SEND Provision

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)]

I begin by congratulating the new hon. Member for Wellingborough (Gen Kitchen) on an eloquent speech and on her “Visit Wellingborough” campaign. That campaign is just embryonic right now; I know that she was encouraging some in the House to join it a couple of months ago, but sadly, I could not do so. No doubt it will continue.

I note that before entering the House, the hon. Lady was an ardent fundraiser for many charities, including Sarcoma UK, a children’s hospice, a children’s health charity and the Salvation Army. I am delighted that she is taking such an early interest in special educational needs, a subject that is very close to my heart. I have just launched a charity, the Accessible Learning Foundation, to champion early identification of neurodivergent conditions. Maybe in the short time we will overlap in this House, she can teach me something about charity fundraising. I say “short time”, of course, because I am leaving, not just because—[Laughter.] I will leave that hanging. It was an excellent maiden speech: it was powerful, strong and clear, and did not go on nearly as long as the speech by the Chair of the Select Committee. By acting in that way, she will win many friends right across the House, and I congratulate her.

This is an important debate, because it is vital that we have stronger provision for special educational needs. I acknowledge and appreciate the work that the Minister has done on this issue and the progress that the Government have made. The Chair of the Select Committee was right to say that some of the promise of the 2014 Act that is the cornerstone of the legislative framework has been delivered on, but certainly not all of it. My particular focus is on the need for early identification. The argument is this: if we can identify special educational needs and neurodiverse conditions early, we can get the support in early, which is better value for the taxpayer as well as self-evidently better for the individuals concerned.

In particular, I want to take on and defeat the argument that identifying conditions leads to labelling, which some say makes the problem worse for an individual. That is not true—it is an antediluvian attitude that needs to be abolished from our policy approach. Having more information and data about each child is better for those children and their teachers. For instance, early identification of dyslexia by assessing the gap between a child’s phonic ability—already assessed in the early year 1 phonics test—and their oral linguistic ability is now easily doable using technology and artificial intelligence, which can automatically assess oral capability in a way that simply was not possible even a couple of years ago. Knowing about that gap can help a teacher support a dyslexic child in a way that can mitigate the challenges that dyslexia brings and give them the skills to deal with those challenges, so that they can benefit from all the rest of their education. That is not just in English—in reading and writing—but in all other subjects, which are of course built on reading and writing, especially those such as history that require significant amounts of language.

The argument that these conditions are somehow not scientifically valid and we should not identify them early has been put to me by officials in the Department, and most recently in The Times newspaper by the otherwise absolutely brilliant Matthew Parris, whom I love. He argued that he did not think attention deficit hyperactivity disorder existed, for instance. Those arguments are simply wrong, and should be destined for the dustbin of history. I urge the Minister to set out the further progress that has been made on early identification. The pilots are good and some schools are doing great work, but what we need in a universal education service is universal early identification of neurodivergent conditions, and the support that comes with that.

I welcome the fact that the Minister recently said that there is no rationing of education, health and care plans. That is important because some people worry that, because EHCPs are expensive to deliver, there is somehow an attempt to limit who gets them. The challenge, however, is that they are not fairly and evenly available. Because some parents can afford to pay for a formal diagnostics test for dyslexia, there is a social inequality in who gets access. Hence we need universal screening—not necessarily universal formal diagnosis, which is a more expensive process, but universal screening—so that we know who is more likely to be neurodivergent, and then the plans can be more properly and more fairly targeted. There are now proven, cost-effective early years interventions that we know work. They do not take up much time, and the time they do take up is more than well spent in being able to target better support. They are available online, and this needs to become a universal standard across primary schools in England.

One of the reasons why this subject is so important is what happens when things go wrong. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) that we need to support neurodivergent children because of their ability to succeed. We know, for instance, that about half of successful entrepreneurs are dyslexic. We know that there are skills that dyslexic people tend to have in more abundance than straight-line thinkers, such as creativity, and we can understand why, because if someone has had to spend their whole childhood working out how to get around the fact that they are dyslexic, that will develop those parts of the brain that enhance creativity.

However, we should not just be Panglossian; there is a darker side to this. In our society, neurodivergent individuals have for far too long been let down, and we have a school-to-prison pipeline, much of which is due to the lack of early identification. For instance, statistics for 2016-17—I would be interested to know if the Minister has an update—show that children identified with special educational needs accounted for 46.7% of all permanent exclusions, despite making up under 15% of the school population, so almost half of those who are excluded from school are identified as having special educational needs.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about school exclusions. I should not have been shocked because the statistics are all out there for us to see, but last year when I visited Feltham young offender institution, just down the road from my constituency, I was told that the vast majority of young men in that institution have special educational needs and had been excluded from school. He is powerfully making the point that, if we do not invest early, we are storing up huge social and economic costs for ourselves.

[Matt Hancock]

That is absolutely right, and this issue unites colleagues from across the House. The Bill I will bring forward next month has cross-party support, and I urge the hon. Member to add her name to it. It has support from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) all the way through to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and it is not often that they sign the same piece of paper. If she will add her name to it, that would create a triangle of support across this House, which I would really welcome.

As the hon. Member said—in fact, she anticipated my very next point—the Ministry of Justice reports that 42% of incarcerated individuals had experienced exclusion from school, and we know that just over half of those in the male prison population have a primary school reading age. Addressing neurodiversity, identifying it early, ensuring there is the right support, and therefore reducing illiteracy and getting in support for the behavioural consequences of neurodivergent conditions will lead to fewer people in prison. It will also make sure that those who end up in prison, having been missed by the education system, get this support, and that will help to reduce reoffending. I am glad to say that the Lord Chancellor is on this and is making progress, and the Health Secretary made a huge amount of progress when she was prisons Minister, but there is much more to do.

Here is one concrete example of a new policy that I would propose, which I put to the Minister. The Ministry of Justice is currently rolling out digital profiles of prisoners, outlining their screening data and educational enrolments that are assessed on entry to prison, and ensuring that that data follows prisoners as they move from prison to prison. It is a very good initiative that was started under the previous Lord Chancellor and is being rolled out now. However, in the school system there is no automated data flow from primary to secondary school. Often, there are assessments early in secondary school, and that is good, but if there is screening data or an assessment of individual child need, there is no automated way for such data, with the richness of the data that can now be available, to be passed through to secondary school. Essentially, each child starts from a blank canvas, and it all has to be reassessed.

We need an accurate assessment of where a child is up to at the start of secondary school, but understanding their history as well would be valuable, so I ask the Minister to look at what the MOJ has done on data transfer—in its case, normally from initial prison to the longer-stay prison—for use in the transition from primary to secondary school.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock). I agreed with an awful lot of what he said, particularly his point about early diagnosis and not being afraid to attach a label to things, because that equips parents and teachers to support a child appropriately. Even if that does not necessarily mean additional funding is needed, it is about making sure that we all have the right tools in our armoury to support a child.

