SEND Provision

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. Please can Members leave quietly?

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered SEND provision.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I am delighted to have secured this debate and to see such a packed Westminster Hall. I start by thanking all the parents and campaigners who have rightly put this issue high on the agenda, all the organisations that have provided briefings for MPs, and of course all the MPs here in a packed Westminster Hall.

Nearly 50 MPs have applied to speak today; I cannot recall anything like that for many other Westminster Hall debates. I hope that the Government and all those with a say over the parliamentary agenda take note and ensure time for a much longer debate on this vital issue very soon. This is an essential debate. The crisis in SEND provision is one of the biggest messes left by the previous Government—one that the new Labour Government will have to start to clear up quickly, as SEND needs are likely only to increase. That will require a radically different approach from the one currently failing so many children.

We cannot have this debate today without acknowledging how the crisis was deepened by an austerity agenda that tore up much of the social fabric that once would have offered pupils and their families much of the support needed. That dangerous idea has hollowed out councils’ budgets and severely restricted the services that they can provide. It has caused long-term harm to the NHS, including huge waiting lists for assessments and massive backlogs in mental health services. It has placed unbearable pressure on schools, which are asked to do more and more with fewer and fewer staff and resources. It has caused key public workers to leave due to stress, simply impossible workloads and low pay, further weakening services.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing such an important debate in such a full Westminster Hall. Since 2010 schools have been grappling with chronic underinvestment by former Conservative Governments. We know that those with special educational needs and disabilities have borne the brunt of that. Schools are expected to pick up the pieces without the proper support. Does he agree that we need to build capacity and expertise in the mainstream system so that more children can access the universal and targeted support that they need?

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend puts it very well; I could not agree more. There is an old saying that it takes a village to raise a child. Well, so many of the key services that we had in our communities to help support child development are on their knees due to austerity, and children are paying the price.

Every MP in this House is aware that the special education needs and disability system has gone beyond crisis and is in emergency.

[Sir David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will remember that we had a debate like this one in the main Chamber, and there was record demand—that tells the Government something. He is right that there is not enough money for SEND generally, but it is also distributed very badly. In my constituency we get £900 per child from central Government versus, let us say, Camden’s £3,500. That means that we have delays of two, three or four years—education, health and care plans not delivered, places not delivered and therapy not delivered. If we do not solve both issues, we will not solve either of them.

[Richard Burgon]

I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who makes the point—among other points—that this is a holistic issue: unless we solve all the interconnected root causes of the SEND crisis, we will never solve the crisis at all.

We have all had so many heartbreaking constituency cases. For this debate, I asked on social media for people to send in their case studies, and I was inundated with cases from right across the country. I will not be able to cite them all today, but I have read them all and they form the basis of what I will say today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and suggest that, given the turnout, this debate could well be held in the main Chamber and should last at least three hours? I commend him on bringing this issue forward. I support him in doing so.

Obviously, the Minister does not have to respond for Northern Ireland, but in Northern Ireland, SEND pupils form some 20% of the school population and the budget that we spend is in excess of £500 million per year. It does not go anywhere near meeting the demand, so does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need more placements, more teachers, more places in school as well and, ultimately, better funding? We must not leave behind the SEND children whom we all represent in this Chamber.

[Richard Burgon]

The hon. Gentleman puts it very well indeed.

This crisis is a result of many factors, which others will no doubt give more detail on in today’s debate, but at its core is the mishandling, I would argue, of the Children and Families Act 2014. Its aims—the widening of access to SEND support and the promotion of a more integrated approach, involving health, education and social care—were laudable, but the reality has proved otherwise. Since 2014, the number of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities has increased to 1.7 million. That is one in six pupils.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward. As well as more money, better use of money is key. We have seen a huge reduction in the amount of money being spent in primary schools for speech and language therapy, which then costs the system far more in secondary school, as well as, of course, meaning worse outcomes for children across our country. Does he agree?

