Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the provision of youth services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

Local authorities have made significant reductions in funding for out-of-school services for young people this year. However, many authorities are prioritising early intervention to help disadvantaged young people, and are working closely with the voluntary sector to maintain open access youth services. In December, the Government published the Positive for Youth strategy, which sets direction and gives examples of how councils can reform youth services, particularly in challenging and difficult financial times.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I thank the Minister for his answer. According to Experian, after the Government’s autumn statement the third hardest-hit borough was Middlesbrough. Due to the Secretary of State’s cuts, 13 to 19-year-olds in Middlesbrough will receive 15% less spending per head for youth service provision after the top-heavy cuts imposed on the town. Are they a lesser funding priority than a royal yacht?

[Tim Loughton]

As I said, many areas have seen some of their spending for youth services cut, but many areas have actually established new smarter partnerships with the voluntary sector, social enterprise and commercial organisations. The neighbouring constituency to the hon. Gentleman’s is a beneficiary of a myplace, with investment of £4.5 million from the Government. That is a hub for lots of varied activities for young people to take advantage of, helping them with careers, training and many other things.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

In 2005, when it was Labour-controlled, Northamptonshire county council directly provided its own youth services and managed to reach only 3,000 young people. Now under Conservative control, the council has commissioned its youth services to the voluntary sector; it regularly gets 20,000 young people involved and is one of the authorities with the best value youth services in the country. Will my hon. Friend congratulate the county council on its foresight and good practice?

[Tim Loughton]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning such an example of good practice. Frankly, I do not care who the provider is; it is the way they provide the service and whether they are providing the services that young people want at the time they want them. It is about the quality of the service. They may not be able to do it in Labour-controlled Middlesbrough, but apparently they can in Northamptonshire and I congratulate them on it.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

The new Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has warned that gang crime is now a significant problem in half of all London boroughs, and similar issues affect cities across the country. Good youth work is critical to a successful strategy to tackle gangs and youth violence, yet not only are youth services being reduced, as the Minister has just told us, but the National Council for Voluntary Organisations warned last week that the charitable sector is facing a £1 billion shortfall and many small community youth organisations, including the Stephen Lawrence centre, are at risk of closure. What assessment has the Minister made of the contribution of reduced capacity in council and community youth services to a successful anti-gangs and youth violence strategy?

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Lady is right to raise the problem of gang culture. The Government take it very seriously. The Home Secretary chairs an inter-ministerial group on gangs, on which I represent the Department for Education, but I have to say that some of the very best anti-gang projects I have seen around the country—including in London in places such as Croydon, with “Lives not Knives”—involve the voluntary sector working in partnership with the local authority. They are going into schools working with the victims of those crimes and their families, spreading best practice and saying, “Not in my name”. The very best response to the troubles we saw in the summer was from young people coming together with voluntary organisations, saying, “Not in my name will this sort of violence happen,” and coming up with constructive and positive examples. That is why Positive for Youth is such an important part of the Government’s policy.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

4. What estimate he has made of the number of additional primary school places needed in the next decade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

6. What steps his Department plans to take to improve outcomes for children in care.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

The Government are thoroughly overhauling the care and adoption system to improve the lives of looked-after children. We have issued revised care planning guidance, and foster carers and adopters charters. The Prime Minister has announced a package of new policy interventions, including the publication of performance tables. We want to see more stable, high quality placements, whether through adoption, fostering or in a children’s home because final outcomes for too many looked-after children have been unacceptable for too long.

[Mrs Glindon]

Placement stability is imperative for good educational and life outcomes for children in care. With swingeing cuts to social services nationally, what measures is the Minister putting in place to assure the House that we will not see a culture of commissioning the cheapest care, regardless of quality?

[Tim Loughton]

I think the hon. Lady will find that one area of local government spending that has been safeguarded more than others is the safeguarding of vulnerable children, and it is absolutely right that it should be. The most expensive thing is the expense of failure. The bureaucracy that surrounded safeguarding for too many years meant that too many social workers, rather than spending time out there helping vulnerable children, were spending their time in front of computers, filling in processes and forms. We are doing away with all that through the Munro review and through the work that is going on with Martin Narey and others on adoption and on children in care. We need to make sure that children in the care system, through the advantages that we are now giving them with the pupil premium and many other means, have a better chance of catching up and closing that gap, which has been scandalous for far too long.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Given the huge amount of public money invested in children in care, does the Minister share my concern that too many people leaving care have very poor educational outcomes, which reduce their life chances further? Can we avoid another generation of children in care having the state as the worst parent of all?

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend raises a good point, which is why at every stage of the journey of that child who comes into care, we are giving them a leg up and additional support. They will automatically all qualify for the pupil premium to give them a chance of catching up with children who are lucky enough to come from their birth family’s home. We are giving them advantages on the replacement for education maintenance allowance. We are giving special bursaries for those few—too few—who go to university. We need to close that gap, and we are giving them priority access to some of our best schools as well. If we can get them better education by giving them that leg up, they stand a better chance of being able to compete with the rest of their cohort in this country, and that has taken far too long.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Stability is crucial for securing better outcomes and adoption has been a key focus for the Government to date, but what steps is the Minister taking to promote, transparently measure and publicly acknowledge success in increasing not just adoptive placements, but much needed permanency for all looked-after children through special guardianship, long-term fostering and kinship care?

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Lady is right to flag up the importance of permanence. As far as I and the Government are concerned, there is no hierarchy of care here. It is what is the most appropriate form of care for that individual child. For most, it is foster care. We need more good quality foster care placements. For others, it is a residential children’s home. We need more good quality placements. But for others—a small number—adoption is the best form of permanence, as are special guardianship orders. I believe there are more children in care at present for whom adoption has not been considered and for whom it would be the most appropriate course of action, which is why we are spending so much time on making sure that we have an adoption system that is fit for purpose in the best interests of those children.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

8. What steps his Department is taking to raise awareness in schools of domestic and international human trafficking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

17. What recent estimate he has made of the number of children living in homes where domestic violence occurs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

The Government do not collect data on the number of children living in homes where domestic violence occurs, but existing statutory guidance, “Working Together to Safeguard Children”, sets out that children who experience domestic violence will need well targeted support from a range of agencies, as prolonged or regular exposure to domestic violence is likely to have a serious impact on children’s safety and welfare.

[Graeme Morrice]

I thank the Minister, but what are the Government doing to address the issue of domestic violence, and how can we reduce the number of children who are exposed to domestic abuse both as witnesses and as victims?

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. I found out about the matter at first hand when I spent a week being a social worker in Stockport. I knew that domestic violence was a problem, but the extent to which it is at the core of many safeguarding issues is alarming for all of us. The use of specialist domestic violence social workers is one way of addressing the problem, and of course the Government produced an ending violence against women and girls action plan last March. The Home Secretary chairs an inter-ministerial group, on which I sit, and we are currently consulting on the definition of domestic violence, which has caused some confusion. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to feed into that consultation before it closes at the end of March.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Linked to domestic violence is honour-based violence. Does the Minister have an estimate of the number of children affected by that horrendous practice?

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend raises a very important and worrying subject. We need to do more work on it and use local safeguarding children boards to help us join up all the responsible agencies. It is another example of where we need genuine cross-departmental and cross-governmental co-operation and joint planning, and the Department for Education and the Home Office in particular are at the heart of ensuring that we address this really horrific problem.

