National Funding Formula: Schools/High Needs

Steve Double Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I encourage the hon. Lady to look at the details that will be released by area and by school. To give her some reassurance, this is a formula that absolutely wants to ensure that we direct funding fairly, but also in relation to need, whether it be disadvantage or indeed low prior attainment. We think that the formula should be driven by data that, as I have said in my answers to other hon. Members, are more up to date. I encourage the hon. Lady to look at the consultation and at the details that will be released as part of it.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I welcome today’s statement, and schools in Cornwall will be very grateful that, at long last, the historical underfunding of its schools is being addressed. I am pleased to be part of the party of government who are at last dealing with it. I would like to raise the particular issue of the pupil premium and eligibility to it being based on free school meals. It is often difficult to get parents to register for free school meals, because of personal choice or the stigma they believe is attached to it, yet these data are already held by other Departments. Can we not get cross-Government co-operation so that people can be registered for free school meals automatically, rather than having to go through the process?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We want all children eligible for the pupil premium and free school meals to be properly registered. We have done a lot of work to try to make sure that that is the case. As my hon. Friend sets out, there is still a challenge ahead of us, and I am looking at what we can do to try to make further progress because it matters.

Schools that work for Everyone

Steve Double Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are setting out some proposals today about how we can get more good school places for more children, but they sit alongside all the things that he has talked about, such as standards, quality and strong leadership. I believe that grammars have many of those features, but, as he sets out, many other schools have them too. That is why we have done so much work to raise overall school standards over the last six years, and more schools than ever before are now good or outstanding. I was surprised not to hear him mention the Manchester expo proposal, which I know his local area is developing, so I thought I would do so on his behalf.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement and her willingness to challenge the status quo and the one-size-fits- all approach to education. May I seek an assurance that in this review she will not neglect rural areas, where some communities may only have one secondary school within easy travelling distance; that she will look at how to increase diversity and choice for families in those circumstances; and that she will continue to address the shortfall in the education funding that many rural areas receive?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend has set out, as in previous points that have been made, the particular challenges that rural communities face in having strong choice and strong school places locally. I assure him that I am well aware that hon. Members in rural areas are concerned to see us get on with the national funding formula next steps, and we will be announcing what we are going to do shortly.

School Penalty Fines and Authorised Absence

Steve Double Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 129698 relating to school penalty fines and authorised absence from school.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and a privilege again to have the opportunity to debate this subject, which looks like it is simply not going to go away. It is evident that parents from all around the country feel strongly, which is why we get to debate it again. We are here as a result of the online petition titled, “No more school penalty fines and bring back the 10 day authorised absence”, which has received more than 200,000 signatures to date. I am sure that we are all clear on the background, but let me put on the record that the petition states:

“Back in 2013 the government changed the law on taking your children out of school in term time so that now you receive a penalty fine of £60 per child”,

which can increase if the fine is not paid within a certain time.

Before the change in the law, which was passed by way of a statutory instrument and without the impact assessments being considered, headteachers had the discretion to allow up to 10 days off for pupils in special circumstances. That approach was rooted in common sense: teachers know the pupils, know the families they come from and know the communities that they are a part of. Sadly, we now have a Big Brother blanket ban on all family holidays in term time that gives the message that the state knows better than parents what is right for their children.

As we know, the rule was turned on its head by a recent court ruling, which judged that it was unlawful to fine parents for taking their children out of school when their children are regularly attending school. Confusion now reigns. We recently heard from Devon County Council that, until the details of the new law are made clear, it has suspended issuing any new penalty notices and cases to be heard in court will be adjourned. Cornwall Council has apparently been accused of going soft on fining parents. Although I welcome the decisions that these two south-west councils have taken, for the sake of fairness and clarity, schools and parents across England need to know where they stand.

Mr Russell Hobby, the general secretary of the school leaders’ union, the National Association of Headteachers, stated that, as we approach the holiday season, the recent ruling had

“created confusion for schools and parents”

and that

“the system of fines is clearly too blunt an instrument and in many cases it drives a wedge between schools and families.”

Swift action is needed to clarify the position for families, schools and all concerned.

The Minister knows that I care deeply about this—we have discussed and debated it before—partly because of the negative effect on the people of my constituency in Cornwall. I have made that case and spoken about the impact on the tourist industry many times before. I do not intend to repeat those arguments, but I want to address what I believe are some of the key arguments and some of the points that parents up and down the country feel very strongly about. I believe that we need to return to a policy that brings back common sense and a degree of flexibility.

I believe that the policy devalues the place of the family. The Government do not know what is best for my or anyone else’s children. Every child is unique and every family is different. This one-size-fits-all blanket ban does not allow for the uniqueness of every child and every family. It is not the Government’s role to tell parents what is best for their children.

[The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is the Government’s role to say that education should be compulsory from the age of five to 16?

[Steve Double]

I thank the Minister for that intervention. Of course I agree with him that we value compulsory education in this country and that it has a very important part to play. However, compulsory education does not happen only in the classroom—it does not mean that children should be stopped from taking a family holiday, which, I would argue, has an equally important role in their upbringing.

One parent who was fined for taking his child to a sporting world championship that a family member was competing in wrote these words to me:

“The notion that a state official can criminally enforce their perspective on which family members are important to a child is very disturbing coming from a democratic government…By focusing on what is an ‘exceptional circumstance’, and trying to eliminate cheap holidays, the law has sent schools down the path of criminally enforcing ethics, family values, the intimate details of children’s lives and relationships, without any qualifications or regard for academics, the wellbeing of the child, or the integrity and dignity of the family structure.”

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)]

The hon. Gentleman is doing an excellent job in leading this debate. Does he agree that the policy is far too draconian? I have two young children and the headteacher at their school is excellent and sensible, but that is not always the case. Should parents not be given more credibility in terms of being able to make the right decision for their children?

[Steve Double]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The one-size-fits-all blanket approach is draconian, and often penalises the wrong people and leaves no grounds for the school and headteachers to decide what is best for the individual child.

Just last week I spoke to a primary school headteacher in my constituency and was surprised by what he said:

“The best thing that could happen to some of the children in my school would be for their parents to take them”

on a week’s holiday “even in term time”. That was a headteacher who knows the children at his school, knows the families and the pressures and challenges they face, and knows the community that they are a part of. I challenge the Minister: does he agree with that headteacher? Is there ever a case, a situation or a set of circumstances where the best thing for a child would be to miss a week of school in order to have a holiday with their parents?

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I am trying to understand the hon. Gentleman’s arguments and ask for clarification. Is he suggesting that parents should have an absolute right to take their children out for up to 10 days without any reference to the advice of the headteacher, or is he saying that the headteacher or another member of staff should be able to exercise a view on whether that request is authorised?

[Steve Double]

I will come to that later, but I make the point now that, of course, we are not talking about a free-for-all where parents can just take their children out whenever they like. I am arguing that we should give the discretion back to headteachers, with a degree of flexibility, so that they can decide what is right for each child in each unique set of circumstances and in each family situation, and, taking all matters into consideration, decide what is best for that child, rather than have a blanket ban.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very persuasive case and is concentrating in particular on the family holiday entitlement, but can I bring him to another area? What about when parents have to take children out in exceptional circumstances? There is an absolute lack of clarity about what constitutes exceptional circumstances and there is no consistency. Does he agree that there need to be national guidelines to determine what exceptional circumstances are?

[Steve Double]

I suspect the Minister will say that guidelines have been provided, but in my experience, most headteachers say that, even when they follow the guidelines and exercise their discretion in saying what exceptional circumstances apply, they get criticised for exercising it when there is an Ofsted inspection. There seems to be a lack of consistency, which is why I argue for putting the discretion back in the hands of headteachers. Give them the freedom—they know the pupils and the families, so let them decide what is best for their pupils.

The Government have made great claims about the importance of the family and the value of a strong stable family to a child’s life and, indeed, to the wider community. I wholeheartedly support that, but it is sad that the family test was not in place when the rule was introduced in 2013. If it were, what would the outcome have been? I take the view that the family test would severely challenge the policy because of its impact on families’ lives. We live in a time when we are getting busier and busier. Time together as families is more precious than ever, so holidays together play an even more important part in the life of many families. It is clear to most people that time away is time to strengthen family relationships and time for parents to focus on their children. The value of that is immeasurable.

The simple fact is that, for many families, the choice is either a holiday during term time or no family holiday at all. For some people, that is due to their work situation—it is just not possible for many parents to take time off during school holidays. That is particularly true in my constituency, where people work in the tourist industry, but it is also true for many public sector workers in the NHS, the police and other sectors. For other families, it is simply a case of economics. A holiday during the peak season can be two or three times the price of a holiday during term time. For many families, it is just not affordable to take a holiday in the peak season. The Family Holiday Association reports that about 7 million families in the UK are simply unable to afford a week’s holiday.