[Richard Burgon]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, because early intervention is so important, both in giving adequate and timely support to young people and, in the long run, in keeping the costs down; without early intervention, the problems that children face can only get worse and worse. The number needing more support through an education, health and care plan has more than doubled, but the required resources have, as others have said, simply not followed.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for this debate about an issue that is so important and has filled my inbox over many months, as I am sure is the case for other hon. Members here. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the eligibility changed in 2014 with the Children and Families Act; it added an extra 11 years when it comes to the children and young people who could be included. Does he agree that it was a complete failure of subsequent Governments not to put in the extra resources to match the additional number of years? That has led to a perverse system in which we now see local authorities battling with parents—using not just normal barristers but King’s Counsel, so sure are they of their righteousness in their battle. With the help of barristers, including KCs, they are battling parents who are often not represented legally and have to represent themselves. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is perverse and should never have happened?

[Richard Burgon]

I thank the hon. Member: that is a very important point, and I certainly agree. I will turn later in my speech to the subject of the tribunals. When we look at the statistics on the outcome of the tribunal hearings, that underlines her point very strongly indeed.

I will make a bit of progress if that is okay. If others wish to seek to intervene, I will take some interventions again later, before the end of my speech. Greater need and inadequate funding are a recipe for disaster, and a disaster is exactly what has happened. In my 10 minutes, I cannot touch on every example of this crisis—

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Richard Burgon]

I will, and then I will make some progress.

[Ian Lavery]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this really important issue to the Chamber. Does he agree that, despite the huge increase in EHCPs, investment in mainstream and special educational needs schools has been drastically cut? That is having a huge impact, mainly on mainstream schools that are trying to back-fill the provision for special educational needs pupils in our areas. Society is often measured by the way—

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. A lot of people are down to speak, so please keep interventions brief.

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend makes his point well and passionately. He is correct; that is what parents and people who work in our schools have been saying to me.

I will highlight some of the most appalling statistics. More than half of SEND pupils have been forced to take time out of school due to a lack of proper provision, and some children are missing years of schooling. Two in three special schools are at or over capacity; there are 4,000 more pupils on roll than the reported capacity. There are eye-watering delays for children to get their education, health and care assessments and plans, and fewer than half of the plans are issued within the 20-week legal limit.

Nearly a third of parents whose children have special needs have had to resort to the legal system to get them the support they need, and many have spent thousands of pounds to do so. Seven out of eight teachers and 99% of school leaders say that SEND resources are insufficient to meet the needs of our children, according to National Education Union and National Association of Head Teachers staff surveys. Councils face huge SEND deficits, which now stand at £3.2 billion but are expected to reach £5 billion by 2026. The core £10,000 sum that special needs schools receive on a per-pupil basis has been frozen since 2013, despite spiralling inflation. That cost them hundreds of millions of pounds last year alone. I could go on and on, but that alone is a damning indictment of the system.

Child neglect is defined as:

“the persistent failure to meet a child’s basic physical and/or psychological needs, likely to result in the serious impairment of the child’s health or development.”

That is what this failure is, and we should be deeply angry that children are being neglected in such a way.

The SEND crisis is part of the wider crisis in education. There are too few teaching assistants, too few educational psychologists, too few special school places, and Sure Starts have been closed. All that and more means that schools are unable to provide the support that children need. It means that effective early interventions are not possible; that can deepen children’s needs with the result that they require more costly support. When schools face such difficulties, talk of bringing more children into mainstream schools, rather than specialist provision, is just empty rhetoric. All that is exacerbated by national curriculum changes, a much more rigid, prescriptive focus to learning and a greater emphasis on performance measures that simply do not provide the flexibility needed for genuinely inclusive education. We cannot solve this crisis by looking at the SEND system in isolation; we have to consider the wider education system as a whole.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentions the staffing crisis in the SEND system, but I want to note that there is also a crisis in recruitment and training for teachers of the deaf. From my experience, I know that is a key role for a number of deaf children, particularly in my constituency. There is a real crisis in back-filling those positions and recruiting across councils, particularly at a unitary level. The need for teachers of the deaf is not reflected in those coming through the system, which often results in children not having the resource and help they need to succeed in school.

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend is exactly correct, and I am delighted that she has put on record the contribution of teachers of the deaf and the situation in terms of their recruitment.

