like, because the attitudes he takes will have a massive impact on how she is able to juggle career and family responsibilities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) talked about women in business, giving a huge range of examples of successful business women, many of whose websites and shops I have to confess to using. I appreciate what they do from both a business perspective and a consumer perspective. I also pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend has done for business women in her constituency and more widely, particularly with the all-party group.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) talked about the importance of many women with young children setting up businesses, and using that as a catalyst to make the change, and that of course can lead to great success. She also mentioned the important issue of how we set expectations early as to what girls and boys should be interested in, and whether they take on scientific or more domestic roles. She discussed how the toys they use at an early age can have an impact. That is so important because, as the recent Department for Work and Pensions campaign “Not just for boys” shows, we have a massive shortage of women in many sectors such as science, engineering and technology, and it is important that we address that. I have to say that #notjustforboys is a pretty good hashtag, but it does not compete with one of the best hashtags ever, #dinosaursforall. That is about a campaign set up by women who are very frustrated that Marks & Spencer has launched a new range of clothing, in conjunction with the Natural History museum, that has dinosaurs all over it and, surprise, surprise, it is marketed only at boys, because girls could not possibly be interested in dinosaurs. Tell that to my niece Charlotte—she would certainly disagree. Although these sometimes appear to be more light-hearted examples, the messages we send to children are very important in terms of what they grow up thinking they can and cannot do.

The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) spoke movingly about the recent documentary on the rape in India, and I agree with her that it is to the credit of the media in this country that they do showcase these issues and highlight these problems. She is absolutely right to say that we must demolish these rape myths—the victim is never to blame. She also talked about older workers and said that she is looking forward to the report from Ros Altmann, as am I. We are recognising some of the specific challenges that older women might face, particularly carers. That goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury, who said that women tend to do two thirds of the unpaid work, because older women often have those caring responsibilities. That is why we have recently launched a £1.6 million project to run pilots with local authorities on how we can get carers into employment and make sure they are properly supported. I hope the results of those pilots can show us some good evidence about how we might take further projects forward. The hon. Member for Slough is also absolutely right to say that women need to be around the Cabinet Committee tables and in those positions of power. This is about power, and much as I dearly love my male colleagues, who do a fantastic job in standing up for their women constituents, we need diversity of representation if we are truly to get the action we need on this wide range of issues.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) talked a lot about the international elements of international women’s day and highlighted the HeForShe campaign, which I agree is hugely important; men do have a vital role to play in this. Like her, I found the way Emma Watson kicked off that campaign absolutely amazing. Listening to the power of the speech given by that young woman, I thought she was a credit to the entire country in setting out the case so brilliantly.

The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) talked about FGM and was absolutely right to highlight this abhorrent crime. We are taking strong action on that. We have set up a specialist unit to deal with FGM—we held the girl summit last year—and to take global leadership. However, in no way do we think that this is not a problem in the UK—it is, as well as in other countries. That is why we are introducing a mandatory requirement for all health care and social care professionals and teachers to report FGM to the police. The lack of prosecutions is a problem, but that mandatory reporting will enable the evidence to be gathered. I hope and believe that situation will change in the future.

It was wonderful to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) about the original Beijing conference and Platform for Action that she attended, along with the drafting process of 189 Governments having to agree the text. That sounded interesting and it showed that Members of the House have obviously been working on this for a long time. [Interruption.] It is 20 years since that Beijing conference, but there is much more to do.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

We have heard overwhelming support for the principles of fairness and equality behind the Bill, and I would like to pick up on a number of comments that have been made. I will start by thanking the official Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), for his party’s support. Perhaps it was remiss of me not to mention that at an earlier stage, but I welcome it. He said that female clergy are less tribal than their male counterparts—I do not know whether that applies to this Chamber as well, but perhaps we shall see during the course of the rest of the debate.

The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the Church remains a vital institution in our society. He then moved away from the purpose of this very simple Bill and touched on the issue of wider constitutional reform. If I am allowed a moment or two of deviation, Mr Deputy Speaker, I certainly support what the hon. Gentleman said about the idea of a citizen-led constitutional convention. Like him, however, my only concern is the extent to which that might scoop up such a range of issues that it would never be able to pronounce: it would take such an extended period that it could not come up with anything usable. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech.

The right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) gave us a historical tour, a theological tour and then a topical tour of bishops’ roles and responsibilities. He helpfully underlined the wide-ranging support in the Church for the Bill.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) outlined her support for not only the Bill, but a wider change to how the House of Lords operates. She sensibly identified the fact that we have not yet been able to come to any satisfactory conclusion on that matter, but I am sure future Governments will want to return to it. I wish them greater success than we have had in effecting real change in the House of Lords, as well as in achieving 100% election to the second Chamber; that is my preference, although I would be happy to settle for a compromise of 80% election and 20% appointment.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who is in his place, underlined the importance of ensuring that the widest possible range of Church of England traditions are represented among the Lords Spiritual. Clearly, it is not my place to speak on behalf of the Church of England and it would be inappropriate for me to do so, but I must say that it would be very surprising if it did not seek to represent the full range of traditions within its appointments.

The hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) comprehensively set out why the Bill is needed. She said that it is for the Church to grasp this matter through its appointments in the next few years. Again, it would be surprising if the Church, having encouraged the Government to bring forward a measure as quickly as we have, did not respond by ensuring that its appointment process enabled some dioceses to have women bishops. That is not a matter for me, however, and we await the outcome.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) had a picture in his mind of lords a-leaping; we all have our own picture in our minds. He underlined his very valuable role in breaking the mould in appointing the Rev. Christine Shillaker to support him when he was mayor. He made a very naked and very parochial plug—the only way is Essex—for the next diocese to be created, and I would expect nothing less.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Tom Brake]

I am happy to give way, perhaps for another naked plug.

[Bob Stewart]

I was confirmed by the Bishop of Chelmsford, so I think he is a great guy. I support the bid for Colchester made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell). We could easily have another bishop down there.

[Tom Brake]

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester welcomes that support for his cause. He may well rope in the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) to his campaign in the next few years.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who is not in her place, rightly sang the praises of women clergy in general, and of those in her constituency in particular. That gives me an opportunity to sing the praises of the women clergy in the London borough of Sutton, who also do a fantastic job in the community.

Finally, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said that the Bill is “unopposable”. From looking around the Chamber and listening to the speeches made so far, I think he is right that it will not be opposed tonight. I heard and understood his request for wider faith representation but, like the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, I think that a dilemma is involved. We might want wider faith representation because that is a sensible thing to do in a second Chamber that has faith representation, but how do we reconcile that with the idea of a fully elected second Chamber? The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby did not have an answer to that, and I am not going to pronounce on it from a Liberal Democrat perspective from the Dispatch Box this evening.

