Ofsted’s Work with Schools

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Chair of the Education Committee for bringing forward this statement, following the Committee’s much-needed inquiry and report on this issue. In the report, he rightly extends his condolences and gratitude to the family, friends and colleagues of Ruth Perry, all of whom have contributed to this report at an incredibly difficult time. Labour welcomes the findings on Ofsted single-word judgments, but the Government seem to have defended the indefensible in their response. The current system is high-stakes for teachers and low-information for parents. Like his cross-party Committee, we believe that it must be reformed.

Further to the Chair’s comments, does he agree that the Government should look again at the response that the Committee received from those across the sector, who overwhelmingly want to reform the system, just as Labour considered the sector when setting out our plan for report cards, which has been welcomed by the former chief inspector? Similarly, on inspection of multi-academy trusts, the Government seem simply to have ignored a recommendation that Ofsted’s chief inspector has called “inevitable”. Will the Chair therefore outline what conversations he has had with Ministers on the issue, and any further work that his Committee might do in this area?

Finally, the Committee’s inquiry did not appear to extend to inclusion being part of Ofsted inspection frameworks. Labour proposes to ensure that children with special educational needs and disabilities have access to clear information, and that their parents understand their child’s school in that regard. Will the Chair and his Committee look at that? I thank him again for the thorough and timely work that he and the Committee have undertaken, and for the light that it has shed on this important and pressing issue.

[Mr Walker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her response. She raised some important points. I expressed my disappointment that the Government seem to have ruled out our recommendation that we move away from single-word judgments and explore alternatives. It is important that the Big Listen is a proper process of listening and engagement, and that it can reach its own conclusions. I am more inclined to agree with what was said in Ofsted’s response about nothing being off the table.

There is an extremely strong case for MAT inspection. That case has been heard by those in all parts of the House; it is a reflection of the maturity of MATs and their huge contribution to the school system, which the Government’s response acknowledged, that we are having this debate. There was a significant move forward in the tone of the Government’s response on that. I welcome the fact that they are actively exploring the options. Of course, that needs to be done proportionately, and we need to ensure that it does not increase the burdens on any school. I am sure that can be worked through by the Department.

I have some sympathy for the idea that inclusion needs to be considered. In previous Committee sessions— I know this happened under the previous Chair—we tested that idea in many respects, and some previous recommendations of the Committee have been fed into the framework, such as the recommendation that no school should be rated good or outstanding for performance unless its performance for special educational needs pupils was good or outstanding. It is important to acknowledge that some progress has been made on that front, but I believe that balancing attainment and inclusion is always important, throughout education, so that was an interesting contribution. Of course, because that is not part of Government policy or the current framework, it was not within the terms of reference for our inquiry.

SEND Provision

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), for securing this important debate and commend him for the work he does as the Select Committee’s Chair. I also pay tribute to those who work with and support children with special educational needs and disabilities. Across the country, teachers, teaching assistants, support staff, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, mental health professionals and many more work tirelessly every day to ensure that children with SEND have the best possible education.

I am grateful to hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, but I must pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Gen Kitchen). It really is to her credit that she has chosen this debate to make her maiden speech and to be that powerful voice for some of the most vulnerable children and most challenged families in her community. She is clearly a powerful advocate for her communities. If they vote her back in at the general election, they will also hopefully have a Labour Government with whom she can work to truly deliver on her “visit Wellingborough” campaign.

Since the passage of the Children and Families Act 2014, the number of requests for EHC plans has risen year on year, doubling between 2016 and 2022. There was a further 7% rise in 2022 when 66,706 new plans were issued. Almost 400,000 school pupils are now supported through an EHC plan, while a further 1.2 million children are receiving support without a plan. However, it is clear from today’s debate that the support system for children with SEND is failing too many children and their families. Parents and carers are being forced into expensive and lengthy battles to access the support they need throughout their children’s time in school. In 2022, more than half of EHC plans were issued after the 20-week target.

Increasingly, families are turning to the tribunal process—with a 24% increase in cases last year—to secure a plan or appeal the detail of their child’s plan. An overwhelming 98% of cases were won by parents and carers last year. That process is not only draining for families but expensive for the taxpayer. Research by the Disabled Children’s Partnership found that lost cases cost councils and courts £60 million in 2021-22. We must not forget the families who do not even make it to the tribunal, and whose children’s needs are left unmet. These unacceptable delays are heartbreaking for families, who face years of stress and anxiety while their child is unable to access the education to which they are entitled.

More than a third of children with SEND were persistently absent from school in the autumn and spring terms last year. Although some of that absence is related to the need for medical appointments, much is due to the lack of tailored provision for a child’s needs. Children with SEND have one of the largest attainment gaps compared with their peers. A child with an EHCP is on average 28 months behind their peers at the end of primary school. The gap only grows throughout school, to a staggering 3.5 years—40 months—by the time they leave. We only get one childhood, and delayed support will embed lifelong inequalities and create barriers to the opportunities that children can pursue later in life.

The crisis in SEND support is having a devastating impact on local authority finances, as hon. Members have touched on. Increasing numbers of councils are issuing section 114 notices, effectively declaring bankruptcy, with many citing the impact of increasing SEND and home-to-school transport costs as reasons. No council takes this lightly, and councillors and officers across the country working really hard to balance the books. I am sure that the Minister may want to blame specific councils for the issues, but the sheer number of local authorities on the brink—with administrations of all political parties—cannot be dismissed. Reforming the SEND system is vital not only for children and families but to ensure that the wider local government services across the country are sustainable. Issuing a section 114 notice has grave implications for the delivery of all local government services, and it is often children who suffer most from the resulting cuts.

