Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Julian Smith and Graham Stuart

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for all the work that she has done on child sexual abuse. I want to speak on two limited measures in the Bill: first, the registration of children not in school, a positive measure that builds on the work of the previous Government; and secondly, the clauses on teacher training.

We know from our casework that the measure on a register is positive and will play a big role in ensuring that children are not lost or hidden in the system. In implementing and applying the measure, I urge the Government to consult with SEN charities and organisations, particularly organisations working with autistic kids and families. Ambitious about Autism makes the case that the register should contain more data on the profile of children not at school, disaggregated by primary need. It is vital for autistic children and families that we put on a clear footing the expectation that there will be detailed profile data, so that schools and councils can offer more tailored support in getting them back to school. Children with pathological demand avoidance require a completely different approach when it comes to negotiating school entry, and we must ensure that their needs are met with patience and understanding.

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that although many home-educated children with autism are known to local authorities, there is very poor support for them. How will this burdensome, expensive register—it will be even more expensive if he has his way—transform the support that children need, rather than being just another bureaucratic exercise that continues the current woeful level of support?

[Sir Julian Smith]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, but I make clear my support for the register.

The other aspect to having more rules and regulation for families of autistic children is the inadvertent risk of penalising those families through fines and the imposition of stricter rules, which will obviously add to the harm and stress that they often face. I urge Ministers and civil servants to reflect on that. Why should those parents be fined if they are doing all they can to get their children into school?

Even more problematic is the fact that for autistic kids, the clearer, firmer and harsher rules—even with all the good intent that I believe there is—can add further trauma and make school entry even more difficult. That already happens with registration. Schools are rightly under pressure from Government to ensure that children get to school on time. However, parents of autistic children, particularly with a PDA profile, have done amazingly well to get their children to the school gate at all, and the total focus on registration at a certain time of day at all costs risks school refusal and, ultimately, children missing education. Both Ambitious about Autism and the Children’s Commissioner’s report on support for autism and other conditions argue that a much better understanding of the different aspects of autism is key to getting children back to school.

At the heart of this matter are parents. Time after time, parents of autistic children are judged and challenged because schools and authorities assume that the issue is behaviour or bad parenting, or that the issue has a very simple cause. Making sure the measures in the Bill have a deeper understanding of what those families and kids are going through is absolutely vital.

The teaching measures will help. I again point to the work of the previous Government, supported by the Autism Society, making positive strides to introduce autism training in initial teacher training. The more that individual teacher training programmes have specific models about different aspects of autism and challenges to school entry, and the more that can be done on continuous professional development for all staff—teachers, administration staff and receptionists—is key.

Autism is often at the centre of school refusal and non-attendance. As the Bill progresses through the House and into implementation, looking at these measures with the autistic child front of mind will not only transform the school experience of children and families, but in my view help address the core goal of the measures to improve school attendance.

Employment Rights

Debate between Julian Smith and Graham Stuart

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Julian Smith]

My hon. Friend is right: we are the envy of most countries in terms of our employment law. The shareholder initiative has received a lot of criticism but it is just another attempt to make it easier for new, smaller, principally technical companies to take people on, give them a shareholding, maintain their fundamental rights but provide a bit of flexibility. It is not just about making things easier for employers, however, as the Government have a good track record on employees. We have introduced the commitment to flexible working and are bringing forward shared maternity and paternity leave. Labour Members talk about a high level of pay, but the Government have introduced shareholder votes for executive pay, and we are pushing forward with numbers of women on boards. We are reviewing zero-hours contracts and the minimum wage has risen under this Government. I think we can be proud.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

May I take issue with my hon. Friend because he missed out the fact that we have also raised the threshold at which someone pays tax? By rising to £10,000, that threshold will make a huge difference to people on low earnings, creating an incentive to work.

[Julian Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a long list, and I think we can be proud. These are modest changes but they are intended to help both employer and employee.

I do not agree that unions cannot be helpful in relationships between employers and employees, and I think they play an important role, particularly in bigger companies. I believe, however, that the current tactic of the unions on the relationship between employee and employer is barking mad, and I will give two examples of that. First, a gentleman in a village in my constituency runs a big company. He outsourced some of his work, and that outsource company laid off some staff. That gentleman and his family have been harassed by a particular union for months, with people coming on coaches to invade the village and demonstrate against a decision for which he was not responsible, using a tactic that the union has imported from America.

The second example is a piece of information sent to, I think, Unite members over the past few weeks, suggesting that they see the employer as an opponent and someone with whom they should be deliberately having a fight. That is what upsets me most about the way that the unions are looking at the issue. I have attended most debates on employment law since becoming a Member of Parliament, and the fact that so many Labour Members take the view of the unions, as in the examples I have given, means that they are not taking an objective view of the importance of employment law. The shadow Minister has employed people and knows full well that these reforms are the right way forward, but for whatever reason, he is blinkered by other constraints.

In conclusion, the employment law world is changing, and changing fast. This debate on zero-hours contracts will be writ large in years to come, and there will be more part-time working, more multiple employment and working from home, and probably much more self-employment and entrepreneurship. It will be a wholly different way, and if Labour Members do not look at that trend and look five or 10 years ahead, they will fail to represent workers and those people they have often represented so well through the unions, as in the cases we heard earlier. I urge them to consider the Government’s reforms, support them and see them in the light of incremental change, rather than as a radical return to a past that possibly never existed.