Staying Put Agenda

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

May I say what an honour it is to have secured this evening’s Adjournment debate?

We have all heard some of the statistics on outcomes for our nation’s 68,000-plus looked-after children, and I think everybody will agree that our country’s record on helping this most vulnerable group of young people when they leave care is nothing short of appalling. Of the 7,000 19-year-olds who were in care at 16, 36% are not in education, employment or training, and only 6% of all care leavers are in higher education, compared with 43% of their peers. We can add to those figures the fact that just 12.8% of children in care obtained five good GCSE grades, compared with 57.9% of their peers, and that about 23% of the adult prison population have spent some time in care. Around a quarter of those living on the streets also have a care background, while care leavers are four or five times more likely to commit suicide. Finally, about 47% of looked-after children aged five to 17 show signs of psychosocial adversity and psychiatric disorders, which is higher than among the most disadvantaged children living in private households.

Physical and mental problems increase at the time of leaving care. In order to address the many serious challenges faced by care leavers, the Government propose to introduce an amendment to the Children and Families Bill to allow young people who are fostered to remain with their carers until they are 21, if they wish and their carers agree and if it is considered to be in their best interests to do so. All young people in foster care will be offered enhanced support until they are 21. For young people in foster care, this is one of the biggest, most fundamental changes to their support when they leave care and is widely applauded as a hugely significant change in the right direction for this incredibly vulnerable group of young people.

The scandal, however, is that the extension to fostering excludes the 9% of young people in care who are placed in children’s homes. These young people have a wide range of needs and challenges. What most have in common is that they are vulnerable. That vulnerability is further enhanced by a stigma attached to residential care among politicians, the public and still, sadly, some in the social work profession. Ministers appear to see living in a family as the best option for children in care—I believe they are right—and as the only setting in which children may thrive. That is reflected by some social workers who see children’s homes as the last resort—a place where children who have “failed” family placements may be sent or as somewhere the more challenging young people may be placed. Many of the public see children’s homes as places where “naughty children” are sent. Historically, that view was compounded by some local authorities that used children’s homes to accommodate the more challenging young people.

When recently asked by the Select Committee on Education to explain different care leaving ages for foster children and those in children’s homes, the Secretary of State for Education replied that fostering is different from residential options and that children’s homes will not get support until an unspecified number of children’s homes nationally have improved within an unspecified time, at which point he may consider it. However, Ofsted inspections of 400 children’s homes concluded by June last year found that on overall effectiveness 65% were good or outstanding and only 7% were inadequate; on outcomes for young people, 67% were good or outstanding and only 3% were inadequate; on quality of care, 74% were good or outstanding, with only 6% inadequate; on safeguarding of children and young people, 69% were good or outstanding, with only 6% inadequate; and, finally, on leadership and management, 57% were good or outstanding and only 9% inadequate.

The Ofsted data, based on Ofsted inspection standards, thus show that the inspectors found most children’s homes to be good or outstanding and only a small percentage to be inadequate. I wonder whether the Secretary of State realises the absurdity of his argument. Surely, as the holder of the purse strings, he should be targeting the homes he is not happy with, and not the young people who are in them through not fault of their own. This suggests strongly that the stigma and misuse of residential care often mask some excellent work that is taking place. It is a credit to residential care that so many of the young children placed in children’s homes under such pressure grow up to lead fulfilling lives.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Perhaps I should declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but is not part of the problem the fact that the children who end up in residential children’s homes are, as he says, often there as a last resort, and will usually be there for only a matter of months, when what we really need to look at, rather than short-term spot purchasing of places, is long-term planning? Children need to go into good-quality residential children’s homes—the quality still needs to be improved—as a long-term planned option, just as it is for long-term fostering, rather than as a last resort. If that were the case, enabling children to stay on, which would be wholly consistent with fostering, could be seen as much more of a natural process.

[Craig Whittaker]

I agree absolutely with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend, who has had massive experience in this field over the years and has worked tirelessly for young people. The solutions sought for these young people need to be diverse, but long-term planning for residential care is, without question, vital.

The problem with allowing the amendment just for those in foster care is that it leads to inequalities and discrimination within the system, creating a two-tier system for these vulnerable young people. It does not include young people in residential care, so the state just washes its hands of children anywhere between the ages of 16 and 18 and cuts them free without any support in the big wide world. I have even heard stories of young people being sent back to their birth families just a few days before their 16th birthday, so the local authority no longer has to support them.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on looked-after children and care leavers—a post held that the Minister held before me, so he has had massive experience with the APPG—I have been inundated with stories of young people feeling that the state is yet again letting them down because of the inequality and discrimination being created. In this particular case, however, I have noted a real anger coming from those young people in residential care—an anger that I feel is justified. The brilliant campaign led by the “Every Child Leaving Care Matters” team has in less than a month secured 5,000 signatures for the petition from care leavers to change the Government’s mind, and this has been backed by academics and charities from all over the nation. Five thousand young people cannot be wrong: they are angry about their exclusion, and as one young man said to me, “We are being stitched up yet again.”

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on agreeing with the intervention by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I suggest that the long-term objective might be to treat children—whether they be in foster care or residential care—as if they were our own children, which is supposed to be the situation now. That implies a much more flexible and longer-term view of how long these children should stay with their parents.

[Craig Whittaker]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I believe that nowadays the average age of young adults who live at home with their parents is 26 or 27, so why on earth should we cut these young people off all of a sudden when they turn 18, and send them off to fend for themselves? It just does not seem right.

I would argue, as would many others, that young people in residential care are the most vulnerable of all. The majority have been through the fostering system, and have found themselves in placements that break down. The average number of placements for each child in the care system is seven, and the figure is generally much higher for those in residential care. Ben Ashcroft, who is a care leaver, had a total of 37 placements, and wrote a book about his experiences called “51 Moves”.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this important issue. Does he agree that continuity is essential for young people whose lives have been turned upside down and who have reached a critical point in their lives, and that they must be in a place that they can look on as their own and can see as being long-term rather than short-term?

[Craig Whittaker]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Traditionally, there has been a severing of the relationship between the state and these young people. It is vital for us to provide a long-term plan and security for all of them, not just for a section of them.

Another young man who contacted me recently had had more than 85 placements. His case and Ben Ashcroft’s are extreme, but young people in residential care have far more than the average seven placements.

Why should we want to discriminate against the most vulnerable members of an already vulnerable group? Most of us who are close to the system understand that it is not quite as simple as delivering foster placements until young people reach the age of 21, but the Government have been very quiet about those in residential homes, and about what some of the solutions might be. The Staying Put agenda has been piloted, tried and tested for young people in foster care, but nothing has yet been piloted for those in residential care. We need, at the very least, an announcement from the Government that there will be such pilots, and an indication from them that young people in residential homes can have the same rights and entitlements as those in foster placements until a long-term solution is found. However, the silence is deafening.

I understand the caution, but I do not believe that young people who are in placements now, who are settled, and who will benefit from remaining in those placements until they are 21 should have to move elsewhere simply pending further research. They have needs now. Some will be facing failure, destitution, homelessness, exploitation and all the other risks that young people face on their own. That is happening now—not in the future, but now. Those young people should not be placed at risk pending further research.

One of the Government’s concerns is that allowing young people to remain in children’s homes after their 18th birthday may cause problems for younger children placed, and that safeguarding issues could be involved. I struggle to see how a young person who is settled in a children’s home and enjoys a positive relationship with staff and peers should suddenly become a safeguarding risk when he or she turns 18, having never been so before.

Some people argue that it is too soon to include changes in the leaving care arrangements for children placed in children’s homes by April 2014. I see no reason why those who are settled in placements, enjoy positive relationships and want to stay with the agreement of those in charge of their placements should not be supported and allowed to do so. The Government should give a commitment to support all young people leaving care until they are 21 by April 2014, while work is being done to establish how than can best be achieved.

If cost is the issue when it comes to including the 9% of young people in residential care in the amendment, I must ask what the cost is of supporting young care leavers in the criminal justice system. I would ask about the costs to the benefits system and the mental health system, and the huge costs associated with homelessness.