The Government’s SEND and alternative provision review should have been the opportunity to set out an ambitious plan for reform to ensure the best outcomes for children with SEND, better relationships with families, and a sustainable system for schools and local authorities. Yet after a four-year wait, the plan was met with widespread disappointment with its limited scope. Many measures will not come into effect until 2025—six years after the review was announced. In that time, 300,000 children with SEND will have left school.

The funding for 15 new special schools in last week’s Budget is welcome, but the schools will provide additional places for just 2,000 children and there is no clear timeline for when they will open to students. I hope that the Minister will update the House on the other 33 new special schools announced alongside the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan. More than a year on from the publication of the plan, the Department has yet to publish the details of approved academy trusts, and that is delaying the start of construction. When does the Minister expect those schools to open for students?

It is also disappointing that the Budget had little to say more widely on support for children with SEND, the majority of whom will continue to be educated in the mainstream sector. The Opposition are committed to breaking down the barriers faced by children with SEND. We believe in high and rising standards for every child. We know that there are children with additional needs in every classroom in every school but, as has been highlighted by Members on the Government Benches, the Government do not equip every teacher with the knowledge and skills they need to teach them.

Labour would look at every aspect of teacher training—undergraduate curriculum, early career framework and career change routes—and we will introduce an entitlement to annual continuing professional development, which we would expect to be used in many instances to boost SEND expertise. As part of Labour’s planned reforms to Ofsted inspection, moving away from the use of single-word judgments will ensure that schools are inspected on their inclusivity and that parents of children with SEND have access to clear information about their child’s school.

Children increasingly start school without the foundational language and communication skills that they need to take part in their education. We are committed to improving speech and language support, and will equip every school with funding to deliver evidence-based early language interventions, such as Nuffield early language intervention. More than 280,000 children received SEND support last year for their social, emotional and mental health, while many children with mental ill health were out of school entirely. The need for mental health support has soared in recent years. Alongside urgent action to address the unacceptably high waiting times for CAMHS support, we will embed professional mental health support in every school and deliver open access youth mental health hubs in every community.

We will build a modern early education and childcare system that works for the families of disabled children. The early identification of needs is vital to provide the intervention in the most important years of a child’s development. Last year, Coram found that just 18% of local authorities had sufficient places for disabled children. Will the Minister confirm that there will be sufficient places for disabled children ahead of the expansion of entitlements in April?

Children and families deserve much better than Government sticking plaster solutions. We will work with parents, carers, schools and local authorities to rebuild the support that children with SEND rely on, and deliver the change needed to ensure that every child can thrive in school. For 14 years, the Government have failed children and families. As we have always done in government, Labour will put children first again.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Johnston]

It is not often I say this, but I entirely agree with the hon. Lady, and I hope we can work together. The Labour party believes in the myth that everyone who puts their children into these schools is wealthy and can afford the 20% increase, but, as the hon. Lady says, often people are just trying to get the right support for their children. Whether they can secure an EHCP is not within their control—all sorts of factors are involved—and it is completely unacceptable to hammer those families with another 20% on the cost of trying to meet their children’s needs.

[Catherine McKinnell]

At the risk of focusing on an issue that is a distraction, let me emphasise that we need to invest in special educational needs provision in mainstream schools, for all the reasons that have been advanced today, including in the necessary teacher training. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has concluded that this policy would bring in £1.3 billion to provide the 93% of children in the state sector who are currently being failed by the Government with the support that they need.

[David Johnston]

I agree that it is a distraction. This policy is a distraction from Labour’s having no plan for any area of education—schools, apprenticeships, universities or childcare. It is a distraction, and Labour has not thought through the consequences of it.

Our investment in special educational needs is a key part of the Government’s mission to set all children and young people up for success. I am proud that the Government are providing record levels of investment, and I look forward to continuing to work with Members as we strive to make the special educational needs system the very best that it can be. I commend this estimate to the House.

World Book Day

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a real pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for securing this World Book Day debate, and I thank hon. Members who have contributed. It has been an incredibly thoughtful and thought-provoking discussion.

This is one of those topics that reminds us why we got into politics: to ensure that all children get the best start in life. I know that my children have enjoyed many a World Book Day, getting stuck into stories and the occasional dressing up. I had a look through some old photos of costumes that we had made over the years: many were of dubious creativity and quality, but the experience of sharing them has always been fun. I really commend the work of the World Book Day charity.

Beyond World Book Day, there is something incredibly special—hon. Members have touched on this point—about reading with a child, rediscovering old favourites and discovering new stories and authors with them. Anything that promotes and encourages that is to be hugely applauded.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster on bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. We have heard many examples of the contribution that World Book Day, and reading generally, can make to a person’s life and particularly to a child’s education and life chances, yet we know that there are huge challenges in this space. Last year, the annual literacy survey found the lowest levels of reading enjoyment since the survey began almost 20 years ago, with just two in five children saying that they enjoy reading in their free time and only 28% saying that they read daily. Those are incredibly worrying statistics. They form a trend that we really need to work to reverse.

For the 1 million children in the UK who do not have a single book in their home, World Book Day is a fantastic opportunity to introduce or reintroduce reading into their life. That is especially true for the children in our poorest households, where books can often be seen as a luxury during a cost of living crisis. Ensuring that every child can choose a book with their £1 token is an important step towards igniting that passion for reading and making it accessible to all.

