Investing in Children and Young People

Debate between Tim Farron and Kate Green

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House regrets the resignation of the education recovery commissioner, Sir Kevan Collins, over the Government’s inadequate proposals to support children after the coronavirus pandemic; agrees with Sir Kevan’s assessment that the current half-hearted approach risks failing hundreds of thousands of young people; and therefore calls on the Government to bring forward a more ambitious plan before the onset of the school summer holiday which includes an uplift to the pupil premium and increased investment in targeted support, makes additional funding available to schools for extracurricular clubs and activities to boost children’s wellbeing, and provides free school meals to all eligible children throughout the summer holiday.

It is a privilege to open this debate. Today I invite hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House to put children and young people first and support our motion. I do not believe there is a single Member of this House who does not agree that children and young people are our country’s most precious asset, that as we emerge from the pandemic and begin to rebuild our country their education and wellbeing must be our top priority, and that we owe it to them to match the ambition, optimism and enthusiasm they have for their own lives and their futures with measures to ensure that every child can enjoy an enriching childhood and achieve their full potential. So Conservative Members must understand not just my dismay, but the dismay of every teacher and parent I have spoken to in the past week at the wholly inadequate announcement from the Secretary of State, providing just 10% of the funding that the Government’s own highly respected expert education adviser Sir Kevan Collins had said was needed to enable children and young people to bounce back from the pandemic. If this Government really want to make good on the Prime Minister’s claim that children’s education is his priority, the paltry announcement we got last week is simply inexplicable. As we know, the plans fall so far short of what is needed that Sir Kevan refused to be associated with them and resigned last Wednesday. He described them as too small, too narrow and too late —and he was right.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Green]

I will not at the moment, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. There was nothing in the plans to support children’s socio-emotional wellbeing, which parents and teachers have told us again and again is their priority for children and young people. I support small group tutoring as an element of supporting children to catch up on lost learning, but last week’s announcement of additional funding will amount to just one hour per fortnight per child of tutoring, and the Government’s package performs woefully when compared with those of other countries, amounting to just £50 per pupil compared with £1,600 in the USA and £2,500 in the Netherlands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

It is certainly not 30 times out in its accuracy. The right hon. Gentleman is right, of course, to ask about the make-up of the different figures, but even on my most generous interpretation of the amount the Government have put in over the past year to support children’s catch-up, which I calculate would amount to £310 per pupil, we are still well short of what other countries are spending.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Lady has rightly pointed out that the Government’s own expert adviser recommended 10 times more money than is being given, so I am sure she would agree that this is an outrage. Does she also agree that headteachers and teachers will make the best use they can of what paltry money the Government do give them, so is it not right that the professional judgment of headteachers should be trusted in how they spend that money? Yes, there has to be accountability, but surely they should be given the freedom to make the best choices of how to make the best use of what money they are given.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful for the opportunity to echo the appreciation of the work that school leaders and staff have been doing over the past 15 months of the pandemic, and of course we must respect and recognise their professional judgment.

The suggestion that last week’s announcement is just an instalment and that there will be a review of what more is needed is both wholly unnecessary, when Sir Kevan Collins has laid out a clear and comprehensive plan, and is an insult to children who have already lost between two and four months of classroom time and should not have to wait another term or more for the support that they need to recover from the pandemic.

Free School Meals

Debate between Tim Farron and Kate Green

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point, and he is right to draw attention to the Prime Minister’s view on this matter, because Downing Street said just the other day:

“It’s not for schools to provide food to pupils during the school holidays.”

I cannot believe I have to spell this out: it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that children do not go hungry, and they do not stop being hungry just because the school bell rings for the end of term. Surely our constituents send us to this place as Members of Parliament to vote to ensure that the children who most need our help at any time of year are protected.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making a passionate and thought-through speech. Does she agree that the holiday periods are always a difficulty—whether or not there is a pandemic—for those children from families on free school meals? They always need that support, and that should be something we are doing irrespective of the pandemic. In my constituency, 40% of the entire workforce are on furlough. The cliff edge is coming in a few days’ time, when the number of people desperate for support will increase massively. Is it not therefore right that we take action today?