The current situation is working for no one; not for children, not for parents, not for teachers, not for children without SEN and not for local authorities. The last Government’s approach pitted parents against local authorities, and they failed to take responsibility. That has created a completely adversarial system, with ever more cases going to tribunal—there were 14,000 cases last year alone, up fourfold since 2014. Parents win in 98% of cases, but it is exhausting and often traumatic for them, as well as a complete waste of money.

Even then, the right support often does not follow. At times, that is due to local authorities being cut to the bone and their lack of effective mechanisms to hold schools to account, especially since academisation. Of course, that is only the tip of the iceberg, as so many parents simply do not have the time, energy or money to undertake legal action. The Government have a duty to end that blame game by addressing the root causes of the crisis: the failed policies that got us here.

As I draw to a close, I want to make a point about increasing attempts to shift the blame to parents, with stories blaming so-called pushy parents, a former Minister accusing parents of abusing the SEND tribunal scheme, and other powerful people calling for parents to make fewer demands.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned that 98% of parents who make an appeal are successful. Does he share my concern that that suggests that parents who should be supported are instead encountering a system that layers uncertainty and stress on an already difficult and stressful situation? On the Wirral, we do not need to see inspection results to know that parents feel failed and let down. Does my hon. Friend believe that we need to do more to support and challenge councils, to ensure that there is a better system for parents and their children who, in a time of need, feel that they are too often met with rejection and failure?

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend makes that point very well on behalf of his constituents in the Wirral, and I completely agree. What a trauma! It is trauma piled upon trauma, as parents are forced through this adversarial system, with all they are going through, struggling to get the best for their children—and the best is what our children need and deserve.

I suspect that the blame game of unfairly calling parents “pushy” was all part of a strategy by some in the last Government to blame the system breakdown on too much demand for special education provision and to claim that that demand must somehow be suppressed rather than met. I fear that those who promoted that view could even have been looking to water down the legal entitlements of children with education, health and care plans. Our new Government need to ensure—as I am sure they will—that that demonising of parents is challenged.

To conclude, the dire picture I have painted today is not inevitable; the system can be fixed and children can get the education they need and deserve. That requires improvements in SEND training for teachers, and special educational needs co-ordinators having time to focus on doing their job. It requires many more support staff in school, which means proper pay. It requires changes to the curriculum and to the way in which our education is so focused on tests and league tables, which means that there is pressure to off-roll SEND pupils. It requires genuine early intervention, including the restoration of Sure Start. It requires the scrapping of the safety valve scheme and the writing-off of local authority debts. And, of course, it requires cash. I note that the f40 group believes that the high needs block alone requires an additional £4.6 billion a year just to prevent the crisis from getting worse.

I know that many hon. Members want to speak today. I am delighted that the new Education Secretary has recognised that there is a crisis in SEND provision, because the first step in solving a crisis is to recognise that there is one. I hope that this exercise—going into this debate, continuing through this debate and following this debate—can be part of getting a grip and turning the page on a situation in which so many children are not getting the support and education they deserve in order to fulfil their potential for a happy life, which is something all our children deserve.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Obviously, a lot of Members want to get in. We have 40 minutes, so I am going to impose a time limit of three minutes. Please do not take more than one intervention, because that lengthens the time. Interventions should be to the point; they should not be speeches. If you make an intervention, you will not get called to speak as well. Off we go: I call Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon]

Thank you, Mr Betts, for calling me to speak, and I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate today. Given that demand to speak has exceeded supply today, I particularly hope that new Members who had written their speeches in advance, but were unable to make them in the debate, will consider publishing them online.

I thank the Minister for her response—her statement of intent. This debate today can only be the beginning. We need to recognise that there is a crisis in SEND provision. We need to ensure that SEND provision is properly financed and funded. We need to ensure that SEND provision is not seen in a silo and that instead there is a holistic approach to it. We also need to move forward, so I hope that we can find more time in the main Chamber to take this debate forward and tackle this challenge.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered SEND provision.

School Building Closures

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

Last time I was at this Dispatch Box, 95% of all questionnaires had been responded to. Now it is 98.6%, so the publicity has really helped to drive people who had not already responded, and we are grateful to them. I also committed that all the schools that were waiting to be surveyed would be surveyed by the end of this week, and I can confirm that that will absolutely be done. We have a good rate of surveys; we have eight companies doing them and we now have a process that means that as soon schools come in, we will get to them very quickly to survey.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I have a straightforward question for the Secretary of State that I hope she will answer clearly. Will she guarantee that the cost of all the repairs will be funded by new money from the Government, not the current education budget, which is not enough anyway?