Being immersed in a story can help a child to think creatively or to become interested in an entirely new topic that they may never have encountered. Reading is so important, as many hon. Members have highlighted, and too many children are leaving school without those essential reading and writing skills. Without getting the basics right, they are being left behind, and it is often the children in the most challenging circumstances, who have the least access to books, who are hit the hardest.

A Labour Government would prioritise a curriculum and assessment review to ensure that we provide an excellent foundation in the core subjects of reading, writing and maths. We want to get the basic building blocks right and give every child access to a broad curriculum that not only reflects the issues and the diversities of our modern society, but ensures that children from all backgrounds do not miss out on the things that make school fun, like music, art, sport, drama and reading. Together, those building blocks will ensure that children are able to develop life skills such as better communication skills, which are essential for their future. For Labour, the key to that is resetting the relationship between Government, schools and families so that we can improve literacy outcomes together as a community.

Schools that have faced challenging budgets have had to make some difficult decisions, and many do not have designated funding for libraries. Whether they are in schools or in our communities, libraries play such a vital role in encouraging children to read and ensuring that every child has those resources. I have vivid childhood memories of going to our local library when I was knee-high to a grasshopper, flicking through the dockets of books and seeing what delights might have newly arrived when the exchanges took place. I also remember the library buses that used to come round our school, and how excited I always was about books. We all need to recognise, as we have done today, how important that is for every child. Every child should have books available to them.

A lack of books in schools can entrench inequality in access to reading, and we know the impact on literacy outcomes. Michael Morpurgo, among others, has highlighted that crucial point. We also know that parents value it when children have access to books, or to a good school library or local library. It is a big pressure for parents to ensure that their children have the same access to books and the same love of reading as every other child.

There is a gap in the support available, and many charities have filled in where they can. I pay tribute to the amazing work of the National Literacy Trust and BookTrust. In its strategy, the World Book Day charity says that it wants to see

“more children, from all backgrounds, developing a life-long habit of reading for pleasure, benefiting from the improved life chances this brings them.”

We could not sum up the purpose of this debate any better. In a recent Westminster Hall debate, the Minister himself said that

“we cannot knock down barriers for children if we do not teach them to read well.”—[Official Report, 24 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 137WH.]

I could not agree more.

We should all focus on improving literacy outcomes for our children. A Labour Government would focus on that as part of our curriculum review to make sure that we have the building blocks in place. We would focus on hiring more teachers to fill the gaps left in our classrooms and make sure that everybody can be supported to reach these aims. We would invest in early language and speech interventions to ensure that the very youngest schoolchildren get the strongest possible start.

I conclude by paying tribute to the amazing work that World Book Day does year in, year out to encourage more children and their parents to take up reading. I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster for giving us the opportunity to discuss such a positive thing today.

Early Years Childcare: Staff-Child Ratios

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Before I call the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) to open the debate, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been advised that the petition being debated today indirectly relates to the death of Oliver Steeper last year. An inquest relating to the death of Oliver Steeper remains open, and a police investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death is ongoing, so Members should refrain from making any reference to those circumstances.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 615623, relating to staff-child ratios in early years childcare.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Harris. The petition, which was signed by more than 109,000 petitioners, states:

“The Government should not reduce the existing adult-child childcare ratios as has been suggested. There are surely better ways to reduce the cost of living—potentially endangering children in trusted care is not how it should be done.”

First and foremost, I thank Zoe and Lewis Steeper, who started the petition and are in the Public Gallery. Zoe and Lewis recently lost their son, Oliver, following an incident that occurred at his nursery. I want to convey my deepest condolences for their loss. On hearing the Government’s proposal to reduce childcare ratios in nursery settings, Lewis and Zoe started the petition to challenge the Government’s thinking. Over 109,000 people agree with them; I am sure that the number is higher, but that is how many people have physically signed their support.

I want to put on record my admiration for Zoe and Lewis for being such powerful advocates on this issue, despite how unimaginably challenging that must be, and for taking the time to speak to me ahead of the debate. I also thank the Early Years Alliance, the National Day Nurseries Association and the Education Policy Institute for sharing their expert insights with me in preparation for the debate.

We all know—I hope it is why we are in this room—that a functioning early years system is fundamental to driving a flourishing society and economy. We need to stop thinking about childcare as some sort of luxury. Instead we should think of it as the foundation of the best start to a child’s life and the best chance for our economy. Quality early education is a key determiner of children’s life outcomes. Access to childcare can also shape parents’ futures, allowing them the flexibility to choose if and when they want to work, yet when we look at which developed countries have the highest childcare costs, the UK consistently ranks among the highest on the list—and parents are really feeling it.

A recent survey by Pregnant Then Screwed found that childcare costs have forced 43% of mothers to consider leaving their jobs and 40% to consider leaving work. Is it not absurd that during an unprecedented cost of living crisis, in which our economy is bumping along the bottom, families with young children cannot afford to go to work? Our childcare and early years system is broken. It needs transforming into a modern, flexible system that will properly deliver for children, parents and our economy.

The Government recognise the issue—or they certainly claim to. In July, the Department for Education published a consultation on its proposals to improve the cost, choice and availability of childcare. Its plans include the relaxation of regulations on the care of two-year-olds in early years settings. Current rules require there to be at least one member of staff per four children aged two. The Government’s proposals would allow one staff member to care for up to five two-year-olds. That change, Ministers have claimed, will save £40 a week on childcare costs, but we have to ask ourselves: at what price? And is that £40 mythical or real?