As hon. Members will have noticed, this is a very short Bill. It addresses a particular problem—namely, the delay in female bishops becoming eligible to sit in the House of Lords as Lords Spiritual if they were required to wait their turn under the present rules. Without the Bill, there would be a long wait before female bishops would be represented among their male counterparts in the House of Lords. That would not be fair. The Bill corrects that unfairness by ensuring that the Lords Spiritual benefit from having female bishops among their number as soon as possible. That is the question the Bill has been designed to address, with the support of the Church of England. It is a response to the historic decision of the Church of England to allow women to become bishops, and it is a proportionate and sensible adaptation of the existing rules to accommodate that decision. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank my hon. Friend for making a good point. When we are talking about scale, it is true that there is a difference between those who are buying in bulk and those who are buying in small quantities. I want to return to the point I was making earlier, which was that we want our publicans to get a fair deal. We want to ensure that they pay a decent amount of rent and a decent price for their beer, so that their businesses can be successful.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

But can my hon. Friend tell me why so many tied publicans are going out of business? Why is that happening?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, and I do not defend the fact that there have been bad practices, that some people have been dealt with unfairly and that some of the pubcos have acted incorrectly. The point is that this Bill, as set out by the coalition Government, will address that by bringing in a statutory code that will provide protection for tenants. For the first time ever, tenants who feel that they are paying too much rent or paying too much for their beer or spirits will have some redress in law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer]

I could not agree more. When I tot up in my head the amount of interest that I have paid on a business account for overdrafts incurred because of non-payment by large customers over the years, and when I think of the amount of money that could have been spent on product development, employing new people and growing my business, it is immensely frustrating even now to think of all that wasted money. My hon. Friend is entirely right that in any business in which the process involves the purchase of large capital goods, whether that is in manufacturing or in construction, and the business is dependent on paying its suppliers in order to create an end product, the middle guy is stuffed if he is not paid on time.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) referred to the construction industry. That is where my first business was. I was running a small business, largely working for very large multinationals or for the Government, and my suppliers were often small businesses. Sometimes they were larger ones. When a business relies on the good terms of its suppliers in order to satisfy the punitive terms of its customers, that is a wrong place to be. It is, in effect, pushing credit all the way down the line. That is what I find most objectionable about large companies and Government agencies that behave in that way. They are using their supply chain as a bank. The businesses serving as that bank are not large banks; they are, in many cases, small businesses which cannot bear the cost.

A second important aspect of the Bill relates to the disqualification of directors and pre-packs. Too often, in running a small business, I ended up with bad debts because of suppliers who went bust, cleared out their overdue creditors, reinvented themselves the next day with precisely the same shareholders, directors and a whole load of other people who were connected with the previous company, and then suddenly emerged, phoenix-like—in fact, pre-packs are called phoenixes in the business—and ready to trade again. That is an absolute outrage. It goes against all the principles of a decent, liberal market economy. It is fraud.

The two key provisions that will go some way towards helping that situation are those on director disqualification, for which there is a five-year horizon—I hope that the Government will be able to use the provisions within that period—and on pre-packs, also within that period.

[Bob Stewart]

I am reminded of the time when I was running a small business. I thought that what my hon. Friend has just described was utterly illegal and people could not do it. I never believed that it was possible to close down one day and then start up as a new entity the next. I thought it was highly illegal even then, and that was 15 years ago.

[Ben Gummer]

I remember thinking it was illegal the first time it happened to me. It involved a business based on a trading estate in the east midlands, not far from where I was based. I went there one day to try to get some money out of someone who had bought something from me, and was refused the cash. When I went back two days later, everything was exactly the same apart from the name plate over the trader’s shop window and the fact that the filing cabinets had been thrown away because they contained all the creditors’ records. There was a brand-new sign but it was an old business.

The provision on the late payment of commercial debts is part of a package of measures that will transform the ability of small businesses to carry out their business.

Primary School Places (Bromley)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

As ever, I am indebted to the Speaker for allowing me this opportunity to raise an issue the like of which, in all my years as a Member and in the 20 years before that when I was a member of Lewisham borough council, I have never come across before. I have never encountered such a ham-fisted and poorly executed policy as the one I am about to describe.

The title seems quite broad, but I am going to be quite specific. I have given the Minister’s office an indication that I will be talking about the Harris primary academy/free school in Beckenham, which is located in the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who I see in his place, but the school serves a large area in the north-west of Bromley, which both he and I represent.

I am not going to debate the merits or otherwise of free schools or academies; I am simply going to ask why such a colossal mistake was made in this case. There has been a huge increase in demand for places at both primary and secondary school level. That is certainly true in our part of south-east London and I think it is more broadly true across London generally and probably across the whole country. The pressure is considerable; finding places for all our children is no mean feat.

My principal complaint is how we can have a system in which parents who have been offered places at a school for their children and have bought the uniforms ready for their children to start, can then be told, six weeks before the school is due to open, not only that they do not have the place, but that the school will not be opening? As the Daily Mail had it on 24 July, taking its normally calm and balanced approach:

“Almost 60 families have been left without school places for their children after a council scrapped a new primary school just six weeks before it was due to open.

Furious families blasted ‘shambolic’ Bromley Council after offering them places at the brand new Harris Primary Academy in Beckenham, south-east London, in April—only for councillors to block the school from opening last week.

The school, which was hoped to meet the strong demand for primary places in the area, was due to be built on the site of an existing senior school in an exclusive residential street where the average house price is nearly £2 million”—

obviously the Daily Mail’s priorities came out in that last sentence. That report was not quite right, because it was not 60 families, but something fewer than 40. None the less, for those affected by the decision—the parents and their children—it was a huge and devastating blow.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who I will call my friend—he is a very good friend of mine—regardless of House protocol. I totally agree with the thrust of what he is saying; the only thing I would point out is that most of the children have been found school places. However, I agree with him: it was a mistake of mega-proportions.

[Jim Dowd]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was going to come to that. The issue has been resolved in the short term, but its impact persists and it has exposed a severe flaw in the system by which the Department for Education, the Education Funding Agency, local education authorities and local providers procure additional places.

Let me detail the chronology of this case. I am indebted to Doug Patterson, the chief executive of Bromley council, who I asked for a full briefing on the background to this issue. In order that I do not traduce or misrepresent anybody, I will read out significant parts of it. From May 2012 onwards,

“Bromley…changed its approach to school place planning, realising the benefit of securing of school places in line with the Government’s free school and academies agenda.

Based on local school place planning data, a shortfall of primary school places was identified across the local authority planning areas 1-4,”

in particular in Shortlands and Beckenham, which are in the constituency of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), and in Penge and Anerley, which are in my constituency. The briefing continues:

“Bromley therefore sought discussions with Harris”—

that is, the Harris Federation—

“given Harris’s strong track record in Bromley and other London Boroughs. We were confident that they would be able to deliver within a relatively tight deadline in order to satisfy the shortage of primary school places.

Towards the end of 2012, two primary free schools were proposed: Harris Beckenham Primary (to be located on the already established Harris Beckenham secondary school site) and Harris Shortlands”—

again, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—

“(to be located on a new site provided by the Council). Harris undertook local consultation with groups of parents who identified specific areas where it was difficult to secure access either to their nearest school or the one of their choice. This was a necessary component of the DfE approval process.”

In May last year, the DFE

“announced their support for the two Harris Free Schools to open in September 2014…The new Harris Beckenham Primary Free School was planned to open on the existing Harris Beckenham Secondary site and Harris were responsible for securing all planning and other consents in a timely manner. The Education Funding Agency (EFA) were overseeing this development along with Harris; with the EFA responsible for the delivery of the capital scheme and the submission of the planning application. The Local Authority had minimal involvement.”

In June last year, the local authority

“were invited to give some comments on the proposed admission arrangements for the Free Schools prior to an open evening on 18 June 2013 where Harris were promoting the new Harris Beckenham Primary Free School. Harris had previously indicated a willingness to participate in the Co-ordinated Admissions Process, and this was included in the consultation document. It was felt that this would be easier for parents to understand, avoiding the need to make a separate application for the Harris free schools, and to demonstrate they were part of the Bromley primary offer…The Council had indicated willingness to work with Harris in this regard.