It is easy for MPs, Government Ministers and education officers, who earn more than five times the salary of the average person in my constituency and, indeed, people in many other parts of the country, to say that people should only take a holiday out of term time. As someone suggested to me recently, the problem does not affect those in private education, as private schools have longer school holidays anyway. I am sorry to say that the situation simply shows that we do not understand the reality of life for many families. It is not a case of just looking for a cheap holiday. For many families, it is the only holiday they can afford, so it is a matter of a term-time holiday or no holiday.

We are discriminating against those on low incomes by saying that if they cannot afford the high prices charged during the school holidays, they do not deserve a family holiday. The policy is making the situation worse. By focusing all demand on the few weeks of school holidays, the rules of supply and demand mean that the prices go up during those weeks, and the drop in demand during term times means that the prices go down in those weeks. The differential between a term-time week and a school holiday week is widening. The message from the Government to our children is quite simple—that time in the classroom is more important than time away with their parents. Quite frankly, that is wrong.

My second point is that the policy denies the value of a holiday to a child’s development and education. Education does not take place only in the classroom. Although no one would deny the importance of children learning maths, English and the other core subjects, we should also accept that there are other equally important aspects of any child’s education. Education should be about preparing our children for life, work, being a good citizen and playing their part in the world. It is not just about passing exams. The opportunity to travel—to other countries or to other parts of this country—can and does play a valuable part in any child’s upbringing.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s case. A lot of my constituents—families with grandparents outside the UK in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh—will be encouraged by what he is saying. However, he seems to envisage a difficult role being placed on headteachers. Is he suggesting that any family could take their child out of school for a week or a couple of weeks if that works for them? Should there not be some encouragement for families to keep their children in school if that is at all possible?

[Steve Double]

Clearly we do not want a free-for-all. I am arguing for discretion to be put back into the hands of headteachers, which was the case before the rule was introduced in 2013. To my observation—I have been a school governor for nearly 20 years—it was working perfectly well. Even in a place such as Cornwall, where there was high demand for taking children away in term-time because parents worked in the tourist sector, there was still conversation and co-operation between the parent and the school. It was not a free-for-all. There was co-operation between parents and schools, and I am asking for the same now.

As the NAHT says, we are driving a wedge between the family and the school, which is damaging to, rather than supportive and encouraging of, children’s education. We are creating tensions between the school and the family, which has to be detrimental to the child’s education.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

I have a constituency case in which a mother and the child’s father, from whom the mother had separated, were fined. The mother’s husband was also fined but he has no parental control at all. In that case, three people were fined. Does the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) agree that there is a fundamental lack of transparency, fairness and consistency in how the fines are being applied, and that headteacher involvement would start to address some of those ridiculous situations?

[Steve Double]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. One problem with the policy is that it is being applied inconsistently by different local authorities. Since I stuck my head above the parapet on the issue, hundreds of parents have contacted me with many different stories about how the policy is being applied. The case mentioned by the hon. Lady is a good example of inconsistency, as three parents have been fined for the same child. Greater clarity is needed. I agree that the answer is to give discretion back to headteachers and let them make the decision.

Many headteachers up and down the country are asking for their discretion back because they understand the tensions that the policy causes between schools and families. One of the most important things in a child’s education is that their parents are engaged with their education, which means having a good positive relationship with the school. That is far more important than what school a child attends or even how many days they are at school. If there is a positive, co-operative relationship between the parents and the school, the child will usually do well at school. Where tension is created, the relationship is damaged, which has to be detrimental to the child’s education.

[Rosie Cooper]

I have a letter from the Minister—I took the matter up with the county council, as the education authority—who says:

“Individual local authorities determine the circumstances in which parents can be fined”.

But staff at the local authority tell me that they have no involvement, that schools only apply the fines and that the Government set the policy. We really are in a mess and we need greater clarity to even begin to understand how the system is working.

[Steve Double]

Again the hon. Lady makes a good point, and one that I have come across as I have tried to follow the chain of responsibility. I have met with headteachers, Ofsted and local authority leaders, and there is a lack of clarity about who is responsible—it is a vicious circle. Sadly, that comes down to the ruling and the situation with the Department for Education, which made the blanket ban, and that is the very point that I am challenging.

The policy undermines the place of family and devalues the importance of family holidays in any child’s upbringing. The policy does not enjoy broad support: parents hate it; many headteachers I talk to dislike it hugely and want it to be changed; and even the Local Government Association does not support it. David Simmonds from the LGA said:

“The increase in fines reflected tighter enforcement by schools that are under pressure from Ofsted to meet attendance targets, as well as a rising school population”.

He called for more flexibility in the rules to allow heads to take account of family circumstances where absence is unavoidable. He said that heads

“should be trusted to make decisions about a child’s absence from school without being forced to issue fines and start prosecutions in situations where they believe the absence is reasonable.”

That is a common-sense approach.

I am sure that we all want a good education for all children in this country, but that is not what we are debating. The Government are trying to reduce truancy, which is a persistent problem for a very small number of students, but this blanket approach is not the way to achieve that; it is a blunt instrument hitting the wrong people. There is a big difference between truancy and parents who simply want to be able to spend a holiday with their children. It should be noted that children who are persistently absent are less likely than other children to go on a family holiday. Before the regulations were introduced, authorised family holidays accounted for 7.5% of all absences from primary schools, dropping to 2.5% of all absences from secondary schools, but absence for family holidays was lower, at 1.9%, for persistently absent pupils, compared with 8.2% for other pupils. The policy is focusing on the wrong families; it is hitting the wrong people.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

Given that holidays outside term time are much more expensive, does my hon. Friend accept that children who are restricted from taking time to go on holiday, which can be educational and enriching, tend to be socially deprived and from impoverished backgrounds? We are limiting their life chances with this policy.

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are hitting the wrong people with this policy. The children of families who, because of the economics and the price, can afford to take them on holiday only during term time are possibly the ones who need such holidays the most in order to enrich their experience of the world, to strengthen their family relationships and to expand their knowledge and appreciation of the world, but they are the ones who are being excluded from such highly valuable experiences by this policy.

By stating that a family holiday is not a valid reason for an authorised absence from school, we are not addressing the real issue of persistent truancy. The assumption that absence is the main cause of falling attainment is just that—an assumption that has no evidence to support it. Stephen Gorard, professor of education at Durham University, has said:

“There is an association between the proportion of absence and the aggregate level of attainment of students who’ve had that level of absence but it would be wrong to assume that it was necessarily causal. We don’t know that the absences are the reason for the lower attainment. They could both be indicators of something else such as background characteristics and of course it’s also possible that children who aren’t doing well at school after a time begin to drift away and perhaps take time off. It could be that the causal mechanism is the other way around.”

This policy cannot be considered in isolation. We cannot just take a narrow approach that says, “This is the way to ensure that children attend school regularly,” without considering the wider impact on other aspects of family life and society.

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for pursuing this good cause. Does he agree that the policy has an adverse impact on NHS services? The population of areas such as Cornwall increases significantly during the summer holiday months, which places extra pressure on health services at the very time when medical staff are forced to take their holiday.

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point on an issue I am only too aware of. In Cornwall, and I suspect in other parts of the country, families are forced to take their holiday just at the time when we need more NHS staff. Hospitals and other services struggle to maintain staffing levels for that very reason. The Government need to take a joined-up approach and consider the impact not only on the Department for Education but on other organisations, such as the NHS.

We are still waiting for the Government’s response to the recent court ruling, and it would be helpful if the Minister could provide an update today. If, as he has previously stated, his intention is to reinforce the rule, can he confirm that that will require primary legislation, as the court indicated? If so, will he confirm that the process will include a full impact assessment of both the economic and the social impacts and that the family test will be rigorously applied? Will he confirm that he will consult widely not only with schools but with family groups and the tourism industry?

Along with families across the country, I hope that the Minister will now choose a different response. The petition calls for 10 days of authorised leave each year for a family holiday, but I am not sure whether that is necessarily the correct approach. The right approach is to return the decision to the discretion of headteachers, who should be allowed to make the decision based on their knowledge of the children and families involved. Headteachers should be given the flexibility to decide, in co-operation with parents, what is right and best for the children in their school. Once again, I ask the Minister to reconsider the Government’s position on this issue, to recognise the very real concerns of parents and to accept that this policy was rushed through without the consultation and assessment that it should have had. Take this opportunity, in light of the recent court ruling, to think again. Accept that truancy and persistent absence are different from a family holiday. Repeal this ruling and return flexibility and common sense. Allow families who want nothing more than to spend a week on holiday with their children the right to do so without the fear of being made into criminals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

It is a perfectly reasonable question. I tried to answer it in advance by saying that there is always a concern about what Ofsted’s view will be when it considers absences on the school roll across the board. All headteachers are extremely concerned that if they authorise such an absence, it will count against them when their overall absence statistics are considered.