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

I am pleased that the Minister has mentioned the Government’s strategy on ending violence against women and girls. What steps is he taking to ensure that children, and especially boys, are educated about the absolute unacceptability of domestic violence as part of the personal, social, health and economic education curriculum?

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Lady makes a very important practical point. One of my roles on the inter-ministerial group is to see what input the Department for Education can have in ensuring that children are aware from an appropriate young age of the problems of domestic violence and are taught respectful relationships as part of sex and relationships education and PSHE. There are things that we can do at home, in schools and with the agencies that are there to help prevent domestic violence, intervene and apprehend people who are responsible for that horrendous crime.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide or commission sufficient youth services, but many of them are not now fulfilling that duty. What will Ministers do to make them fulfil their statutory duty?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

The hon. Lady is a long and tireless advocate of the promotion of youth services and she has rightly pointed to the section of the Education Act 1996 that places that duty on local authorities. We are looking to rewrite that duty and streamline it to ensure that local authorities cannot shirk their responsibility to ensure that positive activities are available for young people in their area, and that it is clearly understood.

As part of “Positive for Youth”, I have said that we will look closely at what activities for young people are going on in local authority areas and I invite young people to ensure that they are auditing the youth offer in their areas and reporting back to the centre. That is part of “Positive for Youth” and I hope that she will encourage young people in her area to do that.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

T9. British banks employs hundreds of thousands of people and many of them are hard-working young people. Does the skills Minister agree that it would be a fantastic achievement to see an apprentice in every branch of every high street bank, and what can he do to help achieve this?

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

Stockport council estimates that it is notified of only 60% of looked-after children placed in the borough by other authorities. This is not a problem specific to Stockport and, as the Minister will appreciate, it is very difficult for authorities to plan the provision of resources that will achieve better outcomes for children in care without adequate information. What more can he do to make local authorities meet their obligations?

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Lady is right to raise this subject and it is a problem in many parts of the country, especially when children from London boroughs are placed in areas such as my own part of the country. I issued new guidance that came into effect last April, which made it absolutely clear that local authorities have a responsibility to keep children for whom they are responsible for caring as close to home as possible. If children are placed further afield, there must be a good reason, and local authorities must ensure that they maintain the responsibility to monitor how the child is doing. In too many cases, they do not notify the host authority, and I plan to ensure that every authority is reminded of its responsibilities.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Market Field school is in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). It caters for children with special needs from both our constituencies and from the Clacton constituency. Will the Minister agree to meet the three of us to consider why Essex county council’s promise—made by the previous leader to the head teacher, Mr Gary Smith—has not been carried out?

School Transport

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

I have barely 12 minutes in which to take up all those questions, and I have a horrible feeling that I am not going to finish what is a fairly long and technical speech. If that happens, I shall give my unsaid comments to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan). I congratulate her on bringing this important subject to the Chamber. I agree with all the considerations that she raises. She made some important points, and I pay tribute to the way that she has rolled up her sleeves and seen the situation in her constituency, as a good MP should.

Other hon. Members presented their points well. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) described the inconsistencies over the three-mile limit and different treatment of people in the same family and said that common sense was required. That is a fair point.

The point about late notification made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) is particularly relevant. I have come across that problem in my constituency, when parents have been told at the very end of term that, from the following term, the bus will not be available. We must do a lot better on that front.

My hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) mentioned considerations about special educational needs, which I shall discuss if I have time. We need greater flexibility there. There are examples of local authorities that will pay or subsidise parents, where they can, to provide the transport for those children themselves, rather than using expensive chaperoned taxis or school buses. Certainly flexibility is a requirement with SEN.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) also talked about considerations in rural constituencies in particular and the one-size-fits-all approach, which clearly will not work. We must ensure that we have a school transport system that reflects people’s lifestyles in the 21st century, as well as changes in education and educational establishments.

By saying all that, I have eaten into my time. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough has asked for clarity on four key points, and I will endeavour to provide that during my response. I agree with the broad thrust of her remarks. First, school transport is one of those areas where local decisions really do affect local people, and it should not be for Whitehall to dictate such decisions.

Secondly, in my position as Minister for Children, I hear from parents that the safety of their children is one of their paramount concerns. I have been holding discussions with my colleagues from the Department for Transport, particularly with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), because we have a joint interest in this matter. This is clearly an area in which more work needs to be done, and this debate will be a useful addition to the wider discussion. I shall include hon. Members who are present today and others in the work that we will undertake in the coming weeks and months.

Thirdly, local authorities are having to make difficult decisions and to prioritise the services that they provide, but that cannot and should not be at the cost of the safety of children and young people.

In responding to my hon. Friend’s points, I intend to set out the legal basis for home-to-school transport, including the status of guidance available from Government. I want to give details on how it is funded, what routes of redress are available to parents and others and briefly to update the rather slow progress of the review of efficiency and practice commissioned by the Department.

We are debating the Government’s policy on home-to-school transport. Like many areas of education policy that we have inherited, this policy has grown over the past 20 years into a bureaucratic, costly source of frustration for many parents. Local authorities are now spending well in excess of £1 billion a year, yet some are not able to say exactly how many pupils they support or whether that support is meeting the needs of the children who need it most.

As communities have grown and evolved, the links between schools, transport and communities have, if anything, become more fragmented. yet I do not wish to paint too bleak a picture. Some authorities have risen above the challenges and are making savings to their budgets, but without the fuss and furore described by my hon. Friend and other colleagues in the Chamber today. The East Riding of Yorkshire, a predominantly rural authority, has developed an in-house software system combined with Ordnance Survey’s geographical information system to review the efficiency of all its bus routes. The resulting efficiencies arising from the planning and rerouting of a number of existing services, over three years, led to more than £1 million of savings.

The Department decided to start a review to identify and promulgate those very learning points from and for local authorities. Before launching the external review, officials from the Department undertook a review of the legal position to examine whether it required any amendment. The coalition has at its heart an ambition to reduce the inequalities in attainment that we still see in our education system. Too many young people’s destiny is governed by their family background and too few quality places are available to all parents. Only when every school is a good school can parents feel that they have a real choice from which to express a preference. Obviously, school choice is relevant to the transport issue, especially for people who do not live in urban areas.

Increasing the supply of good places is paramount to the coalition, which is why we have expanded the academies’ programme and established the free schools programme, with the first 24 schools now operational. The theory is quite simple: rather than bus the child to the school, bring the school to the child, and give parents and teachers the power to establish a school in their community and reduce the reliance on transport as far as possible. With that rather simple mantra, we concluded that the current legislative basis, while not perfect, is sufficient to meet the Government’s policy ambitions. Our decision was further strengthened by the experience in Northern Ireland, where changes such as revising the statutory walking distances were considered but not proceeded with on the basis that they would have significant funding implications—communications, assessments and so on. Given our economic situation, we were not willing to commit to such a cost.

The legal basis of school transport remains unchanged. Local authorities must provide free home-to-school transport where a child is attending a school beyond the statutory walking distances of two miles for pupils below the age of eight and three miles for those aged eight and over and no suitable arrangements have been made by the local authority for the child to attend a school closer to their home.

The Education and Inspections Act 2006 amended the legislative framework by inserting a number of transport provisions into the Education Act 1996. Of relevance for today’s debate are sections 508B and 508C and schedule 35B of the Act. Section 508B places a duty on local authorities to provide transport for eligible children. Eligible children are defined in schedule 35B. They include those children who are unable to walk to school because of their special educational needs, mobility problems or where they cannot reasonably be expected to walk because the nature of the route. Certain children from low-income families are also eligible under schedule 35B. Such provisions are often referred to as the extended rights.

