Childcare Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Before I start, may I thank the Clerks and the Whips who have helped me to get to this point today? In particular, I thank the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), for her kindness and indulgence over a number of weeks.

I begin by recognising the contribution and hard work of the army of childcare providers in this country. Each day, thousands of families entrust their children to professionals who have dedicated their lives to caring for this nation’s young people. It is a vocation and it can be challenging, but without it we would all be so much worse off as a country.

The impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the necessary measures taken to keep us all safe have had a huge impact on children, and we now have an opportunity to work even harder to make up for the time that has been lost. We will all have seen in our constituencies the childcare providers who went all out to support the children of key workers. They put themselves in the frontline to keep our country going, while ensuring that children could continue their early years learning, even in the most stressful and difficult of situations.

I want every family in Reading, Caversham, Woodley and the whole United Kingdom to have the best possible start in life when it comes to their own childcare arrangements. I know that all Members of the House share that wish. We all want every young person to have the best possible start, and we all want to bring an end to the inequality that results from where someone is born, which can, even before their first birthday, shape their opportunities in life.

As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the Budget on Wednesday,

“the first 1,001 days of a child’s life are the most important.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 277.]

I genuinely welcome the announcement of investment in early years provision that the Chancellor made this week. It is clear that he and I, and I believe the whole House, share a view that we must level up childcare and early years provision in this country to support our children, support their families and, ultimately, support our economy. All the evidence shows that children who access early years education go on to achieve so much more.

This short Bill is entirely complementary to those Budget commitments and the House’s shared aspiration for our country’s children, and I will explain why. I will focus on three areas: first, the importance of a good start in the early years; secondly, the current system and where there is room for improvement; and thirdly, why it should be a national conversation and why we should have a serious debate about the future childcare system we want.

Every £1 invested in the early years is the equivalent of £8 invested in later education. Imagine any other industry or sector in which a £1 investment produced an £8 return every time—we would all be rushing, cheque books in hand, to invest. That is exactly what early years provision and childcare do for our children. Along with the love and support of parents and extended families, they provide a balanced and well-rounded introduction to life, which in turn reduces the cost to the country later. Every £1 invested gives children the skills and confidence that they need to learn, grow and thrive. It is what I wanted for my children, and what I want now for the nation’s children.

A well-resourced and comprehensive childcare offer in the early years is an engine that can drive social mobility. Early intervention, through early years provision, gives children a greater chance of accessing higher education and of securing apprenticeships. Those interventions really open doors later in life.

Every Member will have visited primary schools in their constituencies and heard from teachers of reception and year 1 classes who tell us that there is a marked difference in the development of children who have been immersed in early years support compared with those who have not. More people are accessing childcare now than a generation ago. The Nuffield Foundation reported that almost all children attend some form of early years education or childcare arrangement before entering school. That is a huge step forward for the country.

My Bill seeks not to amend or change the current provision in any way, but to champion it and to do all we can to ensure that everyone who is entitled to support knows about it and gets what they need. Clause 3 places a new duty on the Secretary of State for Education to prepare a strategy that promotes the availability of childcare and the benefits of early years provision to all eligible parents. As that is a devolved matter in the other nations of the United Kingdom, the Bill relates only to England. It would make the Secretary of State the named champion of childcare in England and it would compel the Department for Education to consider how the whole Government and the wider public sector, together with voluntary and private partners, can support and promote this important sector.

Crucially, the strategy would also have to consider how that information was delivered to parents in disadvantaged groups, which is levelling up. That is important because the research from the sector and think-tanks—I mentioned the Nuffield Foundation, which has done some excellent work on it—suggests that the children who would benefit most from free early years childcare are, sadly, least likely to access it.

According to the Nuffield Foundation, a third of children eligible for the funded two-year-old places are missing out, which is a tragedy. I want those children to access the help and support their families are entitled to, so that they can reach their full potential when they start primary school.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Will Quince)]

indicated assent.

[Matt Rodda]

I am grateful for the Minister’s support and I know that he believes passionately in this agenda. Clause 3 seeks to do that by using the power of the Government and of the wider public sector and other partners to promote childcare availability to children who need it most—a modest ask that could make a huge difference to our whole country.

I turn to clause 2—I am approaching the Bill from the bottom up, which may be appropriate in the world of levelling up—which addresses the elephant in the room: what sort of childcare system do we want in this country? Much like clause 3, the clause does not seek to change current provision. I want to be clear about that to all Members present, and I believe we can work consensually on this important matter. I stand here today not to present answers but merely to facilitate a debate, with the support of the Minister and of other colleagues.