I congratulate the new hon. Member for Wellingborough (Gen Kitchen) on her maiden speech, and I look forward to seeing her around—I hope for many more months and years to come.

I also congratulate the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), on securing this important debate. I was very happy to sponsor his application for it, given the desperation and exasperation felt by so many parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities up and down the country. As he said, we heard from Members from both sides of the House in January in a well-attended debate secured by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis). They told harrowing stories that they learned of from their constituency casework, and in some cases from personal family experiences. Sadly, his plea for more immediate support in the Budget fell on deaf ears, although the longer-term commitment to build a few more special schools was welcome, and I will say a little more about that later. The insufficient funding for SEND has a visceral impact on vulnerable children and their families, but it is also one of the most pressing financial issues facing local authorities around the country, many of which are on the brink of bankruptcy. I shall focus my remarks on that issue, rather than repeating points that I made in the debate in January.

Since March 2021, the Department for Education has made safety-valve agreements with the 34 local authorities with the highest dedicated schools grant deficits, and a further five are in the pipeline. The Department is working with an additional 55 local authorities through its “delivering better value in SEND” programme, so we are not far off having 100 local authorities already engaged with the DFE because they are struggling with funding for SEND. That number will continue to rise because, as has repeatedly been said in the House, the available SEND funding simply does not match the need. Ultimately, many of these programmes are sticking-plaster solutions that will not address the longer-term underlying challenge, because local authorities are already predicting and modelling significant deficits in years to come, beyond the lifespan of some of these agreements.

It is worrying that so many local authorities are already involved in these mechanisms, but more worrying still is the number of local authorities using the statutory override. Introduced in 2020, the override allows local authorities to exclude any deficits in their dedicated schools grant spending from their main revenue budgets. In effect, it allows local authority to proceed with an imbalanced budget without requiring a section 114 notice. That provision had been due to expire in March 2023 but has been extended for a further three years and will end in March 2026, yet there seems little prospect of local authorities being able to manage these deficits down in such a short space of time without a great deal more Government support.

Are we just waiting for a deluge of section 114 notices when the statutory override expires? The Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities certainly seems to think so. In its recent “Financial distress in local authorities” report, it concluded:

“The Government’s use of the statutory override and one-off ‘safety valve’ funding are temporary measures and do not address the underlying mismatch between demand, costs, and annual Dedicated Schools Grant funding”.

It added:

“the sector faces a cliff-edge of section 114 notices.”

There is no information on what will happen when the statutory override concludes. A cynic might suggest that this Conservative Government, who are clearly on their last legs, are happy to kick this thorny issue into the long grass for the next Administration to grapple with. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer to this problem, which is already keeping many council leaders awake at night, even if he hopes that this will be somebody else’s problem.

As for those local authorities that are in safety-valve agreements, are the Government keeping their side of the bargain? I have spoken before about the lack of SEND school places and the costs that can lead to; for example, children may be placed in private equity-backed schools that charge exorbitant fees and rip off taxpayers, and there is also the additional cost of transporting SEND children outside the local area. It behoves the Government to set up new SEND schools and create new places, and although the Government have promised 15 special schools in their Budget, as we have heard, their track record on delivery is poor. As the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Worcester, pointed out, it is an open question whether the funding announced will allow the promise to be met.

We are told that we can expect these schools to open in three to four years. Frankly, I will believe it when I see it, because just last week it was reported that building work on 33 new special schools that will particularly help children with autism was seriously delayed, despite the expectation that they would be up and running by 2026. The response from the Department for Education was that it never set that target date. Councils are trying to take matters into their own hands, but the Government approved fewer than half of the 85 applications from councils to open SEND free schools in 2022.

Local authorities trying to meet the requirements of their safety-valve agreements will be significantly hindered if the new SEND places promised by the Government are not forthcoming. The day-to-day impact that the delays will have on mainstream schools must not be underestimated. I hold a termly call with all the chairs of school governing bodies in my constituency. My discussions with those governors and with local headteachers regularly feature SEND, as I am sure the Minister can imagine, and in particular the massive impact on staff, other pupils and school budgets of ensuring that children with high needs who are waiting for an EHCP or desperately searching for a special school place are adequately supported. One local school told me of teaching assistants being bitten, and quitting as a result. When that happens, it exacerbates the workforce challenges that many of our schools face. The school was concerned about how to keep other pupils safe, and was spending a large amount of money trying to support a child who clearly should not have been in a mainstream school. The mainstream school cannot claw that money back once the child finally gets an EHCP and a special school place.

These delays are exacerbated by a desperate shortage of educational psychologists and speech and language therapists. I agree with the comments about making sure that we have those people in place to support the early identification that has been talked about; these professionals are integral to the system. We must address the chronic shortage of speech and language therapists and educational psychologists if we are to provide any sort of timely assessment. Scandalously, one school in my constituency said that it had the budget that it wanted to spend on speech and language therapy, but it had to hand the money back because it could not find anyone to deliver the support, and it was a “use it or lose it at the end of the financial year” budget.

I come to the final issue that I want to raise. I heard about this just last week from a Shropshire councillor, and it strikes me as a real anomaly, and waste in the system that Ministers could easily address without spending more money. I was told that a statement of special need issued in one nation of the UK cannot be passported to another. If a child with an EHCP in England moves across the border to Wales, that EHCP is not recognised, and vice versa, and the parents have to join a waiting list and start the process again from scratch. The situation is the same in Scotland. That will also have an impact on children coming into England. They are being reassessed for EHCPs, as the statements they received in Scotland or Wales are not recognised. At a time when resources are being stretched to breaking point, this lack of passporting is surely nonsense. The help and support that a child requires in one nation of the UK is surely the same in the next. I hope the Minister will take this issue away and seek to resolve it. As always seems to be the case with SEND, it is the children and their families who suffer the most. They wait forever to get the help and support that they need, and families often have to fight hard for their child’s rights.

I am afraid that the Government are letting down children with special educational needs and disability. I hope that even if Ministers choose to ignore those on the Opposition Benches, they will listen to Back Benchers from their party, given that so many Conservative Members chose to sign a letter to the Chancellor asking for more SEND funding. We all know the statistics, and know that there has been a huge increase in the number of children with special educational needs. I recognise that presents enormous challenges for national and local government, but although those statistics are important, we must never forget that behind every statistic is a child who is directly affected—a child who, like every other, deserves the very best start in life, because every child, no matter their background or needs, can achieve great things.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Johnston]

My hon. Friend makes some important points. The honest truth is that I just do not think the Labour party thought it through. I think they thought it was ideology that would please a particular wing of the party, but they did not think through the fact that it would hammer families with a child in a special school, trying to get their needs met, with an additional 20%. We will see what those families think about that policy.

