Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords]

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Swallow]

I was proud to serve on the Bill Committee for this vital legislation. It is a small Bill, but, by goodness, it is mighty. I rise to speak against amendment 6. In doing so, I will highlight a local success story in recognition of the third National Supported Internship Day. It took place on 27 March, which also happens to be my birthday.

For 15 years, Bracknell and Wokingham college—my local college—and Activate Learning have been working together with over 100 employers to offer supported internship placements for learners with special educational needs. The scheme offers invaluable opportunities, and provides the skills, confidence and qualifications necessary to thrive in the workplace. Their partners include the National Grid, the Royal Berkshire hospital, Johnson & Johnson, and Sodexo. It is an excellent example of a local college working with big players in the energy, medical and food industries to provide high-quality schemes for stable, well-paid employment. It is proof that young people with special educational needs can thrive with the right support. We face one in eight young people being not in education, employment or training—the number is at an 11-year high, after 14 years of the Tories—and we need more supported internships to address the challenge.

Skills England will deliver opportunities across the country in key industries including green energy, construction and healthcare. That is vital for the Government’s five missions, and for communities like Bracknell. It is a step towards ending fragmentation. A less complex, more flexible skills system will deliver for young people, especially those with special educational needs. By bringing together the constituent parts of the skills architecture, Skills England will create a system that is fit for purpose, responsive to the needs of employers and businesses, and capable of driving economic growth in the years to come. It will lay the ground for a better system.

There is a need to move fast. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) pointed out, the UK’s productivity is almost 40% below that of the US, and 20% below that of other major economies, such as France and Germany. A major reason for that is a lack of appropriate skills, so the Conservatives’ amendment 6, which would delay the creation of Skills England by a year, is nothing short of irresponsible. We need to work faster, not more slowly. The amendment is indicative of their approach to government: where there was a challenge, they ducked it; where a decision was needed, they put it off; and when a broken system needed fixing, they left it for the next lot. Well, the next lot are now in government and will not put off for tomorrow what needs to be done today.

We know that skills are a crucial driver of economic growth and the key to tackling productivity gaps, but our economy is changing rapidly in ways we cannot fully anticipate, so it is crucial that our education system equips young people with a broad range of the skills necessary for success in the jobs market of tomorrow. That is exactly what the Bill and Skills England will deliver.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

On the face of it, this is a technical Bill, but the benefits and opportunities that the transition to Skills England can create across the country, including in communities such as Birmingham Northfield, are real and tangible. The amendments would have similar effects. In terms of timing, while new clause 1 would delay the establishment of Skills England by six months, new clause 4 and amendment 6 would delay it by a year. There is a risk that by accepting such amendments we would recreate IfATE under the name of Skills England. As my hon. Friends have said, we cannot wait that long. A new approach is needed.

As the first Skills England report, which was published last September, identified, there has been a steady decline in employers’ investment in training during the past decade. Investment in real terms has fallen by about 20%, even though 90% of the roles in critical demand across the economy require training or education.

In my constituency, apprenticeship starts fell by 35% during the last Parliament, more than double the national rate. This is a social issue as well, because more than half the young people not in education, employment or training in Northfield are classed as vulnerable, and adult skills funded education is accessed particularly in the areas of my constituency with some of the highest levels of social need, including Longbridge and West Heath, Weoley and the three estates in Kings Norton. I am sure the situation is similar for other hon. Members.

According to a response to a freedom of information request in 2022, some £1 billion a year nationally in apprenticeship levy funding was unspent. At the same time, major local employers have expressed their frustration to me about skills shortages in areas from construction and home upgrades to computer science.

I have seen some of the good work already done locally to provide apprenticeships and other forms of technical education. Next month, we will witness the 20th anniversary of the closure of MG Rover in my constituency. Today, South and City College Birmingham, which is partly built on the old Austin site, is one of the largest training providers in the west midlands. A number of hon. Members have paid tribute to their local colleges, and I would like to do the same. That college offers impressive programmes, developing the technical and soft skills of students in a multitude of industries including catering, automotive and advanced manufacturing.

As manufacturing jobs start to return to Longbridge, these facilities and the experienced staff who work there will be vital to delivering economic growth and opportunities for young people, but they are attempting to fit into a system that is not fit for purpose and is not working. In other words, skills policy is essential for the Government’s plans for economic recovery and industrial strategy, and it is appropriate to place accountability for the new development directly with Ministers for this period.

