Children from Low-Income Families: Education Support

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing today’s important debate.

Over the past decade, the Conservative Government have inflicted the largest cut to school funding in 40 years. As a result, they are failing to tackle poverty and ensure that a quality education is accessible to all. According to End Child Poverty, 37% of children in my constituency are living in poverty—the Government should be ashamed that that figure has increased by 3% since 2014—and this is having a real impact on their learning. In 2019, a National Education Union survey found that more than three quarters of respondents stated that their students had demonstrated fatigue or poor concentration. That is because of poverty.

The fact is that the Government are failing children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Children eligible for free school meals are 28% less likely to leave school with five A* to C GCSE grades than their wealthier peers. Before the pandemic, the estimated learning gap in Luton between disadvantaged students and their peers in early years was three months; in primary school, it was seven months, and in secondary school it was 17 months. The pandemic has exacerbated inequality and the attainment gap.

By the end of the pandemic, and as a result of the lockdowns, most children across the UK will have missed more than half a year of in-person schooling. We know that lost learning disproportionately impacted children from disadvantaged backgrounds who did not have the necessary digital equipment or study space for remote learning. It was the Government’s responsibility to prevent disadvantaged young people from suffering digital exclusion due to the restrictions. Instead, excellent charities such as Luton Learning Link had to step in to make up for their failure to distribute enough digital devices.

Learning from home has also increased the economic burden on low-income families. Additional outgoings, such as high bills for electricity or mobile data, have hit families at the same time as economic insecurity in the labour market has increased. In Luton, as a consequence of the pandemic and the particular impact on the aviation and hospitality industries, the claimant count has increased from about the national average to the fifth-highest in the country, and the proportion of children receiving free school meals has increased from 21% to 27%. Those children deserve to have the same education as those in wealthy families.

Tackling the educational attainment gap as part of our recovery must be the Government’s top priority. No child should be left behind, but the Government’s current measly offer will not provide the ambitious recovery that is needed. Although others have spoken about the level of funding required, I will focus my remarks on where the funding should be allocated.

Children’s ability and confidence in spoken language is the bedrock of their learning and social and emotional wellbeing. The pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on oracy—speaking well. A report by the all-party parliamentary group on oracy found that two thirds of primary teachers and nearly half of secondary teachers say that school closures have undermined the spoken language development of their most disadvantaged students, compared with one in five teachers saying that it impacted their most advanced pupils.

An increased focus on oracy is an opportunity to accelerate the academic progress of children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Education Endowment Foundation states that

“pupils who participate in oral language interventions make approximately five months’ additional progress over the course of a year”,

rising to six months for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. I have seen examples of this, such as the impact of the Level Trust’s SMASH summer scheme on building the confidence and creativity of children in Luton, and I was lucky enough to give out those awards last summer. Alongside a comprehensive strategy to fund schools properly and expand support services, Labour’s education recovery plan would contribute to developing children’s oracy by expanding school facilities to deliver breakfast clubs and after-school activities, from arts and sports to book clubs, board games, learning through play and communicating.

Expanding access to creative education for children from low-income backgrounds would also help to reduce the attainment gap. Creative subjects can improve a young person’s cognitive abilities by up to 17%, supporting their development in other subjects, such as English and maths. Young people who do not have access to arts and culture are disadvantaged both economically and educationally. The arts should not only be for privileged young people from wealthy families, so will the Minister explain in her closing remarks how the Government intend to fully integrate oracy into all stages and phases of education to help close the educational attainment gap, and whether she agrees that the Government should urgently invest in improving access to creative education, in order to contribute to reducing that gap?

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

It would not be a Westminster Hall debate without Strangford’s finest, Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Ford]

No, because I want to respond to the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) about the issues that she raised regarding rural broadband and broadband access across the country. I remind her that only yesterday the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, which is the Department responsible for broadband, announced a further £1 billion upgrade to mobile connectivity. That will particularly benefit rural areas of Scotland, Wales and north-east England, and is again a reminder of why it is so important that we work together in a one-nation approach to support people across the Union.

On the recovery programme, the evidence is clear that investment will have the most significant impact for disadvantaged children in two areas: high-quality tutoring and great teaching. That is why the latest announcement of an additional £1 billion for tutoring will help to deliver more than 100 million tutoring hours for children and young people across England over the next three years. That will expand high-quality tutoring in every part of the country so that it is available to every child who needs help catching up, not just those who can afford it. Another £400 million will provide half a million teacher training opportunities for schoolteachers and evidence-based professional development for early years practitioners.

