Relationships and Sex Education

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you presiding in the Chair for this debate, Sir David. I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) after another one of her trademark thoughtful contributions. I thank Tower Hamlets Council, the Terrence Higgins Trust, Women’s Aid, the Sex Education Forum, Humanists UK, the National Secular Society, and Tower Hamlets police for providing briefings in support of today’s debate. I also thank Jenny Symmons in my office for making sense of it all and drafting this contribution, which I have managed to file down to comply with Mrs Moon’s suggestions on time limits.

Today I want to explain why I support compulsory relationships education and why it is not only useful but essential for the welfare of children in Poplar and Limehouse, despite 100 emails and 1,200-plus signatures from constituents supporting the petition. It is my stance that comprehensive relationships and sex education is a powerful tool for countering some of the biggest social problems—mainly misogyny, homophobia, and the resulting violence against women and the LGBT community. Society has a responsibility to ensure our young people have the confidence to live full lives without embarrassment, confusion or worse. As it stands now, parents have the right to withdraw their children from sex education up until three terms before they turn 16.

We know that some young people start having sex much younger than 16. They need to be educated properly about how to look after their bodies and avoid contracting diseases. My own borough of Tower Hamlets has one of the highest chlamydia rates in all of the UK, and the council is keen to address it through comprehensive sex education. The Sex Education Forum quotes research that states that young people who receive high quality RSE are more likely to start having sex at an older age and use protection when they do. Contrary to some parents’ fears that being taught RSE may encourage young people to engage in premature, unsafe sexual activity, research shows the opposite.

There is nothing to prohibit parents from giving their children further information. However, it must be covered in school to ensure that all children know the basics about puberty and adolescence. Consent is also an important thing to learn at a young age. Young women and girls need to understand as early as possible how to express consent in an intimate relationship and to know that it is okay to say no. Young men and boys especially need to learn the importance of “no” and how to respect that. RSE lessons can also be opportunities to recognise any abuse that pupils might be experiencing. Lessons could help pupils to learn about healthy and safe relationships and recognise signs of sexual, physical or emotional abuse in themselves and others.

One in six children in Tower Hamlets have special educational needs, making them more vulnerable to abuse. Our council recognises the importance of RSE in supporting those children and young people, increasing their knowledge about sexual abuse and improving their skills in refusing activities with which they are not comfortable. Relationships education will also provide an important space for children and young people to learn about how to get on with each other and about gender dynamics. We know that sexist and misogynistic attitudes can be picked up in childhood, and if left uncorrected can develop into abuse towards women. Violence against women is a particular problem in my borough, much of it happening within the home. Tower Hamlets police told me that in the past 12 months there have been more than 3,400 offences relating to domestic abuse: 100 caused moderate or severe injury and four led to death. Four deaths caused by domestic abuse is four too many.

Tower Hamlets Council holds that a comprehensive education in gender equality and respect is essential to reducing violence against women, and it recommends working to counter it not only in schools, but in the wider community. I note that Women’s Aid welcomes the Government’s declaration, which is a sure sign the proposals for RSE are in the interests of women’s safety. Covering such topics is essential to help young women and girls recognise signs of abuse and unhealthy relationships.

This debate is also an important opportunity to emphasise how valuable RSE is in raising awareness of LGBT people and increasing understanding. In 2019 many of our families look different; children in our classrooms may be raised by grandparents, single parents or same-sex parents. They may also grow to identify themselves as LGBT. Our children should not just learn about diversity in our society, but should celebrate it.

I want to commend the faith schools in my constituency that already provide RSE to a high standard, making sure it is inclusive as well as culturally sensitive. When it comes to sensitivity towards different communities, there are services available that can help schools deal with the challenges. In my constituency, Tower Hamlets Council offers their healthy lives team to advise schools on how to be in tune with the cultural attitudes of parents while ensuring that children and young people do not receive a lower quality of RSE.

Many of the organisations who briefed me expressed concerns at the proposed rights for parents to withdraw their children from RSE. For some young people, school might be the only place they can learn the facts and the law on issues around consent, sexual health, abuse and exploitation, and understand that attitudes in their homes or communities towards women may be unjust. The Government proposal states that headteachers will grant requests for parents to withdraw children up to three terms before 16, other than under “exceptional circumstances”. The parameters around exceptional circumstances need to be more clearly defined to give heads the leeway to deny requests from parents if they judge them to be against the best interests of the child. Will the Minister comment on that?

It is worth keeping in mind that parents withdrawing their children and teenagers from classes will not ensure they learn about the issues only from their parents. It simply means their other sources of information will be the internet; representations of relationships from TV and films; ideas about body image from Instagram; and sexual education from online sources that are easily available. We need to make sure our children and young people receive the best quality information from reliable, trained professionals, and that it is ingrained in them before they are susceptible to dangerous messaging online.

In conclusion, I have made it clear today that l am fully in favour of all children and young people being taught RSE and am against increasing parental rights to withdraw their children from the lessons that will ensure the safety, mentally and physically, of the children in my constituency, and hopefully break cycles of violence against women and the LGBT community. With such vital education the next generation should grow up to be more tolerant and knowledgeable than previous generations.

College Funding

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you presiding over our business this afternoon, Mr Bone. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones).

What has been striking in this debate is the consistency of the message from Members of different parties—not just, predictably, from the Opposition, but from the loyalists on the Government Benches. They include the Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon); the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on education, the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns); previous Ministers of State at a number of Departments; and other colleagues who know the Minister much better than I do, and who speak of her commitment to further education. I hope she gets the message as strongly as it has been delivered, takes it back to reinforce the work that she is doing in the Department, and reinforces its battle with the Treasury to get the required funding.

I am grateful to Alison Arnaud of the Tower Hamlets campus of New City College for her briefing on local impacts; to Vanessa Donhowe of the Sixth Form Colleges Association and the “Raise the Rate” campaign for briefing on the national effects; and to the Library, as ever, for their assistance. I would like briefly to mention three issues: the overall funding rate, the specific rate for 16 to 19-year-olds, and the staffing pay levels. All have been mentioned in pretty much every single speech by colleagues.

As has been stated, the overall level of funding for 16 to 19-year-olds in schools, sixth-form colleges and FE colleges is allocated by the Education and Skills Funding Agency, using a simple national funding formula. A new formula based on learner numbers has been used since 2013-14 and replaced the old formula, which was based broadly on the number of qualifications taken. Based on figures in the ESFA account, expenditure on 16 to 19-year-old education decreased by about 11% in cash terms and 21% in real terms between 2010-11 and 2015-16. The 2015 spending review settlement included protection of the core adult skills participation budgets in cash terms at £1.5 billion. Prior to that, spending on the adult skills budget fell by 32% in cash terms between 2010-11 and 2015-16.

