Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho]

Mr Deputy Speaker:

“Freedom is a fragile thing…it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation”.

Ronald Reagan said those words in 1967. More than 50 years later, our generation is facing our own battle for freedom: the freedom to express our opinions and debate controversial ideas without fear or favour. Ironically, this is happening in our universities, which traditionally have been the very institutions that have challenged prevailing wisdom, from the effects of smoking to the theory of evolution and our understanding of climate change. That is why I am delighted to be here today to discuss the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.

First, I thank my predecessors for all their work in taking the Bill through the House last year, and my ministerial colleagues for their efforts in the other place. This is a contentious subject matter, and I know they have spent many hours thoughtfully considering the points that have been raised on all sides throughout the Bill’s passage. I am pleased that, after discussions, noble peers have now agreed that there is an issue to address, as the noble Lord Collins of Highbury acknowledged on Report. I am grateful to peers for their careful consideration of the Bill.

Today, I ask my hon. Friends and hon. Members to consider the amendments made in the other place. I will address each set of amendments individually, beginning with the statutory tort, which provides a means by which individuals can seek redress through the courts if they believe that certain duties in the Bill have been breached. This measure will be critical to stimulating the cultural transformation that we need. I am grateful to Baroness Barran and Earl Howe for leading debate about the tort in the other place. In the end, the other place voted in favour of amendment 10 to remove the clause containing the tort from the Bill.

I assure the House that we heard very clearly the strength of feeling about the tort. Those feelings have rightly set the context for careful deliberation about the Government’s position now. I have spoken at length to leaders and academics in the higher education sector. I stand firm in my belief that the tort is an essential part of the Bill, and I disagree with its removal.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The Minister will forgive me if she is coming to this point, but as a Liberal I believe passionately in freedom of speech, as I believe does she. The clause to allow statutory tort was removed by a Conservative former Universities Minister in the other place, with cross-party support. Does she agree that, rather than supporting and encouraging free speech, we risk inhibiting it? Cash-strapped student unions may not invite particular speakers for fear of legal proceedings that they would not be able to defend. Does she agree that she is actually working counter to her own values and beliefs?

[Claire Coutinho]

Having spoken to many academics and people in universities at the moment, I firmly disagree. They are the people who would like that sort of protection. They think it would give them a legal backstop to the duties that we are placing otherwise in the Bill. Let me reassure the hon. Lady that the Government do not want providers being taken to court without good reason and being forced to defend themselves against unmeritorious or vexatious claims. We do not expect that to happen. The tort has always been considered a backstop.

The vast majority of complaints should be resolved through the new, free-to-use Office for Students complaints scheme, or through the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education. In practice, we expect its use to be relatively rare, but it is crucial because it will offer complainants an opportunity to bring a case where they feel that their complaint has not been resolved to their satisfaction by the OfS or the OIA. It will be useful on the rare occasions where a provider, for some reason, fails to comply with the recommendations made by the OfS or the OIA.

Reform of Children’s Social Care

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

My hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point, and I know he has a lot of experience in this area. He is absolutely right to say that the evidence- led trials that were done in the innovation programme, the Mockingbird programme, have delivered fantastic results. We will be rolling that out further, and there is investment behind the retention and recruitment of foster carers of £25 million—that will include Mockingbird.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The children who end up in our social care system are, of course, some of the most vulnerable children in our society. It is incumbent on all of us to put the utmost protection and care in place for them. The Secretary of State says that she is

“rising to Josh MacAlister’s challenge”.

He recommended a fundamental reset, but her announcements are a piecemeal approach that barely commit one tenth of the money that he was suggesting is needed. So I am afraid that although there are good intentions behind these announcements, they barely scratch the surface. Politics is about choices, and I am deeply saddened, and I suspect that in her heart of hearts the Education Secretary is also saddened, that the Treasury has bound her in this way.

Kinship carers will welcome the new investment in training and the promise of a national strategy, but will the Secretary of State explain how exploring the case for a financial allowance is any different from the usual Government line of keeping policies “under review”, when a third of kinship carers cannot even afford to clothe their children and they are struggling to put food on the table? How is a national strategy and some training going to help those kinship carers?

[Gillian Keegan]

I assure the hon. Lady that we will report back within a year on the pathways that we are exploring; that is a priority. I welcome her words about how we all care about doing this. It is not that people have not tried before, but I am proud of our work because this is the first time that we have had a whole-system reform of our children’s social care service. That was in our manifesto, and we are intent on doing it properly. It is very complex, it requires lots of people to work together, and we have to ensure we do it right. This is a two-year programme; Josh MacAlister set out a five-year programme. We are at the start, laying the foundations for the further work that we will bring forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

Obviously some schools are disappointed that they did not have access to those funds. We have announced funding for 400 schools so far and a further 100 will be included in future rounds, but we would be happy to meet the right hon. Lady.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

A Schools Week investigation found that at least 40 schools contained so-called aero-concrete, while 150 more needed further investigation. Officials described the concrete as

“life-expired and liable to collapse”,

which is extremely alarming. NHS England says that it will take until 2035 to remove aero-concrete from all our hospitals; will we be waiting as long as that for it to be removed from our schools?

[Gillian Keegan]

Last year the Government published updated guidance on identifying and managing reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. In March 2022, all schools were asked to complete a questionnaire about their knowledge of RAAC and its presence in their buildings and asking how, if they had it, they were managing it. We help schools where its presence is confirmed by providing the appropriate technical support, and we want to ensure that we continue that programme.

Fair Taxation of Schools and Education Standards Committee

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The whole argument about how we tax private schools is underpinned by a much more important question: why do so many parents choose to send their children to private schools? Some parents, particularly those whose children have complex special educational needs, feel that they have no other choice, as Government cuts in council funding mean that councils often struggle to provide the support that their children need. Others look at the sports, art, music, drama, debating skills, coding clubs and other opportunities that private schools offer, to a far greater extent than could be dreamt of by many of our state schools. They see that the pupil-teacher ratio in private schools is half that in state schools, as the Government fail year after year to meet their own teacher-training targets. They see that a private school has an on-site counsellor, when their child has been waiting months, sometimes years, to be assessed by child and adolescent mental health services and subsequently treated if they need help.