[Gillian Keegan]

As I think I have explained before, there are different parts to the funding. Initially, the surveying work, the mitigations work and the temporary accommodation will all be funded by the DFE’s capital budget—we have a budget for that work. There is also revenue budget for additional things such as transport, hiring a village hall and so on—that will also come from a building fund within the DFE. We have already announced some of the school rebuilding projects, but we have spaces left and some are still to be announced, so some of that will be utilised. Beyond that, as the Chancellor says, we will do everything needed to keep children safe in our schools.

Safety of School Buildings

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)]

This Government are committed to making sure that every child in this country gets a first-class education and every opportunity to make the most of their abilities. More than that, underpinning that commitment is a deeper one: to ensure that children are safe and secure in the places where they learn. I am glad that the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) has chosen to raise the issue of the safety of school buildings and investment in the school estate. Nothing is more important than the safety of children and staff in our schools, and no issue could highlight more my willingness to take the right decisions, even if they are politically difficult. The country, and the children in our schools, deserve nothing less. As I set out in the House on Monday, the Government will not shy away from that responsibility, no matter how much the Labour party descends into the political gutter.

I understand that parents, schools and this House are concerned about the issue of RAAC; we are acting responsibly and moving decisively to address it, and minimising disruption to education. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is shouting from a sedentary position, so I will answer her question: £34 million was signed off for a Government building for the Department for Education. That was signed off by the Department’s commercial director, and was nothing to do with me. That was based on a decision made in 2019, before I was Minister. The right hon. Lady is very experienced, so I am sure that she will understand that Ministers do not sign off on Government buildings. It was the commercial director of the DFE who signed that off in 2019.

To go back to the issue in this case, because that was very misleading, we are dealing not with an issue caused in the last year, the last five years, the last decade or even the last 20 years, but with a legacy issue dating back to the 1950s. As the Chancellor set out, we will not shirk this responsibility and we will spend whatever it takes to keep children safe.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

In Leeds, our school repair backlog is over £66 million, and the council is given £6 million a year by the Government to tackle that. The lead councillor for education, Councillor Jonathan Pryor, has written to every single Secretary of State for Education since 2018. Eight letters have been sent to raise school condition funding, but all pleas have been ignored. Does the Secretary of State really think that is acceptable?

[Gillian Keegan]

I will look at Leeds specifically, but we have awarded millions to Leeds. The biggest difference between our programme and any programme that was ever done by your Government when they were in power—

Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete in Education Settings

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

We have all listened carefully to what Ministers have been saying. The Prime Minister said it was “completely and utterly wrong” to blame him for failing to fully fund a programme to rebuild England’s schools when he was Chancellor. But is it not in fact the case that what was truly completely and utterly wrong, and what is completely and truly wrong, is for this Prime Minister and this Government to pursue an ideological fixation with austerity, which has caused the lives of children in this country to be put at critical risk?

[Gillian Keegan]

I can give the hon. Gentleman some good news. We are going to be funding schools more than ever before: £60 billion a year, and the overall capital budget, as I have said, is £19 billion, and that is from the spending review in 2021, of which £7 billion is allocated to 2023-24. We have been building to continue at the same building rate of new schools for a long time.

Budget Resolutions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). I want to make special mention of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who made so many important points about how this Budget affects our city. We have heard so many stories of damage to communities across the country by Tory economic policies. It should not be like that, not in one of the richest countries in the world. Ours is one of the richest countries, but day to day that seems almost like a fantasy to people in my community and across the country, because they do not feel that they share in that wealth.

The aim of this Budget was clear: to make working people pay for a crisis that they did not cause. That was exactly what was done in 10 years of austerity after the banking crisis, and it is exactly what is being done now. The Government have chosen to hit working people with tax hikes and benefit cuts, while slashing taxes on the bankers. Make no mistake: this was a clear and deliberate political choice.