Section 508C of the Education Act 1996 provides local authorities with discretionary powers to make travel arrangements for those not covered in 508B and make financial provision, in full or in part, for travel under such arrangements. Those provisions apply irrespective of whether the school the child attends is a maintained school, a foundation school, or as my hon. Friend has asked, an academy.

I have told hon. Members that my contribution would be technical, so I will have to continue at this pace. How is this duty funded? Without going into copious details, local authority transport duties are funded through a combination of revenue support grant and local generated council tax. In respect of the extended rights, the Secretary of State for Education provides an additional funding stream which for 2011-12 and 2012-13 amounts to £85 million. As this funding is not ring-fenced, it allows local authorities to work with their communities and set their priorities accordingly.

As my hon. Friend has stated, local authorities have already begun to tackle their spending. However, not all have approached it in the same methodological manner, and I have had a number of letters from concerned families who say that bus routes have been changed or cut and that they have to find, in relative terms, quite significant sums of money. Many decisions are driven solely by financial constraints, but there are examples where the local authority has saved money, managed the communications well and established a sustainable process for future changes. Departmental officials are now working hard to finalise the report and shine a light on those case studies. It is clear from the review that local authorities must make savings and can do so without the effects on provision that many of us have seen and heard about.

Leicestershire’s allocations were £640,000 in 2011-12 and £795,000 this year. Those are not insignificant sums. I am aware that in some authorities this non-ring-fenced funding is proving to be generous, and having met their statutory responsibilities, some authorities are using their discretion in how they meet any demands that they face. That has included making transport arrangements for children who are not entitled to free transport.

I also want to set out the legal basis in respect of safety. I want it to be clear that responsibility for road safety, even in school transport, actually rests with my ministerial colleagues at the Department for Transport. We are as one in our determination to make our roads as safe as possible, while ensuring that common sense is applied. There is a statutory duty on local authorities to ensure that suitable travel arrangements are made for eligible children for the purpose of facilitating their attendance at school. We are quite clear in our statutory guidance that local authorities are under a duty to make travel arrangements where the nature of the route is such that children cannot walk along it in reasonable safety—accompanied as necessary—where the distance is within the statutory walking limit.

In assessing route availability, authorities are obliged to conduct an assessment of the risks that children may encounter on the route. They include the volume and speed of traffic along roads, overhanging trees or branches and ditches, rivers and so on. The age of the children must also be considered and any assessment should take place at the time of day that children are expected to use the route. That is common sense, but it does not always happen. Many local authorities follow the guidelines provided by Road Safety GB, which is the national organisation that represents local government road safety teams across the UK and works with them in fulfilling their statutory role.

While ensuring that children remain safe, local authorities should, quite properly, take advantage of improved measuring technology and route availability that takes into account new building and infrastructure developments, in identifying new and suitable walking routes where previously there was no right of way. That is where the use of new technology, such as the public sector mapping agreement, which provides authorities with free digital geographic mapping data, has resulted in authorities being able to plan more efficient walking and school bus routes. That has led to significant efficiency savings without authorities having to withdraw services. The draft report will recommend better use of freely available public sector data to build a picture of service provision and use.

The processes followed by Road Safety GB are accepted as the industry norm, and that best practice has been built up over many years. Indeed, Road Safety GB is in the process of refreshing its guidance, and although we await the final outcome, I am informed that substantial changes are unlikely. The guidance will continue to reflect both case law and education legislation requirements. It will be amended to be easier to use and follow and to accommodate legislation changes, but there will be no additional pressure on assessors to make walking routes available.

In conducting an assessment of a walking route, there will be an element of subjectivity, given the wide range and mix of roads and surrounding terrain. That makes it difficult to advise on every eventuality and capture the subtleties in a definitive statutory instruction. However, Road Safety GB considers that the guidance sets the parameters appropriately, drawing on case law and education legislation, so that any personal judgment required by assessors is not too great. In the light of those safeguards, further intervention by the Government into assessment practice will simply be a bureaucratic burden, which is something that we are actively trying to resist.

On the subject of local consultation and local decisions, I understand that when proposing changes there is a need for sensitivity and reassurance over children’s safety and that there is an opportunity for parents to challenge and debate with the authority. That is why the statutory guidance states that local authorities should consult widely on proposed policy changes and that at least 28 days, in term time, should be set aside for the process to be completed. Local authorities should also have in place, and publish, a robust appeals procedure for parents to follow should they have a disagreement with regard to the provision of transport. As I am not satisfied that we have such a procedure, I will take the matter away and reconsider it.

[Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)]

Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Apprenticeships

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

This has been a good-humoured and well attended debate at a time when the press would have us believe that we are all on beaches taking holidays. There has been a good degree of unanimity, and I thank hon. Members on both sides for some incisive and shockingly well informed contributions. The debate has also been competitive: people were competing not only over who had the greatest increase in apprenticeship numbers, but over how few qualifications they got at school, how early they left school and how they never got anywhere near university or any form of higher education. Some had also experienced redundancy; that is good practice for when election time comes.

This debate is a great tribute to the enormous amount of constituency experience that all hon. Members have spoken about regarding the projects in their own constituencies. That is what we are doing in the time we are not in this place, if only the media would pay some attention. It is really refreshing to see the whole House agree on the importance of the apprenticeship programme in offering a valued and valuable route for young people who want to work while getting training that can support their careers.

It is always difficult, Mr Speaker, as you know better than many, to follow my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, whose opening speech was steeped in, or positively intoxicated by, his perspicacity, his articulation, his sagacity and his commitment. He will no doubt be very pleased that during his short departure for the dinner hour, in which he is no apprentice, I agreed to a great number of visits to various constituencies, including that of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who will be more than delighted to take up the offer.

Let me make it clear that this Government are absolutely determined to make the apprenticeship programme as effective as possible for as many young people as possible. We want to expand the programme and drive up quality across the board. I take this opportunity to repeat my hon. Friend’s appeal in inviting hon. Members to take on their own apprentices and get involved in national apprenticeship week from 7 February.

Many employers and apprentices are telling us that young people are not receiving enough information in schools about vocational pathways in general, including apprenticeships, or that the information they do receive is not of a good enough quality. From September 2012, the Education Act 2011 will place a new duty on schools to secure access to independent, impartial careers guidance for pupils in school years 9 to 11. Subject to consultation, this will be extended down to year 8 and to young people aged 16 to 18 in schools and further education settings. Under the duty, careers guidance must be impartial, it must be provided in the best interests of the student, and it must offer information on all 16-to-18 education or training options. The new duty makes it a specific requirement to provide information on the benefits of apprenticeship options. I encourage anyone with a specific concern to contact my hon. Friend the Minister, along with any applications for visits, and bring it to his attention.

Given the quality of the contributions that we have heard, I will go through those rather than stick to the script. That always alarms officials, but let us give it a go. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), who had a 73% increase in apprenticeships in his constituency, talked about young people hungry to learn and achieve. His comments on the welding skills college demonstrated how well our colleges are responding to the new freedoms that we have given them and rising to the challenge in this respect.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) spoke about the low numbers of small businesses that have so far taken up apprenticeships. That was raised many times by hon. Members, and it is very important. In response to his point about public procurement, my hon. Friend the Minister has taken up that issue with gusto. He is introducing a kite mark for Government suppliers who have embraced the apprenticeship programme and is providing more information for Departments in their procurement programmes. In addition, ministerial champions are promoting apprenticeship in the context of public procurement campaigns. All those points were well made and, characteristically, my hon. Friend had already anticipated them.