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. I add my condolences to the parents of Oliver, who are here; they are very brave for joining us. On the point about the change of ratio increasing affordability, does the hon. Lady agree that 86% of providers say that Government funding for three-year-olds and four-year-olds does not cover their costs anyway, so changing the ratios is a red herring? The savings will not be passed on to parents struggling with the cost of living. More importantly, all the evidence shows—she referenced the Education Policy Institute—that in early years settings, the fewer children to adults, the better the learning outcomes, and that helps to reduce the attainment gap that she talked about.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I agree with everything that the hon. Lady said. She put succinctly what I am about to say at much greater length.

For Oliver’s mum and dad, early years experts, the 109,000 people angry enough about the issue to sign the petition and, I suspect, most parents, these vital regulations help to protect the safety of children. I think everyone will agree that providing childcare comes with immense responsibility. From playtime to lunchtime to cleaning and changing, there are ever-present hazards for children. I am a mother of three, and I cannot imagine safely looking after four two-year-olds, unless they were kept in a contained space, with limited opportunity for physical movement and no opportunity for play, and away from all hazards. Of course, early years staff know the risks, and spend every working hour protecting children from them, but there is genuine apprehension that that may not be possible under the revised ratios.

A sense of acute concern came through to me in conversations that I had ahead of the debate. The warning from early years experts could not have been more stark: deregulating childcare ratios without making significant changes to training and funding will put the safety of young children at unacceptable risk. Staff are reportedly already leaving the sector because of the stress, and the overwhelming sense of responsibility to protect the best interests of children. Relaxing childcare ratios would heighten the potential for an accident, and increase the chances of an accident leading to an emergency. Parents share that fear.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to Lewis and Zoe for their bravery in being here and supporting us. My hon. Friend is talking about the physical danger that children could be in, and I am sure that she is about to get on to the impact on their mental health. I received an email from my constituent Magda, a child psychotherapist. She got in touch when she heard about the debate, because she is extremely worried about the impact that increasing the child-to-adult ratio will have on the mental health of vulnerable young people. Magda says that the plans, which follow a pandemic, lockdowns and a cost of living crisis, are expected to worsen her patients’ mental health. That will add to demand at both the private and NHS clinics that she works in. Will my hon. Friend talk about the impact of these budgetary savings on the mental health of our children?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I absolutely agree. I will go into more detail on the potential impact of the changes on the mental health, wellbeing and development of children, but there is a much broader point about the mental health of the childcare workforce, who will have to manage additional stress and responsibility, and of parents, who have expressed their concerns and anxiety about the changes. When a parent puts their child into a childcare setting, they have to be confident that it is right for their child.

In response to a poll conducted by Pregnant Then Screwed about the proposals, one parent—this very much goes to the point that my hon. Friend raised—commented:

“My child has severe allergies and [at] more than the current ratios I couldn’t cope with the anxiety of something being missed”.

Another shared similar concerns:

“This absolutely terrifies me… I’ve been so upset thinking about them being busier…what happens if they make a mistake with his food…what happens if they have less time to watch over him as he eats”,

and he gets sick? When parents take their child to nursery, they trust that their child will be provided with the best possible care, and that the whole system will prioritise their child’s safety. Parents understandably feel that the proposals risk betraying that trust. Deregulating the childcare ratios would endanger not just children’s wellbeing, but the quality of early years provision for many of them. Quality would be subject to a postcode lottery, or parents’ ability to pay.

Early education is vital to ensuring that children across the board, universally, have the best start in life. Evidence consistently proves that a child’s cognitive development and social and behavioural outcomes are largely determined by the early years input they receive. Quality early years education requires staff to give each child the right care and attention, and to identify their individual needs. It results in children feeling safe, secure, and able to learn. It involves well-managed risk taking, which is inherent in any play-based activity, and allows a child to learn independently, discover, explore and play. However, all these vital aspects of early years learning risk being lost if there are fewer adults per child.

Adults would have less time to pay individualised attention to each child, and that can potentially harm their ability to build strong relationships. Indeed, the Government’s own research found that lax ratio regulations would lead to poorer-quality provision. Staff would have fewer opportunities to identify special educational needs, which would lead to later diagnosis and poorer outcomes in later life. The Government’s own special educational needs and disabilities review warned against that, and it was highlighted as a specific concern by 90% of National Day Nurseries Association members.

The changes would limit the ability of early education to improve social mobility, and the most disadvantaged children would be the most likely to miss out. We risk creating a two-tier system, in which the families who can afford the least have no choice but to send their child to a 1:5 setting and receive a lower standard of care and education. That is not levelling up.

In its review of “Structural elements of quality early years provision”, the Education Policy Institute was clear:

“The evidence on child to staff ratios is fairly conclusive: having fewer children per staff leads to better children’s outcomes as it provides the opportunity for more individualised attention and leads to better teacher and child behaviour.”

We could almost say that it is child’s play—it is fairly obvious. In their response to the petition, the Government said they would not compromise on

“high quality early years provision for our youngest children”,

but expert opinion and evidence on this issue is conclusive: changes to early years ratios could put children’s development at risk and exacerbate the disadvantage gap.

Petitioners are particularly concerned about the timing of the proposals, given the challenges that young children face as a result of the pandemic—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). Ofsted has repeatedly warned of the serious impact that covid has had on early learning and development in the past two years. Its most recent report showed that children are lacking the expected communication and motor skills, have reduced independence, and are often referred for additional support. Now more than ever, children attending early years settings need more individualised care, support and stimulation, but these proposals will deliver the exact opposite. Is this really the future we want for our children?