On spending on 16 to 19-year-old education, the Library briefing reports that the Institute for Fiscal Studies 2018 annual report on education spending notes that

“spending per student in an FE or sixth-form college is now about 8% lower than spending per pupil in secondary schools, having been about 50% greater at the start of the 1990s.”

It concluded that 16 to 18 education in England

“has been the big loser from education spending changes over the last 25 years”

as spending fell more quickly during the 1990s and grew more slowly in the 2000s. It is

“one of the few areas of education spending to see cuts since 2010.”

It reports several underspends. Spending on 16 to 19 education was £135 million lower than forecast in 2014-15, and £132 million lower in 2015-16. In 2016-17, spending was £106 million lower than expected, meaning that 1.8% of the budget was not spent. Sector spokespersons have raised concerns about budget underspends at a time of funding reductions, and have argued that the money should be used by the 16 to 19 sector and not redeployed to other ministerial priorities. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that.

In Tower Hamlets—this affects young people in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali)—the minimum funding for a secondary school place is about £1,500 above what New City College gets per learner. On staffing pay, the Library also states that the School Teachers Review Body 2018-19 recommendations for paying allowances was an uplift of 3.5%, but as we have heard, the grant does not include further education and sixth-form colleges. That comes while the average national pay differential between a school teacher and an FE teacher is around £5,000; nearer to £7,000 in London; and there is an even wider gap in sought-after subjects such as maths.

The Minister will have seen the statistics published by the “Raise the Rate” campaign, which have been mentioned by other hon. Members. Fifty per cent. of schools and colleges have dropped courses in modern foreign languages; 34% have dropped STEM courses; 67% have reduced student support services, with significant cuts to mental health support, employability skills and career advice; and 77% are teaching pupils in larger class sizes. I would also be grateful if the Minister commented on that.

In conclusion, less money per pupil goes to colleges than to sixth forms in schools. There is less pay for teachers in colleges than for those in schools, and the overall funding for 16 to 19-year-olds and mature students is dropping overall in real terms. In February 2018, the Prime Minister announced that there would be a Government-led review of post-18 education, which would be supported by an independent panel. The panel should be publishing its report at an interim stage, with the Government concluding the review this year—I would be grateful if the Minister got us up to speed with the timetable for that review. I look forward to the Front-Bench responses to the excellent contributions we have so far heard in the debate.

Deaf Children’s Services

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I draw Members’ attention to the fact that our proceedings are being made available for people who are deaf or hearing-impaired. The interpreters are using British Sign Language, and Parliament TV will show a live, simultaneous interpretation of the debate. We are also trialling live subtitling for the first time on channel 15 on parliamentlive.tv. I call Jim Fitzpatrick to move the motion.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered deaf children’s services.

It is a pleasure to see you presiding over today’s debate, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting us time to raise this matter with the Minister. I look forward to his response and to those of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), and the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley). I am also grateful to colleagues from the all-party parliamentary group on deafness, who supported the bid for the debate—it is good to see a number of them here. Finally, I am grateful to the House authorities for ensuring that, as you mentioned, Mr Stringer, the debate is transmitted live with signed simultaneous translation. Surely that is the future.

The title of the debate is “Deaf Children’s Services”. I intend to concentrate on educational support for deaf children, and I am grateful to the National Deaf Children’s Society for the briefing that will form the bulk of my comments.

Deaf children are 42% less likely to achieve the top grades than their hearing peers, but there is no reason a deaf child should do any worse than a hearing child if given the appropriate teaching. That is the historical perspective. The worry for the deaf community, and many colleagues here, is not only that the situation is deteriorating, but that it looks unlikely to improve.

In addition to their educational disadvantages, deaf children can be more susceptible to mental health issues. NHS England has said that around 40% of deaf children suffer from mental health problems, in contrast to 25% of hearing children. Continuing into adulthood, people with hearing loss are twice as likely to suffer from depression and anxiety-related issues. Investment in early life would likely lead to healthier adults, without the need for employment support or NHS attention.

The NDCS briefing predicts that more than a third of local authorities in England plan to cut £4 million from their budgets for education support for deaf children this year. At the same time, the number of teachers of the deaf, who provide vital support for deaf children, has fallen by 14% over the last seven years. Those figures are drawn from freedom of information requests, as detailed in the House of Commons Library briefing.

The NDCS “Stolen Futures” campaign is calling on the Government to step in and tackle that growing crisis. Cuts are putting the education of thousands of deaf children at risk, leaving their futures hanging in the balance. Vital services for deaf children must be adequately funded, both now and in the next spending review. That review has led to today’s debate.

There are more than 50,000 deaf children and young people in the United Kingdom. More than 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents who have no prior experience of deafness. Those parents rely on advice from specialist teachers of the deaf to support their child’s language and communication skills. Around 80% of deaf children attend mainstream schools, where they may be the only deaf child. Teachers of the deaf play a key role in helping all teachers to understand how to differentiate the curriculum and provide effective support.

Despite the fact that deafness itself is not a learning disability, deaf children underachieve throughout their education. That is demonstrated in the early years foundation stage, where only 34% of pre-school deaf children were reported as having achieved a good level of development, compared with 76% of other children. At key stage 2, less than half of deaf children achieved the expected standard for reading, compared with 80% of other children. At key stage 4, deaf children achieve, on average, a whole grade less in each GCSE subject than other children, and in recent years that attainment gap has widened. Finally, 41% of deaf young people achieved two A-levels or equivalent by the age of 19, compared with 65% of other young people.

Most deaf children do not have an education, health and care plan. The NDCS estimates that less than a fifth—19%—of deaf children have their support confirmed through a statutory EHC plan. The NDCS has been researching what is happening on the ground, and believes that services are clearly under threat. The NDCS has tracked local authority spending on specialist education services for deaf children since 2011. This year alone, more than a third of local authorities—37%—have told the NDCS that they plan to cut funding for those vital services. Deaf children in those areas will lose £4 million of support this year, with local authorities cutting 10% on average from deaf children’s services.

My own borough of Tower Hamlets, which is regarded as a model of excellence, has among the highest figures in England for hearing impairment and special educational needs and disability. It comments that it is difficult to make fair and equitable decisions for all children with special educational issues. The NDCS says that cuts are likely to affect my local services too, and believes that those cuts are being driven by wider pressure around SEND funding. I know that the Department for Education has protected high-needs funding to support children with SEND in cash terms, but I also know that the budget has not been adjusted to reflect several key aspects.

