SEND Provision

Debate between James Sunderland and Nigel Evans

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

It is an enormous pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) and his typically powerful and forthright speech. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) for securing the debate and, of course, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Gen Kitchen) for her maiden speech. A massive “Well done” to her— it is not an easy thing to do.

I have been a pretty robust champion for SEND for some time and have spoken on it at length in the House, so I do not want to detain hon. Members for too long, but there are some important points that I wish to raise, particularly with the Minister. The backdrop for SEND across the UK is getting ever better. In March last year, the Government published their SEND and alternative provision improvement plan. Why was that important? Because it commits to a huge increase in funding for education across the UK, and for SEND in particular, with investment increasing by more than 60% from 2019-20 to more than £10.5 billion a year by 2024-25. That is a huge increase in money, and we know beyond doubt that this is the highest funding ever for education in the UK.

I was also pleased that, as part of that plan, there is a new leadership-level SENCO NVQ, which is an important professional qualification. We have also got expanded training for staff ranging from up to 5,000 early years educational needs co-ordinators to 400 educational psychologists. Excitingly, in Bracknell Forest, a proposal is being mooted in conjunction with Bracknell and Wokingham College for a pilot to be run for recruiting and training additional teaching assistants, and particularly those who may be focused on special educational needs.

As the Minister knows, last year’s review identified three key challenges. First, navigating the SEND system and alternative provision is not a positive experience for families. Indeed, the EHCP process is too long, too convoluted and too difficult—it requires a degree to fill it out and submit it. Secondly, outcomes for children and young people with SEND are consistently worse than their peers’ across every measure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich just mentioned. Thirdly, despite the continuing and unprecedented investment, the system is not financially sustainable and insufficient places are available for those needing specialist provision.

What do we need to do? Given that I try to focus nationally as well as locally, I think that first we need to better operationalise the process. We know that the money is available and the policy is in place, but it is not being translated right now to improvements locally. I am working locally with Bracknell Forest Council to do that. Additional staff are being recruited and response times are improving for those who contact the Department, but these improvements need to happen much more broadly across the DFE’s area.

While the details remain confidential—that is a safety valve—I am supporting Bracknell Forest Council in its endeavours and am meeting here in Westminster with Ministers to ensure the best possible deal for councillors and officials at the council. I am grateful to the Government for their ongoing co-operation and investment, which is pivotal. However, to better operationalise the provision, we need the right settings for all our children, and sufficient places. Even with the increased funding, we need to build additional schools—and that is now, not in five years’ time.

Last year, I was pleased to play my part in securing funding for the new SEND school in Crowthorne in my constituency, which was one of the 60 new schools announced last year. Bracknell Forest Council assures me that it is ready right now to scope and build the school, so can we please have the money right now, not in five years?

Why stop there? We need to be ambitious nationally and locally. We could also invest locally in a third school. An obvious site in Bracknell is the Warfield site, which I have raised with the council before. I encourage the council in Bracknell to be more ambitious and go for it. Let us not just go for a second SEND school; let us go for a third as well. We need to do the same thing across the UK: identify settings where schools can be built and make the money available now, because these settings are non-discretionary.

Before I finish, I will raise two points. First, I have a particular issue with Labour’s policy on VAT for private schools. Aside from the huge impact on parents who choose—it is about choice—to educate their kids privately for good reason, that policy would have an adverse effect on service families and those with children with special needs. We must be careful what we wish for. Lastly, while I absolutely welcome the huge progress being made on SEND right across the UK, it does need operationalising both locally and nationally. It is about results and outcomes, not policy and money. I urge the Minister please to wave his magic wand on this one.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We come to the wind-ups.

Prison Capacity

Debate between James Sunderland and Nigel Evans

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Last but not least, I call James Sunderland.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

May I thank the Lord Chancellor for his pragmatic statement? I also thank the prisons Minister for his engagement over the weekend. I really welcome progress with IPP sentencing, on which I have a clear constituency interest, but what I really want to ask about is custodial sentences of less than 12 months being suspended. Is there a presumption that those needing to pay a debt to the community will do so in the very communities in which they offend?