Let me be clear: I have no criticism whatever of the school or the headteacher for the decision that they made. They felt that they had no choice but to do so; that is the point. The issue of choice is fundamental. Parents and headteachers should, in exceptional circumstances, have the freedom and choice to allow absence. That is what they are currently being denied, and in my view that cannot be right.

I raise that case in particular not only because it is in my constituency but because it specifically did not involve giving the children a holiday; that was not the purpose of the absence request. Yet it is absolutely the case that in Devon, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay and many other constituencies, the tourism sector plays a vital role in the local economy, and it is being badly affected by the current situation. By some measures, one in six jobs in my constituency depend either directly or indirectly on the tourism sector. It is a vital driver of the local economy, and many families in my constituency work in it.

Not only does the current situation create the problem that many families are unable to take advantage of cheaper holidays during term time, but for the many hundreds—indeed, probably thousands—of families who work in the tourism sector in my constituency, there is no way that they can go away during the school holidays. That is the time when they run their family businesses, so they are impeded in their ability to take their children away. I am afraid that by not helping them do so, we are not helping the holiday business.

I have read the transcript of a previous discussion in the main Chamber between my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay and the Minister. The point was made that we need the Government to think carefully about changing the regulations, due to their effect on the tourism industry. I hope the Minister will not mind my quoting him. He said:

“I do not believe that we should be returning to the Dickensian world where the needs of industry and commerce take precedence over the education of children.”

No one is suggesting that. No one is suggesting that children should be allowed to be taken away from school to satisfy the wishes of a few small businesses. This is a bigger issue than that. In the same discussion, he also said:

“I doubt that the Cornish tourism industry will be best pleased by his”—

my hon. Friend’s—

“assertion that tourism in Cornwall is dependent on truanting children for its survival.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2016; Vol. 611, c. 139-40.]

The Cornish tourism industry is not, and I am delighted to say that the Devon tourism industry is not. In particular, the north Devon tourism industry is not; that is the best place to spend a holiday.

The point is that we are talking not about truanting children but about the right of parents and teachers to agree, in a few cases, that it is appropriate in the circumstances for children to be taken out of school for a family holiday if they might otherwise miss out on one. That is the point. Families and children are missing out on a family holiday through no fault of their own and face the risk of being dragged before the courts or fined substantial amounts of money. Headteachers feel that they are having taken away from them the right to make individual decisions in individual circumstances.

Perhaps another result of this debate will be that holiday companies, airlines and those that offer package holidays take a long hard look at themselves. They should not be charging such vastly inflated prices during school holidays. I shall cite one example, which I raised the last time we debated this subject. I think you were in the Chair for at least some of that sitting, Mr Hanson; forgive me for outlining this particular circumstance again, but it tells the story rather well. A package holiday to Spain for a family of two adults and two children beginning on 14 July would have cost £1,300. The same holiday, with identical flights and accommodation, beginning just two weeks later when the school holidays had begun, would have cost £2,000. That is a 60% mark-up. It would not be allowed in any other retail business, and we should not put up with it. It is not just the Government who I ask, respectfully, to think again about where we are; the holiday industry needs to take a long, hard look at itself as well.

[Steve Double]

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem with holiday prices is that many tourist resorts, especially in places such as Cornwall, are forced to try to make enough money during the six or seven weeks of the school summer holidays to cover their overheads for the whole year? They have to put up their prices because numbers have dropped so much that they can no longer recover the revenue they used to make during the shoulder months of June and September. All their revenue is focused on such a small time period that they inevitably have to put up prices.

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

Absolutely. Many businesses in such resorts find themselves in that position. That feeds back into the point I made earlier: because the season is now so focused, families who run tourism businesses in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend have no choice. There is no way they can possibly go on holiday during the school holidays, so they have to request to take their children out of school, otherwise they will not be able to enjoy a holiday.

It is absolutely right that the Government have a duty to ensure that children have full academic attendance and a full school record. I am not arguing with that, but there must be some carrot and some stick. My fear is that, with the 2013 guidelines, the balance has shifted rather too much towards the stick approach, which I do not think is valuable or helpful.

Let me go off script for a moment. I am a bit of an old-fashioned Tory sort of boy, and I like less government. I like smaller government. I like government that does not just sit in Westminster bringing a clunking fist down rather hard on parents, families and working people who are just trying to do the right thing. I have an uneasy sense that the current regulation and policy are on the wrong side of that. I passionately believe that, as a Conservative Government, we should be helping hard-working people who occasionally have no choice but to take their children out of school. As in the case of my constituents, Mr and Mrs Short, they might do so not for a holiday but for a perfectly reasonable sporting endeavour. I am not sure how we have reached the point where, as a Government, we are saying, “We, centrally, know better than you.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

We have to weigh that against the evidence that says that every day lost through a child’s absence can have a significant impact on their education. The Government’s response has to be to set guidelines, but headteachers and the community of course have an obligation as part of that. That is still within the remit and powers of the current legislation.

[Steve Double]

The hon. Lady makes the point that every day a child is absent from school affects its education, but the reason for the absence should be taken into consideration. If the child is absent but participating in something that is fundamentally going to be good for their wellbeing and development as a person, that could be beneficial to their overall education and not necessarily always detrimental.

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Gentleman makes a compelling case. There are various reasons why children could be absent from school. From today’s contributions, one of the compelling reasons why people have said they would like to be able to take their children out of school is the motivation of parents to take their children on a family holiday. I completely understand and sympathise with that situation. I have been a parent for many years, and prior to coming to this House, I was on a low income. I understand and feel their frustration at the rise in cost—in some instances it is an increase of as much as 150%. That makes most holidays unaffordable for most hard-working families.

Like other Members, I want the Minister to tell us what talks are under way to work with the travel industry to try to mitigate the cost of holidays for families who have already withstood austerity and are living on the breadline.

I also understand the concern about the level of the fines. If the fine is not paid, the parent can be prosecuted and fined up to £2,500. They can also receive a community order or even be jailed for up to three months, so I share the concerns that many Members have raised.

Following the High Court’s ruling in favour of Mr Jon Platt, the Government have made it clear that they are now considering changing the legislation and strengthening the statutory guidance given to schools and local authorities. We welcome any attempts to clear up any confusion and to remove the doubt and uncertainty about the legal position as we await a final decision on Mr Platt’s case. In the meantime, no one should be in any doubt that parents must ensure their children go to school. This is non-negotiable. Only schools can authorise absence. They have discretion in exceptional circumstances and they will hopefully use that wisely. The vast majority of parents accept that, and they accept that in a decent, law-abiding society, where our children are the country’s most precious asset, sending their children to school is the right thing to do.

[The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)]

It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I welcome the response to the debate from the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). I predicted that she would make a formidable shadow Secretary of State, despite the odd circumstances of her appointment, and today she has reconfirmed my view. I welcome her support for the Government’s policy, particularly her support for the Government’s attitude to attendance. She clearly shares our concern that attendance is key.

The hon. Lady raised the example of a diagnosis of cancer as not being regarded as exceptional. I refer her and other Members taking part in the debate to the National Association of Head Teachers advice and guidance, which, at point 10, states:

“Families may need time together to recover from trauma or crisis.”

A cancer diagnosis is therefore regarded as an exceptional circumstance, and attending hospital or illness is of course a reason to authorise absence.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for leading this important debate. The subject is close to his heart—we debated the issues fairly recently on 19 May and also in an urgent question that he raised on the Floor of the House. The debate gives me the opportunity to restate the Government’s position on school attendance for parents, schools and local authorities, particularly as I know some parents and schools have been confused by the recent High Court judgment in the Isle of Wight term-time holiday case. I hope I can fulfil the request from the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne to provide clarity on that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) for his constructive approach and to other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate.

The e-petition states:

“No more school penalty fines and bring back the 10 day authorised absence.”

My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay referred to the 200,000 people who signed the petition. We take that very seriously, but it is a small proportion of the parents of 8.4 million school-age children in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon said that he does not agree with the part of the petition that refers to bringing back the 10-day authorised absence—nor does my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay, nor the Government today and nor the Government in 2013.

