Education of Children with Cerebral Palsy

Mark Hoban Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for securing this debate and generously asking me to open it. My first event as a Member of Parliament was a fundraising evening for the Rainbow Centre, a charity set up by parents to enable their children with cerebral palsy to benefit from conductive education, a therapy pioneered at the Peto Institute in Hungary. At that point, the Rainbow Centre was above a carpet shop in the centre of Fareham; they were not the most salubrious premises, but it demonstrated the parents’ commitment. They were prepared to go there during the week and on weekends, often carrying their children upstairs so that they could benefit from the education provided there. Children came from as far afield as Hampshire, Sussex, Dorset, Wiltshire and the Isle of Wight.

Now the Rainbow Centre is in a purpose-built building in Fareham, and can offer support to more parents and their children. It also uses the techniques of conductive education to help adults with multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease and those who have had strokes. My engagement with the Rainbow Centre led me to become involved in a parliamentary inquiry supported by Action Cerebral Palsy, an umbrella organisation for charities across the country supporting children with cerebral palsy. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys led the inquiry, and a final report will be published next month.

I will say a little about cerebral palsy to set the context for my later remarks. It is a motor disorder caused by damage to the immature or developing brain that occurs before, during or immediately after birth. In the UK, 1,800 children a year, or about one in 400 born, develop cerebral palsy. The condition can affect those from all social backgrounds and ethnic groups. At some point very early in life, either while a baby is growing in the womb, during birth or shortly afterward, something happens to interfere with the normal development of the brain or to injure the brain tissues. That abnormal development or injury disrupts the nerve signals sent along neural pathways between the brain and the muscles, leading to problems with movement, posture and co-ordination as the child develops. This is called cerebral palsy.

As cerebral palsy is a condition of very early childhood, the implications for the developing child cannot be ignored. During the formative years, the central nervous system develops rapidly, enabling the child to learn, explore and connect with their social environment. It is during those crucial early years that the ability to learn develops. Children with cerebral palsy are hindered to varying degrees during that process as they battle to learn fundamental skills related to their symptoms. Therefore, cerebral palsy should to a significant extent be considered as a problem of learning, rather than a problem of functioning or communicating.

Early identification of cerebral palsy and early intervention can help tackle problems of movement, posture and co-ordination. Between the ages of nought and two, a child has a high degree of neural plasticity, which can be harnessed with appropriate programmes in order to remap the neural pathways between brain and muscle, enabling children to overcome problems of movement, posture and communication.

I have seen for myself the huge progress that children have made at the Rainbow Centre through early intervention. Children whose parents were told that they would not walk now can; children said to have high degrees of dependency are now independent. Everyone who has been to the Rainbow Centre or similar centres around the country comes away moved by the sight of children, parents and educators working together through an educational programme that helps children improve their motor skills and rebuild those neural pathways. We can make adaptations to accommodate the physical symptoms of cerebral palsy—for example, we can provide ramps for wheelchairs—but it is so much more powerful and rewarding to work with children to rebuild their neural pathways so that those ramps are not needed.

There were several recurring themes in the inquiry, including problems with early identification. Also, once CP has been identified, parents are more likely to have to fight to get the right support for their children than to find it easy to obtain. There is poor signposting to centres offering appropriate programmes, a reluctance among some local authorities—including Hampshire county council—to support the work of specialist providers, and reduced access to specialist services as children get older. In many respects, those issues are not unique to cerebral palsy, and I commend the Government for their reforms relating to special educational needs and disability.

Those giving evidence in our inquiry warmly welcomed the intentions behind the Government’s reforms, which are widely believed to have the potential—I emphasise the word “potential”—to transform the lives of people with cerebral palsy. The introduction of education, health and care plans, which will provide statutory protection, comparable to that provided by statements of special educational needs, to young people who are in education or training up to the age of 25—as compared with 16 now—was seen as a particularly encouraging development by respondents to the inquiry. If services for children and young people with cerebral palsy are to complement each other, the plans should facilitate that by ensuring that services are jointly commissioned and provision is decided in dialogue with parents.

The stipulation that provision in plans is set on the basis of the expected outcomes for the child or young person, as agreed between professionals and parents, has been welcomed. It is believed that if the measures are followed through on, they should create the promised cultural shift that will lead to assessments for special educational provision being based on a continuing assessment of a child’s needs and expected progress, rather than being simply a fight over short-term solutions to long-term issues.

I want to emphasise some particular concerns of parents and other participants in the inquiry. The first regards the local offer, which is hugely important because of its potential to give families access to specialist cerebral palsy services offered by third-sector organisations. However, the challenge is what will be included in the local offer. Let me illustrate that challenge with reference to the Rainbow Centre. The centre has applied to be included in the offer for Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton, but councils in other areas served by the centre, such as Wiltshire and Dorset, have said that they will only include the centre if there is space available. That means that parents of children with CP in those areas will not know that the provision is available and will miss out on the support that the centre offers, and therefore on an education that could transform their children’s lives. Given the nature of centres dealing with CP, there will not be one in every county or unitary authority, so it is important that the local offer looks beyond council and area boundaries to ensure that all children with CP are signposted towards the right specialist services for them.

The issue of the local offer speaks to a broader point about the tension between tailoring services to local needs and a postcode lottery that results from a lack of national consistency. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that Ofsted, in its inspection of children’s services, should examine the local offer and how comprehensive it is. Best practice guidelines should be produced for education and health professionals who work with children and young people with cerebral palsy, to accompany the special educational needs and disability code of practice. The guidelines should explain how the lives of children with cerebral palsy can be improved within the framework of the new system. Although there are the best intentions behind the reforms, parents and practitioners told the inquiry that many years of battling with education and health authorities over support for children with cerebral palsy have left them doubtful as to whether the reforms will make a difference.

The negativity about the reforms’ potential is the legacy of an adversarial SEND system in which parents and practitioners have been left battle-weary and sceptical that change can be achieved. There remains the fear that while the reforms could slightly improve the situation for children and young people with cerebral palsy, they will not address the widespread lack of understanding of the needs of those children and young people, which contributes to a systemic antagonism whereby parents have to fight too hard to prove what support their children need.

Perhaps one of the biggest recurring issues that emerged from the inquiry was the striking lack of awareness among health and education professionals, even among those responsible for carrying out assessments for SEN statements, or for making plans about cerebral palsy that establish what support children and young people who have CP require. This results in late diagnosis, missed opportunities for early intervention and a general scepticism from professionals about forms of support that parents often say have transformed their children’s lives.

There is a need for an awareness-raising exercise, so that if cerebral palsy is diagnosed, parents are made aware by professionals of the options available to them immediately, rather than having to search for those options themselves. In addition, parents who spoke to the inquiry said that all too often they themselves were the experts on cerebral palsy, and the professionals they encountered not only provided little help but acted as obstacles to parents and their children, preventing them from accessing the best help available.