Afghan Resettlement Update

Debate between James Sunderland and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you. I call James Sunderland.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. Does he agree that it is entirely right that we do all we can to support those who served alongside British forces in Afghanistan, and that it is right to distinguish in law between those who come here illegally and those who come here by invitation legally, so that we can do more for those on the ARAP scheme?

Finance Bill

Debate between James Sunderland and Nigel Evans

2nd reading
Monday 28th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

As a dutiful Back Bencher, I answered the call of the Whips and wrote about an hour’s worth of speech, but with your blessing, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will restrict my remarks to about five minutes. I suspect that this is the Bill that none of us wanted, but as a pragmatic Conservative, I concede the fiscal imperative. Importantly, this is the right thing to do for the Conservative party, as the party of fiscal pragmatism, and for the country. I see the Bill as a short-term necessity and not for the long term. We need to put our country back on track and, essentially, steady the economic ship. Fiscal and economic security must be the foundation of all policy and I believe that the Bill provides that.

I do not want to hark back to the ill-fated mini-Budget, but it recognised the basic premise that Governments do not create wealth—businesses and working people do. Therefore, we have to incentivise them to work harder and create more wealth, which, ultimately, represents economic growth. As a low-tax, low-state Conservative, I want to see a low-tax, low-state economy that attracts investment, incentivises growth, rewards workers so that they can keep most of what they earn and ensures that we all enjoy a meaningful standard of living through rising wages. I accept, however, that inflation, borrowing and debt are the elephants in the room.

I wish to make a few points about the clauses. Clauses 1 to 3 relate to the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022 and include an increase in the levy from 25% to 35%, which is the right thing to do. I would much rather, however, that oil companies pass on their profits to the consumer at the pump and not to their shareholders. That is an absolute no-brainer and I ask the Government to keep the pressure on the oil producers to ensure that the money goes where it needs to.

Clause 5 and 6 are on income tax. I do not like the fact that the thresholds are being kept where they are. It is really important that, with rising wages, working people should keep more of what they earn, but I can live with the proposal for the reasons that have been outlined. The same principles also apply to the dividend rate and capital gains tax. We have to incentivise people to work harder, to save and to try to derive extra income from what they do. Again, I urge the Ministers to review those measures in due course, along with the income tax thresholds.

I am a bit concerned about the vehicle excise duty. I completely understand why we may need to bring that in line with diesel and high-emission cars, but we need to incentivise the drive to net zero at the same time. Again, that measure is worthy of review in due course.

Let me turn briefly to Bracknell, which I am very proud to serve. Bracknell is the silicon valley of the Thames Valley. We have 150 international companies with offices in Bracknell and a lot of small and medium-sized enterprises. Bracknell is the archetypal borough where people benefit from low taxes. In deference to my constituents—those who are working really hard to put food on the table—I urge the Government to make sure that the Bill is seen as a short-term, not a long-term measure.

Lastly, I recognise the predicament in which we find ourselves. After all, the Government borrowed an additional £450 billion to look after people in the UK during the pandemic. That was to put food on the table and to support people, and it stands to reason that that money has to come back into the Treasury. However, with the Ministers in their place, I want to make an important macro point. As the Government of this country, we need a discussion about what the future holds for the UK. We are currently living beyond our means and writing cheques that we cannot cash, so we as a nation need a serious discussion about what we want in this country, for this country and for our people. What will we do in the future? I commend to the Treasury that we need a grand strategic intent that allows us to work out where we will go, because that will drive policy. I also want to see tax reduced at the earliest opportunity, not least to encourage growth and to ensure that the UK remains firmly competitive internationally. That, I am afraid, is a political imperative to ensure that the “Great” in Great Britain stays great.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Following the last Back-Bench contribution, we will go straight to the wind-ups. I call Peter Aldous.

