Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

The Department provides capital through a number of routes. There is, of course, devolved capital to local authorities and to multi-academy trusts, so my hon. Friend might want to look at what opportunities are available through that or through the condition improvement fund, in addition to the school rebuilding programme I have already discussed.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

On the subject of Department for Education delays, residents in Newcastle North are concerned that the new Great Park Academy may be unable to open on schedule next September. Original plans were for an opening in 2020, but that has now been postponed to 2023 and the school is currently in temporary accommodation on another high school’s site. We need to see progress on this urgently. I have written to the Minister and asked for a meeting to discuss the cause of the delays. After all the disruption of the past two years, we must deliver stability for our young people. Will he work with me to ensure that we can unblock what is delaying this project?

[Mr Walker]

I will be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss that specific project.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)]

In-person education remains our absolute priority. Our guidance is clear that settings should do everything possible to keep children in face-to-face education safely. We are working across the sector to ensure that face-to-face education and childcare are prioritised and I will do everything in my power to keep schools and nurseries open. I was particularly pleased to see some of the excellent work that is going on with academic mentors at Dunton Green Primary School in my hon. Friend’s constituency recently.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

On Friday, I met with a fantastic group of students from Gosforth East Middle School who have been inspired by COP26 to make changes in their own school. They want to cut emissions, so they surveyed their teachers to find out why more of them do not have electric cars. Hearing that the main barrier is cost and that there is no access to a salary sacrifice scheme, the students want to know what the Government are going to do, given that it would boost manufacturing, support them with the cost-of-living crisis and significantly cut emissions in all our towns and cities.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

As a former Minister at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, I can tell the hon. Lady that it is about ensuring that we deliver affordable transport that is green: not only cars but other forms of transport.

Childcare

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen—welcome back. Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when not speaking, if possible, in line with Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I apologise to Members for the fact that, having given you that advice, I may not be able to adhere to it myself because my glasses steam up and I might not be able to see anybody. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.

Please send speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk. If in any doubt, come and ask and we will repeat that for you. Similarly, officials should communicate with Ministers electronically, where possible.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 586700, relating to funding and affordability of childcare.

The petition is about the need for an independent review of childcare funding so that we can really think through what we want our childcare and early education sector to be, and what we hope it can do for the families who need it and for us as a society. So many economic and social benefits flow from the sector that it is difficult to summarise in the time we have, but I think most of us would agree on three key reasons why it is so important to support high quality early education.

First, we know from international evidence that so many important life outcomes—from health to wealth and wellbeing—have their origins in the early years. Quality early education can benefit children’s academic and social development, and evidence shows that those benefits are often stronger for children from disadvantaged families, as it starts them off on a more equal footing with their peers when they go to school.

Secondly, access to childcare is crucial for working parents. Closures during the pandemic have served as a real reminder of just how important it is. The pre-school years are a particularly significant time for new mothers: regrettably, decisions around their childcare in that short period can have a huge impact on their lifetime earnings and, consequently, on the gender pay gap.

Finally, helping with the cost of childcare and early education is one of the best ways for the Government to ensure that families with young children—particularly those on low incomes—are not financially crippled by high costs. As the petitioners point out, childcare in the UK is expensive. Statistics from the OECD show that, however we look at it, we are close to the top of the list of developed countries for childcare costs.

I think that most of us would agree on what we want our early years sector to deliver and on those broad criteria, but some may place different emphasis on them. Analysing whether we are meeting those objectives, and how we can improve on them, is a huge task that touches on many complex areas, such as funding, training, accountability and outcomes. I do not think this House has the expertise or the time to cover those in depth, which is why we need an independent review.

During the debate, I want to look specifically at funding, which is the focus of the petition. In that key area, there is strong evidence that we are letting down children, parents and providers, and I will make the case to support the petitioners’ call for an independent review. Determining the right level of funding for the early years is of course the subject of long-running disputes between the Government and sector representatives, but it goes to the heart of what early years really means to us as a country.

Childcare is as necessary for parents to get to work as the roads and the rail network, so why do we not approach and fund it as the vital infrastructure investment that it clearly is? I am sure the Minister will point out that spending on free entitlements—the 15 and 30-hour entitlements for three and four-year-olds, and disadvantaged two-year-olds—has more than doubled to around £3.4 billion since 2010, but it is important to look at what has driven that increase. Most of it has come from successive expansions of eligibility, which are of course hugely welcome. However, what providers are concerned about is a discrepancy between the cost per hour of delivering the free entitlements and the funding per hour that they receive.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ latest annual report on education spending shows that funding per hour of childcare is now only about 13% higher in real terms than in 2004, despite an increase of about 150% in total spending. In recent years, funding per hour has declined from its 2017-18 peak, showing that even the modest increase introduced alongside the 30-hour entitlement in 2017 has not been maintained.

Even more importantly, we know that it is not enough just to provide for the costs of delivering childcare. The Department for Education’s publication in June of a much-delayed freedom of information response to the Early Years Alliance showed that the Government were aware of the consequences of introducing the 30 hours policy with an insufficient level of investment. Ministers knew that the investment would meet only around two thirds of costs—meaning higher costs for parents—and force early years staff to look after the maximum legal ratio of children, with significant impacts on quality. With a lack of proper investment in the free entitlement, providers are forced to cover their costs by charging more for the non-funded hours. That means spiralling costs for parents and carers, whose fees have risen three times faster than earnings since 2008—and that is just the average. For the parents of two-year-olds in some parts of the country, childcare costs have risen seven times faster than their wages.

As a working mother both before and since becoming an MP, I have my own experiences of the heart-wrenching stress and pressure of getting the right childcare and support, and of the enormous costs. Our childcare costs are now the highest of almost any developed country. In a Petitions Committee survey earlier this year, 77% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that cost had prevented them from getting the kind of childcare they really needed. One respondent said:

“I do not have the option to have family or friends look after my child when I return to work and I can’t afford to not be in work, but childcare costs more than my mortgage for full time hours.”

Another commented:

“My wages will just about cover our childcare costs, therefore I am basically working only to ‘hold my place’ until my baby is old enough not to need childcare i.e., once she starts school.”

That has a huge impact on the gender pay gap. Clearly, it is still by and large women who take on most of the responsibility for childcare. Research by Pregnant Then Screwed found that 62% of women who returned to work worked fewer hours, changed jobs or stopped working because of childcare costs. Sadly, we know that the resulting loss of wages has a long-term impact on far too many women.

Properly funded childcare also means ensuring that providers have the money to pay and train their staff appropriately. I want to thank early years staff and management for their efforts over the last 18 months. Most staff have worked through the entire pandemic, and many settings have kept their doors open the entire time, looking after the children of key workers and others and keeping our country moving through this international crisis. Early years staff and management deserve our thanks and appreciation, and our commitment to tackle the serious issues raised by the petitioners.

According to research by Nursery World, one in 10 childcare workers relies on foodbanks, and 45% claim some form of benefit. One in eight earns less than £5 an hour, meaning that staff turnover is high, which can impact on the quality of care, the quality of education and the stability provided for children. We also know that in the past decade, there has been a long-term decrease in the number of people who want to work in the early years sector. One nursery manager told me just how difficult it is to retain staff, particularly in a setting with a disadvantaged intake and a high incidence of special educational needs.

Employees feel that they are sacrificing any semblance of work-life balance for minimum wage, leading to higher absence rates and higher staff turnover. That means that a child’s key worker might change to someone both they and their parents are unfamiliar with multiple times in a year, affecting the quality of education that they receive. It also means that settings are regularly thrown into chaos because they cannot recruit fast enough to fill the gaps. I was told that, at least once a month, staffing issues mean that nurseries hope that not every parent will bring their child to nursery, because if every child attended there would be no way to maintain the required legal ratios. It is shocking that this is what some settings face, and it shows how badly off track we have got.

It cannot be right that while staff are poorly paid and parents pay high costs, the sector’s biggest customer, the Government, get away with paying what they know is insufficient funding. Deciding on the right level of funding and the best way to provide it is, of course, not an easy task, and I think that speaks to the need for a comprehensive, independent expert review to consider the matter in detail. Our answer to the crucial funding question speaks to what we want our early years sector to be.

Is it the state’s role to provide the minimum funding to cover, or just about cover, basic costs so that parents can at least return to work? That would mean maxed-out ratios, stressed-out staff, higher costs for parents, and providers that are unwilling to provide childcare as cheaply as possible being driven out of the market. Or are the benefits of a more generous childcare and early years education system worth it? That is what I would argue, as it means that we can unlock greater productivity, put a big dent in the gender pay gap, narrow the attainment gap at school and, in the long run, reduce other social problems such as poor mental health, unemployment and crime.

Unfortunately, in their written response to the petition, the Government said that there are no plans to commission a review of childcare funding, but I do not think that the Minister should be so quick to dismiss the petitioners’ concerns. We need a childcare system that helps not only to make the lives of families and their children better, but to make our economy work. With both parents and providers struggling and with early years staff undervalued and underpaid, childcare is becoming a big political issue, and it is not going away any time soon. I urge the Government to consider the petitioners’ request for an independent review so that we can get this right for everybody who would benefit from it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the Minister for that response, but I fear that the more than 112,000 petitioners who signed the petition would disagree with her assessment that there is not a problem to address. Indeed, Joeli Brearley of Pregnant Then Screwed and the 12 organisations that supported the in-depth research and survey of the parent and provider experience of the childcare system would disagree with the Minister’s assessment.

The petition is very reasonable. It is not asking for a specific amount of funding. It is not even diagnosing exactly what should happen. The petition is asking the Government to hand over to experts for a full assessment of what we want our early years and childcare sector to be and to provide.

I agree—I think hon. Members in all parts of the House who spoke in this debate agree—that we need to get the best out of the funding that goes into the sector. I agree that it should not be a party political issue. The way to ensure that that money is spent in the best way possible, however, is not just to turn down the petitioners’ request for an independent review, but to take it away and consider it.

I appreciate what the Minister said: that this does not fit with the current Budget and spending review schedule. However—I implore her again—the petitioners are not asking for a specific amount of money; they are asking for a wholescale review. We can keep going on, sticking plasters over the cracks, pumping some money here or there, or putting a funding pot in place, but in reality we have a postcode lottery, a family lottery, and parents crying out for more help and support. We have many people silently falling out of the workforce, a productivity problem and a crisis point for many families, with many in the most deprived families just not being heard or supported at all.

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate plea for why we need the review. One issue that the review could settle is the Minister’s claim that the country has not seen the closure of any places, although the evidence from the National Day Nurseries Association is very clear: in 2019-20, there was an increase of 300 nurseries in this country; but in 2020-21, there was a net minus of 400 nurseries. The Minister is shaking her head, but does she recognise that at the very least, an independent review could get to the bottom of that, so that we as parliamentarians could make informed decisions and have informed debates, because she seems to think something completely different from what the sector is telling us?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. With the greatest of respect, I think that petitioners listening to the Minister’s response will feel that hers is an alternative reality, an alternative universe, from the one that they are living in. Parents and providers are struggling. Early years staff are undervalued and underpaid. Childcare is becoming a big political issue, and it will not go away any time soon.

I urge the Minister to take away the petitioners’ request. I appreciate that the answer today is no, but I say, “Don’t close the door on this,” because it needs to be looked at. Not only are parents and providers being let down; ultimately it is the children who would benefit from getting the best early years and childcare system in the world—not just the most expensive, and we are nearly there, but the best in world. Let us aspire to that, and let us ask the experts to guide us in a cross-party way on how we can best achieve that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 586700, relating to funding and affordability of childcare.