The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) spoke really clearly about the importance of oracy and early language. I absolutely agree with her that the development of early language and communication skills is crucial to a child’s journey. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why, even in the lockdown at the beginning of this year, we were so keen to keep early years establishments open for children—they are so key.

What the hon. Lady may have missed is what we are doing about that issue. One of the interventions we have put in place through the national tutoring programme is the Nuffield early language intervention. That is a very specific programme, and our evidence very much shows that it works. It is targeted at children in reception year who are behind others in their early language skills. I have been to see it being delivered across the country. Forty per cent. of schools have already signed up and are taking part, covering around 60,000 children at the moment, and nearly a quarter of a million children have been screened across the country.

I wrote to the hon. Lady last week—I wrote to Members from all English constituencies—including the list of schools in her constituency that are doing the NELI programme. The evidence shows that it adds around three months’ learning. I also asked her if she would promote it to other schools, because we are expanding it. The deadline is the end of July, so please put it out there.

[Rachel Hopkins]

I appreciate the Minister’s comments on early years. My point, which is set out in the report by the all-party parliamentary group for oracy, was about opportunities for clear oral communication throughout education, as well as in social settings and formally—for example, even young teenagers should have the opportunity to debate, as we are doing today. I hope the Minister has access to the report and understands that it is not just about early years oracy—although I accept her points about its importance—but about the opportunities throughout education that have been missing for many pupils, in both school and college. I hope that she recognises that wider issue.

[Vicky Ford]

I would be delighted if the hon. Lady sent me a copy of the report. We know that early language skills are so important. Indeed, of the £1 billion catch-up package that we announced this month, £153 million will go into teaching and training for early years staff, including to expand the level of knowledge of our brilliant early years staff in things such as speech and language early development. We are also improving the curriculum in that area.

The evidence shows that supporting a child into reception and primary school with early language skills helps them to pick up reading. As we know, reading has improved significantly over the past decade, partly since we introduced mandatory phonics training in schools. Clearly, without the early language skills, learning to read through phonics can be really challenging. I urge the hon Lady to visit one of the primary schools in her constituency that is delivering the NELI programme. I would love to hear her feedback.

We want to do even more, and we are doing so. We are introducing significant reforms to technical education and creating high-quality options for young people aged 16 to support their progression, as well as meeting the needs of employers. We are also introducing the holiday activities and food programme across the country this year.

Catch-up Premium

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley).

The Government’s proposed recovery plan is woefully inadequate, completely underestimates the scale of the recovery required and provides nothing to boost children’s mental health, wellbeing or social development through the creative arts, sports or simply play, despite parents saying that that is their top concern after the isolation of lockdown. The Prime Minister’s own education recovery commissioner, Kevan Collins, called for an investment of £15 billion—the equivalent of £700 per pupil over three years—to support children’s recovery, yet the Government’s package is 10 times less, offering only £50 extra per student per year.

What Kevan Collins has described as a “half-hearted approach” that

“risks failing hundreds of thousands of pupils”,

I would describe as shameful and an insult to the hardworking pupils, parents, teachers and school staff in Luton South, who have gone above and beyond over the past 15 months. If Conservative Members truly believe that the level of ambition in the Government’s plan is sufficient, it means that they are happy to neglect the future of the children in our country. Kevan Collins’s resignation is a damning indictment of the Government’s meagre proposals, and it demonstrates that the Government will fail to deliver the bold action that our children deserve.

The public deserve answers: why are Ministers and the Chancellor acting as obstacles to our young people’s recovery? The Government must come clean and explain why the substantial recovery plan proposed by the Prime Minister’s own education recovery commissioner was blocked. If the Government will not provide an adequate explanation as to why they rejected Kevan Collins’s proposals, they should publish all Treasury correspondence, and the official evaluations and impact assessments of the proposals, so that the public can make their own assessment. I hope that the Minister, in her closing remarks, will explain what urgent steps will be taken to address Kevan Collins’s concerns by increasing the investment in the recovery package.

The Labour party’s children’s recovery plan will match young people’s ambition for their own futures, give schools the resources to transform the extracurricular and enrichment opportunities available to every child, and invest in targeted learning for the children who need it most. Our comprehensive plan would deliver breakfast clubs for every child, quality mental health support in every school, additional investment for children who have struggled the most and support to help teachers develop, and it would guarantee that eligible children receive free school meals every day this summer. Will the Minister explain which part of that plan she opposes?