We have to recognise the impact that the proposals would have on early years staff. For many years, the childcare sector has been desperate for support in tackling its growing recruitment and retention crisis. A survey carried out by the Early Years Alliance found that eight in 10 providers find it difficult to recruit staff, with over a third of the workforce actively considering leaving the sector. That has directly impacted the availability of childcare, as more settings are struggling to offer their normal sessions and parents are becoming unable to access any services at all. The Early Years Commission found that work demands are a key factor in turnover. Wages are painfully low, averaging less than the minimum wage, and professional development is almost non-existent.

Those who are left in this ever-shrinking workforce are simply exhausted. The Early Years Commission said that early years practitioners are “underpaid, overworked and undervalued”, yet the proposed changes to the ratios will only increase the demands. Already stretched staff will be forced to care for even more children, with no promise of improved pay, development or better working conditions. It cannot be overstated how damaging that would be for staff morale when the feeling of neglect by the Government is already widespread in the sector.

The change would have devastating consequences for the childcare system. In an Early Years Alliance survey of nursery and pre-school staff, 75% of respondents said that they would likely leave if ratios were relaxed in their setting. Take that in for a moment: three quarters of our early years workforce will potentially be gone. Our childcare system is already on its knees. It is desperate for support and change, and I simply do not know how it would survive the exodus of staff following the Government’s proposed change.

Having touched on the main concerns highlighted by parents and providers, I want to reflect on what the Government have to say about the proposals. In response to the petition, the Department for Education said:

“This change would align the English system to that of Scotland.”

It emphasises:

“we have no evidence to suggest that the Scottish model is unsafe, and evidence shows high parental satisfaction rates.”

It also highlighted:

“England’s statutory minimum staff to child ratios for 2-year-olds are among the highest in Europe.”

If we take those claims at face value, they appear to be true, but I cannot help but question the Government’s sincerity, when they must know they are comparing apples and pears. It is true that, north of the border, only one member of staff is required to be present for every five children aged two, yet those settings are also required to have a lead practitioner who is qualified to degree level, and all other entry-level workers must have the Scottish equivalent of an English level 2 NVQ. Those qualification expectations far exceed those in England, where successive Governments have failed to upskill early years practitioners into a professionalised workforce. Here, childcare providers caring for children aged two are expected to have at least one member of staff who holds a level 3 qualification, and only half of the other staff members are required to hold an approved level 2.

The differences do not stop there. Early years staff in Scotland can expect continuous professional development through the skills investment plans. All staff delivering the funded entitlement of childcare are guaranteed the real living wage. Scotland also has a different curriculum and a different quality framework, and progress is measured against an entirely different set of criteria. As Jane Malcolm from the National Day Nurseries Association says:

“It’s like comparing apples to pears—it’s a very different system in place to ensure quality for children. It’s not just a numbers game.”

The Government’s cynical attempt to cherry-pick aspects of early years models continues with their reference to Europe; that is another comparison where the headline figures do not reflect the more complex truth. Our child-led, play-based approach to early years provision differs from the adult-led, table-based focus often evident in countries across Europe. Given our greater focus on riskier, play-based approaches, is it not natural that there be a requirement for tighter supervision of children in England?

The system differences continue. Staff in Europe tend to be more qualified—generally to a degree or masters level—and the OECD noted that European settings tend to have a wider team of support staff, who are not included in the child ratios. For example, French settings have additional ancillary staff, who give support on tasks such as food preparation and nappy changing. Those are among the duties that early years staff in England have highlighted as being at greatest risk.

What about a European country that, despite all those considerations, genuinely does have less-regulated childcare? If we look at the example of the Netherlands, in 2005, a series of reforms led to an increasingly deregulated early years system. A major part of those reforms was the relaxation of ratios, although those were for childminders rather than within childcare settings. Nevertheless, the consequences of those changes are worth considering as part of this discussion.

The Institute for Public Policy Research found that the 2005 reforms had variable impacts on childcare quality and actually led to a 43% rise in unsatisfactory providers. The process of deregulation also increased the amount of part-time and lower-paid work, especially among women. Those are all outcomes that I would hope we would be trying to avoid, not exacerbate.

Even if we consider childcare ratios in early years settings, the outlook is similarly bleak. In the Netherlands, only one adult is required to care for eight two-year-olds, a ratio significantly more relaxed than in England, yet one look at worker satisfaction tells us that it is not working either. At the end of 2021, the early years workforce actually went on strike to protest against workload pressure. How did the trade union propose solving the problem? By reducing the number of children per adult and hiring additional staff.

It seems telling that, where we have evidence of a deregulated system, the measures seem to have worsened the problems in childcare service, not improved them. Given that the Government have proved unable to cope with the litany of strikes across our economy already, might I suggest they would want to avoid triggering some more?

Finally, I want to interrogate just one more of the Department for Education’s claims, which I am sure the Minister will respond to in due course. It is perhaps the boldest claim, and has been mentioned already—that the reforms could save parents £40 a week in childcare costs. I do not want to bore everyone with the maths that has gone into how that number has been worked out, but it is important to understand where it has come from. It has been calculated on the basis that staff costs per child would be reduced, and that those savings would, automatically, be passed on to parents.

There are, however, a number of assumptions that should be questioned. To begin with, there is the assumption that childcare settings would go ahead and implement the changes; it would happen across the board. However, is that likely to happen? Not all settings will have the physical capacity to increase the number of children under their care. Given that there are also legal limits on the safe space for each child, which the Government have not consulted on, it cannot be guaranteed that all pre-school settings will even have the space to implement the changes. That puts into question the £40 figure.

We also know from the reaction to this petition that the early years sector is opposed to making these changes, and that is reflected in the statistics. Already, around half of providers are not working to existing maximum ratios. Some 74% of providers told the National Day Nurseries Association that they would not implement the reduced ratios, and around nine in 10 pre-schools told the Early Years Alliance that they opposed the principle of relaxing ratios altogether.