The EFA and Harris were driving this new Free School initiative and in this process it would appear that their emphasis at this stage was to engage local residents as potential parents rather than consider the wider planning and other issues which may have been of concern to the wider community. Indeed, no mention was made of the specific site in the consultation document and there was minimal engagement with the Council on this issue and Harris /EFA did not raise any concerns in this regard with the Council at this stage.”

I also got the submission from Harris that I asked for. It contests that, but I will come on to that in a moment.

“In a time when there is rapid growth in demand for primary places, it is often necessary to act quickly in order to provide additional places to meet the Council’s statutory duty…The EFA were under instruction from central Government not to engage with Local Authorities and therefore any opportunity for local knowledge to correct flaws in the local consultation process was lost.”

In April this year

“DfE ask Bromley to confirm that both Harris Beckenham and Shortlands would be included in offers made to parents for September 2014.”

In April the planning application was submitted, and on 17 July planning permission for the temporary arrangements was refused. Parents were offered Unicorn primary school which agreed to take a bulge class at short notice. I would say to the Minister that Unicorn primary school was able to do that because it is neither an academy nor a free school, but it is what is known as a community school under the direct control of the local education authority. If it had been a free school or academy, it could easily have declined such an invitation, in a way that a community school cannot.

In August this year, the London borough of Bromley was

“in series of discussions/meetings with the EFA to identify a way forward to ensure that there are sufficient primary school places for children in Bromley.”

A couple of days after the refusal of the planning application, the parents were informed that they would not be able to send their children to the school—clearly, as it was not going to exist.

Harris, tells largely the same story, but it has a slightly different emphasis. It states:

“Having been asked by Bromley Council to open the new school, we worked very closely with their education team, planning officers and councillors to establish it. We also worked closely with parents and met regularly with a group of local mothers and fathers who joined our steering group for the new school;

As with all new school buildings, the planning application was prepared and submitted by the Education Funding Agency (EFA). We are conscious that some within the political community in Bromley have questioned the timing of the application, which took place over the summer: however, particularly in London, this timing is normal and other schools opening in September 2014 including within our own Federation received planning permission at the same time of year;

Work on the scheme under the EFA’s Priority Schools Building Programme began in spring 2013 with a multidisciplinary team of architects, planners and building specialists. As you know, planning officers at Bromley had recommended the scheme for approval so the rejection…was not expected and came as a huge blow to parents, the Harris Federation, and, I am sure, many within Bromley Council who had worked with us to help make the new school a reality…

The application was for a school for 60 children plus up to 6 staff. This comprised of a temporary building of about 150 msq, including 2 classrooms for 30 children each…These plans were published to the public through a public consultation process run by the EFA, Bromley and Harris Federation. Through this process a group of neighbours and near-neighbours to the site expressed their concerns about the potential for increased traffic, strains on the site and whether there was a need for places in that locality. These concerns were taken seriously.

Detailed traffic impact assessments were undertaken and…after numerous meetings and correspondence working with the LA’s planning department to respond to their initial concerns, the planners informed the EFA that they fully supported the application and that there were no grounds for refusal. Because of this, at no point did we expect the councillors on the planning committee to overrule the considered advice of their officials, certainly not by six to two and particularly not for a new school that had been instigated by the Council.

We do not believe the”

refusal

“grounds to be substantive and have been advised by EFA’s planning advisors that we have a strong case for appeal.”

I have got a copy of the report that went to the planning sub-committee on 17 July last. The summary says:

“Taking account of the demonstrated need for primary pupil places in the borough for September 2014, the compliance with policy in relation to the designated Urban Open Space, the provision that has been made to accommodate existing and proposed staff parking, the assessment of the impact of additional cars related to the temporary use during the pupil drop off and pick up times, the limited impact of the use on the amenities of local residents and the character and appearance of the Manor Way Conservation Area, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable subject to recommended conditions.”

There are 17 separate conditions; I shall not read them all out. They relate to landscaping, to trees and, in particular, to car parking, parking bays and car park management. There was also a recommendation for a temporary, rather than permanent, permission.

The members of the planning sub-committee refused to grant that planning permission, which they were fully entitled to do, provided that they believed in all conscience that that decision was correct and lawful. I would not have agreed with the decision, had I been there, because I do not think it is valid. The sub-committee was perfectly entitled to take that decision, however, and it did. The Department for Education, the EFA and Harris probably had no counter-argument, because everyone was doing what they were perfectly entitled to do. So how come we have wound up with such a debacle, which has caused such distress and inconvenience to the parents and children involved? Plans are going ahead for the school to open next year. Let us hope that it puts enough time and effort into dealing with the technicalities of the process.

I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 23 July to find out whether the scheme could be called in and to ask the Secretary of State to direct that it be approved. Unfortunately, despite speaking to helpful officials in both Departments, my efforts have been to no avail. I received a letter from Lord Nash, the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, to tell me that that was the case. He expressed his disappointment at the difficult position that my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Beckenham had been placed in as a result of this farrago.

This is an example of a flagship Government policy being implemented by a quintessential Tory council in collaboration with one of the Government’s most favoured and, in fairness, most successful providers of academy schools and ending in a complete farce. This has happened because the Department’s procurement process is fundamentally flawed. Will the Minister give me an assurance that he will undertake to change the process so that nothing like this can ever happen again, either in our part of the world or anywhere else? Will he also, on behalf of the Department and the EFA, which is responsible to the Department, apologise to the parents, to their children and even to Bromley council for the distress and inconvenience that they have been caused by this ham-fisted and defective process?

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) on securing this important debate. I understand why this matter is important to him and his constituents. He has been kind enough to indicate that it is also a matter of keen interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), within whose constituency the free school in question sits.

I will first set out some of the context relating to the pressure on school places in Bromley and across the country, but I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will come directly to the substantive points that he has raised about this particular free school. I will also explain the context around the way in which we plan for free schools across the country.

During the lifetime of this Parliament, we will have invested more than £5 billion to help to create much needed school places across England. As a result, last year there were over 250,000 more school places than there were in 2010. The number of pupils in England is rising rapidly and is set to continue to rise well into the next Parliament. Indeed, the London borough of Bromley anticipates a 13% rise in primary pupil numbers between 2011-12 and 2015-16. We know that London authorities face a particular challenge, given the scale of population growth, the mobility of the population, the challenge of finding suitable sites to expand provision and the high costs of buildings. For the period 2011 to 2015, London has been allocated £1.6 billion of funding by my Department, which is around a third of the total basic need allocation for the whole of England.

Ensuring that every child is able to attend a good or outstanding school in their local area is at the heart of the Government’s comprehensive programme of reform of the school system. To achieve our aims, we have announced the provision of £2.35 billion to help local authorities to plan and create the new school places between 2015 and 2017. That is additional to the £5 billion, and Bromley will receive £62 million of this funding between 2011 and 2017, which compares with Bromley’s funding of just £12.1 million of basic need capital under the last Government between 2007 and 2010-11.

As the hon. Gentleman said, in addition to basic need funding free schools are providing both additional investment in the school estate and additional places. Free schools are making a major contribution to delivering basic need and are delivering good-quality places in areas where those are needed. Seven in 10 open mainstream free schools have been set up in areas where there was need for additional school places. This Government have now funded 174 new free schools in addition to the basic need funding, which is massively increasing resource in areas where it is needed. Some 24,000 pupils are currently attending these free schools, and all open and planned free schools will provide 175,000 new places overall.