The long-term costs of not pursuing such a plan will be much higher than the upfront investment that is required. The Education Policy Institute has said that doing nothing would cost our economy £142 billion in the long term. That is almost 30 times more than the cost of our package. We must pursue a bold, ambitious strategy. Our young people’s futures and the future of our country depend on it.

Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Friday 12th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]]

I will be speaking against the amendment, and I will keep my remarks brief out of consideration for my colleagues whose Bills follow my own.

The intervention by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is not, in my opinion, needed for several reasons. First, the guidance he refers to in the amendment was intended to give time for businesses to prepare for costs associated with changes in legislation or for any significant changes in their practices. As this Bill does not result in any increased costs for education providers or any significant burden for business, I would argue that this extra time is not needed.

Secondly, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that many designated safeguarding leads in further education are aware of the potential change in legislation, so again, I do not believe that further time is needed for providers to prepare for the change in law. Finally, as the Bill relates to education and aims at simplifying the safeguarding process for providers of post-16 education, it would make more sense for this legislation to come into effect for the start of the academic year in September. In fact, a change in legislation mid-term would arguably be more burdensome to business.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

I wish to speak against the amendment that has been proposed. I believe I have been listed to speak in the Third Reading part of the debate on this Bill, so I am happy to contribute my opposition to this amendment and be called in the second part of the debate as well.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I have really nothing further to add to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and to moving on, hopefully promptly, to Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins [V]]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) on her perseverance in moving this important Bill forward, particularly during these difficult times, when the pandemic has constrained our ability to debate and pass legislation. It has been a pleasure to be a co-sponsor of the Bill.

On Second Reading, almost exactly a year ago, drawing on my experience as a governor of Luton Sixth Form College, I made the point about how important the extension of the statutory safeguarding arrangements was to ensuring that all young people in post-16 education and training were protected by equitable safeguarding protocols. That is to ensure that they receive the support and have the best possible chance of succeeding in their studies and training. At that time, I particularly focused on the increasing level of mental health issues among our young people. I just want to reiterate the importance of that now more than ever, given the impact that the coronavirus pandemic has had on our young people, who face such a difficult year and such disruption to their education.

Just yesterday, I picked up a poll by Network Rail and the charity Chasing the Stigma, which reported that 69% of 18 to 24-year-olds had said that the coronavirus crisis had had a negative impact on their mental health; that compares with just 28% of the over-65s. The impact on our young people’s mental health will continue over the coming months, particularly with regard to dealing with assessed grades in the absence of exams and any impact that may have on progression choices for our children and young people.

My final point is that it is hugely important that all providers of post-16 education and training, including private providers, have that statutory duty for the safeguarding of our young people. I support the Bill and hope to see it pass its Third Reading today.

Covid-19: Educational Settings

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our great advantage is that we have the opportunity and the time to roll out extensive training, guidance and support for those teachers making that assessment, to ensure that it is accurate and fair and reflects children’s abilities. We will undertake that with schools over the coming months. We endeavour to ensure that teachers and all those who work in the education system are supported in my hon. Friend’s constituency as they are throughout the country.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

It was irresponsible of the Government to announce the cancellation of GCSE and A-level exams and to say nothing about BTEC exams, with no details of an alternative plan being agreed. Students and their families in Luton South have already suffered greatly over the past nine months and are deeply anxious about the continued uncertainty that has been created. Many students have contacted me to say that they are suffering negative impacts on their mental health as a result. What plans has the Secretary of State to provide additional mental health support for our children and young people?

[Gavin Williamson]

Of course one of the great advantages of schools being back all the way through the latter half of last year is that teachers and those working in schools have been in the best possible place to assess and work with children and to have the best understanding of their needs and some of their problems, including mental health challenges. We will work with the education sector to support them. We have already taken several actions to support schools and education settings with children who have suffered mental health problems as a result of covid and of being out of school. We will continue to do that and step up those measures in the coming months.

Nurseries and Early Years Settings

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone. I start by thanking the hard-working early years staff in Luton and across the country for the dedicated support that they have provided to children and their families throughout the pandemic.

