(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberI have had the pleasure of meeting the hon. Gentleman’s child and look forward to meeting more in due course. He makes an excellent point. I will come on to everything he said when I set out the wish list from adoptive parents to the Minister, and I am sure she will respond to the best of her ability, within the constraints of what the Government can do.
When Ian and Verity reached out to me, I was shocked by how the local authority and local services had failed them. When they reached crisis point, they requested an intervention from the local authority, but instead of receiving help, they were threatened with police action for child abandonment. Ultimately, they were forced to disrupt the adoption, causing trauma to both the child and the entire family. I have asked people to email me their stories, and a common, repeated theme is local authorities using child abandonment charges as a scare tactic, which is deeply worrying. The advocacy group PATCH has highlighted how families facing adoption crises are often met with punitive approaches that fail to acknowledge the impact of trauma on these children. As a result, families break down because they cannot access the resources needed to address those challenges. I have heard from many families that have experienced breakdowns, and instead of receiving support when they have faced violent and threatening behaviour from their children, they have been met with blame, threats and criticism. A culture of blaming adoptive parents persists, leaving them isolated and without the help they need. Many adoptive parents are not fully informed about the child’s needs before adoption.
I thank the hon. Member for securing this very important debate. Does he agree that, under article 20 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, when children cannot be looked after by their own family, they should be looked after by those who respect or represent their ethnicity, their culture, their religion and their language? With BAME children being disproportionately represented—and, unfortunately, very vulnerable—does he agree that this is about not just finding a place for children but finding the right place for them?
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. He makes a good point. We have ended up in a situation where local authorities are trying to recruit anyone to adopt, and it is often a scramble to find any place, so places do not necessarily always meet the needs of or provide the best option for those children. I think that is the nature of the situation we find ourselves in, with the service at a crisis point.
Many families that have been in touch have also said that support for adoptive families is often limited to the adoption and special guardianship support fund. This fund seems to have become a bit of a sticking plaster to allow local authorities to claim that they are supporting families with adopted children. While the fund is massively helpful, it is often the only resource that people can turn to.
As the Minister mentioned a number of times during Tuesday’s urgent question, local authorities have a legal obligation to support families who have adopted. However, this fund is often inadequate, and it is the extent of support in many areas. It is not an instant fix, and it is often only available to families once they have reached crisis point. As the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, families often report waiting for months—six months and upwards—to access funds and support due to delays by local authorities. During this waiting period, crises can escalate, and families are pushed closer and closer to breakdown.
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberThere is no challenge more crucial for this Government than tackling child poverty. The taskforce has started the urgent work of publishing the strategy, which will look at levers across four key themes: increasing incomes, reducing essential costs, increasing financial resilience, and better local support, especially in early years.
Parents whose children have special educational needs and disabilities do not wish to send their children to far-away schools, but they have to, because of a lack of local provision. If the children are over the age of 16, however, it is at the discretion of the local authority to decide whether to meet the cost of transporting them to school, even though education is effectively compulsory until the age of 18. Many local authorities, including in Leicester South, are now passing that cost entirely on to parents. Will the Minister commit to dealing with SEND transport costs in the Department’s work to reduce the cost of sending children to school?
I will happily meet the hon. Member to discuss those issues further.
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this vital debate. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an NHS optometrist. I rise to highlight two critical issues: the severe gap in transport provision for post-16 students, and the additional challenges faced by children with visual impairment in the SEND system.
No parent of a SEND child willingly chooses to send them miles away for education. They do so because there is a lack of local provision. Until the age of 16, local authorities cover the cost of transportation, but beyond that, families are expected to finance it themselves —an expectation that is, frankly, unrealistic. I have spoken to parents who are on the brink of crisis, including Ruth and Esther from Still SEND 16+. Some are considering giving up their work to personally manage their child’s school commute, pushing them into benefits and ultimately costing the state more than simply providing transport would. A consultation has already shown that 29% of affected young people may be forced to abandon education. Will the Government consider making post-16 SEND transport statutory, ensuring that young people do not have to choose between education and affordability?