[Kate Green]

That is right. The debate this evening is urgent. Let me say to Members on the Government Benches: please put party politics aside tonight and for the sake of our children vote to extend free school meals. After all, since the summer holidays, exactly as we have just heard, the situation has got worse and more desperate for millions of families.

While the provision of free school meals is being closed, the gravy train is still open for business—with £7,000 a day for consultants working on a test and trace system that does not work, £130 million to a Conservative party donor for unsafe covid testing kits, £160 million of profits for Serco and an increased dividend for its shareholders, because the Government threw good money after bad on a test and trace contract that is robbing the public. Yesterday, a Business Minister said that extending free school meals was not as simple as writing a cheque, but why is it that the money only runs out when it is hungry children who need it?

I am surprised there is not greater recognition on the Government Benches that families across the country are finding it very difficult to manage. It was, after all, only a matter of weeks ago that national newspapers were full of briefings from friends of the Prime Minister reporting anxiety about how he had to provide for his family. He had a new baby and, with the loss of his lucrative newspaper columns, his friends said it was a strain to manage on his £150,000 salary as Prime Minister.

It is frankly contemptible that the kind of concern we read in the national newspapers for the Prime Minister’s finances is not extended to the millions across this country who are genuinely struggling. Imagine being a parent of one of the more than 3,000 children in the Prime Minister’s constituency who benefits from free school meals. To read one week about how hard it is to make ends meet on £150,000 a year and then to see the provision of a free meal for your child taken away a few days later is utterly inexplicable.

The fact that we need to have this debate is a sign of repeated failures on the part of the Government—a failure of compassion, a failure of competence, not recognising the challenges that parents face and not giving them the support they need to provide for their children.

Awarding of Qualifications: Role of Ministers

Debate between Tim Farron and Kate Green

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

Yes indeed we do, but the Government need to start to plan that now so that markers can be recruited, schools can schedule their learning and teaching and UCAS and universities can plan their admissions process. We still do not have a clear decision from the Government.

The collapse in confidence must be addressed, because only if confidence is in place will we make a success of the reopening of our education settings and the exams to come in the academic year that is just starting, as the right hon. Gentleman mentions. The mistakes that were made this summer must be understood and learned from, and they must not be repeated.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

As a dad of two kids, one of whom went through GCSEs and one of whom went through A-levels this year, I understand massively the disruption that was caused to families and especially to the young people looking to their futures. Does the hon. Lady agree that, looking to the future, the Secretary of State should show humility, listen to the teaching profession and learn, and he should understand that all-or-nothing exams next spring are a huge risk to our young people, particularly given the crisis we might be in then? Is it not better to assess along the way, as many teachers are telling us would be far wiser?

[Kate Green]

Over the past few weeks, we have seen the danger—indeed, the folly—of having put all the eggs into one single, end-of-year final-examination basket. That innovation was, of course, introduced under the current Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

We can learn from the mistakes of the summer only if the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister come clean, and today I offer them the chance to do so. Last week, Ofqual gave evidence to the Education Committee about how the decision to cancel exams and award grades by algorithm was taken. I am concerned that there is some inconsistency between Ofqual’s version of events and statements that the Secretary of State made to this House, so will he put the facts on the record today? I am sure he will seize the opportunity to do so.

First, will the Secretary of State explain to the House how the decision to cancel exams and use calculated grades was taken? Roger Taylor, chair of Ofqual, told the Select Committee that Ofqual first advised Ministers back in March that its preference was to hold socially distanced exams; failing that to delay exams; or, if necessary, to award a teacher certificate, rather than using a system of calculating grades. Roger Taylor also said:

“It was the Secretary of State who then subsequently took the decision and announced, without further consultation with Ofqual, that exams were to be cancelled and a system of calculated grades was to be implemented.”