Governments of all political parties have been involved in shaping the childcare sector available to families today. From the Sure Start revolution of the last Labour Government to the new family hubs recently announced by the current Government, every Government have left their fingerprints on the sector. I am afraid this has led to a patchwork of provision in which postcodes, rather than local need, may determine services and in which anomalies have unfortunately been allowed to flourish. This does little to close the educational attainment gap, about which I spoke earlier.

Some areas are blessed with maintained nurseries, and Reading is one of those lucky areas. It is a system in which teacher-led provision, maintained by local authorities, provides the early years foundation curriculum in a more formal setting. I pay tribute to the maintained nurseries in my constituency and in other parts of Reading for their excellent work. However, local authority funding is currently challenged and there has been a decline in the number of places available across the country. Some maintained nurseries, luckily not in my area, have closed their doors.

Other communities are fortunate to have well-run provision in the private and voluntary sectors, either independent or linked to a primary school or multi-academy trust. There is a good mix between early years, as a precursor to school, and other long-established community providers that have often cared for successive generations of each family.

Consistency varies across the country and funding arrangements, due to their complexity, can be off-putting. Some two-year-olds may be eligible for free childcare depending on household income or entitlement to certain benefits, such as universal credit or tax credits. People who earn less than £16,000 before tax and are in receipt of tax credits will be eligible for a free place for their two-year-old. If their child is entitled to disability living allowance or personal independence payment, they may also be eligible for a free childcare place at the age of two.

However, everything changes when the child turns three, when all children become eligible for 15 hours of free childcare regardless of whether their parents are working. Working parents may be entitled to an additional 15 hours a week, taking it up to 30 free hours, but these extra hours are available to some other parents depending on household income and circumstances. My description shows how the system is complicated and difficult for parents to understand.

Although the system for three-year-olds does not sound too dissimilar to the arrangements for two-year-olds, I am afraid it is. The eligibility for two-year-olds is aimed at the lowest paid and the unemployed, but the eligibility for the additional 15 hours for three and four-year-olds is for those who work more than 16 hours a week and who have a household income up to £100,000. This means that the additional hours are disproportionately going to the children of wealthier parents who are in work and whose educational development is less likely to be held back. Unfortunately, this extra money is going to those slightly better off families.

My Bill does not propose changing the thresholds, but clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to appoint an independent person to lead a review of childcare schemes across England.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give thought to why there is 15 hours of free childcare only in term time, when many people are trying to go back to work and a full-time job requires them to work in the school holidays, too? Why will the Government fund childcare only outside the school holidays?

[Matt Rodda]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and the review I propose would, indeed, cover such issues.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about an independent person. Does he not see the benefit of the Children’s Commissioner? They are already in place and effectively already have that role, or will the independent person be under the Children’s Commissioner?

[Matt Rodda]

I will go on to make some further suggestions for the type of independent review, and I am grateful for that suggestion on the Children’s Commissioner.

The Bill does not propose changing the system itself, but it would allow the Government to appoint an independent person to lead a review of free childcare schemes in England. I believe this could have the same powerful impact as previous education reviews led by respected figures with cross-party support. I am thinking of—this goes back a bit into history—the Dearing review of A-levels in the 1990s, or the more recent Augar review of higher education funding. Sometimes, getting a fresh perspective can tease out problems and help to construct collaborative and co-operative solutions that are driven by the sector. Clause 2 would bring together, under the leadership of that independent person, providers, parents, research organisations and others that they saw fit, to take a proper look at how we take childcare forward in this century.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

I am particularly interested in this Bill, as a former special adviser at the Department for Education. Clause 2 sets out the different things that the review must consider. Would the hon. Gentleman consider, perhaps in Committee, including the strategy to increase awareness, as set out in clause 3(3)? Some of the most disadvantaged people do not take up the provision that is currently available, so a review could be helpful if it also considered how to better engage those groups with what he is trying to achieve.

[Matt Rodda]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; he makes a thoughtful point. He is absolutely right that there is a connection between raising awareness of this vital sector and the role of the review, and I would be grateful to work with him on that. As a former civil servant in the Department, I am very aware of the pressures and difficulty of trying to make the most of our ability to communicate with parents and the difficulty of reaching hard-to-reach groups.