There is a particular concern about early intervention and about whether the reforms will do enough to help. The inquiry shows why more needs to be done to support children and young people with cerebral palsy, especially in the “golden years”—post-diagnosis, for those under the age of two—when intervention is at its most effective because of the plasticity in children’s brains at that age. However, this is often also the period when that type of intervention is most absent.

The inquiry found that children are not receiving the specialist invention they need during these golden years because there is not enough specialist educational intervention available for children under the age of two and, where it does exist, health professionals and parents are too often completely unaware of it. Moreover, even when they are aware of it, local authorities’ responsibilities for assessing the needs of those under the age of two are not spelled out very clearly in the SEND code of practice. That means that by the time an assessment is made and support is put in place, there is a risk that the opportunity to intervene in these golden years, and to improve significantly the early intervention services for children with complex needs, such as cerebral palsy, has been missed. More clarity is needed in the SEND code of practice. It is not clear how local authorities are involved in the assessment of children’s needs prior to the check at the age of two. Of course, as I have said, for many children, intervention after the age of two is of reduced effectiveness.

I would be keen to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to encourage local authorities to target early intervention, and how health and education services will be encouraged to work together in early years—for example, by ensuring that the requirement on health professionals to advise parents on not only the health support available to their child but the educational and developmental support that they may be able to access is followed through on.

I have discussed problems to do with the availability and quality of care for children with cerebral palsy in their earlier years, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking that if we tackle these problems, they will be solved. It is clear from my conversations with parents, and from feedback from centres across the country, that far too many children with cerebral palsy can be isolated when they reach secondary school. Primary schools are often well prepared. Staff are able to work with children who have cerebral palsy, primarily because these schools are often laid out on one floor and are therefore very accessible. Children with CP can get around such schools without any issues, and they can take part in all the normal school activities. However, when they get to secondary school, they can often fall through the gap.

By their nature, secondary schools have much larger buildings than primary schools, with multiple floors and large complexes. Children with CP can often struggle to get around them, leaving them isolated from their classmates and often from parts of the curriculum. Children with CP have been unable to take subjects they love because of problems with wheelchair access. Those problems may prevent them from taking part in courses on the first floor of a building that does not offer access through lifts or ramps.

However, the problem runs much deeper than just physical access. Many secondary schools do not have the specialist knowledge to help children with CP to integrate, and that problem is compounded by the nature of CP. During their adolescent years, young people with the condition can physically regress if they are unable to continue the programmes that help them to remap and maintain their neural pathways. Ensuring proper integration between schools—both primary and secondary—and specialist services can make a huge difference. We do not want the advances in independence that are made in early years to be eroded because insufficient thought has gone into the primary and secondary education of a child with CP.

In conclusion, I hope that I have set out where I believe the debate is at regarding support for children with CP, based on my experience with the Rainbow Centre and my participation with the parliamentary inquiry that is supported by Action Cerebral Palsy. As I said, that report will be published next month, and I hope that the Minister will meet my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys and me, as well as representatives of Action Cerebral Palsy, to discuss it and find a way ahead, so that the Government can help to implement its recommendations and we can improve the lives of children with CP and their families.

If I think back on the remarks I have made, I must admit that my views are perhaps coloured by my experience of meeting parents of children with CP. They have often had to fight hard to get the help their children deserve and that can enable their children to lead more independent lives than was perhaps imagined when their condition was first diagnosed. These are difficult battles to fight, so parents welcome the Government’s reforms, which should enable their children to get the early intervention they need. However, because parents are battle-hardened, they are also sceptical. They want an end to the adversarial approach to educating their children; early intervention in practice, and not just in theory; and consistency in the local offer, so that every child with CP has access to specialist education, regardless of who provides it and where they live. These parents have clearly set the bar for success, and it may be high in comparison with what they have experienced, but the Government need to prove to them that these reforms mean that they no longer have to fight for the right education and health support for children with cerebral palsy.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

As this is an Adjournment debate nominated by the Backbench Business Committee, we will hear from the hon. Gentleman again at the close of the debate, because he is entitled to two or three minutes in which to wind up; this is one of those occasions when the Minister will not have the last word.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It is also good to know that I will not have the last word, which I am sure is a relief to everyone who has taken part in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban) on securing this debate by proxy, if that is the right way to put it. Most importantly, he has brought to the attention of the House support for children with cerebral palsy, borne from his experience of going to the Rainbow Centre in Fareham, of which he is clearly a vocal and passionate champion. He was instrumental, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), in establishing the recent parliamentary inquiry into cerebral palsy, to which officials from the Department for Education and the Department of Health gave evidence. We look forward to seeing the final report in the new year.

At this juncture, I will say a little more about the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys. First, having led the debate in the House for many years on how we better support children and young people with cerebral palsy with such expertise, candour and aplomb, he has, through being too good at that role, been recognised for his efforts, as well as his wider knowledge and skills. He now sits behind me as a valued Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department for Education. He is therefore unable to speak in the debate, although I know he is champing at the bit to do so. Secondly, and more importantly, it is only thanks to his tenacity, passion and leadership that we are having the debate at all. I put on record my own appreciation, along with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and many others in Blackpool and beyond, for his continued efforts in raising awareness of cerebral palsy and challenging us all to think hard about what more we can do to support children and families living with CP.

The Government’s ambitions for disabled children and those with SEN, including those with cerebral palsy, are the same as for all other children: for them to achieve well in their early years, in school and in college; to find employment; to lead happy and fulfilled lives; and to have more choice and control over how they are supported. The reforms introduced by the Children and Families Act 2014, which came into effect in September, should work to the benefit of all children and young people, regardless of their type of need or impairment. We want to ensure that the reforms work well for all children and young people with cerebral palsy. We are keen to build our understanding of the evidence on what works, and we will be more than pleased to work with many of the excellent organisations out there with expertise in the area, including Action CP. Our national voluntary and community sector grants programme is another opportunity for us to support good proposals, including on early intervention and identification. I know that Action CP has submitted such proposals to us in its bid through that programme.

Our special educational needs reforms and early years policies are designed to improve how we identify and support children and young people with special educational needs. Getting the right start in life is so important for all children, but particularly for those who are disabled or have SEN. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham is absolutely right that early identification and intervention for children with cerebral palsy is crucial if we are to put in place the right support at the earliest possible opportunity to help mitigate its physical, emotional and educational impact and ensure that we allow them to reach their potential.