Will the Secretary of State now make clear to the House when he took the decision to cancel exams in 2020? What other options were presented to him? Why did he reject them? Is Roger Taylor right to say that the Secretary of State made that decision unilaterally, without further consultation with Ofqual? In his statement to the House last week, the Secretary of State said:

“Ofqual had put in place a system for arriving at grades that was believed to be fair and robust.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 42.]

Of course, it turned out to be anything but, but is it really right to say that Ofqual put the system in place, or was it done because of the Secretary of State’s decision? If so, he needs to take responsibility for the consequences, which he had been warned about. Ofqual said that as early as 16 March, it warned the Department for Education that, to quote its evidence to the Select Committee

“it would be challenging, if not impossible, to attempt to moderate estimates in a way that’s fair for all this year’s students. Everyone, throughout the process, was aware of the risks.”

A former senior official in the Department for Education, Sir Jon Coles, also met the Secretary of State weeks before results day to raise concerns about the approach adopted. Will the Secretary of State tell the House when that meeting took place, what concerns were raised and what action he took as a result of it? The Minister for School Standards told the House on Monday that the problem was simply passed over to Ofqual to deal with, but does the Secretary of State accept that, ultimately, he is responsible for the chaos that followed?

Asylum Decisions (Support for Refugees)

Debate between Tim Farron and Kate Green

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a great honour to serve under your guidance, Sir David. I pay tribute to all those who have spoken so far in the debate, and in particular to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who has led the debate so very well, and not only today.

It is important that we focus on that move-on period for migrants, because it is more than just an administrative wrinkle; it is a deep injustice. I am sure the Minister is now fully aware of that. It has a colossal impact on the lives of incredibly vulnerable people, such as those we have already heard about this afternoon. As asylum seekers arrive in Britain, often after long and harrowing journeys just to get here in the first place, they face a battle to gain refugee status, overcoming language barriers and confusing paperwork, and persevering through any delays and mishaps along the way.

Throughout all that, of course, they are denied the opportunity to work. That is not the principal purpose of this debate, but I would love the Minister to take seriously the point that it is not just morally wrong to deny those seeking asylum the right to work, but really foolish. To give people the right to work while they are seeking asylum is to give them the ability to integrate into the community, to improve their language skills, to provide for themselves and their families, and to be in a far better place to contribute fully once their claim is accepted.

At the moment, as the Minister knows, a tiny minority of those with very specialist skills—they pretty much have to be a brain surgeon—have the right to exercise their skills in this country. Why should not people who are seeking asylum have the right to earn, to work and to support themselves?

[Kate Green]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no evidence that those countries that offer the right to work to asylum seekers suffer from some perceived pull factor? People flee their home country because of danger and persecution; they do not flee their home country because they think they will get a better job when they are coming into a hostile asylum system. There is no evidence at all that those countries that allow a right to work receive flows of asylum seekers on a scale that other countries do not.

[Tim Farron]

Absolutely spot on; I am grateful for that intervention, and I hope that the Minister will take the time just to check with his civil servants that that is absolutely true. There is no pull factor associated with those countries. The majority of civilised countries do exactly what we are asking for and allow people to work while they are seeking asylum. The issue we are talking about is the push factor, not the pull factor. Why do people leave in the first place?

Focusing on the purpose of this debate, we see that a successful verdict is given to many of those who seek asylum. As has already been said, they may have received formal refugee status, but the relief and celebration are cut short as they realise that their newly achieved status is actually a kind of 28-day ultimatum: 28 days until their asylum support is stopped, just 28 days of accommodation and 28 days of a weekly allowance. In a vast number of cases, this is 28 days’ countdown to destitution. Many of those whom we see sleeping on the streets of this city are people for whom that 28-day period has expired.

Imagine, Sir David, being given 28 days to find accommodation in a foreign country to which you have fled to escape war or persecution, not forgetting that you have not been allowed to work until this point, so therefore you also need to find a job during that time—either that, or apply for universal credit. Universal credit’s rules have made it almost inevitable that refugees will be left without support; an automatic 35-day wait to receive their first payment is completely incompatible with the 28 days that refugees have to access it. Then, of course, there will be the complexities of the paperwork and documentation required to gain access to universal credit in the first place.