The review would seek answers and pragmatic, practical solutions to the challenge that we have discussed today. That is very much what is needed at this stage. It is not just me calling for this; over 13,000 people signed a petition requesting a review. The National Day Nurseries Association has stated that childcare providers want the system to change in order to ensure that it works for all parents. The national day care alliance estimates that the childcare sector is facing other issues, which could also be discussed by the review, such as the potential shortfall of around £2 billion a year in Government funding, which the alliance believes is needed to meet the costs associated with providing free childcare on offer. As a result, nurseries are forced to charge higher costs to fee-paying families to cross-subsidise those eligible for free care. This, I am afraid, is robbing Peter to pay Paul and drives up the cost of childcare for everyone in the country.

Finally, during the recent debate in the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), the then Minister, said a review would not be appropriate before the comprehensive spending review. We have now had the Budget and the CSR, so I believe the timing is right. I am grateful to the current Minister for engaging. I believe that, as a new Minister, he may have a wonderful opportunity to take this forward. This is the perfect time to look at the system and ask ourselves whether it is the very best it can be.

The Chancellor spoke on Wednesday of moving to a post-covid economy. To support that post-covid economy, we need a post-covid childcare system that underpins and supports as many parents as possible back into work. We need a system that works for parents, providers and the whole country, but most importantly we need to invest in our children. I will work with anyone in this place to ensure that our children are given the best possible start in life.

As I draw my remarks to a close, I would like to spend a moment, with the House’s indulgence, thanking some of those who have so graciously supported this work. This place can be a maze of process and procedure but, with patience and good humour, the Whips and the Clerks are there to help. I again pay tribute not only to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), but to the Clerks and other people who have supported me. I also thank the media, including Grazia magazine, which is also campaigning on this issue, and others who are supporting me. I would like to offer my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who have supported my endeavours with this Bill and provided sound advice where it was needed. To the Minister, I say once again that I believe—and I believe that he sees it in this way—that politics does not need to be confrontational. It does not have to be angry, as we have seen in the last few days. We can work together and seek compromise, and find better solutions, precisely because we are working together.

The Minister has been generous with his time, and despite our political differences, he has engaged in constructive debate and discussion. Whatever happens today, I hope that in his contribution he will consider the good faith that I bring to the Bill, and will feel able—perhaps because of his own experience—to meet me and representatives of the sector to see how we can progress this issue.

I believe that investing in early years education is one of the first duties of Government. It is the right thing to do, and now is the time to do it. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda]

With the leave of the House, I beg to withdraw the motion that the Bill be read a Second time. I wholeheartedly thank the Minister for his genuine commitment to this important issue and the way that he has engaged with me. I am extremely grateful to him and look forward to working with him. I listened carefully to his speech and those of others Members. I want to express my thanks and my genuine pleasure in working in a cross-party way. I believe that we as a House have shown something very positive today: that we can work across the House in a thoughtful and measured way to achieve something of great national importance.

I am deeply grateful to everybody who has spoken and for their thoughtful suggestions, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for her point and the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) for his knowledgeable points, which showed his experience in the Department, along with the hon. Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) and many others for their thoughtful and timely points. I look forward to working with the Minister and colleagues across the House on this important matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

Investing in Children and Young People

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for advocating a similar policy to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) when she was Chair of the Education Committee in 2000.

We should respect the fact that there is general agreement in this House that one of the first duties of any Government is to invest in education and our children’s future, and I am glad that that sentiment has been expressed in this debate.

I thank teachers, parents and students for their hard work and perseverance during what has been an extremely difficult year that no one could have anticipated. The pandemic was clearly a once-in-a-century event. We need to try to put ourselves in the place of those young people and imagine—it is very difficult to do this—what they have been through in this incredibly difficult year. They have faced all sorts of obstacles, as have their teachers, and they have risen to enormous challenges, but despite all that effort, they have still fallen behind in their studies, through no fault of their own. This once-in-a-century event demands a response in line with the scale of the problem, and I am afraid that for all the warm words and the emphasis on the importance of education, there has clearly been a failure of Government on this important issue.

Looking at this in very general terms without getting distracted by the detail—we have had some interesting debates about education policy, and I am sure more will follow later as the debate pans out—there is the central question of money. On the issue of whether the Government are willing to commit sufficient national resources to this crucial problem, they have fallen short, as £50 per child is not comparable with £1,600 per child in the United States or £2,000 in the Netherlands. Both those countries have followed active policies of school reform and investment in education over 20 to 30 years, as arguably we have also done in that time.