A number of measures are in place to identify children’s needs as early as possible, including those with cerebral palsy. The key principle is that assessments have to be focused on the needs of the individual child and their particular circumstances. When they are between two and three years old, all children are offered a healthy child programme review, which is carried out by a health professional. That is a snapshot assessment on a given day looking at health and development outcomes. Where the child is in registered early years provision, the education practitioner, who is usually the child’s key worker, must carry out a progress check when a child is aged between two and three, and provide parents and/or carers with a short written summary of the child’s development in prime areas. I am also conscious that the golden years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham puts it, fall before the age of two. We must carefully consider what more we can do to establish as early as possible whether cerebral palsy is playing a part in a young baby or toddler’s life and to put in place support that will have a discernable, positive effect on their future development.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned some of the specific screening protocols for children who experience complications at birth, and I will pass on his views to my colleagues in the Department of Health. Decisions about conducting specific early screening protocols for conditions such as cerebral palsy are quite rightly made by specialist clinicians. Diagnosing cerebral palsy often takes time and no test confirms it or rules it out. In some cases when a baby requires special care in hospital after being born, it may be possible for a confident diagnosis to be made relatively quickly, which is good in order to ensure a quick response. In many cases, however, a clear diagnosis is possible only after a few months or years of screening. For those with milder symptoms, a diagnosis may not be rendered until the brain is fully developed at three to five years of age.

Under the healthy child programme, babies undergo screening, health checks or immunisations at birth, 72 hours, five to eight days, six to eight weeks, 12 weeks, 16 weeks, six to eight months, 12 months, two and a half years and at school entry. Each of those routine contacts with a health professional enables parents to discuss any concerns. They can then contact their health visitor or GP at any time should they have such a concern about their child’s development. As technology and science advance, we want to continue to push the boundaries of what is possible to ensure that we get that confident diagnosis at the earliest possible time. I am happy to work with my colleagues in the Department of Health to establish whether the national health service is doing all that is possible.

If significant concerns emerge or if a special educational need or disability is identified, practitioners should develop a targeted plan to support the child’s future learning and development, involving other professionals as appropriate. In doing so, to pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and reinforced by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, it is right that as much understanding as possible is in place as to what learning is and how it can manifest itself in each individual child’s circumstances, so that no opportunity is lost to develop every aspect of their potential.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham set out, the first few years of a child’s life are fundamentally important. They shape their future development and influence how well they do at school, their health and well-being and their achievements later in life. We fully recognise that, which is why, since September 2010, every three and four-year-old has been entitled to 570 hours a year of Government-funded early education over no fewer than 38 weeks of the year. Since September 2013, the most disadvantaged two-year-olds across England have been able to access a funded early learning place. By May 2014, more than 116,000 two-year-olds were already benefiting from early learning. That number has continued to grow since September 2014, when the number of children entitled to a place doubled to some 260,000.

Through the early years foundation stage, we seek to ensure quality and consistency in all early years settings, so that every child makes good progress, that no child gets left behind and that learning and development opportunities are planned around each child’s needs and interests. That is also at the heart of the reforms in moving towards to a birth to 25 single plan and assessment system to ensure consistency of approach from all professionals who come into contact with a child throughout their education. The EYFS currently calls for integrated working between health and education practitioners to assess a child’s development and needs at age two where possible, which is particularly important for children with cerebral palsy. We have asked for integrated reviews to be offered as standard practice from September 2015.

As ever, there are some excellent examples of effective integration of education, health and care services. I can point to ones in Cornwall and Wolverhampton that we have discovered through engagement with the relevant authorities, but we need to ensure a consistent approach to integrated working across health and education not only through legislation, but in practice on the ground. To follow that through, Ofsted will look for evidence of integrated working in all settings, from early years through to the compulsory school age, to seek assurances that early years providers and others are assessing children’s progress and needs appropriately and are doing all that they can to support each child’s development towards being ready for school and beyond.

A more holistic picture of a child’s needs is more likely to lead to the child getting the help that they need through early intervention. Supporting more timely and more accurate early intervention might be more effective, could lead to longer-term savings and could improve children’s life chances, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is why, for children of school age and beyond, we have ensured that the new special educational needs code of practice gives clear advice on identifying needs and providing support, based on effective practice from successful schools, including those in the achievement for all programme.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham welcomed the emphasis that the reforms rightly place on educational and life outcomes, both in early years settings, schools and colleges, and, for those with more complex needs, through co-ordinated assessment and a single education, health and care plan. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak reminded us, health bodies and local authorities now jointly plan and commission services for disabled children and young people and those with special educational needs. I have worked closely with my colleagues in the Department of Health throughout the development and implementation of the reforms, and will continue to do so, to ensure that health is an integral part of the drive to improve outcomes for children and young people, but where we could and should go further, we will look to do that. I had an extremely productive meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), and we have a clear and joint commitment to ensure that the work being done throughout the national health service to implement the reforms is as much a priority in the NHS as it is in education and social care agencies.

Better information for parents and young people has been a theme throughout the development of the reforms. There should also be an opportunity for them to feed back, so that improvements can be made that reflect their observations of where services may be falling short. Through the local offer, parents will know what they can reasonably expect their local early years provision, school, college, local authority and local services to provide without having to battle for the information, which was so disparately spread in the past. From his observations about the Rainbow Centre in his constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham made the point well that the local offer in his local authority area makes it clear that the centre is available to parents, but that that is not reflected in the surrounding local authorities, which do not necessarily see it as a part of their own offer.

We made it clear throughout the passage of the legislation—I am happy to reiterate it now—that a local offer is not confined to services within a local authority area, in particular when it relates to specialist services. We tend to operate within what many would see as artificial boundaries, but many parents need to look beyond their local authority to find the service that best meets their children’s needs. Local authorities should therefore be thinking long and hard about services not only within their own local authority, but in surrounding areas, so that the local offer genuinely reflects what they would reasonably expect to be made available to parents for all conditions and for all children who have special educational needs and disabilities. Local authorities must consult parents of children with SEN and disabilities, and children and young people themselves, when developing and reviewing their local offer and must publish the action that they will take in response to comments about it. That will help to ensure that local services are responsive to local needs and will make it even more important that the offer reflects what parents say is required.

[Mr Hoban]

I appreciate that I will have a second bite of the cherry in a minute, but I just want to press the Minister on this point about what the local offer includes. He rightly places emphasis on consulting parents, but if the parents do not know that there is a specialist centre in the next county, or the next city in the case of Birmingham, they will not know how to feed that back. What steps will the Department take, either directly or through Ofsted, to monitor the composition of local offers?

[Mr Timpson]

I was going to come on to the issue of accountability, but will bring it forward in my contribution as my hon. Friend has raised it. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak also made the point about how to ensure that implementation is taking place on the ground. A real difference for families would be if they had a different experience and a more coherent and cohesive response from each agency, involving them more in the process. That involves ensuring that the local offer sets out clearly for parents what the local authorities expect to make available. The regulations that underpin the Children and Families Act—not only the code of practice, but other delegated legislation—make it clear what local authorities should be doing to achieve just that.

