Home-to-School Transport: Children with SEND

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that if they wish to speak, they need to bob during the debate. This is only a one-hour debate and hon. Members can see how many people are present; you do not need to be experts in maths to know that that there are lots. Except for the Front-Bench speakers, I will allow only one minute for the speech of each Member present. When those minutes have been exhausted such that there is sufficient time for only the Front Benchers to speak, obviously any speakers who have not been called will not be called. Members may be tempted to intervene, which will take time away from other speakers, so I ask that you resist the urge to intervene unless you absolutely must.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jen Craft]

As I have said previously, the important thing is to see a long-term goal where disabled children are truly able to receive a mainstream, inclusive education, so that we get out of this cycle of families having to pay to transport their children miles and miles from where they live.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

May I just say that the Member who is speaking is not obliged to take interventions? It does take time away from those who have put in to speak.

[Jen Craft]

I will make some headway.

The requirement for free transport returns for 19 to 25-year-olds with complex needs and an education, health and care plan, to support those who need longer in education or training to achieve their outcomes.

The guidance itself says:

“It is critical that, from year 9 at the latest, local authorities help young people start planning for a successful transition to adulthood.”

Given the importance of this transition, why does the statutory obligation for free transport fall between the ages of 16 to 19?

We cannot ignore the rising costs that councils face in carrying out their duty to provide free home-to-school transport. However, those costs are not the fault of disabled children. It is not a choice by families to send their disabled child or young person to a school far from home; it is a necessity, and the only way to receive the specialist provision that meets their needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

As I said earlier, you will get only a minute each. I encourage people not to intervene, as it will mean that we have to cut down on the total number of speakers. I call Shockat Adam.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this vital debate on a subject that is of concern to many of my constituents. Education is a fundamental right for every child and should not be treated as a favour or privilege. We are witnessing at first hand how the lack of adequate travel provision can prevent children from accessing education.

The consequences of not providing proper travel services extend far beyond the immediate inconvenience to parents. Without transport, children will remain at home, where they are not engaged in education or employment. The social cost of that is immense. Parents will be forced to reduce their working hours or even give to up their jobs. We must ask ourselves whether that is the kind of future we want to create for our children and communities.

Travel arrangements for these children are about more than just convenience; they are about ensuring they can get to school safely and on time. Furthermore, we must ask ourselves about the reality of SEND children travelling for about two hours daily. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) mentioned, cost is not the issue; it is the fact that no provision is available locally. That is why parents are forced to send their children so far away. What impact must that have on their wellbeing? We must have more facilities and more schools—

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Jo Platt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this important debate. We must consider the reliability of transport for SEND pupils. I had casework at the beginning of term involving parents waiting for transport to turn up that never came. Teachers did not know what was happening, and the parents could not get hold of the helpline because it was closed. During those first few days, it is crucial for students to feel settled in. It is great to see other colleagues from my county of Warwickshire here; I am sure that they also experienced those problems in September.

My constituency is semi-rural. It is made up of towns and villages, and it can take an hour to drive across it. It is difficult for county councils in constituencies such as mine, where pupils are often closer to schools outside the county. Different parts of my constituency border Leicestershire, Staffordshire, Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull. The problem is that the county council may allocate not the school that is nearest to pupils in terms of travel time, but the school that is nearest in Warwickshire. That means that parents have to argue with and challenge the council if they want their children to go to a school that is suitable for their needs and nearer to travel to. Furthermore, the student must be in school year 11 or below, plunging many teenagers and their families into uncertainty.

I commend my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I remain committed to making sure that pupils in my North Warwickshire and Bedworth constituency have the travel they need to get to the school that they want to go to.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I thank all Back Benchers for being very good with their timekeeping. We now move to the Front-Bench speakers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jen Craft]

I thank Members from across the House for their contributions this afternoon, particularly those from rural areas who highlighted the additional complexities of home-to-school travel there. I thank the Minister for her considered response.

I recognise that the challenges to the SEND system are immense and will take a long time to put right. My concern is that, while the ultimate goal of moving inclusive, mainstream education closer to children where they need it is an honourable one and is clearly the direction that we should be travelling in, there are children who cannot access that right now. They cannot wait for a long-term shift in policy and approach; that would have a detrimental impact on the rest of their lives.

The outcomes for children aged 16 to 19, if they do not access education or training, are well documented, which is why education or training is compulsory up to the age of 18. The only people who currently have to face a financial burden to meet their child’s need and make sure that they are accessing that compulsory education or training mandate, on a general, widespread basis, are parents of disabled children. That is something that needs to be looked at.

I welcome the fact that the Minister is keen to look at this issue in more depth in her role in Government and at how it is working in practice. I would very much welcome the opportunity to work with her on that, and indeed to work with the sector and parents of SEND children more widely.

I finish by saying that no one puts their vulnerable, non-verbal child in a car with strangers by choice; it is because that is how they can get them to their education setting. I reflect, with gratitude, on the people who have taken my daughter to school. I believe that their professionalism, their absolute empathy, and the way that they interact with her on a daily basis is something to be commended, as is the role that people play in this system in general.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I thank everybody for their indulgence in keeping their speeches short. We have had 33 speakers in this debate, which I think is the most that anybody has ever crammed into an hour; I hope that Guinness World Records is paying attention.

Question put and agreed to. 

Resolved,

That this House has considered the statutory framework for home-to-school transport for children with SEND.

SEND Provision: Hampshire

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Luke Murphy]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend: crucial to fixing the system will be rebuilding trust between parents, national Government and local authorities. There is much work to do, but I think yesterday’s Budget showed that this Government are making a downpayment on that commitment—and there will be more to come. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the lack of adequate support has lasting impacts on families. Many parents have had to reduce their work hours or even leave employment entirely to care for their children when the local authority fails to provide adequate support. I know, from hearing families’ stories, that many are reaching breaking point, and parents are exhausted from the constant battle against the system.

Hampshire county council, like many others, has been coping with a system in freefall. The number of EHC plans in Hampshire has nearly doubled, from just over 8,000 in 2019 to around 16,000 this year. Hampshire’s cumulative deficit for the dedicated schools grant is now at £86.1 million, representing 9.4% of its total dedicated schools grant income. To put that in perspective, for every £100 that Hampshire receives for schools and SEND provision, it has accumulated nearly £9.40 in debt. That deficit is expected to reach £250 million by 2025-26 if nothing changes. Hampshire also currently spends £47.2 million annually on independent school placements, due to the lack of available spaces in state-funded options, underscoring the urgent need for expanded state provision and the need to support mainstream settings in providing essential SEND support.

I am particularly concerned about the exploration of the statutory override in 2026, which currently allows the education deficits to be kept off councils’ balance sheets. When the override ends, councils like Hampshire could face financial insolvency, forcing them to declare a section 114 notice and request Government intervention. The situation is clearly untenable, and serious reforms are urgently needed, but this crisis is not just about budgets or statistics; it is about real lives and families.

Eleanor, a mother in my constituency, told me about her son. When he turned two, she sent him to the local nursery to be with his older sister, but there it quickly became clear that his development was delayed. On multiple occasions, Eleanor would go to pick him up and find him playing alone in the toilets unsupervised. Quite understandably, that is not what she wanted for her son, but without sufficient support from early years education, and because he could not talk, he was left to blend into the background and slip through the cracks. Eleanor describes the process of fighting for SEND provision as “just terrible”—a constant battle with the local authority in a system that she describes as completely broken.

Another parent, Kelly, shared her story with me. After multiple appointments where she raised concerns about her son’s development, she was told that he was simply the “lazy twin”. But Kelly did not give up. She described how, without clear guidance and support, parents go into the SEND system “blindfolded”, feeling their way through a complex maze that should be straightforward. Jodie, another mother from Basingstoke, told me that

“the only support you get consistently through the whole SEND journey is from other parents who are going through the same thing.”

It is a sad reflection of the system when parents find that their only reliable support is each other.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), who wanted to be here today, has heard similar experiences of a lack of suitable school places leaving parents with no option but home schooling for their children. That puts unacceptable pressure on parents, resulting in mental health issues and self-harm, while children miss out on vital opportunities to develop wider life and social skills

A parent in my constituency described the impact of finally receiving specialist provision for her daughter as having a “halo effect”. It brought a sense of normalcy and confidence back to her daughter’s life, sparking interests outside the classroom, but that positive impact should not just be the rare exception; it should be the standard experience for every family navigating the SEND system.

When I committed to a manifesto focused on building a truly inclusive, responsive and supportive education system, it was not just a pledge; it was a mission. Every child deserves an education system that meets their needs, especially those children with special educational needs and disabilities.

I am encouraged by the Government’s actions in taking the first steps towards real change. Yesterday’s Budget marked a significant commitment from the Chancellor, with a £1 billion increase in SEND and alternative provision funding. That is a 6% real-terms boost. The funding is a critical step towards improving outcomes for children and families, and guiding our SEND system towards much-needed financial stability, fixing the foundations to ensure that every child in England can achieve and thrive regardless of their background.

The children’s wellbeing Bill, which was announced in the King’s Speech, will mandate schools to collaborate with local authorities to improve SEND inclusion. That is a foundational step. Our commitment to expand early years support by investing in SEND-specific teacher training and establishing a framework for early intervention, such as the Nuffield early language intervention, is all part of a larger strategy to prevent children as soon as possible from slipping through the cracks. The Government have also said that they will ensure accountability in mainstream settings through bodies like Ofsted to guarantee that every school is equipped to meet the needs of students with SEND. More widely, the Government have committed to recruiting 6,500 new teachers to reduce class sizes, which I hope will also allow for more inclusive classrooms.