It is important to see this in the context not just of the detail of education policy but of the Department’s failure of leadership—I do not say that lightly—on a series of crucial issues during the last few months: its woeful mismanagement of the exam system last year; its failure on universities, where first-year students faced unbelievable pressure due to mismanagement; the failure of its tutoring programme; and its repeated failure on free school meals and holidays, where it had to be pushed by a footballer. I commend Marcus Rashford for his work—I am not a Man United fan, I am afraid, but he has done the most amazing job on this and we should all respect him—but the issue should have been taken up by Ministers long before he needed to come in and save the day.

What is worse, that follows a series of very poor decisions since 2010. The Minister may try, in a very smooth and sophisticated way, to defend some of those spending decisions, but it is quite clear that there has been a lack of investment in education since then. On teachers’ pay and a series of other indicators, this country fell behind where it should have been. That was a conscious decision of the Government, and it has led to a series of major problems in the system, such as the crisis in special needs—arguably, it deeply worsened that—the recruitment and retention crisis among teachers, which has a direct effect on children’s learning, and a series of other problems.

It is no good trying to criticise the record of the Labour Government from 1997 to 2010 when, clearly, there was both major investment and, as a result, a major improvement in standards and attainment, demonstrable on a whole series of metrics. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) quoted selectively from some international studies when a whole range of extra countries joined them in the intervening period.

I appreciate that I am nearly out of time. The question now is, will the Prime Minister and the Chancellor rethink—will they listen to their own officials and, I believe, the ministerial team at the DFE—or will this be another example of the Government’s being all talk and, I am afraid, very little action?

Special Educational Needs

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), my Berkshire colleague, for securing the debate. He made a very interesting contribution. His comments were thoughtful and powerful, and I found the whole tone of the debate interesting and, in many ways, quite humbling. I agree with what has been said by many Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), who both made excellent points.

Reading, like many other places, suffers from quite significant underfunding in this important area, as I am sure the Minister is aware, and I will talk about that in some detail later. Our borough council is ranked 132nd out of the 150 English local authorities in terms of the funding that it receives for SEND. Obviously, in an area of considerable need there is a great shortfall for many local families, who are hugely affected by that. I would like to address one particular set of challenges later.

I want to talk about the overall pressure on families at this time and, in particular, to reflect on the very difficult year that so many families have been through. I hope that the Minister will consider, in particular, what this year has meant for those families who have a child with SEND, and the intense additional pressures that those children and families have been through. I would like her to meet some of the families with me and to explore this issue further, because the very difficult issue of SEND and supporting families adequately in the system in a proper way has been exacerbated by the dreadful pandemic. I hope we can discuss that further.

I will move on to the specifics, as I realise that time is pressing. The delays in the raising and diagnosing of particular problems are significant. That has been an issue in this country for many years. We obviously need a much better supply of trained staff and support in schools and other settings. Ultimately, that means more Government spending, because the staff are highly trained graduates who work as part of a team. They need the support of their colleagues in a school or other setting. I have often heard from headteachers and others about the need for that team approach to the proper resourcing of our public sector.

I wonder whether the Minister might meet me to discuss an important issue in my constituency. I do want to go into enormous details because it is sub judice—there is a court case coming up. I would like to discuss with her in person and with a local family the transition of children with SEND from primary to secondary school. I see the Minister is nodding; I appreciate her support. There are some particular issues that our local schools and families may be able to help her to explore further. We would like some support on this issue, but I do not want to go into too much detail because of the court case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North, who spoke eloquently, said that some amazing work has been done in our communities. Like her, I want to thank some local groups. There are too many to mention all of them, but it was a pleasure to help the families and staff at Redlands Primary School in Reading a few days ago with work on their sensory garden. Unfortunately, due to lack of funding, it has been provided by donations. It is a wonderful resource that the families themselves and the school have come up with, to help calm and support children in a Victorian school environment with very limited green space, through careful use of planting and attractive artwork. They are offering therapy for children in their play time, which is very valuable, and I commend them for that work.

Finally, I hope the Minister will look at the wider issue of education funding, particularly support for SEND for the lifetime of the child as they move into adulthood.

Education: Return in January

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

I join my hon. Friend in his thanks. I know that he served in the Royal Air Force for a number of years, so he has a particular fondness for our armed forces, as we all do. The armed forces have done an amazing job. Looking at the sheer number of schools across the country and the whole workforce within them, we felt that it would not be right or proper to ask the armed forces to deliver testing in every single secondary school. That is why we have provided additional financial support for schools to help them deliver the mass testing regime. We are very fortunate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has agreed a Military Aid to the Civil Authorities request that means that we are able to provide military support to schools that are really struggling to set up a testing regime. We believe that when they are set up, schools will be in an excellent position to keep running and have a real impact in driving down coronavirus infection rates in my hon. Friend’s constituency and all our constituencies.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I, too, pay tribute to schools, teachers, support staff and young people in my constituency for the incredibly effective way that they responded to the coronavirus crisis in the autumn. However, as the Secretary of State knows, the pressures on schools in tier 4 areas are significant, and they are growing all the time. Will he commit to reviewing the level of support that is being provided? It is clear that, with just half a member of the armed forces per English secondary school, that level of support is quite meagre.