In the early stages of implementation, we brought a network of SEN advisers into the Department to work with us, and they are out in the field the whole time, establishing with all 150-plus local authorities that they have complied with the legal requirements of the Act in the publication of the local offer—every single local authority has a published local offer—and that the offer reflects the spirit of the reforms. The SEN advisers have been working in the system for many years—they were hand-picked for that reason—and their knowledge means that they can establish where there is a shortfall in the local offer and in the information available.

Beyond the first year of implementation, we have been working closely with Ofsted. We have asked it to conduct a survey on local authority readiness for the reforms and whether there is a need for an inspection framework, so that parents may have confidence that education, health and social care services are genuinely working together with parents, families and children at the earliest possible opportunity, involving them not only in the development of their own plan, for their own child, but in the wider strategic plan for provision in the local area.

We will announce soon how the accountability framework will be shaped in future, but the Christmas present that I can offer to parents and families at this time of year is that we are clear with Ofsted about the need for a clear level of accountability that does not involve a direct relationship with the Department, instead relying on a local approach to accountability, which will help to provide consistency throughout the country. I hope that that will be a welcome development for many parents who were anxious to know how we intend to ensure that the reforms that we have set out and our vision will be translated into action on the ground.

The need to raise awareness among professionals is a key aspect of our reforms, as is the sufficiency of education and health care specialists with the skills to support children, including those with cerebral palsy, a point made by both my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. Transition points can often be a stage in a child’s life where support can fall away, causing a period of uncertainty and or decisions to be delayed. That is the whole reason why we have moved towards a clear birth-to-25 system, for a much easier way to transcend movement through the education system that does not include different plans and different people, but gives parents and children consistency of support through what can be a difficult time.

The Government have established a clear, national statutory framework for identifying, assessing and providing for all children with SEN and disabilities. Detailed arrangements are, rightly, made locally, allowing local provision to be more responsive to local need, but the needs of children and young people with SEN vary greatly. Indeed, the needs of those with cerebral palsy can vary greatly, as we have heard, depending on the precise nature of the condition and other factors in their life. Education settings therefore need to ensure that they give their staff the training necessary to support the individual needs of the children and young people for whom they provide.

Early years providers, schools and colleges are responsible for deciding what specialist expertise is required to meet children and young people’s needs and for securing that expertise. That is explicit in the SEN code of practice. We have been at pains to drive the point home that it is the responsibility of all teachers within a school or an educational setting to have an understanding and awareness of special educational needs and disabilities, so that they can play their part and not see it simply as the role of the SEN co-ordinator or other specialists. Specialist organisations can play a key role in increasing awareness of particular disabilities. My Department has supported such organisations in the fields of autism, dyslexia, and speech, language and communication needs, which are the most prevalent types of SEN, to provide information, advice and support to schools, early years settings and local agencies.

The new SEN and disability code of practice makes it clear that local authority and health partners should ensure that a designated medical officer is in place to ensure that assessment planning and health support are carried out. I am interested in securing the further spread of DMOs. There are some excellent examples of where they are making a significant contribution, but there is still scope for them to become more embedded in more parts of the country. I will be looking at that closely in the coming weeks and months. The code recognises that the DMO role would usually be taken by a paediatrician. The person appointed should have appropriate expertise and links with other professionals. That helps to bind health in, not only with the clinical role of the DMOs but with the role that they can play within schools, so that there is a genuine partnership to ensure that assessment, planning, and implementation and review of the plan are done as a collective response to the child’s needs.

The Children and Families Act places the views, wishes, feelings and aspirations of children, parents and young people at the heart of the new system. That is what the Green Paper set out in 2011 and what we have seen through to the conclusion of the legislation. To make it happen we have an active young people’s national advisory group, EPIC, who have been involved in the development of the reforms from the start, and they are still with us. I meet the group regularly and I find their involvement hugely valuable. They share with me their real-life experiences, not only of the consequences when they get suitable, solid and constant support, but of when the system fails to deliver and the fallout that occurs. Such input has helped us to focus on the practical implications of our reforms and led to some important and significant changes. Several of the young people involved in the EPIC group have cerebral palsy and have proved to be some of our most articulate and persuasive ambassadors.

We are also doing a lot to improve advice and support for parents, including funding, through our reform partner, the Council for Disabled Children, and the recruitment and training of independent supporters in every local authority. When we asked parents what, under the old system, would make the biggest difference to them in battling it and in trying to get some of the basic provision necessary to getting on, they suggested independent supporters. Parents said that they would value some independent support from someone who was not from the local authority or the health service, but had expertise in SEN and disabilities, in particular in the areas most relevant to their own child. Independent supporters will provide advice and support for parents of children with SEN and for young people with SEN through the statutory assessment and the education, health and care plan—or EHCP—processes. Such supporters will help to build the resilience of families and to tailor support to their individual needs.

We are also providing funds for SEN and disability parent carer forums in each local authority. Forums play a central role in helping to shape local policies and provision and they have been effective in co-producing local authorities’ local offers. From their knowledge of the services available in the surrounding area, they have helped to draw out some of the gaps in some local authority offers. We wanted to continue supporting them in that, for the good reasons set out by my hon. Friend. I am sure that parents of children with cerebral palsy will want to be active in those forums, if they are not already, and I would certainly encourage their involvement.

The reforms we have set in train are still at the early stages of implementation. We have set out a transition of about three and a half years from the old system to the new. Throughout that period, however, our knowledge should not remain static, and we remain open to the suggestions, views and concerns of parents and those working in the SEN system to make sure that the work we are doing to bring about a change in culture across that system takes hold in the way we envisaged.

In that endeavour, the work my hon. Friend has undertaken in this parliamentary inquiry, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, who is ably assisting me this morning, is most welcome. I hope—indeed, I am sure—they will continue their work in their constituencies and in Parliament. I look forward to seeing their final recommendations in the inquiry’s report in the new year.

I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friends and representatives from Action Cerebral Palsy to see what more we can do to support children with cerebral palsy and their families. There is growing awareness of the issue, but still far too little. Although we are all exercised by the many points that have been raised in the debate, it is incumbent on us all to make sure that understanding and awareness are much more widespread.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak for their helpful, insightful contributions. If there is anything I have not covered, I will, in the usual way, endeavour to write to them to provide them with further details. The debate has been helpful in setting out some of the challenges that still lie ahead and the progress that has been made, although we recognise that there is still work to do.

[Mr Hoban]

It is a surprise and a pleasure to be asked to wind up the debate; I was not quite prepared for that when I came here this morning. The contributions by my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) are welcome. Given the time we have had available, they extended beyond the normal 10 minutes, which was hugely helpful in exploring some of the issues that children with CP face.

Despite having been involved with the Rainbow Centre for 13 years, I have learned so much from taking part in the inquiry, and it is a real tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) that he led the process. The inquiry demonstrated some of the complexities and challenges involved in helping children with CP, and that came out of today’s contributions in different ways.