First, the number of children and young people requiring additional support is rising. Government figures show that more than 30,000 more children had statements or EHC plans in 2017 than in the previous year. Secondly, local authorities have greater responsibilities to support young people with SEND aged between 16 and 25, following the SEND reforms introduced through the Children and Families Act 2014. Since 2014, they have seen significant increases in the number of 16 to 25-year-olds with a statement of special educational needs or an EHC plan. Finally, there is a trend towards many more children being placed in special schools. The number of children in special schools rose by 12.5% between 2014 and 2017.

The NDCS has published more background material to back up its concerns, and the Local Government Association has also recognised the funding pressures, saying:

“we are calling for an urgent review of funding to meet the unprecedented rise in demand for support from children with special educational needs and disabilities.”

As we head towards the next spending review, the needs of some of the most vulnerable children in society must not be forgotten. A failure to invest in deaf children’s futures will likely result in a generation of lost potential.

The NDCS raised a number of issues with me that I know its representatives have already communicated to the Minister and his team. The Department responded that £6 billion is the highest budget on record. Nobody disputes that, but the demand outstrips the supply, and that is the fundamental question for the Minister to respond to. There is more money in the budget—it is the highest it has ever been—but the demand is even higher. I would be grateful if he would address those figures.

The NDCS has raised other issues and put forward some suggestions. For example, it wants to explore with the Department whether the ring fence on the schools block can be relaxed or removed. The national funding formula means that 99.5% of the schools block is now ring-fenced. The remaining 0.5% can be transferred to the high-needs block, which funds SEND support services, only with the agreement of the local schools forum.

That ring-fencing makes it harder for local authorities to move funding in response to growing SEND pressures, as evidenced by the large number of local authorities that have applied to the Department for permission to overrule the schools forum locally and/or go beyond the 0.5%. The NDCS understands that 27 local authorities made a formal request for disapplication of the ring fence, 15 of which were allowed to proceed. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on those figures and on that principle. I would also welcome his views on whether there is more we can do to ensure that the local school forums include more representation around special educational needs and disabilities.

The NDCS wants the gaps in the specialised SEN workforce addressed. As I have described, teachers of the deaf play a key role in supporting deaf children, their families and other teachers. Where services are working well, they ensure that deaf children start primary school with age-appropriate language and communication skills and that they are effectively supported and included within mainstream schools. In 2017, there were 913 qualified teachers of the deaf working in a peripatetic role or in resource provision. That total has fallen by 14% in the past seven years. In addition, more than half of teachers of the deaf are over the age of 50 and hence are due to retire in the next 10 to 15 years. Many services are telling the NDCS that they cannot recruit. In 2017, 45% of services reported difficulties in recruiting new teachers of the deaf or arranging supply cover over the previous 12 months.

The NDCS believes a national systemic approach is needed to address this growing crisis. There is little incentive for local authorities to be proactive in ensuring there are sufficient numbers of teachers of the deaf being trained to meet future needs. Many will not be able to meet the financial cost of training new staff while also employing someone who has yet to retire. In 2016, the Department for Education commissioned a report from the National Sensory Impairment Partnership on the supply of specialist teachers, which recommended a central bursary scheme. However, the NDCS is not aware of any action taken in response, and I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate if there is any progress in that regard.

The NDCS asks whether there is a way to incentivise or even require local authorities to work together to commission more cost-effective services for deaf children. Given that deafness is a low-incidence need, it is important that local authorities, and particularly smaller authorities, work together to commission specialist services and provision. There are too many services employing just one or two teachers of the deaf, who are trying to meet the diverse needs of deaf children in their area. There are just nine consortiums delivering education support services for deaf children in England—the largest is in Berkshire. There has been no noticeable increase in recent years in the extent to which services and provision for deaf children are regionally commissioned. I would be grateful if the Minister might comment on that suggestion.

The NDCS welcomes the fact that the Department has asked Ofsted how schools can be better held to account for how they support children with SEND, but it has concerns about whether more could be done to strengthen the accountability framework around specialist services for deaf children.

Finally, the NDCS raises the question of a review of post-16 funding. SEND funding for mainstream post-16 providers is given where a young person has been commissioned a place, using high-needs funding. In practice, that means that, in many areas, colleges will receive funding for young people only if they have an EHC plan.

Government figures suggest that more than 85% of deaf young people do not have an EHC plan. If SEND funding is, in practice, restricted to those with an EHC plan, a large number of deaf young people are less likely to get the support they need to access the curriculum, such as a radio aid to help with additional amplification, or notetakers. In further education, deaf young people are twice as likely to drop out as their peers, and one quarter do not gain any qualification. Teachers of the deaf are unable to provide advice to mainstream college staff or support young people there, as they are not funded. Again, I would welcome comments from the Minister, and I hope he would be prepared to look at that point.

A number of individuals have been in touch with me directly. I apologise for not being able to mention their cases, but there is just not enough time—there are so many colleagues who want to contribute to this important debate. The House Facebook post for the debate was seen by nearly 64,000 accounts, had over 6,000 post clicks and 1,700-plus engagements covering funding, accessing support, good experiences, geographical differences and lack of understanding. There are some very poignant accounts, especially from parents. I hope the Minister has a chance to view them, if he has not done so already.

There are some very able deaf young people out there who can be huge assets to UK plc. If we do not allow them to develop—if we do not encourage and support them as they mature—we are not just denying them their birthright, but robbing our country of a significant contribution from some highly skilled and intelligent individuals. We owe them more than that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am very grateful for and appreciate the responses from the Front Benchers. I hope that when the Minister has the opportunity to meet the NDCS in October, he will have good news for it. I have been somewhat encouraged by some of his responses to the questions that I have asked today, but he has heard appeals from everybody who has spoken. He knows the pressures that have been described, and the hope is that he can champion the deaf community in Government.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for our opportunity to have this debate; the signers for their sterling work; the House authorities for providing them with this opportunity; and all colleagues who have contributed to the debate. Many of them made kind comments about me, and I am grateful for them, but they apply to everybody who has participated in the debate and all the members of the all-party parliamentary group on deafness, who work with and for deaf people and with great organisations such as the National Deaf Children’s Society, Action on Hearing Loss, Auditory Verbal, The Ear Foundation and so many others.

Deaf people do not want charity. We know that. They want fairness. This debate demonstrates that we here collectively get that, and the hope is that the Government get it, too.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered deaf children’s services.