[Gavin Williamson]

We are providing schools with the resources to deliver the testing programme themselves. We would look at providing armed forces personnel only in the most exceptional circumstances where a school, for whatever reason, is unable to set up a testing regime. We have given schools the extra time as well as the £78 million in order for all secondary schools to establish a regime. In exceptional circumstances we have teams, supported by the armed forces and Ofsted as well as the Department for Education, to help get a regime up and running and support schools so that every secondary school can have a mass testing regime.

Free School Meals

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

In 2010, the incoming Conservative Prime Minister promised to fix what he termed “broken Britain”. A decade later, we are having a debate about whether or not children go hungry next week and I have to run a food bank from my constituency office. When Labour left office, 40,000 were using food banks, last year it was 1.4 million people, 7,000 of whom were in Southwark, including hundreds of working people.

My constituency is at heart of London. It may be the capital city of the fifth wealthiest nation on the planet, but in some wards child poverty is as high as 40%. It was the coalition who scrapped the proper measurement of poverty and then scrapped the previous Labour Government’s statutory commitment to end child poverty by this year—by 2020. Today’s debate shows the impact of that downgrade of the need to tackle child poverty. It was not just a downgrade, but a direct exacerbation of the problem directly imposed by Government policies. The Secretary State waxed lyrical about universal credit with its perverse and catastrophic five-week delay, but the Government’s own statistics show that, this year, more than 200,000 people who applied for universal credit were paid after five weeks. A third of the applicants got nothing and others have been forced to take out a loan from the Department for Work and Pensions, totalling now almost £1 billion. People sought help, but all they were given was debt and no recourse to public funds, which was a condition imposed on some people, but which leaves children growing up without access to the same support as the kid they were born next to at St Thomas’s Hospital and sit next to at St Saviour’s school. The Children’s Society tells us that there are 175,000 children in that position. The Home Office refused to release the figure, even though the Prime Minister promised that he would. I ask Members to contrast that pernicious national Government approach of state-sponsored food poverty with a willingness to help elsewhere.

I am proud of the efforts of my local Labour council to tackle food poverty, providing free healthy school meals for all primary school children since 2011. There are 59 members of the Southwark Food Action Alliance, including the council and faith groups such as the Salvation Army, and even private companies such as Engie and British Land understand that there is a problem. There are also some great local charities such as the Central Southwark Community Hub under Felicia Boshorin’s brilliant leadership, which has fed 2,300 families since April alone, Time & Talents has an amazing team under Sarah Gibb and Pecan, the Southwark food bank, which, last year, fed more than 2,400 children.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about how the voluntary sector, individuals and local councils have stood up and filled the enormous gap left by the Government. I pay tribute to the Lunch Bunch in Woodley in my constituency of Reading East, to a range of other local charities, including Sadaka and Whitley Community Development Association, and to Reading Borough Council for its work. When will the Government stand up and play their part?

[Neil Coyle]

I am glad that my hon. Friend’s constituency has organisations like those in mine.

Organisations have popped up in response to covid, such as the mutual aid groups, and existing organisations such as Burgess Sports and Pembroke House have extended their activities to help feed families. They all deserve community gratitude, but they have worked so hard because the Government have created and then ignored the need for help—a Government headed by a man who apparently cries himself to sleep because he is now receiving only £150,000 a year. Well, boo hoo!

I want to end by talking about a real injustice. This year, children have largely, thankfully, escaped the worst health effects of covid, but they have not been spared the economic impact on their parents. In Bermondsey and Old Southwark, unemployment has jumped by 5,000, many parents are still prevented from working and we face the cliff edge of the end of the furlough scheme, which has helped 24,000 people in my constituency alone. Children feel the injustice of that situation. The Government have a genuine chance to act today—mindful, I hope, of the 300,000-and-growing signatures on Marcus Rashford’s petition.

I will finish by quoting Charles Dickens, who, of course, lived in Southwark. In the 1860s, he wrote “Great Expectations”, in which he said:

“In the little world in which children have their existence, there is nothing so finely perceived and so finely felt as injustice.”