We have also made it easier for local authorities to plan and deliver places by extending these basic need allocations to a three-year forward planning period, which gives local authorities more certainty about funding and allows them to plan strategically for the places they need. We have listened to the particular challenges faced by London authorities, including Bromley, and have changed the methodology used to allocate funding for 2015 to 2017 so that we take into account the higher costs of building in our capital city by providing a specific uplift for London authorities compared with those in the rest of England. We are also targeting funding more effectively, based on local needs, by using data we have collected from local authorities about the size of schools and forecast pupil projections.

As I have said, I know that along with other authorities Bromley faces challenges with increasing pupil numbers, and we have increased the funding that the local authority is receiving to address that need. The funding for Bromley in particular is on a steep upward trajectory. The London borough of Bromley currently has three open free schools, two of which opened successfully this September—Harris primary academy Shortlands and La Fontaine academy. Hon. Members will probably be aware of those. It was unfortunate that the Harris academy Beckenham free school did not open this September as planned, because of the local planning committee’s decision not to grant planning permission for the school’s intended temporary site. I entirely understand why hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, are concerned about that and about the uncertainty for parents.

[Bob Stewart]

I totally support my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd)—I may call him that—on this matter. In fairness, nobody expected the planning committee to turn this application down, so it came as a shock to all the authorities when that decision was made. Thanks to people such as Councillor Stephen Wells, who had an alternative plan, places in decent schools, such as Unicorn primary school, have somehow been found for most of the pupils. This decision was a shock, and my hon. Friend and I both acknowledge that. But it is wrong that it happened. That is the point he is making, and I support it.

[Mr Laws]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says, and the planning officers would have been taken by surprise by this decision, as I believe they recommended approval—indeed, the application was supported by the education department. I will deal with that issue in a moment.

It is very important that we draw the right conclusions from this. When a new school is opening, be it a free school or any other school, there will always be an uncertainty about planning matters. We must make sure we distinguish between the problems we can avoid and those we cannot. I wish to address those points explicitly now.

The Harris academy Beckenham would have provided places to assist Bromley in addressing basic need pressures and, to that end, the local authority has been engaging with Department officials and the sponsor, as it was previously. I should make it very clear to the hon. Gentleman and to all hon. Members that the Department does not take into account free school places in its basic need allocations until the schools have actually opened. We take that decision precisely in case there are eventualities of this type; in other words, Bromley would not have been debited with the basic need funding for the pupil projections until this school had actually opened. That is one of the safeguards that we put in place to try to deal with uncertainties such as this.

When it became clear that the school would not open this September, the local authority was quick to respond by implementing back-up offers of places to pupils who had applied to the Harris Beckenham free school, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham just said. I am hopeful that the issue of planning permission for a temporary site for the school will be resolved, so that it is able to open in September 2015.

Site availability is a key driver of the school delivery timetable. Finding suitable sites as the free school programme expands is increasingly challenging, particularly within London authorities. That is true for all schools whether or not they are free schools. For all free school projects, the Education Funding Agency seeks to ensure that planning issues are identified early, planning submissions by contractors on behalf of free school trusts are robust and negotiated solutions are found to any concerns that arise.

We have also taken steps within the planning system to support the delivery of state-funded schools. That includes a requirement within the national planning policy framework for great weight to be given to the need to create, expand or alter schools and to the use of permitted development rights. Both have had a significant impact in ensuring that all free schools to date have eventually achieved their planning consent.

The establishment from this September of regional schools commissioners will also help to address any future issues in relation to free school delivery. Regional schools commissioners and their boards are in the process of building relationships with local authorities and local providers. Although no new powers will be given above and beyond the current powers of the Department for Education, regional schools commissioners and their boards of outstanding academy head teachers will instead exercise the powers and decisions currently taken by the Secretary of State.

I apologise to parents in the constituencies of my hon. Friend and of the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge that we have ended up in this situation. It is not something that the local authority, the Government or the sponsor wanted. My hon. Friend has made it clear that planning officials did recommend approval on this particular site.

I think I should point out—this is one of the lessons that we need to learn for the future—that offers of places to children at Beckenham were made by the local authority on national offer day in mid-April. At that stage, as for many other free schools, the funding agreement had not been signed and final confirmation that the school would open had not been made. The offer of places should have been conditional on the school opening. Harris had been keen to work with the local authority and the admissions process and to co-ordinate the offer of places through the local authority managed process. Both the local authority and the sponsor were trying to do what they thought was right in the interests of the parents and children in the area.

We have strengthened and clarified advice for local authorities and free school trusts about offers of places at free schools that are planned to open. When a funding agreement has not yet been signed, conditional offers should be made. They can be firmed up when the funding agreement is in place. I will feed back from this debate the comments that have been made by my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the lessons that I believe are being learned by local authorities, the Government and sponsors from this particular incident are there for the future.

My noble Friend Lord Nash leads on free schools in the Department. I know that he will have been concerned by what happened in Bromley and will want to ensure that it is avoided in other places in the future. Local authorities have risen to the challenge of providing for an increasing school population. We have already seen an increase of 260,000 school places between 2010 and 2013, including 212,000 additional primary places. Local authorities have told us that a further 300,000 additional places are in the pipeline for delivery by September 2015.

Bromley local authority has assured the Department for Education that it has good plans in place to ensure that all children requesting a school place will have one. I am pleased that the authority has been able to act swiftly to help those parents and children who have been impacted on by the delayed opening of the free school this year. Bromley has also indicated that it has plans to secure sufficient school places in the long term to meet demand given the additional resources being delivered by our Department.

I am glad to have been given the opportunity to update the House on the progress the Government are making to ensure that there are sufficient school places across England and particularly in the constituencies of the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend. We are not complacent about these challenges, but we will give local authorities the resources to meet the increased demand for places. I will feed back the conclusions of the debate to my noble Friend Lord Nash and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will feel free to raise directly with us any further concerns about progress in this free school application if they are worried that it is not on track for next year.

Question put and agreed to.

Birmingham Schools

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

What an embarrassment of riches! I call Mr Bob Stewart.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Oh dear! Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I totally support the idea of teaching British values in schools, but is there a pamphlet or booklet instructing teachers exactly what are the British values they ought to espouse and how to teach them?

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. The list I read out before is, as I said, in the Ofsted inspection handbook. I understand that schools refer to it, but I will certainly see whether there are any other ways in which this is communicated.

Children with Autism (Education)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe]

I note that my hon. Friend has made that point.

Research by Ambitious about Autism has found that about 40% of children with autism have been excluded from school on at least one occasion without any valid reason being offered. Many are excluded much more often, of course, and some schools appear to operate a policy of informal exclusion, which makes it difficult for any of us to form an accurate picture of what exactly is happening. We do know that the practice is illegal. I acknowledge the Government’s work in funding exclusion advisers, with their grant to the National Autistic Society. I hope that will help us address the problem of those exclusions.

As the Minister will know, Ambitious about Autism is currently campaigning for every school to have access to an autism specialist teacher. We should try to meet that objective because I am certain that exclusions often result from staff who genuinely do not know what is required of them and feel that they are ill equipped to cope with an autistic child’s particular needs. Obviously, the special educational needs co-ordinator is the key figure in the school, charged with ensuring that appropriate support and assistance is made available to every child with a special need, whether or not they are subject to a statement or an education health and care plan.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I would be surprised if any child with special needs was excluded from school without someone with specialist knowledge having had a look at them. I am assuming that that is what happened. Perhaps the Minister will have an answer.

[Steve McCabe]

The point is that informal exclusions are not notified or recorded, so the issue is virtually impenetrable. That should be addressed. As I said, to be fair to the Government, they have funded a grant for exclusion advisers who we all hope will help to make progress.