British Sign Language: National Curriculum

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Austin. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for the opportunity to debate the issue. I am very pleased to see that the proceedings are being broadcast live with full British Sign Language interpretation.

I should record that I wear two hearing aids, because my hearing was damaged during my time in the London fire brigade, although I am sure age is contributing as well now. I am also chair of the all-party parliamentary group on deafness.

The previous debate, secured in Westminster Hall by the all-party group, was on 30 November, and excellent speeches were made by many colleagues. It was signed, if not live, but that too was a parliamentary first. This is the first debate with simultaneous translation for the live feed, although I understand it has been something of a challenge to make it possible, so I congratulate the House authorities and the Petitions Committee on ensuring that it happens today.

The 30 November debate was wide-ranging, whereas today’s is specific to British Sign Language and making it part of the national curriculum. The APPG has been trying to identify which Minister in which Department we should speak to about this important matter. On 11 September last year I submitted a parliamentary question to the Cabinet Office to ask just that, but the answer was not clear. Subsequently, we chased not only the Cabinet Office but the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and the Department of Health and Social Care for clarification. It now seems to be clear that the Department for Work and Pensions is the lead Department because deafness is a disability, which has some logic.

I therefore need to ask the Minister what discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues at the DWP about the prospects for a British Sign Language GCSE. As he knows, the DFE has already piloted a GCSE and has it ready to go, but the Government will not give it the green light. One has to ask why not. Perhaps the Minister will explain in the wind-ups whether that is a DWP decision or a DFE one.

Scotland has led the way with the passing of the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015. In 2016 Northern Ireland launched its consultation, and now the Welsh Government are consulting on introducing BSL into their curriculum. England seems to be lagging behind. In 2003, in UK terms, BSL was officially recognised as a language in its own right by the Department for Work and Pensions. In 2009 the UK Government ratified the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which states, among other things, that we should uphold such rights by:

“Recognizing and promoting the use of sign languages.”

Having said that, however, I think there is a small conflict between the title of the petition and what people were being asked to sign. The title states, “Make British Sign Language part of the National Curriculum”, but the wording asks why BSL is not taught in schools. The National Deaf Children’s Society has reiterated its position on a BSL GCSE: the society does not believe that it needs to be a mandatory part of the national curriculum, but that it might be easier for the DFE simply to approve the GCSE in British Sign Language that has already been piloted. That would make it an option for schools, should they deem it appropriate, but the DFE appears to be refusing to give the go-ahead due to a blanket policy on no new GCSEs.

The NDCS reinforces its view with a variety of points. On equality, if we can teach Turkish, Japanese and Russian—the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) came up with some even more obscure examples—but not British Sign Language, the implication is that BSL has a lower status and importance. Surely that could be demonstrated to be discriminatory if it came to the courts. On denial of choice, thousands of young people, whether deaf or hearing, would choose the subject, but they do not get the chance. On discouraging the teaching of BSL, having no GCSE deters teachers because it has reduced status. On reducing options for young deaf people and supporting wider Government initiatives, as we have heard, the DWP accepted in a 2017 report that we have a shortage of registered deaf interpreters, resulting in higher costs for such services and making it harder for deaf people to enter the workforce.

My questions for the Minister include the following: if the Department has a ready-to-go GCSE, why not authorise it? Why encourage schools to teach BSL without affording them the chance to benchmark their performances? Why offer GCSE equivalents in the form of national vocational qualifications but not a GCSE? I think—I suspect the NDCS does too—that the strongest of those points was the first: the question whether the decision not to support a BSL GCSE is discriminatory. The society promotes the issue first as a matter of law and, were a case to come before the courts, the Government could be forced to act.

I do not think that the Government should be forced to act; I think they should do so voluntarily. They should not be embarrassed or shamed by Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast for dragging their feet on the matter. In my view, that is doing not only a great disservice to deaf English schoolchildren but much more—it is tantamount to insulting them. Parliament is saying to the thousands on thousands of youngsters for whom British Sign Language is a primary method of communication with each other and the world that Turkish, Japanese, Russian, Chinese, Greek and Portuguese are more important than their language.

The Minister is held in high regard throughout the House for his integrity and honesty, but I have to ask him, are we sure about this? I am sure that he will not want to give a negative response to that question but, equally, I will be very surprised if he can say anything positive today. No, I will be more than surprised—I will be delighted if he can say something more positive on the subject. The least I hope that the Minister can do, however, would be to agree to take the matter back to the Department, to discuss it with ministerial colleagues and to try again. The officers of the all-party parliamentary group and deaf organisations have a meeting with the Minister on the subject, as he knows, next Monday afternoon. We will press our case before him again then.

In conclusion, I am grateful for another opportunity to raise this issue. I am sure that the Minister knows it will not go away. The Government, I think, recognise not only the inconsistency of their position, not only the unfairness in the provision, but the positive opportunities a change of policy would offer. I look forward to the day when we hear of such a change. Today would be great, next Monday would do also, but soon, Minister, please—soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I have done some research on behalf of the all-party group on deafness, and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will fund classes. I have asked the UK Council on Deafness to identify tutors who would be able to come in. Getting colleagues together is always difficult given our busy diaries, but since the cost of classes is a legitimate expense—as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) described very well, we should learn sign language to better serve our constituents—and the House authorities will help us do that, we should get on with it.

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Learning sign language really is life transforming, because people can share so much once they are able to communicate. We know from verbalised languages the difference that makes. British Sign Language is the first language of 70,000 people in Britain. We must always remember that, and ensure that it is accessible.

I have also signed at church. I have to say, it can be a bit nerve-racking to stand at the front and sign, but over time I found it brought real meaning to the words we sung and spoke, so there was a personal benefit as well as a broader one. We now see mainstreaming in the media, with the Oscars and the new film starring Maisie Sly. What a role model she is for young girls and young people on the benefits of sign language.

Why should BSL be on the national curriculum? If we had a signing nation, what a difference there would be. We should think first about baby sign, which is taught in some places. Babies learn to communicate first through signing and gesture before they can verbalise. We could get quicker communication with babies immediately, which would be a real advantage. We also want to ensure that children can grow up in mainstream education without facing barriers. There are links between British Sign Language and Makaton—although they are not the same language, some signs translate—so we could be more inclusive in enabling disabled children to be part of that wider learning community. Children are quick learners, so that is the time to learn a new language.