We heard a lot on the Bill Committee as well as elsewhere about whether Skills England should be created as a stand-alone agency at arm’s length from the core Department. As we heard on Second Reading, the Government may review Skills England’s status after 18 months to two years, which seems like a sensible way forward. That is a legitimate debate, but we should not agree tonight to delay Skills England’s creation.

It is important to say that IfATE has not lived up to expectations and that the status quo is a barrier to the Government’s objectives. Nine years ago, the then Minister for skills, Nick Boles, told the House’s Education, Skills and the Economy sub-Committee that IfATE would

“be much more akin to the Bank of England”

in terms of its independence compared with a traditional arm’s length organisation. I think most hon. Members would agree that that has not been borne out.

During the last Parliament, I attended meetings of the UK shipbuilding skills taskforce, where there was common agreement between employers and employee representative organisations that the GCSE entry-level requirement was a barrier for employers taking on the young people who were best equipped for those apprenticeships. However, that recommendation was blocked—by DFE Ministers, we were given to understand—from the final report. Similarly, employers and people with direct knowledge of the skills system I have talked to over the last few weeks have stressed some of the frustrations that existed in the trailblazer employer organisations: within the bureaucracy of IfATE, some recommendations and expertise would be either delayed or disregarded by the route panels, some of which were made up of employers who did not necessarily have expertise in a particular industry.

It is important to reduce some of that bureaucracy so the Bill’s effect of removing a requirement for a regular review of an apprenticeship’s standard—in practice, every few years—is a sensible change. There are, at the last count, 658 live apprenticeships listed on the IfATE website. That implies 219 reviews every year or four a week; I think we are entitled to question how effective those reviews can be given IfATE’s current resources.

If I may, I will list one more example of where the current system is going wrong. The special educational needs and disabilities teaching assistant apprenticeship standard, which was discussed during the last Parliament and then formally created during this one, lists a very large number of organisations that contributed to its design. The overwhelming majority are employers, who, of course, need to be represented. Only one trade union was represented and I question why that was the case. However, not a single SEND parents’ organisation or other group that represents the needs of those young people was drawn into the creation of that standard. I think we are entitled to ask whether that is the right approach. The discussions that led up to the creation of the standard, in practice, were heavily DfE-guided, so I think we are entitled to question the independence of the current system as it exists.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Damian Hinds]

Yes, but the Bill does not do that, and if the hon. Member thinks it does, I am afraid he is mistaken.

Some years ago, I used to sit on the Government Benches and was a Minister at the Department for Education, as the hon. Member said, and on many occasions I have had a close interest in these areas. There was a cross-party coming together in the early to mid-2010s, which resulted in the Sainsbury report. The noble Lord Sainsbury, as the hon. Member may know, is a Labour peer who devoted a great deal of his life and the work of his foundation, the Gatsby Foundation, to trying to improve something that in this country, historically and by international comparison, we have not been tremendously good at: technical and vocational education and training. The Independent Panel on Technical Education, which convened in 2015 to 2016, took a broad overview of exactly the fractured landscape that the hon. Member talked about. By the way, I have missed out the page of my notes where I was going to go through all the qualifications that someone could do at level 3 to age 18, which is a similarly sized list.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I had probably better go on a little, but I would love to hear from the hon. Gentleman. I promise that the Committee will have a chance so to do.

Unsurprisingly, that panel found that the technical and vocational education and training landscape in this country was over-complex. The example of plumbing was given, with 33 different qualifications that a young person could decide to do. Moreover, the panel found that the system was not providing for the skills that the country needed and that the technical and vocational education and training had become “divorced” from the occupations that they were there to serve, with no or weak requirements to meet employers’ actual needs.

The Sainsbury report, published in April 2016, set out a blueprint for what would be a major upgrade and simplification of technical and vocational education and training, to address the productivity gap in this country—we talk about this sometimes; there has been a productivity gap every year I have been alive, and I am in my mid-50s today—and indeed a major social justice gap. Although it was a blueprint, it was also a redprint because it had cross-party support. It called for a fundamental shift in how we did technical and vocational education, with coherent routeways from level 2 through to level 5 along 15 different sector routes, three of which would be apprenticeship only, through to 35 different pathways mapped as specific occupations—specific needs of the economy and companies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend is right. If we take the full etymology, we can go back a lot further, to the creation of guilds centuries ago, which evolved into the modern system.