It is injustice that we vote on today. MPs can allow an injustice to occur or we can vote to prevent an injustice from being done to children, through no fault of their own. I know how I will be voting—I will be voting to end injustice.

Awarding of Qualifications: Role of Ministers

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

If the hon. Lady will allow me to make some progress, I am sure I will make time for her to share her views and opinions.

On 22 May, Ofqual published its decisions. The key principle of using a statistical standardisation approach was supported by 89% of those who responded to Ofqual’s consultation. It is important to remember that similar approaches to awarding qualifications following the cancellation of exams were put in place in Scotland, which, as we are all aware, has an SNP Administration, in Wales, which, as we are all aware, has a Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration, and in Northern Ireland, which, as we are all aware, has a DUP-Sinn Féin Administration. All four nations reached the same policy conclusion about the best and fairest approach for awarding qualifications.

Between April and August, the detail of Ofqual’s model for awarding grades without examinations was developed by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation and by other assessment experts in conjunction with it. It was vital that the model was seen to be fair, and we were reassured by Ofqual that it was. We explored issues, including whether disadvantaged students and other groups such as black, Asian and minority ethnic students would be treated fairly by the model. Information on this was shared at the public symposium held by Ofqual on 21 July, which made it clear that the standardisation process was not biased.

After the publication of the Scottish results on 4 August, we again sought reassurance from Ofqual about the fairness of the model. The Department also rapidly considered a number of options to reduce the risk of a similar loss of public confidence happening in England.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way on that very point. How does he reconcile the two statements he has just made? On the one hand, he talked about reconciling the model, looking at its potential implications and considering that it was fair, and on the other hand, earlier in his remarks or certainly earlier in the debate, we heard that the small groups of students who tend to be in independent schools were likely to benefit from this approach. How does he reconcile those two points?

[Gavin Williamson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. He references back to my correspondence and direction of 31 March. One of the key elements of that letter was making sure that Ofqual looked at that issue to make sure that that balance was achieved, and that if there was any unfairness within the system, every action that could be taken was taken to eliminate such unfairness.

Children and Young Persons

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I can understand that there might be a need for some easements due to anticipated staff shortages during this crisis, but I do not understand why there are fewer safeguards on easements for children’s services than in the arrangements for adult services. What is the logic in that? Obviously visits might need to be suspended during the lockdown, but why is it necessary to suspend the six-week contact rule? Are reviews not a crucial safeguard for the interests of children and young people in the care system? Who does the Minister think benefits from removing six-monthly reviews and what does she think is the main benefit of not holding panels for prospective adopters?

One of the conclusions from the child sexual exploitation cases in Rotherham and Rochdale was that children placed outside their own area were all too often out of sight and out of mind, and that is why it was so easy for them to fall prey. Like the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), I am concerned about the removal of senior-level approval for out-of-area placements. What alternative arrangements have been put in place to compensate for the loss of independent visits to children’s homes? Afterall, it is only nine years since the House was discussing the Pindown report. When you make these places less accessible, it is easier for things to happen that should not happen.

Like my hon. Friends, I am curious to know who the Government consulted before they implemented these arrangements. I would love to know who made representations to the Minister and who asked for these arrangements. Was it the same people who tried to impose these changes back in 2016 and 2018? Of course, the reason they were eventually scuppered back then was that there was a genuine fear across the parties that the measures were intended to relax local authority scrutiny and safeguards, save money and pave the way for further privatisation of children’s services. At the very point where this Government are rueing the fact that they made unnecessary changes to probation and are now planning to reverse them, it would be completely mad to create the same conditions for our children’s services, only to go through all this again.

I am a bit more sceptical than the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham—I fear that the emergency may be a smokescreen and that this is just a third attempt at the same old game. I recognise that the Minister believes that the powers are being used sparingly. She says in her letter of 15 May that they should

“only be used if absolutely necessary”.

Is she receiving regular reports on their use? Does she have any plans to collect and publish data on the use of these emergency arrangements? Will she place in the Library an interim report on the use of these powers to date?

I am also curious to know why the Minister thinks that children’s services in Scotland have not been under similar pressure and do not face demands for a similar change. What does she think is different? Has she looked at that arrangement? As we have heard, the Children’s Commissioner was rather critical of these measures. Was it an oversight not to consult her? That requires a straightforward answer from the Minister. Was a children’s rights impact assessment conducted before the regulations were approved? If so, will the Minister publish it, and if not, why not?