Points of Order

Debate between James Sunderland and Nigel Evans

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. When Members enter this privileged place, we are obliged to abide by the code of conduct that exists for all of us, which I believe to be sacrosanct. Last night, at least one photograph appeared in the national media purporting to show an alleged incident at the entrance to the No Lobby. May I seek your counsel in two areas? First, how might we collectively raise the bar of personal conduct in this place so that photographs are not taken for disingenuous purposes and for political gain? Secondly, how might we best identify those responsible, so that this poor behaviour can be brought to account?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Mr Speaker and the entire Deputy Speaker team deprecate any taking of photographs, whether in the voting Lobby, the Chamber or certain other areas. Mr Speaker has made it absolutely clear, but let me emphasise it again: do not take photographs in areas where they are forbidden. The hon. Gentleman has made a good point, and it is the responsibility of each and every one of us to behave better as role models to those outside looking in.

Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Debate between James Sunderland and Nigel Evans

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 25th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We heard you loud and clear, Colonel Bob.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my eminent right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—if only I were as good.

As the final Back-Bench speaker this afternoon, it is incumbent on me to be supportive of the Government, which of course I am, and this excellent Bill. We are where we are today for two reasons. First, it shows that the Government do listen to Back Benchers. Secondly, the Bill is a pretty good bit of work and it ticks the box, as indeed it should. As defence and national security become ever more virtual and online, it has never been more important to secure our lines of communication, both domestically and internationally, with our allies. I urge all Members to consider the notion of strategic independence, which we have spoken a lot about during the covid crisis. As we go forward, it is really important that we aspire to be able to operate autonomously as a global nation alongside our allies.

I believe that the Bill is important for three reasons. First, it will allow for better security both domestically and internationally. It kicks out the high-risk vendors from our network—what’s not to like? Secondly, it placates our allies. New Zealand, Australia, the USA, Canada and others were quite noisy when Huawei was originally admitted to our network, so let us hope that this will placate them, cement that relationship and, perhaps in time, even enable us to admit Japan and other close allies. Thirdly, it opens the door for other 5G providers to come in, which is a good thing, and I support the UK’s diversification strategy.

Having sat on the Committee for this excellent Bill, it is a pleasure to see it back here on Report. The Bill takes forward the Government’s commitment to the UK telecoms supply chain review, introduces a new security framework, amends the Communications Act 2003, introduces new security duties, brings new powers to the Secretary of State and strengthens Ofcom’s regulatory powers, allowing it to enforce the new framework. That is all very positive. It also introduces new national security powers for the Government to impose, monitor and enforce controls. Again, that is a positive step.

I am pretty happy with the Bill as it stands, but in the interests of objectivity, I will talk to a number of the new clauses and amendments. On new clause 1, the Government are aware that the Bill gives Ofcom significant new responsibilities, and it will need to increase its resources and skills to meet those new demands. Ofcom’s budget is approved by its independent board, and the Minister has today confirmed that the budget limit set by the Government will be adjusted to allow Ofcom to carry out new functions effectively. Ofcom is already engaged in this space—we are already proactively looking over the horizon and scanning for future threats—so I am happy that the Government have got this about right.

New clause 2 would ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament is provided with information relating to a designated vendor direction. I am sympathetic to this, but the Government know what they are doing. As the Minister said, the ISC’s primary focus is to oversee the work of the security and intelligence agencies. Its remit is clearly defined in the Justice and Security Act 2013, so the Bill is not the appropriate place to achieve an overall enhanced role for the ISC.

Public Health

Debate between James Sunderland and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

The year 2020 has been grim for so many of us. Nobody wants the restrictions, but they are necessary and I welcome them, and I will therefore be voting with the Government this evening on all the motions.

The retrospective nature of this legislation has been difficult to stomach. Going on recess and then facing this on the Friday was difficult for me, as it was for all MPs and constituents, but this measure is not being imposed for any reason other than the public health imperative. At the back of our minds, we must always remember that.

I say all the time to constituents who write to me, “This is not personal. The fact that you can’t go and see family at Christmas, the fact that you are locked away for this awful winter—there is nothing personal there at all. It is simply the Government doing what they have to do to keep people safe.” I have had many letters from people in Bracknell and the wider constituency over the past few months. I understand their frustrations completely and I empathise with them. Having Christmas plans curtailed at the last minute was awful. Nobody takes any pleasure at all in restricting people from seeing their loved ones, but it is the duty of any responsible Government to take tough and unpopular decisions to protect lives. It is a sign of good leadership that the Government are making these decisions.