The Minister and the shadow Minister talked about the golden years, and integrating health and education is pivotal. We heard from witnesses about some of the challenges involved in identification. We can help to identify children at a much earlier age, but there are barriers to that, and the more we can do on early identification, the easier it is to make a difference to children’s lives. In terms of the inquiry, we will want to talk with not only my hon. Friend the Minister but the Department of Health about those early years to ensure the right processes are in place.

Two big points came out of the debate. One is about integration, not only of health and education, but of the state and the private sector, or the state and the voluntary sector and charities. How can we maximise the resources that are available? One thing that strikes me is that we are in danger of operating in silos, to the detriment of children with cerebral palsy. There are great specialist services out there that are accessible, particularly in the early years, and a lot of centres are registered with Ofsted, are respected and benefit from Government funding. However, as a child grows up, the services seem almost to be teased apart. It is harder for a child at primary school to have time in their curriculum to go to a specialist centre to continue an educational programme that helps them with their motor skills, and the pressures become greater as children progress through the education system.

The more ways we can find for specialist support and mainstream schools to work together, the greater the advantages for the children and for society as a whole. We therefore need to make sure integration works, and that we see that through as part of the Government’s reforms, and it is clear from listening to the Minister what emphasis he places on the importance of successful integration.

The second point is about accountability. Accountability is important, because it is where the system will stand or fall. I am not often critical of the Government; as the Minister knows, I am a loyal supporter. His intentions are fantastic, and I know how committed he is on this issue, but we need to make sure that his intentions are followed through on the ground, and that local authorities and local health services respond, following not only the letter of the law, but the spirit of the reforms he has introduced. A lot of people will be looking carefully at the framework Ofsted will publish, to see how we can manage local accountability and national consistency. The framework should be a powerful tool to support parents, who, at the moment, feel they are working through an adversarial system.

The implementation of the reforms and the role of Ofsted are vital, but we must do everything we can to ensure proper integration between specialist services, education and health to improve the life chances of children born with cerebral palsy. There is much we need to learn about what causes cerebral palsy and about the best interventions, but I am confident that, by working together, we will improve the quality of children’s lives enormously, which will be a real testament to the success of the Government’s reforms.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I thank all Members who have taken part in this important debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Hoban Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

The evidence is that in those small number of examples where free schools have not succeeded, action is taken more swiftly than in local authority schools. There is evidence that many local authority schools languish in special measures year after year. That is not what is happening with the academies and free schools programme.

[Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham) (Con)]

21. I commend my hon. Friend on his return to the Front Bench. Free schools and academies are rightly popular with parents and many of them, such as Cams Hill in my constituency, turn children away. Will he consider giving academies and free schools the power to borrow to expand so that more parents have a choice of places for their children?

[Mr Gibb]

That is more an issue for the Treasury than for this policy. We are seeing more and more free schools coming on line, and they are popular. We already have 157 free schools in the pipeline, about 80 will be opening this September, and I am convinced that they will all be very successful.

Catholic Schools (Admissions)

Mark Hoban Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for opening the debate in such a thorough way. I will not speak for long, having aired the issues in an earlier debate, to which the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), responded. I am pleased to see the Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), in the Chamber, because he might be able to shed some light on some of the discussions that his colleague and I had in the previous debate.

It is important that we recognise the role of the Catholic Church in providing education. I, too, am a product of a Catholic education. The role of Catholic schools has been widely praised, with the most recent example I have coming from the Deputy Prime Minister. He praised faith schools, rightly highlighting:

“In my own view the crucial thing for faith schools, and I think all the best faith schools do this, is to make sure they act as engines of integration and not silos of segregation.”

He made that comment on visiting a Catholic school in east London, which perhaps provides an antidote to the slightly obsessive nature of the discussion about faith schools elsewhere in London.

The Church has a long tradition of providing education, in particular in urban areas, initially to meet the needs of migrants from Ireland, not only during the great famine, but in subsequent waves of migration as well. The view of the Catholic hierarchy, the bishops, when they established schools in England and Wales, was that this was a good way to enable migrants to integrate into the wider community, by providing them with the opportunities for education that would enable them to progress in different careers. Certainly in my own family, coming from the north-east, some found such opportunities to progress in particular through education. That is highly valued, and the role in integration is still played now with subsequent waves of migration, especially with migrants from eastern Europe. Also, in many communities throughout the country, large numbers of people from the Philippines can be seen at mass; they are in this country to work in the health service. Again, we are helping to integrate people into the wider community.

Integration is reflected in the demographics of Catholic schools. They are ethnically and socially diverse, reflecting the Church itself. To use my own experience, the Catholic school that I attended in Durham attracted pupils from a wide area, not only from leafy, middle-class housing estates in the centre of Durham, but from the former pit villages around Durham. It was a socially diverse school, different from the nearest school, which predominantly served leafy, middle-class housing estates. There is something about the catchment area of Catholic schools, and their coverage, which means that they have a much wider range.

[Robert Flello]

The hon. Gentleman’s comments put me in mind of my constituency and of my city of Stoke-on-Trent. If we compare Stoke-on-Trent with Kensington, Chelsea or Westminster, they are in almost completely different worlds, let alone different cities. Stoke-on-Trent could hardly be described as incredibly affluent, but the Catholic and indeed Church of England schools do a good job of educating people in the area.

[Mr Hoban]

Indeed. That diversity of social class is important, although I would counsel a note of caution. It is not only about what happens in Stoke-on-Trent; churches and Church schools in central London are socially diverse, and we should not get away with thinking that Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea are predominantly or exclusively upper middle-class areas.

[Robert Flello]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to come back on that point. Absolutely—I am merely illustrating a point, in case colleagues refer to the Oratory, which is not the same as Stoke-on-Trent. However, I take his point entirely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

The Oratory is socially diverse, because it allows in the children of both Prime Ministers and Deputy Prime Ministers these days. We should not forget that diversity.

The catchment areas mean that Catholic schools, rather than serving a narrow cross-section of the population, tend to serve broader communities. They are not aimed exclusively at either the children who live in pit villages or those who live in middle-class housing estates.

Free school meals have been mentioned by a number of hon. Members and the issue is a cause for concern, which is why the Catholic Education Service has looked at it carefully to understand some of the barriers. The service highlighted cultural aversion, immigration status and language as potential barriers to people claiming free school meals. We need to understand that a bit more: is there a factor here that we need to take more action on?

I have a concern about Government policy in the area—I do not have many concerns about Government policy, because I am by nature loyal.

[Robert Flello]

I paused before intervening, because I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to move on to talk about the figures. It is worth putting on record that in 2012 the difference in the number of those receiving free school meals nationally and of those receiving them in Catholic schools was about 0.7%; in 2013, the figure might have risen to about 2%. It is worth putting the scale of the difference into the context.

[Mr Hoban]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, although that closer difference is between secondary schools; the gap is slightly wider for primary schools. Nevertheless, we need to get to the bottom of the issue and to understand it.