The safeguards in the universal credit system to ensure that claimants are not left without support are often not accessed by refugees. Either they are unaware that they are eligible, or they do not even have a bank account to receive the support. Under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, local authorities are given a 56-day period to work with households at risk of homelessness. For refugees to receive support for only a pitiful 28 days is utterly ludicrous; it is almost designed to take desperate people, who ran to us for sanctuary and safety, and plunge them into bewildered misery as they are forced on charity or, increasingly, on to the streets.

I am pretty sure we all agree that human beings deserve to be treated with dignity. We as a society, as a Government, as a country, have already accepted that people in such situations deserve protection under the refugee convention, yet the current system is a far cry from recognising that in practice.

Refugees are forced to sleep rough, work illegally or face appalling exploitation in order to meet their basic needs while jumping through bureaucratic hoops to access money, accommodation, employment, education and so on. Will the Minister commit to providing refugees in the UK with the respect and dignity they deserve from day one of being recognised as a refugee, and to giving them what they need to build their lives in a new place and flourish in and contribute to our society?

In many ways the solution is simple: extend the move-on period to at least 56 days, which would cover the break in support and give refugees the best chance of establishing a stable and productive life here. Extending the move-on period to 56 days would have a financial benefit of between £4 million and £7 million each year for the taxpayer. Local authorities would save £2.1 million through the decreased use of temporary accommodation and up to £3.2 million through reduced rough sleeping. Alongside that, we must remove the administrative barriers that newly recognised refugees face. They need to be able to open bank accounts and receive the right documentation, and they need support to help them navigate the move-on period, apply for universal credit and obtain secure accommodation.

I recognise that there are complexities around which Department the matter falls under, but that is no excuse. While more and more families find themselves destitute and desperate, unable to meet even their basic needs, we need decisive action to end the tragedy of refugee destitution. Will the Treasury and the Government take steps today to end the departmental deadlock and extend the 28-day waiting period to 56 days? That would reduce benefit claims and increase the productivity of refugees in this country. More importantly, it would enable them to live in safety and dignity. It will save them from further pain and trauma on top of all that they have experienced already. With a simple change in policy, we can prevent destitution and save money. It is blindingly, obviously, the right thing to do. Will the Government do it?

Homelessness among Refugees

Debate between Tim Farron and Kate Green

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. It cannot be right that we allow anyone to be destitute in this country, whatever circumstances they find themselves in.

Mohsen’s story is far from untypical and the situation is even more dire for families with children, sometimes creating serious safeguarding issues. Asylum Matters told me about Bao, who was originally trafficked from Vietnam and received refugee status in November 2017 after going through the national referral mechanism. Less than one month later, his daughter was born. The family survived on £35 per week in asylum support, but that stopped and he did not know how to apply for benefits. When he tried to find a home, the council told him he would need to find private rented accommodation. The private landlords all wanted a deposit or guarantor, which he could not provide because he had no savings. An integration loan could have helped him, but he was refused a loan by the Home Office, which claimed he was already integrated because he had been here for such a long time. That meant he could not secure a private tenancy because he had no money to pay for the deposit. He and his baby daughter were destitute for nearly four months, forced to survive on the charity of friends for food and milk and somewhere to sleep—on their floor.

Such cases are cause for enormous concern. I am glad that the Government have accepted that there is a problem and have attempted a number of measures to deal with that, but although it is a pleasure to see the Minister in his place this afternoon, I am a little disappointed that the debate is not being answered by a Home Office Minister as I requested. Fundamentally, we need cross-governmental action to address a mismatch of policies across different Government Departments and the failure of any one Department to own the problem. I believe the Home Office should be taking the lead in joining up policy and procedures. I hope the Minister will share the breadth of my concerns with all of his ministerial colleagues.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making some excellent points. Does she accept—I am sure she does—that a contributory factor to refugees being in severe hardship once they have been awarded status is that they are not permitted to work during the time that they are here? Would it not be better, not just for them and their families, but for the country, if they were able to potentially build up savings and contribute and pay taxes during the time they are waiting for their asylum case to be heard, so that they are ready to be fully fledged members of our society at the point at which they are given status?