I again commend my constituents. The public have been resolute in the main in abiding by the rules, and the self-discipline we have seen across the UK this year has been phenomenal. We welcome today’s news of a second vaccine—it is fantastic—so there is light at the end of the tunnel, and we must look forward to a more positive 2021.

It has been a difficult few weeks in my constituency. Bracknell went from tier 2 to tier 4 in a matter of days, which was a bitter blow to the morale and mental health of so many. As of today, we are at a rate of 568 cases per 100,000. It is no exaggeration to say that it has septupled in the past month. Over a six-week period, that is a 1,000% increase in the rate in my constituency, and it is mirrored elsewhere locally. In Wokingham it is 413, in Reading it is 452, in Windsor and Maidenhead it is 509, and in Slough it is 646. The fact is that the virus is ripping through the constituency and beyond. This is the wave that we were fortunate not to have had so far.

Locally, our hospitals are really struggling. Wexham Park, Royal Berkshire and Frimley Park Hospitals are at max capacity, and today the Thames Valley Local Resilience Forum was almost at the point of declaring a major incident in Berkshire because it has got that bad. When the stats are presented, it is irresponsible not to react to the exponential increase in cases, however tough it is to stomach. A decision not to act would have been a grave dereliction of duty.

To be a critical friend to the Government, there are three areas that I would like to concentrate on very quickly. First, on gyms, we need to make sure we do not curtail freedoms to the extent that people cannot exercise. We have known about the restrictions on the fitness and leisure industry for some time, so I ask the Government please to review the rules on gyms and all forms of exercise and sport so that life can continue as best it can for many.

Small businesses have also had it really bad and some are on their last legs. We have seen giant online corporations such as Amazon and Google dominating the market, continuing to sell goods with impunity and making it increasingly difficult for the high street to survive. There must please be more support for those businesses. We have also heard about the excluded, and we cannot ignore them. It is important that we do whatever we can, even at this stage, to help them.

I welcome the Government’s stance on keeping schools open. That is a necessity for our children and their parents, many of whom need to go back to work, but I implore the Government to maximise testing in schools and roll out vaccinations for teachers at the earliest opportunity.

Notwithstanding the grim nature of 2020, we have much to look forward to, and we must keep the faith. Last week, I visited the fantastic Bracknell vaccination centre, run by the East Berkshire clinical commissioning group, and what I saw there was simply amazing. I saw people in their 80s and 90s who had left home for the first time. I want to share with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) the hope that I saw, which was quite staggering. What I saw there was magnificent, and I commend everyone in the NHS, key workers and other key staff across the UK for what they are doing. We will get through this.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the last Back-Bench speaker, Richard Holden.

Coronavirus Update

Debate between James Sunderland and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Lisa, we cannot hear you. We will come back to you at the end. We will try to sort out the technical problem.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State please outline what is being done to enhance procurement resilience within the NHS? Also, what is being done to ensure that British companies get orders for PPE, not just China?

Desecration of War Memorials

Debate between James Sunderland and Nigel Evans

1st reading & 1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I thank my great friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), for his kind words and his outstanding speech? I was very humbled to hear it.

While preparing to submit this ten-minute rule Bill, we became aware of a perceived anomaly in parliamentary procedure. Given that such Bills require a minimum of 12 signatures, it seems odd that only one Member is permitted to present one to the House. As a member of the Procedure Committee, might I place on the record my aspiration for a review of parliamentary procedure whereby co-sponsors of ten-minute rule Bills could be allocated a discrete share of parliamentary time?