[Laurence Turner]

I have enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s recapitulation of the history. In the last Parliament, I attended meetings of the UK shipbuilding skills taskforce, which was sponsored by the Department for Education, and considered these matters in respect of that industry quite closely. Employers and employee representatives were unanimous that the GCSE entry standard requirements should be removed in that industry, but the inclusion of that recommendation was blocked because, we were given to understand, it would not be supported by DFE Ministers. Does he share my concern that the independence of the current system is more claimed than real?

[Damian Hinds]

No, I do not, but there is a definition of what an apprenticeship is. There are perfectly good reasons to have all manner of training courses, including entry-level ones, that do important things, but they are not apprenticeships. The shadow Minister talked about Germany. In our country, the minimum length of an apprenticeship is shorter than the typical length of one in Germany. The time off the job—the time in college—is shorter. As I say, we can add on other things, but we cannot stretch the definition of what an apprenticeship is indefinitely. I may come back to that later.

On the face of it, this is a simple Bill—it has 13 pages and is on a simple subject—so it should be fairly easy for a Committee to dispatch in a couple of Thursdays. I have no doubt that Government Members will take the opportunity to make speeches on this subject, and I am sure those will be rather good. Members may make what could be described as great speeches and what they say will be largely unarguable. I fancy that we may hear the word “mission” from them, perhaps even more than once. They will talk about the importance of skills in our economy, investing in the next generation, valuing every single person for what they can do and the value of joining-up across Government Departments.

That will all be correct, but it will be largely beside the point. To turn a great speech that includes those things into a truly outstanding speech in this Committee, they would have to explain why taking away the independence of the body overseeing the system that upholds the standards would make those entirely laudable and shared goals more likely to come about. I know of no reason to believe that it will, but I am keen to hear from anybody who has such an idea.

In the Labour manifesto, there were some very laudable aims. It said that it wanted to empower

“local communities to develop the skills people need”

and to

“put employers at the heart of our skills system.”

Labour said that it would

“establish Skills England to bring together business, training providers and unions with national and local government”,

in order to deliver its industrial strategy. The manifesto said:

“Skills England will formally work with the Migration Advisory Committee to make sure training in England accounts for the overall needs of the labour market”.

It mentioned a commitment to

“devolving adult skills funding to Combined Authorities…alongside a greater role in supporting people into work”,

and Labour will

“transform Further Education colleges into specialist Technical Excellence Colleges.”

There are different ways that those aims could be achieved, and I would argue that there are better ways. The Government could, for example, keep IfATE as the standard-setting and upholding body, and create a new, small body, possibly inside the Treasury, to assess the needs of the economy and allocate funds accordingly. They could also strengthen the powers of local skills improvement partnerships, working closely with devolved authorities and mayors, to ensure that what is delivered at a local level in individual colleges matches what the local economy needs. I would have probably chosen that architecture, but plenty of other variations are possible.

To be clear, the Bill does not do any of those things. It simply abolishes the independent body that convenes employers to set the standards and then uphold them, and it hands those powers to the Secretary of State. It does nothing else—I say that, but it is not totally clear to me what it does to Ofqual, and we may debate that when we get to clause 8. I suggest that the Bill presents two fundamental questions: first, about independence; and secondly, about who should set the expectations and standards in any given sector of work—should it be the employers in that sector or somebody else? We will come to that debate when we reach clauses 4 and 5.

Ultimately, this is about whether we believe enough in the phrase “parity of esteem” to do the things necessary to achieve it. As I said in the House the other day, parity of esteem is not something one can just “assert”, and it cannot be legislated for. We cannot pass a law to give something greater esteem. Esteem is in the eye of the esteemer and it can only be earned. In part, that comes from knowing that the qualifications of the technical and vocational strand in our country are just as rigorous and have the same integrity as the academic strand.