This crisis has stretched on for far too long and we must work on a cross-party basis to address it before the situation becomes truly unsalvageable. Every child, regardless of whether they have SEND or not, should have the support in place so that they can thrive in school and beyond.

Today, with the Kids parent committee from Basingstoke and the Minister both present in Westminster Hall, I want to amplify a clear message from families in my constituency: we need greater training and support for mainstream early years staff in SEND, because early intervention is crucial. By equipping early years staff with the skills to recognise and support children with additional needs, we can ensure that children receive timely help, giving both parents and children a solid foundation. I fully support that goal and will work alongside others to make it a reality.

In yesterday’s Budget, the Chancellor announced an additional £1.8 billion to expand Government-funded childcare and allocated £69 million to grow the network of family hubs. This funding represents a chance to provide essential support and early intervention for SEND families across the country.

I hope that this debate shines a light on the reality of SEND provision for families, not only in Hampshire but across the country. Today I urge the Minister and colleagues from all parties urgently to support a reformed SEND system that lifts up our young people and their families.

The Government have rightly committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity for all, which must include children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. We know that there is no magic wand that can fix this broken system overnight, but I urge the Minister to collaborate with her colleagues across Government to urgently reform the SEND system, so that we can restore faith in SEND provision, and I am hopeful that this Government will lead the way in creating a system that truly works for every young person, every family and every community. As Michelle put it:

“It shouldn’t be this hard, and it doesn’t need to be this hard.”

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in this debate.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and I were walking down to Westminster Hall, I asked if he would be speaking and he said he was. I know that the debate is about Hampshire, but I always want to come along to support hon. Members who are bringing forward critical issues. I also want to add comments from a Northern Ireland perspective.

I am pleased to see the Minister in her place; I always look forward to meeting her and I know she clearly understands the issues that the hon. Member presented. I want to support him and his parents group, which has come here today. On the way here, he mentioned that those parents are the reason he secured the debate, and parents should be in everything that we do. These things are about our constituents and about what we can do to help them and give their perspective.

I spoke on this issue just last week; indeed, like almost everyone here, I have spoken in every debate on SEND education since we came back after the election. As I said, I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective, if I may.

I welcome the Budget, which allocated extra money to the SEND education system, as the hon. Member mentioned. I am always hopeful that some of that allocation will come our way through the Barnett consequential, which results in us gaining from investment here on the mainland.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate pertains to Hampshire. Although you raise issues that are common, the subject is aimed in the direction of Hampshire. Can you please make the main points and try not to veer off the subject in terms of specifics in your own part of the UK?

[Jim Shannon]

I will make sure that whenever I mention Northern Ireland, I mention Hampshire as well. That will hopefully keep the perspective right, because what the hon. Member said happens in Hampshire happens in my constituency as well. I want to illustrate that and make some suggestions on how we can provide better help in the system. What we do back home in Northern Ireland can help those in Hampshire with how they move forward.

We have a clear teacher funding issue, especially in the SEND sector. One of my questions to the Minister, which I hope will be helpful for the hon. Member for Basingstoke and for the wider debate, is this: what has been done to ensure that there are more adequately trained people to respond to this issue?

I also speak in this debate because this matter is personal for me. I have six grandchildren, and three of them unfortunately have some difficulties with autism, learning and speech issues. I will not mention their names, because it would not be appropriate, but that is why this is personal.

Whenever I come here to make a contribution, it is clear to me what I am asking for: for the same things that have already been done back home. I will give a couple of examples of how things have happened and, by doing so, show what has made the situation better. I know that the hon. Member has referred to that.

A teaching assistant back home told me that she did a level 3 qualification on specialist support for teaching and learning in schools. If she lived here in England, she would fully qualify as a substitute teacher; in Northern Ireland, further training is necessary. That is an example for us back home. With the same system here, someone qualifies, but with the system back home, they do not. That clearly highlights the issue.

Across Northern Ireland—the hon. Member’s contribution has convinced me that this is similar to what is happening in Basingstoke and Hampshire—we have autism assessments, and some 66,000 pupils have some form of SEND. That is 20% of the population—the figures are similar to what the hon. Member referred to. Children fight for a diagnosis from the day they enter school, but unfortunately there are detrimental educational psychology delays, which coincide with delays in our health service. Even though we are focusing on SEND and education, will the Minister, when she responds, consider that there must also be a tight relationship between education and health? That is important and I hope she will respond in a positive fashion.

As I said, this issue is a personal one: three of my six grandchildren unfortunately have autism and speech therapy needs. I want to give an example of what has happened. I have mentioned diagnosis; get the diagnosis done early and we can change the child’s life—wow! I will give an example that is personal, because it happened in our family. One of the grandchildren—one of the boys—was quite boisterous and seemed to have difficulty expressing himself. Unfortunately, the result was that when he was at nursery and early school, he was hitting out at other children and became quite a difficult child. It was nobody’s fault; it was just that he was not able to express himself in the way he wished to.

We got the early diagnosis, and with the early diagnosis came the speech therapy, and with the speech therapy came an absolute change in that wee boy. When we were going to my son’s house for Christmas, I said to my wife, “Sandra, there’ll be some goings-on the day, when we get there,” and she said, “You’ll see a difference.” I had not seen my grandson for a while, and what a difference there was in that wee boy because he had got the diagnosis and the speech therapy—you could not have kept him quiet. What a change in that wee fella because the system had worked and helped him.

I give that as an example of what can happen if we have the right strategy and the right way forward. The opposite is now true of the wee boy: he never keeps quiet. It is lovely to have a wee boy in the corner who is so boisterous and alive and so respectful—we heard so many pleases and thank yous. There can be such a difference as a result of the system when it works. We now have two others coming through, and the provision of an early diagnosis has to be the same for them. The hon. Member for Basingstoke has asked for that, and I am sure the Minister will respond.

Another example is about how education can help. This is an example to help the Minister, because I think the great advantage of these debates is that we can give examples of where things have been going the right way and thereby exchange ideas on ways forward and how we can do things better. Movilla high school in my constituency increased its enrolment from 401 to 600, because the education authority enabled it to extend the special provision for pupils with autism to include 10 and 11-year-olds, and it has established what are called nurture classes. It is not a novel idea, but it is a good idea in terms of helping to move forward education and mainstream education in particular.

Those are just two of the points I want to raise: early diagnosis and the nurture classes that we have in my constituency of Strangford. I do not know what the reason is, but in the last number of years—the last 10 to 15, in particular—I have certainly seen more children there who have difficulties with autism and other issues. More should be done to create specialist nurture units within mainstream schools and to support specialist training for teachers of all ages. There must be the capacity for us to do our best for pupils who require additional support; they should not have to suffer because of a funding crisis.

I look forward very much to hearing the Minister’s thoughts and those of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild). Around this room, we have people with incredible knowledge, and I look forward to all their contributions. I hope the Minister can undertake further discussion with the devolved nations on this matter. I said earlier—I mean it, and it is true of any debate I come to—that there are always lessons that can be learned regionally, and we can then share them in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There is that benefit that comes from regional knowledge, which may be specific, but which can help us all to do things better. With that, I commend the hon. Member for Basingstoke for bringing the debate forward. I hope my contribution kept exactly to the line that you asked me to keep to, Sir Mark. Thank you so much.

SEND Provision: East of England

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask Members when intervening that they make it much shorter than the intervention we have just heard.

[Jess Asato]

I agree with the hon. Member that early diagnosis helps that child and their family, and we also save ourselves money in the long term. I also welcome the curriculum review, which I hope will bring about a broader curriculum that allows everyone the opportunity to flourish.

I am glad the Government have made breaking down the barrier to opportunity a key mission, ensuring that all children get the best possible start in life. It is such an important task. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about the Government’s ambitious plans and to hearing contributions from Members from across our region.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, everybody can see the number of Members present, and quite a number have indicated that they wish to speak. We are fairly limited, as we have only half an hour for wind-ups at the end and the right of reply for Jess Asato. I ask Members to keep their comments to about two minutes, then everybody will get in. Where possible, I ask that you try to resist the urge to intervene too often because that takes time away from others and we have to finish on the dot at 4 o’clock. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for keeping his comments brief. I call the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson).

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for securing this debate, as the issue has a significant impact in the region that we represent. The issue of SEND provision has grown in recent years, and it shows no sign of abating. In the past decade, the number of pupils with SEND requirements in the UK has more than doubled; 1.2 million children in school require SEND support below the level of an education, health and care plan or EHCP.

In my constituency of Huntingdon, there is a growing sense that SEND provision is reaching a critical juncture. I was recently invited to visit one of the outstanding-rated primary schools in my constituency. Somersham Primary School has been transformed under its new leadership within the Meridian Trust. It could also be considered a victim of its own success. Such has been the progress made, and the success in facilitating growth in the number of young children with special needs, those who are non-verbal or need dedicated specialist one-to-one support to meet their needs, the school now has circa 20 children on an EHCP, a significant population within one small school. Speaking with staff there, it is evident that to meet the increased demand these schools must be resourced properly. Although the Government have committed £315 million to universal primary school breakfast clubs, it would surely be more effective to retain free meals for those children who genuinely need them, and make further significant investment in increasing dedicated individual support for children with complex educational needs.

At secondary level, Kimbolton School has a number of children who receive support for either special educational or social, emotional and mental health needs. These are pupils whose parents choose to educate them in the independent sector precisely because of the dearth of places and support in the state sector. These are pupils who may struggle to thrive and fulfil their potential without the benefit of a smaller class size and the more personal support that they require.