British Sign Language is difficult, but it is expressive and children will grasp that. It is about integration, not being different, having the same opportunities, having friends, being able to study alongside peers and building an inclusive culture and society. As children grow up, it is about social inclusion and access to jobs, life and relationships. It is about saying, “You are no different from anybody else, and we’re going to take those barriers down.”

It is important that we recognise the qualifications. Why differentiate? GCSE is the standard recognised qualification, so we need to ensure that British Sign Language fits not with the national vocational qualifications, which I have worked my way through, but with GCSEs, putting it back in the mainstream of our education system. We know that hearing loss is a massive issue faced by people later in life. If people had skills to sign, that could open up new means of communication among older people. Perhaps someone who lost their speech because they had had a stroke could sign to continue communication, so ensuring access to BSL could bring real benefits later in life.

In my city, York College and York St John University offer qualifications up to level 3, but they say that, as well as a national shortage of interpreters, there is a national shortage of tutors. We need to encourage people to see that as a worthy profession and something to go into in the future.

I have a few points to make to the Minister. My first was to ask whether he could organise some BSL sessions in Parliament, but I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) has that in hand. However, some dialogue on that would be of benefit so that the Minister can demonstrate how BSL can provide and open up opportunities for children in school. It would be good to join those agendas together.

Secondly, we also need to shift the agenda here. While I really welcome us having had two interpreters throughout this debate, why not have interpreters for all debates? Why do we bring in inclusion just because we are talking about BSL? Whether we are talking about the economy or foreign affairs, it is relevant to people with hearing impairments. I hope we will see a tangible shift in that agenda.

Thirdly, on qualifications, the Department must now get its skates on and bring about a level playing field to ensure that the qualifications of children who have a hearing impairment in particular—but not exclusively—are seen to be no different from those of their peers, and we must ensure that they can study and pass exams in their first language, not just in their second language.

Finally, what a different kind of society we would have if we put BSL on the national curriculum right through schooling. It is not just about qualifications; it is about cultural change. The Minister has the opportunity to bring that about today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Before the Minister moves on from his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith), will he give further clarification? Will he refer later to the point that has been raised by a number of colleagues, which is that the Department for Education has already piloted a BSL GCSE that is ready to go? Why is the Department not in a position, not able or not willing to validate that for schools that want to teach the qualification in such a way rather than at NVQ level?

[Nick Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts what I was about to say. He makes an important point and I will address it. Hon. Members should be aware that, of the four GCSE exam boards operating in this country, OCR, one of the major ones, recently stopped providing any language GCSEs at all, including French, Spanish and German, which are not small-cohort GCSEs. The hon. Gentleman mentions the GCSE that has been prepared by the awarding organisation Signature. We have seen that draft specification, and it has been tested in some schools. However, an established and rigorous process is in place to accredit GCSEs, and the specification has not been through that process.

A number of further steps are required to develop the specification into a GCSE, including developing broad and deep subject content by working with subject experts. It would also need to meet Ofqual’s assessment criteria and be accredited by Ofqual. Signature, were it to be the awarding organisation that offered the qualification, would need to be accredited by Ofqual as a GCSE-awarding organisation and be subject to its regulatory oversight. It is not a simple process of saying the qualification is already done and dusted and ready to run. A huge number of steps have to be gone through.

I presided over the reforms to GCSEs since 2010. The new GCSEs in English and maths were ready for first teaching in September 2015, and the next set were ready for first teaching in 2016, with exams in June 2018. These GCSE reform and accreditation processes take a long time. The accreditation is not a simple thing to acquire from Ofqual, which often sends the specifications back for further drafting before it is prepared to accredit them.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the Minister for that further clarification. Given the hoops that have to be jumped through to actually get to a position in which a GCSE will be available, is the Department in a position to say that it supports the additional efforts to get to that point, or is it not the Department’s role to encourage that? Where do we go from here to actually get to a position whereby there will be a BSL GCSE validated by the Department that can be taught and examined in schools?

[Nick Gibb]

We have been clear that we want schools to have a period of stability, so we have said that there are to be no new GCSEs or A-levels for a period of time. That is not to say that in the longer term we will not consider new subjects for GCSEs. However, it is important, after the hugely extensive reforms to GCSEs and A-levels, that schools have a period of stability. I have a responsibility to schools to enable them to have that period of stability, which they have asked us for.

School Funding (London)

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you presiding over us this morning, Mr Hanson. I am not sure I have had the privilege of serving under your chairmanship before. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this debate and commend her for her excellent speech, which detailed the problems we all face.

I do not have a long record of speaking in education debates over the years. As the Minister knows, my main engagement with his Department has been about fire sprinklers in schools and trying to improve the guidance on their installation. We have not cracked that yet. However, I have been contacted by a number of primary school heads in my constituency. Their comments need to be registered not only with me but by me in this debate. I will do so briefly, in line with your request, Mr Hanson. I have also written to the Secretary of State.

Heads from Cubitt Town Junior School, Mayflower Primary School, Cyril Jackson Primary School, Lansbury Lawrence Primary School, Arnhem Wharf Primary and St Peter’s London Docks Primary School, as well as constituents, have contacted me on this issue. One letter said:

“the national funding formula has the potential to make school funding fairer, but it will fall short unless it is given sufficient resources to succeed. School budgets are being pushed beyond breaking point.”

That brief quote says a lot. Given the pressures faced by schools, the writer of the letter is still able to see the positives in the funding formula, but refers to how it is let down by the sheer lack of resources. In her letter to me, the headteacher of Cyril Jackson Primary School listed 12 ways in which the school was forced to act to reduce overheads in 2015-16, meaning reduced staff numbers, less guidance, less encouragement and fewer opportunities to see new things, and experience other environments and be inspired by them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood has previously said, and may have said again this morning:

“The government is putting our excellent local schools at risk, with a change in the funding formula which will see money taken away from our local schools to give to schools in other parts of the country.”

Neither I nor any other colleague, I am sure, would wish to see schools in other parts of the UK short-changed, but giving them what they need to deliver a great education service should not be at the expense of London schools. Children everywhere should have and must enjoy an equally high standard of education. Whether they live in Dulwich, Docklands, Dudley or Droitwich, children deserve well-funded schools that enable them to reach their potential. It is as simple as that.

Those on the ground are telling me that school budgets are being pushed beyond breaking point. One of our local representatives in Tower Hamlets, Councillor Danny Hassell, recently tweeted that he had just seconded a Labour motion at the council against Government plans to cut funding in our schools that will mean a staggering loss of £511 per pupil in Tower Hamlets. Children such as those at Cubitt Town Junior School cannot afford the Government’s proposals. Their headteacher tells me it is calculated that Cubitt Town pupils will lose up to £746 per pupil.