I recently highlighted a potential saving—and a good way of paying for such a scheme—that would involve ensuring that the birth parents did not continue to claim family benefit for the young person. Evidence from inquiry workshops relating to the report on entitlements produced by the all-party parliamentary group on looked-after children and care leavers showed that several young people on those workshops had birth parents who were still claiming child benefit from the state on their behalf, even though they had been in care several years.

The law says that local authorities should stop the benefit when a child is taken into care, but in reality that practice is rather hit and miss. If the Department for Work and Pensions incentivised local authorities to stop the benefit by giving them, say, half the child benefit, we would have a win-win situation, with savings for the DWP and extra money to fund a scheme for local authorities. Sadly, however, the DWP fails to admit that this is an issue, despite those young people saying that it is.

The changes in the Children and Families Bill are being made to improve the support for young people leaving foster care. However, the changes, which will in effect increase the care leaving age for many fostered children but not for those in other residential settings, could have unintended consequences. They risk creating a two-tier care system, in which children in foster care receive longer aftercare support than those in residential settings. They risk creating an “underclass” of children in residential care who will still have to leave care at 18. They risk reducing real choice for children, as they will be compelled to accept family care in order to gain better aftercare. They also risk creating serious issues for social workers when family placements are breaking down, because the social workers might repeat family placements in an effort to protect aftercare instead of considering the best option for the young person, which might include a residential care option. Finally, they risk creating a negative impact on the self-image and confidence of children in residential settings other than foster care, who might feel undervalued and discriminated against by a change that excludes them through no fault of their own.

I would like to ask the Minister why young people in residential settings who are settled in placements, who enjoy positive relationships and who want to stay, with the agreement of their placement, should not be allowed and supported to continue to do so? There are no reasons why that cannot be done while the research into the best long-term options is ongoing. What is the Minister going to do to address any possible gross discrimination? Will he tell those young people what the Government’s plans are for pilots for a long-term solution that will give them the same support as young people in foster care? The brilliant amendment to the Children and Families Bill would represent a fantastic advancement for all young people in care, not just those in foster care.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) on securing this important debate. As my successor as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on looked-after children and care leavers, he is well placed to bring to the House the concerns and views of the many children and young people who actively participate in the group’s work. Like him, I completely recognise the vital need for care leavers to be provided with good-quality, stable accommodation and support if they are to make a successful transition to adulthood. Likewise, I am sure that he recognises my personal commitment, and that of the Government, to making substantial improvements to services for care leavers. That will include ensuring that young people are given help to access suitable accommodation with the right support.

As has been said, we recently announced our intention to place a new legal duty on local authorities to provide staying-put arrangements, supported by additional funding of £40 million to local authorities over the next three years. We will introduce a new clause into the Children and Families Bill to place a duty on local authorities to give young people the opportunity to “stay put” with their former foster parents from their 18th birthday until they are aged 21. We have worked closely with the Who Cares Trust and other interested parties to ensure that we get the wording of the new clause right, and I look forward to tabling it soon.

That is not the only step we are taking. This is all part of our wider reform programme to provide care leavers with much better support as they move into adulthood. Other reforms include changing the rules so that 16 and 17-year-olds remain in care until they are ready to move out, and providing much greater financial support for young people leaving care at 18.

My hon. Friend has secured this debate in order to express his concern about the potential for inequity between young people in foster care and those in children’s homes. So let me be clear: I want to ensure that all care leavers, whatever their placement while in the care system, are provided with the appropriate support when they leave care. As my hon. Friend is aware, one of my two adopted brothers came to live with my family from a children’s home, so I have a deep personal interest in wanting to see all children’s homes provide the best-quality care and support on offer, both during a child or young person’s time in care and as they move on to independent living or other accommodation.

My hon. Friend says that for some young people staying in the children’s home is the right thing to do. I agree, and the law is clear that local authorities can already provide funding and support to a young person to stay with their former foster carer or to remain in a children’s home beyond their 18th birthday, and we know and see examples of that already happening. The issue, however, is whether it is appropriate to place a new duty on local authorities to provide a particular type of support to all young people in children’s homes.

The evidence for placing such a duty on supporting staying-put arrangements for young people in foster care is robust. Staying-put arrangements were tested out in pilots, and proved to have a positive impact on their outcomes. Research from the Fostering Network since the pilots ended shows that, where these arrangements continue, they show similar positive outcomes. Making the transition from a children’s home and from a foster home are very different, however. For some children, leaving a children’s home means moving into residential accommodation for adults. For others, it will be supported accommodation back in their home community; I acknowledge that many—too many—children’s homes are miles from where their families live. We also know that a disproportionate number of young people leave children’s homes and go home to live with their families.

There are also a number of practical and legal issues we would need to consider and test out before placing a duty on local authorities to have to provide staying-put arrangements in children’s homes. A key barrier would be having vulnerable adults living alongside much younger vulnerable children. My hon. Friend addressed that point, but children’s homes are, in law, establishments “wholly or mainly” for children and are registered as such by Ofsted, which, as my hon. Friend mentioned, inspects children’s homes and makes judgments on how the home is achieving outcomes for children. As part of our wider reform of residential care, a much stronger inspection regime will be put in place to help drive up quality standards.

Given that most children’s homes are now very small—typically 2, 3 or 4 beds—extending staying put could result, for example, in a home accommodating two or three care leavers and one child. In this case it could not be registered as a “children’s home”, as it would mainly be an establishment accommodating young adults, which could cause difficulties for the only child living there. For the same reason, Ofsted would not have any legal scope to regulate and inspect this service.

I recognise, however, that these should not be viewed as insurmountable barriers, so my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I have asked my officials to work with the National Children’s Bureau, the Who Cares Trust and Catch 22 to look at the practical issues of introducing staying-put arrangements in children’s homes over the coming year.

[Craig Whittaker]

The news my hon. Friend has just announced is very welcome and I thank him for it, but I want to challenge him on some of his points about children’s homes and the number of adults staying in them. He has said that local authorities can already allow someone who is 18 to stay in care. Surely if that is allowed, the problems he is bringing up are not insurmountable and can be put right.

[Mr Timpson]

I have expressed a clear view about some of the legal and practical issues that remain. It is right that we consider them carefully and understand the consequences more widely across the residential care sector before taking any further steps. I want to be absolutely clear that I am not looking to find excuses not to do this. I am trying to establish what we will need to do to make me feel confident that any further steps we take will achieve what we all want, which is much more stability in placements, whatever that placement may be while in care, and a much better transition into adulthood that is co-ordinated and planned properly as a consequence of the input from the professionals involved in that young person’s life.

As I said to my hon. Friend when I recently gave evidence to the Education Committee on this issue, if I believed that including children’s homes and staying-put arrangements was the right thing to do at this juncture, I would do it in a heartbeat. However, I think it would be premature to place a new duty on local authorities now or to pilot a scheme before the work being carried out by the National Children’s Bureau is completed. I also think such a move would be wrong when we know there needs to be fundamental reform of children’s homes, as the 2012 report by the Deputy Children’s Commissioner and the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults illustrated so clearly.

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that children’s homes should not be seen as a last resort and should be a positive option for many, as I have said on several previous occasions in public and am happy to reiterate this evening. However, too many current homes are simply not good enough. He has said that Ofsted inspection reports show that most homes are rated as “good”, but that is under the current system of national minimum standards. Although there are undoubtedly some excellent children’s homes, and we should applaud them and try to encourage what they do well to be spread more widely, we do not think these standards—the “good” standards—are good enough, and neither do many of the children and young people in residential care. We want to raise the bar and move to much higher quality standards.

Young people living in residential care are more likely to make an early transition from care at aged 16 compared with those living in foster care. Those who do leave at that stage are less likely to be in education, training and employment, as my hon. Friend said. That is why I have introduced a new duty that directors of children’s services must sign off the pathway plan where it suggests a young person should leave care between the ages of 16 and 18. As I said a few moments ago, research has found that many young people are dissatisfied with the support they receive, and report shortfalls in planning and preparation for leaving care, which leaves their needs unmet.