Of the 12,400 pupils who receive SEND support in independent schools across the east of England, 80% will not be protected from the application of VAT to fees, as they do not have an EHCP. The only protection announced thus far is for pupils who are funded by local authorities. Councils will be able to reclaim VAT paid, simultaneously increasing demand for EHCPs and costs for councils. The SEND-specific schools in the constituency, within Huntingdon itself, are Spring Common Academy and the newly opened Prestley Wood Academy in Alconbury Weald.

Prestley Wood Academy opened this academic year to its first 70 students, being delivered as part of a wider housing development, and will ultimately cater for 150 pupils aged between four and 19. It is SEND-specific, and it has been designed with specialised facilities, including two sensory rooms, a hydrotherapy pool, trampoline room and soft play. Those are crucial facilities for those who would benefit from them, but it can only cater for a limited number of pupils.

It is not only younger children who are impacted by the lack of provision. I recently visited the Huntingdon campus of Cambridge Regional College in order better to understand the challenges faced by further education providers. Across its two campuses, there are in the region of 4,000 students but, owing to the nature of the college and the courses it provides, there are a staggering 600 students with an EHCP, of whom around 400 require additional assistance. That places significant additional strain on staff and staffing. With the added complexities posed by the needs of young adults, a huge effort is required to ensure that those needs are met. The college has a team of 12 dedicated solely to providing mental health support.

SEND funding in England is part of the dedicated schools grant, not allocated per individual SEND pupil. Local authorities determine the individual school allocations. The safety valve intervention programme was introduced by the Department for Education in 2020, to provide additional funding to local authorities with significant financial challenges. Cambridgeshire County Council entered the dedicated schools grant safety- valve programme in 2022. Despite receiving supplementary funding, as of March 2024, Cambridgeshire County Council failed to meet the conditions of the safety-valve agreement. The council completed only 5% of EHCPs within the 20-week timeframe, while the average in England is 49%. Across Cambridgeshire County Council, 73% of complaints relating to children and young people were over delays in publishing the EHCPs, issues with the plans themselves and poor communication.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. Could I ask the Member speaking to keep his remarks brief and perhaps come to an end? I do not mean instantaneously.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Thank you, Sir Mark.

As one of the fastest-growing regions in the country, the funding allocation formulae for Cambridgeshire desperately need to be reviewed. With thousands—potentially tens of thousands—of homes planned to be built in the constituency over the next decade, it is imperative to look at the underlying calculation that currently fails to recognise the demographic challenge that we face in the region.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. Can the hon. Gentleman sit down a second?

[Rupert Lowe]

I have not quite finished, Sir Mark.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I am interrupting you. You do not refer to other Members by their name, but by their constituency or position. Actually, you have taken nearly four minutes now; this is taking time away from others. Could you bring your remarks to a close?

[Rupert Lowe]

I will stop there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The statistics I am reading just scratch the surface. We know there are many more families who have had to make the difficult decision to homeschool their children not out of choice, but out of necessity, because they feel they have no other option.

To finish my point, in state-funded primary schools in Suffolk, fixed-term exclusions were 30 times more likely to go to a child with SEND and an EHCP than to a child without. I should add that our county’s fixed-term exclusions are, once again, some of the highest in the country—an unwanted and shameful record of inaction and indifference. Across all age groups in Suffolk, permanent exclusions are more than six times as likely, and fixed-term exclusions more than five times as likely, to go to a child with SEND.

While I am encouraged by the intentions of the new Government with respect to SEND provision, I join Members present, along with so many others, in reiterating that the challenge is enormous and must not be underestimated. Like families across Ipswich, I know there is no overnight fix for years of failure. What those families expect is a clear, credible plan with measurable defined goals for SEND provision, and not the half-baked, half-hearted SEND review that was finally dished up after much delay by the previous Government.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. We are running short of time.

[Jack Abbott]

I am coming to an end. Those families expect Government to work with local authorities, particularly those such as Suffolk county council, to put that into place. It falls to us as part of this new Labour Government to follow through on our promise to do so, working with local authorities and families to make urgent progress. Children who need—

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. Can the hon. Member take a seat, please? I remind Members that when they refer to Members of this House, they must refer to them as the Member for their constituency or as their position. They must not name Members of Parliament.

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for arranging this debate. It is great to see so many MPs from the east of England present to discuss such an important issue. It is something that has come up time and again during my time as a youth mentor, school governor and behavioural mentor. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) referenced school attendance and the issues around punctuality, which is something that is close to my heart, as I also chair a disciplinary board for a local school.

First, I pay tribute to Raw Learning. I had the pleasure of attending the launch event of a new forest school with Raw Learning last week, which was my second time visiting a forest school. The first time, I did not take the right shoes—I recommend that all Members bring a pair of wellies if they visit a forest school. Raw Learning provides a fantastic service for young people who are not able to conform to traditional learning environments, transforming the lives of young people and their families.

Families should not have to wait more than a year to receive an education, health and care plan. In Southend East and Rochford and across the nation, we have seen a huge increase in demand for EHCPs. It is up to our local authorities to administer EHCPs; by law, the process is supposed to take a maximum of 20 weeks. However, in Southend East and Rochford, 90.4% of decisions took six months or longer. So often it is the children who are most in need who are left out of school while they wait. There are many factors that can exacerbate issues, such as catchment areas, income and social capital.

It is my absolute honour to represent my constituency in Parliament, to debate SEND in the east of England and to be part of Labour’s mission-driven Government. I welcome the fact that inclusion will be at the centre of SEND policy moving forward.

Does the Minister agree that more needs to be done to support families, parents and organisations such as Raw Learning, which so often fill the gap where local authorities are stretched, where mainstream schools do not have the resources to sufficiently support children with SEND in the classroom and where the previous Government failed?

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. Because of the time taken by Members who have already spoken, we are now down to two minutes per remaining Member.

Breaking Down Barriers to Opportunity

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

What was known as the Queen’s Speech, now the King’s speech, was seen as an opportunity by the incumbent Government to lay out an ambitious policy agenda for the future. What we have seen from this King’s Speech, at what many might call the fag end of this Government’s time in office, is anything but ambitious. It is a collection of measures to try to cause division in the country. This Government do not want to fight the next election on their record in office, so they will fight it on what they say Labour will do. They will try to describe what is mainstream as extreme in order to promote their right-wing agenda as moderate—for example, by watering down our climate change commitments.

I will go even further and suggest that the Government want to placate even more of the Prime Minister’s right-wing colleagues by bringing about the notion of climate scepticism, as though our nation’s fears and worries about climate change are overblown and unfounded, when in fact the evidence of excessive flooding and heatwaves has appeared before our own people’s eyes. The use of the word “scepticism” is designed to conjure up a vision of the past, where Euroscepticism appeared to vanquish those who wished to remain in the European Union. Well, we have all seen how that played out. If climate scepticism catches on in the UK, it will do the same damage to our emissions targets and our reputation that Euroscepticism did to our trade, our economy and our reputation.

This Prime Minister, in order to try to distance himself from the previous Conservative incumbents in No. 10, is now trying to make out that he is a break from the past, where there was once cross-party consensus, through environmental measures and the likes of the cancellation of HS2. He is trying to dissociate himself from 13 years of Conservative Government failures, and to present himself as something new. The trick that he is trying to deploy is to bring forward measures that I would describe as counterintuitive. By playing down the need for strong environmental protective measures and the need for HS2 to go to Manchester, he is being different for difference’s sake. Climate science tells us that cleaner cars and well-insulated homes will save energy and help the progress towards net zero. Economists do not just look at the cost to the nation of HS2; they look at the best estimates, which by the Government’s own analysis suggest that the completion of HS2 to Manchester would have brought £24 billion a year to the north’s economy and created 96,000 jobs. It would have improved capacity and connectivity and closed the productivity gap with London.

The Prime Minister thinks that the public will be fooled into thinking he is a different Prime Minister with a fresh agenda for the future and forget the fact that he has been in government since 2018. The crime—I nearly said “the crime minister”; it is a crime, some of the things that I think are going on on the Government Benches. The Prime Minister has been in the Cabinet for more than four years, was Chancellor of the Exchequer for two and has now been Prime Minister for a whole year, so it is not as though he is new to being in government.

Providing solutions to problems that do not exist is part of the Prime Minister’s agenda. Labour is not in government now, so it is irrelevant whether we would promote the annual issuing of North sea oil and gas licences. If we were in government and those licences had already been granted, as is likely to be the case, the decision would already have been taken. If those licences were not already granted, a Labour Government would have the choice and do what was best for the UK. In addition, the Government are fabricating policies that the country would get under a Labour Government, such as a meat tax, car sharing and seven different types of bins.

What have we seen in this King’s Speech? We have a sentencing Bill that will require whole-life sentences for the worst murderers. It would mean that rapists could not be released early and make shorter sentences more likely for lesser crimes. That sounds okay on the face of it, but it has more to do with the fact that prisons are full and the Government’s building programme cannot keep pace with convictions. I have a constituent who is a victim of rape and has had to wait five years for her case to come to court. There is more of a problem getting rapists into prison in the first place, with a conviction rate of only 2%, never mind letting them out early. There are many problems with the criminal justice system. Sentencing is a good headline, but it is not the answer to the system’s many woes.

This Government are running out of steam. They should call a general election tomorrow, because the country is crying out for change.

Home Education

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. Members who wish to be called in the debate should bob. I call Naz Shah.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises a very important point. I have seen exactly that in my constituency: school-age children in and out of shops in the middle of the day. My area is also subject to the terrible scourge of county lines. There are huge safeguarding and criminal concerns about what is happening to some of these children, and we need to take them seriously.

My concerns are shared by the Education Committee, which recently stated:

“the status quo does not allow the Government to say with confidence that a suitable education is being provided to every child in the country.”