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is quite clear that, at a time of great crisis, the Government’s first duty is to protect the most vulnerable. My hon. Friends and the former Minister, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), have spoken eloquently about the need for proper administration of this sector for vulnerable people. We must consider the broader implications of this mistaken statutory instrument. It appears to me that this is part of a wider mishandling of a range of issues related to children, which paints the Government in a very poor light. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is yet another blunder in relation to children?

[Steve McCabe]

The honest answer is that we do not know, but when children’s services across the country are under enormous pressure, this is maybe not the smartest time to relax safeguards and scrutiny. For that reason, we have to hope and trust that when the Minister says these measures are purely for the purposes of this emergency, she is being entirely frank with us. It would be easier to draw that conclusion if she could tell us what she plans to do after 25 September.

Educational Settings

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

We ask all parents to look at the advice given by Public Health England. Obviously, there are many grandparents who are very young and healthy, but we need parents to consider the individual circumstances of their family to make the best assessment. We need to protect those who are most vulnerable and, of course, the most vulnerable are those over the age of 70 and those with underlying health conditions.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and for the tone in which he has conducted himself.

I have two questions. First, on A-levels, is the Secretary of State able to offer more detail on when the alternative form of assessment will be published? Secondly, on university admissions, can he update the House on what discussions he has had with the university sector to ensure university admissions are fair?

[Gavin Williamson]

We will be making sure that we publish further advice on A-levels next week. We have had discussions with Universities UK, and we need to look at how we can ensure universities are open and ready to take in a new cohort of students in the next academic year, but the fairness of the system and making sure young people do not miss out on opportunities for which they have worked so hard is at the core of what we will be doing.

Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 13th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

I completely agree, and my hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Her community, like mine, has shown kindness and generosity. Parents and carers across my community came together, and we collected hundreds of items. Families should not be forced to fork out for increasingly expensive items of school uniform. Compulsory branded items and limited numbers of uniform suppliers have caused school uniform prices to skyrocket, severely impacting the household budgets of many families.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent and very powerful speech, no doubt based in part on her experience as a teacher. Does she agree that this huge issue that we have been discussing this morning also needs to be seen in the context of static or falling family incomes and rising fuel, transport and food prices?

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This issue does have to be seen in the context of the past 10 years. My area in Barnsley has had the worst cuts in the country, and no doubt that has had an impact. There is no reason why clothes from everyday shops should not be used at a fraction of the cost. Right now, there is no legislation in England that regulates school uniforms. The Bill will make a difference to families in Barnsley and across the country who are desperate to give children the best start in life, even if that means spending money they cannot afford on school uniforms that are unnecessarily expensive. New statutory guidance on school uniform costs that must be followed by schools when setting out their uniform policies will help to put an end to spiralling costs. Barnsley families who are already struggling, due to a near decade of Government cuts to local services, are being pushed into financial difficulty by compulsory uniform purchases.

School uniform is an asset to children’s education, from instilling a sense of school community to supporting good behaviour, but if school uniform prices and policies remain unchecked, they will increasingly become a way of entrenching inequality as schools become a place of punishment and stigma for poor children. The Bill has the potential to change those children’s lives, and I am pleased we are supporting it today.

Education and Local Government

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), with whom I often agree and whom I will refer to later.

At the start of this new Parliament, with lots of maiden speeches, I decided to look back at my own maiden speech four and a half years ago, in which I focused on the proud industrial past of the people of Bristol South and the economic divisions that are rife in my constituency. I said that the biggest challenge we faced was to equip people in Bristol South with the skills and knowledge they need to secure a fair share of Bristol’s great economic growth and prosperity. I spoke in support of greater devolution, driven by people in communities, and the creation of a western powerhouse.

Four years on, what does this Queen’s Speech offer us? We hear the rhetoric about the Tories’ love for northern former Labour constituencies and the promise of jam, but do not be fooled. The Tories have dominated the south-west and the west for decades. They continue to take voters for granted, and they have not invested in the west country. The West of England Combined Authority boasts on its website that it is a net contributor to the Treasury, but there seems to be some doubt in the Office for National Statistics about whether it still is. I suspect we may have gone backwards in the last four years, but I am checking that statistic. Whether we are talking about electrification, wider transport infrastructure or investment in education and skills, we are being held back by the Government, and the combined authority has failed to deliver any meaningful change.