Since Catholic schools are so diverse and so inclusive, I have a problem in understanding the nature of Government policy in the area. Why is the admissions cap in place? Why has faith been singled out for such treatment? No other cap is in place and there is no cap for ethnicity or social class; the focus appears to be entirely on faith, and yet we can see from the track record of Catholic schools that they are more representative of the population and more diverse in ethnicity and social class than schools as a whole. I find it hard to understand why the barrier is in place.

When my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk responded as the Minister in the previous debate, she talked about the need to demonstrate broad support in the community for such schools and the need for access. I could understand that if it applied to all new free schools and academies and if there were similar constraints in place on other aspects of diversity, but there are not. The cap applies only to faith schools. In a situation in which a faith school is oversubscribed, that oversubscription demonstrates that a school is popular and that people want to send their children to it, so it is more likely to have a broader range of applicants. My concern, if we are concerned about exclusivity and segregationism, is with schools of a particular faith that are undersubscribed. What message of ethos or approach is therefore being sent to other people in the community who are not of that faith? We need to be clear about why things are happening and why the cap is in place.

I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will provide the logic, because I cannot see it the moment. If I look at other factors involved in setting up free schools, one such school might be in the middle of a middle-class housing estate where there is a lack of capacity, and yet there is no requirement to ship pupils in from other areas. Such a school could serve exclusively children from that middle-class area. There is no constraint on that or any cap to require pupils coming from elsewhere. I am not sure what mischief the Government are seeking to address by such a narrow approach to one aspect of admissions policy.

My right hon. Friend the Minister might be able to shed some light on one aspect of the issue, because he was there at the birth of the coalition. The cap flows from language in the coalition agreement, but I am not clear whose ask that was. Was it an ask of my party or of his? I suspect that I know the answer, because the Liberal Democrat manifesto for which the Minister stood in 2010 pledged to prevent faith schools selecting on the basis of their religion. I suspect that the policy flows from that manifesto commitment. Since he and others have now had experience of Catholic schools, he might feel that that manifesto commitment is no longer appropriate. The Liberal Democrats might seek to change that. I will be interested to see if that is their policy.

I do not see where that commitment sits logically in an admissions policy. Why have the Government decided on that one demographic characteristic, above all others, in determining admissions policy? I do not think it is logical. It is perceived to be unfair and discriminatory, and is certainly preventing the establishment of new Catholic free schools and academies that could support the demand for places and want to be able to offer a Catholic education but do not want to be in the position, as would be the case under this policy, of having to turn away Catholic parents. That is the barrier—those schools would have to turn Catholics away under the policy.

I would like my right hon. Friend to explain the logic behind the policy—why it is faith that has been singled out, and no other demographic characteristic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes, indeed. I have looked at all the statistics in the report, some of which my hon. Friend mentioned earlier, and I have commended the Catholic Education Service for the serious effort it has made to look into the issue. If people look at the statistics, they could say that the problem, if there is one, might be elsewhere, rather than necessarily in Catholic schools. I will not pursue that any further, however, because it is not the subject of today’s debate.

When a system is in place to adjudicate on the fairness of schools admissions, and when a body is in place against which those admissions should be tested, schools should take them seriously and not try to evade them. I thought it was disappointing earlier in the Parliament when the role of schools adjudicator was weakened and watered down by the Government. I put on the record the fact that we intend to strengthen the role, should we be elected at the next general election.

[Mr Hoban]

Given that the hon. Gentleman is talking about policy and going back to the Opposition’s position prior to this Government’s being elected, I should say that his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), when Secretary of State for Education, flirted with the idea of imposing quotas on faith schools of those who were not of the relevant faith—I think it was about 25%. Is that a policy he intends to go back to?

[Kevin Brennan]

No, it is not, and it will not be Labour policy. For the very reasons I have outlined, I do not think that is in any way necessary—but it is necessary that there should be fair admissions, which is the point that I am making. All schools, when they are criticised by the schools adjudicator, should not try to evade the issue. They should take it seriously and ensure that their admissions policies are meeting the criteria.

Yesterday, the former Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), issued a report for the Labour Front-Bench team. I will read a short bit from it, to put it on the record—although it is a consultation, it is essentially an outline of the position that Labour are taking regarding admissions. We said that

“whilst the Office of the Schools Adjudicator…annual report noted that only 10% of Local Authorities objected to the arrangements of other admission authorities in their area, the OSA has separate evidence of much more widespread non-compliance. This review recommends that the School Admissions Code is strengthened by removing the possibility of individual schools ‘opting-out’ of the locally agreed admissions framework. This would not prevent changes to arrangements locally or agreed experimentation by Admissions Authorities, but would avoid the detrimental impact of rogue action with one school damaging the admissions of other schools in the locality. This recommendation does not interfere with the role of diocesan authorities, academies or schools as their own ‘Admissions Authority’, but reinforces the necessity of agreed and coherent arrangements within the relevant local area.”

It is important to put that statement on the record, because there are concerns about the watering down of the role of the schools adjudicator by the current Government and about the continuing disintegration and fragmentation of the school system as a result of the Government’s academisation and free school policy. I commend the document to hon. Members, if they would like to read it further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I am sufficiently well versed in Catholic theology to know that there is no distinction between Catholics, regardless of when they were baptised. Of course that would not be applicable; it would be ludicrous if that were the case.

This has been a very good debate. It is extremely important that we have an opportunity to air these subjects. I want to place on the record my support and praise for the work of Catholic schools throughout the country and to commend, as I said, the Catholic Education Service for the serious engagement that it has had with the issue in relation to admissions. I ask the Minister to respond to the questions that hon. Members have raised about the 50% rule with regard to free schools and to give an answer about why voluntary aided schools cannot be set up as quickly and easily as free schools under this Government’s policy.

[Mr Hoban]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Brennan]

I will, because there is a bit of extra time.

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Gentleman wants to find out what the Government’s policy is. Will he elaborate on what his policy is in connection with the Labour party’s replacement for free schools? Will those schools be subject to the same cap as applies to free schools at the moment?

[Kevin Brennan]

I commend the document to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he will find all the answers contained therein. I shall finish my speech at that point.

Free Schools and Academies

Mark Hoban Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs Riordan.

My interest in school choice is a long-standing one. On my bookshelf at home are pamphlets and books dating back to the ’80s and ’90s about the links between diversity, choice and standards. I helped to draft our education policy for the 2005 election, which had as one of its key tenets parents’ right to choose a school for their child. However, my interest is not purely political; it is personal, too—predating my interest in politics. My parents did not choose the nearest school to our home for me or my sisters. They chose state Catholic primary and secondary schools for us, which required a bus or car journey to get there. My nieces and nephew go to the same schools in Durham today.