Water Safety

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 576563, relating to water safety.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The number of accidental water-related deaths in the UK every year is sobering: from 2009 to 2020, there were 7,000 water-related fatalities, and almost 3,000 families have been impacted by fatal accidents in water over the past 10 years. Just last year, 30 people under the age of 20 died from accidents in the water. Every single death is a tragedy. The lead petitioner, Rebecca Ramsay, lost her 13-year-old son Dylan 10 years ago this month. Like so many children and teenagers, Dylan had gone for what he thought would be an innocent swim with his friends on a summer’s day. He was an intelligent young man, a talented athlete and a strong swimmer, but tragically he lost his life when his body went into shock in response to the plummeting water temperature, causing him to drown. Losing your child is every parent’s worst nightmare, but sadly, Beckie’s family are far from the only ones to lose their son or daughter in this way.

I know that the Government’s written response to this petition came as an enormous disappointment to Beckie, and to other families that I met on Friday ahead of this debate. Ministers have pointed out that water safety is already on the curriculum, and it is true that since 1994, water safety and swimming have been mandatory as part of the primary curriculum in England and at key stage 3 where necessary. However, although it may be on the curriculum and some schools undoubtedly do a fantastic job of delivering it, the experts and expert groups I met before today’s debate, including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, Swim England, the Swimming Teachers Association, the Royal Life Saving Society and Mike Tipton, professor of human and applied physiology at the University of Portsmouth—many of whom deliver water safety lessons in schools themselves —all said exactly the same thing: in practice, it is just not happening in every school, and where it is, it is often delivered to a poor standard.

That is a real shame, because I think that water safety is something pupils are keen to learn about. One of the reasons I was keen to lead this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee is that the issue of water safety has been consistently raised with me when I have visited schools in Newcastle. So many times, I have asked primary school children, “What one thing would you like me to ask the Prime Minister to change?” expecting to hear answers such as, “More play parks” or “Ice creams on hot days”, but water safety comes up again and again. Perhaps because they have grown up close to the River Tyne, children are anxious to learn how to be safe in and around water. Although it is true that children generally are taught to swim at school, the idea that swimming is what safety in the water is all about is a dangerous misconception. That cannot be emphasised enough.

Many of the parents I spoke to ahead of this debate told me that their children were excellent swimmers, but, sadly, it was not enough to save them. Like Dylan, Fiona Gosling’s 14-year-old son Cameron was fit and healthy, loved sports and outdoor pursuits, and was a good swimmer, but cold water shock was something he had never learnt about. While out with friends near Bishop Auckland, he jumped into the River Wear. Tragically, when his body hit the water, it could not cope with the drop in temperature and his heart stopped beating. Jack Pullen, who lost his life in a river accident in Manchester in 2016 aged 16, was not a strong swimmer. He was with friends who were, but, sadly, they were unable to save him when he got into trouble in the water.

The water on the surface of the River Etherow had appeared calm on the surface, but it is believed that there might have been strong undercurrents and hidden hazards beneath the surface. Jack’s uncle, Chris, told me of his concern that there are so many dangers in the water that children are just not aware of. Something that Beckie Ramsay said about this really struck me. She said that by having school swimming lessons, perhaps giving children a curiosity about the water but neglecting the wider safety aspects, we could be teaching children just enough to get them killed.

Water safety is about having the knowledge to recognise what a rip is, why we should not go in, knowing there are parts of the beach where the tide might come in and trap us, and knowing what cold water shock is and what to do about it. It is about having a healthy wariness of the water and knowing how deceptively dangerous it can be outside the relative safety of a swimming pool. We only need to watch the Royal National Lifeboat Institution programme “Saving Lives” to see that most water accidents occur because people do not know those things. It is about lack of knowledge, not physical fitness or swimming ability. I am a big advocate of swimming. It has so many physical and mental health benefits, and it is a skill that saves lives, but on its own it is not enough. We need to ensure that water safety is also taught in every school.

I know headteachers are tired of politicians telling them to do more to address societal problems when resources are so tight. Since 2010, schools have had to stretch declining per pupil funding to meet more and more Government requirements around mental health, careers education and many functions that local authorities used to undertake, but can no longer afford. The Government have now increased funding, but analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies points out that the end result will be per pupil funding in 2022-23 that is no higher in real terms than it was in 2009-10. In effect, the Government will be giving schools the same amount of money that they had 11 years ago, while expecting them to do more with it. So I want to be clear that if we want schools to do more on water safety, as the petitioners advocate—it makes sense since almost all children go to school—schools should absolutely be given the extra resources that they need to do it.

In anticipation of the Minister’s response, I want to say that the petitioners know that the curriculum already includes requirements on swimming and self-rescue in a range of water-based situations. That is not the issue here. The problem is that that is not achieving the hoped for outcomes in terms of water safety knowledge and saving lives, and that is what we need the Government to do something about. I ask the Minister: is the Department for Education confident that the statutory requirements ensure that all children are taught water safety to a high standard in school? Are pupils really going into year 7 knowing what a rip current is and how to get in and out of it; that tides go in and out and can trap us; and what we should do to give ourselves the best chance of staying alive if we experience cold water shock? If not, will the Government now consider supplementing the curriculum with a requirement for children to receive class-based water safety instruction before they leave primary school?

Secondly, how are we checking on progress against the curriculum? The families and experts that I met repeatedly pointed out failings in the school accountability system and hoped to see an enhanced role for Ofsted. To take just the statutory requirements on swimming, according to a recent report from the all-party parliamentary group on swimming, in 2019-20 just 77% of year 7 pupils were able to fulfil the requirement of swimming 25 metres unaided.

It is a depressing but not surprising reality that the income-based inequalities in attainment that we see more broadly in the education system also affect this. Swim England forecasts that by 2024-25, just 35% of year 7s in the most deprived areas of England will meet the statutory requirement. Sadly, the emerging pattern is that local swimming facilities are now most under threat in those very same areas.

West Denton pool in my constituency sadly closed during the first national lockdown and will not reopen due to the financial impact of the pandemic. It was located in a neighbourhood that already suffered from significant heath inequalities, falling in the top 10% in the country, according to the 2009 indices of deprivation. I worry that not only will that compound the problem of children from less affluent backgrounds disproportionately failing to meet the statutory requirements, but that a lack of high-quality swimming facilities may lead to more children swimming in open water, which we know to be a much more dangerous environment.

Despite the statutory requirement in England, in response to a freedom of information request, Ofsted confirmed that after searching 25,000 inspection reports going back 13 years, it found that fewer than 10% mentioned anything to do with swimming. Where they did, it was usually only in a very general sense.

I know that Ofsted would say that it has to take a rounded view of schools and that it is not its role to check that each statutory requirement is being met, and I know the degree to which Ofsted and inspections genuinely drive school improvement is a hotly debated topic, but when so many children leave primary school unable to meet a key statutory requirement, and there are such grave concerns from families, campaigners and experts about what seems to be a more or less systemic failure on water safety, surely there is a role, if not for Ofsted, for the Department for Education, in looking at what more the school accountability system could be doing.

As 2021 looks like it will be a year of staycations, I worry that we will see more people swimming in open water on hot summer days, unaware of the dangers. The open waters of England are a far cry from a beach in Spain with a lifeguard. The parents of Michael Scaife, who died at age 20, after saving a friend who got into trouble in the water, have been part of a campaign to warn people that even on the hottest days, water can remain very cold, and people will still succumb to cold water shock very quickly. This is somewhat outside the Schools Minister’s remit, but I would be grateful if he let us know what the Government are doing to promote water safety, in particular to children, in this year of staycations.

Lastly, I know that the Minister will mention that the DFE has relaxed some of the rules around the use of PE and the sport premium, updating guidance to clarify that such funding can be spent on swimming and water safety. I am sure that that is welcomed, but water safety is not a sport; it is a survival skill, and it is not an optional extra. Accidental water deaths are a UK-wide problem. They are not confined to certain communities or parts of the country. This cannot be targeted at specific pupils or schools; it must be set at a standard that is deliverable across the country, with all pupils entitled to receive proper water safety instruction, just as they do with fire safety or road safety.

Accidental water deaths are a hidden pandemic that has been going on for years. Education is prevention, and that has been proven many times over. We have more children dying in the water than on bikes, yet we have campaigns for cycling proficiency; more than in fires, yet we have campaigns for smoke detectors. Road safety education programmes have reduced the rate of road fatalities by half in the United Kingdom, and a national campaign to teach fire prevention through schools led to significant decreases in deaths. In the same way, by getting water safety into schools and ensuring that it is delivered, we can break the cycle by giving every child that life-saving knowledge.

Before I finish, I want to mention the story of Evan Chrisp from Newcastle to demonstrate just what a difference a little knowledge can make. Three years ago, Evan and his friends went to Beadnell bay in Northumberland to celebrate finishing their exams. A rip current caught hold of Evan, and he was swept into the North sea. As he lost sight of the beach, he remembered what he had heard on a Royal National Lifeboat Institution advert:

“Everyone who falls unexpectedly into cold water wants to follow the same instinct—to swim hard and to fight the cold water. But, when people fight it, the chances are, they lose.

Cold water shock makes them gasp uncontrollably and breathe in water, then they drown. But if they just float, until the cold water shock has passed, they’ll be able to control their breathing and have a far better chance of staying alive.”

By following that advice, Evan was able to cling on to consciousness for around 45 minutes before he was rescued. He did not learn that at school—he remembered it from a one-minute advert that just happened to have played before a film he went to see at the cinema, but he credits it with saving his life.

Evan is getting on with his life and studying at university now, and I know how lucky he feels to have survived, but too many other families have lost their children and are having to learn to live without them. Beckie Ramsay told me of the deep sadness she has felt over the past 10 years watching Dylan’s friends grow up, knowing she will never see her own son get married or enjoy being a grandmother to his children. It is not the way life should be. Since Dylan’s death, Beckie has dedicated herself to campaigning for better water safety and has gone into schools up and down the country.

Other parents I have spoken to have done the same, but I also know how tired they are. Beckie has said that after 10 years of speaking to about 170,000 people in schools up and down the country, she feels we are no further forward. They want to save other families from going through what they have, but we cannot leave this at the doorstep of bereaved parents, who have enough to deal with as it is. Society must carry that responsibility, and the best way to deliver that is through schools. It does not need to be expensive or take up a huge amount of time. Professor Mike Tipton’s research has shown that something as simple as a 20-minute classroom-based lesson can make a significant difference and be retained by children, just as remembering that one-minute advert saved Evan’s life.

There is a huge amount of readily available expertise in the National Water Safety Forum that the Government could draw on. Its chair, Dawn Whittaker, contacted me on Friday to say that it would be keen to support the Department for Education with an enhancement to the curriculum, and produce a credible and robust classroom-based lesson plan and content to support schools to deliver mandatory water safety education. She said it could be delivered by the end of the year with the support of the Department. Will the Minister commit to taking the National Water Safety Forum up on that offer?

Ms Whittaker is also chair of the National Fire Chiefs Council campaign on water safety and told me she would be happy to support discussions on the inclusion of a requirement in the fire service national framework for the fire and rescue services to contribute to the delivery of water safety in schools. That could reduce the burden on teachers and schools, and I urge the Minister and his colleagues at the Home Office to consider it too.

Water accidents are highly preventable if we just get this teaching into schools and make sure it is being delivered. We already know what we need to teach and how to teach it; we just need to get on with it and make it happen. We owe that much to the memory of Dylan, Cameron, Jack, Michael and the countless others who have lost their lives in the water.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the Minister for that response and hon. Members for their contributions this evening.

I want to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), because I met Michael’s father, Mark, on Friday, alongside the other parents who have lost their children in water accidents. It was an incredibly moving meeting, and I know that the fact that he has his MP’s support will mean a lot to Mark, as will the speech that my hon. Friend made.

The hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) also spoke incredibly powerfully about experiences in his community, and made the case for reviewing the curriculum. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) spoke from personal knowledge and experience of the issue, supported the petitioners’ call for teaching the dangers of cold and tidal waters, and shared the tragic experience of his constituent, Mrs Corrie, with the loss of her son, James. Once again, James was a strong swimmer —we hear that over and over again.

I reiterate to the Minister what I said in my opening comments: we know that this is on the curriculum. The problem is that it is just not happening in a consistent way. In many cases, it is not happening at all. That is not my view; it is what five water safety experts from five different organisations and the bereaved parents I spoke to, many of whom have spent years campaigning and speaking in schools, all say. They all reported the same experience. They desperately want the Government to do something about it.

I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to consider supplementing the curriculum with a requirement for children to receive class-based water safety instruction before they leave primary school, with accountability for ensuring that it happens. The National Water Safety Forum has a huge well of expertise to draw on. As I said, its chair has indicated that it is ready and willing to support the Department for Education in drawing up a plan to get that into the classroom as quickly as possible. I am grateful for the Minister’s offer to meet the campaigning groups to see how we can make that happen.

Unlike many other major public health issues, there has been no comparable campaign on drowning prevention, but on 28 April this year the UN adopted its first ever resolution on global drowning prevention. It requests all member states to develop a national drowning prevention plan and measurable targets, put in place effective water safety laws, promote the research and development of innovative drowning prevention tools and technology, and make water safety, swimming and first aid part of the school curriculum. The resolution also introduces a new UN World Drowning Prevention Day, on 25 July each year.

I hope Members will do what they can to join the initiatives on this year’s World Drowning Prevention Day by groups such as the International Drowning Research Alliance, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and many others who work tirelessly to try to eradicate a problem that tragically claims so many lives, but is largely preventable with the help of low cost interventions.

In a letter to the DFE that she was kind enough to share with me, Beckie Ramsay said: “In the past decade I have sadly met with many families who have different stories, but all with the same outcome. One thing that comes across over and over again is that parents only learn about cold water shock when either trying to work out the cause of their loved one’s death or at their loved one’s inquest”. Isn’t it time to break that cycle? When it comes to safety, knowledge is power, and education saves lives, but what we are missing is any universal availability of this life-saving knowledge.

On behalf of the petitioners, I urge the Government to support their campaign to get water safety into schools and ensure it is delivered properly. We did it for road and fire with life-saving results. Now let us do it for water.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 576563, relating to water safety.

Catch-up Premium

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]]

The north-east has a higher proportion of long-term disadvantaged children than other parts of the country, and that simply has to be tackled if levelling up is ever to become more than a slogan. We know, and the Government acknowledge, that the least well-off children have been at the highest risk of falling behind their classmates over the past 15 months, both in the school classroom and elsewhere, yet the Government’s education recovery proposals do not seem serious about meeting the challenge. The £1.4 billion package amounts to less than 10% of the £15 billion that Sir Kevan Collins, the Government’s own education recovery chief, who recently resigned, called for. The Government’s caveat that more money may come, with no suggestion of when or what it might look like, provides little comfort. It increasingly looks as if the Government plan to bundle together various pots of funding on an ad hoc basis and call it an education recovery package, but that is not good enough. We need a bold vision for truly transforming the lives of our children and young people. Warm words need to backed up with action and funding.

It is vital that Government trust headteachers to tailor what little support is available to the needs of their schools and pupils so that it can be used most effectively. The Government’s proposals focus heavily on tutoring, but academic research shows that small groups and individual work can be effective for pupils who are struggling—it does not have to be external tutoring. If schools want their staff, who know the pupils, to provide support, as many schools in the north-east have chosen to do, they should have the flexibility to access the funding that works best for them.

While we all want to see academic progress, the past 15 months have been a frightening time for our children, with disrupted routines, reduced contact with friends and relatives, and fear of the virus, so it is disappointing that there is not any funding to support the crucial social enrichment on which many children have missed out, including sports clubs and music lessons. Funding plans must recognise the need for mental health support. Given that the long-term impact of the past 15 months has still to unfold, we will not be able to sustain the academic progress that we all want to see without additional support for the wellbeing of our children and young people. The two go hand in hand.

The Government have failed to show the ambition needed to meet the scale of the education challenge. They must change course and invest in our children now. Failure to do so is not only wrong but a false economy, as future generations will pay the price in lost earnings and lost opportunities, and our country will be the poorer for it.

Child Food Poverty

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Westminster Hall

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 554276, relating to child food poverty.

I had hoped to be present in Parliament to open the debate. However, there has unfortunately been severe disruption on the east coast main line between Newcastle and London, caused by cows on the line. I am grateful to House staff for facilitating my virtual contribution to this incredibly important debate.

Child food poverty has become an issue of huge public interest during the covid-19 pandemic, as is shown by the fact that 1.1 million people have signed this high-profile petition started by Marcus Rashford. I commend Marcus for his campaigning on the issue. He has used his immense platform and personal experience to bring this long-overlooked issue to the forefront of people’s minds, uniting fans of football and others behind his call today.

The terms “child food poverty” and “food insecurity” are used quite frequently now, so I will start by setting out exactly what we mean when we use those phrases; I think it might come as a shock to some people. A standard way to determine food insecurity, and one that is used by the UK Food Standards Agency and in many other countries, is to ask people three straightforward questions: have you had to skip meals because of a lack of money or not being able to access the food that you need? Have you gone hungry and not eaten for those same reasons? Have you gone for a day without eating for those same reasons?

The executive director of the Food Foundation told us in a survey from September that 14% of households with children fell into the moderate or the severe category following their responses to those questions. That is around 2.3 million children right here in the UK. Child food poverty is not about families who rely on low-cost ready meals or who lack access to healthy food; it is about children who are forced to skip meals and go hungry because their parents or carers cannot afford to feed them.

It is a shocking reality that we live in a country where there is no shortage of food—only a shortage of money to pay for it. That is an incredibly serious issue. Although the unprecedented circumstances of the last 14 months have certainly made things worse and put a spotlight on childhood poverty as never before, the problem was with us before any of us had ever heard of covid-19. Sadly, I fear it will be with us long after we come out of lockdown.

The petition has three key asks of Government: provide meals and activities during all school holidays, expand free school meals to all under-16s when a parent or guardian is in receipt of universal credit or an equivalent benefit, and increase the value of healthy start vouchers to at least £4.25 a week, which has already happened, and expand the scheme.

The decision to provide £221 million of funding for the holiday activities and food programme during Easter, summer and Christmas 2021 was very welcome, though it must be said that it took heavy cajoling from Marcus Rashford and from campaigners and colleagues in the House to make that happen. It is still not clear, however, whether the Government expect to make that funding a long-term commitment beyond 2021. Will the Minister confirm that today?

Until this year, local authorities had to engage in competitive bidding for a £9 million pot for holiday activities and food funding, which covered only around 50,000 children in England. That gave no certainty to low-income families, and there can be no going back to it. Also, the Government have not directly responded to the petitioners’ request to expand the eligibility criteria for free school meals and healthy start vouchers. I am happy to be corrected by the Minister, but it seems clear to me that there are currently no plans to do that.

During our evidence session with Marcus Rashford, he explained that from his own experience

“it’s impossible to learn and to develop”

in a school environment “if you’re hungry” and do not have the right foods. He emphasised that food is important not just for effective learning, but for removing the anxiety of not knowing where your next meal is coming from. We also heard that up to 1.2 million children could be living in poverty but not be eligible for free school meals, so they are forced to rely on poor-quality food or go hungry. The Trussell Trust told us that during the year before the pandemic hit, it distributed 1.9 million food parcels.

We also heard that people with illnesses and disabilities are massively over-represented at food banks because the benefits system is not catching them. Will the Minister explain why the Government are not looking at expanding the free school meal eligibility criteria, as the petitioners ask, given all the evidence of the families who face food insecurity and who are forced to rely on food banks, but are missed by the current criteria?

Specifically on healthy start, the Government increased the value of the vouchers from £3.10 a week to £4.25 from April, meeting a key ask of the petitioners, which is welcome, but there are real concerns about trends in uptake. National statistics are not available, but figures provided in response to a written parliamentary question that I tabled show that uptake has declined in every north-east local authority over the last four years, even as child poverty has been increasing in every one of them. In the year before the pandemic, uptake fell by more than 15% in Newcastle. The Government plan to replace the physical vouchers with a digitised version, so what assurances can the Minister give that the lowest-income parents will be able to access digital vouchers?

One of the issues with uptake is that local authorities are charged with identifying and promoting the vouchers to local families, but owing to the roll-out of universal credit they no longer have access to all the data that they once had, and I understand the Department for Work and Pensions will not share the universal credit data. The chief executive of Tower Hamlets recently gave evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee and suggested that the DWP should use universal credit data automatically to passport families they know are eligible for healthy start vouchers, but that is not happening at the moment, perhaps because the vouchers are the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Care. It seems ludicrous that such bureaucracy is preventing children from accessing healthy food, so will the Minister commit herself to raising the matter with colleagues and getting it sorted?

That brings me to a broader theme that is seriously hampering efforts to get to grips with the issue—the lack of clarity on who exactly is responsible for the Government’s policy on child poverty. We are grateful that the Minister will respond to the debate, but she is at the Department for Education. How does that fit with the Work and Pensions Secretary’s recent letter to the Petitions Committee in which she said that the DWP is co-ordinating the

“cross-Government approach to tackling poverty”?

How does that co-ordination work in practice? What process do Departments go through to review the role and effectiveness of targeted measures such as free school meals that fall within the remit of another Department?

The Government have, with some cajoling, implemented several welcome, temporary measures to support the families struggling with the cost of food. It should not have taken that level of campaigning and pressure to shame the Government into action, but I think we would all agree that normalising emergency food aid as the primary way to deal with the effects of child poverty is not something we should aspire to as a country. That is stigmatising and it is not sustainable.

What Marcus Rashford and the 1.1 million people who signed his petition want is a long-term plan to support families facing food poverty, over and above those temporary measures, because parts of our country were facing a growing child poverty crisis before we had ever heard of covid-19.

It is not enough for Ministers to refer vaguely to a levelling-up agenda whenever child poverty is brought up. It lacks definition and, as far as I can tell, it has no metrics by which we can track performance. We hear a lot about getting parents into work as a solution, but most parents of children living in poverty are already in work.

Marcus Rashford said he started the petition to “give families hope” and so that they could see that “the Government are listening”. So, I ask the Minister, are the Government listening? There is no shortage of food in this country, but for far too many there is a shortage of money to buy it. If we really want to tackle child poverty, that is what we need to address.

That will require action on unemployment, insecure work, welfare reform, education and social inequality, and more, but the first step is for the Government genuinely to commit to tackling the issue, with no more empty promises, re-presenting of facts or redefining of parameters. Only the Government can solve this by working across Departments and using every lever they have to create a better present and future for children living in food poverty. Will the Minister, on behalf of the Government, commit to that today?

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

The debate is very heavily subscribed. It is not my method to impose a time limit, but if Members kept their comments to under three minutes—preferably to two and a half minutes —everyone would get in. You will be able to see a clock, which will help you to know when it is advisable to finish. If people take too long, those at the end will not get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell [V]]

The Minister crammed a lot into her response, but I did not hear a commitment to extend free school meals and healthy start vouchers, to continue the holiday activity funding or to expand the food programme—the three asks in the petition. Each one of these demands is recommended in the Government-commissioned national food strategy review. Indeed, Marcus Rashford has tweeted during the debate to say,

“It’s confusing that we are debating the implementation of government-commissioned findings. Gov did the research. Gov gathered the data. And solutions were formed from that (NFS). I endorsed them…so what’s to debate? Let’s discuss the findings and discuss the solutions.”