The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who had a 53% increase in her apprenticeships locally, asked for details of the £1,500 bonus. Those will be forthcoming early in the new year; perhaps she, too, would like to book a meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), who is Chairman of the Select Committee and who had a 64% increase in apprenticeships in his constituency, made the very good point that quality is the all-important factor. This must be about providing enhanced employability to those who have undertaken apprenticeships, but we must also get value for money. As for the legacy of Train to Gain, a 60% deadweight cost was attached to that programme, so we now have one that is much better value for money.

My hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) has had a 67% increase in apprenticeships; the figures in his constituency speak for themselves. He spoke of the importance of getting good increases at level 3 and of good literacy and numeracy skills; that is why English and maths must be up to a good GCSE standard.

The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who has had a 55% increase in apprenticeships in his constituency, mentioned the parliamentary apprenticeship scheme and the importance of impartial, independent careers advice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly), who has had a 67% increase in apprenticeships, offered himself as the Kelly visiting services for any company in his constituency that has taken on apprentices. He spoke with great experience as his own family business has long taken on apprenticeships, before it even became fashionable.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) grudgingly acknowledged the 65% increase in apprenticeships in his constituency. He, too, spoke from experience as somebody who has been an apprentice and who became an instructor. He again raised the important issue of procurement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) has had a 70% increase in apprenticeships. It was as though he was name-checking his Christmas card list of businesses, which he did with enormous aplomb and without notes. He mentioned Virgin Atlantic, which runs very worthwhile high-tech apprenticeship schemes in aircraft engineering in his constituency. The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie), another former apprentice, mentioned the determination of young people to succeed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who has had a 67% increase in apprenticeships in his constituency, boasted that he had been unemployed. He spoke about the self-worth, values and socialising skills that such schemes give people. He reminded us that youth unemployment is not a new phenomenon, but that it started going up drastically from 2004.

In response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning assures me that he has been in constant talks with the devolved Administrations over these schemes. As the hon. Gentleman said in relation to educational achievements in Northern Ireland, there are things that we can learn from each other. We need to share and disseminate best practice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) made a very good point about the Babcock training centre. She also spoke about getting apprentices into schools to ensure that pupils know what apprenticeships are about. There is almost an apartheid system whereby one either goes to university or does not go to university. However, there are many worthwhile and often lucrative options in between. We need to ensure that our young people have those options before them as early as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) boasted that with a 68% increase in apprenticeships, he was the winner in the raffle of training opportunities. He was wrong, because my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) has had an increase of 109% in her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton also boasted that he had not been to university, but perhaps a little more maths experience would not go amiss. He, too, invited my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning to visit, because apparently the principal of Burton and South Derbyshire college is eager to embrace him. I hope that he has long arms and I warn him that my hon. Friend is not partial to continental kissing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) has had a 38% increase in apprenticeships in his part of the world. He spoke about SMEs and the low rate of take-up. That is something that we must get on to. He also talked about how high tech agriculture has become—this debate is not just limited to the traditional manufacturing industries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who has had a 71% increase in apprenticeships, mentioned what a strong role MPs have to play. I echo that. We can all do a good job of getting our local businesses to engage with this programme.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris)—I am determined to get through all the hon. Members who spoke—has had an 81% increase in apprenticeships in his constituency. He made the important point that the inflexibility of health and safety constraints can be a deterrent to people getting more involved in the apprenticeships programme.

As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea has had an increase of 109% and is the winner this evening. I confirm that my hon. Friend the Minister has been liaising with the deputy mayor on the programmes that she mentioned. The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who I hope will also be the next Mayor of London, has thrown himself into the apprenticeships programme.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) also boasted about leaving school early and not going to university. He reminded us that youth unemployment did not start under this Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), who has had a 41% increase in apprenticeships, rightly spoke about aspiration and how we need to take basic skills into the workplace.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who has had a 41% increase in apprenticeships, went to university at the age of 48 and studied politics. He did not tell us whether he passed, but he ended up here anyway. He made a practical point about enterprise zones and the funding of apprenticeships.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham)—plus 35%—is a trailblazer of the parliamentary apprenticeship scheme, and he mentioned practical measures such as apprenticeship fairs and DVDs to promote apprenticeships.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), who has had a 48% increase in apprenticeships, talked about the mismatch between skills and jobs, and again gave examples of great stuff that is going on. My hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray)—plus 10%— and for Witham (Priti Patel), with plus 68%, also gave good, practical examples. This has been an excellent debate, so well done—

Positive for Youth

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

Young people matter. They are important to us now, and to our future, and we need them to flourish. Now more than ever we need to engage young people and support them to face economic challenges and tackle negative stereotypes.

Published today, “Positive for Youth” is a new approach to cross-Government policy for young people aged 13-19 in England. It brings together a range of the Government’s policies for this age group across the interests of at least nine Departments. It has been produced with young people and youth professionals through extensive collaboration and consultation.

“Positive for Youth” sets out a shared vision for how all parts of society—including councils, schools, charities, businesses—can work together in partnership to support families and improve outcomes for young people, particularly those who are most disadvantaged or vulnerable. This means working towards a common goal of all young people having a strong sense of belonging, and the supportive relationships, strong ambitions, and good opportunities they need to realise their potential.

Parents and families have the primary responsibility for helping young people succeed. They need to be supported and any services to young people need to take them into account. Communities, including businesses, also need to take responsibility for helping young people belong and succeed.

Raising young people’s aspirations and educational attainment is crucial to their success in life. The Government have already announced significant reforms and investment to improve education standards and increase young people’s participation in learning and work. Young people’s experiences outside the classroom at home and in their community are also crucial to helping them form and pursue their ambitions. “Positive for Youth” emphasises the importance of young people’s personal and social development to educational, employment, and other long-term outcomes—and the role of services such as youth work in supporting this development. It promotes early intervention to address issues young people may face to prevent them escalating and causing harm.

Councils are accountable primarily to local people for how well young people do, and how well their services support them. Young people must be in the driving seat to inform decisions, shape provision, and inspect quality.

The Government are taking a wide range of actions to facilitate local reform, including:

clarifying their expectations on local authorities through revised statutory guidance to be published shortly for consultation on their duty to secure activities and services for young people;

empowering young people by enabling them to inspect and report on local youth services and setting up a national scrutiny group for them to help “youth proof “ Government policy as part of funding of £850,000 to the British Youth Council in 2011-2013;

funding improved business brokerage with projects for young people through investment of £320,000 to April 2013;

providing capital investment to complete 63 myplace centres by April 2013, and developing a national approach to exploiting their potential to be autonomous hubs led by communities and businesses for transforming local services;

expanding national citizen service to offer 30,000 places to young people In 2012, 60,000 in 2013, and 90,000 in 2014.

The Government will publish annually national measures of young people’s positive outcomes, and an audit at the end of 2012 of overall progress towards creating a society which is more positive for youth.

“Positive for Youth” and an executive summary are available on the Department for Education website at www.education.gov.uk/positiveforyouth. Copies of “Positive for Youth” have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Young People in Education, Training and Work

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

The Departments for Education, for Work and Pensions and for Business, Innovation and Skills are today publishing “Building Engagement, Building Futures: Our Strategy to Maximise the Participation of 16-24 Year Olds in Education, Training and Work”. This fulfils the commitment made in “Opening Doors, Breaking Barriers”, the Government’s social mobility strategy published in April by the Deputy Prime Minister.