As the Government continue to let our pupils down, having failed to invest properly in covid recovery, we cannot blame parents for wanting the very best for their children. However, the Government cannot brush off criticisms of the status quo as an attack on aspiration. They know just how badly distorted the playing field in our education system is distorted.

At the root of the inequalities I have outlined is money. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the average private school fee is £6,500 more than state school funding per pupil. More than half of private schools are charities, required to operate for the public benefit, yet current case law allows private schools to decide for themselves what that public benefit is. It lets some private schools get away with the bare minimum. Others, on the other hand, are doing far more.

In October, I attended the launch of Feltham College in a neighbouring constituency. It is a new sixth form run out of Reach Academy in Feltham, which is an inspirational school founded by an inspirational man called Ed Vainker, who happens to be a constituent of mine. Reach is run in partnership with Hampton School in my constituency and Lady Eleanor Holles School, also in my constituency, as well as in partnership with Kingston University and various other partners. The two independent schools offer 28 taught periods per week across a range of subjects, particularly the sciences. The teachers from LEH and Hampton have also offered additional tutoring and coaching sessions for students at Reach who want to apply to Oxbridge or to medical school and need to go for interviews.

The partnership is producing results: students at Reach achieve the best chemistry and biology results that the school has ever had. Children and young people from some of the most disadvantaged backgrounds in an area that historically has sent far too few of them into higher education are seeing the most extraordinary results. I want every private school to offer that sort of support to the state sector, not by imposing top-down solutions—as some previous Education Secretaries have attempted—but, rather, by partnering with neighbouring state schools to identify needs in the local community and to share resources and expertise effectively.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. I wholeheartedly support some of the work that she has outlined around partnerships. Does she not agree that, fundamentally, this goes to the heart of how we see education: education is not a charity but a fundamental basic right?

[Munira Wilson]

I agree that education is a fundamental basic right. I am about to talk about the nature of charitable status. It should not be seen as a club. Some private schools perhaps do operate in that way, but lots do not. The hon. Lady goes to the heart of my point: if we are to give private schools charitable status, they need to do much more across the board to earn and to keep that status. We should expect the level of collaboration I have outlined between Reach, Hampton and LEH. We should expect that sort of collaboration from every school with charitable status. A charity is not a club. It should not use resources to benefit only its own members, even if it occasionally waives the entry fee. If it does, the Charity Commission should have the power to revoke its charitable status.

I also believe—this point has been made by some Members—that education is a public good. Our VAT system recognises that essentials such as food and healthcare should not be subject to additional taxes. Currently, all education provided by eligible bodies, including schools, universities and providers of English as a foreign language, are exempt from VAT. That is important because it is a statement that education—however it is provided—is as much a public good as bread, eggs and cheese.

I am in politics because I am passionate about education. The importance of education was instilled in me and my sisters from a very young age. I believe that every child, no matter what their background, should be given the opportunity to excel and flourish in life, because every child has something special in them that we need to draw out.

That is why I believe, and Liberal Democrats believe, that education is an investment in our children’s future and our country’s future. We want every parent to be able to send their child to a good, local school where they can fulfil their potential. Parents want a fair deal from their local primary or secondary school. Liberal Democrats want that, too. We want a qualified mental health professional in every school; opportunities for every child, no matter their background, to take part in music, sport, drama, debating and so on every day; a recruitment and retention plan to attract the very best teachers, not to burn them out within five years. We want properly funded local councils that will tailor support to a child’s individual and complex needs, rather than parents having to go to court to secure their child’s right to support; and a hot meal for every child living in poverty.

That is what pupils need. That is what parents want. That is what Liberal Democrats will campaign for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

It is true.

[Munira Wilson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Cunningham]

I will not give way. You were complicit.

Ministers and their supporters claim it is fairer to allocate more funding per pupil, which bases funding considerably less on need. We are talking about the movement of wealth from the poor to the rich—from the areas where children are lucky to get breakfast to others where riding lessons and a host of other activities are delivered by parents who have the means to do so. I do not want those from more affluent backgrounds to lose their activities, but I do want youngsters from Tilery, Hardwick, Roseworth and Billingham to have a great local state school where they are supported to get a better chance in life. I know that can be achieved only if we invest in our children from the youngest possible age. I know from headteachers that the children who benefited from our Sure Start centres almost a generation ago were better equipped to learn when they arrived at school. If we are again to open up these early opportunities in some of our poverty-stricken estates, we will need to find funding. The Tories crashed the economy, so I support those on my Front Bench in their commitment to create funds by removing charitable status from private schools and from other pots where they can find that money.

I know there are parents who make sacrifices to send their children to private schools—we have heard examples of this from Conservative Members—and I admire them for it, but that is their choice. It does not mean that schools should be subsidised by the taxpayer when some state schools are shrinking or closing because they have insufficient numbers. So let us refocus our approach to funding education in this country; let us recognise that we need to fund on the basis of needs instead of numbers; let us deliver the support for our children with special needs, such as those I met at Ash Trees; and let us deliver the opportunity to allow every child to reach and even exceed their potential.

Education

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Ministerial Corrections

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)]

The Department has significantly expanded the number of fully funded initial teacher training places in early years for the next academic year, and it is reviewing the level-3 qualification criterion for early years, both of which are part of our package of up to £180 million-worth of support…

The Government are supporting early years professionals with up to £180 million for qualifications and specific training, such as on dealing with challenging behaviour following the pandemic and on early communication.



The following is an extract from Education questions on Monday 28 November 2022.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

High-quality early years education is vital, and it is the best possible investment in our future—that includes both training and provision for all. Given that school budgets were protected in the autumn statement, where will the two years of real-terms funding cuts set for the Department for Education fall? Can the Minister confirm they will not fall on early years education?