In Luton, across my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), there are six maintained nursery schools, which work together to provide comprehensive nursery education and care to our local community. Gill Blowers Nursery School, Grasmere Nursery School and Pastures Way Nursery in Luton North, as well as Chapel Street Nursery School, Rothesay Nursery School and Hart Hill Nursery School in Luton South, have stepped up to the challenges posed over the last year, despite the overarching financial uncertainty in the early years sector.

When I visited Hart Hill maintained nursery school and met the fantastic headteacher, Mrs Thompson, and her staff team, I saw at first hand the brilliant work that they do, and heard about how they have remained open throughout the pandemic to continue providing education and care to children from some of the most deprived areas of Luton. They have also supplied key resources and food to families.

Maintained nursery schools offer a bespoke package of education and care by using skilled staff and research-focused routines, environments and ethos, and by working in conjunction with external health and SEND professionals. A bespoke approach enables them to focus on children’s needs and wellbeing by understanding their responses and behaviour and then adapting provision to provide a safe, responsive space. The maintained nurseries in Luton have resourced provision for children who have significant special educational needs and severe medical or health needs. Last year, they successfully completed 53 education, health and care plans for children who have gone on to transition into specialised primary schools. The maintained nursery schools have ensured that between them they have resources to support 96 children with severe or complex needs, many of whom have been transferred from private early years settings. Their dedication and commitment to Luton ensures that our most vulnerable children have the care that they need and deserve.

Despite all the essential support that maintained nurseries provide our communities, the Government chose not to introduce a long-term funding plan in the recent spending review, about which we have already heard a lot. I am aware that there was the one-year settlement in the summer, but short-term funding plugs will not safeguard the future of maintained nurseries. Yearly funding does not provide sufficient certainty for maintained nurseries to plan ahead by employing staff and allocating resources, or for parents, who worry that the services on which they rely may not exist in a year’s time.

The Department for Education’s own statistics show that the percentage of maintained nursery schools in deficit has risen from 3.5% in 2009-10 to 17.7% in 2018-19. Unlike schools, many maintained nurseries have not received funding to cover additional covid costs, and are ineligible for the covid catch-up fund. Luton Borough Council consulted with DFE representatives on whether increased costs would be reimbursed, and the DFE indicated that they would be. However, all applications for costs reimbursement by maintained nurseries in Luton have been rejected, as they have been deemed ineligible. Will the Minister meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North to further discuss how Luton’s maintained nurseries can get crucial additional funding to cover those costs?

If maintained nurseries close, the cost of looking after vulnerable children will fall on other services, which have suffered the economic impact of austerity and the pandemic. I urge the Government to introduce a long-term funding settlement as soon as possible.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

No Westminster Hall debate would be complete without Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins]

On that point about nursery schools not receiving additional funding for covid security, for the very reason that little ones do not know how to socially distance, Park Hill Nursery School has had to divide up its classrooms. It has created a new classroom in its library area to maintain smaller groups in order to deal with that, which puts added pressure on staffing.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I have seen exactly what she is describing at first hand in my son’s nursery.

I am also worried that nurseries with rateable values of over £15,000 were not allowed to access the larger covid grants for retail hospitality or leisure businesses. I hope the Minister will look into that. The Chancellor agreed to give nurseries business rates relief only after intense lobbying from all sides, but, sadly, that support is due to come to an end in April next year, and maintained nursery schools, which have been mentioned repeatedly in this debate, are not able to access it. Many part-time or recently started childminders have been excluded from help through the self-employment income support scheme, and the early years providers did not qualify for the £1 billion covid catch-up funding. Last week, they were excluded from the covid workforce fund to help with the cost of staff absences, despite huge staff pressures.

In essence, throughout this crisis, early years providers have been asked to take on the responsibilities of schools but the liabilities of businesses, and with nowhere near the same level of financial support that has been given to other businesses. Of course I welcome the £44 million increase in new childcare funding in the spending review, but I do not feel it is enough to plug the gap, which stood at £662 million last year. It will only come in April, by which time many providers will certainly have closed. A chain of three nurseries in Essex I spoke to recently spent £6.10 per hour providing a Government-funded childcare place, yet only got £4.32 per hour from the Government to do so, so the 6p per hour increase to funding in the spending review is a drop in the ocean.