However, we have listened to Conservative Member after Conservative Member, including the Minister, say that this is a cross-party issue, that it is all very unfortunate and that no one wants to see children going hungry, but that it is not political. I agree that politics is at its best when we pull together in the same direction, but the fact is that we would be doing the ever increasing number of children growing up hungry and in poverty—on this Government’s watch—no favours at all if we did not call it out.

There is no shortage of food in this country, and children are not going hungry because they cannot get food. They are going hungry because their families cannot afford food, as they are stuck in a cycle of insecure work, lack of opportunity and high cost of living, and they are let down by a social security system that is failing in its most basic function. The most important step the Government could take to address child food poverty is to address child and family poverty, with a proper joined-up strategy across Government.

We are one of the richest countries in the world, and there is nothing inevitable about millions of children going hungry in this country, but unless we get to the root of the problem—rather than just treating the symptoms or, worse, failing to take responsibility for it—it is a problem that will not go away. The Government need to step up now.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 554276, relating to child food poverty.

Union Learning Fund

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for securing this important debate and for making a compelling case for the union learning fund. We live in an increasingly uncertain world where employment is more insecure, and long-established industries are giving way to new sectors and new forms of working. One of the most powerful tools that we have to help workers through the uncertainty and navigate the swirling tides of economic change is education and training. We need to be able to help workers throughout their working life to retrain, to reskill, and to update their capabilities so that they can take on new jobs.

Digital skills in particular are necessary in modern workplaces of all kinds, and in all fields. To take one example, local government has needed to make the changes quickly. There has been the most significant shift to digital working in our lifetime in just the last few months, and in my local authority in Newcastle learning zones have been set up so that staff can get online—many for the first time—so that they can continue to provide services. It is union learning reps who have provided the human support to make it possible and support people with digital skills. We know how important that is. I do not know about other hon. Members, but since we have moved to a more virtual Parliament I have been on the phone to the Parliamentary Digital Service almost every day. We need people to speak to, and that is the role that many union learning reps have similarly played for local government. The pandemic has supercharged the process, with so many people having to transition so quickly to working remotely.

As well as being vital for staff development, it is crucial to the economy to ensure that we have the workforce to meet skills requirements and develop the UK’s competitive edge in key industries in an increasingly uncertain and onward-developing world. The difficulties caused by the pandemic, and the growing number of redundancies, will leave many needing to retrain. They will turn to their union learning reps to support them in that. Lifelong learning is more important than ever, which is why the decision to cut the union learning fund is disappointing. It seems incredibly short-sighted and frankly unfathomable. It is also completely at odds with the Prime Minister’s professed intentions with respect to a lifetime skills guarantee, and to build back better—and, indeed, to level up—after covid-19. The union learning fund is particularly, and uniquely, well equipped to support those workers who might not otherwise be engaged with workplace learning, ensuring that everyone can get access to the opportunities and that no one is left behind. I urge the Government to listen to hon. Members today and to reconsider the decision—and to continue the vital union learning fund.

Free Childcare

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Before I call Catherine McKinnell, I simply say that Jessica Taylor, the House of Commons photographer, is in the room and will be taking photographs. I hope people do not mind; everyone is looking very good today.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 255237 relating to the provision of free childcare.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to lead the first Petitions Committee debate of this new Parliament. Campaigning on issues that are important to us is a vital democratic right, and for hundreds of years petitions have had the power to connect people with Parliament, to raise awareness of important issues and to help bring about real change for people and communities around the country. More than 23 million people have started or signed petitions on the parliamentary site since it launched in 2015, and it has been inspiring to see so many people getting involved and actively engaged with Parliament and democracy. I am proud to have been elected Chair of the Petitions Committee, and I look forward to taking it forward into the new decade, starting with today’s debate, which has attracted interest from every part of our country.

The e-petition, which is titled, “Provide 15 hours free childcare to working parents for children over 9 months”, was signed by more than 146,000 people, including more than 600 in my own city of Newcastle upon Tyne. It reads:

“After 9 months of maternity leave, most working mums do not receive any maternity pay and need to go back to work. I think all working parents should be entitled to 15 hours free childcare from the time a child is 9 months. It makes more sense to provide this funding from 9 months instead of 2 years.

Many working families struggle week to week due to the cost of childcare. You are required to go back to work after a year of maternity pay however many go back after 9 months due to funds. Once you go back the majority of your wage goes to childcare and in some cases you are better off not working. This should not be the case.”

The creator of the e-petition, Harley Cuthbert, was going to be in the Gallery today to watch the debate and may well join us. I thank Harley for starting the petition. She told me that she decided to start the petition because of her own situation.

For anyone to be left feeling that they cannot afford to start a family due to the cost of childcare is truly heartbreaking. We all want to live in a society where families are able to balance work and family life and are not forced to delay having a family or become dependent on welfare benefits to meet the costs of raising a family. Harley described her situation as being in a middle group of people who earn too much to receive state support, but not enough to be able to afford the cost of childcare. The system should encourage parents to work and contribute to the economy, while also raising a family. The provision of affordable childcare is a key part of that.

Childcare is an issue that interests the British public, and no fewer than 67 petitions in the last Parliament were related to it. They included calls for extra support for parents of multiples, for free childcare to begin earlier, such as at six months or a year, for extra support for parents with disabilities, for special schemes for the families of UK armed forces personnel and for business rates relief for nursery providers.

Ahead of the debate, our Committee reached out to the public online, through Facebook and Mumsnet, to continue the conversation about how childcare issues are impacting on families. The issue affects people in every part of our country and across the income scale, from two-parent families with two good, full-time salaries, to part-time, single-parent families on minimum wage. All said that they struggle to pay for childcare so that they could return to work. I want to share just a few of the contributions to highlight how the issue is affecting working families.

One of the strongest messages from people was that they have to pay to go to work. Jo said:

“With two preschool aged kids I was earning at a loss having to pay for childcare…working and not making money is really bad for a mum’s mental health, the guilt for choosing to maintain a career and not being with your kids is one thing but to do it for no current financial gain is a real mind crusher.”

Katie, who is due to return to work in June, said:

“When me and my partner were looking at me going back full time and putting my child in nursery full time it didn’t make financial sense for me to go back to work. It’s unfair for parents to have to choose between going back to work to break even or in some cases actually paying to work (as nursery fees are above the cost of their wage) or staying at home and having no job and no income.”

A large number of respondents said that they were better off financially not working or working fewer hours than paying for full-time childcare.

Some families are paying the same amount for childcare as they do for their rent or mortgage. Claire said:

“3 days a week nursery is costing us £1000 forcing me to have to go back full time and rely on family for the other 2 days!”

Victoria said:

“The nurseries in my local area have essentially created a fixed price for childcare. Full time nursery 5 days a week is £1500 a month. That is more than my mortgage!”

We know the cost of childcare is a huge expense for families, and the childcare survey, published by Coram last month, reported that the average cost of 25 hours of childcare a week for a child under two in England is £131.61 a week, or £6,800 a year. That is a significant amount of money for families to budget for. Moreover, we know that the cost of childcare is rising above the rate of inflation. Twenty-five hours of childcare for children under two now costs 5% more than it did a year ago, and 4% more for a child aged two. Those ever-rising costs put huge pressure on family budgets and erode the incentives for parents to go out to work when they see most of their wages disappearing to cover the cost of childcare. The financial pressures have a knock-on effect on other aspects of family life.

We have heard from parents whose careers have been permanently disadvantaged. Others must rely on family members to help, particularly elderly grandparents. Some people, such as Harley, have delayed having children or having additional children because of childcare costs. Shannon said:

“I had my baby in May and I’ve had to give up working and rely solely on my fiancé’s wage. My weekly wage before was £250 and my childcare bill would be £200 so I’m out of pocket by the time I’ve filled my car to drive to work and drop my little girl off.”

Rachel said:

“Women like me who then have to stay at home to look after children risk falling behind male colleagues at work, increasing the gender pay gap. Men who don’t have caring responsibilities are able to work those extra years and so earn more overall.”

Sandra, a grandmother, said:

“My daughter returned to work recently. Her older daughter was cared for by me until just over a year ago when she was given a nursery place. I now care for her baby almost 9 months old. I’m nearing 66 with no pension. My daughter can’t afford to pay me as she is on minimum wage. I love my grandson but 4 years ago it was easier with his sister and I now struggle with caring for him. I’m exhausted by the time she gets home, a nursery place would be brilliant.”

Another point, particularly given that we have just had International Women’s Day, is the impact on gender equality and career progression for women. A report by the TUC in 2016 found that fathers who work full time get paid a fifth more than men with similar jobs who do not have children. A wage bonus of 21% contrasts with the experience of working mothers, who the report found typically suffer a 15% pay penalty. The TUC has called for more decently paid jobs to be available on a reduced-hours or flexible-work basis to reduce the penalty paid by mothers and to enable more fathers to fit working around their fathering and parenting responsibilities.

Better childcare opportunities could also enable women who have children to continue working more hours a week, reducing the impact on their career. If we are to tackle increasing rates of child poverty and a lack of social mobility, it is critical that we address the issue. In 2017-18, 4.1 million children were living in poverty—30% of all children—which is a shocking statistic. It is expected to reach 5.2 million by 2022. The two biggest costs putting pressure on family budgets are childcare and housing. When childcare costs are accounted for, an extra 130,000 children are pushed into poverty.

We also know that the attainment gap between disadvantaged and more advantaged children is already evident by the time a child reaches school at age five, with the gap between them equivalent to 4.3 months of learning. The gap more than doubles to 9.5 months at the end of primary school, and then more than doubles again to 19.3 months at the end of secondary school. Increasing the availability of good quality affordable childcare enables more parents to get into or return to work or access education or training, while also improving the educational outcomes for their children.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does she agree with me that the current system is under huge pressure? In my city of Cambridge are two nurseries: one maintained and one private. One is slashing services and the other is telling parents that services will stop within weeks. Does she agree with me that the current system is not financed properly by the Government?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I will come on to make that very point in more detail.

The issue is not only a problem for individual families; it is critical to our whole economy and productivity levels. Early years education has proven to be a positive benefit to our children, too. The Department for Education’s study of early education and development—SEED—longitudinal study, published in 2018, found that increased hours per week spent in formal early education, such as day nursery, between the ages of two and four resulted in non-verbal development and better socio-emotional outcomes. The Education Committee’s inquiry into tackling disadvantage in early years found that early years education for children below the age of four has a positive impact on the life chances of disadvantaged children. However, it also found that disadvantaged children currently spend significantly less time in pre-school than children from more affluent backgrounds.

Britain has long had a publicly funded education system because successive Governments have recognised that such a fundamental service should be provided by the state and be available to all. Just as we accept the principle that family income should never be a factor in whether children receive a good school education, the same must be said of early education, which is equally as crucial. We often look to Scandinavia for ideas on effective family policy; countries there have long recognised the value of early education and have invested in it extensively.

Finland provides free universal daycare from eight months until the start of formal education at age seven. In Sweden, parents have a universal entitlement to a guaranteed childcare space, and the fees for using it are capped. The system is so accessible that 85% of children under five years attend pre-school. Parents are entitled to 16 months’ parental leave, with the first year paid at 80% of their salary. They also receive a monthly child allowance that can be used to significantly reduce the cost of pre-school. In Denmark, the cost of childcare to parents is capped at 30% of the actual cost for nurseries. Norwegian parents are entitled to a flat-rate child benefit allowance. The result is that Scandinavian countries consistently rank among the best internationally on all the indicators of children’s wellbeing. Rates of child poverty are also among the lowest in the world.