The Government might argue that that leaves choice in the system, but the reality is that some providers will feel forced to relax their ratios against their better judgment. Extreme financial pressures are crippling the sector, and it is possible that some settings may have no choice in order to stay open. Even in those circumstances—the very worst-case scenarios—it is unlikely that those savings would be passed on to parents. Indeed, just 2% of nurseries and pre-schools believe that relaxed ratios would lower their fees. Providers are grappling with inflation and the costs associated with a Government that have knowingly underfunded the sector for many years. Many do not have the financial capacity to even open full time. Any improvements to income that relaxing childcare ratios could bring would be spent on maintaining their own survival.

The plans seem completely unworkable to me. They are entirely unsupported. I searched far and wide in preparation for this debate and could not find one expert who thought they were a good idea. I found many experts who tried to work out why it might be a good idea, but nobody who concluded it was. I am interested to hear the Government’s presentation of the evidence that suggests it is.

Deregulated ratios are unlikely to be implemented, at least not by choice. If they are, they do not seem set to deliver the Government promise of reduced costs for parents. The Government know that. Indeed, when speaking about the proposals, the former Minister for Children and Families, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), said:

“The ratios change in and of itself is no silver bullet or panacea or magic bullet…it is not going to significantly change costs because what we don’t expect is settings to routinely or religiously go to 1:5”.

We have to question the point of the proposals if they would not even achieve the Government’s stated aim, Are they just a sticking plaster on a gaping wound in our childcare sector so that the Government can say that they are doing something?

As I draw to a close, I want to revisit the subject that I opened with: a childcare system in crisis. Our early years provision is not working. I think we can all agree on that. It is not working for families, providers or our economy. Parents have faced such extraordinary costs that they have been unable to go to work. Providers are being pushed into debt with rising numbers of closures. The overworked and underappreciated workforce is at breaking point, and children risk being denied the best possible early education. Childcare is a vital social and economic infrastructure. It is as important to our country as the roads, rail and our healthcare system, but it is crying out for support. We are in desperate need of a system that truly reflects the modern life of families in this country and meets those demands.

The only solution that the Government have offered does not give much hope for the future. Deregulation of our childcare ratios risks the safety of our children. It jeopardises their development and could engender a workforce crisis bigger than the sector already faces. The proposals are premised on falsehoods and misleading comparisons, and the likelihood that they would even be implemented is doubtful. Despite that, the Prime Minister claimed it is an ambitious plan, but I think most people can see that it is far from that.

The Government should take steps to strengthen our childcare system and improve the quality of early years provision. To try to get rid of standards, or weaken them, is a race to the bottom in which our children will be the biggest losers, and they deserve better than that.

In response to the petition, I have a few questions to put to the Minister. Can she confirm that, within the existing childcare system in England, relaxing childcare ratios as proposed would not put the safety of young children at risk, as parents and expert opinion fear? Can she confirm that any proposals to change childcare ratios will not harm the learning and development of children, as the early years sector and parents fear? Have the Government assessed what impact changing early years ratios will have specifically on children with special educational needs and disabilities and those from disadvantaged backgrounds? Given the responses to the consultation and the petition, will the Government still claim that the changes will save families £40 a week, or will they revise that figure in light of the evidence? Can the Minister provide any analysis about the impact that ratio changes would have on the early years workforce? Finally, if they do push ahead with the changes, will the Government also propose alongside them professional development of our early years workforce, including funding the provision of paediatric first-aid training?

In conclusion, I want to put one final question to the Minister, which comes from Zoe and Lewis, Oliver’s parents, who started the petition and are here with us today. It cuts to the chase: would Government Ministers be happy to put their two-year-old child in a 1:5 setting?

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the Minister for that response. It did not necessarily answer the question, or give a firm response to the petitioners, but I am heartened to hear that there is a listening tone on this issue, because it is so important that it is looked at in the round.

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate; I know it means a huge amount to those who signed the petition, and to Zoe and Lewis, that people have taken part. It is notable that there has been a huge amount of challenge and constructive feedback, in particular from Members on the Government Benches. An important election is due to take place for the chairship of the Select Committee on Education; I want to put on record that whoever is elected—I think only one Member who is in the running is not present—the Petitions Committee is very keen to work with the Committee when petitioners come to us with complex petitions that need thorough investigation and would benefit from the focus of a Select Committee inquiry. We are always very keen to work across Parliament, using all the resources we have, to represent our constituents and, in this case, the petitioners, who want a constructive, listening debate in Parliament on these important issues.

It is good that the Government have acknowledged that there is clearly an issue, but I have great doubts about the claim that they have an “ambitious” plan for childcare. That was the word that the Prime Minister used at the Dispatch Box last Wednesday, but if what the Minister has just outlined is the Prime Minister’s idea of an ambitious plan, it does not feel very ambitious —no offence to the Minister. It feels like tweaking the edges—a sticking-plaster approach to the gaping wound in our early years sector, which desperately needs wholesale reform and review. The data shows a decline in women staying in the workforce for the first time in decades, so we are going in the wrong direction. The clock is ticking backwards, particularly for women; there is a 12.6% increase in the number of 25 to 34-year-olds falling out of the workforce. In the words of Pregnant Then Screwed,

“That isn’t just a glass ceiling, that’s a push off the career cliff for mothers.”

That is what the childcare system is leading to for women.

