Children’s Social Care
Debate between Laura Trott and Bridget Phillipson(6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I welcome the Government’s focus today on children’s social care, and on the profiteering issues that we identified and set up the market intervention advisory group to look at when we were in government. However, at the heart of the problem is a lack of high-quality places for looked-after children. That is what is causing the high cost of placements, as demand is outstripping supply.
In its 2022 report, the Competition and Markets Authority did not recommend a profit cap, because
“the central problem facing the market…is…lack of…capacity.”
The CMA concluded that taking measures to limit the profitability of providers would
“risk increasing the capacity shortfall.”
While I share the Secretary of State’s desire to ensure that we are getting best value for the taxpayer in this sector, we need to solve the capacity issue first; otherwise, ironically, she risks driving up prices and exacerbating the shortage of places.
The last Government took steps at the Budget in April to address the capacity side, with £165 million allocated for building and maintaining placements for looked-after children. I note that in the most recent Budget, despite the welcome money for kinship care, there was no more money for increasing the number of places for looked-after children. That is essential; otherwise, the strategy on places set out today simply will not work. What plans has the Secretary of State made to increase the number of places for looked-after children? How much she will need to fund that? Did she ask the Treasury for the money at the most recent Budget? What is her assessment of the impact of the changes announced today on the number of places available for looked-after children?
The review carried out by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), commissioned by the Conservatives in government, found that profit caps would not work as it would be
“relatively easy for providers to reallocate income and expenditure to maintain profit levels.”
Does the Secretary of State agree? Is the 8.8% level of profit that she referred to this morning the maximum level of profit that she is aiming for? If not, what will it be?
The capacity problem rests both on the availability of places and on the demand for those places. The Secretary of State has indicated that she would like to take steps on early intervention, which is obviously vital. Those were not specified in her statement, but I hope that she will bring them to the House at the earliest opportunity, as they are critical to solving the issue. She said that she wants to scrap payment by results. Given that that is an early intervention programme, on the basis of what evidence is she doing so? Does she have an evaluation of what scrapping payment by results will do?
We welcome much else in the statement, including the regional care co-operatives, multi-agency teams, and the enhanced role of Ofsted in the sector. On the latter, is the Secretary of State making any changes to the failure regime for children’s homes and the regularity of inspection? The Children’s Commissioner has done outstanding work on the increasing use of deprivation of liberty orders. Will the Secretary of State outline what action she is taking on that important issue? I am pleased to see the Labour Government take forward our proposal for a unique child identifier. When can we expect the Bill creating that to be introduced?
I want the Government to succeed in this area. Children’s social care is a hidden issue, and getting it right is at the heart of solving so many problems that this country faces. I hope the Secretary of State can reassure me and the House that she will do more to bring forward a greater supply of places for looked-after children, and that an early intervention system is forthcoming, because the futures of looked-after children rely on it.
Bridget Phillipson
I can say to the right hon. Lady that we will absolutely do more. We are doing more in four months than the Conservatives did in 14 years. They had 14 years, yet she has the temerity to stand there and carp about the changes that we are bringing in for some of the most vulnerable children in our country. Markets were left to fail, costs were left to soar and, worst of all, children were failed. We will ensure that there are high quality placements for our children who need that provision. That is why we set out £90 million to expand capacity and provision for children who need it.
We have to break this cycle of crisis intervention that is leading to spiralling costs and poor outcomes and bankrupting local councils. That is why we will have much more of a focus on kinship care, foster care and early intervention to support families. I know that where families are supported at the earliest possible moment, we can often prevent problems from escalating, and the right hon. Lady will know that, too. I am determined that we build a system that gives all our children the best possible start in life, and that is why I can confirm that we will give Ofsted the powers that it needs to tackle unregistered and illegal provision and to ensure that it is looking at patterns across providers. We will introduce legislation on everything we have set out today as soon as parliamentary time allows, but I can say to her that this is urgent and we will act as swiftly as we can.
On the right hon. Lady’s question about the Children’s Commissioner, I welcome the work of the commissioner in this important area. As on many other issues, she has cast a light on an important area of policy where we have not acted swiftly and her party failed to act. I would gently point out to her that the Children’s Commissioner carried out that work on behalf of the Department for Education. The Conservatives had 14 years to tackle these issues. I note that the right hon. Lady welcomed some of the measures that we have set out today, but when we set out legislation before this House to tackle the shameful failure that we have inherited, I hope that Conservative Members will back us and, more importantly, back the vulnerable children in our country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Laura Trott and Bridget Phillipson(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I say how delighted I am to be in the role? We will be a constructive Opposition working in the best interests of young people. In that spirit, I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that the Government’s early years funding rates for all age groups will increase to reflect the changes in employer national insurance contributions. Will she give us a figure for how much that will cost the Department for Education?