Increasing the participation of 16 to 24-year-olds in learning and work not only makes a lasting difference to their individual lives, but is central to our ambitions to improve social mobility and stimulate economic growth.

“Building Engagement, Building Futures” sets out how our radical reforms to schools, vocational education, skills and welfare provision will all make a significant difference to young people’s opportunities and support. The Government recognise that in some areas we need to go further, in particular to help the most vulnerable young people, who are at risk of long-term disengagement.

The strategy outlines our plans to support all young people to develop the skills, qualifications and experience they need—to succeed in their careers and make a positive contribution to our society and economy. It sets out how we will ensure that young people are in the best possible position to realise the opportunities available to them as the economy picks up. It builds on recent announcements that we will offer more apprenticeships for young people and provide additional support through the new youth contract, which includes at least 40,000 financial incentives for small businesses to take on a young apprentice.

The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the Minister with responsibility for employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning and I have worked together to develop this strategy, recognising the need for coherent policy approaches across education, training, skills and employment. This shared vision will help ensure that all services align in the best possible way to help every young person make progress towards adult life and successful careers.

School Sport

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), a distinguished former Sports Minister, on raising this subject. It is an issue to which he is dedicated, and we all appreciate that. I also thank other hon. Members for their well informed contributions. A lot of questions have been raised, and hon. Members seem to have anticipated what I am about to say. Therefore, in order to confuse those pundits, I will not give the speech that I had planned, even though it does not say a lot of the things that people anticipated that I would say.

Several statistics have been used, in particular by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who cited a recent survey that shows a downturn in sports participation by over-16s and adults. That, however, is the problem, because after the £2.4 billion spent on the previous Government’s programme since 2003, the idea that sport is a good thing has clearly not embedded itself in the ideas of people moving through school and college and into adulthood. It is not just something that young people do because they have to turn out for an hour or two hours a week on a school games pitch. It is something that they have to do because it is good for them and fun; it is a socialising activity; and it is about teamwork and team building. Young people would want to carry that on into adulthood, so why do the statistics clearly show that it has not been embedded? Despite the best of intentions, spending an awful lot of money has not had the desired effect of ensuring that young people in school want to do sport and carry on doing it into adulthood as something that one naturally does.

While I am talking about the use of statistics, I have to say that all the statistics that are used by the Department and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—despite an awful lot of accusations, he is in no way opposed to organised sport; he is a big fan of it—are from the previous Government and have been endorsed by the chief statistician as well.

Perhaps I can take up a few of the points in between the hyperbole used by the hon. Member for Bradford South. I absolutely endorse his comments about the army of volunteers, who are the backbone of sport in the community and sports clubs in our towns and constituencies. We want them to work more with schools, so it is not just a case of sport that people do in school and sport that people do over the weekend at the local football club. We need much more interaction between the two. I am the president of a very successful local football club that typically on a Saturday sees 300 or 400 kids out on the local sports pitches. That is achieved largely through volunteers. The children range in age from five upwards, and both girls and boys are involved. We want to see more of that type of activity. That is one reason why we have given additional funding, through the school games additional funding network to fund further volunteering. I am talking about county sports partnerships recruiting more volunteers to help with the school games and beyond both at level 2, between schools, and at level 1, within schools.

I absolutely endorse the comments from the hon. Gentleman to which I have referred, but he did also make a comment about the school games, which seemed to come under quite a lot of attack. I think that most people agree that the school games will be a good thing as an extra tool to encourage more schools and more schoolchildren to become involved in competitive sport as a matter of routine. More than 11,000 schools have already signed up in the past few months, which is remarkable. We encourage all schools to do that.

[Clive Efford]

I point out to the Minister that the school games did not come under attack. We were merely pointing out that they already exist. To present the school games as some new creation on the back of the emphasis on competitive sport is just misleading people.

[Tim Loughton]

The school games, which were launched last summer, involved more than 10,000 children in the summer pilots. I launched the version in the north-west. They have a particular focus on disability sports, which is something that has very much been missing. They will have a programme of endorsements and accreditations of the schools taking part. That builds on the success of the games that have gone before—sponsored by Sainsbury’s, I think—but is taking it to a whole new level. Surely that should be welcomed, but there seems to be a mindset against competitive sport. I find that extraordinary.

The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) referred to a quote about learning to “pick yourself up”. Sport is not just about physical fitness, important though that is. It is about life experiences, socialising, working together as a team, and winning and losing and moving on. That is what competitive sport is designed to achieve. The hon. Gentleman’s contribution seemed rather confused. He used the statistic about only 21% of children doing regular competitive sport and talked about wanting to move towards children participating in such activity at least nine times a year. Is it really ambitious to want our kids to be involved in competitive sport nine times a year, particularly after so much money has been spent on trying to embed a culture of sport as a good thing that everyone wants to do on a regular basis in schools?

[Clive Efford]

rose—

[Tim Loughton]

I had better move on or I will not answer any of the hon. Gentleman’s points, but I think that there is a real poverty of ambition.

Let me return to the issue of disabled sport and the charge about the elite nature of the school games. The opportunity to take part in competitive sport is not elite; it is at four levels. It is within schools, where we want every pupil to be able to take part; it is between schools; it is at county level; and it is at national level, with the showcase of the first national championships taking place next May in the Olympic stadium, before it is even used for the Olympics. Within that, I want to see opportunities for disabled pupils. I think that the former Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Bradford South, would probably admit that we have done very badly on encouraging disability sports in schools. If someone happens to have a disability, PE time is when they go to the library or do something else like that, which is entirely unacceptable. We are far more ambitious than that. Part of the programme for the school games is about encouraging able-bodied pupils to help to set up tournaments and to engage with children who have disabilities, so that they feel every bit as involved at every stage. There needs to be recognition of the various challenges that they will have, but those are surmountable.

[Mr Sutcliffe]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I know that he has only a small amount of time left. I welcome what he is saying about disability sport. He is right about that, and I welcome his personal commitment to it, but the transport costs for disability sport outweigh the costs for able-bodied people. Has he considered those transport costs and what he needs to do to help people to get around to the different venues?

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. That is why, again within the school games, we have made specific money available for promoting disability sport, resourcing the national governing bodies of sports to develop a clear competitive pathway for young disabled people, ensuring the availability of follow-on activity linked to level 3 festivals and resourcing a network of schools to develop and deliver school-centred continuing professional development for teachers as well, and to take into account all those practical difficulties.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), in a well informed contribution, raised a number of important and practical points about embedding sport as a way of turning round poor behaviour. We all agree with that. I do not think that there is any disagreement between us about the many-faceted contribution that sport can make. I set up in my constituency a midnight football tournament. On a Saturday evening, between 10 pm and 12 midnight, when there is not usually sporting activity, we took over a local leisure centre. I worked with the police on this. We had mostly young boys, aged 13 to 17, who otherwise would have been on the streets, getting up to no good. Instead, they were playing football against one another and against the police as well. It was a whole new dynamic. There are so many creative ways in which we can use sport to help with the problems of poor behaviour.

My hon. Friend made good, practical points about insurance and minibuses. I will certainly take those away and consider them further. I am glad that he mentioned the Troops to Teachers scheme. Those teachers will provide a different perspective. We hope that for kids who are more difficult to engage in some of the academic subjects, they will provide the role model and authority figure that is so often lacking.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) mentioned CRB checks. Again, that is something that is standing in the way of ordinary decent people who want to come forward, volunteer and give their time. There is an issue about multiple CRB checks, which the Protection of Freedoms Bill will deal with. We want a common-sense level of health and safety. Things have been regulated out of sight, and we have to get back to where we should be.