According to the Women’s Budget Group, 1.7 million women are prevented from working the hours that they would like by the cost or unavailability of childcare. It estimates that that costs £30 billion to our economy every year. That would go some way to filling the big black hole; we will hear announcements on Thursday about how it will be filled. In fact, £30 billion is the size of the black hole left by the previous Prime Minister, so fixing the childcare system would go some way towards improving our public finances. It would be far from being money wasted; it would be money well spent if we want a thriving economy.

I do not want to put words in their mouth, but the petition was started by Zoe and Lewis because they are horrified by the proposal put forward by the Government. They are determined to make sure that the Government listen to the evidence and look at this issue properly, rather than giving the knee-jerk response of saying, “We’re doing something to bring down the cost of childcare.” We have seen evidence that the proposal will not deliver the cost savings to parents that have been proposed, and have not seen any evidence that it will not increase risks to children. Fundamentally, that is the message that Zoe, Lewis, all the petitioners, and all the childcare providers that do not welcome the proposal want the Government to hear.

I was asked, “What happens now?” This is the moment when the petitioners have been heard and the Minister has responded. We do not have the answer yet. I guarantee the Minister that every single one of those 109,488 petitioners, Zoe and Lewis, all the childcare providers and, quite frankly, every parent in this country will be watching, waiting and looking very closely at the proposals that will be put forward. They will be looking for the evidence base for anything that the Government seek to do, because nobody in this country would benefit from a race to the bottom for our children, our childcare and our early years system. I really hope we get better proposals from the Government as a result of the consultation, and as a result of today’s petition.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 615623, relating to staff-child ratios in early years childcare.

Scotland’s Fiscal Framework

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

There will be no additional cost to England, Wales and Northern Ireland from the powers being transferred compared with if we were not proceeding with this devolution settlement, because the sum being delivered to the Scottish Government is exactly the same as would have been delivered under the Barnett formula.

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

The Scottish Government have committed to halving air passenger duty in 2018, if still in government. That leaves Newcastle airport, in my constituency, most at risk from cross-border tax competition. Following today’s statement, when can we expect a decision from the Government on support for regional airports, as promised by the Prime Minister? Ongoing uncertainty is very damaging to regional economies, and an approach of “wait and see” is not acceptable.

[David Mundell]

I note what the hon. Lady says. Of course people in Scotland will know that the SNP position used to be to abolish air passenger duty completely, so there is somewhat of a change there. None the less, she makes an important point. There is a review, and I am sure that those issues will be considered as the Budget process goes ahead in this Parliament.

Public Finances: Scotland

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

That is the crux of our calling for this Opposition day debate. I will come on very soon to the issues around timescales and what should have been delivered by now, but nobody will forgive us in Scotland, or indeed across the rest of the United Kingdom, for breaking the promise of getting these powers through so that the Scottish Parliament can choose a different course, if it so wishes, from the rest of the UK.

As I was saying, reach an agreement they must. I believe there is broad consensus on this point across the Chamber. Indeed the SNP chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—I am delighted he is in his place—has also said that he wants

“assurances…that a deal will be reached in time.”

We do not agree on very much, but we certainly agree on that particular point. Few people would understand if both Governments were to walk off the job before it was done and instead start a blame game.

I want to highlight two key issues in the debate. The first is the secretive nature of the negotiations and the consistent refusal of both Governments to publish any meaningful papers or minutes from the Joint Exchequer Committee meetings.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I did not mean to interrupt his flow; he is making an important speech. The Communities and Local Government Committee has published an important report today, not about Scottish devolution but about English devolution, and it contains major criticisms of the lack of openness over deal negotiations. Does he share my concern that the Government seem to be operating in an underhand way in relation to these negotiations as well?

[Ian Murray]

I agree with my hon. Friend. This seems to be very much the way in which this Government operate. We have just had a debate about taxation, and we have also discussed the devolution settlements that the Communities and Local Government Committee’s report mentions. It is important that we have transparency, because the only way to carry the public with us on the fundamental issue of devolution to local communities is to ensure that the arrangements are transparent, robust and democratic.

That brings me to my second concern in this Opposition day debate, which is the need to agree the framework so that the Scotland Bill can be passed in time for the Scottish parliamentary elections in May. For months now, the negotiations in the Joint Exchequer Committee have dragged on behind closed doors, shielded from public scrutiny. According to Scottish Government sources, agreement is as far off as it has ever been, while the tone of the Secretary of State suggests that he is straining every sinew to get a deal. There was always a danger that, away from the spotlight, the two Governments would fiddle and fixate and that the momentum to reach a deal would be lost. And so it has proved. This relates to the concern raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman).

At first, agreement was going to be reached by last autumn. The Scottish Secretary consistently referred to an autumn deadline, as did the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Deputy First Minister in Scotland, but no agreement materialised. Then the deadline was moved to mid-February. In mid-December, the First Minister talked up the prospect of a Valentine’s day deal, but come January her deputy, Mr Swinney, struck a downbeat note emphasising the big gap between the two Governments. He also introduced an arbitrary deadline of 12 February for a deal on the fiscal framework. If negotiations were not concluded by then, he would not table a legislative consent motion prior to the Scottish Parliament’s dissolution before the elections in May. I have yet to find out why that is the case, because the Scottish Parliament does not dissolve until late March. If no agreement is reached, the Scotland Bill will effectively be kicked into the long grass. That would mean no new powers for the foreseeable future.