Those concerns are shared by Ofsted. The Department for Education has stated that there is “considerable evidence” that many children who are home educated

“are not receiving a suitable education.”

It is instructive to compare England with other countries. I am indebted to the Centre for Social Justice, which points out that oversight and assessment of educational progress is commonplace across Europe but that there is no such quality assurance in England. In Germany, I am told, it is actually illegal to home educate a child. I think that that is a step too far—as I said earlier, I thank those parents who do a great job and whose children progress well, and I would leave them well alone—but what other countries in Europe are doing is instructive. They ensure regular checks on attainment and progress in home language, maths and so on.

For about 20 years, I was a school governor of my village school. At one point, I was the safeguarding governor, and as such, I was required to read a lot of guidance from the Minister’s Department. At the time, the guidance was “Keeping children safe in education: statutory guidance for schools and colleges”, from September 2016—there may be updated advice. That statutory guidance was very prescriptive and the matter was taken very seriously. Let me quote briefly from it:

“Local authorities have a duty to establish, as far as it is possible to do so, the identity of children of compulsory school age who are missing education in their area.”

There are various other pretty severe injunctions. It is curious that there is a significant body of safeguarding guidance for children who are in school but, as far as I can see, none to speak of that can be properly enforced for children who are home educated.

Before the debate, I had a look at article 28 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which states:

“States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively”,

there is a requirement to make

“primary education compulsory and available free to all”,

and to offer

“different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education”—

that is important. The article goes on to say that measures should be taken

“to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates”,

and that state parties should take that seriously in order to contribute

“to the elimination of ignorance and illiteracy throughout the world”.

We are a signatory to that. Article 28, to which the UK has signed up, as far as I am aware, is really important. I ask the Minister: how do we enforce that right for children who are being home educated by parents who cannot read or write, or are not making any effort to teach them English, for example? I think we are in very serious breach, actually. I am afraid to say that we have averted our gaze from a contentious issue because it is inconvenient. The children do not vote, and the parents, who have a different view, do, so we are not doing what we should.

Responsibilities for home schooling are set out, as they are for every child, in section 7 of the Education Act 1996, which states:

“The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him”—

as the father of three daughters, I think it should say “or her”—

“to receive efficient full-time education”.

Rather bizarrely, it goes on to say later that they are not required to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, and do not have to follow the national curriculum. Central Bedfordshire Council, which gave me a briefing before the debate, stated:

“The local authority has a legal duty under Section 437 of the Education Act 1996 to act ‘if it appears’ that a child of compulsory school age is not receiving suitable education, although the Education Act does not give powers to the authority to insist on seeing the child, visit the family home or see the work that the child is completing.”

It is pretty challenging for the local authority to assess how well the child is doing if it cannot see the child, visit the family home or see the work the child is completing. Some local authorities manage to do that, which is tremendous, but I worry about the fact that we have not given them the powers to make sure every child is receiving an “efficient full-time education” that is suitable for them. That should concern us.

If a child is in a mainstream school or an academy, the school is expected to enter them for national curriculum assessments. There is also a statutory duty on all children to be in education or employment with training up to the age of 18. I agree with both those requirements, but the reality is that that is not happening for a number of home-schooled children.

I am also aware that when some parents claim their children are being home schooled, they are actually in unregistered schools, of which there are a number. I read an article in The Economist last year about a young man of 18 who had been in an unregistered school—I think his parents claimed that he was home educated—and sometimes had schooling for 14 hours a day, but when he left at 18 he could not read or speak English. Are we really saying that that is acceptable? That was an unregistered school, and Ofsted has a duty to do something about that, but it is quite hard for Ofsted to get on top of the issue because a lot of parents say that the child is being home educated. What about the right of that young person to read and speak the mother tongue of their home country? Do we care about these things or not?

In my constituency, like that of the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson), whose presence graces us today, the numbers of children being home schooled have gone up very significantly. On 15 June 2015, in the 2015-16 year, 283 children were in elective home education in my area. By 2020-21, that had gone up to 493. That is the most recent figure that I could get. No doubt the figure is higher; I suspect the majority are probably in my constituency, as well. How high are we happy for that number to get without knowing what is happening—1,000, 2,000, or 3,000? Is that acceptable? Personally, I do not think it is.

I would say that across the Chamber, whatever political party we are from, we are all concerned about the life chances of children. We are all concerned about ladders of opportunity. We are all concerned about social mobility and the elimination of poverty. However, how will we achieve any of those things when a significant number of our children are not having the education it is their right to have? We talk about the rights of parents and I believe, as a parent myself, in those rights, but I think that children have the right to a proper, broad-based education to enable them to achieve everything that they are capable of achieving.

That is why I encourage the Minister to progress down the route that the Secretary of State has said she wants to go down. Of course we need to do it sensitively. I do not want heavy-handed officials going into people’s homes in an inappropriate manner. It needs to be a decent, civilised conversation on how the child is progressing and we cannot afford to just look the other way, as I believe we have done on this issue for far too long.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

We now move to the Front-Bench contributions.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark.

I start by thanking the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for securing the debate. We have had a number of contributions and interventions from Members on both sides of the House after the views of parents, school leaders and local authorities were shared with right hon. Members and hon. Members.

The hon. Member for Don Valley gave a balanced speech in response to the petitions, covering the problems of school attendance and the helpful research by the Centre for Social Justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) talked about the importance of guidance for local authorities, training and support for safeguarding, and the need to engage with parents. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made a number of characteristically helpful remarks about the value of proportionate interventions by Government to address the concerns, as well as sharing the views of the Education Committee.

Let me begin by saying that Labour recognises and supports parents’ right to choose their child’s education. For parents who opt for home education, Labour respects that choice and will support them in enabling their children to thrive. It is important that parents who choose to home educate their children are supported to provide an excellent education.

As we know, excellent education has the power to transform lives. It can raise aspirations, broaden horizons, create knowledge, start lifelong friendships, build confidence, inspire greatness and break down barriers to opportunity. So often, an excellent education is what home-educating parents provide. There are so many reasons why parents believe that home education is right for their child, whether because of personal circumstances and learning needs, personal beliefs or wider factors. For some, home learning is chosen to meet the needs of children with mental health conditions or special educational needs or as a result of bullying.

As we have heard already, and as highlighted in a recent report by the Centre for Social Justice, what is more concerning is that an increasing number of children are being home educated after having been subject to safeguarding concerns, including about abuse, neglect, criminal exploitation and child employment. As Members highlighted, many children being educated at home are educated by incredibly dedicated parents who provide learning that is right for them, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. However, we should not hide from the fact that there are some cases in which children are not provided with a suitable education.

Studies by Ofsted have demonstrated that some home-educated children have been left without access to appropriate quality of education. As we have already heard, in its recent report “Strengthening Home Education”, the Education Committee concluded:

“the status quo does not allow the Government to say with confidence that a suitable education is being provided to every child in the country.”

The DFE itself has stated that there is considerable evidence that many home-educated children are not receiving a suitable education, yet Ministers have not acted. This is a problem that has been created by the inaction of successive Conservative-led Governments at the expense of children and our nation’s schools.

Some home-educated children have also been subject to safeguarding concerns. In 2020, the child safeguarding practice review panel uncovered 15 incidents of harm involving children reported to be in home education, including severe harm such as serious neglect and emotional abuse. In three of the cases, the children had tragically died. The panel concluded:

“these children were often invisible; they were not in school and did not receive home visits.”

Once again, Ministers condemned those actions but have failed to tackle them.

When the Schools Bill finally came forward, Labour supported measures to have a register and visibility of home schooling. We welcomed and backed plans to create a duty on councils to keep a register of children not in school. There would also be a duty on parents to provide information to councils for the register, out-of-school education providers would have been required to provide information to local authorities on request, and councils would have to provide support to registered home-educating families where required.

At the time, the DFE said:

“While we know many parents who choose to home educate are very committed and do so in the best interests of their child, in some cases the reasons for home educating are not for the best education of the child and the education being provided is unsuitable.”

However, as we know, the Schools Bill and the register were shelved by the Government last year. At the time, the DFE said it would introduce the long-delayed register of children outside school “in the new year”, but up to now it has provided “no update”.

There is no time to waste. While it is not known how many children and young people are home educated in England, there is evidence of an increase in recent years that has accelerated during the pandemic, as we have heard. The latest Association of Directors of Children’s Services annual survey on elective home education estimates that in 2020-21, more than 115,000 children were educated at home—a 34% increase on the previous year. It is thought that that is very likely to be an underestimate, and it is therefore of concern. Many families may also have slipped through the net during the pandemic, meaning that they are no longer on local authority radars. There is a risk that some of these parents are not able to educate their children effectively at home, or that the children are simply not being educated at all. There have also been increasing concerns surrounding children who have been off-rolled or forced out of school. These children—often among the most vulnerable—are potentially being left without support and protection.

In conclusion, the highest priority for the Department for Education must be to protect children’s safety and wellbeing. All children have a right to learn in an environment that is safe and regulated and that supports them to thrive, wherever they are in the country. Parents’ right to educate their children at home must be recognised and respected, but we do not have the means to ensure that all home-educated children are learning in a suitable and safe environment. England is an international outlier in not having a register; oversight and assessment of educational progress are commonplace across Europe, but England has no such quality assurance. While a register in itself will not keep children safe, it will assist in our understanding of how many are being home educated and help us to identify those who are vulnerable to harm. The Department has repeatedly said it remains committed to implementing a home-schooling register, which would progress

“when the legislative timetable allows”.

I hope the Minister will outline when he foresees that taking place.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister, Nick Gibb.