[Mr Gibb]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Does he acknowledge that Tower Hamlets was the highest funded local authority in the country on a per-pupil basis before the national funding formula and remains so, even after the national funding formula is implemented, with funding of £6,718 per pupil, compared with £4,329 in Surrey and £5,129 in Waltham Forest?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the Minister for citing those statistics. I was citing one myself from the headteacher of Cubitt Town Junior School, who said that Cubitt Town pupils will lose up to £746 per pupil. I do not doubt that Tower Hamlets’ schools are well resourced and well funded by the Government, but the cuts being introduced will be unsustainable. The headteacher says that it could mean the school losing up to six teachers. How will that Isle of Dogs school withstand such a reduction without significant negative consequences for the quality of education it can give to local children?

Along with parliamentary colleagues, I urge the Government to acknowledge that their funding plans do not work for Cubitt Town, for the other schools I have mentioned or for all those left unmentioned. They certainly do not work for Tower Hamlets.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and to follow the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this excellent debate.

My parents are teachers, and I have had the pleasure of visiting every school in my constituency at least once. We have the best schools in the UK in terms of the proportion of good or outstanding schools and GCSE and A-level results, and we also have grammar schools. They suffer the same pressures as schools do everywhere else in London. I want to speak briefly about the funding formula and other funding pressures that schools face, but I will say at the outset that I would be an advocate for more funding for schools—that should be a priority. As a Parliamentary Private Secretary for the Department of Health, I sit here in countless debates asking for more funding for the NHS—indeed I sit in debates asking for more funding for all other areas of public spending, and see colleagues ask for more funding across the board—but what I would focus on is more funding for education. We cannot just demand more funding for everything; we have to identify where we would raise the additional revenue or what we would cut.

The funding formula came about after a cross-party campaign that was premised on an agreement that the funding for schools was not fair, in the sense that it was not equitably distributed and that different parts of the country with similar demographic profiles were seeing different funding for their schools. The campaign was never based on levelling up to the level of schools funding in the highest funded area—Tower Hamlets. That would have added billions of pounds to the cost of the funding that is required for schools, and no party committed to that in their manifesto. In any new funding formula there are going to be winners and losers. I expected that, as the third worst funded borough in London, we would be a winner, although I had hoped that it would have been by more than 0.9%, with some schools’ funding going down.

Having followed this and other debates on the funding formula carefully, I have not actually heard any coherent criticisms of the general approach to the funding formula in terms of the per pupil funding and the additional factors. No one seems to disagree that those are the right factors. What they disagree with is that, as a result, some schools’ funding is going down. Personally, I would like to have seen a more radical approach, because that would have ended the unfair and inequitable situation that schools in Tower Hamlets, 14 miles away from my constituency, receive £2,406 per pupil more than schools in Kingston, on top of the pupil premium, which is not counted in those figures.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

indicated assent.

[James Berry]

The hon. Gentleman is nodding. Before I am intervened on by an MP from Tower Hamlets, I completely accept the political consensus that we should address social deprivation through funding for education. I completely accept that schools in Kingston are always going to get less than schools in Tower Hamlets, where there is a higher index of social deprivation. However, if we take into account the pupil premium figures and the differential in the same city of £2,400 per pupil, that is simply not fair. In my stage 2 response to the fairer funding consultation, I asked that the per pupil funding element should not be reduced to a weighting below the current 76%, unless significant additional funding is identified for the additional factors.

I want to touch on the other pressures beyond the fairer funding formula. I have spoken to many of my headteachers in Kingston, and frankly their concern is not with the fairer funding formula primarily, but with the other pressures on their budgets. Some of those have been mentioned. They include increased employers’ national insurance contributions, increased pension contributions, increased national living wage, the apprenticeship levy, the equalisation of sixth-form and further education funding, the reduction in the education services grant and a general increase in costs.

Another factor that I imagine affects other hon. Members as well, and certainly has a profound effect in Kingston, is the huge overspend in high-needs funding. It has resulted, as in other boroughs, in Kingston having to top-slice the dedicated schools grant to the level of the minimum funding guarantee. It is a demand that Kingston’s schools and Kingston Council are not really in a position to regulate, because a lot of the high-cost, private school, out-of-borough placements—sometimes of more than £200,000 per pupil—are made by the first-tier tribunal for special educational needs. Kingston Council is trying hard to address the issue by supporting applications for two new free schools—two special schools, one in Kingston and one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias)—so that we can better deal with high-needs children in borough, but this matter needs to be addressed. We need more funding for high-needs provision in particular.

Faulty Electrical Imports

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing this important debate and thank her for her effective presentation of all the issues, many of which have also been covered by the colleagues who have followed her. I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). We southsiders are always happy to learn from the north of the city and, having learned, take the lead and show the way. I will try to copy her timekeeping as well, Mr Davies.

I am secretary to the all-party group on fire safety and rescue. Several colleagues present are active in the group. The next meeting is at half-past 1 today, but I understand that colleagues might be conflicted given what will be going on in the Chamber at the same time. I express my appreciation to Rob Jervis-Gibbons and his colleagues at Electrical Safety First for their briefing for this debate. I do not intend to repeat the many issues raised so clearly and effectively by previous speakers, so I expect my contribution to be brief. I look forward to the responses from the Front-Bench spokespersons, especially that of the Minister, who this morning has to be not only the authentic voice of the Conservative party but its only voice. Given the importance that the rest of us attach to the debate, that is a wee bit sad. That is not a criticism of him or his Department. As has been articulated, we are all looking for reassurance on this matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East has raised the important issues: brand imitation, substandard products, the risks from online sales and unscrupulous sellers, and the ability of trading standards officers to respond to growing risks in the face of budget restraints and cuts. Additional risks are posed by consumers who do not respond to manufacturer recalls, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned. He cited the very worrying statistic that only 10% to 20% of recalled products are returned or repaired. ESF’s analysis found that consumers did not respond because they were worried that they would be targets for future marketing campaigns. Although that sounds strange, it has a realistic ring to it. Manufacturers have to address that worry.

Given the growing threat, I am interested to hear how the Government feel they are doing in protecting the public. As has been mentioned, ESF estimated the counterfeit trade to be worth £90 million in 2013-14—in that year alone, customs detained 21,000 consignments at UK borders. I have several questions for the Minister that are similar to those asked by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). In fact, I think some are the same as hers, which should save the Minister’s time. Hopefully he will be able to provide responses.