I was talking about SENCOs. At present, the Department for Education does not know how many SENCOs there are across the country, or how many teachers have particular additional skills designed to support autistic children. It might be helpful if we carried out some kind of audit so that we could at least begin to estimate the level of need and the gaps in existing provision.

In theory, a SENCO is involved in the school’s use of the pupil premium for SEN children, although there appear to be no clear guidelines on the extent of that involvement or on how a school secures additional funding from a local authority on the basis of a child’s extensive needs or of having a particularly large number of children with special needs. In fact, it is often suggested that some mainstream schools seek to deter the parents of special needs children, and autistic children in particular, because they struggle to secure additional funding and are likely to be penalised by Ofsted for a decline in results as a consequence of their special needs children, rather than acknowledged for their efforts in supporting them. I am not defending any school’s attempt to exclude or reject children, but we have to acknowledge that how the system is currently loaded does not make things easy for a great number of schools.

When we were dealing with the code of practice, the Minister spoke about how he saw the local offer as a powerful means of highlighting how well a local authority was doing in catering for children with special needs. I do not want to talk about what Lancashire or any other local authority has or has not done, as, frankly, I do not have the detail to hand. However, I acknowledge that the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) has provided us with a broader picture of the situation in Lancashire.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) for tabling the debate in order to champion the needs of autistic children. I think we would all agree that this is an extremely important issue that affects parents not just in Lancashire, but in Cheshire, which is my area, and right across the country.

I was reminded by the new Solicitor-General, who was present at the beginning of the debate and who has probably done more than any other Member to support the cause of autism on the basis of both his personal experience and the work that he is doing in South Swindon, that this is our third debate on the subject in the last 18 months or so, which is a rather better return than we had over the previous 10 years. I think that that emphasises how important it is for Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, when local cases are brought to them, to take the opportunity to raise them on the platform here in Parliament, so that we can debate the issues more widely.

My hon. Friend mentioned a number of cases, including those of Jack, Honey and Chloe. I have read about their experiences, and was able to discuss them with my hon. Friend last week. He also spoke about the consequences for children of missing out on education, whatever the reason may be. There is no doubt that the parents in such cases feel very badly let down. It is not for me to answer for Lancashire county council, however; the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) has given it an opportunity to answer for itself.

Parents have said that they have shared their stories so that other families can find an easier pathway towards better support in the future. We too should learn from their experiences. There are numerous examples which show why it is so necessary for us to change the current special educational needs system. Too many parents find themselves, as one mother has put it, in “an unending battle” with a system that is supposed to help them. Too many find that their children's special educational needs are picked up late, too many have to fight to get different services to work together—services that focus too much on the SEN label rather than on meeting children’s needs and supporting their life outcomes—and too many find that young people lose the protections and rights that they have had at school when they move on to further education.

Although it is right to acknowledge that there is excellent practice and provision out there, it is little wonder that young people with SEN often have such poor prospects, lagging behind their peers at school and college, and being more likely to be out of education, training and employment at the age of 18. I am sure we all agree that that is not acceptable. It is a terrible waste of untapped potential, and of lives that are peppered with missed opportunities. The challenge, issued again today by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, is for us—the Government and local authorities, as well as other agencies that are involved with families—to do much better by these children and young people. The Government have recognised that need, and we have been prepared to take on the challenge of truly reforming the SEN system to give all children and young people who are touched by it the best possible chance to lead successful, happy and fulfilled lives.

As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) reminded us earlier, the Children and Families Act 2014 is the most important legislation on special educational needs in 30 years. The reforms that it makes will begin to be introduced in September this year. It will create a clearer, more joined-up approach that will focus unashamedly on outcomes, and will improve the support that is provided during the transition to adulthood. Crucially, it will do much more to involve children, young people and their families through a more integrated, streamlined assessment process, and through a new “birth to 25” education, health and care plan that sets out, in one place, all the support that children will receive across the various services.

[Bob Stewart]

I presume that the Minister also wants early diagnosis to be part of that plan. The earlier we can make an assessment of young people with autism, the more they will be able to enjoy their lives subsequently.

[Mr Timpson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. The code of practice, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) noted we debated in Committee this morning, has running through it that very premise: in order to ensure we get the support in place at the right time, early identification is key. Bringing health, social care and education services much more closely together will mean better sharing of information about the challenges that children present and understanding what underlying causes prevent them from being able to access education and to learn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Timpson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for remaining stoic in his efforts to bring this issue to the fore, both in Parliament and in his constituency. It is important that we do not decide that the job has been done, and show no more interest in the consequences, just because an Act of Parliament has been passed. Things work the other way round: in some ways the easy bit has been achieved and the hardest bit is the implementation. That is why we are ensuring, in the run-up to September and beyond, that we have a clear understanding of how it feels for parents and families as the changes start to kick in. I would welcome any opportunity, be it Adjournment debates or other means by which hon. Members can bring these issues to the House, to continue taking a constructive approach to the legislation and the subsequent attempts to put it into place on the ground. We must be mindful that we are asking for a culture change to happen and take hold in many parts of our communities and our countries. The more Members of Parliament and other leaders in our communities show a direct, vocal and public interest in the life chances of children and young people with SEN, the greater prospect we have of getting the culture change we all want to see.

[Bob Stewart]

May I, too, support exactly what Walton’s voice in Westminster, the honourable scouser, has said: we ought to have more debates on this subject and watch the legislation going through?

[Mr Timpson]

As I said a few moments ago, this is the third or fourth debate we have had on autism, and we have had many more debates on SEN over the past two years. That can only be a good thing, and it has ratcheted up the interest and understanding of not only hon. Members, but many outside this place, who are now more aware of the importance of bringing forward these changes. They include: a new “birth to age 25” education, health and care plan; the local offer, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak mentioned, outlining what support is available to children with SEN and their families in their area; and the joint commissioning of services by councils and local health bodies.

It is also important to say that the Act protects and extends rights that exist in the current legislation and maintains duties. Schools will continue to have a duty to do their best to make provision to meet children’s SEN, and the Act extends that duty to colleges, too. Councils will, where necessary, continue to have a duty to assess children’s SEN and arrange suitable provision. Again, that duty is being extended to young people up to the age of 25, which is a significant step forward.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak asked about the number and role of SENCOs in schools. Every maintained nursery, primary and secondary school is required to have at least one SENCO, who has received the necessary training, including on the main types of need, of which autism is one. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) asked about educational psychologists, and I hope she was trying to elicit an answer that gives us a full picture of the current position. What I can tell her is that there has been significant investment in the training of educational psychologists. On average, more than £5 million a year has been invested since 2010. This is the first central support to supplement local authority voluntary subscription schemes, and this year we are increasing supported places from 120 a year to 132. I met the union that represents educational psychologists just this week to talk about how we can move forward in years to come.

The 2014 Act will benefit all children and young people with special educational needs and their families. Importantly for this debate, that includes those with conditions such as autism, which often require specialist support across a number of agencies. I wish now to talk about some of the ways in which the new law will provide for that. Councils will have to integrate education provision with health and social care provision where that will promote the well-being of children and improve the quality of special educational provision.

Health provision, such as speech and language therapy—such therapy is often a necessary requirement for those with autism, and was needed in some of the cases in Burnley—can be extremely important in addressing the communication difficulties that are one of the core features of autism. The joint commissioning duty between councils and health bodies will help ensure that services are available to meet the needs of children and young people in the area. Too often it is reported that parents receive a diagnosis of autism for their children and then are given no information about how they can access support. The purpose of the local offer is to provide information about the support available for disabled children and those with SEN across education, health and social care.