BTEC Qualifications

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Before we start, I want to say something about the exceptional heat. While the heat remains at this level, I am content for Members not to wear jackets or ties in Westminster Hall. Mr Speaker has announced similar arrangements for the main Chamber. When the House returns in the autumn, Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers will expect Members to revert to wearing jackets and will also strongly encourage male members to wear ties when speaking in the main Chamber and in Westminster Hall.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 592642, relating to BTEC qualifications.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Mark. The petition, entitled “Protect student choice: do not withdraw funding for BTEC qualifications”, aims to reverse the plan to withdraw funding for most applied general qualifications, such as BTECs, and guarantee that they will continue to play a major role in the qualifications landscape.

The petition is about choice, and not forcing students to choose between studying only A-levels or T-Levels from the age of 16. I begin by acknowledging and congratulating the #ProtectStudentChoice coalition, an unprecedented gathering of 30 organisations from various sectors, including the Association of School and College Leaders, national teachers’ unions and the National Union of Students, for its brilliant campaigning against the defunding of BTECs.

The strong level of support—including the petition, which gathered over 108,329 signatures, leading to today’s debate—is credit to the brilliant work done by the coalition and, in particular, by the petition’s creators, Noni and James at the Sixth Form Colleges Association. The fact that the Government have had to make changes to their plans—although those changes still do not go far enough—shows the power of the work of the coalition and the value of the petition. I also want to say a special thanks to St Francis Xavier Sixth Form College and South Thames College in my Battersea constituency—two brilliant institutions providing BTECs for young people in Battersea and neighbouring constituencies.

Many of us are here because we are passionate about ensuring that the education system provides young people with the skills employers need. As we come out of the pandemic, we need students to finish education well equipped to progress to further training or to get skilled jobs, allowing businesses to recover and young people to flourish. That is why I am extremely concerned about the Government’s proposal to remove funding for the vast majority of BTECs. That will remove choice for many young people and may lead to some missing the opportunity to go to university.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Foxcroft]

I absolutely agree. Studying performing arts taught me that I loved history and geography and taught me about team working. There are so many other skills that are important in life.

BTECs are engines of social mobility. Research from the Social Market Foundation found that 44% of white working-class students who enter university studied at least one BTEC, and 37% of black students enter with only BTEC qualifications. It has already been said that research from the Nuffield Foundation found that a quarter of students now enter university with BTEC qualifications, and are likelier to be from disadvantaged backgrounds. The vast majority of BTEC students complete their studies successfully, with 60% graduating with at least a 2:1. I must confess I only got a 2:2. My question is simple: why do Ministers want to take this second chance away from young people and others up and down the country, when it is evidence based?

To end, I state once again how strongly I oppose the defunding of BTECs. We all know that the scrapping of BTECs will be disastrous for social mobility and for the economy. The Government should rethink their plans to scrap those valuable qualifications and guarantee that funding will not be removed from any BTEC unless an impartial, evidence-based assessment has concluded that students, universities or employers do not value it; we know that at the moment they do.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I call Fleur Anderson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark—

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, I called Fleur Anderson.

[Munira Wilson]

I am sorry, Sir Mark, I thought you said Munira Wilson. I misheard you; my apologies. I will sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark, particularly as you are a fellow north-west MP. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on bringing an important issue to the Chamber. I hope that the Minister will give us a reasonable response.

I place on record my gratitude to all teaching staff and support staff in my constituency and across the country and the world. The last two and a half years have been challenging for all of us, but teaching staff, support staff and people who work in the catering teams—everyone—have gone above and beyond. All hon. Members present will agree that we are very grateful to them for their significant contribution.

I have received correspondence from Aquinas College and Stockport College in my constituency. My constituency was one of the top 10 constituencies where the petition was signed, because some 639 constituents signed it. Nationally, 108,349 people signed it, which is a serious number. I often attend debates in Westminster Hall with just two or three hon. Members, but there are several MPs here from pretty much all the political parties, which reflects the subject’s importance.

Aquinas College in my constituency educates more than 2,200 young people every year, and its principal Danny Pearson has written to me on the matter. Stockport College is part of the Trafford College Group and educates more than 5,500 young people across several boroughs. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who is a good friend and who made an intervention earlier, and I work closely with the Trafford College Group to ensure that those young people, and some older people such as me, have the opportunities that they need, that our economy needs and that Greater Manchester needs.

James Scott, the principal of Trafford College Group, wrote to me. I found his contribution quite serious and that is one reason I am here. Mr Pearson and Mr Scott both expressed serious concerns about the Government’s plans to remove funding for these qualifications. Lots of constituents have also contacted me in the last few days regarding this debate, so it is a serious issue.

The Government talk a lot about levelling up, but actions speak louder than words. We need to invest in our young people and our education system to make sure that people are given the opportunity for education, further education and skilled employment. We do not want a race to the bottom and zero-hours contracts; we want skilled, well-paid jobs that people can rely on so that they can have dignity and survive in this brutal cost of living crisis.

I will not repeat at length the comments of several hon. Members, but BTECs have made a significant contribution to the local economy and social mobility in the UK. Defunding them will leave many young people without a viable pathway, which will in turn have an impact on their progress to skilled employment or higher education.

Several hon. Members have made the point about the disproportionate impact that the cuts will have on disadvantaged young people. That point is covered in the Department for Education’s equality impact assessment, which the Government should not ignore—although I am not hopeful that the Government would not ignore their own equality impact assessment. I would welcome some comments from the Minister on that point.

I am a proud Labour MP and trade unionist. The National Education Union, the University and College Union, Unison and NASWUT all support the campaign, and as I and several hon. Members have said, almost 110,000 people signed the petition, so it is a serious campaign. I could repeat the points that have already been made by colleagues, but although the debate can last up to three hours—you look concerned, Sir Mark, but do not worry—I will not.

Social mobility is important, and we need investment. The cuts have not been properly thought out and will have a serious impact on Greater Manchester and the north-west. I hope that the Minister will take our comments on board and that her response will be useful to our constituents. Thank you for calling me to speak, Sir Mark.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Thank you. I taught for four years at a college in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, so I concur with a good amount of what he said. I call Munira Wilson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank all those who pushed for today’s debate—particularly the Sixth Form Colleges Association and the Association of Colleges, which have been particularly vocal in standing up to the anti-BTEC orthodoxy that threatens to take hold in ministerial offices at the Department for Education.

This has been a really excellent debate with valuable contributions from both sides of the House. I will reflect on a few of them before I get into my remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) presented the subject excellently and set up the debate. She said that a quarter of students who end up going to university do so through a BTEC. That is an important statistic, and Social Market Foundation research, which my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members raised, shows that 44% of white working-class students who attend university studied a BTEC. That point was repeated by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). It was one of the major themes of the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) reflected on the fact that her daughter had done a BTEC. My son also went through the BTEC route and ended up going to university. I think it is safe to say that, without BTECs, he would not have got that university education.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford spoke passionately and movingly about the difference that a BTEC made to her life and her life chances. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) spoke about the importance that these qualifications have, alongside T-levels, to employers in the west midlands.

The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) spoke about the important role that BTEC played in addressing the shortage of nurses in her community, and the need for those people to stay locally. Controversially, she spoke about the value of evidence-based assessment. I warn her that she needs to stop that kind of talk if she wants to get back into this Government, but a lot of us appreciated that point, which was well made.

The hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) spoke about the equalities impact assessment and made the incredibly important point that, if these qualifications disappear, many students simply will not have the routes that are currently available to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) spoke about neurodivergent students, and it is important that their needs are reflected. There is not a single one of us who is not regularly contacted at our constituency surgeries by the parents of neurodivergent students who are absolutely at their wits’ end. These courses enable such students to access the life opportunities that others take for granted, and they say that they really help them and matter to them, so we should take that incredibly seriously.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—I know from her time as the shadow Education Secretary that she is incredibly passionate about vocational students—said that the Government should end their obsession with saying that all students are either academic or vocational, and that they should recognise that some students want an approach that gives them a broad choice. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford paid tribute to her local college and said that this decision makes a mockery of levelling up. That is a really important point. It was obvious to anyone who watched the Conservative party leadership hustings last night that levelling up seems to have disappeared entirely from the lexicon of the potential Conservative leaders. It may be that they have decided to distance themselves from the mockery that my hon. Friend highlights. Many of us appreciated her contribution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) said that, once they are lost, these qualifications cannot be easily replaced, and she reflected on the fact that many of her local institutions had contacted her with their concern about the approach that the Government are taking. Of course, that should not surprise us, because when the Government conducted their own consultation back in September, they found that 86% of respondents disagreed with the approach that they were proposing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) said that his constituency was one of the top 10 constituencies in the country in terms of the number of people from it who signed the petition. I know that all of us have had large numbers of constituents contacting us about this issue, but it seems like many of us have a lot to do if we are to catch up with Stockport in terms of the level of interest in this issue.

The hon. Member for Twickenham reflected on the comments of Lord Baker in another place, who described the situation as absolutely disgusting. Lord Baker also described this move as

“an act of educational vandalism.”

That should be reflected upon.

It is important to recognise that the broad coalition that is spearheaded by the #ProtectStudentChoice coalition and backed up by organisations such as the Sixth Form Colleges Association, Youth Employment UK, MillionPlus, the Apprenticeship Network and an array of employers and trade unions has forced the Government to change their position. It is important that we all make the point that the Government could look again at what they propose, but it is also important to recognise that there has been a significant U-turn from where the Government were back in September last year. The Labour party and I are pleased to have played our part in that campaign, urging Ministers to rethink their decision to axe these courses.