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the Minister for giving way, because I actually support quite a lot of what he is saying on this issue. Just in the last couple of weeks, I have come across two or three families that have children with lower levels of additional needs that do not warrant an EHCP who have gone into state mainstream schools and really struggled. Those families told me that they scrimped and saved to get their child better support in a mainstream, but smaller and more nurturing, private school. In one case, a mother had inherited a little bit of money from a parent that she was then able to invest. She said to me that so many children will not have that opportunity. We should not penalise parents who want to make that choice to support their children with special needs. That is why the Liberal Democrats will also oppose putting VAT on private school fees.

[David Johnston]

It is not often I say this, but I entirely agree with the hon. Lady, and I hope we can work together. The Labour party believes in the myth that everyone who puts their children into these schools is wealthy and can afford the 20% increase, but, as the hon. Lady says, often people are just trying to get the right support for their children. Whether they can secure an EHCP is not within their control—all sorts of factors are involved—and it is completely unacceptable to hammer those families with another 20% on the cost of trying to meet their children’s needs.

SEND Provision and Funding

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Sir Jake Berry). While I cannot speak from personal experience in the way he movingly has, I hope to shed light on some of the issues through examples that I have come across around the country and in my constituency.

One of the reasons I am in this place is that I am passionate about children and firmly believe that every child, no matter their background or needs, can achieve great things. As we have heard, too many vulnerable children are not getting the support that they need to thrive and achieve their potential, and too many parents are fighting an adversarial system because of the growing demand and the lack of resource. EHCPs are inevitably being rationed in the way that we have heard. We have heard about the growing number of councils with high needs deficits. That is why the Local Government Association says that the Government have not gone far enough in addressing the cost and demand pressures.

Since 2016, there has been an upward trend in the number of children with special educational needs, but in the same period the number of speech and language therapist vacancies has soared. In my constituency, special schools tell me that they just cannot recruit the teaching assistants they need. There is also a lot of pressure on staff in mainstream schools. I hear that week in and week out from schools in my constituency. I went to visit Coppice Valley Primary School in Harrogate in October, where I had a long chat with the leadership team about SEND issues. Heartbreakingly, the school’s SEND lead, who is passionate about his job and brilliant at it, is leaving his job because he does not feel that he can meet the needs of the children he has been hired to serve, due to the problems that the school is having in accessing the resources that it needs from North Yorkshire Council.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who cannot be here today, wanted me to share the story of a 16-year-old boy in her constituency, who has a life-limiting degenerative condition and is totally reliant on the care of others. He has attended a specialist school for many years, but has been unable to attend since September 2023 because he has now moved into post-16 education, and his parents’ travel allowance to get him to and from school was cut by 62%. His parents are now unable to afford to transport him.

I heard of a set of twins in Guildford, one of whom is going through the local secondary school while their sibling has languished at home for years, getting little or no education. The lack of contact with children their own age and of a school routine is making the situation far worse. Imagine how devastating it is for the parents to see one child thrive while their twin suffers. That cannot be right.

In my constituency surgery just a few weeks ago, I saw a parent whose year 10 child was getting a handful of hours of medical tuition at sporadic times through the week, which was a logistical nightmare for the parent, because the school that offered the alternative provision that they needed, and that was suitable for them, simply did not have the space.

With the growing number of children who are being identified as having SEND, there is insufficient provision and funding to keep pace. In particular, there are not enough spaces in our special schools. Unfortunately, the gap is often being filled by some who are just out to make money. Let me be clear: I have no ideological issue with private SEND schools. Many are brilliant, not-for-profit charitable schools, delivering an excellent education, but there is profiteering, often by private equity companies. One company last year had a turnover for SEND of £134 million, and a £25 million profit after tax. Far too many SEND schools are making obscene profits, while the sector struggles to provide basic education for so many. That is putting huge pressure on local authority budgets, as are some independent children’s homes that are also run by private equity firms.

We already have 34 local authorities under the safety valve agreement with the DFE, and we expect more to go on to that list. We are being held to ransom by people making money from those in need. We are all asking for more money to be put in by central Government, but there is definitely a case to be made that there is a saving to be found by having more state-funded specialist provision and giving local authorities the power to open special schools when no other provider is coming forth to set one up.

Briefly on tribunals, I think everyone will know from their casework that local authorities won only 1.7% of appeals but spent over £100 million fighting them. Again, that money could go into the system. Every child matters. They deserve the very best. I am afraid that reform on SEND from the Government has been very slow. There has been delay after delay, not helped by the political chaos at the top of Government. Even the latest reforms that were announced last year will not work without adequate funding. I congratulate and thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) for securing the debate and shining a spotlight on the issues. I hope that the Minister will listen, and I look forward to his comments.

Support for Kinship Carers

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of support for kinship carers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate and by welcoming the many kinship carers who are here listening. The last two times that I led a debate on kinship care, the Children’s Minister resigned shortly after—literally within days—but in an exciting plot twist, this time the Children’s Minister got a promotion the week before, so perhaps things are looking up for the new Minister. I welcome him to his place.

On a serious note, I launched this campaign in Parliament in July last year and the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston) is the fourth Children’s Minister I have engaged with on this issue since then. I know that his brief covers so many important areas. I really hope, for the sake of our country’s children, that we will get some stability now and that we will be able to progress—on opposite sides of the Chamber, and also by working together on some of the critical issues facing children up and down the country. I know that the Minister has an extensive and long-standing interest in children’s policy, so I look forward to seeing him hit the ground running. We are all looking to him to ensure that the upcoming kinship care strategy will be delivered before the end of the year, as his Department has promised.

The last debate that I led on this issue was in this Chamber 11 months ago. I set out many of the themes and issues that are in my ten-minute rule Bill from July last year, so I want to focus on the upcoming strategy as well as revisiting some of the themes that we have talked about consistently.

I acknowledge some of the progress that has been made over the last year in getting the Government to acknowledge kinship. In their response to Josh MacAlister’s independent review of children’s social care—the Government document was called “Stable Homes, Built on Love”—we finally saw an acknowledgement by Government of kinship and kinship carers. In the document, there was recognition that

“kinship care has received little national policy attention”

and that

“too little support is given to extended family members who play a caring role for their young relatives.”

When the previous Children’s Minister made the statement in the House of Commons, I was really heartened by the number of Members on both sides of the House who spoke about kinship care. It was the first time that I had heard so much attention given to this important issue, which has too often been overlooked.