By the way, independence is not totally a left/right issue. There are plenty of people on the right of politics who share the Minister’s desire not to have independent bodies. There is a general “anti the quangos” strand, and I have some sympathy for that. By the way, a debate is going on at the moment about removing the independence of the national health service and bringing it into the Department of Health and Social Care. That can be argued both ways. On the one hand, it will be harder for the NHS to do some things, particularly what they call reconfigurations, when they become subject to political pressure. On the other hand, it can be argued that there should of course be direct control from a democratically elected Government over the most important institution in our country. However, I think an independent body for upholding standards in education is in a separate bracket.

SEND Education Support

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing today’s debate. I draw the attention of the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of support from support staff unions. I also wish to make a non-financial declaration of interest, which is that my partner is a member of the Department’s expert advisory panel on SEND. However, the views I express are my own.

In the House we often talk about SEND funding and funding is important, but we also need to talk about SEND spending. The reality is that much money in the system is not spent well and that there are providers who charge too much for too little. In other aspects of education —children’s homes and other parts of the sector—we look at overcharging. The pirates of the high needs exist in SEND as well. I see it in my constituency and I see it in the cases parents and families bring to the SEND surgeries I run. I hope that when legislation is brought forward in this area, those problems will be addressed.

In a former role, I submitted a freedom of information request to all local education authorities. Two thirds could not answer a simple question about average spend on EHCPs in their area. Indeed, no such duty exists under the 2014 Act. If we are to drive up standards we need accountability for the money that is being spent, because parents are furious at the money that is not available to their children.

I will make just one more brief point, because time is so short. Much could be done in schools to improve the sensory environment—I believe this point has been partially raised already. When I was a SEND pupil, such simple adjustments as flexible lighting and variable noise levels would have made a huge difference to classroom management and learning support. I hope that when school design standards are next looked at, minimum expectations for inclusion by design can be set.

Children’s Social Care: North-east England

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My hon. Friend and I previously both advocated for and represented workers in children’s social care for Unison and the GMB respectively. Does he agree that driving up pay and terms and conditions for those workers is just as important in children’s social services as it is in adult social services?

[Mark Ferguson]

I absolutely agree, and I commend my hon. Friend for the huge amount of work that he has put into the Employment Rights Bill and several other important pieces of forthcoming legislation, which will have a huge impact on the lives not only of those working in children’s services but of the children they seek to serve. We are fortunate to have him and his experience in this place.

I want to use the remainder of my time in this debate to highlight some of the successes that Gateshead council has had recently. The council’s multi-agency approach is thriving. Despite every effort of consecutive Conservative Governments to tear down Sure Start, Gateshead’s Labour councillors went to great lengths to protect children’s centres throughout austerity. In fact, they have now almost doubled the number of operating family hubs. These decisions meant the council was able to build a locality-based family hub scheme at pace, ensuring that Gateshead families were not left short.

Labour Members know the evidence is clear that children who grew up with access to a Sure Start centre had higher GCSE outcomes than those who did not. This kind of early intervention leads to better outcomes at every developmental stage. Family hubs deliver everything from neonatal classes, childcare, and speech and language support, right through to employment support and welfare advice. Barnardo’s rightly describes them as the “nerve centre” of our communities.

Our mayor, Kim McGuinness, and the North East combined authority are building on this great work. Kim’s newly established child poverty reduction unit is the first of its kind and provides an extra layer to this key community-based early intervention. In just months, her funded programmes, such as welfare at the school gates, have been rolled out across Gateshead to plug the gaps. Her “Launchpad for Literacy” and reading fluency programmes are already breaking down barriers in communities such as mine.

At every level, Labour is following the evidence: early intervention is best; late intervention is harmful. By design, late intervention requires the family and the child in question to reach crisis point before they can access meaningful support. I know this Government are serious about supporting children’s services to address the chasm of inequalities faced by children in the north-east, so I welcome their investment, including the £1.29 million of prevention funding.

I also welcome the raft of measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, including a child-centred social care system that delivers the best start in life; £44 million for kinship and foster care; and £90 million to expand placement sufficiency in local authority-owned residential children’s homes, to help our most vulnerable children and young people. Strengthening Ofsted’s powers to allow it to act quickly against unregistered provision, greater regulation of placements and ensuring that care comes before profit will also benefit our children.