It is also worth recalling the history of the Government’s shambolic and damaging approach to this question that we are considering today. It started with Ministers besmirching the reputation of BTECs. The Skills Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who was the one before the one before the Minister here today—well, it was 10 months ago, of course—described BTECs as poor-quality qualifications, when announcing that they would be scrapped to make way for T-levels.

In September 2021 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who was the brand-new Education Secretary at the time—he was the one before the one before this week’s one, who is the fourth Education Secretary we have had in the space of a year. It is said that a year in the life of a human being is like seven years in the life of an Education Secretary. That appears to be the case. We get this dazzling array of new Education Secretaries, so I can only imagine how busy the person responsible for the board at the Department of Education must be, as they constantly have to change the name and the picture up in reception that shows the Education Secretary.

Returning to the point that I was making, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, told us when he was Education Secretary that the Government would conduct a review. Many of us believe that the Government ought to have conducted the review before they sent out the message to students and lecturers that the qualification they were working towards was poor quality. Then the Government announced that they would defund 150 level 3 qualifications, which, in truth, is less than 10% of all of the level 3 qualifications out there.

We are pleased that the Government have performed something of a U-turn on this issue. In the final analysis, however, if they continue with their current policy, they will have scrapped less than 10% of all the level 3 qualifications currently on offer but, within that, they will have scrapped several courses that both employers and educationalists have real concern about. For example, the health and social care BTEC offers students a strong general introduction to the career opportunities available in the healthcare sector, and over 13,000 new students enrolled to study for it last year. It is important to reflect that if BTECs are scrapped, as the Government currently suggest they will be, a huge number of students will not have the breadth of options available to them.

There are a number of important questions for the Minister to respond to. Many colleges are deeply concerned that the amount of work experience required to replace even the limited number of BTECs being replaced cannot be found. The Government have already downgraded the work experience requirement in the early years of the T-level qualification. If it becomes apparent that providers in many areas are unable to find the amount of work experience required to deliver the number of T-levels, the Government will have a choice. Will the Government reduce the work experience demand further? Will they allow BTECs that do not have the work experience element to continue? Or will they accept that many students will be shut out of accessing a career for which there is a widespread skills shortage. Which one is it?

Secondly, if the Government’s view is that T-levels are more rigorous than BTECs, and they are scrapping BTECs, what is the plan for those students who previously would have been able to study a BTEC and will now not have a level 3 qualification at the age of 16 or 17? What assessment have the Government made of which students are likely to miss out, as has been reflected by so many contributors to the debate? Is it not the truth that it will mean more students from deprived communities, more white working-class boys and girls, more BAME students, and more students from rural and small-town communities will likely not have a level 3 qualification in place? If so, what plans are in place for those students?

Early feedback shows that T-levels require considerably more time studying and working. Many students, particularly those from deprived communities, are expected by their families to work alongside their studies. T-levels make that much more difficult, and that is being cited as a barrier to poorer students accessing them. What assessment has the Minister made of how that barrier could be addressed? Does it strengthen the case, in her view, for some sort of student subsidy, along the lines of the education maintenance allowance, to enable T-level students to afford to take up this opportunity? Does she accept that it was a huge mistake for the Government to denigrate a qualification that students were in the process of studying for before having completed their review? Given that so few courses are being replaced, will she apologise on behalf of the Government to the students, their lecturers and the employers, whose achievements the Government have belittled?

Finally, I have met many students studying T-levels. Although it varies from coast to coast, many clearly see them as a route to university. T-levels were initially envisaged as a route towards work. Does the Government accept that for many students that will not be the path they pursue? On that basis, is it still sensible for T-levels to be so narrowly focused on a single discipline? Should the Government not recognise that a broader qualification would allow students to learn which is the correct path for them from a position of knowledge?

The Labour party welcomed the introduction of T-levels. We want them to be a success and we hope that a future Labour Government will address the current flaws within them. I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to think again about the decision. We know that they will come back in September. There are a number of popular courses where educationalists and students tell us it would be deeply damaging if they were abolished. We want to ensure that our system of post-16 vocational and technical education is fit for purpose. Every MP in this debate, alongside the organisations championing the #ProtectStudentChoice campaign, want this too. Let the Government pause and put this decision on hold, and ensure that we have an evidence-based approach to its replacement. Let us not lose the qualifications that have real value to both employers and students.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Just before I call the Minister, I declare an interest. I left school at 16 and eventually got to higher education through vocational qualifications. I have the privilege of sitting here today because of that. The Minister has been extremely patient, listening for nearly two hours to the contributions. I am quite sympathetic to the position she is in, but I am sure that she will handle it well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Jenkyns]

I completely disagree. To me, the most important thing is outcome. There is choice there. We have said that if people—[Interruption.] Let me finish, thank you. There is choice. Look at apprenticeships. To me, the most important thing is the outcome, as I have said. If people can have better quality and higher paying jobs, that is a better start in life than taking courses that do not have the same outcomes.

I am going to conclude. I thank all colleagues, from across the House, for their contributions today. It has been a real pleasure to discuss the importance of developing our skills system. Transforming post-16 education and skills is at the heart of our plan to build back better and level up the country. We are ensuring that students everywhere have access to the qualifications that will give them the skills to succeed. T-levels are a critical step in the quality of the technical offer. They have been co-designed with more than 250 leading employers and are based on the best international examples of technical education. But these reforms will have their full benefit only if we streamline and address the complexities and variable quality of the broader level 3 qualification.

As a former BTEC student myself, I understand the benefits of technical education. [Interruption.] I will continue. I want to reassure everyone across the House that we are not withdrawing funding for all BTECs. Students will be able to take BTECs and applied general qualifications alongside A-levels, as part of a mixed programme, where those qualifications meet the new quality and other criteria. We want every student to have confidence that every qualification on offer is high quality—that, rather than choice, is so important: high quality, which will lead them into jobs—and to understand what skills and knowledge—[Interruption.]

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. Let the Minister speak.

[Andrea Jenkyns]

Thank you, Sir Mark. We want students to understand what skills and knowledge a qualification will provide them and where it will take them, and our reforms will deliver that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

The Government have actually increased funding across the sector quite significantly in many different ways. On the issue that the hon. Gentleman refers to, it is wrong to categorise it as such. We have effectively changed from 97%, which is the clawback this year, down to 90%, thereby giving colleges some leeway. He refers to a previous year, and it is true that we did reduce it to 68%, because that was at the very beginning of the pandemic. We have asked providers to keep provision available, to move online and to give learners that experience, and we have given them time to do so. That is a fair approach.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on allocating a higher number of domestic medical places to the University of Central Lancashire’s bachelor of medicine and bachelor of surgery programme.

[The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)]

Although the Department of Health and Social Care leads on this area, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the University of Central Lancashire for the excellent job it is doing. The Government are committed to supporting the NHS by ensuring that its future workforce needs are met. Over recent years we have created an extra 1,500 medical school places and opened five new medical schools across the country, and as a result we have seen record numbers of medical students in training.

[Sir Mark Hendrick [V]]

Mr Speaker, as a neighbouring MP to me, you know that the quality of education at the University of Central Lancashire medical school has been independently assessed as excellent. At a time when the health service has been crying out for more doctors during the covid-19 pandemic, can the Minister please provide assurances that, through her discussions with the Department for Health and Social Care, the University of Central Lancashire will be allocated an evidence-based significant increase in its permanent allocation of domestic medical school places, for the benefit of the county of Lancashire and the wider north-west region as a whole?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that Chorley would like to hear the answer.

Children with Autism (Education)

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Birtwistle]

I am grateful for the intervention. I am trying to explain that people with autism are born with autism. I am trying to find a reason why, in education, we cannot accept this—as a disease or an illness—and work with the families and the children who suffer from this appalling disease. I have met the head of a school not in my constituency, but close by, called Rossendale school. The head said that he could resolve the problem and he has proved that. He has a way of doing that. Unfortunately, Lancashire county council—the hon. Gentleman says that I should not be having a go at it—does not accept that and will not work with the school, which I find pretty hideous, because it needs to do things like that.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that Lancashire county council has 1,435 children and young people suffering from autism spectrum disorder and, as he will hear in my speech, does an excellent job. He omitted from his remarks the fact that Rossendale is a private school and that the council provides excellent state facilities, with specialist experts, and can make that provision available, but he—I am sure that he will expand on this later—is insisting on private education when public education is adequate.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, but the families of the children I am talking about would totally disagree—they will no doubt be happy to meet him later to explain the serious problems they are having. I am not pushing for private education. Rossendale might well be a private school, and so too might one or two others. All I am saying is that if Rossendale can provide it, why can Lancashire county council not do the same through the state system? Why can the council not be just as good as Rossendale? I do not want to promote a private school; I want to promote extremely good education for my constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) on securing this important debate on an issue that is close to the hearts of many Members who are in the Chamber.

Although the hon. Gentleman might not have intended for his speech to be seen as an attack on Lancashire county council, he made many serious accusations against it. As the council is not here in any capacity to defend itself, I think it is important that I respond, as somebody who has spoken to people from the area and county councillors about some of the matters that he has raised.

In Lancashire, 1,435 children and young people have autism spectrum disorder, which is commonly referred to as ASD. Of those children, 1,129 have a statement and 306 are on School Action Plus. Some 698 of those children are placed in mainstream primary and secondary schools, 596 are placed in maintained special schools and 141 are placed in independent, non-maintained special schools. As one can tell from those figures, the three cases that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are very much in a minority and could not, through any statistical analysis, be considered to be indicative of the type of treatment that is going on across Lancashire county council.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the minority should just be left? Surely all children should receive the same. Is he saying that Lancashire county council has delivered for a lot of people, but not for a minority of people? Should that minority just be left on the scrap heap? Surely he is not suggesting that.