In 2013, the Government clarified the law to address what was a widespread misconception that parents were entitled to take their children on holiday during term time. No such entitlement has ever existed in law. Teachers and schools support the increased clarity. As anyone who works in schools knows, education is cumulative, and unauthorised absences have a significantly adverse effect on the child who is absent as they miss vital stepping stones towards understanding curriculum content. Unauthorised absences also damage the education of the rest of the class as teachers have to spend time trying to help the absent pupils catch up when they return. The Government clarified the law to ensure that headteachers retained the discretion to authorise a leave of absence by considering the merits of each request and deciding whether it qualifies as an exceptional circumstance. Children should not miss school unless the circumstances are genuinely exceptional.

I refer my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon to point 3 of the NAHT guidance:

“If an event can reasonably be scheduled outside of term time then it would not be normal to authorise absence.”

The converse is that, if an event cannot reasonably be scheduled outside of term time, such as a championship or a sporting event of high significance to the child or indeed to the country, then of course it would fall within point 3 of the guidance, although it is ultimately a matter for the discretion of the headteacher.

The regulatory changes that we introduced in 2013 have been very successful. Since their introduction, as the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, the rate of absence due to term-time holidays has decreased by more than a third. The number of persistent absentees in England’s schools has dropped by more than 40%, from 433,000 in the academic year 2009-10 to 246,000 in 2014-15. Some 6.8 million days were lost due to authorised and unauthorised term-time holiday absence in the 2012-13 academic year. That fell to 4.1 million days in 2014-15—a drop of 2.7 million days—meaning more children sitting in more classrooms for more hours. That has been driven particularly by a drop in absence due to authorised term-time holidays, with only 3.4% of pupils missing at least one session due to authorised term-time holidays in 2014-15, down from 15.1% in 2012-13.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay correctly cited statistics that showed that the rate of agreed term-time holidays is lower for persistent absentees than for other pupils: 0.5% due to family holidays by persistent absentees versus 1.9% for other pupils. However, the situation is reversed for unauthorised term-time holidays: 0.6% of all possible sessions missed for persistent absentees versus 0.3% for other pupils.

[Steve McCabe in the Chair]

The Government acknowledge that family holidays can be enriching experiences, but the school year is designed to give families numerous opportunities to enjoy holidays without having to disrupt children’s education. Parents should plan their holidays around school breaks and avoid seeking permission from schools to take their children out of school during term time unless there are exceptional circumstances. I recognise that the cost of holidays is a frustration that many parents share, and I certainly encourage travel operators to do what they can to provide value for money to families, but ultimately, in a competitive market in which British businesses are in competition with others across the globe, it is for those businesses to decide their prices based on demand across the year.

Tourism is a key industry that supports almost one in 10 jobs in the United Kingdom. That is why the Government are encouraging more visitors to discover more of our country, as set out in the five-point plan that the Prime Minister announced in July 2015. Holiday sales in the UK continue to be buoyant, suggesting that there is sufficient supply and strong demand. There were more than 124 million overnight domestic trips in Britain in 2015—a 9% rise on 2014 and the highest figure since 2012. The amount spent was also up 9% to £25 billion, a record £19.6 billion of which was spent in England.

If parents and schools want different term dates so they can take holidays at less busy periods, we encourage them to discuss that with their local authority. The authority to change term dates sits with academies, voluntary-aided schools and local authorities. Decisions about term dates are best taken locally, especially where the local industry—for example, tourism—creates a compelling reason to set term dates that differ from those of the rest of the country.

As of January 2016, about 81% of secondary and 41% of primary schools, educating 57% of all mainstream registered pupils, have the responsibility for their own term and holiday dates. That includes all academies and free schools, and other schools where the governing body is the employer of staff, such as foundation or voluntary-aided schools. Some of those schools have led the way in making innovative changes in the interests of pupils and parents.

[Steve Double]

I understand the point that the Minister is making about varying term times, but it presents real difficulties. For instance, a primary school in my constituency that the Prime Minister praised for changing its half-term dates had to revert back after two years because of the pressure on parents with children at other schools that did not change their term dates. It created more problems than it solved.

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend raises a real, practical issue about having different term dates in different parts of the country. That is something that the local authority and academies have to take into account when they consider changing term dates to reflect an industry or tourist needs in a particular region. They will have to weigh up the comparative advantage of that inconvenience versus the convenience of the industry that supplies the jobs in that area. That is why the decision needs to be taken locally by people who know how to weigh up those advantages and challenges.

That happened, for example, in Landau Forte Academy in Derby, which has operated on a five-term year since 1992. Eight-week terms are followed by two-week breaks and a four-week summer holiday. The academy feels that a shorter summer holiday is particularly beneficial for pupils from low-income backgrounds, who might not otherwise receive any stimulating activities in the holidays. It takes into account the dates of other local schools to ensure there is always some overlap of holidays. For example, one of its two weeks in October is always half term for other Derby schools.

Bishop Bromscombe School in St Austell, for example, improved school attendance by moving to a two-week May and June half term that allows parents to holiday outside peak times—[Interruption.] I assume that that is the school that my hon. Friend was talking about. It has now reversed that decision. If I had been quicker, I would have omitted that paragraph from my response.[Laughter.] I could, I am sure, cite other examples from around the country of schools that have taken advantage of that freedom.

Our reforms have put teachers in charge of their classrooms and headteachers in charge of their schools. Many measures are available to improve school attendance. Only when all other strategies to improve attendance have failed should sanctions such as penalty notices or prosecution be used. Schools, local authorities and the police have been able to issue penalty notices for unauthorised school absence since September 2004. There were 151,000 penalty notices issued for unauthorised absence in the 2014-15 academic year, up 54% from the 98,000 issued in 2013-14, indicating a continuation of the upward trend since 2009-10. The increase in 2014-15 was greater than the yearly increases prior to 2012-13, but it is lower than the increase of 88% between 2012-13 and 2013-14.

I believe it is right that local authorities and schools are actively addressing pupil absence. The impact of that can be seen in the historical downward trend in the absence figures, which show that, since 2009-10, almost 200,000 fewer pupils are persistently absent.

Although the Government are disappointed with the High Court judgment on school attendance, we are clear that children’s attendance at school is non-negotiable, and we will take the necessary steps to secure that principle. I recognise that the High Court judgment has created uncertainty for parents, schools and local authorities. Given its importance, it is essential that the matter is clarified, which is why we decided to support Isle of Wight Council’s request for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, and why I wrote to all schools and local authorities in England to make it clear that the High Court judgment does not establish that a pupil’s attendance above 90% is regarded as regular attendance.

Headteachers are responsible for deciding whether there are exceptional circumstances that merit granting a pupil leave of absence. My letter concluded by explaining to local authorities receiving requests for refunds that the decision in the Isle of Wight case does not require them to refund penalties that have already been paid. The Department for Education expects applications for such refunds to be refused.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate, which has been well informed and clear. I also take the opportunity to thank all the members of the public who signed the petition—nearly 200,000 people—and Dave Hedley from Nottingham, who started it.

We all agree that we want children to attend school regularly and as much as possible. The reasons for persistent absence need to be addressed, but there are clearly a variety of views on whether the existing Government policy is the best way to achieve that.

The Minister made the point that a lot boils down to our view of the difference between “exceptional” and “special”. The more that can be done to make the Government’s view of exceptional circumstances clear, the better, so that we can have real clarity. However, what I pick up from headteachers, as many Members have said, is that the real issue is about Ofsted. Where headteachers exercise their discretion, Ofsted appears to take a different view. Anything that can be done to help Ofsted support headteachers a bit more will, I am sure, be much appreciated.

Personally, I still believe that it is strange for us to trust schools to set their own term dates, as the Minister said, but not to trust headteachers to decide what is right and best for individual pupils. I encourage the Minister to look at the situation again, not only to clarify it but to see whether we can bring more common sense and flexibility into it, allowing headteachers to exercise their discretion. They are the ones who know pupils the best.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 129698 relating to penalty fines and authorised absence from school.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Double Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Children and Families (Edward Timpson)]

Absolutely.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

T8. I thank the Schools Minister for his recent visit to the Acorn alternative provision academy in my constituency to see the excellent work that it is doing. Does he agree that the delivery of high quality and innovative alternative provision education is vital to raising the life chances of children who find themselves in the most difficult and challenging situations? Can he update the House on the work that his Department is doing to support alternative provision across the country?

[Mr Gibb]

I was actually expecting a question on term-time holidays from my hon. Friend, but I am nevertheless delighted to join him in congratulating the Acorn AP academy. It is an excellent alternative provision academy with a real focus on academic achievement for vulnerable pupils. I certainly agree that outstanding alternative provision is vital, and in our education White Paper we set out reforms that will help to build a world-leading system of alternative provision. The reforms will incentivise schools to commission high-quality provision and make the schools more accountable for the outcomes of alternative provision pupils.