We heard the comments of the hon. Member for Eltham. Again, we had the whole business about selling off school playing fields. Let us just remind ourselves that the present Government do not and the previous Governments did not sell off playing fields, because local authorities sell off playing fields. I seem to remember that in the 1990s, when these charges were flying around most of all, Conservatives ran just one council. Rather a lot of those councils were run by the Labour party, which was responsible for overseeing selling off playing fields, so people need to take their share of the responsibility.

On the question of what the Localism Act 2011 will change, there are no intentions to change the level of protection for school playing fields. That may be provided in different ways, but certainly there is no intention to reduce the level of protection as a result of the localism legislation and the planning changes.

An awful lot of red herrings have been thrown about, but the Government are absolutely committed to promoting competitive school sport and embedding it within schools, rather than just assuming that because there is additional money or there are additional co-ordinators, it will automatically happen. Clearly, according to the statistics that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North cited herself, it has not been embedded. That is a problem that we now have to pick up. We hope that the school games will be a flagship way of ensuring that more people want to become involved in sport not just at school but outside the school gates, and that they will want to carry it on into adulthood as well. That is the most important thing that we need to achieve, for all the reasons that we have already mentioned.

The new Government’s approach to school sports has three important characteristics: decentralising power, incentivising—

[Mr David Amess (in the Chair)]

Order. We now move to the next debate.

Children’s Access to Parents

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

I will try to get through as much as possible of my speech in the time left to me, but I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) on securing the debate. I agree with virtually everything that he said and with other hon. Members who raised points as well. The whole point of mediation is that it is quicker and cheaper, and we are of course examining that through the various devices being promoted by the Ministry of Justice and with which the Department for Education is involved. I agree with the points made about grandparents. Part of establishing greater stability for children who find themselves in a broken family is that grandparents often offer an anchor of continuity when parents split up. I am sympathetic to those points, and we are looking at various ways to make sure that, wherever possible, grandparents remain engaged. Too many of them do not, as I know from my constituency.

This is a highly emotive issue, and one that is important to the well-being of hundreds of thousands of children and young people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover mentioned, an estimated 240,000 children experience the separation of their parents every year. Overall, more than one in three children will see their parents split up before their 16th birthday. That is a huge number, and I am afraid it is a reflection on society today.

There is great pressure on the courts at the moment, not least on the public law courts, post Baby P, which is having a knock-on effect. It is therefore absolutely right and urgent that we sort out some of the often acrimonious cases in the private law courts. My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he talks about parents sinking a child’s rights in a sea of acrimony. In too many cases, parents use their children as pawns, and the instability and emotional pressure that causes for children cannot be good for them. For all concerned, but particularly for the children, we must make sure that we do a lot better.

Just about everyone agrees that a child’s welfare is best served if both their parents are as actively involved in their upbringing as possible, unless there are good reasons for their not being involved, and the child’s welfare would be undermined—that must remain the safety net. All the evidence tells us that children genuinely benefit from a relationship with both parents, with the potential for each to make different contributions to their child’s development. Yet, as we have heard from my hon. Friend, many children grow up with little or no relationship with one parent—usually, although not exclusively, the father.

This is a topical issue. My hon. Friend mentioned his Bill, which had its First Reading in March. Since then, the family justice review has carried out its consultation, and it produced its final report last month. It is right that we consider the issue of a child’s contact with their parents in that wider context.

I would just make two points. The Norgrove report, excellent thought it is, is a Government-commissioned report, not a Government report. The Government will, I hope, produce their response to it in January. I am working with colleagues from other Departments, including the Ministry of Justice, to reflect on many of the issues that have arisen from the Norgrove review, with which we are very familiar.

Some of the review’s concerns about having a presumption in favour of shared parenting were based on its visit to Australia. However, I think there were concerns about the Australian experience because, too often, the focus was interpreted as being about equality of time. As we know, we cannot carve up a child’s existence on the basis of some spurious 50:50 split in terms of time. As Members of Parliament, we probably know that better than others. We are not good role models as parents. If, heaven forbid, I were to split up from my wife—she has tolerated my being an MP for 14 and a half years—it would be bliss if I was expected to spend 50% of time with my children, because it does not happen now. However, we need to be realistic and not to base things on artificial equalities in terms of time.

There is, however, a much broader issue about the culture of parenting. The culture has shifted away from the traditional view that mothers are primarily responsible for the care of children. Increasingly, society recognises the valuable and distinct role of both parents. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) mentioned the Aviva survey, which pointed to the increasing existence of stay-at-home dads and dads’ wish to be much more involved in their child’s upbringing.

The Government are doing much to encourage that societal change, promoting fathers as equal parents and encouraging them to be fully involved with their children from the earliest stages of their lives. Co-operative parents, both actively involved with their children, are more likely to continue that pattern after separation, and a co-operative, flexible approach is more likely to lead to contact arrangements that actually work. In that, I include the important role of grandparents.

As we know, however much education and awareness-raising we carry out, many parents separate in a hostile environment that fosters selfish perceptions. I am not seeking to downplay in any way the trauma of relationship breakdown, particularly where children are involved. Rebuilding a new life after separation or divorce can be one of the hardest things any of us will face. It is a sad truth, though, that the outcome, all too often, is that loving parents are frozen out of their children’s lives, and those who stand to lose the most are the children themselves.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton spoke about the serial flouting of contact orders in too many cases. Too often, the resident parent can use the weapon of delay to freeze out a non-resident parent, such that a large portion of non-resident parents lose contact with their children altogether within two years. Whatever changes we do or do not make to the law, we need better enforcement of what exists now. That is absolutely essential, and I have been holding conversations to that effect with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and the family courts themselves.

A relatively small proportion of families—about 10%—end up seeking help from family courts to resolve disputes about contact. These are the most complex and difficult cases, often involving multiple problems. The examples mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) reflect some fairly acrimonious marriage breakdowns.

We should not kid ourselves that the remaining 90% of separating parents, who do not seek help from the courts, are happy with the degree of their involvement in their children’s lives. Of course, many manage to put their children’s needs first and to reach an amicable settlement, but far too many non-resident parents feel they must accept unsatisfactory or unfair contact arrangements, because of the fear of long, drawn-out and expensive court procedures. That is why up to a third of non-resident parents have no meaningful contact with their children. Once that happens, it can be almost impossible in some cases to resume contact, particularly where young children are concerned. At every stage, we must remember that the most important part of this whole equation is the child. The delay and continued uncertainty caused by an acrimonious dispute going through the courts over a long period can only be damaging to the child.

That is a tragedy, and one the Government intend to address. Our vision is to establish a clear expectation that, under normal circumstances, a child will have a relationship with both his or her parents, regardless of their relationship with each other. We want to achieve that by creating a climate in which separating parents are able to see through their personal differences and to recognise the importance of their both remaining involved in their child’s lives. For those who need support to focus on their children’s needs, there will be a range of interventions to facilitate the making of practical and lasting agreements.

This will be a society where family courts are a last resort, used to determine only the most difficult cases, particularly those where there are welfare concerns. This court system will be transparent and accessible to those who need it, with no perceptions of bias based on sex or resident or non-resident status. Children will feel that their views count and are listened to, and the minority of parents who take their dispute to court will do so in the knowledge that it is only in exceptional cases that a child will not be able to maintain ongoing contact with both parents. Crucially, parents will adhere to court orders in the knowledge that action to enforce breaches will be swift and decisive—if I am reading quickly, it is because I am determined to get to the end of my speech.