The MacAlister review was the crucial moment in putting kinship carers on the map, kick-starting what has happened. It recognised that, with the right help, housing a child in crisis with family or friends they know and love will often be the best outcome for them. We know that, every year, thousands of grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings and family friends step up in this way, and they do so instinctively, out of love, despite the huge personal sacrifice involved. We know that children in kinship care have equal or better mental health, education and employment chances than looked-after children. With my Bill, I sought to press the Government to implement several of the MacAlister review’s recommendations.

I am delighted that, since then, kinship carers have shared their stories numerous times on breakfast TV and local radio. An ITV documentary highlighted their plight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) shared, on Sky News, his moving story of growing up in kinship care, and I am really proud that in March this year, at the Liberal Democrat spring conference, Lib Dem members approved as party policy a lot of what was in my Bill about allowances, leave, pupil premium plus and having a statutory definition of kinship care.

Kinship care is on the Government’s lips and in the media spotlight in a way that it rarely has been. It has been a pleasure to work alongside these carers, the Family Rights Group, Kinship and other MPs in making the case that kinship care is worth investing in—saving the taxpayer in the long run. It would be remiss of me if I did not also acknowledge and thank, from the bottom of my heart, Andrew Burrell from my team, who is here today and has been the driving force in my office behind this work. He is leaving my office in a couple of weeks, and a lot of what I have done would not have been possible without his expertise and dedication, so I am very grateful to him.

Ministers are finally beginning to listen, and the attention given to kinship care in “Stable Homes, Built on Love” is hugely welcome. I am sad to say, however, that the document was policy-lite, with commitments to merely “explore the case” for greater financial support for kinship carers, and to pilot new “family first” decision making in just seven council areas. Other announcements were kicked down the road into the kinship care strategy promised by the end of the year, but, as the cost of living crisis bites, too many children in kinship care cannot afford to wait. There is a serious risk to children’s outcomes and the public finances if kinship care does not get the investment that it needs. The MacAlister review warned that, with no action, almost 20,000 more children will be in local authority care by 2032, costing the Treasury an extra £5 billion.

In recent months, Kinship has seen a significant increase in the complexity and severity of cases to its advice and support line. In its 2022 “The Cost of Loving” survey of more than 1,000 kinship carers, out of the three quarters who said that they were not getting the support they needed, one third said that they may not be able to continue caring for their children as a result.

The need for change is becoming increasingly urgent. We need the Government not just to acknowledge the love that kinship carers provide, but to value it, invest in it and step up for those who are struggling.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate and the very eloquent way in which she is putting the case. Does she agree that if what she described were to happen to that one third, it would be a disaster not just for those families and the care system, but for the taxpayer, because it would require a very expensive solution to a problem that we could resolve by other means?

[Munira Wilson]

Absolutely, and I am grateful for that intervention, because the right hon. Member makes a case that I have made throughout, whenever I have talked about kinship carers: the Government cannot afford not to provide this support. The analysis shows that if we paid kinship carers a similar allowance to foster carers, for every child that we prevent from going into care, the Government would save £35,000 a year. It is a no-brainer because of both the short-term savings to the Treasury and the long-term savings, in terms of the more positive outcomes that we achieve for those children.

So what opportunity stands before us with the national kinship care strategy? It provides a key opportunity for the Government to deliver financial and educational support to children in kinship care that will be truly transformative. Kinship carers cannot wait for another spending review or a different colour of Government.

My Kinship Care Bill, introduced last year, had four main asks, and I hope that the strategy will make significant progress towards implementing each one. First, all kinship carers should have a weekly allowance at the same level as the national minimum fostering allowance. Many experience severe financial hardship. Kinship’s survey last year found that two in five kinship carers had avoided putting the heating on, one in five skipped meals and more than one in eight used food banks. A national, non-means-tested allowance would end the system of patchy, means-tested allowances that reflect a postcode lottery in the support that councils can afford to provide.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I apologise for missing the beginning of the hon. Lady’s speech, but I know that she has campaigned very effectively on this issue. Does she not agree, though, that the particular challenge with means testing in this space is that so many kinship carers are grandparents? They are retired and they have savings, but they need those savings for themselves and their retirement. It is vital that we have a system of support that recognises that particular challenge.

[Munira Wilson]

Absolutely, and that is why we need a consistent system applied across the board that is not dependent on the political persuasion of a local authority or what means it has to support kinship carers. I have come across many grandparents who are using up their life savings and people who might be about to retire and are having to quit the workforce sooner than they wanted. Kinship carers come in so many different shapes and sizes. That is why a proper means-tested allowance and national rules governing that is so important. The critical thing is that money should not be a barrier to a family or a friend taking in a child who is part of the wider family, because such barriers can lead to a child being forced into local authority care.

Secondly, kinship carers should be entitled to paid employment leave on a par with adoptive parents. Kinship’s “Forced Out” survey found that four in 10 kinship carers had to leave work permanently and a further 45% reduced their hours after becoming a kinship carer. Those carers are disproportionately women and are over-represented in healthcare, education and social care, which simply exacerbates our workforce crisis in public services.

Thirdly, the Bill proposes extending greater educational support to children in kinship care such as pupil premium plus, virtual school heads and a higher priority in school admissions.

Fourthly, there should be a definition of kinship care in statute that will help carers and councils to better understand who a kinship carer is and what support they are entitled to.

The Government’s response so far on the first of the three core asks has been disappointing, and “Stable Homes, Built on Love” has provided little hope. The Government have simply said they will “explore the case” for a mandatory financial allowance for kinship carers who possess a legal order. I am intrigued to understand more from the Minister about what “explore the case” means. Perhaps he will shed some light on it today. Will we see a cost-benefit analysis and an impact assessment? Are civil servants working actively on the issue, or are we talking about a couple of emails and phone calls?

I am pleased that the Government have adopted wholesale the definition of kinship care that was proposed by the Family Rights Group and have put it out for consultation—it was the same definition that I used in my Bill. However, the definition will have clout only if it is put into legislation and has statutory rights or entitlements attached to it. Simply putting it into guidance will likely not resolve the poor recognition and understanding of the term.

We cannot have another strategy that ducks the big decisions and kicks them into the long grass. Even if the plan has no spending commitments, which would be an absolute disaster, there are some steps that the Government could take to significantly improve the lives of kinship carers.

On data, our ability to make the case for greater investment in kinship care is greatly hampered by confusion over how many children live in kinship care and where kinship carers work. The latest estimate that 152,000 children in England live in kinship care comes from a University of Bristol analysis of the 2011 census.

In April, I wrote to the UK Statistics Authority to ask whether the Office for National Statistics intended to publish figures from the 2021 census. It replied that the Department for Education formally requested data on kinship carers earlier that month and that it would provide an update on that later in the year. I understand that that data might be published later this month. Will the Minister confirm that? Will it include information on the demographic make-up of kinship carers and their labour market patterns?