[Claire Coutinho]

As I said in answer to earlier questions, we put an extra £0.5 billion into the early years sector in the 2021 spending review to increase the hourly rate. We are also spending money on qualifications and training for teachers. This sector is very important to us, and we continue to consider all the ways we can support it.[Official Report, 28 November 2022, Vol. 723, c. 648.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho):

An error has been identified in the response given to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).

The correct response should have been:

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho]

I know that my hon. Friend is a huge supporter of Jelly Babies, both the nursery and otherwise. The Government are supporting early years professionals with £180 million for qualifications and specific training, such as on dealing with challenging behaviour following the pandemic and on early communication.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

High-quality early years education is vital, and it is the best possible investment in our future—that includes both training and provision for all. Given that school budgets were protected in the autumn statement, where will the two years of real-terms funding cuts set for the Department for Education fall? Can the Minister confirm they will not fall on early years education?

[Claire Coutinho]

As I said in answer to earlier questions, we put an extra £0.5 billion into the early years sector in the 2021 spending review to increase the hourly rate. We are also spending money on qualifications and training for teachers. This sector is very important to us, and we continue to consider all the ways we can support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Gibb]

The 2021-22 academic year saw more than 86,000 hours of music teaching in secondary schools—the highest number since 2014. They were taught by more than 7,000 music teachers in secondary schools—the highest number since 2015. Schools should provide timetabled curriculum music of at least one hour a week. We have published an excellent model music curriculum that schools can lean on to help to deliver that.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Why will the Secretary of State not listen to her Cabinet colleague the Secretary of State for Levelling Up and the Government’s own food adviser by expanding the eligibility for free school meals? Hungry children cannot learn and tend to behave badly, too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Jenkyns]

Topicals—all right. On results day, I visited a local college, and it was amazing—I wish I could bottle that enthusiasm—but my right hon. Friend is right that the key is working with local businesses and industries, which is why the whole programme was designed with them in mind.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

T5. One school leader told me last week that one of his schools is preparing to offer evening meals to children whose families are struggling to put one on the table every evening, yet with nine out of 10 schools predicting a deficit by next September, few can afford to be so generous. The Chancellor of the Exchequer—assuming it is the same person next week—warns of efficiency savings to come, so will the Education Secretary be advising staff cuts, turning off the heating or letting pupils go hungry?

[Kit Malthouse]

As I said earlier, we recognise that schools are under significant pressure, as is most of society, and we must work together to try to get through it in good shape. We will obviously be making representations to Treasury colleagues as we move towards a statement on Friday, and indeed beyond, about what those pressures are, so that the Chancellor and new Prime Minister—hooray—can make choices within a priority framework that reflects the priorities of the Government.

Kinship Carers

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for kinship carers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali, and introduce this important debate. I am grateful to have this opportunity to acknowledge and champion the thousands of grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings and family friends who step up to support a child in crisis. With the Government due to respond to the independent review of children’s social care by the end of the year, this feels like a pivotal moment to recognise and unlock the role that family and friends can play in raising children who would otherwise be brought up in care.

I want to use this debate to commend to the Department for Education the proposals contained in my Kinship Care Bill, which I presented to Parliament earlier this year. Sadly, the day after I presented my Bill, the then Children’s Minister, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), resigned. I hope that today’s debate does not have the same impact on the new Minister, whom I welcome to her place. As the then Minister could not respond when I introduced my Bill, I look forward to hearing what the Minister present has to say today. I will touch on a range of issues that I brought up when my Bill was introduced and go a bit beyond that, too.

This is a big week for kinship care. Today, we have this debate. Tomorrow, I am hosting a reception to champion kinship carers and Kinship Week, which was earlier this month; I look forward to the Minister and the shadow Education Secretary, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), joining us. On Thursday, ITV will broadcast a documentary highlighting the struggles faced by grandparents who look after children whose parents are not able to care for them.

Members might wonder why I decided to champion this particular issue. The reason is plain and simple: it is because of the stories that some of my constituents have brought to me. I want to tell the story of Kim, who lives around the corner from me in my constituency and who was one of the first constituents to approach me during the first covid lockdown to highlight just how little support the family had.

Kim is a kinship carer to her grandchild, who sadly had a difficult start in life with her parents and maternal grandparents—Kim is her paternal grandmother. At one point, Kim and her husband found themselves literally holding the baby. When the family courts were considering the case, the judge very unusually took aside Kim’s husband and asked if they would be willing to apply for a special guardianship order for the child. The story of how their situation came about from the sidelines in a not particularly routine way is representative of how many kinship carers find themselves looking after children who have either lost a parent or whose parent is going through a difficult situation, meaning that they can no longer care for them.

Kim, who is self-employed, reduced her working hours to manage her childcare commitments. She was initially given an allowance, but it was means-tested. When her allowance was withdrawn, Kim and her husband challenged it, but it is now half of what she used to get, despite the fact that her costs have increased as her granddaughter grows older and her work income reduced through the pandemic.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Raising children is expensive. Over the past year, 89% of kinship carers reported that they were worried about their financial circumstances. Does the hon. Lady share my concerns that this kind of widespread financial stress will inevitably lead to negative impacts on the mental wellbeing of both carers and the children they are looking after?

[Munira Wilson]

Absolutely. There was a recent survey by the charity Kinship that showed the financial stress that many kinship carers found themselves under. The cost of living pressures that everyone faces are felt particularly acutely by kinship carers, who often find themselves looking after an additional member of their family without additional financial support. That survey showed that some kinship carers are struggling to pay their mortgage and even to put food on the table.