The provision of free part-time childcare places for all three and four-year-olds in England was introduced in the early 2000s. Tony Blair’s Labour Government recognised that the modern welfare state needed to adapt and do more to support parents to raise young families and balance home life with work. The introduction of free childcare, alongside tax credits, was part of a package to give parents—particularly mothers—more choice over returning to work and having more children. I am pleased that the principle of investing in early years support has received cross-party backing. There have been some positive developments from Governments in recent years. Working parents of three to four-year-olds now receive 30 hours of free childcare, and those of disadvantaged two-year-olds can receive 15 hours on a means-tested basis.

However, although the headline picture is of a Government that continued Labour’s investment in early years, beneath the surface services have been squeezed and vital early intervention support has been cut. Across the board, spending on Sure Start and early years services in England has decreased by 39% since 2014-15, and almost £1 billion was slashed from Sure Start spending between 2010 and 2018. Free childcare, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) has pointed out, has been underfunded; additional funding has not been allocated to cover the cost of minimum wage rises for nursery staff. Take-up of the two-year-old offer among children who receive free school meals varies significantly across the country, with analysis showing that in major metropolitan areas they are among the key disadvantaged groups. Access to places and differences in the types of placement on offer varies a lot, too, and can limit take-up in some areas. That is why, in 2018, the Treasury Committee conducted an inquiry, which I was pleased to be part of, into childcare policy and its influence on our economy.

I was really pleased to see the Committee—for the first time chaired by a woman—investigate the economic impact of childcare as a key aspect of our national infrastructure, in recognition of the fact that our economy is driven not only by trains, roads and IT, but by parents’ ability to go to work knowing that their children are happy and well cared for in high-quality settings. We therefore looked at the overall package of Government initiatives in this area and their effectiveness. Our cross-party review found that the Treasury had made little effort to calculate the economic impact of the Government’s childcare interventions. However, the evidence available suggested that the biggest impact of the Government’s childcare schemes may be to make childcare more affordable to those who receive support, rather than bringing parents back into the workplace.

The Committee also found that parents may need to retrain in order to return to work, but the free childcare scheme did not support that. We recommended the removal of age restrictions on childcare support for parents undertaking training or education, which would have the greatest impact on productivity. We also identified design flaws in the current schemes. The requirement in the childcare element of universal credit for parents to pay childcare costs up front before seeking reimbursement is really unhelpful to the lowest-paid parents. Moreover, the fact that the entitlement to 30 hours of free childcare only begins the term after a child turns three means that if a parent is offered a job in January, their entitlement will not begin until the summer term; that can make a critical difference to some parents’ livelihoods and decision making. If the current system of support is the starting point, the flaws need to be addressed for free childcare schemes to support people into work effectively.

Another area that has proven to be a challenge is the way in which providers are funded to deliver the schemes, and any uplift in free childcare must be accompanied by the additional funding required to make it viable. Coram’s childcare survey found that around a third of local authorities thought that the 30-hour extended entitlement had caused prices to rise for those aged three to four outside the funded entitlements. Half thought that there had been a negative impact on the financial sustainability of childcare providers. Purnima Tanuku OBE, chief executive of the National Day Nurseries Association, has said:

“High quality early education positively impacts on a child’s development and therefore their lifelong education and opportunities—it cannot be done on the cheap...By short-changing childcare providers, the Government is selling families short on their promises. Parents are seeing fees for additional hours and for under threes go up as a result.”

The Treasury Committee report estimated that the average cost per hour of providing childcare is £4.68, but the average rate that the Government passed on to providers for 2017-18 was £4.34. Some providers are left with insufficient funding to cover their costs and therefore have to cut back on the service provided, including by restricting times, reducing child-to-staff ratios and charging for services such as food and activities. In this situation, providers in higher-income areas can mitigate those funding shortfalls much more easily than can providers in deprived areas, who have much more to gain from these schemes. That undermines the potential for early education to reach disadvantaged children, who are in the greatest danger of falling behind.

The Education Committee’s inquiry into tackling disadvantage in the early years made similar observations. It found that rather than closing the gap, the Government’s 30-hour childcare policy was entrenching inequality by leading to financial pressures on nurseries, providing more advantaged children with more quality childcare and putting stress on the available places for disadvantaged two-year-olds. The Government must pay providers a rate that reflects the full costs; otherwise, the full benefits for those who are eligible will not be realised, particularly in our most disadvantaged communities, and the overall cost of childcare will be pushed up further.

Of course, investing in childcare costs money. Any policy proposals, however effective they would be, are shaped by the available financial resources. The cost of funded childcare places for three and four-year-olds stood at £3.3 billion in 2018-19, which is equivalent to £3,650 per eligible child. Overall, the Government now spend about £6 billion on all funded childcare, despite the limitations and restrictions in the current model. If free childcare were to be expanded to all children from nine months old, as the petition requests, there would clearly be significant cost implications. Labour’s manifesto proposals to reform childcare provision and make high-quality early years education available to all, regardless of income, would amount to a £4.5 billion investment. We know the value of investing in early education to tackle entrenched disadvantage and gender inequality, and there would be longer-term cost savings and a productivity boost from targeting this investment at the early years. Although this would involve a significant cost, politics is the language of priorities, and measures that tackle poverty, support families and boost the economy should be at the top of the list.

There is clear cross-party support for improving childcare, as evidenced by commitments in the manifestos of the three main parties at the last election. Labour pledged the extension of paid maternity leave to 12 months; the introduction of 30 hours of free pre-school childcare for all two, three and four-year-olds; and the extension of provision for one-year-olds. The Conservatives pledged a £1 billion fund to help to create more high-quality affordable childcare, including before and after school and during school holidays; and the Liberal Democrat manifesto included a commitment to offer 35 hours of free high-quality childcare to every child aged two to four, and to children aged between nine and 24 months whose parents are in work.

It remains to be seen whether the current Government have the political will to deliver the support that is needed. Childcare is an issue that affects families right across our country, and there is a widespread belief that the Government could be doing much more to support people to work while also raising a family. I thank everyone who signed the petition that led to today’s debate, and I thank all members of the public who have been in touch to share their views. I hope that by the conclusion of the debate, we will have represented their views and experiences effectively, and that the Government will reflect on this discussion and have a serious think about what support they can provide, particularly given this week’s Budget, which is very timely.

I will finish by asking two questions that I hope the Minister will pledge to consider. First, will she commit to a review of the economic and social impact of various levels of free childcare, so that its effectiveness can be independently verified? Secondly, will she commit to exploring the expansion of free childcare as requested by the petitioners, including the benefits of such a scheme and how it might practically be delivered with sufficient childcare places and funding to make it viable? Today, the Government have the opportunity to give a clear expression of their commitment to supporting families, supporting social mobility and supporting women and families in the workplace by pledging to investigate this issue. On behalf of the petitioners, I urge the Minister to do so.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I now have the pleasure of inviting David Simmonds to make his contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Ford]

My hon. Friend absolutely hits the nail on the head. I have been in my role for two weeks and one day, and the issue of education, health and care plans has been raised a number of times. SEND review is right at the top of my list of priorities. The plan is meant to cover education, health and care—that was a huge step forward in the 2014 reforms—and it needs to ensure that they are all delivered. I have a meeting scheduled with my counterpart, the Health Minister, but the Health team seems rather busy at the moment. However, it will happen, and we will look at those plans as part of the review.

My hon. Friend also raised the important issues of the school forums, which I will look into, and of tax-free childcare. I was quite disappointed that neither of the two Opposition speakers mentioned tax-free childcare, because it is an important introduction that helps up to 1.3 million families whom we estimate could be benefiting.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Vicky Ford]

Let me go through the availability for the record. Tax-free childcare is available for all parents who work more than 16 hours at the national minimum wage or above, and who earn up to £100,000. For every £8 that parents pay into an online account, the Government will pay £2, up to the maximum contribution of £2,000 per year for children aged under 12. Parents with disabled children will receive extra support worth up to £4,000 per child each year until their child is 17. More and more families are benefiting annually from tax-free childcare. I asked to be updated on the latest numbers. The numbers benefiting have more than doubled since this time last year: 205,000 families used tax-free childcare for 243,000 children in December 2019, compared with 91,000 families for 109,000 children in December 2018. I accept the points made about the bureaucracy sometimes, but the scheme is more targeted and fairer.

[Catherine McKinnell]

To correct the record, I did not specifically reference the tax-free childcare scheme; I referenced the Government’s interventions, which very much included the tax-free childcare scheme. The Treasury Committee’s conclusions were that the scheme is not as targeted a use of Government resources as it could be; it results in those already in work benefiting much more than those looking to re-enter the workplace, and that is the subject of the petition.

[Vicky Ford]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will welcome the news that the number of people using the tax-free childcare scheme has more than doubled. The scheme benefits the parents of very young children, which is the entire point of the debate, and it is more targeted and fairer. Unlike vouchers, which were mentioned, it is available to everyone who meets the eligibility criteria, including those earning the minimum wage and the self-employed. Often, vouchers were available only to those employed by larger organisations. This scheme is available per child, whereas childcare vouchers were available per parent. Therefore, parents with younger children, disabled children or multiple children, whom the hon. Lady mentioned and who are likely to have higher childcare costs, will be better off under TFC.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Clearly, any support for childcare is welcome, but the Government’s so-called tax-free childcare scheme benefits most those who are wealthier and earn more. The petition focuses on those on lower incomes who consider themselves to be caught in the middle: people who do not earn enough to get the maximum benefit from that scheme, but who are not eligible for the free element of childcare. It would be helpful if the Government recognised that squeezed middle.

[Vicky Ford]

Let me get on to those who are sometimes on lower incomes. As I hope the hon. Lady is aware, eligible families can now get help with 85% of their childcare costs through universal credit, compared with 70% under the previous tax credit system. That is the highest ever level of support. Furthermore, we committed in our manifesto to creating a £1 billion fund to help with high-quality, affordable, wraparound childcare for the holiday, before-school and after-school periods. We have already started working on the details of that, which will be rolled out from 2021.

I understand that some working families who contribute hugely to our society face additional pressures. I am thinking in particular of people such as nursing students, who work shifts, and armed services families, many of whom move around regularly. That is why the Department of Health and Social Care has already announced that, from September this year, it will increase the parental support allowance for students of nursing, midwifery and allied health professions from £1,000 to £2,000 per year. That is on top of the additional £5,000 that all students on those courses will get access to, whether or not they have children.

The Ministry of Defence is setting up a childcare support team, the aim of which will be to work at fulfilling the manifesto commitment and ensuring free wraparound childcare for four to 11-year-old eligible children from armed services families. That team will also look at other areas of potential disadvantage that service families face when trying to access appropriate childcare, whatever the age of their children.

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North for raising this important issue. I listened carefully to the debate and noted all the contributions. I am honoured to be responsible for this extremely important part of the Government’s agenda to support parents and children. I am proud of the significant range of childcare support that the Government offer families, and of the improvements that have been made over the past decade. As Members will know, a spending review is due this year. I cannot make any commitments ahead of that about the shape or amount of the Government’s childcare funding, but I will ensure that the points raised today feed into the Government’s evidence base for that spending review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Thank you, Mr Davies. This has been a wide-ranging debate. We had the opportunity to put on the record a range of concerns and to consider the range of measures that successive Governments have put in place to try to tackle this issue. The one point I must make is that, clearly, this is not job done. The petition would not have been signed by 146,000 people if families out there felt that their childcare requirements were already being met and they were able to pay for it.