Whether the Government achieve that vision is only partly in our hands. We cannot prevent acrimonious break-ups or change the way individual families choose to organise their lives. However we must do everything we can to improve the system so that it gives children the best chance of growing up under the guidance of two loving parents.

As I have said, the family justice review panel reported last month. It paints a grim picture of the experience of families in a private law system that is too slow, too expensive and too emotionally damaging for children and parents. The panel’s view is that shared parenting is best encouraged through education rather than legislation. It proposes a range of measures to encourage out-of-court dispute resolution and to support parents in putting their children’s needs first. Such pre-court processes would focus on giving parents effective tools to resolve their problems and change their behaviour. They would include mediation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover has said, parenting information programmes and the drawing up of parenting agreements. Most of us would agree that those are sensible. In addition, an online hub would, in the first instance, provide information and advice on a wide range of issues faced by parents. The Government are carefully considering the panel’s proposals for reform and will respond to them early in the new year. However the rationale behind these pre-court plans—more support for parents to make child-centred agreements, and fewer parents going to court—fits with the vision I outlined earlier.

I turn now to the nub of my hon. Friend’s proposal, which is legislation to promote shared parenting. As we have heard, the family justice review opposed such a move. It is concerned that any such changes to legislation risk creating the perception of a parental right to shared time with their children. It has also taken on board the concern that legislation could be seen as undermining the fundamental principle under which courts operate—the principle in the Children Act 1989 that paramount consideration is given to the welfare of the child. As I have said, I have some concern about that.

This debate has been raging for some time. Five and a half years ago, I myself argued in the House for an amendment to the Children and Adoption Bill that would have inserted a presumption in favour of shared parenting into the 1989 Act. The concerns that gave rise to that have not diminished today. It would be wrong for me to try to pre-empt the Government’s decision, but I can say that we are looking closely at all the options for promoting shared parenting through possible legislative and non-legislative means.

The debate is often polarised around two issues. On the one hand, we have the frustration that an obstructive resident parent can stop the non-resident parent seeing their child. On the other, there is, understandably, considerable pressure for robust safeguarding processes to ensure that potential welfare issues are properly identified and that care arrangements are safe. Ultimately, both concerns centre on harmful impacts on children, and any solution we come to must maintain a clear focus on the welfare of the child.

The Children Act 1989 is a landmark piece of legislation, and we approach any debate about amending it with the utmost caution. We are clear that the paramountcy principle, which has universal support, must not be diluted.

Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

The vast majority of children in this country grow up safe from harm. However, the Barnardo’s report “Puppet on a string: the urgent need to cut children free from sexual exploitation”, published in January, emphasised that children are being sexually exploited here and now. It showed that this appalling form of child abuse is more prevalent than most people have appreciated.

It is clear that this abuse can be perpetrated by individuals from all sections of society. It can affect boys, girls, older and younger children, from stable and affluent homes as well as from less advantaged backgrounds, in urban and rural communities. It has a devastating and lasting impact, both on the children and young people who suffer from it and on their families.

The Barnardo’s report called for a national action plan to tackle child sexual exploitation. As Minister responsible for children and families, I asked my officials to lead the development of such an action plan and I am very pleased to be publishing it later today. I am grateful to the many national and local organisations, and other Government Departments, which have contributed to it over the last few months, particularly the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Minister with responsibility for crime and security, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) and colleagues in the Home Office.

The action plan was developed in the context of the Munro review of child protection. Like Professor Eileen Munro’s final report, and the Government’s response to her review, the action plan emphasises the important role of Local Safeguarding Children Boards in ensuring that local multi-agency arrangements are in place to help and protect children and young people. The action plan is similarly child-centred, trying to see sexual exploitation from the point of view of the child or young person, as he or she goes through the different stages which might occur.

Child sexual exploitation is horrific and has no place in this, or any other, society. It is a serious crime and must be treated as such, with the perpetrators pursued more rigorously. We can only tackle it successfully by looking at every aspect of the problem: raising awareness and understanding; effective prevention and detection; securing robust prosecutions; and improving support for victims and their families. The action plan does that, bringing together for the first time actions already being taken and actions which will be taken forward in the future. Much work is currently under way and more will take place over the coming months.

Nothing is more important than keeping children and young people safe. Today’s action plan is an important step forward but there is a long way to go. I am determined that everything which can be done is done to make our children safer from sexual exploitation.

I have placed copies of the action plan in the Libraries of both Houses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

1. What assessment he has made of the social and economic value to schools and pupils of learning outside the classroom.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

The Government fully support learning outside the classroom, and whilst we have made no formal assessment, we recognise the important contribution it can make to engaging and supporting pupils in their education. We believe that schools should have the freedom, however, to use their professional judgment to determine how learning outside the classroom best meets the needs of their pupils.

[Simon Hart]

Will the Minister give an indication of whether his Department will look at allocating a percentage of the pupil premium for this particular area?

[Tim Loughton]

The whole point of the pupil premium is to give extra resources for schools that can be used exactly as they see fit for their own pupils. If a school wants to use a large or a small part of the pupil premium for that activity, that is entirely a matter for the head and the school.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Learning outside the classroom includes encouraging healthy eating through breakfast clubs, but new research suggests that one in eight breakfast clubs closed this year and that half of those remaining are under threat. What would the Minister say to the chief executive of Greggs, which funds breakfast clubs for 7,000 disadvantaged children across the country, who recently questioned the coalition’s priorities and the fact that it is able to find £250 million to fund weekly bin collections but is unable to pledge support for the rising number of children coming into school hungry?

[Tim Loughton]

I was in Leeds recently, where I awarded on behalf of the Prime Minister a big society award to the founder of Magic Breakfast, which is a voluntary organisation providing breakfasts and doing some fantastic work—in that case, with a local bagel maker renowned in the city. It is providing fantastic breakfasts for the kids, and I was lucky to see this great job being done rather well. In other places like Liverpool, however, which is run by the Labour party, the decision has been taken to reduce some of the breakfast clubs. That is a matter for local authorities; other places are doing it well, and the hon. Lady should look at some of these innovative schemes rather than look to the Government to provide everything.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

2. How much he plans to allocate in funding for the pupil premium to (a) Harlow constituency and (b) England in 2011-12.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to ensure adequate funding for rural primary schools.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

The Government recognise the vital contribution made by rural primary schools to their communities. We believe that in many parts of the country, the current funding has not supported rural areas properly. Our recent consultation on reforming the funding system looked carefully at how small schools should be supported and we aim to consult further on more detailed proposals in the spring.

[Stephen Phillips]

It is a fact that small rural primary schools cost, on average, 50% more to fund. With vastly reduced resources, that is a huge challenge for local authorities. What precisely is my hon. Friend doing and going to do to support funding for such schools given their importance in constituencies such as mine?

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. and learned Friend makes a good point. The current methodology was inherited from the previous Government and the funding system is based on historical and out-of-date assessments of need. The system is illogical, unfair and opaque and that is why we have had the first phase of the consultation and will be taking its findings to face further, more detailed consultation and proposals will be made in the spring. I hope that he will contribute to that process on behalf of his schools.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to tackle the shortage of primary school places in (a) Hendon constituency and (b) England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

14. What progress has been made by the Munro review implementation working group.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

The Government’s response to the Munro review was informed by an implementation working group convened for that purpose. We continue to work with a range of partners to take forward these important reforms. We will consult early next year on the revision of statutory guidance. More flexible assessment processes are being trialled in eight local authorities. Ofsted has consulted on new inspection arrangements and we have published a work programme on safeguarding children in the NHS.