The local offer will be not just a directory of services, but will be drawn up following consultation with children, young people and parents. If autistic children and young people and their parents feel that there is not sufficient provision for them in the area, they will be able to use the local offer to challenge the local authority to improve that provision.

We all know how important early intervention can be for children with autism. By making the new system “nought to 25”, we have strengthened the rights of parents of children aged nought to two to have provision made to meet their child’s needs. Many children with autism also stand to gain from a stronger push for early identification of SEN through initiatives such as the two to two-and-a-half-year health visitor review. We are committed to creating an integrated review from 2015, combining the health visitor review and the two-year-old early years foundation progress review.

Currently about 70% of children whose primary special educational need is autism have an SEN statement as against those who are supported by schools at School Action Plus. That is a higher percentage than most other types of SEN. We expect those children who currently have statements to be transferred on to the new education, health and care plans so they will benefit from the more co-ordinated approach that the plans bring and the new duty on health bodies to arrange the health provision set out in a plan.

With growing awareness of autism, many parents of autistic children quite rightly want specialist provision. Through the Children and Families Act 2014, we are strengthening the right of parents of children with EHC plans to have provision made at independent specialist schools. At present, where the parents of children with SEN statements request a council-maintained mainstream or special school, the local authority is under a conditional duty to name that school and, if it does, the school is under a duty to admit the child. But that does not apply when parents request other types of schools.

From this September—to emphasise the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made—when the parents of children with EHC plans request an academy, a non-maintained special school or an approved independent special school, the council will be under the same conditional duty to name that school as if the parent had asked for a local authority maintained school.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak rightly raised the issue of autistic children being informally and therefore illegally excluded from school. The Government’s view is clear: no child should be unlawfully excluded. Ofsted and the Department will take seriously evidence that a school has acted unlawfully in excluding a pupil. The new statutory guidance on exclusion, which took effect in September 2012, makes it clear that informal exclusion, such as sending children home to cool off, is unlawful. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak reminded us, we are funding the National Autistic Society to pay for exclusion advisers to provide advice to parents and professionals, but we want improvements and will continue to ensure that they happen.

Like other parents, parents of children with autism are keen to have greater control over the provision that is made for their children. Through the Children and Families Act 2014, the parents of children with EHC plans will have the opportunity to have a personal budget through which they can decide on how some of the provision set out in the plan is delivered. For example, parents could use their personal budget to decide which therapist delivers speech and language therapy to their child, rather than having to accept the therapist arranged for them. The increased roles for children, young people and parents and the 2014 Act’s promotion of greater co-operation in decision making will take much of the adversarial nature out of the current system.

However, it would be unrealistic to suggest that the new system will mean that no parents or young people will be unhappy about the provision that will be made in future. Currently, the largest number of appeals registered at the special educational needs and disability tribunal are in relation to children with autism, as compared with other types of need, which gives an indication of the difficulties that parents of children with autism have with the current system. I am sure that some parents of autistic children with EHC plans and young autistic people with plans will continue to disagree with the provision that is set out within. We have preserved the right of parents to appeal to the tribunal to have their appeals decided by an independent body, and we have extended that right to young people, too. Going to tribunal can be stressful for some parents and, if they choose to be legally represented, expensive, which is why, under the new regime, where parents and young people are thinking of appealing to the tribunal, we have given them the option of going to mediation with the council to try and get the disagreements sorted out more quickly in a non-judicial setting. If they fail to get disagreements about the special educational needs provision sorted, they can appeal to the tribunal.

Lastly, young people with autism can find change difficult, particularly the transition to adulthood. The 2014 Act brings together the legislation for school children aged nought to 19 with the legislation on young people with learning difficulties or disabilities in post-16 further education provision up to the age of 25, which means that young people with autism who need more time to complete their education and make that transition will have the opportunity to carry on in education until they are ready to leave.

One often-quoted statistic is that only 15% of adults with autism are in full-time employment, which is depressing, particularly given that, matched to the right job, many people with autism, with their eye for detail and the regularity and consistency of their work, are an absolute godsend for employers. The new SEN system will put greater emphasis on the long-term outcomes for young people, including getting a job. Much greater emphasis will be placed on preparing young people for employment and using routes such as apprenticeships, traineeships and supported internships to help them gain employment.

As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak also said, in addition to our debate here, we have also been debating the new nought to 25 SEN and disability code of practice, which will give statutory guidance on the new SEN and disability system. The draft code has been developed after extensive consultation with many people, including the voluntary sector. For example, I met representatives from the National Autistic Society and we listened to its concerns that the description of the four broad areas of SEN in the code did not fully reflect the range and complexity of the difficulties that autistic children and young people can face. The NAS was also concerned that the first consultation draft of the code did not mention duties under the Autism Act 2009 and associated statutory guidance, so we agreed wording with the NAS that makes clear that children and young people with autism can have difficulties across all four areas of special educational needs: communication, cognition, emotional and mental health, and sensory difficulties. The code now makes it clear that, under statutory guidance accompanying the autism strategy, SENCOs should inform young people of their right to a community care assessment and their parents of a right to a carer’s assessment.

As hon. Members will be aware, just passing the legislation to provide for the new system is only half the battle. Successful implementation will depend on people around the country embracing the spirit of the new system. The best areas are already working in a way that we want to spread across the country.

I have listed a number of councils and have been encouraged by the progress that is being made in the run-up to the commencement date on 1 September. The Department has been conducting readiness surveys with all local authorities and the most recent survey shows that 95% of councils have told us that they are on track for September and can manage the changes. I have made it my business to follow up on the progress of authorities that are further behind the curve personally and I hope that that is a sign of how important the Government consider these reforms to be and our determination to improve things on the ground for families.

We know that implementing the changes we want to see will come at a cost. I recently announced an extra £45.2 million of funding in 2014-15 and indicative funding of £31.7 million in 2015-16 to help councils with implementation. That is on top of the £70 million SEN reform grant that councils can use to work with health and others to deliver the changes. We are also giving £30 million of new money between April of this year and March 2016 to recruit and train independent supporters across the whole country to help families navigate the new system.

This debate has been another excellent opportunity to raise in this House not only the importance of the special educational needs reforms that the Government have introduced but how they will affect many people up and down the country who have a child or young person with autism. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Autism is a complex condition, and it requires people to work together to ensure that the needs of individuals and autistic children and young people as a whole are met. I hope that what I have said today reassures hon. Members that the Children and Families Act and the reforms that we are introducing will make co-operative working between children and young people, parents, professionals and agencies a reality.

As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley has done the House a service by raising this important issue and I hope that it has given him some sense that work is under way to address many of the points he has raised. Of course, I would be the first to say that there is still a lot of work to do.

Cyber-bullying

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman is right. A recent debate in this place showed what can be done when we put our minds to it and listen to people who have solutions, rather than always listening to those who focus on the problems.

The Department for Education’s own research shows that 30% of secondary school-aged children have been deliberately targeted, threatened or humiliated by abuse on mobile phones or the internet. Cyber-bullying is an even more cowardly form of what we might have known as playground bullying, because it often hides behind anonymity, done by people in the comfort of their own bedroom. However, the psychological effects can be every bit as damaging as physical, face-to-face bullying, and such bullying has the capacity to be spread cancer-like among a much wider body of peers, at the press of a button. It can undermine a young person’s confidence and self-esteem, at a time when they are still finding their own identity. It can lead to depression, truancy, self-harm and even suicide; to a fear of returning to school to face one’s friends, who may be the authors of some of this cyber-bullying; and to a feeling of being permanently unsafe.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Being bullied by electronic means could actually be worse than being bullied in the playground. At least in the playground, people perhaps have their friends around to sustain them. Being bullied privately, perhaps in a quiet place, could really prey on someone’s mind.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and of course in such situations there are no witnesses around. People suffer in silence, and there is not necessarily anybody on hand to report such behaviour to. That is why it is every bit as damaging as, and probably more damaging than, the playground bullying that he and I might have been witnesses to—certainly not part of—in our days of yore in the playground.