As I was saying, Kim had to remortgage her house, and accept financial help from friends and family, to afford the legal costs of applying for a special guardianship order. That was despite the fact that, as I have already mentioned, it was the family court judge who had made the suggestion of applying for the order. Kim’s granddaughter had a lot of mental health needs, and needed a lot of emotional and development support, but social services were very slow to provide that support. It was only after about a year that Kim was finally granted funding for some attachment therapy for her granddaughter through the adoption support fund. When I have talked to Kim about her situation, she described at length the damage that her granddaughter would sometimes cause to possessions in the house and to the house itself, and she would physically attack Kim and her husband, because of this attachment disorder. However, Kim had to fight to get support for therapy for that child. Kim says:

“On a personal level, we’ve had to give up our roles as grandparents and become her parents. We have done so gladly, but there are moments when we do grieve for those lost roles that we will never get back. Our grand-daughter is in our care until she turns 18 and we will be in our early and mid-seventies—not what we expected as we headed towards our older years.”

The sad irony is that Kim is actually one of the lucky ones, because her granddaughter was classified as “previously looked after”, so she was eligible for far more support, such as the adoption support fund money that funded the therapy, and pupil premium plus. That is much more than many other kinship carers receive.

Kim’s grandchild is one of perhaps more than 160,000 children across England and Wales who are cared for by someone who already knows and loves them. The numbers are quite sketchy. That is partly to do with the poor definitions, which I will touch on later, and the fact that we do not count how many people are in these sorts of arrangements.

We know that those who end up being looked after by somebody they know and love, as opposed to going into foster care or being cared for by someone they do not know, have equal or better mental health, education or employment chances than those children looked after by unrelated foster carers. Indeed, a child is over two and a half times more likely to live in three or more placement settings if they are in foster care than if they are in kinship care. The What Works Centre for Children’s Social Care found that kinship care placements are 2.6 times more likely to be permanent than unrelated foster care arrangements. Additionally, most people prefer kinship care to living with unrelated foster carers.

Despite the fact that we hear all of those statistics, which show better outcomes for children looked after by people who know them, kinship care is the Cinderella service of our social care system. It is less well understood than foster care, despite there being double the number of children in kinship care than there are in foster care. Kinship carers also receive only a fraction of the support received by foster carers or adoptive parents. That is why I introduced my Kinship Care Bill in July, which calls for kinship carers to be provided with three types of support, to put them on a par with the support that foster carers and adoptive carers receive. It proposes that kinship carers are provided with a weekly allowance, at the same level as the allowance for foster carers; it would give kinship carers the right to paid leave when a child starts living with them; and it would provide extra educational support for children in kinship care, by giving them pupil premium funding, and priority for their first choice of school, as which looked-after receive.

Earlier this year, I had an encouraging but brief discussion with the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Colchester, when he was Children’s Minister. During that brief conversation, he suggested that while the Government were broadly supportive of providing greater support to kinship carers, Ministers had two main concerns. The first was who should be regarded as a kinship carer—the definition issue that I pointed out—and the second was how the Department for Education could possibly persuade the Treasury to make the extra money available to pay for it. Sadly, the events of the past few weeks will probably ensure that that second part is a lot harder for the Minister to achieve.

The independent review of children’s social care recommends making weekly allowances and paid employment leave available to carers with either a special guardianship order or a child arrangements order where the child would otherwise be in care. That would begin to provide a definition of who should get some additional support; it would be a huge step forward, and I understand the logic of that approach. Kinship care arrangements with a legal order are less likely to deteriorate, with just one in 20 special guardianship orders dissolving before the child turns 18.

However, that narrow definition ignores the realities of most kinship care arrangements, where a close relative is phoned at short notice by the council warning that if they do not take the child now, they will go into local authority care. Those people do not have a legal order—at least initially—despite the council proposing the arrangement, yet they are then expected to cough up thousands of pounds of their own money to secure a special guardianship arrangement, as we heard in Kim’s story. The independent review of children’s social care noted that four in 10 families receive no help with the legal costs associated with becoming a kinship carer, spending on average more than £5,000. Moreover, denying support to close relatives using informal arrangements punishes families who have sorted out their situation themselves without getting the local authority involved at all.

The Government already have systems in place for identifying informal carers, which could be adapted. The Children Act 1989 provides a definition of privately fostered children: a person other than a close family member caring for a child for at least 28 days. Informal kinship carers are also exempt from the two-child limit on benefits if their social worker signs form IC1, so I encourage the Minister to reconsider the eligibility criteria for schemes such as pupil premium plus or the adoption support fund where support is only available to kinship children who were previously looked after by the local authority. Why is it that if a grandparent steps up when asked by the council to look after a child to prevent them going into care, they are then punished by the state for making that decision, whereas that child would have been entitled to extra support had they gone into care? It is a totally perverse incentive to allow the child to go into care in order to receive additional support.

Turning to the issue of financing support for kinship carers, my message to the Minister is this: the question is not whether her Department can afford to support kinship carers, but whether it can afford not to. The numbers speak for themselves. The independent review of children’s social care warns that on the current trajectory, more than 100,000 children will be in local authority care by 2032—a record high—and it will cost local authorities £5 billion more than it does now. On average, it costs £72,500 a year for a local authority to look after a child; by contrast, in 2021, it would have cost on average just shy of £37,000 to provide a child in kinship care with a social worker and a weekly allowance for their carers. Well-supported kinship care could therefore save the taxpayer over £35,000 per child a year. The Minister’s Department will be speaking to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the efficiency savings—otherwise known as cuts—that it will have to make, and I suggest that preventing children who could otherwise be looked after by a kinship carer from going into care is a very good efficiency saving.

Tomorrow, Kinship is launching its national campaign, “The value of our love”, to highlight how it makes sense to invest in kinship care. It delivers better outcomes and experiences for children by keeping them within their loving families, and is good value for the public purse. During the cost of living emergency, that support is needed more than ever. As has already been pointed out, Kinship’s 2022 financial allowances survey found that four in 10 kinship carers could not afford household bills, and one in four were struggling to afford food for their family.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for all the outstanding work that she has done on this issue with her Bill. It is important that the issue of support for kinship carers, including many in my constituency of Liverpool, West Derby, is discussed in the House today. Many families say that they feel invisible, undervalued, unimportant and ignored by the Government. Some 75% of kinship carers entered the cost of living crisis in severe financial hardship.