Do the Government believe that the ESF analysis covers the scope of the problem, or do they think it is far more serious? The lack of a proper assessment leads to concerns that perhaps the figures are even worse than those in the public domain. Do the Government have a strategy to support trading standards officers in tackling the problem? What efforts are the Government making to tackle online sales of dangerous products? What liaison has there been with online companies and social media sites?

When was the last review of the legislation covering these areas? As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East said, and as ESF highlighted, the legislation is from 1994—well before the explosion of internet trading. Are the Government confident that the law as it stands is robust enough for the present day? Have they reviewed the recent trend of fires in domestic premises caused by electrical sources? If so, what evidence did they find? If not, will they do so in conjunction with the Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims?

I do not for a second question the Government’s intention; they take this matter very seriously. We simply seek reassurance that we are doing everything possible to ensure that the good people on the frontline have the resources and tools they need to do their job and protect society. As many colleagues know, I was in the London fire brigade for 23 years before I was elected to represent my constituency. Fire service personnel will always put themselves at risk to deal with fires, but despite the efficiency of the British fire service 70 people died. The fire brigade cannot protect everybody, so the Government must ensure that things do not get that far. The purpose of today’s debate is to ensure that matters do not come to such a tragic end. However consumers buy electrical goods in the UK, they must be able to do so in the confidence that they are not buying a product that could harm them or their family.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Thank you for your brevity. To continue the melody of Celtic voices, I call Martin Docherty-Hughes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, on this sad day. I associate myself with the comments about the victims in Brussels. I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing the debate and making such a comprehensive and thoughtful exposition of the issues that not just worry her but led directly to the death of one of her constituents. I also congratulate Electrical Safety First, which has clearly done a superlative job of engaging with Members from all parts of the House and providing them with compelling briefing.

In the debate, the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) got to the heart of the matter—the question of whether the arrangements we have to protect consumers are fit for purpose in the age of the internet, with globalised supply chains, where enforcement at a very localised level, as she called it, does not really address some of the bigger problems and sources of risk. It is for that reason that we did not feel that the previous review of trading standards had gone far enough: it did not really address her question. That is why a more fundamental review, not so much of trading standards as such, but of consumer protection in an internet age, has been launched by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise. In the meantime, I will explain in the brief time available what the Government are doing with trading standards and other enforcement bodies. I hope thereby to answer most of the questions posed to me in the great range of excellent contributions from hon. Members.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills provides £14.5 million a year to National Trading Standards and to Trading Standards Scotland, which use that money in large part to focus on the problems of faulty goods, counterfeit goods and the various different ways, whether through fulfilment houses or online trading sites, in which they find their way into the country. National Trading Standards has a safety at ports and borders team that focuses in particular on the physical import of those goods, but there is also close work between National Trading Standards and major sites such as Amazon, eBay and Facebook, which are clearly one of the main ways in which consumers are being sold either faulty or counterfeit or both faulty and counterfeit goods.

I will give one vivid and recent example of the enforcement action being undertaken. Operation Jasper involves 63 local authorities’ trading standards officers and has led to 4,300 Facebook listings being taken down, 12 premises raided and 200 warning letters sent to other traders. That is the kind of proactive enforcement that we want to see. I am sure that there is always more that can be done, but National Trading Standards and local trading standards are working closely with sites such as eBay, Facebook and Amazon on such measures. As another example, some brands of hoverboards and LED Christmas lights—items that were mentioned in the debate—were removed from eBay last October as a result of enforcement activity by trading standards.

The question of counterfeit goods is in a sense a subset of the issue we are debating, rather than a different matter. Some of the goods in question are not counterfeit; they are just faulty. Others are counterfeits but not faulty, and some are both. In September 2013 the coalition Government launched a dedicated intellectual property crime unit, run by the City of London police. That has been taking action against sellers who use Facebook, and those who use the more traditional route for counterfeit goods—the much-loved tradition of car boot sales. In legislation in 2014 we introduced a criminal sanction against the sale of counterfeit versions of goods that have registered trademarks or patents, to give legitimate producers a greater enforcement ability against those who persistently flout their intellectual property rights.

I want briefly to mention fulfilment houses, because they are one of the routes through which faulty and counterfeit goods can make their way to the consumer. As the hon. Member for Swansea East mentioned, there is one such fulfilment house in Swansea that has been the subject of enforcement action by trading standards and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. That action is continuing, but it has led to a large quantity of non-compliant goods being removed from sale, including unsafe electrical products and counterfeit goods. I hope that that goes some way to reassuring hon. Members that there is quite a range of enforcement activity—some that is more traditional, as well as other approaches that address the new globalised problem created by the internet. We should acknowledge, as I think we all do in our own lives, the massive opportunities that the internet has brought us.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am not sure whether the Minister mentioned the timescale for the review of trading standards. Can he suggest how long it will last and what the outcome might be?

[Nick Boles]

I do not know off the top of my head, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about that, and to copy in other hon. Members who have attended the debate. We have quite a range of expertise in the debate, and it would be useful to have contributions from hon. Members on both sides, including, perhaps, representatives of the Scottish Government, who I know also do a great deal of work on the question.

Deaf Children and Young People

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who has made another thoughtful contribution.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) on his leadership. He concluded his remarks with some self-deprecation and self-criticism for the lack of progress over 30 years. That is an indictment of Governments on both sides, not of his role, which has been an honourable one during his time in the House. Indeed, he has again demonstrated that today by securing this debate. We are all grateful to him for the opportunity to contribute. Let me also express appreciation for the National Deaf Children’s Society briefing and for constituents who have contacted me about this debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), the shadow Minister, on his first speech in his new role. He showed a clear interest in the subject and a determination to help the Minister, who is highly regarded and comes with great credentials. He has already done a good job in other areas; no less will be expected of him in this one. We are keen to hear what he has to say in concluding, because I am here to seek reassurances from him on the matters that colleagues on both sides of the House have raised.

Many colleagues are aware that I wear two hearing aids. I have a little understanding of what hearing loss is about. I spend most of my time in the Chamber during Prime Minister’s questions standing near the Speaker’s Chair, because I find the loop system better there. However, using the loop, I miss lots of the witticisms that other colleagues contribute—I know that they are sometimes better than some of the speeches, although fortunately not in this debate—and the whispers, and sometimes people think I am being rude because I do not respond. Hearing aids are great—I thank the audiologists at the Royal London hospital—but they are not perfect.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) and the right hon. Member for Gordon mentioned relatives and their personal experience. My experience—I suffered industrial injury in the London fire brigade, which caused damage to my hearing—is trivial compared with that of children who were born with hearing loss or born deaf. Given the powerful speeches that we have heard so far, and given the personal experience of those two families in particular, I cannot imagine how much more difficult it is for those children to come to terms with their predicament. I will come back to that point later, I hope briefly.