[Mark Hendrick]

Of course I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that everybody should have the best possible treatment. I want the three cases that the hon. Gentleman presented to be seen not as the norm, but as the exception. All children deserve the best that Lancashire county council can possibly give them. However, given that Lancashire county council has 1,435 children and young people with autism, I would not want three to be considered to be the norm.

[Steve Rotheram]

We must all agree, as parliamentarians, that the distressing picture that was painted of the cases of Chloe, Jack and Honey is worrying. We could all bring similar cases to the House. I hope that what we will achieve is to help the family members and carers of people on the autistic spectrum by highlighting programmes such as Autism Initiatives in Liverpool, which provides a signposting service so that family members can get support and access early intervention, assessment and diagnosis. That is essential because autism stays with people for their whole lives, not just when they are at school.

[Mark Hendrick]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I will go on to speak about the work that Lancashire county council is doing in that area. I would be grateful to hear about his experiences in Liverpool if he makes a contribution later.

Lancashire county council also makes provision for short breaks for children with ASD. It has commissioned more than £182,000 of short breaks provision from local specialist autism services, to provide activities for children during evenings, weekends and school holidays, while also providing their parents and carers with breaks from caring. The most recent attainment data at the end of key stage 2 show that 73% of children with ASD made two levels of progress in English, compared with 94% of all pupils, and that 69% of children with ASD made two levels of progress in mathematics, compared with 93% of all pupils. Given those pupils’ conditions, that is a tremendous achievement. Of children who are statemented with ASD and took GCSEs in mainstream schools between 2011 and 2013, 75% gained five A to C grades, including English and maths, which is well above the national average of 60.8% for all children during the same period.

Lancashire schools have access to considerable expertise on autism provided by specialist advisory teachers and educational psychologists. That is supplemented by rapidly developing school-to-school support, where centres of expertise based at special schools provide an increasing range of guidance and support to their colleagues in primary and secondary schools.

For children and young people with more complex autism, Lancashire’s special schools have developed much greater expertise. All special schools for generic learning difficulties are funded to meet as wide a range of special educational needs as possible. They are all able to provide for pupils with autism, and several have chosen to specialise in autism by developing staff training programmes and allocating substantially increased resources to that specialism. In several cases that has been recognised by Ofsted inspectors.

The hon. Member for Burnley raised issues on behalf of three of his constituents where parents are seeking what is effectively private school education for their children who have autism. The council has identified provision in at least two of our maintained special schools, which are judged by Ofsted to be good and outstanding. In those cases, parents have appealed to the first and upper tier tribunals, which have found in favour of the council—he made that point—and directed that the children go to the maintained special schools. The outcome of a further appeal to the upper tribunal by one of the families is awaited.

All Lancashire’s special schools for learning difficulties —23 in total—are rated as good or better by Ofsted. I fully appreciate that parents, particularly of the three children involved, want to fight for what they see as the best opportunities and outcomes for their children—the hon. Gentleman would want that, as would I. However, the recent behaviour, language and actions of those involved—by that I am referring to the hon. Gentleman—has caused considerable anxiety for many families, while also conveying a partial view of the provision made by the council. For schools that are doing a great deal of good work in this area, the constant bombardment by him in the Lancashire press about those schools and the county council is causing considerable anxiety, not only among staff at those special schools, but among many of the parents of children who go to them. It is one thing to represent parents who are concerned about their children—he is entitled to do that—but that also has an effect, rightly or wrongly, on children and parents in other schools where the council is providing good teaching and provision.

On a number of occasions the hon. Gentleman also suggested that Lancashire county council officers have not been completely truthful about their approach to considering parents’ expressions of preference for special educational placements in independent non-maintained special schools, but the council refutes those allegations.

On the specific examples outlined by the hon. Gentleman, the case of Chloe Wold is a tragedy. Nobody looking at the record could say anything other than that. I concur completely with him about her situation. She has been in this condition for some time and is on suicide watch, and I sympathise totally with the parents in this case.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He has obviously been well briefed by the county council and is answering the debate on its behalf. However, this debate is on autism in schools. I do not understand where he is coming from. I do not really want him to answer on behalf of the county council. I want to listen to his solutions to the problems that my constituents are suffering.

[Mark Hendrick]

The hon. Gentleman made some fairly serious allegations against the county council and I have received information from the county council that refutes those allegations. If he does not want to listen to that, that is a matter for him. If he wishes to leave the Chamber that is up to him, but I have every right to make these points.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. This debate is not about a county council; neither is it about party politics or opinions about party politics in a particular part of the country. It is a very serious debate on a serious issue that affects the whole country. So far, everyone who has spoken has been perfectly in order. If the hon. Gentleman who now holds the floor wishes to continue his speech, the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), who has already held the floor for a considerable time, really ought to allow him to do so. He is in order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Hendrick]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will concur that I was totally in agreement with and sympathetic to the points he made with regard to Chloe Wold. If he is willing to listen to me when he agrees with me but not when he disagrees with me, that is a matter for him.

On the second of the three cases raised by the hon. Gentleman, the school that Jack Entwistle was offered is Pendle View primary school. I will not go into great detail about the expertise and everything else the school offers, but I will quote Ofsted:

“Those pupils who have additional sensory support also make excellent progress, often in short periods of time, because of the high quality and intense support they get.”

The local MP, the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), visited the school on Friday 15 November 2013. He toured the school and discussed the provision for pupils with special educational needs. He was very supportive and impressed with the work of the school and the specialisms that Lancashire county council provides for children with special educational needs at that school in particular. That gives the other side of the story about the school that Jack Entwistle was offered.

On the final case, Honey Crossley was offered a place at Broadfield specialist school, a Lancashire county council-maintained secondary school. Ofsted said:

“The school’s expertise in promoting learning for students with autism is extensively recognised and respected by many local schools.”

Although the hon. Member for Burnley did not mention this, I understand that he met the Minister—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am listening very carefully and there is a dialogue going on between two Members of the House. This is a very serious and open debate about a general issue that affects hundreds of thousands of children throughout the whole country. The hon. Gentleman ought to be careful before he quotes another Member who has not said in the House today what he is about to quote him as saying. I warn the hon. Gentleman to be careful and to remain in order. If he wishes to take up a point that the hon. Member for Burnley has made, that is a different matter.

[Mark Hendrick]

I would make no attempt to address the hon. Member for Burnley other than through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, so it is not a dialogue in the way you indicated.

I will not quote from the Minister concerned. What I will say is that Lancashire county council has received correspondence from that Minister, who confirmed that Lancashire county council’s advice was that the appropriate way forward for parents was through SENDIST, the special educational needs and disability tribunal system, which is on offer to the constituents of the hon. Member for Burnley.

I think I have made the points that would have been made had other people been here for the debate.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I think this is my third meeting with the Minister today. I did not appreciate when we first met at a certain by-election some years ago that our paths were destined to cross quite so often, but it is always a pleasure to see him.

Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) on securing this debate, which is timely on a day when we have just agreed a new draft special educational needs and disability code of practice. He is right to be concerned about the schooling provision for children with autism. I am advised that there are at least 70,000 children with autism living in England, and they deserve access to high quality, full-time education. The hon. Gentleman’s description of the problems his constituents face, particularly Chloe, in obtaining proper assessments and appropriate schooling are sadly all too familiar—a point reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who obviously has a great deal of experience in this area. Early diagnosis is crucial and will become one of the first tests of the Children and Families Act 2014. Will it improve early identification and diagnosis of a child’s difficulties and will the child’s needs be properly considered? As I understand it, it is not for a local authority to select the school; rather, it is the job of the local authority to offer and engage with a range of provision, so that a child can attend the school best suited to their needs.

[Mark Hendrick]

As I said in my speech, Lancashire county council has 23 such schools. It was in no way indicating any individual school, but did offer a number of schools in several cases.

[Steve McCabe]

I note that my hon. Friend has made that point.

Research by Ambitious about Autism has found that about 40% of children with autism have been excluded from school on at least one occasion without any valid reason being offered. Many are excluded much more often, of course, and some schools appear to operate a policy of informal exclusion, which makes it difficult for any of us to form an accurate picture of what exactly is happening. We do know that the practice is illegal. I acknowledge the Government’s work in funding exclusion advisers, with their grant to the National Autistic Society. I hope that will help us address the problem of those exclusions.

As the Minister will know, Ambitious about Autism is currently campaigning for every school to have access to an autism specialist teacher. We should try to meet that objective because I am certain that exclusions often result from staff who genuinely do not know what is required of them and feel that they are ill equipped to cope with an autistic child’s particular needs. Obviously, the special educational needs co-ordinator is the key figure in the school, charged with ensuring that appropriate support and assistance is made available to every child with a special need, whether or not they are subject to a statement or an education health and care plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Hendrick]

rose—

[Gordon Birtwistle]

No, I will not give way. I believe that the parents represented in this place today will express some concern about what is going on with the staff of Lancashire county council. I certainly have a right to say that because, as I said—

[Mark Hendrick]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just mentioned the fact that this is an adversarial system. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman who has raised the debate today not to mention the fact that his daughter-in-law is the speech therapist in one of the cases that he has dealt with?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure that we want to get to the end of the debate.

Teaching Assistants

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this very important debate on the value of teaching assistants. Teaching assistants make up something like a quarter of the schools work force and carry out a huge range of responsibilities, supporting teachers and forming a crucial part of the modern education system. Any Member of Parliament who visits schools in his or her constituency will see the excellent work that teaching assistants do and the tremendous support they give to teaching staff. I have seen many schools in my constituency where they are doing a fantastic job in backing up and supporting the work of teachers. Behavioural levels, for example, have improved significantly as a result. Teaching assistants, however, feel that their work is poorly understood and undervalued. They are among the lowest paid in public services, and they are overwhelmingly women and part-time workers. They work hard for little reward, often dealing with the most challenging and difficult children in school. They are very much valued in their communities, as I have seen from my visits to schools.