Important work is happening in Liverpool, with the kinship charter, which was developed with kinship families and has been finalised with local authorities so that they can adopt it. However, families urgently need change at a national Government level, so does the hon. Member agree that the Minister must make changes in law about the statutory duty, and provide the vital funding and support that kinship families need, so that we achieve the best possible outcome for families?

[Munira Wilson]

I congratulate Liverpool on the work that it is doing on this. I agree with the point that the hon. Member made on recognising kinship carers and providing them with additional support.

Returning to the Kinship financial allowances survey, it found that while seven in 10 special guardians received allowances, those were means tested, and fewer than one in 10 carers with no legal order received support. However, in more than two thirds of cases, those allowances were means tested and subject to regular reviews, unlike the allowances that foster carers receive. Kim’s story shows us that that really is precarious and depends on what the local authority is willing and able to fund. Given that local authority budgets have been cut to the bone, we need those national regulations and legislation in place to ensure that kinship carers get an equal amount of support, regardless of where they live.

Almost any kinship carer will say that it is a decision that they do not regret. One carer told the Parliamentary Taskforce on Kinship Care:

“The decision to become a kinship carer has cost me £180,000 plus in terms of pension benefits etc. I would do it again, my grandson is worth every penny.”

The independent review of children’s social care is due to receive a response by the end of this year. While I do not agree with everything in that review, its recommendations around kinship care could mark a step change in the support that we provide for kinship carers, and would recognise the value of the love and support that they give to children.

I urge the Minister not to miss this important opportunity to step up for the kinship carers who step up for children, sometimes in the most dire circumstances, at zero notice. The Government talk a lot about levelling up; it is about not just geography but different groups of people in society. They also talk about the importance of the family; there is no better example of how families really step up than when the chips are down and a child desperately needs that help.

Kinship carers have been overlooked for far too long, so I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to provide us not just with words of encouragement but with some actions to follow, by responding to those recommendations from the independent review and indeed going beyond that. Every child, no matter their background, deserves the opportunity to flourish, and we know that those who had a troubled start in life are much more likely to flourish in kinship care than those who end up looked after by a foster carer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

I thank everybody who has participated in the debate. Like everybody else, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). He and his wife’s story is inspirational, and Lyle is a very lucky little boy. I thank the hon. Member for what he is doing, and I thank kinship carers up and down this country. As has been pointed out, they are doing an amazing job and helping so many children to have life chances that they would not otherwise have, as well as saving the taxpayer a huge amount of money.

Although I set out the short-term economic case in terms of the cost savings that could be achieved, the hon. Member talked about the moral benefits and the long-term economic case. We hear this so often about children and young people. It depresses me that Government policy so often does not think long-term enough. Under the “invest to save” argument, we invest early in our children and young people. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), talked about early intervention and ensuring that we are really investing in those vulnerable families so that we prevent a lot of the challenges further down the line.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is always in every single debate—I do not know how he does it—in particular for shining a light on the additional needs of many of those in kinship care, and indeed in all types of care, as the Minister pointed out. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for pointing out the important work of charities working on the ground and for stressing the connection between poverty and kinship care. The data shows us that kinship carers are disproportionately those from the most disadvantaged families and from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, so there is all the more reason for us to provide them with the right financial support. As the shadow Minister said, we must not lose sight of these issues amidst this political turmoil.

I was encouraged to hear some of the things the Minister said today. I thank her for her work and for her sister’s work in supporting children in care. I know that the Minister cannot make any firm commitments today; clearly, she cannot announce anything. However, I was encouraged that she referenced the fact that the Government’s response will talk about financial support and definitions of kinship carers, and the fact that extending parental leave is on the table. A lot of the language was clearly very hedged—she said that these things will be considered and there will be a response. I hope that the response is positive, in terms of both the money and the leave available to those carers. I welcome the news that an SI was laid yesterday for legal aid for those seeking a special guardianship order. We are slowly edging in the right direction.

I thank the Minister for the work she is doing, but I urge her to continue to be a champion for children and young people. They are often the ones who suffer the most when we are in economic and financial turmoil. They have suffered the most through the pandemic, and they suffer the most when there is an economic downturn. It is incumbent on all of us as elected Members to be their voice here. Children and young people have neither a vote nor a voice, so it is up to us to be their voice.

My Bill had cross-party support, so I am really disappointed that there are no Back-Bench Conservative Members present. However, I know there is support across the House for these measures, and I look forward to working with all Members and the Minister to make some of those recommendations a reality.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered support for kinship carers.

BTEC Qualifications

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I call Fleur Anderson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

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

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, I called Fleur Anderson.

[Munira Wilson]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Thank you, Sir Mark; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Please forgive me for mishearing you earlier, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who made an excellent speech—probably far better than what I am about to say. I thank the Petitions Committee for proposing this debate, and the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for opening it so ably.

Vocational and technical qualifications and training have for too long been incorrectly treated as inferior to academic qualifications. Right across our society—I include myself in this and hope that my own mindset is shifting now—we share an ingrained cultural bias in favour of academic achievement. Vocational skills, however, are more important than ever, as our country faces immense skills shortages across so many different sectors.

Although the Government’s new-found focus on vocational and technical training is welcome, the Liberal Democrats are opposed to the defunding—that essentially means scrapping—of the majority of BTECs. As many hon. Members have said, that will hurt the most disadvantaged students, and it narrows choice instead of widening opportunities for all. In so doing, we are kickstarting a damaging defunding process from 2024, before the T-level concept has even been properly proven and the new qualifications bedded in.

BTECs are immensely popular: more than a quarter of a million students take BTEC qualifications in any given year. They are disproportionately taken up by students from poorer backgrounds, ethnic minorities, and those with special educational needs and disabilities, as the DFE’s own impact assessment has confirmed. The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) have already cited the large percentage of white working-class and black students who, having taken BTECs, make it to university and achieve a 2:1, so perhaps I can instead quote Lord Baker, a former Conservative Education Secretary. During the passage of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, he described the plan to defund BTECs as “absolutely disgusting” because it would deny

“black, Asian, ethnic minority, disadvantaged and disabled students…hope and aspiration.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 2021; Vol. 814, c. 1789.]