Meanwhile, parliamentary questions that I tabled reveal that, although the Ministry of Justice publishes how many special guardianship orders and child arrangement orders are granted each year, it does not know how many children are currently subject to one. What more will the Minister do to ensure that his Department, the Ministry of Justice, and local authorities have accurate information on the number of children in kinship care?

On therapeutic care, I know how important the adoption support fund was to my constituent, Kim, who used it for her granddaughter’s attachment therapy. However, Kim was in the uncommon position that her granddaughter was previously looked after before she went into kinship care. That meant she was entitled to ASF and also to pupil premium plus. As I told the House during my debate in October, that creates a totally perverse incentive for families to allow children to go into care so that they can receive additional support. Will the Minister review the eligibility criteria for the schemes so that more children in kinship care can qualify? Could the name of the adoption support fund be changed to acknowledge that kinship carers can also apply?

On legal aid, the Department has committed to

“work across government to explore…options for an extension of legal aid with kinship carers with SGOs and CAOs.”

Again, I would be grateful if the Minister explained what “explore” means as we seek to plug the gaps in legal aid provisions, particularly when children’s services first reach out to prospective kinship carers.

The Government must remember that one in three kinship carer households is non-white. Ethnic minority children in kinship care are less likely to have a legal order. I recognise that a legal order may signify that the caring arrangement will be stable and permanent. However, if the Government restrict all their support to children in formal kinship arrangements, they risk widening ethnic disparities. Will the Minister confirm that the strategy will be accompanied by an equalities impact assessment, so that the risk can be mitigated?

This debate comes in the context of increasing anxiety about the financial stability of many local authorities across England. As we have seen in the press lately, some are in a catastrophic position with their finances. The strategy must not impose on local authorities various well-intentioned duties, pilots and instructions to change their culture without giving them the resources to implement them effectively.

I will end with a reminder of why we are all here and of the families whose lives we are trying to improve. Kim was one of the first kinship carers in my constituency to contact me. She is the special guardian of her granddaughter. She says of her experience:

“We are fortunate to have an understanding of the system now and can advocate for our granddaughter. However, the emotional, financial and physical price has taken its toll! Even 5 years into our Special Guardianship Order and with the help that we have been able to access, my granddaughter really struggles with any change…On a personal level, we have 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.”

April, which is not her real name, spoke to me about caring for her nephew after his mother passed away. She says:

“Little did I know that [by] giving my sister peace of mind as she faced leaving her small children, and [by] giving my nephew the security and care he desperately needed, I was unwittingly stepping into a ‘private arrangement’ with zero support.

We want to focus on the positives. It is a positive [that] we’ve got a new family member. But if we have to worry about financial things or [other] support…We don’t want to have to do that. I want to give him the very best childhood.”

Many of the kinship carers who are watching the debate from the Gallery will have similar testimonies. Indeed, last year I hosted an event in Parliament for kinship carers and heard many moving stories. I also met kinship carers in Sutton a few months ago. Although every story and every family is unique, the themes I have set out today, including the barriers and challenges kinship carers face in the system, are often a common thread. People are so exhausted from fighting against them.

I invite right hon. and hon. Members to come to tea in the café after the debate with me and the kinship carers here today to hear at first hand about their experiences. They and I now look to the Minister to make sure that the upcoming kinship care strategy will be truly transformational. By stepping up for kinship carers, we support every child to get the very best start in life, no matter what their background.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Only one Back Bencher has applied to speak, so I invite others to bob if they wish to take part.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Johnston]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that point and I will certainly do that. He made a point about assessments, which I will come to. Again, they should be simpler than they have been in his experience.

My Department is also working with Ofsted to improve the visibility of kinship care in inspection reports. Through updated guidance and inspector training, Ofsted will make it clearer that reports should refer to the quality of support being provided to kinship carers and children in kinship care arrangements.

Let me try to rattle through as many of the questions as I can. We have touched on data. I have given the 2021 census figures, but data collection is something that my officials are really working on, because there just has not been enough. Not having that data is inhibiting our ability and some of the things that we want to do in the strategy.

I was asked whether there will be an equalities impact assessment. Yes, there will be a thorough equalities impact assessment as part of the forthcoming strategy.

On the bureaucracy that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne referred to, part of the setting of the definition is to ensure that agencies are better able to provide the right support and remove some of the hurdles that kinship carers experience. We hope that the peer support groups will support that work as well.

I just touched on the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish about assessments. LAs have the statutory responsibility for assessing kinship carers, because they have the legal duty to safeguard vulnerable children, but those assessments should be proportionate and prioritise the best interests of the child. I encourage local authorities to think about how their assessments could be adapted to be more supportive, and we will reiterate that in our strategy.

I need to leave a little time for the hon. Member for Twickenham to wind up. I thank her again for securing the debate, as well as previous ones, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. The debate has rightly focused on the issues that all too many kinship carers face. I put on the record my thanks and admiration for every one of those kinship carers—including Members of this House—for their selfless contribution to the lives of the children they care for. It is a huge commitment, but such an important one. I am proud of the progress that we are already making to support kinship carers, but I know there is much more to do, and that is what the strategy will contain.

I am fully committed to reducing the barriers to kinship care where it is in the best interests of the child and can offer a safe, stable and loving alternative to their becoming looked after. I look forward to publishing our kinship strategy before the end of the year. As I set out, that will be an opportunity to begin to make meaningful and lasting change in the lives of kinship carers and their children.

2.55 pm

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the hon. Members who co-sponsored my application for the debate and all those who have participated in it. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said that he gets nervous when this issue comes up because it is so close to home, but I urge him: please do not stop talking about it. His passion, love, devotion and dedication to Lyle makes what he says so much more powerful than anything that I or anybody else says, because it comes from the heart and personal experience, and it is always so moving.

I was heartened by the level of cross-party consensus, not least from the new Minister. I was delighted to hear his commitment to the issue and his recognition of some of the key issues we raised. I feel encouraged. I know, however, that the stumbling block for the strategy will be the Treasury; my sense is that children tend to be a much lower priority for it. I make the Minister this offer: if he needs any help lobbying the Treasury, I, and I suspect Members from all parts of the House, stand ready to work alongside him to make the case and ensure that kinship carers and children in kinship care get support.

I do not think that I heard much about employment leave. Again, if the Minister needs to work with the Department for Business and Trade on that, I will be happy to support him in any way. We can follow up the detail of some issues in correspondence, but he started to address many of the questions that I and other hon. Members raised. We look forward to seeing the strategy, and hon. Members from all parts of the House will continue to work alongside him and to champion this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.

That this House has considered the matter of support for kinship carers.