May I also record my thanks to all who have supported us through this undertaking, and in particular to the Conservative Friends of the Armed Forces?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Member for that point of order, and for giving me forward notice of it. I have been a Member of Parliament for 28 and a bit years—[Interruption.] I know; I thank the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for that reaction. Some procedures seem to go back centuries, and others 10 weeks. I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman some hope, at least, that when it is discussed by the Procedure Committee, what he desires can be analysed and, if it is the will of the House, those procedures can be changed.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between James Sunderland and Nigel Evans

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 29th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

In January of this year, I attended the graduation ceremony for on-call firefighters at the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service. This prestigious event was held at Easthampstead Park in Bracknell and involved 24 impressive young men and women rightly celebrating their hard work and success. As anybody in this place will know, we depend on our emergency services to keep us safe, so I wish to pay tribute to everybody in uniform, particularly at this time, for the outstanding work that they do on the frontline. One can only imagine the challenging experiences they face on a daily basis and I know that we should never take this for granted.

The graduation ceremony got me thinking: our fantastic fire services across the UK are ultimately employed as an insurance policy. Although they play a vital role to advise, plan and prevent, they also serve as a last resort to deploy to incidents when something has gone wrong, to protect life and property and to pick up the pieces when the human cost of not doing so becomes unacceptable.

We as policymakers have not just a moral obligation to protect those members of the public, who rightly expect the best possible regulatory framework, but a responsibility to those whom we always call on in unforeseen circumstances to perform their selfless duty and to ensure that they do not fall victim themselves to tragic circumstances. No one here needs any reminder that fire is a killer. I can vividly recall watching those awful pictures of Grenfell Tower on the news and subsequently seeing its charred shell while driving into London for work. One can only shudder at the unimaginable horror of those so gravely affected, not least the 72 men, women and children who lost their lives.

As a young teenager in 1985, I can also recall those terrible scenes of the Bradford City fire disaster playing out on television, with another 56 lives lost. As a regular football fan, it is clear to me that no one at any significant sporting, recreational or social event should unwittingly place themselves in harm’s way, and nor indeed should anyone in any public or private building—at their place of work or simply residing at home—feel vulnerable.

That is why I welcome the Bill. It is a much-needed piece of legislation and fulfils many objective purposes. As we know, it will amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 to clarify that the responsible person or duty holder for multi-occupied residential buildings must manage and reduce the risk of fire in respect of both the structure and external walls of the building, including cladding, balconies and windows, and in respect of entrance doors to individual flats that open on to common parts.

I can confirm, having informally consulted this week with the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service, that my local authority welcomes the fact that all services across England and Wales will be empowered to take enforcement action and hold building owners to account if they are not compliant. This will enable the authority to build on the proactive work it has already undertaken on high-rise residential buildings with unsafe cladding and to ensure that Berkshire residents are safe. It is also prudent that the Secretary of State will be given the power to amend the list of qualifying premises, that the Bill will enable rapid developments in the design of buildings, and that provisions will allow these requirements to be brought in over time, thereby allowing a pragmatic clause 2.

What of the future beyond the Bill? While I look forward to seeing the detail of the secondary legislation to ensure that the recommendations from the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report are implemented, there are two points in particular that I hope the Secretary of State will take away. First, the organisation Electrical Safety First has long advocated that electrical safety checks be obligatory in all tower blocks and that building management companies hold a register of white goods operating in those properties. Electricity causes more than 14,000 domestic fires a year, resulting in many deaths and injuries, so it is reasonable to suggest that electrical safety be included in any subsequent legislation.

Secondly, if we are to enable authorities such as the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service to deliver for their residents using the new powers, it is imperative that fair and sustainable funding be provided. Aside from the additional resources needed to identify who owns specific buildings, reasonable initiatives for council tax could be considered. Berkshire has been a historically prudent authority. The average householder in any constituency pays just £67 per year for their fire service. This is in the lower quartile of all fire authorities in the UK, yet the authority delivers an upper-quartile-quality fire service, as awarded by its 2019 inspection report. I therefore recommend the “fiver for fire” initiative to the Secretary of State, which would provide fire authorities with the flexibility to ensure that the right resources are in place. A few years ago, this was an additional allowance for fire services that could be put on to council tax—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am terribly sorry, but we have to stick to the time limit as the debate is oversubscribed.