Our immediate priority is to press ahead with driving up the quality of residential care, and we have set out a substantial programme of work to do that. We also want to test out new ways of delivering residential care via the children’s services innovation programme I recently announced. It will catalyse the development and spread of more effective ways of supporting children and of new approaches to commissioning—the point my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made—and managing that support. Part of that may well include a move away from spot purchasing and towards more regional commissioning, as well as the extension of a children’s homes remit further into adulthood. Our approach will build on the call for change from the field, as evident in the Association of Directors of Children’s Services “What is care for” report and in the Local Government Association’s report on the strategic commissioning of children’s homes.

The “What is care for” report proposes a more fluid boundary between care and community services and new, more flexible models of care, particularly for troubled adolescents who often end up in care and placed in children’s homes. By winter 2014, we will support the developing, testing and implementation of the most promising approaches both in delivery and around the structure of services. I encourage all those who want to see improvements in residential care and its role in the transition to adulthood to come forward with their own ideas as to how best to achieve just that. We must get the system right before considering whether to run pilots or impose a duty on local authorities that requires them to provide staying-put arrangements in children’s homes. We must be confident that homes can offer children provision of the highest standard and that the £1 billion per year that we spend on placements in children’s homes is truly delivering for those living in them.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, this all comes against the backdrop of a wider reform package for care leavers. It is important to remind the House that, to date: the Government have launched the care leavers’ charter, which sets out the support that care leavers can expect right up to the age of 25, with more than 120 local authorities now signed up; we have introduced the junior independent savings account for all care leavers, with more than 40,000 accounts now open, and with a £200 contribution from government; I have written to all local authorities calling for a dramatic improvement in financial support for care leavers, resulting in a tripling in the number of councils now paying £2,000 or more through the setting up home allowance; and we have published the first cross-government care leavers strategy, which sets out in one place the steps government is taking, from housing to health services, and from the justice system to educational institutions, to support care leavers to live independently once they have left their placement.

I will take away the valid point raised by my hon. Friend about the post-care use of child benefit, and the correspondence that he has had with the Department for Work and Pensions. I am happy to work with him to ensure that the response that he receives from my ministerial colleagues in the DWP is sufficient to push that issue further forward, and I will happily discuss that with him in due course.

I am determined to improve the outcomes of all care leavers, and I hope that the action that this Government have taken to date amply illustrates that endeavour. However, I am not yet convinced that placing a duty on local authorities to offer staying-put arrangements in children’s homes is the right thing to do at this time.

I am acutely aware of the disappointment that this brings to many of those young people currently in residential care, and I share the ambition to see staying-put arrangements take hold in children’s homes, as has been the case and will now more widely happen in foster homes. Councils can, in certain instances, already do that. We first need to see more fundamental reform. We need to be confident that any change to the law is founded on good, sound evidence and that it will deliver what we all want to see. Sadly, we have not yet reached that point, but I hope my hon. Friend recognises my ongoing commitment in this area, as well as the significant progress that the Government have already made. I am grateful to him for securing this important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

School Sport

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

I am pleased to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.

As we all know, good-quality school sport is important: it can deliver improved education, health and social outcomes for the nation and individuals. School is the one place where everybody gets the opportunity to play sport and take part in physical activity, so it has an important role in the development of a lifelong sporting habit. The Education Committee wanted the inquiry because one of the aims of the London Olympics was to “inspire a generation”. The report was timed for the first anniversary of the London games. We also wanted to see whether the Government’s policy was achieving an increase in school sport; to scope the appropriateness of their plans for a school sport legacy from the games, and the likelihood of those plans being carried out; to assess the impact so far of London 2012 on the take-up of competitive sport in schools; and to assess what further measures should be taken to ensure a sustainable and effective legacy in school sport following London 2012.

The first change by the coalition Government was the announcement that the ring-fencing for school sport partnerships would end in March 2011, the rationale being that that would increase and encourage more competitive sport in schools. That brought quite a high level of disagreement from schools and, as a result, the Secretary of State announced an extension of the funding until August 2011. He also gave an extra £65 million to enable secondary PE teachers to spend a day a week assisting and supporting primary schools. In March 2013, the Government announced new ring-fenced funding of £150 million per annum for two years, for primary school sport. That, unusually, is funded from three Whitehall Departments—the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Each primary school in England is getting approximately £9,250 per annum. That, as hon. Members will know, is called the primary sport premium. At the same time, as the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said, the Government announced a pilot in which 120 new primary teachers were trained this summer with a specialism in PE.

Those who championed the previous £2.5 billion programme of SSPs regarded them as part of the golden age of school sports and an excellent model for universal delivery—so much so that the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) told us that they were admired and copied internationally. Jonathan Edwards told us that the removal of SSPs left many people feeling incredulous. There was almost universal agreement from all our witnesses that, where SSPs worked well, they were an incredibly effective way to ensure that all young people had wider opportunities to take part in school sport, and to enable expertise to be developed in schools. Even Ofsted, we heard, reported that SSPs were maximising participation and increasing regular competition.

Having said all the above, virtually every witness said that the new policy was exactly right to aim pump-priming money for school sports at primary schools, and that it was right to ring-fence the primary sport premium, ensuring that the money was spent on sport.

The biggest problem for the primary sports premium, as with SSPs, is that the money is not long term, and there is not a long-term strategy. As was said by the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Committee strongly felt that now is the time to say, “No more political football with school sport.” Neither the previous nor the current Government seem to have had a long-term policy or strategy for school sports. In fact, the Minister said that he could not commit to any longer-term funding and would be “batting very hard” for further funds. The Committee believes that the £300 million funding for the primary sports premium could be important, but the risks associated with its being wasted if it is not put to effective use, long term, could lead to danger of its becoming a short-lived gimmick.

I need to mention special needs and disability sport, because London 2012 had the most successful Paralympic games in history. Baroness Grey-Thompson told us that mainstream schools had traditionally made it hard for disabled people to find competition activities, compete on a level playing field, and be included. Often they were sent to the school library during PE classes. We also learned that special schools were often better at delivering sports for disabled pupils, which was often down to both facilities and teacher training in mainstream schools.

Witnesses praised the school games highly as a means through which disabled young people could access competitive sporting opportunities. Some 14,000 disabled children took part in the games in the first year, but there was criticism, too, with some referral units or special schools unable to access funding to support the games beyond local level. It was nigh on impossible for pupils with particularly challenging behaviour to attend.

We took evidence on various subjects, ranging from whether the standard of two hours of PE per student per week in schools being scrapped was a good thing, to whether physical fitness should be a part of the new education, health and care plans. What were our conclusions and recommendations? Some have been mentioned, but there were 24 in all—some recommendations and some statements—and I shall mention just two, which are crucial to ensuring that we meet the ambitions of the London Olympics, crucial to the legacy of those games, and important for the health and well-being of our nation.

I shall talk about recommendations 4 and 10. On recommendation 4, school sport is too important for it to rely on occasional efforts at pump-priming. The Government must commit to a long-term vision for school sport, accompanied by long-term funding. We recommend that the Government set out a plan for the sustained support and development of their school sports policy, including measures to ensure a cross-departmental vision and effective working across all relevant Departments.

On recommendation 10, we said:

“We are concerned that the timeframe of the primary sport premium is not sufficient to allow a long-term provision to be built. It risks replicating previous short-term fixes rather than creating a long term solution. On its own,”

as we have heard,

“the primary sport premium is inadequate. If the Government is to secure a legacy from London 2012 and demonstrate its commitment to school sport, the primary sport premium must be embedded within a long-term strategy, with sustained funding.”

Of all our recommendations, those are the two key ones that need urgent attention, and that we need to embed for the long term; that would be an investment in the long-term well-being of our nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

The Government have said that the scheme will be externally evaluated, and I would like to hear how that will be done, and what will be looked at.