Term-time Holidays

Steve Double Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the recent decision by the High Court on the right of parents to take their children on holiday during term time.

[The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)]

The High Court oral judgment represents a significant threat to one of the Government’s most important achievements in education in the past six years: improving school attendance. For this reason, the Government will do everything in their power to ensure that headteachers are able to keep children in school.

There is abundant academic evidence showing that time spent in school is one of the single strongest determinants of a pupil’s academic success. At secondary school, even a week off can have a significant impact on a pupil’s GCSE grades. This is unfair to children and potentially damaging to their life chances. That is why we have unashamedly pursued a zero-tolerance policy on unauthorised absence. We have increased the fines issued to parents of pupils with persistent unauthorised absence, placed greater emphasis on school attendance levels in inspection outcomes and, crucially, we have clamped down on the practice of taking term-time holidays. Those measures have been strikingly successful: the number of persistent absentees in this country’s schools has dropped by over 40%, from 433,000 in 2010 to 246,000 in 2015, and some 4 million fewer days are lost due to unauthorised absence compared with 2012-2013. Overall absence rates have followed a significant downward trend from 6.5% in the academic year ending in 2007 to 4.6% in the academic year ending in 2015.

These are not just statistics. They mean that pupils are spending many more hours in school, being taught the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in life. It is for this reason that we amended the 2006 attendance regulations in 2013. Previously headteachers were permitted to grant a family holiday during term time for “special circumstances” of up to 10 days per school year. Of course, the need to take time off school in exceptional circumstances is important, but there are no special circumstances where a 10-day family holiday to Disney World should be allowed to trump the importance of school. The rules must apply to everyone as a matter of social justice. When parents with the income available to take their children out of school go to Florida, it sends a message to everyone that school attendance is not important.

The measure has been welcomed by teachers and schools. Unauthorised absences do not affect just the child who is absent; they damage everyone’s education as teachers find themselves having to play catch-up. Because learning is cumulative, pupils cannot understand the division of fractions if they have not first understood their multiplication. Pupils cannot understand why world war one ended if they do not know why it started, and they cannot enjoy the second half of a novel if they have not read the first half. If a vital block of prerequisite knowledge is missed in April, a pupil’s understanding of the subject will be harmed in May.

The Government understand, however, that many school holidays being taken at roughly the same time leads to a hike in prices. That is precisely the reason that we have given academies the power to set their own term dates in a way that works for their parents and their local communities. Already schools such as Hatcham College in London and the David Young Community Academy in Leeds are doing just that. In areas of the country such as the south-west, where a large number of the local population are employed in the tourist industry, there is nothing to stop schools clubbing together and collectively changing or extending the dates of their summer holidays or doing so as part of a multi-academy trust. In fact, this Government would encourage them to do so.

[Mr Gibb]

I am about to conclude, Mr Speaker.

We are awaiting the written judgment from the High Court and will outline our next steps in due course. The House should be assured that we will seek to take whatever measures are necessary to give schools and local authorities the power and clarity to ensure that children attend school when they should.

[Steve Double]

I thank the Minister for his answer. However, there is another aspect to the policy which, sadly, has been ignored up till now—the economic impact of the policy on tourist areas, particularly in Cornwall. In 2014 a published report indicated that the tourist industry in Cornwall had lost £50 million as a result.

With respect to the Minister, there is no prospect of social mobility for a family if the parents lose their job or have their hours cut because of the downturn in the tourism industry and the way that that affects their jobs. Is it not the case that only 8% of school absenteeism is a result of family holidays? There is no drop-off in the attainment of those children. Family holidays are good for children. They widen their knowledge of the world and expose them to new experiences, and children whose family take them on a holiday often perform better as a direct result.

Will the Minister please look at the matter again? If he is going to bring forward measures to tighten the rules or strengthen them, can he assure the House that there will be a full debate in this Chamber, that the changes to the rules will not be made through secondary legislation, that this time a full impact assessment will be carried out that includes the economic impact on tourism-related industries, that the family test will be applied to the measures, and that a full public consultation will take place that considers the impact on all stakeholders—not just education, but the wider society and families especially?

[Mr Gibb]

Before 2013 authorised family holidays made up between 5% and 6% of pupil absences. That figure dropped to 2.3% in 2013-14 and to 1.2% in 2014-15. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, I do not believe that we should be returning to the Dickensian world where the needs of industry and commerce take precedence over the education of children. His constituency of St Austell and Newquay, in the beautiful county of Cornwall, has a hugely successful and thriving tourism industry that generates about £2 billion of income for the UK economy. I doubt that the Cornish tourism industry will be best pleased by his assertion that tourism in Cornwall is dependent on truanting children for its survival.

“Educational Excellence Everywhere”: Academies

Steve Double Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I think the hon. Lady rather let herself down by that patronising question, if I may say so. I have been very clear all the way along, since the first day of my appointment, that the most important people in our education system are the teachers. The quality of teachers is the single most important thing that attracts and helps young people meet standards. If any Minister puts forward any proposals, we are likely to hear comments, but that does not mean that we should not put proposals forward. That is not the kind of person I am. I said last week that I was not going to leave the job half-done; I am not going to leave the job half-done.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on the support for small rural schools, and her commitment to a funding review. Does she agree that a funding review delivers the opportunity to address the deep unfairness in the funding system that has left schools in places such as Cornwall underfunded for far too long?

[Nicky Morgan]

We remain committed to a national funding formula review. It cannot be right to have 152 different local formulae operating across the country. As I have talked about having a strong, consistent education system across the country, that must mean that we have a strong, consistent funding system too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Double Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

Ofsted data for the latest inspection results of all schools show that 350,000 children now study in sponsored academies rated good or outstanding. Let us look at the example of an academy in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Langdon Academy, a special measures school in East Ham, opened as a fast-track sponsored academy on 1 January 2014. Over a year later, it has gone from 45% of pupils getting A* to C to 57%. Those are achievements that I want all young people to have access to.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

Conversion to academies is improving the education of children throughout the country, and it is right that we make this opportunity available to all children. However, concerns have been expressed about the impact that this policy will have on small schools, particularly in a place such as Cornwall, where we have many small schools. Has my right hon. Friend considered that one of the ways of addressing those concerns would be to allow local authorities to be involved in the running of multi-academy trusts?

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend will know that we published a White Paper in order to make sure that we talk to Members in all parts of the House, as well as to local authorities. Like my hon. Friend, I want all young people to have the best possible start in life. We know that academies make a difference. We also know that small schools can benefit from working together in clusters, including the 15 schools in Cornwall that converted to academies together as one group last week to provide mutual support. I look forward to continuing my conversations with my hon. Friend.

Out-of-school Education Settings

Steve Double Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) on securing the debate. Just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister stood up in the Chamber and declared that he believed we were a Christian nation and that, in fact, it was our Christian heritage and values that have made us the great nation that we are. I believe that those words were broadly welcomed, so, if that is true, what are we afraid of? We should be promoting the teaching of the Bible to our children, not seeking to restrict it, because the results of that produce an awful lot of good.

The Government are in danger of making a bad decision based on very bad evidence. Where is the evidence of any British citizen attending the local Methodist Sunday school and being incited to carry out acts of terrorism? Where are the Sunday school teachers who seek to inspire and incite young people to join terrorist organisations? I suggest there is no evidence whatever to impose such restrictions on Sunday schools and other church groups.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is right. There also seems to be little evidence that the inculcation of ideas in madrassahs leads to extremism. We have had little from the Government to show an evidential link—it seems to be lonely teenagers looking on the internet rather than being taught in schools, officially registered or otherwise.

[Steve Double]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I wholeheartedly agree with him. We need to recognise that the vast majority of people of all faiths in this nation are decent, honest, law-abiding citizens who want only the best not only for their own children, but for our nation. We are in danger of applying onerous restrictions on the many to address the actions of a few. That is the wrong thing to do.

In this country, we have already sacrificed too much of our liberty in the name of equality. I fully appreciate that the Government are trying to walk a tightrope on this issue to appear even-handed, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) pointed out, we need to be clear about where the source of the threat comes from and target the Government’s response to address the source and not tie up tens of thousands of volunteers with unwarranted bureaucracy when they already have a hard enough job to do.

When young people attend Sunday school or other Christian events throughout the year, they often find not just faith but a mission in life to go and serve humanity. Thousands of young people attend Christian camps every summer and, as a result of the teaching they receive, they are inspired to travel the world, serving humanitarian causes. That is something we should be promoting, celebrating and encouraging, not restricting.