For all that, I remain confident that if the political will exists, a deal can be reached. To test that political will, however, we need to bring the negotiations out into the open and allow the public to see whether this is brinkmanship or a proper negotiation. From the very beginning, I have bemoaned the absence of transparency at the heart of these negotiations. It is simply unacceptable that the process of redrawing Scotland’s fiscal terrain is taking place behind closed doors in vapour-filled rooms.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point, which speaks against those who argued just a few short months ago for full fiscal autonomy. It is quite interesting to look back at the amendment launched by the SNP in November to bring about full fiscal autonomy, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicted would create a £10 billion gap in Scotland’s finances. When the SNP asked for that full fiscal autonomy, it did not ask for what they now claim are the levers it needs to grow the Scottish population and offset the risk it is being asked to take on in relation to the Smith commission proposals.

The Government have been as open and transparent as possible in these negotiations, and each meeting has been notified to the House. Just this afternoon, the Chief Secretary appeared before the Scottish Affairs Committee. Last month, we responded in detail to the Economic Affairs Committee in the other place on fiscal devolution, having previously submitted written evidence to that Committee.

[Catherine McKinnell]

It is vital that these negotiations have the confidence of not just the Scottish people, but the people of the whole UK. Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is a significant risk of these negotiations suffering from the same problems as the negotiations over devolution in England, which the Communities and Local Government Committee report published today clearly states have lacked openness?

[David Mundell]

I do not recognise, for the reasons I have just set out, that those circumstances characterise the negotiations we have been conducting with the Scottish Government, and I make the case that a degree of privacy for negotiations of this type is required.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South mentioned deadlines. I do not think in terms of self-imposed or arbitrary deadlines. Personally—keen though I am to have a warm and supportive relationship with the Scottish Government—I have never felt that the St Valentine’s day date had much relevance to this process. I am willing to continue working towards a deal for as long as that takes and for as long as we can. However, the usual channels have agreed to move the next day of Committee on the Scotland Bill in the other place to 22 February, as discussions on the framework continue to progress, to enable us to give their lordships as full an update as possible.

We have shown flexibility in the negotiations. While I cannot, as I have said, give a commentary to the House, Members will have seen via media reports that the UK Government have put compromise proposals on the table. That is a clear signal of our commitment to reach agreement and of our willingness to be as flexible as we can be, within the Smith principles.

Without commenting on the proposals, I would point out that the House will be aware of some of the tenets of those on the table. There are some suggestions that the Scottish Government should retain all income tax raised in Scotland, as well as a guaranteed share of the growth in income tax in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Professor Muscatelli, who was referred to earlier, told the Scottish Parliament that such an approach would not meet the test of taxpayer fairness. This seems, once again, to be the Scottish Government wanting to have their cake and eat it—indeed, to have a slice of everyone else’s cake while they are at it. That might be understandable enough politics, and an understandable enough position to adopt at the start of a negotiation, but it cannot really be said to be a credible position.

Once the powers are devolved, Scotland

“should retain the rewards of our success, as we will bear the risks.” —[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 December 2015; c. 23.]

Those are not my words, but those of John Swinney. Mr Swinney has been very clear in the past about exactly what he meant by “risks”. He meant the risk that Scotland’s population might decline relative to the rest of the UK’s.

When asked at the Scottish Parliament’s Finance Committee by Malcolm Chisholm MSP if the Scottish Government would seek to be protected from the possibility that the rest of the UK’s population will expand more quickly than Scotland’s, John Swinney was very clear:

“That is another of the wider range of risks that we take on as a consequence of gaining the responsibilities.”

The Daily Record newspaper, sometimes brandished by SNP MPs, set this out clearly, finding it hard to see why

“a tax-raising Scotland should benefit from a growth in tax receipts in England and Wales”

and stating that

“there is an undeniable logic”

to opposing that view.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the way he puts it. The Hutton report is a good report. This is not about attacking or downgrading public sector pensions; it is about a way of making really good public sector pensions affordable into the long term and respecting all the accrued rights that people have. We need to win this argument on the basis of fairness. It is right for the taxpayer to put money into public sector pensions, but we need to know that they are affordable for the long term. The steps that Lord Hutton puts forward are therefore absolutely right. I hope that the Labour party will take a responsible view and recognise that we need to make this change for the long-term good of our country.

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

Q15. Eighteen months ago, one of my constituents required knee surgery and was pleased to hear that he had to wait only six weeks. He now needs another operation and has been told that he has to wait 10 months. He is in agony and unable to walk. He is understandably angry and wants to know if this is what the Prime Minister meant when he said that the NHS was safe in his hands.

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Lady gives me the details of the individual case, I will certainly take it up and look at it. The fact is that we have not changed the waiting list targets that have been in place in the NHS for a long time—in particular, the 18-week target that is part of the NHS constitution. Average waiting times have actually come down in recent months. The clear lesson is this: were it not for this Government putting in an extra £11.5 billion—money that Labour does not support—we would see all waiting times going up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that as well as the trade figures. We are engaged in a very difficult operation to rebalance the economy, which for too long was dependent on government, housing, finance and, frankly, on immigration as well. We need an economy that is based more on manufacturing, technology, exports, enterprise and small business. It is going to be difficult, but there are good signs that the private sector economy is growing, and growing well.

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

Q13. Last year, Newcastle citizens advice bureau dealt with more than 26,000 cases, supported by 75 volunteers, yet its budget has been slashed and there is no clarity from Lib Dem Newcastle city council on funding from the end of this month. How can this shambolic situation possibly contribute towards the big society?

[The Prime Minister]

The Government have made sure that the national funding for the CAB debt service has been maintained, and that is a vital part of it. I urge all local councils, whoever controls them—I have had this conversation with my own council—to make sure we do as much as we can to support CABs, which do such a vital job in our communities.