This point goes back to the intervention from the Chair of the Education Committee. Following the Secretary of State’s announcement, and the decision to take money away from school sport partnerships on a whim, there was a hue and cry from people involved in sport and school sport in particular. If you check Hansard, Sir Alan, you will find that I was one of those angry people. I am sure that a sense of how shocked and angry I was at the sudden announcement just leaps out of the page. The Secretary of State was forced to come back to Parliament to make another announcement, in which he reinstated £65 million—£32.5 million a year for two years—for PE teacher release, whereby teachers would be released for a day a week to co-ordinate sports in their area. Through a series of freedom of information requests, I found out that that funding was resulting in 60% less time being spent organising school sport than was spent by school sport co-ordinators under school sport partnerships. Despite attempts to back-fill the hole, the damage had been done. There was a significant reduction in the amount of time being spent organising sport outside the classroom.

In addition—it really is a sorry pattern—the Government have watered down protections for school playing fields in the national planning framework. Schools are no longer required to provide a specified amount of playing field space; they merely have to provide suitable outdoor space. It also beggars belief that free schools can open up with absolutely no sport provision whatever. That cannot be right and is not consistent with the actions of a Government who value school sport and consider it deserving of higher priority in the curriculum. In August 2012, the Government abolished the two-hour target; without any means of monitoring what is going on, it is difficult to judge what the implications have been.

The announcement of the £150 million scheme was welcome, but as I pointed out to the Chair of the Education Committee, it came after the dismantling of the structures put in place for school sport. The emphasis on primary schools has been welcomed, and I echo that to some degree, and will return to the subject. The funding is ring-fenced, which is another U-turn, because we have been told that ring-fencing was out of favour under this Government, and that schools should use money as they wish. How will the Government monitor the scheme? We welcome the specialist PE training of 120 primary teachers, but it is a drop in the ocean across 17,000 primary schools. There are also questions about Ofsted’s capability. Can we be sure that Ofsted personnel are properly trained and equipped to evaluate what is going on? The issue is not just the two hours, but what happens during those two hours. We want to ensure that school sport is evaluated in the right way.

When the Government announced the school games, which I welcome, it was an excuse to cover up the loss of school sport partnerships. That was an attack on people who value increasing participation. In a blog on the “ConservativeHome” website in 2011, the then Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey, said that the Government were

“banishing once and for all the left-wing orthodoxy that promotes ‘prizes for all’ and derides competition”.

That is a classic example of accusing one’s opponent of being in favour of something and then abolishing it. The previous Government introduced school games and certainly were not at all opposed to competitive sport. In fact, we said that where people were motivated, and wanted to excel and to participate in competitive sport, they should be able to do so. School sport partnerships were successful at increasing participation in competitive sport.

[Craig Whittaker]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but only to a point. It was clear from evidence heard by the Education Committee that where school sport partnerships worked well, they worked very well, but they did not work well in many areas. Another piece of evidence made it clear that, given the £2.5 billion cost, they were perhaps not the most effective way of spending the money.

[Clive Efford]

Rolling up all the money to £2.5 billion makes the programme sound very expensive. It was actually £162 million a year, and this Government have put £150 million into the primary school sports premium. I do accept, however, that school sport partnerships did not work so well in some areas, but that does not justify getting rid of the whole scheme. They were a good foundation on which we should have been building.

I must start to draw my comments to a close. In the Government’s response to the Education Committee’s point about competitive sport, I notice that they mention dance as an activity that they want to be encouraged in schools. I assume that that means that there is a difference of opinion with the Prime Minister, who was being critical when he said that the

“two hours that is laid down is often met through sort of Indian dancing classes.”

I assume that that policy is no longer being followed.

I will conclude, because I want to give the Minister a fair go at coming back at me. I think that I have been going for nearly 20 minutes, Sir Alan—the speech timer seems to have stopped.

What do we want in the future? What are we looking for? I welcome the point about core physical literacy and the investment in primary schools. Investment in specialist teaching in primary schools is not to replace PE, but in addition to it. We must not have teachers feeling that they have somehow abdicated responsibility for teaching PE because that money is going into our primary schools. It is important for PE to be part of the curriculum, and I support the Select Committee recommendation that teacher training be altered to cover that. We also want co-ordinators for PE in every primary school, as we have for maths and literacy, so that it has similar status, and so that someone takes responsibility for ensuring not only that a decent amount of PE is taught—we would restore the two-hour minimum requirement—but that it is taught at a decent standard.

On physical literacy, we need to get it right from day one, which means starting when children are at pre-school. We need to talk to carers, parents and the health service—health visitors and such people—to ensure that everyone understands that developing core physical literacy from day one is important. From an early age, if children feel inadequate, they may start to use avoidance tactics, so that they do not get into a situation in which they feel challenged, and we see that behaviour in relation to physical activity. It is therefore important that we encourage everyone to instil the idea of physical activity in the right way, and that we develop physical literacy and core physical strength in children from the earliest age.

I support the primary premium money, so that children, in particular at key stage 2, get the broadest experience of as vast a range of sports as we can achieve at that stage of their education. When they go to secondary school, they can then make informed choices about the sports and physical activities that they might want to get involved in. I agree with points made earlier: this is not only about competition. It has to be about getting people active and instilling that habit in them for a lifetime.

We need long-term planning. I have been all over the country, talking to people involved at all levels of sport, including PE teachers and co-ordinators, and they want long-term planning from Government. They also want politicians to co-operate with one another. I would welcome the opportunity to sit down and talk across Government about a long-term plan for sport and recreational activity in our schools and communities, so that we can give people the consistency and therefore the confidence to plan ahead for the sorts of sports that they are delivering in their communities. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

School Governing Bodies

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Neil Carmichael]

The logic of it is that if we want to make sure that governing bodies are properly accountable, we have to decide who they are accountable to. In my view, that should be parents. The problem with stakeholder representation and all that sort of thing is that it actually dilutes accountability: the fact is that once parents get on the body, they start becoming defensive of their own behaviour and conduct, when in fact what they should be doing as parents is testing what the body is doing.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

I know from my experience as a governor that quite often one or two very vocal parents seem to take the flow of other parents with them, but often are not doing the right thing but the worst thing that could be done. Will my hon. Friend elaborate on that point?

[Neil Carmichael]

I assume my hon. Friend means parents on governing bodies, and I completely agree, as I have seen that behaviour myself. We should be making sure that governing bodies are truly accountable and responsible to the key stakeholders, who seem to me to be the parents. Having parents on the governing body is a great idea, but not as a specific group of parent governors—they should be people who happen to be governors and to have children. That is the way to look at the issue.

[Neil Carmichael]

There are two points about the size of governing bodies. First, with a governing body of about 20, the influence of individuals is diluted. That applies to any committee system, including school governance. Secondly, it is not necessary to replicate exactly an interim executive board because that would be counter-productive. The word “interim” does not imply permanence, the word “executive” does not imply strategic decision making, and the word “board” is not commonly used in schools. The characteristics of IEBs and how they operate are important and we should think about how that might influence the way in which governing bodies will be shaped.

[Craig Whittaker]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent changes to the legislation to allow flexibility and innovation with smaller governing bodies are in place and do exactly what he is arguing for? The problem is that the Government have not communicated those models widely enough.

[Neil Carmichael]

That is precisely why it is important to signal that governors, and particularly chairs of governors, should be aware of the opportunities to reshape their bodies, and why I suggested that the Minister should demonstrate how that might be amplified and improved on. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that we do not want an avalanche of more regulations. We want to encourage governing bodies to shape themselves around the needs and characteristics of their school. That is yet another reason why we should not require certain organisations to be represented; we should allow the governing bodies to make those decisions.

If all the schools in Stockton are absolutely determined to have stakeholder representation, they should have it, but if schools elsewhere want to focus specifically and exclusively on the skills they need, that is what they should do. We should have a system that enables that to happen. We want to ensure that governors and governance are fit for purpose, that our schools are constantly improving and delivering the best possible outcomes for their pupils, and that our pupils have the ability to seize and exploit opportunities in the world of work and whatever else they want to do with their lives.