I also wish to raise the additional challenge faced by children with a visual impairment within the SEND framework. Across the UK, 41,000 children and young people rely on specialist visual impairment education services. Half of them have additional SEND needs, yet local disparities in provision mean that many do not receive the support they require. The Royal National Institute of Blind People has called for urgent reforms. I echo that. The curriculum framework for children and young people with visual impairment must be embedded in all SEND policies. The Government commitment to recruit 6,500 expert teachers must include funding for additional registered qualified habitation specialists and qualified visual impairment specialist teachers, and all teacher training and special educational needs co-ordinator courses must include mandatory visual impairment awareness training to improve inclusivity in mainstream schools.
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes); I have a business in Peterborough, and I concur with everything he said.
Let me begin by highlighting the remarkable return on investment that apprenticeships provide. I know from my time in Parliament that everything leads to the Treasury. Studies have shown that every £1 invested in level 2 and level 3 apprenticeship training will see a return of between £26 and £28. That is a big win not just for employers, but for apprentices.
For many individuals who do not thrive in traditional academic environments, apprenticeships are a lifeline. I lost so many friends, colleagues and peers who were brighter by far than I was, but who just did not fit into the conventional education system. If they had had an apprenticeship model they would have been really successful, but unfortunately they are now without work after so many decades. That is especially the case in unconventional areas like ours.
There are several challenges that employers and apprentices face. Among the most important is system complexity. For the employers I have spoken to, it is so complicated to employ apprentices. The system was meant to make things easier, but it has made things more complicated.
We need to concentrate on making the levy system a lot simpler for employers. We may need to revisit the tax treatment of self-funded training. Employer-funded training benefits from broad tax exemptions, while self-funded training does not enjoy the same advantages. To encourage greater training uptake among the self-employed and smaller businesses, we should align the tax relief for self-funded training and employer-funded training, levelling the playing field and incentivising skills development. We must also improve administrative support and reduce the regulatory complex. The decline in apprenticeship numbers and the overall reduction in training participation are not just statistics; they are signals that our current system is too complex and that both employers and apprentices are facing real, tangible challenges.
Before I conclude, I have a few questions for the Minister. How will the Government simplify the apprenticeship levy to ensure a uniform and effective subsidy rate for all employers, regardless of size? What measures will be introduced to ensure that public funding for adult education is increased and spent effectively to achieve outcomes? How do the Government plan to address the administrative burdens that discourage employers? Will the tax treatment of self-funded training be reviewed to create a level playing field for everybody?
(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberWe take no lectures from the Conservative party on how it failed children over the last 14 years. I have heard providers’ concerns about early years funding, and I recognise the importance of local authorities and providers planning ahead for the pivotal expansion year. We will be updating the House very soon on that issue.
Recently I met my constituent Farhan Adam, a winner of headmaster of the year, who lamented the fact that he spends more time addressing issues such as food insecurity than doing what he loves, which is teaching. This is not surprising as, according to the Food Foundation, approximately 18% of households with children are experiencing food insecurity. Does the Secretary of State agree that, in addition to breakfast clubs, lifting the two-child cap would help to alleviate this problem?
Breakfast clubs offer a huge amount, including food and club provision. I encourage the hon. Member to consider that for roll-out in his constituency. More broadly, he will be aware of the ministerial taskforce focused on child poverty, which will report in the new year.
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this vital debate on a subject that is of concern to many of my constituents. Education is a fundamental right for every child and should not be treated as a favour or privilege. We are witnessing at first hand how the lack of adequate travel provision can prevent children from accessing education.
The consequences of not providing proper travel services extend far beyond the immediate inconvenience to parents. Without transport, children will remain at home, where they are not engaged in education or employment. The social cost of that is immense. Parents will be forced to reduce their working hours or even give to up their jobs. We must ask ourselves whether that is the kind of future we want to create for our children and communities.
Travel arrangements for these children are about more than just convenience; they are about ensuring they can get to school safely and on time. Furthermore, we must ask ourselves about the reality of SEND children travelling for about two hours daily. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) mentioned, cost is not the issue; it is the fact that no provision is available locally. That is why parents are forced to send their children so far away. What impact must that have on their wellbeing? We must have more facilities and more schools—