Nominet’s “know the net” research suggests that socially and economically disadvantaged children and young people are at greater risk of experiencing cyber-bullying and suffering its adverse effects. It is more likely to affect disabled children, young carers, children with learning disabilities and recipients of free school meals. Cyber-bullies are picking on the most vulnerable children—an even more shameful act. Facebook is the most common place for it, as we have heard. Facebook has made great strides, but there is an awful lot more it can do. Such bullying happens on Twitter, and it happens with Instagram. There are now various new modes of communicating, whereby an image is sent and it self-destructs within 10 seconds, so the evidence is gone. Those are all clever ways that can be used by malign people to bully even more effectively.

What is really worrying is that only 37% of teenagers who experience online bullying report it to a social network, so two thirds do not. Some 36% of those who do not report it said that they choose not to because it is not taken seriously and doing so would be a waste of time. Very few even report it to their parents, yet a third of all parents fear that their child is actually causing bullying on the internet, according to research by the National Children’s Bureau and McAfee. Some 45% of parents have set up Facebook accounts themselves for their own children who are under the age of 13. The recommended minimum age for having a Facebook account is 13, yet some parents are clearly ignoring that. Indeed, Facebook itself has discussed removing that age threshold. However, that is one of the few safeguards that provides guidance to parents on the age at which it is appropriate for their children to be exposed to these very powerful forms of social media. Only one in 10 parents believe that their own children are safe online, yet over a third have never had a conversation with their children about the dangers of the internet, and only one in five bothers to set up controls on their internet devices.

This is an extraordinary situation, a perfect storm. Schools are not doing enough to teach the hazards of the internet effectively. We need better sex and relationship education as armour to deal with some of the sexual abuse on the internet. Parents are afraid of appearing ignorant and do not communicate with their children about the hazards, and the social media companies are still spending too much time on maximising the number of people attracted to their sites, the revenues earned by the sites and the stock market capitalisation as the sites are launched on the American stock market. The Home Affairs Select Committee reported earlier this year that too many of our social media companies remain far too complacent and laid back about the perils of the internet for young and impressionable people.

The other big problem is that abuse of the internet lacks consequences. That was behind my earlier question to the Minister when I asked him how many people were being prosecuted and actually feeling the force of the law. How many people are being shown that what they are doing is not just a bit of harmless fun, a bit of ribbing or a bit of playfully taking the mick out of someone, but that it is dangerous abuse that can ultimately be fatal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable practical example of what happened to him and for saying how he responded in his fearless way. It shows that if he can do it, everyone else can do it, and that is leadership as it should be.

Children and young people are now able to access the internet almost anywhere in a range of different ways through iPads, mobile phones and other portable devices. It is difficult for parents to monitor their children’s use of the internet, even if they wish to do so, beyond the lowest estimations. It is difficult even for those who are learned in this technology, who still cannot be entirely sure of what their children are doing.

[Bob Stewart]

As a parent of four teenage children, I have learned a heck of a lot today and I thank right hon. and hon. Members on the DUP Benches for introducing the debate. I have learned that I do not know enough about cyber-bullying and that as a parent I have to get with it, understand it and discuss it with my teenagers. I suspect that the House will agree with me on that and will forgive me for intervening to share with it something that I have learned.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his admission. We have all admitted that we can learn something every day, and so we can.

A recent Ofcom report shows that 68% of 12 to 15-year-olds in the UK have a profile on a social networking site. Among nine to 12-year-olds, who are too young officially to have their own Facebook account, 36% report having a Facebook profile, with 13% saying that they use it regularly. How aware are parents of their children’s access to social networking sites and what goes on through those sites? That is the question we are all asking.

The internet is changing fast and parents are clearly concerned about the rapid proliferation of harmful online content and what their children might be viewing. Ofcom highlights the fact that 79% of parents of children aged five to 15 who use the internet at home say that they have put in place rules about internet use. They have done it, but is it working? According to a report driven by Dr Sonia Livingstone at the London School of Economics, 81% of parents feel the need to talk to their children about what they do and view online and more than half stay nearby when their child is on the internet. If only that was possible in every case.

Those last two statistics are encouraging, demonstrating a real desire on the part of many parents to be actively involved in their children’s online experience. In that context we need to empower them to help their children to address issues such as cyber-bullying. This will inform those parents who are interested and concerned and also, we hope, prompt those who are not taking an active interest in the safety of their children online to do so. In that regard, I draw the attention of the House to the excellent Online Safety Bill, which will have its Second Reading in the other place on Friday. The Bill has two key provisions, one of which is designed to engage with the challenge of cyber-bullying.

In the first instance, the Bill places a statutory duty on internet service providers and mobile phone operators to exclude all adult content, while providing the user with the option of accessing such material subject to robust age verification to demonstrate that they are 18 or over. The provision is designed to help parents protect their children from stumbling, either accidentally or on purpose, on inappropriate material.

In the second instance, the Bill places a duty on internet service providers and mobile phone operators to provide prominent, easily accessible and clear information about online safety to subscribers. It also places a duty on the Secretary of State to educate parents of children under 18 on online safety. That key educational provision has been made primarily to engage with online challenges such as cyber-bullying and sexting.

The Bill is a noble proposal. It could and should move a long way towards achieving what we are trying to do today. I hope that the Government will embrace it and, in so doing, help to protect children from stumbling on inappropriate material and—of greater importance to this debate—to protect them from cyber-bullying.

Extractive Industries (Developing Nations)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Friday 29th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Ind)]

I want to take this opportunity to say a few things about the extractive industries, particularly those across the world. Many of our constituencies have an interest in such industries, but it is not necessarily the biggest interest across the whole of our country. In Scotland, of course, most Members have some interest in the oil and gas industries, because of assets in the north or the people who work in the industries. The Grangemouth refinery is on my doorstep. It rarely makes the news, but employs many people. My own family have worked in the oil and gas industries for many years, as have many of my constituents and people who live around the area. Such involvement gives us an interest in the broader extractive industries.

Naturally, our primary concern is for our constituents and our local areas in the UK. However, over the years, my interest has increasingly focused on the impact of large—they are often, although not always, large—companies in the extractive sectors on the economic development of countries across the world. Those companies also have a big impact on the UK because they often pay tax here. They might have their headquarters in the UK, and they employ people in the UK. I am thinking not just of oil and gas—that is what we tend to think about in the UK when we talk about domestic issues—or of small operations that have open-cast mining or deal in aggregates, but large operators that might be headquartered in the UK and that operate in parts of the developing world.

It seems to me—I hope that this does not appear tangential—that when we think about the UK industrial and commercial effort and how it impacts on the developing world, it tends to be almost as a secondary line of debate in the discussion of how the Department for International Development and aid impact on the developing world. What I am saying is that when we think about the economies of the developing world it tends to be about the great good that we do with our munificent and generous taxpayer donations that go through various projects involving European institutions or non-governmental organisations.