To my mind, the future is not about replicating what happened in the past. It is about understanding the dynamics and changes that will influence people’s experience of work and economics. We are talking about a global economy, new technologies, new ways of working, new relationships and new structures. Governance must change to be able to respond to all those dynamics.

I want to ask the Minister several things. First, how will she inspire the best people to be governors? Secondly, how will deregulating the system ensure that governing bodies can shape themselves to reflect the sort of school that they want to have and their interpretation of their community and the business world? Thirdly, will she consider how to get rid of failing governing bodies? I have put on the table the idea of the ultimate option—parents revolting—but there are processes between doing nothing and using a “nuclear deterrent”. Those processes must be teased out and must have some relationship with measurement of attainment and inspection of schools. Fourthly, it is key to ensure that we focus on skills rather than just stakeholders. One can be achieved without excluding the other, but the most important thing is to have the best people governing our schools for our children and their future.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Rosindell, to speak under your chairmanship. Having been a school governor, over the last 20 years, of two Calder valley primary schools and a local high school, I can honestly say that the role is one of the most rewarding in the community. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) alluded to the fact that well over 300,000 individuals are serving as school governors throughout the country. All are selfless individuals actively putting something back into their communities, and all are committed to driving forward standards in their local schools.

I am a member of the Education Committee, and its inquiry on the role of school governing bodies did not suggest that radical change was required to the system of governance in English schools. Recent legislation provides adequate flexibility for governing bodies to innovate, and that flexibility could bring about radical change, should governing bodies implement it more widely. However, our report showed that evidence indicates that few governing bodies are taking advantage of the new regulations, which suggests that the Government should to do more to clarify what models of governance are now possible, and explain how they could be beneficial in different school contexts.

Vacancies on governing bodies have constantly been an issue locally and nationally, despite there being more than 300,000 individuals serving as school governors. The number of vacancies is disputed, but the Department for Education understands that 11% of governor posts are vacant. The Committee heard Professor Chris James of the university of Bath explain that the vacancy picture is complex and that overall vacancy figures may be misleading. Governing bodies with a high number of vacancies—for example, 25%—at the end of one school term may have none at the end of the next because the vacancies have been filled. None the less, 2% to 3% of schools persistently have high vacancy rates for governors.

The National Governors Association has found that a large proportion of governing bodies have difficulty finding skilled governors, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) alluded to that. The National College for Teaching and Leadership has also observed that there is “significant evidence” that governors are recruited for their representative role, rather than a particular skill set.

We learned that vacancies are a particular issue for primary schools, and Ofsted judgments have found primary school governance to be considerably less effective on average than secondary school governance. In her 2010-11 annual report, the former chief inspector of Ofsted found “considerable variations” in the quality of governance across different types of school. Governance was judged to be good or outstanding in 53% of pupil referral units, 55% of primary schools, 64% of secondary schools and 71% of special schools.

When I was Calderdale council’s lead member for children’s services, we found that an effective recruitment tool for governors was advertising vacancies in our local magazine, Calderdale Call, which the local authority sends to every household quarterly. We also found that circulars to larger local employers, such as Lloyds TSB, Crosslee and many of our vast array of manufacturers in Calder Valley, also produced many fine individuals with much-needed skill sets to serve as school governors.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

I am encouraged to hear about the success that there has been in finding people in the hon. Gentleman’s area by going directly to employers. Does he think that there is scope for more incentives for employers to encourage their employees to become governors?

[Craig Whittaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Yes, exactly; one of the recommendations that our Committee put forward to the Government was about offering further incentives. In my conclusion, I will ask the Minister to do more in that area.

Evidence to our inquiry showed mixed opinions on the appropriate balance in a school governing body between individuals with specific skills and representatives of stakeholder groups, as we have discussed today. Overall, there was agreement with the DFE’s view that the stakeholder model does not preclude skills, but conversely, several witnesses felt that individuals recruited for specific skills may lack important local or community knowledge.

Evidence from a national leader of governance warned that in areas where the local community skill base is low, the dilemma will grow if either more skilled non-locals are parachuted in, or a less skilled local governing body remains. That will widen the gap between less skilled communities and the average, and will have questionable sustainability. I experienced that—we have spoken about it today—when we had a failing school and an interim executive board had to be established. In those circumstances, too, skill sets are a priority over local knowledge; they have to be, for the sake of the school’s revival.

I do not want to keep anybody much longer, Mr Rosindell, but I want to ask the Minister what her Department is doing to remove any potential barriers to the recruitment of effective school governors, and what is being done on communication with governing bodies to explain more thoroughly the recent legislation changes, and the flexibility and innovation that those changes may bring. The Committee recommended that the Government review the incentives for, and requirements on, businesses to release their staff for governor duties. We also recommend that the legal requirement to give time off for governors of maintained schools be extended to academies, as our Chair has said. I know from my local experience that local businesses are a great place from which to fill those skills gaps and skill sets, where needed, in local schools. Thank you for your time this afternoon, Mr Rosindell.

PISA Results

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

As I pointed out in response to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), there are now more highly qualified teachers than ever before in all our schools. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in championing the reforms we have made, which have brought hope to her constituents, who I am afraid suffered in the past as a result of a failed, leftist, National Union of Teachers orthodoxy, which I hope that she, like me, as a Blairite, will now vigorously condemn.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Is it any wonder that Britain’s youth have not been prepared for the global race? Under Labour, one in every three pupils left primary school unable to read and write, the number of pupils sitting hard-core subjects halved and our employers totally lost faith in our exam system.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. One of the things that has changed under this Government is that more students than ever before are studying physics, chemistry and biology, and we have seen a revival in the number studying modern foreign languages and an increase in the number studying geography and history at GCSE. Those are the subjects that give students the chance to succeed and that advance social mobility. I hope that Opposition Front Benchers will at last endorse the English baccalaureate, which has driven those changes.

Young Fathers

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. If we believe, as I suspect Members across the House do, that we must keep fathers engaged with their children, assuming that there is no issue such as violence, the contact that they have with their children is fundamental. Policies such as the room rate cut across that. The costs that society has to pick up when a father becomes disengaged from his son, and the costs of the repetition when that son becomes a young man, are considerable. I am pleased that she has raised that issue.

The Work programme is limping along and the Youth Contract is not doing its job for this cohort of young men. We need tailored programmes for young men, and for young dads in particular, because we understand the cost to society if they do not get it right at this stage. Things do not look good, which can make these young men very angry. When I hosted a recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on fatherhood in which we spoke to young fathers, I saw just how angry these young men can be because of their frustration at wanting to be good fathers, but not being supported by the system.

Not only are young fathers not supported or helped; they are demonised by journalists and politicians. Myths solidify into facts. The isolated but deeply regrettable incidents of men who father children with different mothers become the rule, not the exception. Figures from the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission show that fewer than 5,000 men are paying maintenance for children they have had with three partners and that fewer than 500 men are paying maintenance for children they have had with four partners. Although those men may not have lived up to the high expectations that we should have of them, they do not represent the vast majority of young fathers.

We must bust some other myths too. The majority of young fathers are in relationships with the mothers of their children. The millennium cohort study found that half the partners of teenage mothers were living with them during the pregnancy. The vast majority of young fathers intend to play a full role in their children’s lives, and that intention does not disappear with the first sleepless night or the first nappy—in fact, it often grows. The same study found that one in five non-resident fathers who had low contact with their 10-month-old infants were in more frequent and often daily contact when the child was three. Young dads want to be there for their children just as much as all dads; they just need support to do it, as one would expect of young people.

Many young dads live chaotic lives. Many hon. Members will be familiar with young people who live chaotic lives, perhaps even in their own homes. For many young men, becoming a dad is the wake-up call that pushes them to take control of their lives and to take better care of themselves, as well as their families. That is exactly what I saw when I visited St Michael’s Fellowship in Brixton—a wonderful organisation that works with young dads in some of the most testing circumstances in Britain. I wish to place on record my thanks to Seany O’Kane, who runs the scheme, and to Kim Normanton, a BBC producer who allowed me to spend time at St Michael’s recording “Dads Who Do”, a documentary for Radio 4.