But there is an alternative: the Government could have chosen to impose a wealth tax, raising billions from the super-rich, who have increased their wealth by more than £100 billion during this crisis. Are we to say that it is impossible? [Interruption.] I see the Tories grinning at the prospect of making the richest people in society pay their fair share. Are we saying that that is impossible? [Interruption.] They are grinning, some of the ones who are not wearing masks, as we can see over there. Instead, the Government have chosen to stand side by side with the super-rich, who fund their party—many who lined their own pockets with corrupt covid contracts during this crisis. I want the Chancellor to be clear on something: we are going to build a mass movement for a wealth tax on the super-rich, because it is time that those who have got away with rigging the system for so long actually pay their fair share.

The second point I wish to make is that this Budget was a chance for the Government to put their money where their mouth is and fund a green transition to avoid climate catastrophe, which is the greatest example of free market failure. We needed a green new deal that created millions of decent, unionised, green jobs, transforming the basis of our economy while preparing us for the challenges of the future. Instead, the Government’s pledges fall tens of billions of pounds short of the levels of green investment we need to hit our carbon targets. So many people watching at home were shocked—they thought they had misheard—when in the Budget the Chancellor announced that he was slashing taxes on UK internal flights. People could not believe their ears. The Government are also sanctioning new oil and gas fields. We should be tackling the high-polluting lifestyles of the wealthy, which are fuelling the climate crisis. That is why I have called for a tax hike on the incomes of the richest 1%—those on more than £150,000 per year.

Just as the claims we used to hear of the “northern powerhouse” a decade ago were complete hot air, the Tories now want to fob people off in areas such as mine in east Leeds with bogus claims of “levelling up”. The Tories are not levelling up; they are not even levelling back to where we were before they took their axe to local services—to youth clubs and Sure Start centres. In my city, for example, since 2010 Leeds City Council has had cumulative cuts of more than £2 billion, and the same is happening in communities across the country. Yet now the Chancellor has refused a levelling-up bid to redevelop the Fearnville leisure centre in east Leeds to make it a wellbeing centre fit for the needs of my community. My constituency is one of the most economically deprived in the whole country, so it deserves the Government’s backing for that levelling-up bid, but they refused to back it. Instead of investing in our areas, the Government have chosen to hand out tax cuts to bankers. That is an appalling decision, but I say to the Chancellor that he still has time to change his mind on the levelling up bid for the Fearnville centre in east Leeds.

Lastly, I wish to make the point that the Government are leaving people to sink when faced with a deepening crisis. As we have heard, the Chancellor, ahead of his Budget speech, talked of an “age of optimism”. That just shows how out of touch the Government are. The IFS estimates are that over the next five years household income is expected to barely grow, at just 0.8% per year. That comes after workers have already faced the biggest stagnation of wages since the age of Napoleon. There should have been an emergency plan, to get people through the winter. That means that free school meals should have been extended.

The cut to universal credit, which affects more than 14,000 families in east Leeds, should have been restored. There should have been a windfall tax on fossil fuel companies such as BP, which today announced huge increases in profits, to fund a one-off winter fuel payment to help every household in the country through the winter.

At this Budget, the Tories had a chance to stand with ordinary people who face an unprecedented crisis. They chose to stand aside. The rhetoric of the Conservatives may have changed, but their callous disregard for ordinary people has not changed and remains constant.

Investing in Children and Young People

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

No one seriously thinks that the Government’s education catch-up plan is adequate: not teachers, not parents and not pupils. Some Conservative MPs do, of course, but the Government’s now former education recovery commissioner certainly does not. I suspect that even some Conservative Members would privately admit that it is nowhere near enough, because these plans represents just a tenth of what the Government know is required to get our children’s education back on track. They know what is needed, yet they refuse to deliver. What is needed is proper investment in our children’s futures: breakfast clubs, mental health support, extracurricular activities and small group tutoring for all who need it. That is what Labour would be doing.

Just like with our national health service and with our care system, the problems started years before this pandemic. Our schools went into this crisis after a decade of Conservative cuts. School spending has been slashed so much that spending per pupil will remain lower in real terms in 2023 than it was 13 years earlier, in 2010. That is a lost decade of funding for our kids’ education. Youth services have been decimated, with funding cut by three quarters since 2010. The Tories had a choice and, with these cuts, they chose to rob working-class kids of their futures.