[Emma Hardy]

I want to correct something I said in my intervention on the Minister. The report I mentioned was by the Education Policy Institute, which found that the attainment gap had widened by 0.6%. I said that that gap would not be closed until 2050, but the report shows that it will take well over 100 years for the disadvantage gap in maths and English to close. I just wanted to clarify that.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification, which very much goes to my point that this is nowhere near job done.

I congratulate the Minister on her appointment to what I agree is a vital part of Government. I hope it will be central to the Government’s offer, so that, by the end of this Parliament—I hope we can assume that that will be in 2024—families are better placed to pursue their careers and to ensure that their children are well cared for, happy and educated, and arrive at school on a more equal footing.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on his first speech in Westminster Hall. My first speech in Westminster Hall was back in 2010 in a debate on volcanic ash. I do not wish to diminish the importance of that crisis at the time—Newcastle airport is in my constituency—but I must say that his contribution was vital and will be of long-standing importance to the work of this Parliament.

Clearly, this is a complex issue to which there is no one solution. There are important elements for families, children, social mobility, wider society, our economy, our productivity and our gender equality, and for the progress we must make as a country on all those fronts. I welcome any support for childcare that the Government can offer, but they must recognise that the support available at the moment is not sufficient. In too many cases, it does not keep pace with inflation. People are working harder and feel ever more squeezed and compromised when it comes to meeting the costs of childcare and making choices for their families and their careers.

I thank the petitioners—Harley, who started the petition, and the 146,000 people who signed it—for bringing this issue to Parliament’s attention and ensuring that the Government are tasked with considering not only what has been done to date but what more they can do, in particular to support families who feel a bit squeezed between the support available for very low-income families and the support that many more affluent families are able to take advantage of.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 255237 relating to the provision of free childcare.

School Funding

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 232220 relating to school funding.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I present the petition on behalf of Mr Andrew Ramanandi, the headteacher of St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School, Blaydon, and more than 104,000 teachers, support staff, heads, parents and governors around the country who have signed it. I acknowledge the fair funding for schools campaign, which was started by Mr Ramanandi and joined by all headteachers across the borough of Gateshead. Their imaginative campaign has captured the attention of the public and many politicians, and they will be listening closely to the debate. Mr Ramanandi is in the Gallery.

Dedicated staff, who are by far the most important resource in our schools, face an uphill battle due to not only school funding, but curriculum reform, an increasing workload and the growing and often complex needs of many of our children. Time and again, we hear that morale and staff retention are low. Our educators are looking to us as politicians to help them to respond to that challenge.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and fellow Petitions Committee member on securing and introducing this important debate. In January, the Minister encouraged MPs to write to their local schools and congratulate them on their improvements in key stage 2. I did just that, but I heard back almost immediately from my local schools, which had improved their results significantly, that they were having to lose the key staff who had helped them to do that. Does she agree that that is completely counterproductive and hugely concerning for the future performance of those schools?

[Liz Twist]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it runs counter to what we might expect to congratulate schools and then find that they have huge financial problems.

Mental Health Education in Schools

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 176555 relating to mental health education in schools.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady, and to lead this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, given the importance of this issue for society as a whole and because of the frequency with which young people raise it with me whenever I visit local schools and youth organisations in Newcastle upon Tyne North. The e-petition, entitled “Make mental health education compulsory in primary and secondary schools”, has been signed by more than 103,000 people. It reads:

“Mental health education is still not part of the UK curriculum despite consistently high rates of child and adolescent mental health issues. By educating young people about mental health in schools, we can increase awareness and hope to encourage open and honest discussion among young people.”

I am pleased that many hon. Members are present today. That reflects the importance and timeliness of the debate. Many other hon. Members would like to be here but are unable to attend, and I am happy to put their concerns on the record. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) asked me to convey his constituents’ concerns, even though he is unable to be here himself.

I congratulate the e-petition’s creators—Tom King, a student mental health nurse, and Adam Shaw, the chairman of the Shaw Mind Foundation—on securing more than 100,000 signatures in the three months before the e-petition was closed just before the unexpected general election. Adam Shaw launched the e-petition as part of his charity’s wider HeaducationUK campaign. He explained why he established it:

“Currently mental health is only taught as an optional component of PSHE—but this is not good enough. It needs to be compulsory. Understanding mental health is an absolute life skill, and should be just as fundamental within the school curriculum as reading and writing. There needs to be a compulsory collaboration and integration between mental health education and physical education, so that children and young people can understand that maintaining good mental health is equally vital to their wellbeing.”

The HeaducationUK website states:

“The UK national curriculum puts a lot of emphasis on teaching our children about how our bodies work, physical illnesses, and how exercise and nutrition can keep us healthy. These are taught in mandatory subjects such as PE (physical education) and biology…Currently, mental health education is taught inconsistently in the UK, and only in secondary schools—despite 1 in 5 children experiencing a mental health difficulty before the age of 11.”

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the mindfulness pioneers in the UK who developed the .b curriculum for secondary schools and Paws b for seven to 11-year-olds, which was developed at Bangor University? Bangor is already working on a curriculum for three to seven-year-olds. Most importantly, will she commend the work of Oxford University’s mindfulness centre and the Mindfulness and Resilience in Adolescence—MYRIAD—project, which hope to prove scientifically the benefits of mindfulness for young people aged 11 to 18?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am more than happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating those organisations. He has campaigned hard on that issue in this place for many years.

HeaducationUK continues:

“Mental health education is delivered via the non-compulsory subject PSHE (Personal, Social, Health and Economic), or sometimes during school assembly or drama lessons. As PSHE is a non-compulsory subject, this means that not all schools teach it, and that in turn means that mental health education isn’t always taught.”

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

I completely support the thrust of the hon. Lady’s argument. Does she agree that, because of the lack of training for teachers in this particularly important subject, what is being applied now is really just emotional first-aid? If people are to do more, they have to have the ability to teach more. How does she see that working out?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Teachers are not mental health professionals: they are teachers by profession. It is therefore vital that we improve not only our educational input but the training and support for teachers so they can deliver this support at an appropriate level and are able to signpost and refer issues if professional input is required. I will return to that key issue later.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Following the point made by the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), does my hon. Friend, like me, welcome the fact that one teacher in every secondary school is now going forward for mental health first-aid training? In itself, that will not deal with our young people’s mental health needs, so we need a full-scale plan to train teachers and equip every young person with the skills and expertise they need to deal with their mental health and that of others.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who is a passionate and successful campaigner on this issue.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in light of the fact that mental health challenges start when people are young, it is crucial that schools have mental health practitioners who can support young people? Teachers are not health professionals, and therefore do not have the necessary skills. They have numerous other pressures to focus on, so is it not crucial that we have mental health practitioners in schools?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Yes—I will come on to some of the big challenges in this area. It is one thing for us to agree on the principles and on the fact that we want a much better focus on mental health in the education system, but it is another matter to ensure we make the tools and resources available to make that a reality for every child in this country. I will expand on that later.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

The Northherts Emotionalhealth in Schools Service trains teachers, parents and students, with peer mentoring, so all parts of the school team work together on mental health. It has been really quite successful, and has held conferences. Should the Government not look at examples such as that—it is funded by Hertfordshire County Council—for the future?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Indeed. I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for putting that on the record.

I pay tribute to UsActive, a Newcastle-based charity, whose representatives I met recently. It uses physical activity to promote better mental health for children and young people in my local area, and highlights the interrelated nature of physical and mental health in young people’s lives. I absolutely agree with the concerns that the petition raises. We must highlight the link between our physical and mental health if we are to get the best outcomes for our children holistically and educationally.

I agree that the earlier that children and young people are educated about these issues, the better. We must properly support them throughout their childhood, help them to develop resilience so they can deal with any issues they face, prepare them for adult life, help them to develop coping mechanisms for the many challenges that life will bring, and ensure that they become well-rounded individuals capable of empathy and understanding for others, whether friends, family members or work colleagues, who will inevitably be affected by mental health issues. They should recognise that such issues are as much a part of everyday life as physical health concerns.

I am delighted that I have a local link to the creator of the e-petition through my constituent Reverend Mark Edwards, who works closely with the Shaw Mind Foundation to raise awareness about mental health. Mark recently published a book via Trigger Press about his mental health journey entitled “Life After Care: From Lost Cause to MBE”. It details how he went from spending the majority of his childhood in foster care and being sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 to being a team vicar at St Matthew’s church in Dinnington in my constituency, a volunteer first responder with the North East Ambulance Service, police chaplain to the Northumbria police and a former volunteer lifeboat crew member—all of which led to his being awarded an MBE. Mark has shared his experience because, in his own words:

“So many people’s stories end in tragedy either because they suffer in silence or because they feel there is no support for them and that they are the only one suffering mental health issues.”

Crucially, he wanted to share his story to illustrate that “there is always hope”. Mark’s story is a powerful one, and would be if it were included in any mental health education delivered in schools.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful and important point about supporting children in care and meeting their mental health needs. She served with me on the Select Committee on Education when we did an important report more than a year ago about the mental health needs of young people in care. Does she agree that that is an important part of what we are debating?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Absolutely. The hon. Lady is right that the Select Committees on Health and on Education undertook a joint inquiry and report into these very issues because, crucially, health and education are intertwined when we look at mental health and physical wellbeing. The outcome of that inquiry was that I was very keen to lead in this debate, because I share her view that it is crucial to improve outcomes for children in care as well as for all our children and young people.

The statistics are startling. HeaducationUK highlights some of them: 850,000 UK children and young people aged five to 16 have mental health problems, which equates to around three in every classroom; more than 75% of mental illnesses in adult life begin before the age of 18; the number of young people attending accident and emergency with a psychiatric condition has risen by 106% since 2009; reports of self-harming among girls aged 13 to 16 rose by 68% between 2011 and 2014; and suicide is the biggest killer of young people aged under 35, with an average of 126 suicides a week and more than 200 children of school age dying by suicide each year.

[Chris Ruane]

Is my hon. Friend aware that 32.3% of 15 to 25-year-olds have one or more psychiatric conditions? The wider point about all those terrible statistics is that even people who are not adversely affected by mental ill health can be taught in school through modern positive psychology and mindfulness to lead flourishing lives. The whole wellbeing curve of mental health could be shifted if we took that root-and-branch approach to putting mental education into our schools.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is about not just shifting the life experience of an individual, but the knock-on effect of shifting the life experience of everyone around the individual and the whole community. We know that the lack of support and mental health education affects not only individual young people, perhaps for the rest of their life, but those around them. The potential returns from investing in our young people in that way are significant.

[Rachael Maskell]

Is it not crucial that we also understand the triggers, the causation, of mental health conditions in young people and where the stress factors fall, for example in the pressures of the exam system? Those issues should be addressed.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I will talk about that because it is one of the issues that young people raise with me time and time again: the amount of stress and pressure that they feel under from a worryingly young age.