The hon. Member for Battersea started her argument on the issue of choice—that is the crux of the matter, and there is cross-party agreement on it. Although there is always value in rationalising qualifications from time to time, forcing students to choose between A-levels and T-levels will narrow their choices at a time when we need them to have a range of ways to gain the transferable skills they need for their future careers. Some BTECs will remain—those that are equivalent to a single A-level, or a small number equivalent to two A-levels—but the majority will disappear.

I want to give an example from Esher Sixth Form College, which is not in my constituency but serves a number of my constituents. Students can study BTECs in subjects such as applied science, business or digital film and video production, in combination with complementary A-levels in subjects such as chemistry, computer science or graphic communication. However, BTECs also allow students to choose an unrelated A-level, enabling them to follow a passion.

The speech by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) was brilliant, inspiring and powerful because it was based on her personal story, and she talked about the passion that brought her back to education. A lot of students choose to mix and match, so that they can round out their expertise and experiences in foreign languages, maths or politics, which are subjects that benefit the economy and our young people. At a time when employers are crying out for our young people to enter the workforce with far broader skills and experience, surely we should be broadening the choice and allowing that mix-and-match approach rather than the Government trying to force everyone into those two straitjackets.

Scrapping BTECs will leave many students without a viable pathway at the age of 16. For some students who begin A-levels but do not enjoy them and struggle to cope, BTECs offer a vocational lifeline to supplement their academic qualifications. One constituent of mine, Lucas, started out studying three A-levels but switched to a BTEC in music in his first year in the sixth form. He went from contemplating leaving without any qualifications to achieving the highest grade in the county in his BTEC. He is now working as a teaching assistant supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities, and he is concerned about what scrapping BTECs and removing choice will mean for his pupils in the future.

In response to the petition, which is signed by 331 of my constituents from Twickenham, the Government argued that reform is necessary. As I have already said, I and my party fully agree that we must do much more to achieve parity between vocational and academic qualifications, but scrapping BTECs is not the answer. They have recently undergone a rigorous process of reform, they are popular with students, respected by employers and provide a well-established route to higher education or employment. The Government’s answer in terms of T-levels is welcome. Technical qualifications giving 16 to 19-year-olds a mixture of classroom and on-the-job experience, including a work placement, are really welcome but, as a number of hon. Members have touched on, there are problems, which I want to go into in more detail.

The Association of Colleges is concerned that the transition is being rushed, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. If there is to be this transition, it should take place over 10 years, ensuring that no qualifications are defunded without a full alternative being in place. On that point, I was talking to the principal of Richmond upon Thames College, in my constituency, just this morning. About one in 10 of his current students is studying a course that is due to be defunded and because the college is only part way towards introducing T-levels, for a number of reasons, there is no alternative. Future students would have no alternative if those courses were defunded from 2024 onwards.

It is premature to start to defund BTECs before T-levels are fully bedded in and understood. Indeed, during the passage of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, another Conservative former Education Minister, Lord Willetts, said that T-levels

“should succeed on their merits, not because viable alternatives are removed by government”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 2021; Vol. 814, c. 1793.]

That chimes with a lot of what we have heard today, and that point was made by a Conservative former Education Minister.

Ministers claim that students are confused by the current range of qualifications, but there is little evidence to support that. There are 39 subjects available across the entire sixth form college sector, with only nine available at Esher Sixth Form College, which I mentioned earlier. Ministers may be confused by that choice, but students certainly are not. Every year, about a third of Esher’s cohort studies at least one BTEC. The flexibility for students to be able to pull together their own study programme is essential as they try to work out what the right choices are for them for the future.

The T-levels that are being introduced are 25% practical and 75% academic, which, as some people have already alluded to, puts them out of reach of many students who might achieve lower grades in their GCSEs. They are often the people who really flourish on the BTEC pathway. The Association of Colleges has warned that T-levels will exclude the most disadvantaged students, particularly those who do not obtain a level 4 in maths and English GCSE. T-levels are rigorous and large qualifications, so, although the Government do not require maths and English for T-level entry, many colleges require it.

As hon. Members have alluded to, there is a real challenge with the industry placement that comes with T-levels. Trying to achieve 45 days is incredibly difficult. The Policy Exchange, a Conservative think-tank, says that only 8% of employers are currently offering a placement for the duration required for T-levels, and it is harder to find placements in some sectors than others. For instance, the digital industries often have teams working remotely, and we know that there is also a challenge between rural and suburban and urban areas.

The principal of Richmond upon Thames College told me this morning how difficult it is for him to get employers to engage with and provide work placements for vocational qualifications. That is in Greater London, in Twickenham, where there is a plethora of employers on the doorstep. Sadly, he is leaving Richmond upon Thames College later this year to go and head up Petroc, a college in Devon—I happened to visit Petroc with the new Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), during the by-election. One of the challenges facing the principal of Richmond upon Thames College as he goes to Petroc is that in a rural area—the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) already made this point—it is even harder to find employers to engage with T-levels, so he has his work cut out, but I wish him all the best.

We really need to see where those completing T-level courses go next. The Association of School and College Leaders has stated:

“We are…watching the number of T level students who end up in university with real interest. If T level students are going to end up in university in large numbers, and not in further technical training, then it brings into question why BTECs are being defunded. After all,”

that is

“the government’s main argument for scrapping BTECs in order to introduce T levels…The government can’t have it both ways.”

I completely agree with that point.

My final point is on defunding and process. There has been a real lack of transparency about which BTECs are being chosen first to be defunded. When questions have been asked about improving transparency, very little has been forthcoming. I see that as part of a wider trend. We were talking about BTECs today, but in terms of wider applied general qualifications, RSL Awards is based in my constituency, an awarding body for contemporary music and arts qualifications—it does the Rockschool qualification grading. Some of its qualifications got delisted for reasons it fails to understand. It tried to appeal, but has been unsuccessful—it has been told “case closed”.