I implore the Minister and the Government to think again. There is clearly a degree of confusion over this issue, but there is no smoke without fire, so there is certainly something going on. I ask the Minister once and for all to quash the proposal to put onerous restrictions on faith groups, and churches and Sunday schools in particular. Let us celebrate our Christian heritage and not seek to restrict it any further.

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

I call Caroline Ansell, who has one and a half minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Double Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

10. What steps he is taking to support the aerospace industry.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

14. What steps he is taking to support the aerospace industry.

[The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)]

I was delighted that in the spending review the Government committed a further £900 million of funding for aerospace research and development, supported by the Aerospace Technology Institute. That means that this Government will invest almost £2 billion in aerospace research over 13 years to 2025-26, so our world-leading aerospace industry can stay at the forefront of development and capitalise on the estimated £3.6 trillion market for new aircraft that will be needed over the next 20 years.

[Anna Soubry]

I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the concerns of all those he has met with. Rolls-Royce, along with the aerospace sector as a whole, is a major contributor to the United Kingdom economy, so we get how important it is. That is why we have protected and, indeed, extended the investment that we are making in research and development.

[Steve Double]

The recent announcement of the expansion of the Aerohub enterprise zone in Cornwall to include the Goonhilly earth station has been keenly welcomed in Cornwall. Does the Minister agree that this creates a great opportunity for Cornwall to be awarded the location of the UK spaceport, which would provide a huge bonus to the Cornish economy?

[Anna Soubry]

I am sure my hon. Friend will continue to make that case. I have to say that a number of other airports are in the running and we aim to launch the selection process next year. We have heard the great news about the launch today and Major Tim going up into space. Ground control can report that the UK space sector has almost doubled to £11.8 billion—[Interruption.] I know it is the festive season, but I think it is most unfortunate that Opposition Members are singing. It is not good. I hope they might cheer the fact that the sector has almost doubled to £11.8 billion in just seven years and employs 37,000 people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

I agree with the hon. Lady on the issue of productivity and the need to boost skills. There will be area reviews, so I cannot make a promise about any particular institution. However, as the Minister for Skills has said, there will be an increase in FE funding of more than 35% in real terms over the lifetime of the Parliament. In the hon. Lady’s constituency, there has been a 75% increase in apprenticeship starts during the past five years, which I am sure she welcomes.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

T3. The Eden Project in my constituency has run a successful apprenticeship in horticulture for the past year. Horticulturalists will become more and more important in meeting our increasing demand for food. What support can the Minister provide to promote horticulture as a worthwhile career for young people?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (George Freeman)]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are supporting the horticulture industry under the UK agritech strategy. Indeed, I recently opened a horticultural waste reduction facility. The horticulture sector is leading in the UK on low water, low plastic and low energy farming systems, and on novel uses of insects to avoid the use of pesticides and hydroponics. It is an innovative sector that is developing interesting careers and contributing to our growing agritech economy.

Term-time Leave

Steve Double Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered an e-petition relating to term-time leave from school for holiday.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I understand that this is your first time in the Westminster Hall Chair. It is my first time opening a debate here, so hopefully we can learn together.

It is a pleasure to open this debate on a controversial and unpopular policy that has provoked much public interest, as we can see from the number of members of the public present. The debate is the result of an e-petition calling for parents to be allowed to take their children out of school for up to two weeks for a family holiday; it has been signed by more than 120,000 people. I am leading the debate because I am a member of the Petitions Committee, but I also have a keen interest in the issue and have been campaigning about it for the past 12 months or more. I have been contacted by, and have spoken with, hundreds of parents, tourism-related businesses, charities and campaigning organisations about the issue. In my opening statement, I hope accurately to represent the views of all those people, while making it clear that I share those views.

To begin with, I want to make it absolutely clear that I support the aim that children should attend school regularly. Education is vital, but it is not the only important thing in a child’s upbringing. Although I support that aim, I fundamentally disagree that telling parents when they can and cannot take their children on holiday is a job for the state.

During the election campaign, I became increasingly aware of the policy’s detrimental effects; in my view, its wider economic and social impact outweighs the positive effect on school attendance. I represent the constituency of St Austell and Newquay in mid-Cornwall, and the policy’s impacts are especially felt in Cornwall and other places that depend heavily on tourism. I will lay out three main reasons why the policy is wrong and counterproductive and why it needs to be reviewed.

We have heard an awful lot about fairness in politics over the past few years. My first reason is that, sadly, the policy is blatantly unfair to a number of groups. The first group are those unable to take a holiday during school holiday times, including many who work in tourism and other sectors. Many small tourism-related businesses in Cornwall are too busy to allow their staff to take a holiday during the peak holiday season; many are owner-run and have to make money while people are on holiday. People with such work cannot, therefore, afford to close and take a holiday themselves during the season. In fact, the introduction of the policy has made things even worse for tourism businesses because the season is now even more concentrated, into six or seven weeks of the school summer holidays. That places even greater demand on the businesses during the peak season and makes it even more difficult for them to allow staff to take a holiday.

It is not, however, only those who work directly in tourism who are affected; it is also those who work in the public sector in tourism areas. For example, our local police in mid-Cornwall have for many years restricted police officers’ ability to take holiday during the peak season due to the increased demand for policing in the area. The policy effectively tells people who cannot take a holiday during school holiday times that they cannot have a family holiday, and that seems completely unfair.

The policy is also unfair in other ways—on people who cannot afford to pay for a holiday during the peak holiday season, for example. We all know that holidays taken during the peak season, whether in this country or abroad, are out of the reach of many families on low incomes; in fact, many families we would consider to be on middle incomes struggle to pay the peak season prices. There have been calls for the Government to intervene and bring some sort of regulation into the holiday market, but we have to accept that that is incredibly unlikely—we live in a free market economy and prices are set by supply and demand. But surely we can expect the Government not to introduce policies that make the matter worse, and it is worth noting that that is precisely what is happening.

The restriction on term-time holidays has had the unintended—I am sure—consequence of increasing demand during school holidays and pushing prices up during the peak season. Holiday resorts in Cornwall say that because there is greater demand during the peak weeks and they are also losing business during what we call the shoulder weeks, they are having to increase prices in the peak weeks to make up the difference. The cost differential between term-time and school holiday prices is widening. Far from helping the lower-paid to have a holiday, the policy is exacerbating the situation.

Another group that the policy is unfair to are the many families who rely on charities for a holiday. I have been contacted by a number of charities that have for many years taken groups of disadvantaged families on holiday during September. They do it then because prices are lower and they are often able to get a good deal on a holiday park during periods of lower demand.

An example close to my heart is an organisation called Cornwall One Parent Support. I have been involved with the charity right from its beginnings, almost 20 years ago, since when it has provided support for single-parent families, including taking them on a cheap, subsidised holiday in September. It has often taken groups of up to 40 families away for a week. The holiday provides a great opportunity for the parents and children to have a break and experience a holiday they would otherwise never be able to enjoy. However, since the introduction of the policy, the organisation cannot run the holidays in the same way, as the families are prevented from taking their children out of school. The policy is unfair to a great number of families, and sadly it is the lowest paid and most disadvantaged who appear to be losing out.

I also believe that the policy is detrimental to family life. As a matter of principle, I do not believe that it is the role of the state to tell parents when they can take their children on holiday. Every child is unique, and it should be for parents to decide what is right and best for their child. Some parents will decide that the best thing is for their child to be in school at all times; others will decide that the benefit of a family holiday—the experience of travel, new cultures and meeting new people—is more beneficial than being in school for that week. It should be, however, for the parent to make the choice.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

It is, of course, the state’s right and responsibility to see that children get a proper education, and we know that being in school clearly leads to that. I do not think that the signatories to the petition are saying that taking children out of school for family holidays is an absolute right, and I wonder whether there might be a compromise to be reached for children in the early years of primary school—reception, year 1 and year 2. Would my hon. Friend suggest that the rules could be relaxed for those years?

[Steve Double]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The vast majority of parents—if not all of them—want a good education for their children. The issue is not about a competition between education and family; it is that many parents, including me, consider that family holidays and the experiences they bring are part of a child’s education. One of the sadnesses of the policy is that it has pitted school and education against family, when we want them to work together for the benefit of the child and to do what is right and best for that child.

If we view education as just what takes place in the classroom, we rather miss the point; education needs to be about much more than that in a child’s life. The point that my hon. Friend made about flexibility is absolutely right—we need some common-sense flexibility brought into this issue. Parents want their children to be in school regularly, and that is what the Education Act 1996 asks for. Let us not forget that the 1996 Act gives parents the option to home educate, which seems to be a bit of a contradiction given the application of the strict rules that I am discussing.