Bridget Phillipson
I welcome the right hon. Lady to her place: it is the best job in opposition, just as mine is the best job in government. I am sure that whatever disagreements we might have in the weeks and months to come, we can all get behind the importance of education to our country.
We will set out more detail on funding rates in due course. What I would say to the right hon. Lady is that the Conservative party left behind commitments, but no plan to make them real. Instead, they left us a £22 billion hole in the public finances, and this Government have had to take some tough decisions to get our public finances back on a stable footing.
Bridget Phillipson
We are focused on driving up standards for our children, the length and breadth of our country, by providing more teachers and improved school budgets, and by ensuring our children do not go to school in crumbling buildings, unlike the Conservative party, which made sure that our children went to school in buildings that were literally propped up.
Laura Trott
The problem that we have is that while we are learning the lessons of our defeat, the Government are failing to learn from our brilliant record on school standards. Results improved, more schools were “good” or “outstanding”, but now the party in government is trying to undermine one part of the basis for that success. Why is the Secretary of State scrapping the academy conversion support grant when it was such a push behind improving school standards?
Bridget Phillipson
The Conservative party has learned absolutely nothing and parents will not buy it. We were faced with some very tough choices because of the £22 billion hole in the public finances, as the right hon. Lady, the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, knows all too well—[Interruption.] We are fixing the foundations and rebuilding our schools.
Higher Education Reform
Debate between Laura Trott and Bridget Phillipson(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.
The Budget last week declared war on business and private sector workers, and on farmers, as we have just heard. It seems that today the Secretary of State wants to add students to that list. Not content with pushing up the cost of living for everyone with an inflationary Budget, and pushing down wages with a national insurance increase, we are now in a situation whereby students will suffer from the first inflationary increase in a number of years, at a time when they can least afford it.
Yet again, there was no sign of that in the Labour manifesto. Indeed, in only 2020, the Prime Minister made scrapping university tuition fees a centrepiece of his leadership campaign—perhaps we should start putting sell-by dates on his statements. But it is not just the Prime Minister: in July this year, at the time of the King’s Speech, the Secretary of State said that she had “no plans” to increase tuition fees, and yesterday the Chancellor said that there was
“no need to increase taxes further.”
Yet what is happening today apart from a hike in the effective tax that graduates have to pay? Students have not had a chance to prepare for that rise. They will have fairly expected, based on all the statements that I have mentioned, that the last thing a Labour Government would do in office is put up tuition fees.
We have some of the best universities in the world here in the UK, but we need to do much more to reform the system and make it better and fairer for students and universities by ensuring that courses provide students with an economic return, helping universities to harness the growth potential of the innovations that they foster, and ensuring that students and lecturers are free to express and debate their views. We are willing to work with the Government on all those things. It is also right that we consider university funding, but pushing up costs for students at short notice in an unreformed system will lead to students up and down the country feeling betrayed.
How much of the increase will be absorbed by the national insurance increase for employees at universities? Does the Secretary of State intend to increase fees every year, or should students expect this to be the only increase? What is the impact of the change on public finances, and has the Office for Budget Responsibility been consulted? Why was the change not announced in the Budget? How much longer will it take the average borrower to repay their tuition fees as a result of the change? And why was Labour not up front about the measure in its manifesto?
In June 2023, the title of an article written by the now Secretary of State proclaimed:
“Graduates, you will pay less under a Labour government”.
Well, it turns out they will pay more—more broken promises.
Bridget Phillipson
Amid the faux outrage that we just heard from the shadow Education Secretary, I did not hear whether she will support the measure. She, like her party for many months during the election campaign, had nothing to say other than doing down the ambition and aspiration of young people and their families who want the opportunity to go on to university. The Conservatives went into the last election determined to ensure that fewer young people had the chance to go to university. That is shameful, and it is something that Labour will never back. Young people with talent and ambition, and their families, want a Government who recognise it.
It is little wonder that, at the ballot box on 4 July, the right hon. Lady’s party got a clear message. It is just a shame that in the time since, there has been no reflection on why that was. The Conservatives have learned nothing from their years of failure. They ducked the tough decisions for years. I make it absolutely clear to the House that I do not take any pleasure in this decision—it is not one that I want to take—but I am determined to secure the long-term financial sustainability of our world-leading universities. She is right to recognise their success. They are beacons around the world, and that necessitates tough decisions—decisions that she and her colleagues in the Treasury ducked year after year. They put a Conservative peer in to chair what should have been an independent regulator. They picked fights with the sector time and again, and over the course of 10 years, the Conservative party never had a serious plan to reform the higher education sector. I am determined to bring that reform, and in the months to come we will set out further plans to reform efficiency, access and participation for our young people.
To answer the precise questions that the right hon. Lady asked, as we lay legislation before the House, we will publish an impact assessment alongside it.