I want to work constructively with the Government because the early years sector is important. I also give credit where it is due. One positive step was the Government’s commitment to funding providers at pre-covid occupancy levels, both when they were forced to closed to most children from March to June, and in the autumn term when it was clear that childcare demand would be suppressed by fear of covid, furlough, job losses and working from home. That prediction was correct: occupancy in early years settings is currently just above 60% of normal term-time levels. However, although there is no reason to think demand will not continue to be low for some time, the Government are planning to go back to funding providers based on current occupancy from January. I realise it may sound like a technical point, but that will be devastating for over a quarter of providers, according to a recent survey by the Early Years Alliance.

One could argue that that made sense when the Chancellor was planning to withdraw the furlough scheme and get everyone back to work from October, but it does not make sense to extend the furlough and impose lockdown and severe restrictions while pretending that everything is back to normal for childcare, just because the Government do not want to foot the bill. I ask the Minster to take heed of this. It is hard to estimate the overall impact on the sector, but to take the example of the small nursery chain in Essex I mentioned, the owner estimates that the chain would have lost £12,000 of income this autumn term if funding was based on the current, reduced occupancy, and expects the shortfall to be much bigger in the spring term when funding is set to be calculated as the Government intend.

Mass closure of childcare settings would be devastating for over 300,00 people working in early years, the majority of them women, which is a point already made by hon. Members. Childcare workers are paid badly anyway—I am sure people are aware of that—with one in eight receiving less than £5 an hour. We should be working to tackle low pay and improve career progression in the sector. We have duty to make sure we do not bring about the demise of these jobs by slashing funding.

To remind everyone, this debate is about the future of nurseries and early years settings. The reality is that without better support, and a new approach, thousands of them may not have a future at all. Most hon. Members have made that point today. Survey after survey shows that the early years sector is on the brink of collapse. One in six providers expect to close by Christmas, rising to one in four in the most deprived areas. Recent research from the Department for Education shows around half of all nurseries, pre-schools and childminders were unlikely to be sustainable for more than a year. These are shocking statistics, and I hope the Minister will take account of this. There has been a net loss of 14,000 childcare providers in the last five years as a result of the chronic underfunding of early years entitlements. We could lose at least that many again within this year if fears are not allayed, and action is not taken immediately. I ask the Minister to consider how devastating this would be for working families who rely on childcare, and the young children whose life chances are shaped by the power of early education—that point has been made over and over again—not to mention the impact on our economy and recovery if working parents are forced to stay at home. The brilliant early years workforce will suffer large-scale redundancies.

Union Learning Fund

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for securing this important debate and setting out superbly why the union learning fund has such an impact on workers’ lives, particularly in the workplace. I say this as a member of the CIPD and from my working life as a head of human resources and organisational development. The power of workplace learning is so important. The ULF supports teams across more than 20 unions, developing workers in NHS wards, offices and factories, on shop floors and in so many other workplaces. It offers hundreds of lifelong learning courses on a range of subjects, focused job-related training and upskilling to thousands of workers—union members and non-members alike. The workers who receive the most benefits from the ULF are predominantly low-paid, seeking educational opportunities. As TUC general secretary Francis O’Grady puts it so succinctly, the ULF is

“the Heineken of adult learning—it gets to people other approaches cannot reach.”

Through joint working between employers and ULF representatives, skills gaps in the workforce are identified and workers are provided with access to training that fills them. An independent evaluation of the ULF’s work in 2018 found that for every £1 spent on the ULF, workers gained £7.60 through better pay, employers gained £4.70 through higher productivity and the Government gained £3.57 from welfare savings and revenue gains. In pure financial terms, that is a win, win, win. However, instead of recognising the benefits of the ULF to workers and employers, the Government have announced that from March 2021 they will cut its funding. In one breath we have the Government stating they want to build back better across the country, then in another they undermine workers’ ability to develop the skills needed to drive our recovery.

I am pleased that there is huge support across the labour and trade union movement for saving the ULF but, as already mentioned, the campaign is backed by large employers such as Tesco, Heathrow, British Steel and Tata Steel. Given the successful track record of ULF over the past two decades and its positive return on investment—and given the support from employers and workers—why are the Government cutting the ULF and replacing it with the national skills fund? Why fix it when it ain’t broke? The answer is not one that is focused on improving development opportunities for workers. Instead, it smacks of a politically motivated attack on trade unions in the workplace and is another avenue to weaken their ability to support workers—and a shameless attempt to disrupt organised labour.

The Bank of England has warned that the UK faces the worst recession in 300 years, so scrapping a scheme that is not just oven-ready but already cooked to perfection, flies in the face of building back better. I urge the Government to listen to workers, employers and trade unions by safeguarding the ULF’s future.