Many parents have contacted me on this matter. It is a widely held view that a child’s upbringing and education are about more than what happens in the classroom. Clearly, formal schooling is a central and critical part of any child’s education, but it is not the only important element. The breadth and variety of experiences that children can gain from travel can enrich and deepen their view and appreciation of the world. I know that from my own upbringing. The times when I travelled with my parents shaped and developed my understanding of the world in a way that the classroom teacher would never be able to provide.

There is a deeper, more concerning aspect of the policy’s impact on families. The policy sends out the message that being in the classroom is somehow more important than being with their family, which is something I fundamentally cannot support. No matter how good a school or individual teacher is, being in school can never be more important, more valuable or more beneficial in a child’s life than a positive and healthy family situation.

We all know that we are living busier and busier lives these days; the pressure and stresses of daily life put more demands on family life than ever before, so the time that parents have with their children is more precious than ever before. The benefit of that week or two away—away from the pressures of life and the domestic and mundane responsibilities of home—can be an oasis for any family, offering the opportunity to regroup, to refresh their relationships and to strengthen the family bond. I know the cliché is often used, but the quality time parents can spend with their children on a holiday can be one of the most positive things a child can experience in the madness of today’s world.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I just wonder whether the weekend is not an option for families to spend some quality time together. The real danger of allowing parents to take their children out at any point during term is that it interrupts their time at school, in the classroom.

[Steve Double]

Of course, weekends can play a part, but I again make the point that for many parents, the weekends these days are full of a great deal of activity. That week away, where a family can get away from the pressures of life and concentrate on their time together, is valuable.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

On that point, in the broader sense we need to understand that many parents, such as those who work in our health service, work shifts and may have to be present during summer time. Not everyone can have their holiday at the same time, because we need to keep our health service running.

[Steve Double]

I absolutely agree. Gone are the days when our society was neatly packaged into the week and the weekend. The lines are very much blurred these days.

To reiterate the point, that week or two away from it all as a family cannot be replaced by the odd day here and there that parents may be able to get. If the choice for a family is a holiday during term time or no holiday at all, parents should have every right to decide that a family holiday would be more beneficial for their child than being in school for that week. I know from my many years as a school governor that the single most important factor in any child’s life is a positive and stable relationship with their parents, along with the degree to which their parents are involved in their life and upbringing.

The policy is not only preventing families from taking a holiday together. I have been contacted by dozens of families offering accounts of how their children have missed out on family events as the school would not authorise them to miss a day or two. One family told me how their child missed out on seeing their cousin compete in a sporting world championship as their school said the cousin was not a close enough family member for the child to be allowed to go. A four-year-old was refused permission to attend his grandmother’s 60th birthday celebrations as it would have meant taking the Friday off school to travel. I would welcome clarification from the Minister. My understanding of the 1996 Act is that there is no requirement to put children in school until after their fifth birthday. If a child is in school before their fifth birthday, do the strict rules apply to them?

[The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)]

I am listening carefully to the powerful speech that my hon. Friend is making. In answer to his question, once a child is registered at a school, he or she is subject to the same rules as children who are of compulsory school age.

[Steve Double]

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point.

Other parents have told me of children missing out on scores of significant family celebrations. In fact, there seems to be a bit of confusion on what constitutes an exceptional case where headteachers are allowed to grant an authorised absence. Headteachers are being put in the impossible position of having to make choices about children attending family events—quite frankly, those are decisions that parents should be free to make. Headteachers have told me that even when they do exercise their judgement and authorise an absence, they then risk the spectre of Ofsted criticising that decision. Pitting family life against the classroom, as the policy sadly does, is one of its most regrettable aspects.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes some valid points that I have also heard in my constituency about the confusion over what constitutes exceptional circumstances, and he gave some good examples. Is he aware that 90% of those surveyed by the National Association of Head Teachers said that they would appreciate clearer guidance from the Government as to what constitutes exceptional circumstances? Perhaps that guidance might help.

[Steve Double]

I was aware of that survey. It raises the point that if the policy is to be continued—clearly, I hope it will be reviewed—there needs to be much greater clarity for headteachers on what constitutes exceptional circumstances. That especially needs to be applied to Ofsted, because I am hearing from headteachers that when they make a judgment call that they believe they are allowed to make and authorise the absence, those decisions are then queried at best, and perhaps criticised in other cases, by Ofsted. Parents want a constructive relationship with the school, where together they can decide what is right and best for the child.

My final point is on the policy’s economic impact. I was disturbed to learn that no economic impact assessment was made before the policy was introduced. In fact, when the matter was brought before Parliament in March 2013 by way of a statutory instrument, the explanatory note stated:

“An impact assessment has not been provided for this instrument as no impact on businesses or civil society organisations is foreseen.”

Unfortunately, that simply is not the case. The impact of the policy on the tourist industry, particularly in Cornwall, has been significant, as it has elsewhere in the country. Many tourist-related businesses are reporting a significant drop in revenue in the shoulder months of May, June and September, which used to be times when many families would come to towns such as Newquay to stay.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

I have been contacted by the Federation of Small Businesses, which has highlighted the concerns of many hoteliers, retailers and businesses that are affected by the six-week period. Has my hon. Friend been contacted by the FSB?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double]

I have not been contacted by the FSB, but I am grateful to the Newquay chamber of commerce, and to its chairman, Rachel Craze, who was the first person to bring this issue to my attention about 12 months ago and has helped me in liaising with businesses in Newquay to understand the significant impact on them. Only last year, Visit Cornwall produced a report on the Cornish economy that stated that Cornwall had lost an estimated £44 million as a result of the policy. Individual businesses have told me that their revenue for June this year was 40% down on what they had previously come to expect. Others have told me that they have had to lay off staff, reduce staff hours and cut back on stock purchases.

A tourist business cannot be run based on having only six or seven weeks’ peak business during the school holidays. For most businesses, the shoulder months make the business viable. Some businesses are faced with the choice of having to stop catering for the family sector and completely shift their focus, or close.

It is also reported that owners of holiday lets are now changing to full residential letting because they simply cannot get enough lettings out of the holiday season. That reduces the capacity of the holiday trade in the peak season, and the knock-on effect is felt by surrounding businesses. The policy is damaging tourism in this country. As it was wrongly stated when the decision was taken that there would be no impact on business, clearly it should now be reviewed.

The policy is unfair; it undermines the place of the family and damages our economy. It is clear to me and many others that it needs to be reviewed. When the Government have been challenged on this matter, their response has been to say that headteachers have discretion. As has already been pointed out, there is a need for much greater clarity. Another suggestion from the Government was to allow schools to stagger their holidays, but I do not believe that would work. We have tried it in Cornwall. In some ways, it makes the matter worse, because if one school changes its holidays and another school nearby does not, and a parent has children in both schools, they simply end up with a childcare problem during a different week. Discussions have taken place on helping schools around the country stagger their holidays, but I do not believe that has come to anything. Perhaps the Minister can confirm where the Government are on that.

The petition calls for the Government to allow flexibility and to allow headteachers to grant up to two weeks’ holiday per school year for a family holiday. We are not talking about a free-for-all or giving parents carte blanche to take their children out as and when they like. We are talking about parents agreeing in conjunction with the school when they believe it is right for them to take a family holiday. Headteachers need to be given flexibility to authorise a holiday. Most parents would accept that there would be times when it would be entirely inappropriate to take a holiday: in years 10 and 11, and perhaps in year 6 as well. There might even be times during the school year when the school could say it was not a good time to be away. We need a constructive relationship between the school and the parents, not the tensions that currently seem to exist.

The vast majority of parents simply want the right to decide for themselves what is right and best for their own children. As I said at the start of my speech, I do not believe it is the role of the state to dictate to parents in the way that is happening, so I simply call on the Minister to review the policy. As no impact assessment was made when the policy was introduced, the Government should carry out an assessment now and consider the impact that it is having on the tourist industry and on family life. We should allow parents the right to bring up their own children in the way they believe is best.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I was pre-empting the obvious result of what is happening today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing the debate. I agree with a vast amount of what he said, and I suspect that the only thing we will disagree on is my view that North Devon is clearly the best place to spend a holiday.

There is a serious issue prompting me to speak in the debate, and it concerns the importance of the tourism sector in my constituency. On some measures, one in six of all jobs in my constituency depend directly or indirectly on the tourism sector. It is a vital driver of the local economy, and many families work in it. It is out of the question for them to take their family vacation in the school holidays. It is their busiest time; they have to be at work. The introduction of the new guidance in 2013 meant that many of my constituents faced a double whammy—not only their business but their family life is suffering.