Even among fathers facing multiple pressures, the vast majority try to stay involved in their children’s lives and to be good role models. They each told me that they feel they are on their own and expected to get by without help, support or even recognition of their needs. Too often, they come up against maternity services at children’s centres or schools that place no expectation on them as young fathers, and all the expectation on the young mother.

I have said that young dads often have greater needs than other fathers, and in other parts of our public services that would mean more provision for them, not less. In too many parts of our public services, however, young fathers are practically invisible—at best ignored, and seen by some workers as a risk or a danger to be avoided. Too many are denied access to their children and have to fight their way through the courts. Without legal aid many men are now presenting to MPs in a breakdown situation with their partners, and they have to supervise themselves through the court system. Expecting an 18, 19 or 20-year-old to supervise themselves through a legal process is expecting too much and nothing short of a national disgrace. The Government should think carefully about their provisions for legal aid in such family cases.

There is no statutory requirement to provide services to young fathers. Support is piecemeal, patchy and at heart a postcode lottery. Too often, young fathers say they are ignored by public service professionals, who assume that the father is not really interested in their child. Where support is provided to fathers, it is often generic and tailored to older fathers who may need less help. A recent survey found that in half of cases involving a young family, the health visitor did not even know the father’s name. Young fathers often have little contact with midwives, health visitors and social workers. Children’s centres often have targets for engaging with dads, but there are no data on how many children actually come into contact with their dad. Good children’s centres, like Earlsmead and Noel Park in my constituency in Haringey, do encourage such contact, but many will not.

This is a problem, and not just for the dads themselves. Research suggests that the mother’s perspective on her care will be determined to a large extent by her partner’s views. A young father who is engaged with public services is more likely to remain supportive of their children’s care as they grow up. That is good for children and the partner. Young mothers who believe that their partner is supportive have higher self-esteem, lower depression, and are more likely to be positively attached to their child.

However, what should be a win-win situation is too often a lose-lose one—public services push away a young dad, which leads to a young mum bringing up her child on her own. Such reluctance to engage with young fathers might also spring from a reluctance to engage young people at all when it comes to sex education. Young dads know less about sex and relationships than young mums, although most are happy to learn.

A reluctance to engage young dads before the birth feeds into a lack of provision for couples to raise their child together after the birth. Most residential homes are for mothers and babies only—again, treating fathers as though they are a danger, irrelevant, or both. Too many young couples are forced apart because of local authority housing decisions that do not take a whole-family approach that would enable young parents to establish their own households. Pressure on young fathers and families builds up, making it even more difficult for them to look after their children.

We need an entire shift in attitude on behalf of public services from focusing exclusively on the mother and child to thinking about the family, including the father, however young he might be. That must begin from the high expectations that we should have of all fathers. Significant numbers of the birth certificates of children born to teenage mothers do not identify the father at all. How can we show fathers our expectations of them if we do not even require their names to be on their children’s birth certificates? Will the Minister explain—I have raised this issue in many forums—why his Government have not enacted the provisions in the Welfare Reform Act 2009 that would provide for joint birth registration?

Young dads often experience significant financial hardship. We know that the best way for them to provide for themselves and their families is through skilled, decent, well-paid work. The problems that young fathers face because of the Work Programme’s one-size-fits-all approach are too numerous to mention. Will the Minister raise that issue with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions? It is not acceptable that public services should fail to engage with young fathers at all. Young dads should be engaged from antenatal services onwards, improving outcomes for their children and breaking down poverty and social exclusion. To achieve that, maternity services, health visitors, social workers and children’s centres should, at the very least, always record the father’s details, regardless of his age, and work with the voluntary sector and children’s centres to provide the best possible targeted support for the family as a whole, including young dads.

Will the Minister work with his colleagues to ensure that public services support young fathers to live up to the high expectations we should have of them? Will he think again with the Secretary of State for Education about what more the Government can do to raise the profile of the expectations that we should have of young fathers and the services that local authorities and local institutions need to deliver if we are to see fewer break-ups and less poverty as a result? Will the Minister also work to introduce parenting education for all secondary school pupils? Most of all, if we are to support young dads properly, we need the data to understand how many are out there. How many are being helped by our public services, as well as by local authorities and the voluntary sector? Will the Minister ensure that those data are collected in a standardised form, where safe to do so, and made open to public services and other organisations that want to do more for fathers?

Finally, will the Minister and his colleagues commit to improving the services offered by young offender institutions for young fathers? Given that so many young fathers come through young offender institutions, we need a better focus from the Department on young fathers while they are in them and can be supported—when they come out—to be better fathers than they might otherwise have been. Will the Minister commit to reinstating the teenage pregnancy strategy, which provided so much support for young parents? There has been a substantial cut. Local authorities are moving away from their budgets. In 2009, teenage pregnancy figures were going in the right direction—we saw a 6% drop—but sadly they are now going back up.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman has a long track record of taking up these issues in children’s services, and I am grateful to him for that, but I probably ought not to give way, so that the Minister has time to respond to the questions I have asked.

Children and Families Bill

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. The new qualifications will include the study of early brain development and attachment theory to ensure that early years educators and teachers are up to date with the latest research and practice when they go into the profession fully.

We have just announced a £2 million apprenticeship bursary scheme for apprentice early years educators. Up to 1,000 bursary places will be available to people who aspire to a career in early education. Each bursary will be worth £1,500 and an additional £300 will be available for further training. I am encouraged by the view of David Pomfret, the principal of the college of West Anglia, that the bursaries will make it easier for people to begin a career in early education. The college has seen more people taking up such courses in recent years and we want to encourage more young people into this important profession.

In addition to improving the supply of early years educators and teachers into child care, we are reforming child care funding. The tax-free child care scheme will provide 2.5 million families with financial support towards their formal child care costs. That is an expansion on the current system and, in the majority of cases, will provide a more generous amount.

Unfortunately, under the current employer-supported child care voucher scheme, which was introduced by the previous Government, the question of who receives support is arbitrary. It is also highly inefficient, with 33% of the total amount being spent on overheads. At present, only 5% of employers offer employer-supported child care, and only a fifth of employees are eligible for it. Those who are self-employed do not have access to it, and whether a parent can or cannot get it is a lottery. Strangely, as more than one parent can claim employer-supported child care, in some cases there are two claimants for one child. That means that the costs for one child could be covered more than for a single parent with several children, and that is neither a sensible nor fair way to continue.

Our new tax-free child care scheme will resolve those anomalies. It will be available to any working family, except where one or both earners pay the additional rate of income tax. It will be on a per-child basis and include the self-employed and those on the national minimum wage. Tax-free child care means that around 2.5 million families will now have access to support. That support will be worth the same as the basic rate of income tax at 20% of costs, making child care costs effectively tax free. It will mean that the average family with two children will receive up to £2,400 each year. Those on lower incomes will continue to have 70% of their child care costs paid through tax credits and, in future, universal credit, and there will be an additional £200 million to help those in receipt of universal credit ensure that work always pays.

We are not introducing the tax-free child care scheme now. The Government have been in discussions with interested parties since the announcement of the scheme, and will launch a formal consultation document shortly. The consultation will last 12 weeks, and the Government will proactively engage with those affected by the changes to discuss the issues. New clause 10 has been tabled to enable HMRC to start developing the scheme. Although we will consult in full on its details, the basic tenets have been set out. To ensure that the scheme is in operation by the autumn 2015 target, work on its foundations must commence now.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for providing information on the tax-free child care system. Will that replace all forms of child care currently in the market? I am thinking particularly of employee benefits for those who receive child care as a benefit through the taxation of companies.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and HMRC will consider that issue in its new consultation on this subject.

Much of the work required is based on IT development because we want all parents to be able to access the service online. As with paving legislation before it, the new clause will enable officials to start high-level discussions on IT and other development, and such discussions could not take place without the new clause. The provision will not affect HMRC’s current operations or impede the development or scrutiny of the tax-free child care scheme, and there is no immediate cost of the scheme that must be funded.