RSL told me that—as with the BTEC point—more than a quarter of its students on some of its music qualification courses are from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. In classical music courses we just do not get that diversity; it tends to be much more white and middle class. Having a breadth of qualifications means that young people from a range of backgrounds are able to engage and secure qualifications. If the Government are going to continue down this route, we should at least have a bit more transparency about what is being defunded and when.

To conclude, we have heard clearly from all sides that it is very difficult to understand why the Government want to scrap what is a very popular qualification with both students and employers. They are trying to shoehorn young people into T-levels or A-levels at a time when they need more support than ever to realise and rebuild their futures. It is such a retrograde step and will damage the prospects of the most disadvantaged students. If the Government are serious about levelling up—they tell us they are, although we have not heard much about it from any of the Conservative leadership candidates yet—and truly mean it when they say they want to champion vocational training, I hope the new Minister, whom I welcome to her place, listens to the thousands of people who signed this petition, college leaders, teachers and experts in this field up and down the country, as well as many former education Ministers and Secretaries of State, some of whom I have quoted. They really must think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Jenkyns]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I think he will also find that more people from disadvantaged backgrounds are going into education than ever before.

[Munira Wilson]

I had a problem with mishearing before and I may have misheard again, but I do not think I have heard the Minister mention the word “choice” once. The central argument made by all sides in this debate is about the reduction of choice. We have heard for many years from Conservative Ministers and different Conservative Governments that choice is fundamental to their philosophy, yet here they seem to be reducing choice, and that will come at the cost of the most disadvantaged. Yes, a few BTECs will remain, but the vast majority of pupils will be forced into A-levels or T-levels or just to go straight into the workplace with very few qualifications. Please will the Minister address that point—how the Government are decimating choice by defunding BTECs in this way?

Department for Education

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I welcome the new Secretary of State to her place and congratulate her on her promotion. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this debate; I have always admired his passion and commitment on all issues relating to education and social mobility. He speaks from the heart most of the time, but I thought that he made a valiant case for the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), given what we know about what went on in Downing Street last night.

During their time in secondary school, a year 11 pupil who finished their GCSEs in the past couple of weeks will have seen five—yes, five—Education Secretaries in charge of policy and spending that have a significant and lasting impact on their lives. Any state school that got through that many headteachers in such a short period would certainly have been put into special measures by now, yet this chaotic Government limp on. Time and again, we see the Department for Education, sadly, notched up as a temporary staging post on the climb up the greasy pole for ambitious Ministers.

That is a depressing and damning indictment of the way in which the Government view children and young people and their education. It is indicative of the short-term thinking that pervades a Government who are focused on campaigning, rather than governing. However, with our children being our most precious resource—the future of our nation—on whose shoulders our future economic success will be built, not only should the Department for Education be viewed as the most coveted brief, to be mastered and championed relentlessly over many years, but it should be funded as a long-term investment.

Former Conservative Prime Minister John Major told The Times Education Commission that education expenditure should be seen

“as capital investment, on the basis that its effect will linger for a lifetime”.

I could not agree more, so as we consider the education estimates, I ask: where is the ambition for our children and young people? Why is it—as the right hon. Member for Harlow said—that according to the IFS, by 2025, over a period of 15 years, we will effectively have seen less than 3% growth in education spending while health spending will have risen by 42% in the same period?

It is time that we viewed our children’s future in the same way that we view key infrastructure projects. Human capital—for want of a better phrase—invested in properly, will deliver a significant return for our economy and society. However, it does not fit into three-year spending cycles or four to five-year parliamentary cycles—although we seem to be on two-year parliamentary cycles at the moment, and who knows? We might be in a general election this time next week.

Turning to catch-up funding, the long-term economic impact has been laid out starkly by the Education Policy Institute. It calculates that without sufficient investment and support, children could lose up to £40,000 of income over their lifetimes, equating to about a £350 billion loss to the economy. With pupils having missed out on millions of days of face-to-face teaching, and with the Department for Education, frankly, failing to act swiftly to support schools or put a proper catch-up plan in place quickly, the attainment gap is widening.

The National Audit Office said in its report last year that the Government did not take action to enable vulnerable learners to attend school and to fund online resources quickly enough. They could have done more in some areas. The NAO recommended that the Department

“takes swift and effective action, including to learn wider lessons from its COVID-19 response, and to ensure that the catch-up learning programme is effective and reaches the children who have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic, such as those who are vulnerable and disadvantaged.”

Just yesterday, we saw the first set of SATs results since the pandemic, showing a steep decline in the number of children achieving the expected standard at key stage 2.

Alongside the educational gap, children have paid a very high price in terms of wellbeing and mental health. That is a top priority for headteachers in my constituency. Parents are at their wits’ end. I have talked about this month in, month out in the Chamber, and we all know the NHS statistics that show that the number of children with a mental health condition has risen from one in nine to one in six since 2017.

Despite all that, we barely hear any mention of catch-up support for our children and young people. The Government want to stop talking about covid—sadly, covid is still with us, although the Government want to move on—but our children and young people will bear the scars of their sacrifices during the pandemic for a very long time. As the EPI suggested, many will pay the price for the rest of their lives, so we owe it to them to heed the advice of the Government’s adviser, Sir Kevan Collins, who felt compelled—like many Ministers now—to quit in his capacity as a Government adviser because they would not take his recommendations seriously and put in the investment in children and young people that I have mentioned. He said that he did not believe

“that a successful recovery can be achieved with a programme of support of this size.”

I remind the House that he recommended that £15 billion be invested in education recovery, but we have seen a commitment to only a third of that.