[Meg Munn]

The Minister started off well, publishing the minutes of the implementation working group on the website. Unless the working group has not met since, the last minutes are for May 2011. Will he give me an update on the report that he asked for on the funding implications of the Munro review?

[Tim Loughton]

I set up the implementation working group specifically to translate the Munro review recommendations into practical things that we could implement before we published the Government’s response, so they informed the Government’s response which we published before the summer. We have used members of that implementation group to inform the work that we are doing on all those aspects that I mentioned and others. My intention is to reconvene the implementation working group early in the new year to monitor the progress that we have made and see what more we need to do.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

15. What his policy is on converting primary schools into academies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

23. What plans his Department has to allocate funding to the national citizen service beyond 2012.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

The pilots that have been run this year and will be run next year are funded through the Cabinet Office, and we will discuss with it and the Treasury how the scheme is then rolled out to the 60,000 and 90,000 places that we have forecast for subsequent years.

[Lisa Nandy]

A recent Education Committee report highlighted the alarming disappearance of youth services throughout the country. Does the Minister accept that replacing long-term youth services, which were particularly good for most disadvantaged children, with an eight-week programme does not constitute a strategic vision for young people? What will he say to those young people who feel absolutely betrayed by the decision that his Government have taken?

[Tim Loughton]

Of course the hon. Lady is completely wrong in her premise. The national citizen service, as I have just described, has been funded from a completely separate source from that of youth services—coming through local government and the Department for Education. She knows my concerns about how certain local authorities are treating youth services as a soft target for some of their cuts, and this Government will publish shortly our “Positive for Youth” policy, which will send out some very strong messages about the value of well-targeted, quality youth services run in partnership and under new models, because for too many years they were just not reformed under her Government.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

T2. Leicestershire county council is currently reviewing the availability of school walking routes, including the one to Humphrey Perkins high school from Sileby to Barrow in my constituency. The county council considers that route to be reasonably safe, but the head teacher, the parents, the pupils and I do not. Will the Minister tell me the Government’s view on when safety becomes more important than the simple availability of a route?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

I am aware of my hon. Friend’s interest in this issue. I recently met the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), with another hon. Member and one of his councillors who were raising the same point. I simply point out to my hon. Friend—I am very sympathetic to this point—that local authorities are under a duty to make travel arrangements where the nature of the route to school is such that the child cannot be reasonably expected to walk in reasonable safety. Councils should not be re-designating roads without having done a safety check, and we should be asking some questions.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

T5. Research suggests that continuous teacher training offers the surest route for school improvements. What steps is the Secretary of State’s Department taking in conjunction with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that university departments are opening up to local schools, so that teachers are up to speed with the latest scholarship and can inspire their pupils?

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

T3. The Minister has made great headway in ensuring that looked-after children are not sent beyond their local authority boundary. However, 30 children from Greenwich have been placed in South Thanet in addition to the number it has placed before, and the number from Lewisham has increased by 15 in the past six months. I wonder what more we can do.

[Tim Loughton]

I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s genuine interest in that matter and she has been to see me with other colleagues. When we brought in the new guidance earlier this year, I wrote to every director of children’s services to remind them of their obligations to house looked-after children as close to home as possible. I have taken the matter up again with the office of the Mayor of London and will be making further representations to those London boroughs that particularly impact on south-eastern seaside resorts such as her own. They should not have to take such large pressure.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

T8. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Wolverhampton will be one of the biggest losers from the Government’s new national funding formula. Schools in my constituency stand to lose 10% of their funding, whereas schools in Buckinghamshire will gain 10%. Why is the Secretary of State so determined to take from the poor to give to the rich?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

In an earlier answer, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) again deferred to Magic Breakfast, an excellent charity, to plug the massive funding gap that has been left by the Government taking away extended schools money. Magic Breakfast provides 200 schools with free breakfast, yet 3,000 breakfast clubs have been closed across the country and thousands more are under threat. What are the Government going to do about that?

[Tim Loughton]

Let me have another go. Just a few weeks ago, I met the former chairman of Greggs who set up the breakfast club. That company did so not on the basis of how much money the Government were or were not putting into it or because of Government policy, but because it thought that it was the right thing to do, it was in a position to do it and it was good corporate social responsibility. The company did it and it did not take Government money to ensure that companies could step up to the mark and do their bit.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State knows, support in the community of Brandon for the Breckland free school is extremely strong. Will he assure me that all expressions of interest from parents, both on official forms and on the forms from the free school, will be taken into account when he makes a decision on whether that free school should go ahead?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is reported that youth services are taking a 25% cut on average and we know that some youth services are disappearing altogether. Will the Minister tell us how many youth projects have closed, how many youth workers have been made redundant and what he will do to ensure that local authorities fulfil their statutory responsibilities?

[Tim Loughton]

I cannot tell the hon. Lady how many but I will tell her that this Government are funding 63 myplace centres, the latest of which I opened in Bognor Regis just last Friday. In the next few weeks, the Government will produce their “Positive for Youth” policy, which will point to the future of new partnerships, new forms of funding and new ways of working together to ensure that our young people get decent youth services and a decent offer up and down the country. Reform needs to come to youth services in this country because the model under the previous Government was not sustainable.

[Mr Speaker]

To make a statement, I call the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Mark Hoban.

Junior ISAs (Looked-after Children)

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

In March of this year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Government would provide support for the long-term savings of looked-after children through junior ISAs. Today, the day that junior ISAs first become available, I can announce that around 55,000 looked-after children across the UK will benefit from a new junior ISA in 2012, with an initial payment of £200 from the Government.

I am particularly grateful for the support of Barnardo’s and Action for Children, with whom we have worked closely to ensure we get the best scheme for as many vulnerable children as possible. The scheme will provide a junior ISA for every child looked-after for 12 months or more and who did not previously benefit from a child trust fund (CTF). This includes those born after the CTF scheme was stopped, as well as older children who were born before the CTF scheme was created.

I am also pleased that, as for previous support to looked-after children under CTFs, this new scheme will apply equally to looked-after children across the UK. I am grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning in Scotland, the Deputy Minister for Children and Social Services in Wales and the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland for their support for our work. Officials at the Department for Education will continue to work with officials in those administrations as we put the scheme into practice.

The Government want to ensure that looked-after children receive the best possible support and gain the same experience as any other young person. These savings will help them when they reach 18 and are facing difficult choices as they start out in the adult world. I am confident that, when combined with financial education, holding a real financial asset in a savings account will encourage these young people to learn about how to manage their money well.

These children are some of the most vulnerable in our society and we are committed to investing in them so they can thrive. I want these savings to be worth much more than £200 by the child’s 18th birthday and I hope individuals and organisations will also want to use these accounts to contribute and invest in the futures of these vulnerable children.

The Department for Education will shortly be launching a tender exercise to select the best partners to operate the scheme. Potential partners will need to demonstrate not just that they can make the right investment choices for looked-after children, but that they can raise additional funding from voluntary contributions. A key priority will be the ability to operate the scheme with low administrative costs. This will give generous individuals and organisations the opportunity to channel financial support directly to those who are most in need, helping looked-after children take the chances that may otherwise be denied them.