Gateshead’s success has partly been built on its commitment to a happy, supported and directly employed social work team. I welcome the Government’s new standards to limit local authorities’ use of agency workers in children’s social care by giving the Secretary of State the power to make new regulations.

There is so much good work taking place in local authorities such as Gateshead. However, questions remain about the time-limited funding in place for family hubs. I conclude by asking the Minister to outline the Government’s plans to fund early intervention-driven children’s services, which are so vital in communities such as mine.

Education, Health and Care Plans

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

In the seconds available to me, I cannot do justice to the cases I have heard of pupils and parents who are stuck in the system.

Ten years on from the passing of the Children and Families Act 2014, it is time to look at where the current system is failing. Local authorities had additional responsibilities loaded on to them, and at the same time they had powers and resources taken away. It has become harder for them to plan shared resources, and that is a major cause of delays and cost increases in the system.

I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the GMB. We cannot lose sight of the role of school support staff in this equation. I appeal to the shadow Minister to please rethink the opposition to reinstating the school support staff negotiating body. Classroom-based school support staff spend the majority of their time supporting SEND learners. We cannot resolve the SEND crisis without resolving the workforce problems.

I am proud to have been a SEND pupil. I am open about my differences as an MP. I hope that, on a cross-party basis, we can look back at the end of this Parliament and say, “We found a system in crisis, and we changed it.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

Will the hon. Member acknowledge that the CST said it is the right time to take school support staff pay out from under the local authority umbrella, and that its concern was that a ceiling would be set on school support staff pay? It has been clarified in the Employment Rights Bill Committee that that is not the case; the policy is about establishing a floor, not a ceiling.

[Laura Trott]

I acknowledge absolutely that pay was part of that, but it was also about terms and conditions and flexibility, which I do not think we have seen adequately addressed to date. I am grateful for the engagement on these issues from the hon. Member and the Minister. It is really important that we get this right, because we will need extra flexibility as we go through with the reforms that the Government will, I hope, be bringing forward.

The hon. Member for Chelmsford discussed the Minister’s approach to mainstream education and the recognition that mainstream education is not right for every child. While it is always right and proper, if parents want to send their child to a mainstream school, to give them the opportunity to do that and there should be the facilities there for that to take place, parents should also have the option of a special school if that is what they prefer. We have heard a lot about mainstream schooling; I completely understand that and I support it where it is the parents’ wish. But can the Minister confirm that the Government support special school places and will increase their number if that is the parents’ wish? Some groups are concerned about being forced in one direction rather than the other, but I think choice needs to be at the heart of this system, so I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that today.

I have questions about the statutory override, which were raised by the Lib Dem Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). I would be grateful if the Minister responded on that as well. I am conscious of time—

Family Visas: Income Requirement

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on her very capable speech introducing the debate.

I speak today in recognition of the strength of the representations that I have received from constituents; I thank all those who took the time to write to me ahead of this debate. I accept—as, I think, all my constituents do —that all Governments face the challenge of striking the right balance between a fair and rules-based immigration system and the human right to respect for family life, but we are here today because the 2012 system does not strike the right balance. The results can be arbitrary, unfair and distressing for families.

As has been said, family life and love cannot be neatly divided by borders. The House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee report said that the family visa system can be “complex and inconsistent”, and drew attention to the processing delays and decisions that are sometimes very hard for constituents to understand, as other hon. Members have ably highlighted.

There are a number of examples of unfairness in the policies and practices that this Government have inherited. The inflexibility of the cut-off takes no account of variations in earnings across the country. There is affluence in my constituency, but by and large wages are low and we have not fully recovered from the closure of the Longbridge plant 20 years ago. In a ranking of all constituencies by average income, Birmingham Northfield is 35th from the bottom.

In my constituency, the average full-time employee’s salary is about £31,000, but that does not take account of the self-employed, whose earnings tend to be lower. That figure is almost £3,000 lower than in Birmingham as a whole, almost £4,000 lower than in the west midlands overall and more than £6,000, or 16%, lower than the average for the UK. More than half of people in work are below the current threshold, and that would rise to more than 70% under the former Government’s plans.