That is not just my point of view. I have received, as many colleagues have, a number of emails and letters from constituents who share those concerns. I shall quote a small sample, because they say better than I could what the unintended consequences of the 2013 guidance notes are. One constituent writes:

“I operate a small bed and breakfast business in Woolacombe”—

which is a great place to spend a holiday. He says:

“To date, this year is proving a disaster (with the exception of the school holidays); our family rooms are being left unoccupied …Something needs to be done! Please air the views of the thousands of small operators, in the forthcoming…debate.”

Another correspondent writes:

“We feel strongly the negative effect this legislation has had on our seasonal business in Mortehoe”—

another fantastic place in North Devon in which to spend a holiday. They say:

“Our season is shorter and therefore harder to earn enough for the winter months. Also as parents we are penalised in high costs of…holiday charging by travel companies”

during school holidays. Another constituent writes that

“as a seasonal business”,

the regulations have had

“a negative impact on us; overall we have not been as busy whilst at the same time our peak busy periods have been more frantic, due to many more…bookings, making it harder to staff, manage and run a seasonal business…This has meant a reduction in profits and a reduction in staffing.”

Put bluntly, the guidelines are harming employment in North Devon’s vital tourism sector.

I want to quote a few sentences from a final, longer email, from a gentleman who says that he is writing because he runs

“an outdoor pursuits company which relies on the tourism industry”

and because he is the

“father of a 7 year old, who would like to spend more quality time with her Dad.”

He says that the situation has had

“a major effect on myself, my colleagues and lots of my friends that work in the emergency services…we are really struggling to spend time with our children”,

and the guidance only makes things worse. That is a small sample of the emails and letters I have received, and I am sure that colleagues will have had much the same.

I am sure that, as others have said, the intent of the 2013 guidance was good. Of course we should encourage parents to ensure that their children attend school, but I question some of the assumptions that led to the issuing of the guidelines. To delve further, I have dug out the 2013 explanatory memorandum. Much is made of the guidance and advice received by a respected adviser, Charlie Taylor. He was then the Government adviser on school behaviour, and he issued guidance in 2012. The explanatory memorandum to the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 and the Education (Penalty Notices) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 said:

“Charlie Taylor noted that if children are taken away for a two-week holiday every year and have an average number of days off for sickness and appointments, then by the time they leave school at sixteen”—

across their whole academic career—

“they will have missed a year of school.”

It is never the intention of any parent who takes their child away to do the same thing year after year for all 13 years of their child’s academic career. That advice is unfairly burdening parents with a view that they simply do not take. If the Government made their 2013 decision on the basis of it, I ask them to look at it again. I do not think any parent intends to take their child away for that length of time every year.

The word “flexibility” has been mentioned, and there has also been mention of interpretation. That is what it all comes down to. Schools and parents have been misguided in interpreting the arrangements to mean that there is no flexibility. Clearly, there is an intention of flexibility in the guidelines. I am sure the Minister will confirm that it was not intended that schools, teachers, headteachers and local education authorities should be told there was no flexibility at all. We need to get the message across to them and to governing bodies; I was a school governor myself. They need to understand that they have flexibility, which is built into the system but which they do not take advantage of at the moment.

[Steve Double]

Would my hon. Friend add Ofsted to that list? I believe that part of the problem is that at times Ofsted takes a much more legalistic view of the guidance than headteachers do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

Yes. The whole essence of our education reforms is to hand back more power to the teaching profession. It makes absolute sense for teachers and headteachers to rely on the guidance produced by the NAHT. The introduction to the guidance states:

“Term times are for education. This is the priority. Children and families have 175 days off school to spend time together, including weekends and school holidays.”

That is the NAHT’s view and we think that it is correct.

[Steve Double]

Will the Minister clarify something? Although, in theory, families have 175 days a year to be together, some people work in tourism or other industries in which they cannot take time off during those times. Would he consider such a situation to be an exceptional case, where headteachers would be right in granting a holiday?

[Mr Gibb]

That is a matter for the discretion of the headteacher. In such a situation, I would commend, as the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) intimated, looking at the NAHT guidance. If we are talking about a whole industry across a large geographical area, employing many millions of people, the best approach would be to use the term-time flexibilities to change the school term times to take into account the particular industries of that part of the country.

[Steve Double]

I take on board what the Minister says. Does he remember that he recently wrote to me saying that the Department had consulted educational authorities, which had rejected this idea saying that they thought it was unworkable?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate of the case he is making. I have every confidence that he will apply that advocacy locally as well as he is doing in this debate. I hope that he will have more success with the local authority than has been achieved so far.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives raised the issue of the cost of holidays. He spoke of the period at the end of the summer term, when teaching might be reduced in some schools. If his argument is that all children should be allowed to be off school during the last two weeks of the summer term, holiday prices, supply and demand would of course be affected by the mass use of that time across the country.

We know that holidays can be important and enriching experiences, but so too is school. Although we recognise the difficulties faced by some parents in taking a holiday at particular times of the year, disrupting their children’s education is not the answer. Pupils need continuity in their education. A good curriculum is planned sequentially, with knowledge building upon knowledge. Missing a step in such a sequence can cause a pupil to fall back, with pupils often finding it hard to catch up. A two-week holiday might mean that a pupil misses out on the lessons in which their teacher explains long division, long multiplication, fractions, Newton’s second law or Ordnance Survey six-figure grid references.

I remind hon. Members that the NAHT guidance makes it clear that there are many circumstances that it would regard as exceptional, such as where children

“need…to visit seriously ill relatives.”

The guidance says that absence for a bereavement of a close family friend is usually considered an exceptional circumstance, as are

“Absences for important religious observances… Schools may wish to take the needs of the families of service personnel into account if they are returning from long operational tours that prevent contact during scheduled holiday time. Schools have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for students with special educational needs”.

Point 10 of the guidance states:

“Families may need time together to recover from trauma or crisis.”

The NAHT guidance lists carefully constructed exceptional circumstances that cover many of the issues raised by hon. Members in this important debate.

We encourage all parents and schools that want different term dates to discuss the matter with their local authority or, in other cases, directly with their children’s schools. If more schools and authorities, such as the David Young community academy or Reading local authority, vary their holiday and term times, access to holidays outside of the more expensive holiday season will become increasingly common for parents.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay, and other hon. Members, for raising the issue of term-time leave. He has raised some important concerns, and I hope he is happy that the Government have heard those concerns, both today and in our previous meetings. I hope he will understand that our overarching objective is to improve the life chances of the most disadvantaged children in this country. I also hope he will accept that many of his objectives can be achieved by using local discretion to set term dates.

[Steve Double]

I will say a few brief words. First, I thank everyone who signed the public petition that led to this debate—all 120,000 of them. I am grateful for all the encouragement that I have received from many members of the public since saying that I wanted to lead this debate. I thank all the members of the public who came and sat through this debate, particularly those representing Parents Want a Say, the Family Holiday Association and whoever else is here—sorry, but I cannot remember all of them. I am grateful for their interest and support.

I am sure that one thing on which we all agree is that children across our nation should have the very best opportunities in life. Education is clearly at the centre of that, but so are parents. Every parent I know wants the very best for their child. I am disappointed that we do not seem to have persuaded the Minister to reconsider the policy. I still believe that, as well intended as the policy was when it was introduced—I support and agree with the aim of getting as many children into school as possible, and with the social justice motive behind that—the introduction of the measure has had unintended consequences. The impact on our economy and on wider family life was not foreseen.

I have considered some of the proposals for addressing term-time leave. Personally, I do not believe that staggering term times in the way the Minister suggests is the way to achieve that. The feedback I have received from various sources is that many people agree that such a proposal is not workable.

[John Pugh]

The Minister said towards the end of his contribution that the policy is all about helping disadvantaged children, but the burden of the debate did not suggest that the parents of disadvantaged children are particularly the parents who are having difficulty with the regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Unfortunately, by seeking to address one issue, a completely different set of people are being penalised. We have heard that only 8% of unauthorised school absences are for family holidays. The policy therefore affects only a small number of the families involved in the school attendance problem that we have sought to address.

I ask the Department for Education to reconsider the policy in the light of what we now know to be its impact. If the impact had been assessed correctly when the measures were introduced in 2013, and if the family test had been in place—it is unfortunate that the family test came into effect 12 months after the changes were made—a slightly different conclusion might have been reached. However, I will leave that with the Minister. I look forward to an ongoing debate on this issue in the months ahead, and I thank every Member for their support and their contributions to this very good debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered an e-petition relating to term-time leave from school for holiday.