According to the latest official figures for publicly funded schools in England, there are some 360,000 teaching assistants, representing 27.4% of the schools work force and 25.8% of the full-time education work force. Some 93% of teaching assistants are women, which is an indication of the skew. Some 87%—that is, 312,000 teaching assistants—work part time. The growth in the number of teaching assistants was due to the previous Labour Government’s initiative to raise standards in schools and tackle teacher work load. The teaching professions had a little unease on the introduction of teaching assistants, a little like how the police force felt about the introduction of police community support officers. There was a worry that teaching assistants would try to take on duties meant for teachers, in the same way that police officers worried that PCSOs would take positions. That has not been the case, however. Teaching assistants, as with PCSOs, have provided excellent back-up and support.

On pay and conditions, teaching assistants are some of the lowest paid in the country in the public services, as I have mentioned. Their rates, as the Minister knows, vary across the country and in different schools. They are often paid at the lower levels of local authority pay scales and are under a massively diverse range of contracts and conditions, which vary by authority and school. For example, in local authority schools, teaching assistants are employed by the authority or the school, usually on local authority terms and conditions, and are then deployed by schools. That arrangement frequently causes confusion between local authorities and schools on contracts of employment and employment conditions. That in itself would be bad enough, but the academies have control over staff pay and are not bound by the collective agreements of the National Joint Council for Local Government Services. Larger academy chains conduct their own pay negotiations, while the majority of stand-alone academies follow the national negotiations.

I am deeply concerned that the lack of a national framework for pay and job evaluation means that academies are frequently hiring teaching assistants on lower grades than are appropriate, depressing pay and assigning duties to teaching assistants that are outside their job descriptions. I will give some examples. A teaching assistant in north-east Lincolnshire said:

“I have been regraded from Teaching Assistant level 4 to level 2. I now have two contracts, one at level 2 and one at level 4 for two afternoons per week when I provide…cover.”

A teaching assistant from Plymouth said:

“I have to work one extra week a year with no extra remuneration.”

That cannot be right. For someone to work a week with no remuneration in the 21st century is appalling.

The previous Labour Government rightly recognised that something needed to be done on the shambolic nature of terms and conditions of employment for teaching assistants. Labour agreed to establish a new body: the School Support Staff Negotiating Body, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North referred. It comprised unions and employers and was created to set pay and employment conditions for the school support staff work force. It was put into statute in 2009, but was cancelled in 2010 by the current Secretary of State, who said that it did

“not fit well with the Government’s priorities for greater deregulation”—[Official Report, 28 October 2010; Vol. 721, c. 116WS.]

As a result, school support staff are still employed badly on low pay.

As my hon. Friend said earlier, there is now a severe threat to teaching assistants’ jobs. Teaching assistants feel that their contribution to education is poorly understood and undervalued. Government sources are suggesting that teaching assistant jobs will be put at further risk. A May 2013 report by the right-wing think-tank Reform, which has been closely linked with the Secretary of State and Conservative party policies, cited past research to argue that savings in schools spending should be found by dramatically reducing the number of teaching assistants and increasing class sizes. Reform claimed that teaching assistants had a

“negligible impact on pupil progress though some impact on teacher productivity”.

It recommended:

“Ministers should support schools that reduce numbers of teaching assistants and allow class sizes to rise.”

In June 2013, as referred to by my hon. Friend, the Daily Mail reported that the Treasury and the Department for Education

“are considering getting rid of the classroom assistants in attempt to save some of the £4 billion a year spent on them”,

and that the director of Reform had said that

“the money spent on teaching assistants would be far better spent on improving the quality of teachers.”

As someone who served, along with the Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), on the Bill Committee of the Education Act 2011, I saw that the Government intend to introduce teachers with no academic qualifications. We have a right-wing think-tank saying that

“the money spent on teaching assistants would be far better spent on improving the quality of teachers”,

but the Government are quite happy to employ unqualified teachers, which flies in the face of everything they have been saying.

The Institute of Education ran a project between 2003 and 2009 entitled “Deployment and impact of support staff”. One of its researchers said in The Guardian in early 2014:

“TAs can only be as effective as teachers enable them to be and they shouldn’t have to mind-read. Think carefully about TAs’ contribution to learning and communicate your intentions to them. Inform them of the skills or knowledge the students they support should be developing, and what learning you want them to achieve by the end of the lesson…TAs can have a potentially transformative impact on learning by making small adjustments to their practice. A growing number of schools are reaping the benefits of changing the nature of TAs’ interactions with students”.

The original Institute of Education research found that support staff

“can have a positive effect on teaching and teacher workloads and job satisfaction. We can also say from the systematic observation results that support staff presence leads to pupils being better behaved in the sense that there is less dealing with negative behaviour, and there is more pupil classroom engagement in the sense that pupils are more on-task and less off-task.”

Reform’s ideological targeting of teaching assistants is not supported by academic evidence and does not fit with the reality of the modern school system. Even Reform acknowledged that cutting teaching assistants would mean larger class sizes, which cannot be good. Our pupils deserve better than that. I urge the Government and the Minister to rethink how they view and value teaching assistants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North said, Ofsted has stated that teaching assistants

“are sensitive to pupils’ needs and offer good support and guidance to those who need extra help. Consequently, disabled pupils and those who have special educational needs achieve as well as their classmates and sometimes better”.

That can only be good for children. Teaching assistants are an essential part of their development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

No, I do not have that assessment at this stage.

In 2013, the Department published a review of efficiency in the school system showing that the differences in the impact of TAs on attainment can be explained largely by how individual schools choose to deploy them. That is supported by the recent report from the Education Endowment Foundation, which showed that TAs can improve literacy and numeracy skills when deployed well and suggested that when used to support specific pupils in small groups or through structured interventions, TAs can be effective at improving attainment.

My main point of contention with the speeches made by Opposition Members is about how to improve attainment. The Government do not believe that there is a one-size-fits-all solution. We believe in a school-led system. As the hon. Members who are on the Education Committee will be well aware from Andreas Schleicher’s evidence to the Committee recently, international statistics suggest that a combination of autonomy and accountability achieves the best results for schools. When head teachers are given the power to make decisions about how to deploy staff in their schools, create an effective team, develop that team and manage talent, but are held to account through rigorous systems of inspection and external accountability, that leads to the best results, which is why we are reluctant to dictate to schools how to deploy teaching assistants or impose rigid boundaries about what teaching assistants can and cannot do. We know that there are different types of schools with different students, and there might be different factors in different areas of the country, so we are reluctant to create a one-size-fits-all policy.

That is my main point of difference from Opposition Members. I certainly do not disagree about the value of teaching assistants—the evidence shows that they are an important part of our education system—but we may disagree about the best way to ensure that schools deploy teaching assistants to students’ benefit.

[Mark Hendrick]

The Minister is giving a positive picture of the role of teaching assistants and is making the point that the Government do not think it a good idea to be too prescriptive about how teaching assistants are used; those considerations are best made locally. However, can she say a little about how she feels about low pay? As I said in my contribution, low pay is a problem for teaching assistants. We obviously value the work that they do, but in doing so, should we not see that they are properly remunerated and not just treated as cheap labour?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The evidence from the EEF suggests that teaching assistants who are properly remunerated and have a clear training structure achieve more, and that is something the head teacher ought to be taking into account.

In view of the evidence, we know that more can be done to help schools ensure that their TAs have a rewarding career and make an even greater contribution and impact in schools. We have been gathering evidence from teaching schools, academy chains and other key stakeholders on what good deployment and support for TAs looks like in our best schools.

We know that successful senior leaders deploy TAs based on their school’s particular needs and that different deployment models can work in the right circumstances. However, underpinning those models is a number of principles that good schools apply universally in deploying TAs. Those include employing suitably qualified TAs. We know that the TA’s level of general qualifications and skills—for example, their literacy and numeracy skills—can vary, and it is important that schools ensure that the qualifications, skills and backgrounds of their TAs are sufficiently robust and match the specific needs of the school.

We know that it is important that TAs are deployed according to their skills and expertise. TAs are employed in a variety of roles in schools, from providing administrative support for teachers to assisting with classroom and SEN teaching, and we have seen that good schools have a very clear structure and description of those roles. It is also important that schools are continually reviewing the deployment of TAs to ensure that they are achieving the stated objectives and are reviewing matters when those objectives have been achieved.

It is important to provide joint preparation and planning time for TAs and teachers to establish clear lesson outcomes and goals, which is a point made by the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). Planning and preparation time are of course vital for teachers and teaching assistants to get the best out of their lessons. One thing that we are working on in the new maths hubs that the Government are establishing across the country is looking at best practice from overseas on organising the planning and preparation for lessons. However, in a school-led system, that ultimately has to be led by schools, rather than by the Government saying, “This is what we want you to do on a national basis.” I think that Opposition Members and I agree on the outcomes that we want to see; the question mark is over exactly how to achieve them. It is really essential for teaching assistants to understand the targets for pupils and to be trained in assessing pupil progress.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Fulwood academy in Preston had a recent Ofsted report that stated that pupil achievement, quality of teaching and leadership and management were inadequate. The head teacher Richard Smyth has received extra funding for free school meals, disabled pupils and special educational needs. Why should that man remain in post when he has been at the school for three years and is himself inadequate?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to those concerns about the principal. I am aware that there are concerns more broadly about Fulwood academy, and I will write to him about what we propose to do.