This is a short and self-explanatory new clause that merely allows the Government to begin preliminary work ahead of the final design of the tax-free child care scheme. The Bill is similar to those used by previous Governments, and takes no greater powers than in those cases. Furthermore, the Government are clear that any changes required in primary legislation will receive appropriate scrutiny. The new clause is minor and technical in nature, and I look for support across the House to enable HMRC to start working on one of the Government’s priorities.

In addition to reforming child care funding we must also increase the supply of quality child care. The number of childminders has almost halved over the past 15 years, limiting parental choice in a flexible affordable form of child care. Many parents want home-based care, especially in a child’s youngest years—I know my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) is a great advocate of that. The Bill enables the introduction of childminder agencies, which I believe will help to increase the number of childminders in the market by removing barriers to entry and offering an alternative to working completely independently. Agencies will drive up quality—they will be required to support the training and development of childminders—and make it easier for parents to access childminders and be assured of high-quality and flexible provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

We would rather the Minister had come to the House sooner with a proper statement. In the time available this afternoon, that will not be possible, and obviously the House is not as well attended as it would have been for a statement. It is disappointing, then, that the announcement was not made in a statement to a full House in the usual way.

[Craig Whittaker]

I fully understand what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, but are these professionals and new clauses trying to say that the professionals in the sector are not professional or good enough to decide themselves what ratios they deem to be safe, rather than what she deems to be safe?

[Mrs Hodgson]

No. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what more of the professionals have said, however, and then perhaps he will think on the strangeness of his intervention.

Purnima Tanuku of the National Day Nurseries Association said:

“At the moment there is an option that nurseries can operate a 1:13 ratio for over threes, if a person with a Level Six (degree level) qualification is working directly with the children. However, few nurseries take up this option, largely because it is not practical for one person to meet the needs of 13 children doing the type of activities most nurseries offer.”

That was echoed by private nurseries and managers I have met across the country. They suggested that it can often be a struggle providing quality care when operating at the current ratios. Finally, I will quote June O’Sullivan, chief executive of the London Early Years Foundation, which runs the nursery in the House of Commons:

“It beggars belief that a junior Minister can wreak havoc on a sector that has explained the negative consequences of her actions.”

Obviously the junior Minister has at last come to the House and ditched her plans, which I am sure all the people I have quoted will be pleased to hear. Most important, though, parents will be most pleased to hear today’s announcement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point that has been raised with me many times. I know that the Secretary of State is getting a reputation for sloppy research, and I feel that this is another case of policy-based evidence from his Department.

Then, last week, we thought that common sense had prevailed and the plans had been ditched. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister said as much. In his briefing note to journalists, he set out in black and white the complete lack of support and credible evidence that the Department for Education had for these reforms. This was a cause of great relief for the tens of thousands of parents and childcare professionals who were rightly appalled by the lack of consideration of the needs of young children in these plans. Indeed, given how out of touch with childcare practice in England the Minister appears to be, it is little wonder that, according to her own Department, she has visited just five English nurseries in an official capacity since getting the job, compared with seven settings in France.

I am not sure what those French nurseries were like, but the Minister regularly cites them as exemplars. I am sure she will have seen that the chief executive of the Pre-school Learning Alliance, Neil Leitch, commented last week on his visit to France. He highlighted staff not having the time to identify and support children with special educational needs, nursery age children having scheduled toilet breaks and long afternoon naps, and children being made to sit still at desks for so long that tennis balls had to be fixed to their chair legs so that they did not make a noise when they fidgeted. This is not what anyone with an understanding of child development—[Interruption] He has photographs. They are available on the internet. The Minister is disputing what I am saying. She can look up the pictures, and I am sure that Neil Leitch would be more than happy to meet her to discuss what he saw in France.

This is not what anyone with an understanding of child development would describe as high-quality early education. When we consider how stubbornly the Minister has refused to listen to those experts and child care bodies who repeatedly told her that that is what her plans would mean, it is unsurprising that she has met with the tiny number of organisations who support her many more times than the major sector representatives who disagree.

[Craig Whittaker]

In view of the fact that the hon. Lady thought my last intervention a little strange, let me put it in a different way. Is she saying that the French system is much more expensive, or does it have higher ratios and so is much more unsafe than our system?

[Mrs Hodgson]

Yes, the French system is of a lower quality. That comes out in the OECD ratings of its nurseries, which are lower than those of the British system. When people meet French nursery providers, they are often asked about our system. French nursery providers look to emulate our model and cannot understand why we look to emulate their systems. [Interruption.] That is what we are told, but again, I am more than happy to hear evidence to the contrary.

Within 24 hours of the Deputy Prime Minister saying that the policy was dead in the water, both the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister’s spokesperson denied that a decision had been taken. The Department for Education said absolutely nothing for six days. We had to wait six days for a Minister to come to the House and make a formal announcement confirming that the plans are indeed dead in the water. We were grateful to hear that at long last, even though we will not have time to discuss it in detail this afternoon.

Even though the Minister has said today that the plans have been shelved, I do not have confidence that we have seen the last of them. After all, the Government are struggling to meet their target to provide free child care for the 20% most disadvantaged two-year-olds. With just three months before the policy is due to be introduced, a freedom of information survey that I have conducted shows that only 60% of councils have the capacity to provide the places, probably for some of the reasons cited a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), who is no longer in her place. The temptation for the Government just to click their fingers and increase the number of two-year-olds that each worker can care for must be great. We should be clear: all they would have to do is change statutory guidance, meaning that Parliament would have no say.

In proposing the new clauses in this group, the Opposition are giving this House a say. We have an opportunity to nip any such future reforms in the bud. We have an opportunity to send the strongest possible message to Ministers that this House has listened to the tens of thousands of parents and professionals who have been campaigning against these changes, not to mention the Department’s own experts, and to say that we will not risk the safety of children in child care settings or the quality of the early learning and development they receive by allowing any such plans to go through unchallenged.

GCSEs

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

That is a very good point, and we will work with the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, and with Westminster representatives like the hon. Gentleman, who takes a close interest in these matters, to make sure, if we can, that there is proper alignment.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement, which is a huge step, putting more rigour and higher standards in academic subjects. May I press him on when we can expect the draft curriculum programme of study for design and technology, and in which year he expects that to be taught?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we put forward draft programmes of study for different curriculum areas, some of them attracted more controversy than others. It is fair to say that design and technology was one of the most controversial. We have listened to some of the critics, and a new draft will be forthcoming in a few weeks’ time.

Careers Guidance

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Westminster Hall

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I think that everyone agrees that top-down careers guidance under the old Connexions-type service did not work effectively. As we have heard, the damning 2010 Ofsted report proved that point. The opportunity for the coalition Government was therefore immense. It was a good opportunity to have a hugely coherent policy, while getting value for money for the taxpayer. The verdict is still out on whether that has been achieved, and we as a Committee look forward to revisiting the new policy to assess its effectiveness and value for money.

I want to highlight the issue of careers guidance becoming a postcode lottery for many students, particularly young people from poorer and deprived backgrounds, because of the removal of a statutory duty on schools to provide work-related learning.

I have personal experience of growing up in a small outback Australian town, based purely around the production of steel, where aspiration among our peers, our parents and the educators tasked with inspiring us was low, not because we all grew up in households that were not loving and caring—in fact, quite the opposite—but because, in those days, our parents quite often did not understand what aspiration was beyond their lot. Top that with teachers who had never done anything apart from being in education, and it was almost a recipe for most of us in our small country town to be destined for much the same.

Of course, 20 years on—okay, 40 years on—some things are very different, and we live in a very different world. However, for young people from backgrounds where aspiration is low, in many cases because people know nothing different, it is vital that when they are away from their family home they are given every opportunity not only to aspire, but to understand aspiration and to have signposting to the steps that they need to take to unlock a world that is enabling.

Many people need to play a role in that journey, not least the family, but I am concerned about what happens when, for whatever reason, parents cannot give that support. As our Committee saw in Bradford, some areas are pooling resources for a coherent policy for all schools, which takes away the postcode lottery. What about schools and areas that do not do that? How do we ensure that each child has free access to support the unlocking of each step of their journey?