We know that children and young people fare better when parents are empowered to engage with their education. That is one reason why the Liberal Democrats have called not just for the £15 billion commitment to be made immediately, but for some of that money to go towards vouchers to be put directly in the hands of parents to support their children, whether that is with tuition, sport, art or music, with whatever they need for their physical wellbeing and social engagement with their peers, or with counselling to tackle mental health issues with the advice and support of their school. Our children and young people are suffering a double whammy: they have felt the impact of the pandemic, and now they are at the sharp end of the cost of living crisis.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

In my constituency, many children are going to school and having their only meal of the day there, because of the crisis that this Government have forced on the residents of our constituencies. Does the hon. Member agree that it is absurd that that is happening? Many schools are not even opening for the full five days.

[Munira Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman must be psychic or have very good eyesight, because he has pre-empted what I was about to say about free school meals. About 2.6 million children are in families that experience food insecurity; as he says, the reality is that many children are going to school hungry, because parents are struggling to put food on the table. Hunger and poor nutrition affect children’s ability to learn, their development and their mental health. How can our most disadvantaged children, who already have a much bigger gap in attainment as a result of the pandemic, be expected to catch up? I pay tribute to the schools and teachers up and down the country who are working their socks off to put additional support and interventions in place to help them to catch up, but how can children who are going to school with empty tummies and sitting hungry in lessons be expected to benefit from the catch-up?

I sincerely hope that the Government will think again and take the advice of yet another Government adviser they chose to ignore: Henry Dimbleby, who advised them on their food strategy. He recommended that every child in a family in receipt of universal credit should be entitled to a free school meal. To be honest, I am shocked that that is not already the case. I really urge the Secretary of State: if she does one thing in her first few days, please will she address that? It is a scandal that children are going to school hungry.

The Ark John Archer Primary Academy in Clapham is not in my constituency, but I visited it recently because I was told about the fantastic early years offer that it is developing; Ark has invested money, alongside the Government’s paltry investment in early years, to support some of the poorest children. The headteacher asked me why, although some two-year-olds are eligible to receive 15 hours of free childcare a week because they are from disadvantaged backgrounds, we are not providing them with free school meals. It just seems really odd. The school is funding meals for everybody, right across its nursery and primary provision. Whether the child is eligible or not, they are making sure that every child gets a healthy, nutritious meal.

The school pointed out to me that with some childcare providers, disadvantaged two-year-olds who are getting free childcare are having to bring in a packed lunch—quite possibly not a very nutritious one, but with cheap things that the parents can afford—and will be sitting alongside children whose parents are able to pay for their childcare and who are getting a far better lunch. I find that contrast between the haves and the have-nots really quite distasteful. When the Education Secretary looks at free school meals, will she look at the case of two-year-olds?

As has been said many times in this place, our childcare costs are among the highest in the world. In the cost of living crisis, parents are struggling even more to make ends meet with their nursery and childcare fees. Liberal Democrat analysis of Coram statistics suggests that parents in inner London who fund 50 hours per week of childcare will have seen an increase in costs of almost £2,000—I will say that again: £2,000—over the past year. That is just shocking. The problem is that as childcare costs go up and parents struggle to make ends meet with their mortgage or rent, their food and their other bills, fewer and fewer children will be put into childcare. That is bad for a range of reasons.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I could not agree more about the cost of childcare. Does she agree that the answer to the problem is not to decrease the staff-student ratio? I was taken on a tour of Robin nursery in Kidlington the other day; Teresa, the wonderful person who runs it, was concerned that if that ratio goes down, she will not be able to give the safe and caring level of care that parents need. She is concerned that, unfortunately, it will be the most disadvantaged students who lose out, because they are quite often the ones who do not yet have the help with special educational needs and disabilities that they need, and they are the ones who need the most love.

[Munira Wilson]

I could not agree more. The Government are trying to tackle the issue of childcare funding in completely the wrong way. My hon. Friend makes the point about safety and the ability to support children with SEND. Given the razor-thin margins with which so many childcare providers operate—we know that they are going under all the time—if the Government power ahead with this after their consultation, and if they really think that the saving will be passed on to parents to help with the cost of living, they are living in cloud cuckoo land, because of exactly what my hon. Friend says.

I have given the example of my son’s childminder before. She has to do all this jiggery-pokery with her invoices every month, because she has been told categorically that she cannot make it clear that I have to pay to top up the 30 hours of “free” childcare that we are meant to be getting, because it does not cover her costs. It is an add-on. That is fine—I have no problem with paying it; I am in a position to pay for it—but the point is that many parents will not be able to afford that top-up or will end up putting their children into what might be fairly low-quality childcare. Our most disadvantaged children are the ones who need the most high-quality input. By the time children start school, the most disadvantaged are about 11 months behind their peers. That gap continues to widen, which has been accelerated by the pandemic.

There is a really important point to make here. Childcare is not just about babysitting. It is about high-quality early years input, with properly trained staff who should have an early years qualification; who should not be on poverty wages, as so many are; and who should have continuous professional development so that they can pick up on things like developmental delays in speech and language, which have become even more prevalent as a result of the pandemic.

It should be about investing in our early years to help children to get on in life, but also about supporting parents who wish to go to work from when their children are at a very young age. We know that people—mostly women, sadly—are leaving the workforce or reducing their hours in very large numbers. Once again, that takes us back to the economic argument for long-term investment in children and in education. It will be harmful for our economy that fewer women will be in work and setting up businesses, because so many are having to give up work to look after their children. Finally, let me return to where I started. The Government say that they want to help Britain back to work and they say that they want to tackle the task of levelling up. The former Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who is now the Chancellor, has talked about children, skills and education being his passion, and I hope he will put his money where his mouth is. He is now in the Treasury, which was the biggest blocker preventing him and his many predecessors from doing the right thing by children. They are our future. They will be the innovators, they will continue to make this country great, and every single child, regardless of background, deserves the very best start in life.

If the Secretary of State will not listen to me, I ask her to listen to the Government’s own advisers, such as Kevan Collins on catch-up, Henry Dimbleby on free school meals, and Josh MacAlister on children’s social care; so many children are simply written off by the system because we have a broken social care system. I ask her to step up now, to make the necessary investment in children and young people, and to end this Conservative chaos. Our children are depending on it.