Education and Opportunity Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateOlivia Blake
Main Page: Olivia Blake (Labour - Sheffield Hallam)Department Debates - View all Olivia Blake's debates with the Department for International Development
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberIt is great to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker—a strong Yorkshirewoman, no less, which is exactly what we need in the Chair.
I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for his excellent maiden speech. He has done his constituents proud, and it was great to hear from him, and, indeed, from all who have made maiden speeches today.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned the literacy hour. As a child, I was locked out of education. I had dyslexia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyspraxia, and a host of different medical needs that make it very difficult and challenging to lead a normal life. I remember not being able to read or write legibly—some may say that I still do not write legibly—and I remember the great influence that the literacy hour had on me when I was seven and eight years old. The changing model of education, involving 15 minutes of carrying out different tasks, suited me to a T, and gave me a lifelong love of literature. It meant that by the time I took my GCSEs, instead of failing and being locked out of education, I got an A in English literature. I am still proud of that today, because it happened against all the odds.
I have been chairing the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities because I think it important for us to give young people that opportunity. The narrowing of the curriculum that we have seen over the last 14 years horrifies me. I am a scientist, and I loved drama and art at school. They unlocked creativity, which allowed me to go on to become the scientist who is creative, thinks outside the box and does great things. I want all children who are experiencing the struggles that I have faced to have the opportunities that I had, under a Labour Government—but I am going on about myself too much, because what we are here to talk about are the opportunities for our young people and our communities.
It may sound like a cliché, but it is still true to say that education is one of the main ways to create opportunity in our communities, so it is excellent that we are having this debate so early in the new Parliament, and it is good to hear from my colleagues on the Government Front Bench about the positive steps that they are taking to create an education system that is fit for all. I want to focus my comments on provision for special educational needs and disabilities, and on how we can create opportunities for everyone in the education system.
It is no secret that the new Government have inherited a SEND system in crisis, underfunded, under-resourced and understaffed. Estimates from f40 suggest that the total level of underfunding in the last Parliament was £4.6 billion, with the last Government promising only a fraction of the expenditure needed to bridge the gap. When that is combined with the chronic underfunding of local authorities, it is easy to see why there are so many stories about authorities that have been unable to meet their statutory obligations.
It is also no wonder that parents who rightly want to fight for what is best for their child have ended up going to tribunals, and more often than not they win. In only 1.7% of cases has a tribunal found in a local authority’s favour. That is a damning statistic, in two senses. First, it demonstrates the tenacity that parents need in order to secure the basic right to education for their children. It was not me but the former Education Secretary who was mentioned by the Secretary of State earlier who said that the system was “lose, lose, lose” for families, and she was right. A tribunal decision in your favour is a bitter victory when all you ask is that your child has the same opportunities as everyone else. Secondly, the extent of the skew in the tribunal figures shows that the problems are endemic and need a systemic response. Unfortunately, that was not the approach taken by the last Government: too often we saw a massaging of statistics, rather than a serious approach to tackling the underlying realities facing too many young people.
We saw the same with the target to cut the number of education, health and care plans, which was rather skirted around. It is right that we aim to reduce the reliance on EHCPs. All children should have the opportunities that they need, whether or not they have a formal diagnosis, and we also need action to ensure that people do receive the diagnoses that are so important, especially for young girls and women who often have to wait, as I did, until their late 20s or 30s, or in some cases their 50s or 60s, to receive a diagnosis to explain why they have been struggling throughout their lives.
A key task for the new Government will be to rebuild the infrastructure for early years intervention that we lost over the last 14 years. The cuts to Sure Start have been dramatic, but we also need more health visitors out in the community. The Institute of Health Visiting estimates that there is a shortfall of 5,000 in England, with 48% of health visitors saying they will leave the profession in the next five years. Shockingly, over a quarter of those surveyed said that they were servicing the needs of 750 children—three times the recommended ratio for health visitors. It is simply not good enough.
Early interventions are so important, because they can change the life course of a child. They can open opportunities that can be cut off if the right support is not in place. Early years staff with the right training can be the passionate people who spot something in a child that no others have noticed.
I really appreciate the hon. Member’s remarks. Indeed, I am thinking about young children, possibly with a SEND diagnosis, who struggle post 19. One of the things I have learned from the Northern Ireland Assembly, where I sat, is that a much more holistic model, which combines health and education, helps young people post 19. Does the hon. Member agree that we need such a model throughout the UK, and that post-19 careers advice should be done in a holistic way?
I completely agree that we need a more holistic approach. I recently visited Whirlow Hall farm in my constituency, which provides alternative provision, but also further education, in an agricultural setting. It is great to see the opportunities for the young people who go there, especially those with emotional distress and similar issues. It is really important that we see all of this in the round and make sure that there is quality in all our services—whether that is AP, education in a local mainstream school or getting access to diagnoses, which are so important for so many young people. I must not forget SALTs, or speech and language therapists; otherwise, I will get in trouble with them.
I will draw my remarks to a close. I am pleased to see the good signals and directions that we have had so far. The new approach will treat people as people, and start from the premise that whatever their need or disability, they are entitled to the same quality of education and opportunities as everyone else. I look forward to hearing from the Government what further plans they will be bringing forward to make that a reality.
I call Neil Shastri-Hurst to make his maiden speech.