Further Education Funding

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) for securing this important debate.

I speak as one of the vice-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on sixth form education. We have heard much that I agree with around FE colleges, Unionlearn and covid-secure colleges, but I want to focus on sixth-form colleges; I am a governor of the fantastic Luton Sixth Form College.

While the covid-19 health restrictions have been critical to tackling the spread of the virus, the Institute for Fiscal Studies states that school shutdowns are likely to have accentuated the socioeconomic divide in educational attainment. We need immediate action to tackle that widening divide—that point has already been well made—particularly the digital divide.

Increasing the national per-pupil funding rate for 16 to 18-year-olds would be a considerable step forward to closing the divide. Education funding for 16 to 18-year-olds has been cut since 2010, alongside rising costs, an increase in the complex needs of students and the Government demanding more from colleges and schools. The national funding rate for 16 and 17-year-olds was frozen at £4,000 per student in 2013, and was actually reduced to £3,300 per year for 18-year-olds in 2014. While in 2019 the Government announced that they would raise the rate for 16 and 17-year-olds to £4,188 per student, that was only a one-year deal, in contrast with the three-year funding deal for five-to-16 education.

Will the Minister explain why the rate was not increased for 18-year-olds? Particularly in the context of this year and the coming year, many students have been impacted— for example in terms of exams—and may well need that extra year at sixth-form college to ensure that they can progress on to the right next step for them, be that an apprenticeship, further education college, higher education college or the world of work. I also want to ensure that the rate increases in line with inflation each year. In January, the Government confirmed that the national funding rate of £4,000 per student in 2013 amounted to £4,435 in 2019 prices, so even the recent increase falls well short of meeting the cost of inflation since 2013.

Sustained under-investment in sixth-form funding over the past decade continues to impact on the education of students. A funding impact survey carried out by the Raise the Rate campaign in 2019 showed that, as a result of funding pressures, 51% of schools and colleges have dropped language courses, 38% have dropped STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—78% have reduced student support services or extra-curricular activities and 81% are teaching students in larger class sizes. Those last two points are particularly important to reflect on in the context of the impact of covid-19. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the mental health of students and the support that they need, as much as the costs of covid-secure teaching environments.

Research from London Economics found that £4,760 is the minimum level of core funding required to increase student services such as mental health support to the required level; to protect subjects such as modern foreign languages from being dropped because they are deemed unviable; to increase the time available for extra-curricular activities—for example, around employability, skills and work experience; and to improve the range of enrichment activities, particularly for 16 to 18-year-olds in the state sector, so that they can get that social capital to compete with their better-funded peers in the independent sector.

High-quality education that equips young people with the knowledge, skills and experience that they need to flourish in higher education and skilled employment will be critical to our recovery from covid. That point has been expressed in many ways during the debate. I press the Minister to explain whether the per-pupil funding rate will be increased in the comprehensive spending review. Others have talked about the relationship with the Treasury in finding that out.

The Sixth Form Colleges Association estimates that the number of 16 to 18-year-olds participating in full-time education will increase over the next eight years by about a quarter of million. It also states that capital funding for 16 to 18-year-olds is insufficient and calls on the Government to create a dedicated expansion fund to cater for this increase.

The Sixth Form Colleges Association estimates that it costs around £2.5 million to expand an existing sixth-form institution to accommodate an additional 200 students, which works out at about £12,500 per student. However, analysis of Department for Education data indicates that the average 16-to-19 free school costs about £11.5 million to build, including land purchase, and educates on average 397 students, which works out at about £29,000 per student.

The absence of a dedicated capital fund for sixth-form providers means that expansion is simply not an option for many institutions, as sixth-form colleges and academies must bid from a single condition improvement fund for all phases of education, with the vast majority of funding directed to capital improvement, rather than capital expansion projects. The creation of a dedicated capital expansion fund for high-performing sixth-form providers should be a major priority in the comprehensive spending review and could be modelled on the existing expansion fund for grammar schools.

I ask the Minister again to outline what plans the Government have to increase capital funding for sixth forms.

Free School Meals: Summer Holidays

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

The reliance of many children on free school meals is, sadly, not a new thing, but this is the reality for the 3,231 children across my Luton South constituency. Similarly, holiday hunger is a sustained and severe problem at the heart of many of our communities, and both have been exacerbated by this unprecedented public health crisis. I am glad that, after sustained pressure from Marcus Rashford and the Labour party’s Holidays Without Hunger campaign, the Government have decided to U-turn, do the right thing and extend the free school meal voucher scheme over the summer holidays.