Adult and Further Education

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who chairs the Education Committee, and the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) on securing this important debate, which feels long overdue. We can probably all agree that successive Governments of all colours have left our sixth forms, further education colleges and adult education providers unloved, to a certain extent, and certainly underfunded—hence the references to Cinderella.

We now expect all children to remain in education or training until the age of 18, yet spending per pupil aged 16 to 18 is lower than it is in secondary schools. Despite that, we ask our sixth forms and our FE staff to teach more specialised subjects, with smaller classes and on lower budgets. When Ministers eventually stump up desperately needed cash for schools, as they did in last year’s autumn statement, colleges rarely get a look-in.

The result is that over the next few years our further education system faces a perfect storm of funding challenges that I sense the Government have limited interest in fixing. That includes the population bulge that is currently moving through our secondary schools and is about to hit further education. The Government are also prematurely scrapping funding for dozens of level 3 qualifications to make way for T-levels, as has been set out extensively today. That has led to an unprecedented situation in which the Association of Colleges has refused even to make a pay offer to trade unions representing FE staff. Colleges simply cannot afford to make an offer to teachers that fairly reflects the work they do, and that protects them from the cost of living crisis. When half of teaching staff at FE colleges leave within three years, our colleges and staff simply cannot afford a protracted pay dispute with the Government.

Sadly, the Government’s mismanagement of the economy and their failure to control inflation means the next spending review will involve some difficult and painful decisions, but the Open University’s latest survey shows that almost three quarters of UK organisations are experiencing skills shortages. Now, more than ever, the Department needs to make the case to the Treasury on the long-term benefits of investing in our colleges, which equip our young people with new skills, nurture their creativity and develop their talents.

Our starting point should be to support those with the most to gain from post-16 education. Liberal Democrats in government were very proud to introduce the pupil premium, which targeted funding at our most disadvantaged schoolchildren. It is high time we extended it to age 18.

I was recently delighted to welcome Get Further to Parliament. The charity has achieved astounding results by providing small-group tutoring to college students resitting GCSE English and maths. It is now looking for long-term certainty that the Government’s 16 to 19 tuition fund will continue beyond next year. I hope Ministers will soon be able to provide that certainty. If the Government are looking for extra cash, they could repurpose the millions of pounds of apprenticeship levy funding that is returned to the Treasury every year.

As we have heard, Ministers are compounding colleges’ funding woes by scrapping dozens of BTECs and other applied general qualifications that students value and employers trust. They are a well-established route for students to get into university, particularly those from under-represented backgrounds, with research from the Social Market Foundation finding that 44% of white working-class students enter university with at least one BTEC, and that 37% of black students enter university with only BTEC qualifications.

I fully understand and support the Department’s desire to achieve parity of esteem between academic and vocational routes post-16, but the Conservative Government seem hellbent on shutting down the middle route for those students who would benefit from a mix of both academic and applied qualifications, or for whom T-level entry requirements are simply too high.

An analysis by the Sixth Form Colleges Association reveals that just 60 of the existing 134 level-3 applied general qualifications will be eligible for public funding after 2025. At a time when young people need more support than ever to realise and rebuild their future, scrapping these qualifications is a backward step that will damage the prospects of our most disadvantaged students.

Popular subjects such as criminology, which is studied by more than 40,000 students, and travel and tourism have fallen off the approved subject list entirely. Britain’s hospitality sector is crying out for more recruits, at a time when the Government are desperate to reduce economic migration, yet the BTEC in hospitality and tourism is being defunded. The Government’s catering T-level does not even have a start date. How does that make any sense at all?

Scrapping these courses is a huge and unnecessary challenge. In 2019-20, some 17,000 students enrolled on one of 25 level-3 childcare courses, which the Department is defunding next year. We know we have a shortage of staff in the childcare sector, yet all these courses are being defunded. In 2021, a little over 2,000 students started the education T-level that is replacing those courses. Again, that makes no sense whatsoever, given the shortages we face. It would take a miraculous expansion of the T-level in 2024 to prevent the number of trainees from falling off a cliff.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I have a great relationship with the wonderful Runshaw College in Leyland, and I am in the Chamber to highlight some of the things we have done to support the college. There is a worry about the 10% of students who do not have GCSEs to get on to T-levels, and who need some kind of vehicle to help them move into 16 to 18 education. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should encourage the Government to make sure that, while putting on only suitable level-3 qualifications, not placeholder qualifications, we should bear in mind the minority who might need a different type of qualification between A-levels and T-levels in their 16 to 18 education?

[Munira Wilson]

If I have understood the hon. Lady’s point correctly, she and I are in agreement that there needs to be something in between T-levels and A-levels for students who may not be able to cope with either of those. So I believe there is agreement on both sides of the House that we need to slow this process down, allow the T-levels to bed in and prove that they are the right thing, and continue to fund the BTECs as an option for those who might not be able to cope with a T-level or an A-level. Let me finish my point on the childcare qualifications by saying that I do not think parents will thank the Chancellor for providing more free childcare hours if their local nursery has to shut due to a lack of qualified staff. This policy will only exacerbate that.

Colleges are also dealing with the fallout from the reclassification by the ONS of colleges as central Government institutions. That amounts to a near absolute ban on colleges borrowing from banks, making them solely reliant on Government grants. The Government have promised another £150 million in capital spending to ease the blow, but we are yet again in a situation where colleges are asked to deliver the same value-for-money objectives as schools, with few of the financial perks. Colleges that did not convert into 16 to 19 academies were consistently told that their unique status meant that they should have to pay VAT on the goods and services they buy. They are now back in the same boat as schools, so will the Treasury extend to them the VAT relief that schools receive? That is only fair. The Department should also guarantee a college’s pension contributions if a college were to close, which would also cut its pension contributions.

Finally, on adult education, the Government’s flagship lifelong learning entitlements are at least a step forward in improving access to lifelong learning. However, the Government have still not made a compelling case that a student finance system designed for undergraduates will be an attractive way for older people to finance their education. The Government will be asking mature students, many of whom will have mortgage or family responsibilities, to be repaying their student loans well into their retirement. The Department’s short courses trial, which is meant to prove that there is a demand for student loans for individual modules, has handed out a mere 37 loans in the past year.

As I said on Second Reading of the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill, I do not believe that shows a lack of demand for lifelong learning, but it may show a lack of interest from the public in this mechanism for financing it. That is why the commission on lifelong learning set up by my predecessor as the MP for Twickenham, Vince Cable, recognised that grant funding would have to be part of the mix of funding adult education. Liberal Democrats have built on its proposals to create a skills wallet, giving every adult up to £10,000 over their working life to spend on education and retraining. It can be partly match-funded by employers, local authorities and other organisations.