[Luciana Berger]

The figure my hon. Friend gave of three children in every classroom being affected comes from a study done more than 10 years ago. Does she, like me, look forward to the Government’s review of young people’s mental health in this country because, anecdotally and from what figures we have, more children are coming forward? The acuity of the conditions that they are affected by and of their feelings and whatnot are, in essence, elevated from previous levels.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I absolutely agree, and that is something I have seen even since I was elected in 2010. When I meet groups of young people, they used to be worried about their local parks—their availability or local vandalism—but now the No. 1 issue that young people raise is stress and anxiety. I will go on to talk about the range of factors involved, such as social media and its impact on young people, which is obviously positive but also has some clear negatives, with warning factors. The level of academic pressure that young people are under from a very young age is a big concern and one that I would like the Government to listen to seriously and address.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I support the main thrust of the debate, but education is not the whole issue, although my hon. Friend is making some good points. The scandal that we are facing is about parity of esteem for support in schools—I totally support work on that—as well as the broken child and adolescent mental health services system. I have constituents who, even when they are facing crisis, wait for months or in some cases years to get a diagnosis. This is about not only education in schools but, when young people get into crisis, the scandal of the CAMHS system which, I am sorry to say, is just broken.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend speaks from great knowledge, experience and passionate campaigning. I agree very much with what he has said. We would not tolerate a child with a broken leg being left untreated for months on end, yet that is the case for far too many of our children and young people who present with mental health issues that clearly need professional attention. Such is the concern about the situation in my local area that the newly established community-led campaigning organisation Tyne and Wear Citizens has decided to hold an inquiry into the issue in the new year, very much based on feedback from groups of young people who have raised it as their key concern. I look forward to taking part in that inquiry in the months to come.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I agree very much with the general thrust of what has just been asked and said, but does the hon. Lady also agree that making counselling available in the school, increasing awareness among parents of issues such as self-harm and anxiety, and having peer mentors—to take an holistic approach—can nip in the bud some conditions that could otherwise get worse?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I absolutely agree, and we are not at odds in that viewpoint. What I hope comes out of the debate—what I hope the Minister listens to and takes on board—is the holistic approach. It is about taking a whole-person approach in the education system, while ensuring that our health system matches it equally. We talk about parity, but my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is absolutely right that that is not a reality for those needing mental health support. We need proper training and resources in schools from as young an age as possible to give that support and educational input and to ensure that specifically trained health professionals can provide support and treatment where necessary for young people.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous with her time. As has been mentioned, a survey by HeaducationUK found that 75% of school leaders said they lacked the resources to meet the mental health needs of their pupils, citing the lack of training as one of the main contributing factors. I of course agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) that counsellors and an holistic approach would be beneficial and would help to nip the problem in the bud, but I would like to put on the record the massive funding pressure on schools. I am sure that teachers and heads will be looking at this debate saying, “Of course we would like to put that on, but we are currently having to cut core subjects from our curriculum, let alone looking at additional extras that it would be wonderful to have in schools.”

[Catherine McKinnell]

I absolutely agree, and my hon. Friend makes the case clearly, as I intend to in this debate. It is not about talking the talk but about walking the walk, to ensure that we have the resources necessary, not only for the training that our teachers need to feel confident about providing educational input where appropriate, but for trained professionals to be in place where required.

Schools are under inordinate pressure. I had a very difficult meeting with a local headteacher who struggled to hold back tears as she explained that she would have to lay off the school councillor for this financial school year—the choice was that or cancelling all the school excursions for the entire year. That is a very difficult decision for any headteacher to make, but there are school leaders up and down the country making those difficult decisions that ultimately will ensure that our children do not have the support that they need, and that children and their families are not looked after when they are in trouble, which will have long-term impacts on the education outcomes not only of that child but all the other children in that school.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for kindly giving way—I will not make any further interventions although I am very passionate and want to do so, but unfortunately I cannot stay for the entire debate. To add to the point about the passion that exists across the country, I had the opportunity to join the Liverpool Association of Secondary Head Teachers on a termly basis. Those headteachers are all passionate about their students’ mental health, but in Liverpool we have just seen a cut to our young person’s advisory service, which is the key mental health service for our young people, of 74%. That is a staggering amount—three quarters of a million pounds. Our main service for primary school children, the seedlings service, has also been taken away. There is a big disconnect between what schools want to do for their students and what they are able to do, which is why this debate is so important.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am delighted that hon. Members on all sides of this debate are making my case for me. I just hope that the Minister is genuinely listening and taking that on board, so that change and something positive can come from putting on record the cross-party agreement on the need to do something for our young people on this issue.

[Chris Ruane]

The figure that I mentioned of 32.2% of 15 to 25 year-olds will include trainee teachers. After they finish their training, 40% of teachers do not continue in education after the first year, largely because of stress, so does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps one way to square the circle would be to train those 18 to 21-year-old potential teachers in ways of getting their own equilibrium, which might be a gift that they can pass on to tens of thousands of children over the course of their career?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes a key point. It is not just children and young people who face mental health difficulties as a result of the stressed environment in our education system, but the teachers, too. One has a huge impact on the other. Taking a whole-school approach to the issue could transform the lives of everybody in that school environment, all the families who surround it and are connected with it, and the local community.

[Lucy Allan]

Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and I, along with other members of the Select Committee on Education, met teachers to discuss that very point about the mental health implications for them of being overburdened and overstressed by the many demands made on them. They made the exact point that the hon. Lady just made: that the mental health difficulties that they encounter inhibit them from helping their pupils. Does she agree that it is very important that the Green Paper includes provision for assisting teachers in dealing with their own mental health?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Lady put that very well.

Comments from Adam Shaw, the creator of the e-petition, are highly pertinent. He says:

“I would personally love to ask”

the Prime Minister

“and Government ministers what the benefits are for not having compulsory mental health education. If you really study this question and ask yourself it seriously, the more ridiculous the concept of not having it becomes.”

As I mentioned, in the last Parliament, the Education Committee, of which I was a member, and the Health Committee published a joint report, “Children and young people’s mental health—the role of education”, which concluded that

“Schools and colleges have a front line role in promoting and protecting children and young people's mental health and well-being.”

We also welcomed the Government’s commitment in March to make personal, social, health and economic education and relationships and sex education a compulsory part of the curriculum from 2019. The Department for Education’s policy guidance accompanying the announcement confirmed that statutory PSHE is expected to cover

“healthy minds, including emotional wellbeing, resilience, mental health”,

and statutory RSE is likely to include

“how relationships may affect health and wellbeing, including mental health”.

However, in the context of this debate and the request of the e-petition, will the Minister say from what age he expects that to be covered in schools, and how much time he expects will be dedicated to it? It is important to highlight that we talking about a cross-party, joint Select Committee report, which expresses its support for

“a whole school approach that embeds the promotion of well-being throughout the culture of the school and curriculum as well as in staff training and continuing professional development.”

As such, we concluded:

“The promotion of well-being cannot be confined to the provision of PSHE classes.”

[Sir Nicholas Soames]

I am very sorry to intrude on the hon. Lady’s good nature by intervening again. I share everything that she says and I will support it to the nth degree, but I am worried about a question that needs to be answered. Given the diversity of teacher training, how will we get the kind of consistency required to deliver the excellent improvements that she suggests?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a pertinent question and one that I would be keen for the Minister to answer when he responds. This is not just about the young people who we want to benefit from a whole-school, holistic approach to mental health education; it is about the ability of our teachers, support staff and the wider school to deliver that. It is partly a training issue but partly, and significantly, also a resource issue. I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman raised that question and I would like to hear the Minister’s response.

The whole-school and universal approach to mental health is supported by the British Psychological Society and the Association of Educational Psychologists. The charity YoungMinds, which also campaigned on this issue, made the following recommendations to the Government in its recent report, “Wise Up: Prioritising Wellbeing in Schools”. It recommended that existing legislation should be updated

“to enshrine wellbeing as a fundamental priority of schools”

and that mental health and wellbeing should be established

“as a central part of school improvement, by strengthening the focus on wellbeing provision within the Ofsted framework”.

It also recommended that a wellbeing measurement framework should be developed, trialled and established by 2020, that an

“understanding of wellbeing, mental health and resilience”

is embedded in all teacher training, and that schools are provided with

“designated funding to resource wellbeing provision.”

That leads me to a number of key issues that I believe must be addressed alongside the provision of compulsory mental health education if we are serious about genuinely supporting children and young people on this issue.

[Rachael Maskell]

On funding, does my hon. Friend not agree that it is economically expedient to put this training in place? I know from talking to a head of a primary school in York that she was spending all her time trying to support the mental health challenges of the children in her school, as opposed to being the head of the school, as it is so time-consuming. Therefore, putting the expenditure, funding and investment—if I can call it that—into ensuring that we have a proper mental health programme will actually save resources.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It feels uncomfortable to talk about this in monetary terms, but ultimately an invest-to-save policy approach would make huge differences, because if teachers and young people are better supported in their mental health and wellbeing, that will relieve pressures in that school and further down the system, and into adulthood and beyond.

The Government should take seriously the recommendations that I outlined from YoungMinds, which all address putting targets in place and the funding necessary to meet them. I want all children across the country to have the best possible education, filled with rigour and challenge—one that will provide them with the right knowledge and skills to set them up for their adult lives, where they will face many challenges, including in the workplace. However, I know from my time on the Education Committee and from regular conversations with school students, parents and teachers across my constituency just how much pressure young people feel under as a result of ever-increasing demands for schools to deliver the right academic results. Indeed, a constituent recently contacted me about her son, who was prevented from studying certain subjects at A-level despite having achieved good B grades at GCSE. She commented:

“My son is resilient but this has knocked his confidence as he is effectively being told he is not good enough at the start of a really important two years of school.”

There are increasing concerns about the introduction of the English baccalaureate and its significant narrowing of the curriculum at many secondary schools, which reduces the opportunity for many pupils to excel, such is the pressure on schools to deliver results in a small number of Government-defined core subjects.

There is really disturbing pressure on primary age pupils as a result of significant recent changes to the curriculum, school performance measures and SATs. A recent Guardian survey found that some 82% of primary school leaders had seen an increase in mental health issues among primary age pupils around the time of exams, with effects including loss of eyelashes through stress, sobbing during tests, sleeplessness, anxiety, fear of academic failure, low self-esteem, panic attacks and depression. That is in primary schools. I find that a really disturbing picture. Although I am pleased that the Government have listened to some of the concerns across the sector and agreed to scrap key stage 1 tests by 2023, the impact of high-stakes assessments clearly remains for key stage 2 pupils.

It seems to me that there is little point in the Government mandating compulsory mental health education in our schools while they actively undermine pupils’ mental health in the way that I have outlined and that I have seen in the young people I have spoken to and heard from. Indeed, the joint report of the Education and Health Committees concluded:

“Achieving a balance between promoting academic attainment and well-being should not be regarded as a zero-sum activity. Greater well-being can equip pupils to achieve academically. If the pressure to promote academic excellence is detrimentally affecting pupils, it becomes self-defeating. Government and schools must be conscious of the stress and anxiety that they are placing on pupils and ensure that sufficient time is allowed for activities which develop life-long skills for well-being.”

I look forward to hearing how the Minister intends to ensure that this situation is rectified, as it is clearly in the Government’s gift to do so. Of course, a plethora of other issues contribute to the poor mental health of far too many children and young people. The Select Committees’ joint report touched on some of those, which include social media pressures, cyber-bullying, internet safety, sleep deprivation and body confidence.

I seriously urge the Government to recognise just how detrimental families’ economic situations can be for children and young people’s mental health. As part of its breathing space campaign, the Children’s Society powerfully highlighted that

“children in low-income families with multiple debts are more likely to suffer from mental health problems than equivalent families with fewer debts.”

It is estimated that in my constituency alone, some 3,348 children live in families with problem debt. Again, it is in the Government’s gift to do something about that.

Of course, one of the key ways to ensure that our schools deliver something is measurement of it by Ofsted. Reporting to the Education and Health Committees’ inquiry, the Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health described Ofsted as the

“largest driving force in school practice”;

the Institute for Public Policy Research stated that the

“Ofsted framework has a very strong ability to influence school behaviour”;

and the Education Policy Institute commented that the

“benefit of having Ofsted look at wellbeing is that it is a signal to schools that it is part of their job, and it is not just about accountability measures and the academic side”.