I am proud of the Government’s work to expand the diversity of schools through the academy and free school programme, thereby creating choice for parents, but two things have been clear to me throughout. Choice is a reality only when there is diversity and capacity. It is real only when there are different types of school for parents to choose between; and there must be enough capacity in the system to enable parents to get their child into the school of their choice.

I want to highlight two barriers to choice: one that limits diversity and one that limits capacity. I am committed, as a matter of my political beliefs, to school choice, and I find it hard when a policy of the Government whom I support effectively prevents the next generation of Catholics from attending a Catholic school, in areas where there is neither a Catholic school nor adequate capacity. Our current policy encourages all new schools to be either academies or free schools, and that route should add to 243 existing Catholic academy schools. Unfortunately, there is a cap on faith-based admissions that inhibits the willingness of Catholics to sponsor a new academy or free school, and therefore limits the diversity of academies and free schools.

The current policy requires, in the interest of inclusion, that oversubscribed denominational schools be able to reserve only 50% of their places for children of the relevant faith. That flows from the coalition agreement:

“We will ensure that all new Academies follow an inclusive admissions policy. We will work with faith groups to enable more faith schools and facilitate inclusive admissions policies in as many of these schools as possible.”

That is a one-dimensional view of inclusivity; 34.5% of children in Catholic primaries are from an ethnic minority background, compared with 28.5 % nationally, and 17.3% of children in Catholic secondary schools live in deprived areas, compared with 12.2% nationally. Of course, Catholic schools are also popular with non-Catholics.

Why does the cap matter? A Catholic free school or academy is likely to open only in an area with a large Catholic community, where there is no—or limited—provision; given the popularity of Catholic schools with Catholics and non-Catholics alike, many will be forced, in practice, to turn away Catholic pupils to meet the 50% cap. The Church is concerned because, first, Bishops are required to ensure that where there is a demand for Catholic education it is satisfied; they feel that it would be a breach of canon law to support a school that turned away Catholic children. Secondly, there is a broader point about ethos. There is something different about a Catholic school and its values. There are aspects of school life that are bound up in the sacramental life of the school—participation in mass, a set of shared values, and reference points that relate to the Church and its teaching. It is hard to see how those shared values and ethos can be maintained if half the pupils cannot relate to the practice of the Catholic faith.

That is not to say that the schools in question should be exclusively Catholic. Indeed, three in 10 children in Catholic schools are non-Catholics. However, a point comes where the dilution of a school’s Catholicity means it loses its ethos, and it loses parental support. I will give two examples of that. In Oxford, St Augustine’s was a joint Catholic and Church of England school, but parents did not perceive it as Catholic from its admissions arrangements and therefore saw no discernible difference between it and other state schools in the area; they viewed them all as non-Catholic. Parents voted with their feet, and chose not to send their children to St. Augustine’s. The archdiocese closed the school owing to the lack of demand from local Catholics, and then founded a Catholic school called St Gregory the Great, with Catholic admissions arrangements, which remains successful and oversubscribed.

In Bromley, there is a gap in provision owing to the closure of an existing Catholic school, which Catholic parents did not recognise. St John Rigby was a small Catholic secondary school serving the local Catholic community. It became a grant-maintained school and, without the consent of the archdiocese, doubled in size, despite the fact that there was no additional demand for Catholic places. That meant that the percentage of Catholics in the school decreased massively and Catholic parents stopped sending their children there. Without support from the Catholic community the school entered special measures and was later closed by the local authority.

The faith-based admissions cap is a disincentive to the Catholic Church to set up faith schools, because it dilutes their ethos. I am sure the Minister will say that other faiths are less concerned about that. However, if a faith group establishes a school that is not oversubscribed by parents of the relevant faith or, indeed, other faiths, then the cap does not apply. Some people might be content with the working of the dilutive effect that I have described, but the experience of the Catholic Church has not been positive. The Minister might point out that the voluntary-aided route is still available, and he could give the example of the new Catholic school in Richmond, but councils are required to meet unmet demand through academies and free schools first, and funding is biased towards them. We would have a richer and more diverse set of free schools and academies if the cap were removed. It would give more parents the chance to give their children the education in values that they support.

As I said at the outset, to make choice real, we need some capacity in the system to accommodate parental demand; otherwise, we will need to turn children away. So, schools need to be able to expand. However, limited capital resources mean that only 142 of the 518 academies that applied for money from the Education Funding Agency to expand in the period June 2012 to October 2013 were accepted. In other words, almost 400 schools turned away children and their parents because of lack of capacity. I know we cannot write a blank cheque to fund the expansion of schools, but there must be something we can do to stop seven out of every 10 applications being turned down. I believe that the solution is to allow our best schools to build on their success and borrow to satisfy demand.

Schools used to be able to borrow. Cams Hill school in my constituency is a popular academy. It increased its intake last September from 210 to 240 and will take another 240 pupils this September, turning down applications from a further 30 pupils. However, in 2015, because of space constraints, it will have to revert to an intake of 210 pupils. Demand from parents will not diminish, but the school’s ability to meet that demand will. It has paid off its mortgage and in the past has borrowed money, to fund a new sports hall. It would like to do so again, so that it can permanently increase its intake to 240, but that route is now closed. The school cannot borrow.

However, things are actually not as clear-cut as that. In a written answer on 25 October 2013, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), said at columns 300W to 301W that, in the 12 months to 22 October 2013, 44 schools were given permission to borrow. Of those instances, 39 were for energy efficiency projects; none were to make it possible to expand. Schools can borrow, therefore—but not for expansion. Sixth-form colleges and further education colleges can and do borrow. The principal of one sixth-form college said to me that it was a vital freedom and that it enabled him to modernise and expand his provision to meet local needs.

Why, then, cannot academies and free schools borrow? According to parliamentary answers and correspondence I have had it is because the borrowing of academies and free schools would count towards Government debt and the deficit. The Secretary of State would therefore have to approve borrowing to fund expansion and, because he does not want to add to the debt, he will not do so. So how is it that sixth-form and FE colleges borrow? The explanation is that the Education Act 2011 scrapped the Secretary of State’s controls over their borrowing, and consequently the Office for National Statistics decided to take FE and sixth-form college debt off the Government balance sheet. There is a simple solution. If the Secretary of State scrapped his control over borrowing by academies and free schools, their borrowings would not count towards Government debt. Academies and free schools are already entrusted to make decisions about the terms and conditions of staff, curriculum delivery, term times and length of school day. The measure I suggest would give them another freedom: the freedom to borrow and to expand.

As the record of Cams Hill shows, schools can borrow and pay back without a problem. The record of sixth-form and FE colleges shows that they can manage their finances well. They do not fail due to financial pressures. They are subject to proper financial controls and scrutiny, as are academies and free schools. If we can trust our academies and free schools with our children’s future, why can we not trust them to borrow, so that choice becomes a reality for more parents?