I want to finish by paying tribute to my local college, Richmond upon Thames College, which does a fantastic job, in challenging circumstances, in serving students from not just across the London Borough of Richmond but right across London, with many from very disadvantaged backgrounds. I also wish to reiterate that the Liberal Democrats believe that education is an investment in our children’s and young people’s future potential and our country’s future growth. That vision is embodied by our colleges, which provide learners of all ages with the skills, confidence and resilience they need to flourish. It is high time we valued them properly, by extending the pupil premium, protecting student choice and fostering a culture of lifelong learning. That is what our post-16 education budget should be delivering.

Childcare and Early Years

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), but it was slightly less of a pleasure when she reminded me of the pain of childbirth and all those sleepless nights. My children are now four and eight. She said she was freaking out potential mothers, but she was freaking me out, too, by making me relive some of that trauma. I thank her for that.

I also thank the right hon. Lady for her bravery in speaking out about her experiences at Barclays. Thankfully, most employers have moved on, and many employers now see it as a competitive advantage to keep working mothers and fathers in their workforce, but there is still far too much discrimination and pressure, so I thank her for sharing her story.

I thank the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) for securing this important debate. He and a number of Conservative Members have been pretty consistent on this issue, and it is important that we have men as allies in this debate. We heard from the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire about various women, including herself—I also think about Jo Swinson when she was in government—who led the way on many of these issues. It is great that women did that, but men need to champion it too. As we heard, men’s role as fathers is just as important as women’s role as mothers. I am heartened to see men making that case.

I have said it before and I will say it again, but I am standing here today only because I have a husband who took the hit to his career when we had our children. I had a senior role in business before I became an MP, and I could not have become an MP, with a one-year-old and a five-year-old, without him being at home doing a lot of the childcare, the washing and all the domestic duties. I thank the men, and I ask them to continue championing this cause alongside us.

This is an estimates day debate, so we are here to discuss Government spending on childcare and early years. To be honest, it is incredibly difficult to disagree with anything the hon. Member for Worcester said. We are on the same page, and at times it felt as if he was reading parts of my speech, so I apologise for the repetition.

I hope that Treasury Ministers and officials, as well as the Minister for children, are listening carefully, because Members on both sides of the House are making the same point. The view of the Liberal Democrats is that the Government are not spending enough on childcare and early years, plain and simple. They are not spending enough to give all children, particularly those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, the high-quality early years education they deserve.

The Government are also not spending enough to make childcare genuinely affordable when parents decide the time is right to go back to work. The point has been made about the importance of choice. As I have demonstrated with my own example, every family are unique and need to have a range of options to suit their personal circumstances. The current system does not make that possible.

The Government are not spending enough to ensure that providers are able to stay in business, so that parents can find a place for their child. We see the impact on children, parents and providers, and I have some statistics to back up that point. Before the pandemic, children in reception on free school meals were, on average, 4.6 months behind their peers, and that gap has widened since 2016. As has already been said, early years is where investment can make the biggest difference to children’s life chances.

We know that a typical couple in the UK have to spend, on average, about 29% of their wage on childcare, which compares with 19% in the US, 15% in Canada and less than 10% in France, Germany, Sweden and Japan, according to the OECD. A year ago, a survey by Pregnant Then Screwed and Mumsnet found that for most parents of young children, childcare now costs the same as or more than their rent or mortgage payments. The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire talked about £50 a day for a tip-top nursery, but I can tell her that in south-west London people are looking at £100 a day, if not more, for a tip-top nursery. Frankly, this is unaffordable and people are spending more on childcare than on their rent or mortgage payments. Some people’s mortgages increased as a result of the mini-Budget we had back in November, but I am not sure that was the solution the Government were looking for to address the disparity.

The other issue we face relates to childcare providers, as more than 10,000 of them closed last year, with a net reduction overall of 4,000. I wish to pay tribute to June O’Sullivan, from the London Early Years Foundation, who has been doing a lot of work on this issue. A lot of providers have gone under in more disadvantaged areas. As a result of the LEYF’s social enterprise model, it is able to invest in provision and settings in more disadvantaged areas—doing so, in essence, by subsidising from where it runs nurseries in more affluent areas, including my own. I visited one of its nurseries in Teddington, which is run for employees of the National Physical Laboratory in my constituency, to hear about how the LEYF is cross-subsidising to enable all parents, whatever their background, to access good, high-quality childcare.

On International Women’s Day, it is worth emphasising that the lack of affordable childcare hits women the hardest, as we have heard. The proportion of mothers in full-time work drops dramatically when their child turns one, falling from 49% to 31%, and it does not recover until their youngest is 14. On average, women’s earnings take a 40% hit when they have their first child and never recover, whereas men’s earnings take barely a hit at all—I will not tell my husband that! According to the Department for Education’s own survey, 53% of non-working mothers with children under five would prefer to go to work if they could find convenient, flexible, reliable, affordable, good-quality childcare.

I want to say a couple of words about single parents, because they are often overlooked in this debate and I have heard from single parents in my constituency. One of them said to me, “Look, staying at home is not even an option for me. I’ve got to go out to work. The costs are crippling.” I heard from another constituent who is on a very good salary and does not live an extravagant lifestyle. She is a single mother of twin two-year-olds, so she has two children whose childcare she has to pay for. She is on a good salary and lives in a two-bedroom home, but after all her living costs, before childcare, she has only £250 a month left to spare. So her childcare costs of more than £2,000 a month are having to come out of her savings. She appreciates that many other people are in a far worse position; at least she has some savings to pay for it, so that she can continue to work. However, until such time as her children go to school, she will be coughing up a further £75,000 in childcare costs—it is just astonishing. This issue is having an impact on people right across the income scale, because the current system is in a mess and is inadequate.

As we heard eloquently from the hon. Member for Worcester, the Government are massively underfunding the free hours entitlement. As he said, it is not free; it is subsidised. My son came out of childcare just last August or September, so I can tell the House that I was massively topping up the free hours I was getting. All sorts of jiggery-pokery with the invoices was done, because childminders and nurseries are told not to show that they are charging for those free hours, because they are not technically meant to, but everybody knows it goes on. Again, it is okay for me to have to pay for that, but, unfortunately, many people from much more disadvantaged backgrounds cannot pay for that top-up in care. The Department’s own data show that the average rate paid in respect of three and four-year-olds in 2020-21 was £4.89 per hour, which was less than two thirds of the Government’s own estimate that that provision cost on average £7.49 per hour. As has been said, in London the cost is even higher.

We have heard already that the take-up of the Government’s tax-free childcare offer is just 40%, and more than 750,000 eligible families across the UK did not benefit from it in 2021-22. So we definitely need—

[Mr Robin Walker]

At the risk of encouraging the hon. Lady to further think we agree on everything, may I ask whether she thinks it extraordinary that, even out of that relatively low take-up, about half the people opening an account for tax-free childcare are then not using it? That shows the huge challenge of the clunkiness of the current system.