The funding allocated for education recovery is truly miserly, with less than £1 for each week that kids were out of school. The cost of the catch-up plan is about the same amount that the eat out to help out scheme cost in a month last summer. We are one of the richest countries on the planet, and during the pandemic UK billionaires increased their wealth by over £106 billion, yet we have 4.3 million children growing up in poverty. We have thousands of children relying on emergency food bank parcels each day, and we have 1.7 million children from low-income families who do not get the free school meals they need all year round. It really is absolutely shameful.

The truth is that a social emergency is facing children and families in this country. It is a fact that more than 11,000 children in my constituency of Leeds East live in poverty. That is more than half, and it has gone up year after year under successive Conservative Governments, so forgive me, but when I hear Conservative MPs and Ministers talking about levelling up, I just do not believe them. I would love the Education Secretary to come to east Leeds, to the gates of schools such as Parklands Primary School in Seacroft or Bankside Primary School down in Harehills, and explain to the parents, to their face, why their children’s catch-up is worth a measly quid for each week of normal education that they have lost. What kind of money has been spent at Eton? You can bet your bottom dollar that it is more than £1 extra per week. I ask myself this question: for all the rhetoric, for all the talk of levelling up, if it is not good enough for pupils at Eton, why the hell do this Government think it is good enough for working-class kids in my constituency in east Leeds?

The truth is simple. Strip away the Government’s rhetoric, face the facts and forget the censorious speeches that blame children and families for the lack of opportunities that they face under a Conservative Government; the fact is, and the figures show it, that this Conservative Government and this Conservative Prime Minister do not care about working-class children. A decade of education cuts before 2020 shows that, and the Government’s refusal to invest in our children’s education recovery after 2020 shows that they have not changed one jot. That is why that we have just heard a Conservative MP saying that it is not all about money—it is not all about money because they do not want to make the political choice to give our working-class children the money that they need and deserve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I have just been informed that one hon. Member has withdrawn, so I will keep the limit at five minutes for as long as I can.

Education Return and Awarding Qualifications in 2021

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

That is why we felt it was so important to give some flexibility to schools and teachers, who will obviously understand their children and their individual learning needs best of all. Obviously, we rightly often look at some of the challenges of children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, but learning needs and challenges can vary regardless of what parents earn or the background they come from. That is why we need to give teachers the flexibility to target that support most appropriately to the child.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]]

On Monday, the very day the Prime Minister announced his “big bang” school return, the minutes of SAGE scientific advisers were published. They recommend a phased reopening of schools. Another group of Government scientific advisers warns that full school reopenings could increase R by up to 60%. The devolved Administrations are listening to that evidence and taking a phased approach. Just last month, the Prime Minister called schools “vectors of transmission”. Why are the Government now ignoring the advice of the scientific advisers? Is that not a reckless gamble that unnecessarily risks a spike in community transmission of the virus?

[Gavin Williamson]

At every stage we put the wellbeing of our children and those who work in schools very much at the heart of everything we do. We believe that children benefit from being in school. That is why we are very pleased that, by taking this cautious approach, we are able to welcome all children back.

Education Route Map: Covid-19

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]]

Last month, just one day after sending millions of children and staff back into schools to mix, the Prime Minister did a U-turn. He decided that it was too dangerous and that, in his words, schools were “vectors of transmission”. Einstein said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, but that is what the Government are doing with their big-bang reopening of schools. Recklessly forcing 10 million school pupils and staff back in a very short time risks a spike in community transmission.

We have heard deliberately vague claims from Ministers that this is backed by the science, yet on Monday, the very day the big-bang school return was announced, the minutes of SAGE—the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies—scientific advisers were published. Far from endorsing a school reopening, they recommended a phased reopening of schools. Another group of Government scientific advisers warned that full school reopening could increase the R rate by up to 60%, so once again, the Government are ignoring the advice of the scientific advisers.

The Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Administrations are listening to that evidence and taking a phased approach. That means opening up for one group of students and carefully monitoring the impact over a few weeks. That is the way to reopen schools in a safe and sustainable way. We all want to see children back learning, but it must be done in a way that keeps infection rates down, not just in schools but in the wider community.