Research by End Child Poverty shows that, before the coronavirus crisis, 46% of children in Luton South were living in relative poverty. As I have said before in this House, many are living in families struggling with in-work poverty due to low pay, insecure work and zero-hours contracts. I am very concerned that the financial hardship inflicted by the coronavirus crisis will cause this figure to increase. If the Government had not conceded to public pressure and extended the free school meal voucher scheme, they would have neglected their responsibility to vulnerable children.

Free school meals provide a staple diet and the nutrition that facilitates a child’s development. Neglecting a child’s development needs can have a tremendous impact on their mental and physical health. In the longer term, adverse childhood experiences—for example, a sustained inability to meet a child’s basic needs, such as being fed—can lead, through no fault of their own, to negative outcomes such as low educational and employment achievements and mental health problems. Today’s U-turn is welcome, and I urge the Government to go further to end child poverty.

Educational Settings

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

As part of the Bill that we are bringing forward, we will be removing the ratios that present some of the challenges to schools. I would be wrong, though, to give my hon. Friend the promise that children will necessarily be able to continue to attend their current school. We do not know at the moment the consequences of the spread of this virus, and we may need to show a high degree of flexibility in how we provide that support and care. Sometimes that may require children attending different schools, hopefully in close proximity to their home. None the less, we do recognise the challenges that are going to be raised as a result of this announcement.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

Universities are expecting a huge hit financially, because international students will not be able to come here, despite the provision of some online learning. What support will be provided to universities such as the University of Bedfordshire in my constituency to ensure that they do not go bankrupt? The Government and the Office for Students have previously said that they would not usually step in under such circumstances.

[Gavin Williamson]

The financial health of the university sector is obviously of key critical interest to us. We will be working closely with Universities UK to ensure the stability and strength of that important sector for not just learning but the economy. We urge universities who are going to face financial difficulties and pressures to start engaging in an early dialogue and be honest about some of the challenges that they are going to face financially. Otherwise, it is difficult to respond if something comes out of the blue.

The issue of international students is important. We have to be realistic and expect the number of international students who attend UK universities to be lower next year. How we work with the sector to replace that capacity in different ways is something that the Department is already working on. Certainly, we are already having those discussions with UUK.

Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Friday 13th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

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

All children, no matter what their background or which education and training provider they choose, deserve a safe environment in which they can learn. I am sure that every Member of this House can agree that nothing is more important than safeguarding our children and promoting their welfare. The Bill would ensure that all young people were protected by the same safeguarding, whichever education or training provider they chose.

I am proud to have the outstanding New College Durham in my constituency, which is one of the best further education colleges in the country. I will take a moment to highlight its continued success in the field of technology. It is one of few institutes of technology in the country and we can all congratulate it on that. Like all further education colleges, it has a legal duty to ensure that the education and training it delivers protects its students. It also has a legal duty to consider any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The college is doing an excellent job of promoting students’ welfare and I am sure that it will continue to do so.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing such an important and considered Bill and I am pleased to co-sponsor it. As a governor of Luton Sixth Form College, I know how crucial the extension of statutory safeguarding arrangements is to ensure that all young people in further education get the best in life. Does she agree that, given the increasing level of mental health issues among our young people, it is important that all those in post-16 education are protected by equitable safeguarding protocols to ensure they receive support and have the best possible chance of succeeding in their studies and training?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I thank my hon. Friend for making an important point. I know from a recent visit to New College that it takes the mental health of its students very seriously indeed. However, not all young people in my constituency pursue further education through New College. Others choose to do an apprenticeship delivered by a training provider. In the last academic year, 50 students under the age of 19 started an apprenticeship in my constituency. Those apprentices could be training for a career in health and social care, supported by Northern Care Training, an independent provider. They could also be working towards a career as a plumber with South West Durham Training, another independent provider. I was concerned to find out that legal safeguarding duties do not apply to apprentices when their training is delivered by independent providers in the same way as they do for those at an FE college such as New College. While safeguarding requirements are a condition of independent providers’ funding, those providers’ apprentices are not protected by the law in the same way. That is clearly wrong and something must be done about it. It is vital to protect the welfare of our constituents and that is why it is so important that the Bill passes.