Young people in Bristol South are the least likely in the country to go to university, despite the fact that there are two universities in the city and other Russell Group universities nearby. That is a scandal for our city, and I have to keep repeating that statistic. How have the Government helped? We have evidence that early years is a key indicator of future success, but the Government have cut the legs from underneath Sure Start. Shockingly, there is nothing in the Queen’s Speech about the maintained nursery sector or its contribution to future attainment. All primary schools in Bristol South have had their budgets cut since 2015. More than £15 million has been taken out of our schools—money that could be used to employ teaching staff and support staff, and to buy teaching resources. Of course, cuts of that magnitude have had a severe impact on learning. The new allocation may be welcome—we have yet to see it come through—but it in no way repairs the damage that has been done.

There is virtually no A-level provision in Bristol South. Further education is the bridge to opportunity, be it access to A-levels or to level 2 and 3 adult education. Shockingly, from 2012 to 2018 there was a decrease of more than 40% in the Government’s direct funding to our further education college. Providers are ready and willing to support the industrial strategy and improve our poor productivity, but they are reeling from the last decade of cuts and struggling with the complicated funding routes that the Government still insist on. That is making life really difficult.

Apprenticeships are a way to support young people who are not going to university, and to support adults who want to improve their opportunities. I have been a vocal supporter of the Government’s apprenticeship programme. I have worked with the right hon. Member for Harlow and his successor Minister to try to progress apprenticeships, and I hope jointly to chair the all-party group on apprenticeships during this Parliament. The Government have got it badly wrong with the implementation of apprenticeships, particularly by making the process complicated for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the bedrock of our industry in Bristol South. The Government need to address that in this Parliament.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I fully concur about the lack of investment in education, not only in the west of England but across southern England and in many other places. My constituents are deeply concerned about the shortage of teachers and the fact that the Government are not providing enough funding for schools. There is a lot of concern about the Government’s rejigging of the funding formula, which in many English towns is seen as a way of taking money from urban areas and redistributing it, wrongly, to better-off areas in the countryside.

[Karin Smyth]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

I will move briefly to climate change. Following Labour’s motion in the spring, we are agreed as a House that we face a climate emergency. The Government have a target but no path to achieving it. I suggest that if they start to align a strategy on skills and apprenticeships to the green jobs of the future, that will be of tremendous benefit to the people of Bristol South.

Bristol is home to some great innovators and enterprises working on the green agenda—for example, in the construction industry. I have supported the City of Bristol College, the West of England Combined Authority and the Government to bring the Construction Skills Centre to Bristol South. In fact, when the right hon. Member for Harlow visited Bristol South we pointed to a piece of land that we wanted to ensure was used for the centre; we hope to cut the turf on the site at Hengrove later this month.

Bristol and the west country are building, but we are short of labour. Good training in construction jobs and apprenticeships will directly help my constituents into jobs. At the centre we need training for the future, including training in green building and green technology, so that we meet the climate change targets. Currently there is little investment in training on new materials, techniques and technology, which will equip young people for the jobs of the future. The Construction Skills Centre in Bristol South provides a tremendous opportunity; I am willing to work with the Government to make the most of it.

Finally, the Government stated in the Queen’s Speech that there will be a constitution, democracy and rights commission. In my view that is long overdue. In my speech in 2015, I warned that we all needed to heed the message from the Scottish referendum; that was before the Brexit referendum. As vice-chair of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, I warned throughout the Brexit debate of the dangers of ignoring voices from across these islands, but also the voice of England within the United Kingdom.

In July the Public Accounts Committee report into funding in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland noted that the baseline funding and the Barnett formula were set some 40 years ago and that spending per head of population on public services in England is the lowest in the four nations at £9,080. It is not just the money. My English constituents have no democratic control or accountability over our health service, our schools, our transport or our skills. The core institutions of our community are run by unaccountable and labyrinthine bodies, be it clinical commissioning groups, multi-academy trusts, local enterprise partnerships or the many ad hoc partnerships that have grown up over the last 10, 20 or 30 years. These bodies are a law unto themselves and their civil servant masters in London have no accountability to us locally.

I will continue to support apprenticeships, early years and the City of Bristol College to provide post-16 adult opportunities. We desperately need to secure decent funding to support young people at their post-16 transition, to help them to make the right decisions and nurture them, as we do those transitioning into reception classes and into year 7. We need the combined authority to better use its influence to get providers to work together to make use of the available funding. Public service infrastructure is vital to reversing the education and skills deficit, and the Government need to be much bolder about the ambition for devolution in England so that we can build the western powerhouse that I talked about four and a half years ago and give people in Bristol South the opportunity that they deserve.