I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say, because we are seeking reassurances today. The two most disturbing stats I have read in the NDCS briefing, which have been mentioned by other hon. Members, concern exam passes and parental communication. As colleagues have said—including my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow and the right hon. Member for Gordon, who have personal family experience—we are not talking about kids who have not got ability, yet only 37% of deaf children achieve five GCSEs, which was down last year from 40% in 2011. That is an indictment of the education system and of all of us for allowing it to happen. The NDCS briefing also said:

“Research suggests that 40% of deaf children experience mental health problems compared to 25% of other children.”

That is a shocking statistic, but it is in no shape or form surprising, given what those children have to go through.

The other point from the NDCS briefing that I found shocking was that 81% of parents with deaf children never learn how to communicate fully with their child, which is mostly down to costs. The briefing says that it costs several hundred pounds to learn to sign—I learnt to sign the alphabet when I was young, but it is quite a long way from that to messaging by letter—but the right hon. Member for Gordon said that it now costs thousands of pounds. That is a real deterrent to ordinary families.

In my borough of Tower Hamlets, I have met children with hearing impairments and deaf children, along with their teachers, in a variety of schools. I commend all that they do in Tower Hamlets. It is clear from the NDCS briefing that it performs a little better than many local authorities. However, the NDCS report asks for three things—they have already been mentioned, so I will not labour them, because many colleagues still want to speak and obviously the Minister’s speech is important to us all. The first of the three recommendations is to

“Ask Ofsted to inspect specialist education services for deaf children.”

That does not happen, so it is key recommendation No. 1. The second is to improve the offer made by local councils by providing accurate data. If we are not measuring what is happening and do not have a proper understanding, how can we identify the nature of the problem and then put in place the remedies, which might be obvious in many instances? I should be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. The third recommendation is that

“deaf children get the basic support they need”,

which several colleagues have mentioned.

I should have mentioned my appreciation for the House authorities and the technicians for what they do in the House through the loop service, which is of great assistance to all who use hearing aids. I am very pleased about this debate being called and I would like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Gordon again on securing and leading it. I have enjoyed the speeches so far and I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to implement recommendations and policies to improve the situation for children and young people who are in this predicament.

English for Speakers of Other Languages

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on securing this important debate. I will do my best to be brief to allow other colleagues to contribute.

I wish to refer to two aspects of the impact of Government policies on my constituency. The first has been expressed in correspondence from Michael Farley, principal of Tower Hamlets college, who tells me that at the college there are 2,000 adult students on ESOL training, only 20% of whom are on active benefits. He also expects a 24% cut in ESOL funding generally. He asked me to raise three specific points with the Minister. My hon. Friend has already referred to two such points, and maybe to all three.

The first point concerns when the Minister will publish the specific equality impact assessment on the ESOL changes, which will be appreciated as soon as possible. Secondly, there has been a request to delay any changes by at least a year to allow a working group to be convened by the Association of Colleges, the Refugee Council, the University and College Union and others to try to plot a consensus and way forward. Thirdly, there has been a request to consider a sliding scale of fees depending on circumstances, which would replace the current models with colleges having flexibility to decide how they support the provision. Tower Hamlets college is a huge educational institution in my constituency, and it provides education to people from the next-door constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). Michael Farley’s advice has been taken by both of us, and we are keen to hear the Minister’s response.

The second aspect of the impact was clear from a visit that I made to the Bromley by Bow centre in my constituency, one of the premier social entrepreneurial centres in the UK, where I met 100 ESOL students, 95 of whom were women and 85 of whom were not on active benefits and therefore will not be entitled to future support. Seeking work is obviously an important criterion, but many of those people are not looking for work and are therefore not entitled to benefits. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East has said, the ability to communicate with their children and teachers in English is very important, and the ability to present adequately to doctors—to describe signs and symptoms and be able to understand the advice and medication—is critical.

It is most important that people integrate into UK society, which is a fundamental ambition of all political parties. With these policies, we are preventing that from taking place. Those critical aspects of life are not addressed by the coalition’s proposals. The ESOL students at the Bromley by Bow centre asked me to raise those points with the Minister and to seek his response to them. I am pleased to have the chance to do that, and I thank my hon. Friend for providing the opportunity. I look forward to the Minister’s response to those important points, which I will send to my constituents.

Post-16 Education Funding

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will ensure that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has particular responsibility for children in care, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning take that work forward. Today’s announcement of additional support for children in care and for care leavers follows on from last week’s announcement that such children will also receive support through a new individual savings account scheme, to ensure that they can build up a capital pot to help to support them in subsequent education or work.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State will know, the introduction of the education maintenance allowance led to a big increase in stayers-on aged over 16 in Tower Hamlets. Has his Department assessed the impact of his proposals on boroughs such as Tower Hamlets, and if so, will he publish the results and compare them with what happens after his proposals have been implemented in September?

[Michael Gove]

As we outlined at the time of the last spending review, we sought to construct a replacement scheme that would, within the resources available, be more progressive, and we believe that constituencies such as the hon. Gentleman’s will benefit more than some constituencies represented by Conservative Members. We will keep the scheme under review, however. A quality impact assessment has been prepared, and I will be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman if there are specific problems in supporting the many students in his cosmopolitan constituency who want to stay on.

Education Maintenance Allowance

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

I will not give way.

We are targeting some of the savings from EMA to those young people who the NFER survey showed might not have stayed in education but for EMA.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gibb]

I will not.

At the moment, EMA is paid to 45% of all 16 to 18-year-olds who stay on in education. That is not a properly targeted system and it is an inefficient use of taxpayers’ money in the current economic climate. Our intention is to focus resources on those in real financial hardship to ensure that every young person can continue their education. We are consulting the Association of Colleges, the National Union of Students, the Sutton Trust, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), and college principals and others to work out the best way to use those funds.

We are putting in place measures to ensure that the least well-off receive the support they need to stay in education, and the determination of the coalition Government to close the attainment gap between those from the wealthiest backgrounds and those from the poorest lies at the heart of all our education policies. That is why we are focusing on raising standards of behaviour in our schools; it is why we are tackling reading and literacy in primary schools; it is why we have introduced the baccalaureate to ensure that more children receive a broad education; it is why we are expanding the academies programme and free schools, particularly in deprived areas; and it is why we have introduced the pupil premium.