It is increasingly important, particularly in the current economic context, that we start to tilt the debate. When we think about developing world economies, we should not simply think about DFID, aid and how fantastically generous we are. Of course DFID does great work, and the Government spend a great deal in this area. Our constituents often say that perhaps that money should be spent at home. The Government are committed to a high level of DFID expenditure, as were the Labour Government, who, one might say, kicked off the whole thing. That is the issue and the figure that people are keen to discuss instead of the figure of inward investment that goes into economies from companies that are either based or headquartered in the UK. I appreciate that for some people there is a significant distinction. It is perhaps worth being up front from the start about the fact that for some people there is a difference between companies that are seen to be truly British or truly operating in the UK and that employ people in the UK—I am talking about companies that operate around major assets, such as refineries in the North sea—and companies that are based, headquartered or listed in London, either on the London stock exchange or the alternative investment markets. People often fail to grasp the scale of economic activity that is created through the potential of the extractive industries sector that is headquartered in the UK. What is or is not a British company is a moot point. In many ways, it is not helpful to reflect on that quite deep theological question.

The fact is that many companies that are attracted to investing in the developing world on an enormous scale have chosen to have their headquarters in London. That has sometimes created issues for the extractive industries sector, most notably mining. There have been problems with the listing of particular companies, and their practices before they listed, their management practices, the assumptions owners might have made about how governance should operate and so on are often very different from those that are the culture in the UK. There is an ongoing negotiation, to put it at its mildest, that lays down rules for companies so that when they list in the UK they have to change their culture to fit the high standards of London listing.

There have been one or two well-publicised issues, and I might refer to one of them in a short while, but the standards are generally very high. For companies that list in London and operate elsewhere in the world, there is a large amount of transparency and accountability. The standards in those industries have traditionally been quite high. When new companies come in from elsewhere in the world with different cultural backgrounds, those standards become even more important.

There are two or three initiatives that I want to mention that augment and bolster the standards that already apply in the City of London. One is the extractive industries transparency initiative, which was created just over 10 years ago by the Labour Government and has been carried on by this Government. Oddly, we never actually signed up to it, although I think I understand why. It is a fairly straightforward worldwide initiative signed up to by 25 countries that aims to lay down a standard by which countries agree that all the companies operating out of those countries, or which are listed in those countries, are required to declare what payments they make to Governments, often and usually in the developing world, and the Governments agree to say what payments they have received, as well as other conditions and criteria. That leads to a standard of accountability and transparency that was not there before. The purpose is to de-risk and to make things more realistic and practical for companies that are nervous about relative insecurity or uncertainty about what happens to cash that is paid to Governments. Historically, we know that a lot of cash has gone missing in the developing world. Instead of paying for infrastructure, education or health, it has paid for mansions in Paris or Brussels, or wherever the taste of the person receiving the cash might have led them.

There are other Members in the Chamber who have as much or probably more experience than I have in this, but as we travel across Africa we often end up talking to the people who run young democracies. Companies that are often listed in London come in and try to operate in their countries, and those people are keen to show that the cash is being distributed and used appropriately for Government works. Transparency helps them. It also helps companies, which are often wrongly accused of spreading cash around to get contracts when that is simply not true. The idea of greater transparency helps everyone.

Many organisations lobbied for the EITI, but one of my favourites is Global Witness, which George Soros had an important role in creating. In the first two or three years of its existence, most of the heavy work involved encouraging people to sign up to a voluntary arrangement. Now the EU accounting transparency directive and other directives are, in effect, essentially embedding that arrangement into EU law. My understanding is—I could be wrong—that it will be embedded in UK law by 2015. That will not supplant the functions of the EITI, but it will augment them and there will still be a strong purpose in signing up to the initiative.

There is a similar piece of legislation in the States. The Dodd-Frank Bill has an amendment called the Cardin-Lugar amendment, which is still being argued about. It was passed, but there were some issues with how the Securities and Exchange Commission implemented it—perhaps not enough resources were put into it. Some people will say that such legislation does not exist in the US, but it does, it has just not been fully implemented. It will be in due course.

The standards of transparency, which in many ways are above the basic EITI standard, are increasingly high. Within a couple of years, they will be embedded everywhere in all the major markets. The EITI has played an important role in all of that.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I presume the hon. Gentleman gives full recognition to the fact that companies from other countries operating in Africa do not operate under the same rules as British companies, which often gives us a competitive disadvantage. Will he comment on that?

[Eric Joyce]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We often fail to make a distinction between the developing world of China, Russia and the former Soviet states, and the developing world of impoverished states in Africa and elsewhere. Without wishing to digress—you would pull me up for doing so, Madam Deputy Speaker—it is true that China and Russia have different cultural and transparency assumptions. Most importantly, they have different sovereignty assumptions. They tend to say, “It’s entirely up to a country what it does with its cash. It is not for us to ask.” Chinese companies therefore often operate to a different standard. Many in London are concerned that, if that standard is lower, the small number of people who want to make dodgy deals—they are small in number, but of a significant scale—will do their deals with companies that are not regulated in the UK. That is unquestionably a problem. We must continuously work to have those countries understand that they are major world players and have major responsibilities to ensure that corruption does not once again run amok in Africa. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point—he has experience in the field—which is frequently made. I would not want to regulate UK companies in a way that damages them in the context of international competition.

Currently, the EITI voluntary arrangement has worked well, but statutory underpinning in the UK and US within the next two years will bolster standards in Africa, which is my interest, and in developing countries throughout the world. That is what the countries and the companies want.

The UK Government have agreed to sign up to the EITI, which is great. They were concerned in the first instance that the initiative would lay unnecessary costs on small UK operators, which, frankly, one would not expect to be in the ambit of this discussion. The UK must lead the way and sign up if it wants other countries, such as Angola, which wants to sign up, to do so. Other countries would also like to sign up.

It is a two-year process. By good fortune, I am on the multi-stakeholder group in the UK. The process, which is currently happening, is put in place by a multi-stakeholder group of relevant interested companies from the various industrial sectors, including from the oil, gas, minerals and mining extractive industries; civilian organisations with an interest, such as green and transparency organisations; and the Government—it is led by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It puts the UK in a position to help to lead the world in high standards for the extractive industries.

I want to make one more point. The Government have stressed the importance of beneficial ownership. In the next year or two, legislation will emphasise the importance of beneficial ownership throughout the developing world. That means that we will know where the cash ends up. It is currently possible to construct a series of layers of ownership. We can say that people must declare where the money is going, but they can say, “It goes to company X in the British Virgin Isles,” and we will have no idea who that is. If the Government introduce legislation, which I believe they will, we need to know who beneficial owners are. When companies trade and invest enormous amounts of money in developing countries, the money should go to the appropriate place. From my point of view, that would draw the eye towards the good that enormous and small companies do when they invest in countries that otherwise have very little in the way of revenue.

I shall now conclude, and I do not intend for this to be on a depressing note. The Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills is undertaking an excellent inquiry into this whole issue. I have noticed that some people who care passionately about economic development in the developing world seem to set the theoretical principle of the standard so high that they make it almost impossible for companies to invest in the developing world. It seems from the World Development Movement’s submission to the Committee that it does not want any extractive industries to operate in any part of Africa. The reality is that without those industries many countries will simply never develop their economies, and the extractive industries, operating transparently in the way that I have described, are the primary potential driver of economic development. I am talking not about aid, but about proper investment by very large companies that want to carry out extraction that is good for them and their shareholders, and good for the taxpayers of these countries. Such companies are often the biggest taxpayer in these countries and they often represent the only way in which these countries can get good tax revenue and move their economies forward as we want to see them moving forward.