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I strongly support the right of asylum seekers to work when the Home Office has singularly failed to meet its own obligations to process cases and make a decision within the given timescale. As the hon. Gentleman says, allowing them to do so would enable them to maintain their skills, build up some savings and remain connected with the wider community. Although that may not be a matter for today’s Minister to address, it is certainly one that I strongly support.

Let us consider what action has been taken to date by the Government, because some initiatives have been welcome. The Home Office is rolling out the post-grant appointment service to smooth the referral to Jobcentre Plus for making an initial benefits claim. That follows a pilot in two regions last year, but there were some reports of problems. During a two-week period in February, the refugee support team at the British Red Cross asked 20 individuals in South Yorkshire about their experience of the warm handover pilot. Only one individual stated explicitly that they had received a phone call from Migrant Help, which provided the service. Eight individuals said they had not received any contact, while 11 were unsure whether they had. It may be that those are isolated cases, or that problems have since been resolved, but in a parliamentary answer to Baroness Lister on 29 June, Baroness Buscombe refused to publish the results of the Government’s evaluation of the pilot.

Although the commitment to provide advice and support to new refugees in the move-on period is a welcome addition to the new advice, issue resolution and eligibility contract, charities have seen communication from the Home Office that suggests that the support will be limited to operating the post-grant appointment service only. Advice and guidance in the move-on period must be more comprehensive if it is to address the issue of refugee destitution. In particular, closer working between the Government and third-sector providers is needed. I urge the Minister to encourage ministerial colleagues to publish the evaluation report on the post-grant appointment service pilot and to ensure that the lessons about the wider advice needs of refugees are acted on.

Of course, I am pleased that 35 asylum support liaison officers are now being appointed in a number of local authorities, funded by the controlling migration fund, but it is not clear how their work will be monitored and evaluated. I hope the Minister will say more about that this afternoon. The Government’s integrated communities fund is also intended to provide support for refugees, but again there is little detail as yet on how it will do that. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us.

It is welcome that national insurance numbers will now be included on the biometric residence permits that refugees receive. Usually, though not invariably, they arrive within a matter of days. That is helpful, because a national insurance number is required for payment of universal credit, although it is not necessary for making an application. The payment is essential for new refugees to pay for, among other things, their accommodation.

Significant problems continue with the issue of national insurance numbers. Some 65% of the new refugees seen by the British Red Cross in South Yorkshire over a two-week period in February during the move-on period had not had an application made to the Home Office for a national insurance number. Those who do not have one must complete the application process over the phone, which often takes 40 minutes. Apparently, 10 questions are asked at the start of the process before the individual is offered the services of an interpreter. Following that phone conversation, the new refugee has to attend a face-to-face appointment before the national insurance number is issued.

Those who lack a national insurance number include people who have joined a partner in the UK under the Dublin rules on refugee family reunion. The result is that sometimes quite large families are struggling to survive on the income from one single parent’s jobseeker’s allowance claim for six weeks or more, while their partner awaits their national insurance number. I have raised this issue previously with Home Office Ministers, but the problem remains unresolved.

Ultimately, this all places unnecessary barriers in the way of enabling new refugees to settle, receive benefits or wages and access suitable accommodation. Can the Minister say anything about what conversations are taking place across the relevant Government Departments to streamline and support refugees and to ensure that national insurance numbers are always issued swiftly and smoothly?

The Minister will be glad to know that I am now firmly in his ministerial territory. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 should be helpful, but its operation needs to be clarified and extended for refugees who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Under the Act, from this October public authorities will be required to refer those at risk of homelessness to the local authority. That provision should be extended to cover providers of asylum accommodation.