I believe, as a Conservative, that we should support parents who have a clear vision of their children’s education. Parents who want to send their child to a particular school should not be held back when it is possible for their wishes to be accommodated. Popular schools should be allowed to expand, even if they have to borrow money to do so. Parents who want to send their child to a faith school should be permitted to do so, but our policy on faith-based admissions is a block on Catholics opening new schools to give parents that choice. Two simple changes could deepen the revolution in choice and standards that this Government have championed.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban) on securing the debate. I completely agree with him about the need for diversity and choice in our school system and how they lead to a raising of standards. Certainly, that was the outcome of a programme for international student assessment study, which shows that schools with a high degree of autonomy and accountability generally succeed in raising standards throughout the system.

As a Government, we recognise the important contribution made by Church and faith schools to the education system. Around a third of schools are Church or faith schools, and an increasing number are converting to academy status to take advantage of the freedoms offered by the academies programme. Church and faith schools are popular with parents—many are oversubscribed—and they are some of the highest-performing schools in the country.

The free schools programme represents a new approach to how schools are established and it is offering new opportunities, to groups of all faiths and none, to set up new schools in the community; 37 of the 182 open free schools are faith schools. Faith free schools and new-provision academies must be open and welcoming to the communities around them. Unlike voluntary aided schools or converted faith academies, they may only prioritise a maximum of 50% of places by reference to faith when the school is oversubscribed. Of course, if the school is not oversubscribed, more children of that faith may be admitted.

Catholic schools in particular have a long and proud history of championing high standards and extending opportunities. They consistently outperform other kinds of state schools. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham is aware, the Education Act 1944 brought many Church schools into the state education system, including from the Catholic sector, and we continue to benefit from that settlement today. The education landscape, however, has changed since 1944. Academies and free schools represent a new approach to creating new schools, including faith schools, and new faith free schools and new faith academies, when oversubscribed, may admit only up to 50% of their pupils according to faith.

If the Government fund new faith-school provision, it is right that a proportion of the places be available to the whole community, including those of other faiths and none. That does not mean that other places must be allocated to pupils who are not of the faith; as I mentioned earlier, they must rather be allocated according to other oversubscription criteria.

I acknowledge, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that the Catholic sector has objections to our policy on admissions to faith free schools. I know that the Catholic Education Service has been in discussion with Department officials. We remain committed to continuing our engagement with the CES, although I point out that we have no intention of changing or removing the 50% limit.

[Mr Hoban]

Why has a quota been set for admissions based on faith, but not for other characteristics such as social class, gender or ethnicity? Why has faith been singled out?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The quota was set so that we are able to ensure that a broad range of the community may attend those community-based schools.

On the point made by my hon. Friend about voluntary aided schools, I should say that local councils have an option, where there is oversubscription or high demand for faith schools, to set up new voluntary aided schools. The academy route does not have to be looked at first; if there is demand for faith-based education in a local area, a diocese, for example, may propose a new school outside the academy route. High demand for faith places therefore provides a diocese with the opportunity to propose a non-academy route. On funding, we ensure that funding to all schools is fair within each local area. Funding is not biased towards academies or free schools, as my hon. Friend suggested.

The point of the new academies and free schools is that they should have a broad base in the community, hence the limit of 50% on children from a particular faith when there is oversubscription. When there is strong demand for a faith school in a local area, however, the diocese can propose a new school not through the academy route; there is that option for such schools.

The second point made by my hon. Friend was about borrowing by academies and free schools. He made a good case and I acknowledge his point about further education, for example, and other types of public institution being able to borrow, but academies are restricted from borrowing without the express prior permission of the Secretary of State. The restriction is set out in the funding agreements and in the academies financial handbook.

The Department’s general position is that commercial borrowing is rarely considered to be good value for money, as the interest and finance charges are normally higher than rates available to the Government. I acknowledge, however, my hon. Friend’s point about the autonomy of schools and about the degree of freedom given to make such decisions. The result of that presumption by the Department is that permission to borrow is given only exceptionally, in part because academies are classified by the Office for National Statistics as public sector bodies. That is different from the classification of further education colleges. Any borrowing undertaken by academies therefore is also counted in measures used to calculate public sector debt.

[Mr Hoban]

FE colleges’ debt used to be on the Government balance sheet; once the Secretary of State scrapped his controls over their borrowing, their debt moved away from the Government balance sheet and did not count towards Government debt and the deficit. The Department can make a simple change to remove the debt from the Government balance sheet and put it into the private sector.

[Elizabeth Truss]

The issue is the way in which the Office for National Statistics carries out the classification, rather than the Department for Education.

[Mr Hoban]

I am sorry to be persistent, but having looked at the note from the ONS on the reclassification of FE colleges, it appears that one of the things that changed its view on whether the colleges’ debt should sit on the public sector balance sheet or a non-government sector balance sheet was control. When control in the FE sector was scrapped under the Education Act 2011, the ONS changed the classification and took that debt off the Government’s balance sheet.

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but that would require a change in our policy on academies and free schools, not specifically on borrowing, but more generally on autonomy. As I discussed earlier and as the PISA study demonstrates, there is always a balance to be struck between autonomy and accountability in the school system. The ONS says that the balance between autonomy and accountability dictates that academies are classified as public sector bodies, so any change would require amendment to the Department for Education’s legislation on the structure of academies.

The Government are committed to the careful control of public spending to bring down the national deficit and retain economic confidence. Under the status quo, in the 12 months to October 2013 five formal requests were received from academies, all of which were approved. Formal requests tend to follow an informal discussion with academies, which is the point at which most proposals are terminated.

We want good schools to have the flexibility to expand, and have taken big strides to allow academies greater financial freedoms—for example, the ability to carry forward surpluses—but we understand that academies would like to have more, particularly on borrowing. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Office for National Statistics determines the classification of all bodies, and all academies are currently classified as central Government public sector bodies. The ONS makes decisions independent of Government, subject to international accounting standards.

My hon. Friend made the case that we should change the regulations for academies to give them more financial freedom. That debate is about the level of freedom and autonomy that academies are given and is separate from the question whether academies should be able to borrow.

This has been an extremely helpful debate. There are routes by which new faith schools can be set up with 100% admission from faith-based communities. However, new academies and free schools have a cap of 50% in cases where there is over-subscription, and we do not have any plans to change that at the moment. I am interested in my hon. Friend’s points about borrowing, and I will ask officials to look at the details of that, to see what would be required for the ONS to change the classification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

I asked the Minister earlier why the Government had not set quotas on ethnicity, gender and social class but had chosen to single out faith. Will she clarify why that is the case?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Obviously, we do not have schools based on social class. The question of gender is interesting. The cap is a specific measure to make sure that, as widely as possible, members of all the community are represented in new schools. There are routes by which faith-based schools can expand and new faith-based schools can be established, but the 100% route is not part of the academies and free schools programme.