I agree that schools have the second biggest role to play after the family, so their role is increased when that support is not available in families. We all remember our inspirational teachers, but I bet we remember more those teachers we hated or who did not inspire us. When the Minister gave evidence to the Committee, he said that teachers come from a variety of backgrounds. Yes, they do, but not enough come from a different career background, so they have very little experience of what the jobs market needs or offers as opportunities for young people.

The fact that almost 1 million young people in this country are NEETs—they are not in education, employment or training—highlights just that point, as does the fact that we herd our young people through university, often with no collaboration between them and the economy or job opportunities.

Only last year, I wrote to several of my secondary head teachers in Calder Valley after attending their A-level awards evenings, to say what an honour it was to attend. Although each celebrated the young people who were going to university, not one of them highlighted apprenticeships or vocational achievements. That is an ethos that I find sadly lacking in many of our schools, and one that perhaps needs direction from Ofsted or, indeed, the Government.

Only yesterday, the Committee heard how even the Government have made a “dog’s breakfast”, to quote the Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), of some of the programmes of study in the curriculum. The proposals seem to take no account of what opportunities are available for young people in the jobs market. I would highlight the proposed design and technology programme of study, which has little regard to the annual 5,000 shortage of engineers in this country.

When the banking crisis hit a few years ago, we discovered that Calder Valley has the third most vulnerable local economy in the UK, based on the potential failure of the financial system, because of Lloyds TSB’s base there. Yet there has been a partnership between that bank and our local college on apprenticeships for only two years, despite the bank’s reliance on more than 6,000 employees from the area. Just now, as we speak, the local college is constructing courses to tie in with the area’s high-end manufacturing base. Although 20% of people in Calder Valley work in manufacturing, only now is there a manufacturing-specific vocational course. Why does it take an MP to drive those things? They should have happened many years ago.

My first job as MP was to open a technology centre in one of my local high schools. It was a £2.2 million centre for construction, catering, computer-aided design, hair and beauty. Not one local business was asked to get involved in the design of the building, and only last year did we see a local business taking over the hairdressing course. That was another huge opportunity missed, sadly letting down our young people.

I understand that the Government have removed the statutory duty around work-related learning to enable schools themselves to decide on what is the best vehicle for young people, but as I have highlighted, we have a huge way to go to change the experience and the ethos of our educators to deliver such a huge aspiration. Sadly, we have missed a huge opportunity to encourage business to play a much bigger role. The countries around the world that do exceedingly well in this area show that a partnership between education, business and family contributes not only to producing high aspirations among their young people but towards their economies as well.

I support our Committee’s recommendations that guidance to schools must be strengthened to require them to provide work-related learning as part of their duty. I also believe that the Government must do much more to encourage business to play a bigger role in that process. A recent briefing from the Federation of Small Businesses suggests that it is eager to help and get involved, but its offer has not been taken up nationally, so we are missing out on a huge opportunity.

Children and Families Bill

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate all Ministers who have been involved in this Bill, past and present, on many measures that appear to be a huge step forward. I look forward to monitoring its progress through to fruition.

I want to discuss the role of the virtual school head teacher. Virtual school head teachers are a tried and tested method for improving the attainment of looked-after children. They have been shown to have a positive impact when they are well resourced and focused. The Bill contains a new statutory requirement for local authorities to appoint at least one individual to promote the educational attainment of looked-after children, and it is intended that such people will be the virtual school head teacher. As the chairman of our local charity in Calderdale, Together for Looked-after Children, and of the all-party group on looked-after children and care leavers, I welcome this important step forward, because although the attainment plight of looked-after children has been acknowledged in the past, this Bill finally puts accountability for such attainment on a level playing field.

The local authority duty to promote the education of looked-after children does not cover young people over 18, but local authorities continue to have some duties to support the educational achievement of care leavers up to the age of 25. This support is especially important as care leavers are less likely than their peers to achieve traditional testing points throughout their educational life. Research by Catch22’s national care advisory service and the Who Cares? Trust shows that it is vital that the education of care leavers benefits from the same strategic overview provided by virtual school head teachers as that of looked-after children.

For that reason it is important that the Bill Committee looks carefully at doing one or two additional things to strengthen the role of the virtual head teacher. It should either extend the duty on local authorities to promote educational achievement to include care leavers, or include a new clause to require a strategic overview of duties regarding the education of care leavers between the ages of 16 and 25.

Such an amendment would have several benefits. It would provide a strategic oversight of educational provision for all looked-after children and care leavers, and a framework to link education to broader career planning and the employability responsibilities of schools and local authorities. It would provide efficiencies in service delivery by linking, not duplicating, existing pre-16 and post-16 provision. It would provide a framework to monitor systematically the effectiveness of educational provision for individuals and cohorts beyond the age of 16, supporting local authorities to deliver on the extended performance indicators that will be introduced next year. It would also provide a framework for capturing and supporting the educational needs of looked-after children who enter care post-16, such as the homeless 16 and 17-year-olds under the Southwark ruling and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, as well as care leavers.

The proposal would improve joint working and information sharing with further education, higher education and other employment, education and training providers. It would also provide educational expertise to train, advise and support social workers and personal advisers who work with care leavers to deliver EET support, including through input into pathway plans and post-16 personal education plans. The proposal would also avoid gaps in the educational support provision of local authority children’s services. For example, one local authority reported recently that young people were unsupported during the summer holidays post-GCSEs until the 16-plus service took over their case.

The proposal would meet the improved standards of accountability under the forthcoming revised Ofsted framework, which will require local authorities to demonstrate how they would support the education of care leavers until they are 25. Ofsted has already had an impact, with one local authority reporting that the remit of its virtual school head teacher had been extended in response to criticism in a previous inspection.

The beauty of these tweaks is that they are achievable with little additional resource. Many local authorities already deliver an extended service, but I accept that there are concerns about the resource implications of an extended statutory duty. Local authorities would be free to decide the extent to which they used the remit of the virtual school head teacher to provide enhanced services to care leavers. The Who Cares? Trust and the National Care Advisory Service envisage that virtual school head teachers will provide strategic oversight of the educational support that local authorities must provide to care leavers, rather than direct casework, unless local authorities find that that would improve services.

More importantly, the proposal would protect the investment in leaving care support by providing a framework to monitor systematically and review the effectiveness of educational support post-16 and providing the evidence needed to evaluate services in order to enable better targeted support and to eliminate ineffective interventions. It would protect the investment in young people’s educational achievements at an earlier age by ensuring that they were supported to complete further and higher education and given the tools to achieve and maintain future economic well-being.

The proposal would also provide a framework for establishing better links with other EET providers, including further and higher education providers and training providers. Local authorities would be able to make better use of the resources for vulnerable groups. For example, they would be able to negotiate effective systems to access bursaries, support services and other schemes that support educational achievement.

This slight change to the Bill would not only join up services for this vulnerable group of young people, but would be cost-neutral in the long run.

Exam Reform

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, particularly for the fact that in 30 seconds he said considerably more that was sensible and coherent than his Front Benchers managed in their allotted five minutes. I am also grateful to him for showing a degree of leadership in welcoming many of the changes that we have made. I take his point about coursework and controlled assessment. I said earlier that in some subjects outside the academic core, such as art and design and design and technology, we can see the need to assess practical endeavour. However, I remain to be convinced, given the terrible problems that we have seen with coursework and, this year, with controlled assessment, that it is right for academic subjects.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Employers in Calder Valley often complain to me that young people leaving school and being presented to them for jobs cannot read or write properly and have poor social skills. Can my right hon. Friend tell employers out there in the UK how the new reforms will change that and enable young people to be more job-ready?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There is a consensus among business organisations, from the Federation of Small Businesses to the CBI to the Institute of Directors, that the current GCSE offer is inadequate and that we need reform. Particularly on literacy and numeracy, in our consultation paper issued today we make it clear that we would like GCSE English and mathematics to include sufficient rigour so that employers can be guaranteed that students are properly literate, properly numerate, and ready for the workplace.