[Munira Wilson]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman on that. Embarrassingly, I have to confess that even I did not understand or appreciate what was available to me—I was not that well educated on that. When I got elected to this place in 2019, I could no longer get childcare vouchers from my former employer, which is what I had before, and so for many months I did not benefit at all from the tax-free allowance. I then realised that I could open up this account. I did not know that for my eldest child, who is now at school, I could use it to pay for wraparound care; I thought it only applied until my children started school. I confess that I did not know this, so I am sure that many parents out there just do not know what is on offer to them. We need a much better public information campaign about what is on offer. The other point to make on how the system is not working is that the maximum childcare support in universal credit has been frozen since 2016, which means that it covers fewer and fewer hours for those low-income families.

The hon. Gentleman delicately pointed out that early years provision has been somewhat overlooked by the Treasury in some of the recent funding settlements for the Department for Education. Let me put it slightly more starkly: based on what was announced in the autumn statement in 2022, setting the core schools funding aside, the rest of the Department’s day-to-day spending, which includes the early years, is set to be cut by £500 million, or 2.3%, in real terms over the next two years. If that means a cut for early years provision, as logic would dictate it does, that would be disastrous and short-sighted. I hope that the Minister will specifically address that point about the budget for early years provision in the next few years.

The Liberal Democrats have set out a clear plan for childcare that is flexible, affordable and fair. We believe the Government should expand the offer of free, high-quality childcare for all children aged two to four, not just in term time, but year round. Crucially, the Government should also raise the rates paid to providers to match the actual costs they face. The Government also need to plug that gap between the end of parental leave and the start of free childcare, which leaves many parents without the choice or control to which we have alluded.

As others have said, investing in our children’s early education is one of the best investments a society can make, and we need to see it as exactly that—it is an investment. Childcare is an essential part of our economic infrastructure. For many parents, it is as important and crucial for getting to work as railways and road. Employers, finally, are seeing that and making the case, and I congratulate the CBI and other employers’ organisations that are making that case. I hope that if the Treasury will not listen to me, it will listen to Conservative Members, to those employers’ organisations and, crucially, to parents in all our constituencies, across the country. It is time the Government started treating childcare and early years as crucial infrastructure and investment in our children, and funding it properly. I really hope that next week we hear something substantive from the Chancellor on this issue.

Early Years Childcare: Staff-Child Ratios

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 615623, relating to staff-child ratios in early years childcare.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Harris. The petition, which was signed by more than 109,000 petitioners, states:

“The Government should not reduce the existing adult-child childcare ratios as has been suggested. There are surely better ways to reduce the cost of living—potentially endangering children in trusted care is not how it should be done.”

First and foremost, I thank Zoe and Lewis Steeper, who started the petition and are in the Public Gallery. Zoe and Lewis recently lost their son, Oliver, following an incident that occurred at his nursery. I want to convey my deepest condolences for their loss. On hearing the Government’s proposal to reduce childcare ratios in nursery settings, Lewis and Zoe started the petition to challenge the Government’s thinking. Over 109,000 people agree with them; I am sure that the number is higher, but that is how many people have physically signed their support.

I want to put on record my admiration for Zoe and Lewis for being such powerful advocates on this issue, despite how unimaginably challenging that must be, and for taking the time to speak to me ahead of the debate. I also thank the Early Years Alliance, the National Day Nurseries Association and the Education Policy Institute for sharing their expert insights with me in preparation for the debate.

We all know—I hope it is why we are in this room—that a functioning early years system is fundamental to driving a flourishing society and economy. We need to stop thinking about childcare as some sort of luxury. Instead we should think of it as the foundation of the best start to a child’s life and the best chance for our economy. Quality early education is a key determiner of children’s life outcomes. Access to childcare can also shape parents’ futures, allowing them the flexibility to choose if and when they want to work, yet when we look at which developed countries have the highest childcare costs, the UK consistently ranks among the highest on the list—and parents are really feeling it.

A recent survey by Pregnant Then Screwed found that childcare costs have forced 43% of mothers to consider leaving their jobs and 40% to consider leaving work. Is it not absurd that during an unprecedented cost of living crisis, in which our economy is bumping along the bottom, families with young children cannot afford to go to work? Our childcare and early years system is broken. It needs transforming into a modern, flexible system that will properly deliver for children, parents and our economy.

The Government recognise the issue—or they certainly claim to. In July, the Department for Education published a consultation on its proposals to improve the cost, choice and availability of childcare. Its plans include the relaxation of regulations on the care of two-year-olds in early years settings. Current rules require there to be at least one member of staff per four children aged two. The Government’s proposals would allow one staff member to care for up to five two-year-olds. That change, Ministers have claimed, will save £40 a week on childcare costs, but we have to ask ourselves: at what price? And is that £40 mythical or real?

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. I add my condolences to the parents of Oliver, who are here; they are very brave for joining us. On the point about the change of ratio increasing affordability, does the hon. Lady agree that 86% of providers say that Government funding for three-year-olds and four-year-olds does not cover their costs anyway, so changing the ratios is a red herring? The savings will not be passed on to parents struggling with the cost of living. More importantly, all the evidence shows—she referenced the Education Policy Institute—that in early years settings, the fewer children to adults, the better the learning outcomes, and that helps to reduce the attainment gap that she talked about.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I agree with everything that the hon. Lady said. She put succinctly what I am about to say at much greater length.

For Oliver’s mum and dad, early years experts, the 109,000 people angry enough about the issue to sign the petition and, I suspect, most parents, these vital regulations help to protect the safety of children. I think everyone will agree that providing childcare comes with immense responsibility. From playtime to lunchtime to cleaning and changing, there are ever-present hazards for children. I am a mother of three, and I cannot imagine safely looking after four two-year-olds, unless they were kept in a contained space, with limited opportunity for physical movement and no opportunity for play, and away from all hazards. Of course, early years staff know the risks, and spend every working hour protecting children from them, but there is genuine apprehension that that may not be possible under the revised ratios.

A sense of acute concern came through to me in conversations that I had ahead of the debate. The warning from early years experts could not have been more stark: deregulating childcare ratios without making significant changes to training and funding will put the safety of young children at unacceptable risk. Staff are reportedly already leaving the sector because of the stress, and the overwhelming sense of responsibility to protect the best interests of children. Relaxing childcare ratios would heighten the potential for an accident, and increase the chances of an accident leading to an emergency. Parents share that fear.

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 September.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Munira Wilson]

If Ministers think it is acceptable for this Government to not obey the law, how on earth can the Prime Minister expect the public at home to do so?

[The Prime Minister]

We expect everybody in this country to obey the law.