The Prime Minister says that opening schools is a “national priority”, but I am afraid that I do not believe for a minute that it is, because the Government care nothing for children’s welfare—not when the Government have forced over half a million more children into poverty, not when they axed the education maintenance allowance, not when they imposed £9,000 university fees, not when they closed hundreds of youth centres. A safe, phased reopening is what scientists, staff and other experts are calling for. Instead, we have a politically motivated return. It is a reckless gamble and I fear that our communities, and especially the poorer communities, where the prevalence of the virus is still highest, will pay the price.

Remote Education and Free School Meals

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]]

This debate on free school meals cannot be separated from the earlier one on universal credit, because both prompt the question: why are over 14 million people living in poverty in the sixth richest country on earth? This endemic poverty is the result of a broken model and an ideological choice—one that the Conservative party chooses to make. Poverty has soared in this crisis, and the Government choose not to do all they can to tackle it, just as they made the choice to impoverish families with a decade of austerity.

The school food parcels fiasco highlights so much that is wrong with the system. It shows that when services are privatised and outsourced, profit is put first. How else can we explain Government guidelines that mean a £15 food parcel leaves kids with just £5-worth of food, with the vast majority going to the private companies? This is food literally taken from a child’s mouth, while the CEO of the company responsible for those shocking food parcels is paid £4.7 million per year—280 times more than its dinner ladies. It does not have to be this way. Leeds City Council gives proper food parcels to children by keeping the services in-house—public services run for the public good.

The food parcel scandal also shows that the Conservative party’s contempt for people in poverty knows no bounds. My party wants to see cash instead of food parcels going to families. The Conservatives disagree. They do not trust people in poverty to do what is best for their children. As a Conservative MP once disgracefully put it, the money could go direct to “a crack den” or “a brothel”.

But people are not in poverty because of a character failing, or because they do not work hard. People are in poverty because the broken economic model cannot provide them with a job that pays enough to live on, and because the Government refuse them the services they deserve. They include the tens of thousands of children in my region waiting for laptops so that they can work online. These kids deserve a proper chance in life. Their futures are not worth less than those of the children at the elite private schools that many members of the Cabinet attended, but the Government act like they are.

Finally, my party stood at the last election on a manifesto pledging both free broadband for the whole country and free school meals for all primary school children. Such policies are needed now more than ever. If this crisis has shown us anything, it is that the social safety net is broken. It is time to move back to a universal model.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nick Gibb]

I do remember that important debate that my hon. Friend secured. I share his determination to see the academic attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils—including white working-class boys—and others closed. That determination has been at the core of all our education reforms since 2010, particularly in respect of the focus on phonics in the teaching of reading, the evidence-based approach to the teaching of maths, and a more knowledge-based curriculum. Since 2011, the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and others has narrowed by 13% at key stage 2 and by 9% at key stage 4. The £1 billion catch-up premium, with £350 million specifically targeted towards disadvantaged students, is designed to address the widening attainment gaps caused by measures taken to tackle the covid pandemic.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

What steps he is taking to help ensure university students have access to digital and online learning during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)]

The Government are working to ensure that all students have access to digital learning, including by helping providers to draw upon the existing funding of £256 million for the year 2020-21 to go towards the purchase of IT equipment and wider hardship support. The Government expect universities to continue to deliver high-quality academic experiences for all students.

[Richard Burgon [V]]

The Secretary of State should have seen the new analysis today that shows that infection rates on university campuses are up to seven times higher than those in surrounding areas. There are fears that this will spread the virus to higher-risk groups in the local community. The Government should have moved teaching online before term started, as the University and College Union recommended. Will the Minister accept the Government’s error in not doing so and instruct universities to move to online learning as the default? Or will she and the Government continue to play Russian roulette with the lives of students, staff and local communities?

[Michelle Donelan]

The Government have prioritised education. We do not believe it would be right to put students’ lives and academic journeys on hold. Although only a small proportion of university populations have covid, it is an awful experience for every student who is having to self-isolate, which is why it is so important that support—from providing food to mental health and wellbeing support—is there for those students. I was pleased to see the Universities UK statement last week detailing the sector’s commitment to that support, which is in line with exactly what the Government expect.