However, IPPR research found that just one third of Ofsted reports made explicit reference to pupils’ mental health and wellbeing, even after personal development and wellbeing criteria were included in the Ofsted inspection framework. That is why the Select Committees’ joint report recommended:

“More must be done to ensure that mental health and well-being are given appropriate prominence in inspections and in contributing to the overall grade given to the school or college. The recently appointed Chief Inspector should, as a matter of priority, consider ways in which the inspection regime gives sufficient prominence to well-being.”

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend, who is making a compelling case and a thoroughly excellent speech; she has stolen nearly all the points I wanted to raise. She makes an important point about Ofsted and why it is wholly inappropriate to roll mental health education into PSHE. Ofsted mentioned PSHE provision in just 14% of its secondary school reports and only 8% of its primary school reports under its most recent inspection framework. That shows how poor PSHE provision is in schools and why it is vital that mental health education provision is completely separate.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for both her kind comments and her intervention. We will go on repeating the same arguments and the same compelling case for change until the Government make the changes that we know are needed. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to the specific concerns that I outlined in relation to the Select Committees’ joint report and to the concerns raised by my hon. Friend, from whom I hope we will hear more later.

It would be hugely remiss of me to lead a debate on this subject without touching on the increasing pressures on our education system. Although I firmly believe in the importance of mental health education in our schools, I am always reluctant to propose placing yet another requirement on teachers, who are hugely overworked and under-resourced, particularly given the ongoing financial crisis that many of our schools face.

Despite the Government’s recent announcement about additional funding, the reality is that 88% of our schools still face a real-terms budget cut by 2020. In my constituency, that means Walbottle Campus losing more than £460,000 in real terms between 2015-16 and 2019-20—the equivalent of 10 teachers or £321 per pupil. For Gosforth Academy, it equates to a total real-terms loss of almost £430,000 in the same period. Those are staggering sums, and I know how agonising that is for headteachers who are trying to balance the books. I mentioned earlier that at least one of my local headteachers had to cut the school counsellor to make the necessary savings.

There is little point in seeking to introduce compulsory mental health education at the same time as budget cuts are resulting in existing mental health support for students and families being axed—a situation that is reflected around the country, as the evidence given to the Education and Health Committees showed. There is also little point in introducing compulsory mental health education or a whole-school approach to mental health if it is not done properly, which is why the Select Committees’ joint report highlighted that doing so

“will have implications for staffing and training and the balance of provision and delivery of subjects across the curriculum to allow more time to focus on well-being and building resilience.”

Our report also emphasised:

“Teachers are not mental health professionals, but they are in many cases well placed to identify mental ill health and refer students to further assessment and support. Training school and college staff to recognise the warning signs of mental health ill health in their students is crucial. We encourage the Government to build on the inclusion of mental health training in initial teacher training and ensure current teachers also receive training as part of an entitlement to continuing professional development.”

I know that there is much support for that from hon. Members who have already contributed to this debate.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; she is being generous with her time. Is there not a risk that teachers may feel pressure that they may miss something if they have to refer people to the system, and therefore that they will be really concerned about over-referring or under-referring? That is why it is so important for mental health professionals to be available to support teachers and, more importantly, children.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I wanted to come on to CAMHS, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) raised eloquently and powerfully. I support the introduction of mental health education in our schools, for that whole-school approach to be implemented, but I reiterate my concerns that teachers and schools must be adequately resourced and trained for that. School budget cuts, which are resulting in vital services being axed, must stop, and the Government must seriously look again at those issues that are causing young people’s mental health to be so adversely affected. I also feel strongly that in promoting greater mental health awareness and encouraging children and young people to speak out and seek that help, we must ensure that treatment and support is available for them when they need it. We all know that simply is not the case for far, far too many young people affected by mental health conditions at present.

In the Care Quality Commission’s recently published review of mental health services for children and young people commissioned by the Prime Minister, it found that

“whilst most specialist services provide good quality care, too many young people find it difficult to access services and so do not receive the care that they need when they need it. One young person told CQC that they waited 18 months to receive help. Using estimates from the London School of Economics, Public Health England reported that only 25% of children and young people with a diagnosable mental health condition accessed support. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has noted difficulties in finding specialist inpatient beds close to a young person’s home.

CQC has rated 39%—26 services—of specialist community child and adolescent mental health services…as requires improvement and 2%—1 service—as inadequate against CQC’s ‘responsive’ key question, which looks at whether people access care and treatment in a timely way.”

It went on to comment:

“The problem of gaining access to specialist help is contributed to and compounded by the fact that those who work with children and young people—in schools, GP practices and A&E…do not always have the skills or capacity to identify or support the mental health needs of children and young people. When concerns are identified, children and young people, and their families, often struggle to navigate the complicated and fractured system of services created by a lack of joined-up working. Many organisations are involved in planning, funding, commissioning, providing and overseeing support and care for young people with mental health problems. Poor collaboration and communication between these agencies can lead to fragmented care, create inefficiencies in the system, and impede efforts to improve the quality of care.”

That paints a deeply concerning picture, particularly in the light of the statistics I cited at the beginning of the debate. Indeed, the Children’s Commissioner, Anne Longfield, has stated that the CQC’s report makes for “sad reading.” She went on to comment:

“Like the CQC, I acknowledge there are efforts being made to change things and that the staff working in children’s mental health are doing a good job in difficult circumstances. That was never my concern. It is those not getting the care they need…that worries me most…fewer than a quarter of children needing mental health support received it last year. There are severe shortages throughout the system, with the majority of local NHS areas failing to meet NHS standards on improving services.

Yet the numbers we cite on delays, expenditures and percentages can only tell you so much. The reason my office has focused so hard on…mental health this year is that we also hear—day in, day out—from children themselves, their carers, teachers and health system professionals about just how desperate the need is out there.”

I reiterate my concerns about the risks of introducing compulsory mental health education and a whole-school approach to this issue if we do not ensure at the same time a dramatic improvement in the support and treatment available to children and young people when they encounter a mental health condition. We must not have situations in which children wait 18 months to receive support, so that we are not simply ensuring that that those children and young people will continue to be affected by those mental health issues throughout their lives, with all the long-term social, economic and personal costs associated with that.

I reiterate my absolute support for the issues the e-petition raises and the need to ensure that all children and young people receive good quality, age-appropriate mental health education throughout their schooling. I acknowledge that some progress has been made in this area: for example, the Education and Health Select Committees heard about the 2015-16 £3 million pilot between the Department for Education and NHS England to provide joint training to schools and CAMHS staff and to test how having single points of contact in both schools and CAMHS can improve referrals to specialist services. I also know from the Government’s response to the e-petition that they are developing a new Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health to be published later this year, with

“new proposals for both improving services and increasing focus on preventative activity.”

May I take this opportunity to press the Minister to ensure that the various concerns I and hon. Members have raised today—I am sure they will continue to be raised as the debate continues—are tackled as part of the Green Paper, if we are genuinely to address the wider issues for children and young people: the pressures they face as a result of issues in their school and home life; the severe financial pressures schools are now facing and the implications of that in their ability to provide mental health support; and of course the monumental pressure on CAMHS services, which has resulted in a system that is at breaking point? I also suggest to him that, instead of more pilots, promises or warm words about mental health, we take those urgent, necessary steps. We need Government action if we are to prevent the terrible statistics I have outlined throughout this speech, which are just getting worse.

Indeed, only yesterday it was reported that 12 mental health organisations, including the UK Council for Psychotherapy, the Mental Health Foundation and YoungMinds, have written to the Chancellor ahead of his Budget this month, saying:

“We cannot go on with such unambitious targets, or simply accept a situation where promises of extra funding don’t actually materialise at the front line. If the Government is actually to deliver parity of esteem, the Chancellor needs to invest in and ring-fence the mental health budget to ensure any money promised genuinely reaches those it is intended to help. The crisis is here, the crisis is now.”

I agree, and compulsory mental health education, if introduced, would be an important part of the jigsaw in tackling those issues, but only if it has the support it needs both financially and in Government action to make it a reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Allan]

That is an excellent idea, although I would still like to see some form of training built into the basic PGCE training that all teachers receive. However, a dedicated individual with a strategy for the school, which the governors would be aware of and everybody would buy into through a whole-school approach, would be extremely helpful.

As I am sure anybody who has ever heard me talk about anything knows, I am instinctively wary of the state telling those at the coalface how to best deliver for the young people in their care. Education should never be about delivering as many qualifications as possible but always about preparing young people for life and the challenges that they will face. Building resilience is a key part of that.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Lady is making a compelling speech, and I understand her reservations about the state telling teachers how to do their jobs. However, a key issue, which I hope the Government will respond to, is the role of Ofsted and its power and influence over what schools can and cannot manage to do within their limited resources and the time in the school day. Will she take that into consideration?

[Lucy Allan]

The hon. Lady makes an important point about Ofsted’s role in all of this. Many teachers, who I am sure she speaks to, live in fear of Ofsted. I do not know if she has ever been a school governor, but Ofsted visits are quite a scary process, as is the whole concept of having one more box to tick—“Have I satisfied the safeguarding requirement? Have I satisfied the mental health requirement?” Instead of, “Have I met the needs of the children?”, it is, “Have I met the needs of Ofsted?” While I understand that that focuses the attention of the school, the governors and the teachers as a body, sometimes it becomes, “As long as I keep Ofsted happy, perhaps what I’m delivering to the young people in my care is a secondary priority.” I would be very concerned if that were the case.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point, and it is certainly one to consider, but the flipside to her argument is that schools are therefore so focused on delivering what Ofsted requires of them, in terms of ticking the boxes, that the holistic wellbeing of the young people and children in their care is perhaps not prioritised as much as it could and should be.

[Lucy Allan]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. What we must press for, and what we must ask the Minister to respond to, is that this becomes a priority for all schools. They should help their children to identify the signs of mental ill health and equip them with the skills to deal with those, as well as helping them to access the support that they need. All teachers must be trained to understand the signs and the steps they can take, but we should be wary of forcing more burdens on to already overburdened schools and teachers, as we heard on the Education Committee last week.

The Green Paper is to be welcomed, and I urge the Minister to consider the recommendations of the Education Committee’s report on the mental health of children in care. They are so often forgotten, and their mental health needs are often way above those of children in a family environment that helps them to overcome some of the challenges they experience, so it merits specific provision in the Green Paper. I will continue to press for that, so that those children are not forgotten. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North and everybody else who has come together today to make an important contribution on what is a huge issue for the future of our young people and their success in building a future in which they are able to cope with what life will throw at them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank those who initiated this petition, because this has been an important, timely and high-level debate on this subject. Right hon. and hon. Members have made powerful contributions today, and I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) for his very powerful testimony, not only about his own experience but about how that applies to a very practical approach to how we can do better for our young people and for our society in addressing this issue.

I appreciate the length of the Minister’s reply and the response that he gave to the variety of issues that were raised. There is a huge amount of cross-party consensus that we need to do things better and we need to see change. I will look out for the Green Paper and the proposals in it, and I know that the excellent organisations that initiated this debate—HeaducationUK and others—and the right hon. and hon. Members in Westminster Hall today will also look out for the Green Paper, to ensure that we get this matter right, that we address the issues, that we improve our education offer, that we remove the stigma around talking about mental health, and that we adopt a cross-sectoral approach, so that our health service is there to provide the professional support that must be available and that will match our provision within the education sector.

Personally, I would like to see a really bold message coming from the Government in the Green Paper that this issue has parity of esteem, and that we do not only talk about supporting better mental health within our education system but that the Government will take the steps to ensure that it is a priority and is delivered. All right hon. and hon. Members here today will hold the Government to account on that issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 176555 relating to mental health education in schools.