The £29,000 threshold is already an extremely challenging barrier for many families to meet because the jobs are just not available. I have constituents who work two or more jobs in an effort to meet that threshold, at great personal cost. There is a clear risk that if the inherited plans proceed, the right to respect for family life will become the preserve of a fortunate few, concentrated in just a few neighbourhoods within the city of Birmingham.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) made the point well: the previous Government confused income with skill. It has been the stated ambition of successive Governments to attract highly skilled migrant workers. Two of the constituents who contacted me today hold doctorates, including in shortage occupation areas, but, due to a combination of altruism in their choice of career and family circumstances, they do not have large incomes. One of them, Dr Gillian Thies, is in the Public Gallery. She fought for years for her husband, Patrick, who is also with us, and their children to be allowed to join the rest of the family in Birmingham. The applications were initially refused and were granted only in 2018, after significant political and press attention.

Patrick is now a senior physician associate at the Royal Orthopaedic hospital, and his application was strongly supported by the NHS. Indeed, his work in the UK is of ongoing benefit to patients and the wider community, but Gillian and he had to fight to bring their children to the UK from America; distressingly, their adopted children—two young teenagers—were turned around and put on a plane at Heathrow. They are now heavily involved in the Reunite Families UK campaign. I want to place on the record an appreciation of how they have responded to their ordeal: by working to benefit others who find themselves in comparable situations today.

Gillian and Patrick are not alone in Northfield. Another of my constituents estimates that he has spent £50,000 to try to resolve his wife’s case, which he says is an exceptionally generous subsidy to airlines, hotels and lawyers. Would it not be better for the economy if that money could be spent in south Birmingham instead?

I welcome the Government’s decision to ask the Migration Advisory Committee to look again at this policy. I hope that the review, and the Government’s response to it, will take account of the House of Lords Committee’s recommendation that the financial requirement should be revisited to become more flexible and to focus on the likelihood of the future income of the family unit, rather than solely on the sponsor’s past income. The review should also take wider account of a family’s whole circumstances and of the differences in labour markets and local wages, and focus on improving the administration of applications so that fewer families are left in limbo for so long and the system is ultimately fairer and more compassionate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

8. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the system for supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

24. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the system for supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

Last month, the National Audit Office confirmed what many families already know: the SEND system that we inherited from the Conservatives is broken. Indeed, the number of hon. Members raising concerns on behalf of their constituents shows the scale of the challenge that we have inherited. We are working as quickly as we can to make the changes that families need. It is huge, complex reform, but we are determined to fix the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I recognise what my hon. Friend is saying. We engage with children, young people, parents and carers in the development of policy, including through our participation contract. Next week I will meet our National Young People’s Group, which is a diverse group of young people from across England who have special educational needs and disabilities. They share their views and experiences with us, and I am looking forward to it.

[Laurence Turner]

At the recent SEND surgery that I organised with SEND Socials Birmingham, one message came through time and again: different public bodies are not working together as the Children and Families Act 2014 intended, and this is contributing to long delays and distress. Will the Minister agree to receive representations from young people and families in south Birmingham, so that their negative experiences can at least contribute to the important work of reforming the SEND system?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Absolutely. We are committed to working with families to deliver an improved SEND system that works for all. We ensure that families have access to free and impartial information, advice and support to enable them to participate as fully as possible in the decisions that affect them, but I would welcome suggestions from my hon. Friend and parents in south Birmingham on how to improve the system.

Ofsted

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is right. We have delivered at pace and hit the ground running when it comes to improving our education system. Just as every day at school matters, every day in government matters for driving high and rising standards for every child.

My hon. Friend rightly identifies attendance as a key issue, and we share that concern. The previous Government talked a lot about that, but did very little to turn the tables. We want to see attendance prioritised, as we know that far too many children are missing far too much school, which is harming not only their educational opportunities but their life chances and the whole school community. We want to send the message loud and clear, in this first week back at school, that every day at school matters and every child should be attending school.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

The decision to end single-word judgments will be welcomed by education professionals across Birmingham. I have seen in my own household the mental and physical toll that the old system could impose. Can the Minister confirm that the new school report card will allow Ofsted to assess SEND inclusion alongside SEND attainment?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Yes. We know that the current system is not working for anyone, which is why the changes we have outlined are so important. We know that we need to spread best practice and drive standards across all of our schools, including for children with special educational needs, who are a key priority for this Government, and we will consult on the best ways to do that.