Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will be brief; I am sure that over lunch Government Members have had a chance to contemplate the argument that I made. I am conscious that Opposition Members who have joined us might want to be reminded of them. There are three points that I want the Government to come back on if they are not going to accept our amendments. First, the idea of a basic minimum standard for care leavers. If we are not to have a minimum standard, how does the Minister intend to ensure that all care leavers are given a level of service that we can be proud of?

Secondly, on the Minister’s approach to dealing with young asylum seekers who are not part of this legislation at the moment, the amendment seeks to bring them in scope to make sure that they are given equal protection. As I said earlier, turning 18 does not stop someone being vulnerable overnight. Finally, how do we deal with the specific issue of financial management problems that many care leavers face, particularly the problems that are well documented in the benefits system? If the Minister does not intend to accept our amendments to support care leavers through the benefits system and to make sure that we recognise those problems and the cost to us of not recognising those problems, what plan does he have to address those issues? At this point, I shall let others take the debate forward.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow for her passionate speech. Even though she was interrupted mid-flow, she has summed up very well. It will not come as a surprise to the Committee that I wholeheartedly endorse her speech and the amendment on the national minimum standard for care leavers. I want to point out that we cannot just rely on local authorities to make specific decisions, because there are different standards across the country for different local authorities, as I saw as a councillor before entering Parliament.

Various policy concerns can be addressed by introducing a national minimum standard, but I want to focus specifically on people’s mental health, especially that of vulnerable people leaving the care system. One early study of care leavers in England that I found interesting found evidence of a range of mental health problems for care leavers. One in five care leavers reported long-term mental health problems. Everyone here will be aware of the stigma surrounding mental health. One in five is probably not a true reflection of how many mental health problems there really were among care leavers, because some of them would not want to report problems for fear of being stigmatised.

The mental health problems that the care leavers spoke about included eating disorders, bipolar issues, depression and serious phobias that haunted them later in life. In addition, there were shocking statistics: a quarter of care leavers reported heavy drinking on a regular basis and two thirds admitted that they used drugs regularly. It is no surprise that many of the care leavers who spoke about their experiences said that their mental health problems originated in the life that they led before they, in a sense, entered adulthood. They said that a lot of their mental health problems came from the poor housing that they had experienced and the lack of finance and intimate relationships in their life.

The NSPCC rightly pointed out in its 2014 report that leaving care is an extended process rather than a single event, which I wholeheartedly agree with and which speaks to our amendment. Care leavers face the significant challenge of psychologically moving forward towards adulthood, often trying to make sense of their past life experiences. With the withdrawal of care services, support services and care placements, they have to test out the reliability of their network of friends and family. The shadow Minister has made the point over and over again that we should not have a postcode lottery when it comes to care and the future of care leavers. Nor should we have a lottery of personal circumstances, where those who are lucky have a network of family and friends to rely on, but those who are not often fall into either depression or a life they would not have wanted to lead.

The Opposition acknowledge that multiple changes to someone’s living circumstances will affect them, but change cuts across every aspect of the lives of care leavers; we need to be aware of that, because we are dealing with the most vulnerable people in society. Those changes relate to their finances, access to housing and search for jobs, and care leavers confront those challenges while experiencing a withdrawal of care placements and social support services as they turn 18.

I point to a few stats from the Children’s Society that I thought were particularly striking: 63% of care leavers entered the care system because of abuse or neglect, which is a figure that should put us all to shame; 50% of children in care had emotional and behavioural health that was considered normal, while 13% were borderline and 37% gave cause for concern. I am sure that everyone agrees that those statistics are worrying. They should trouble us all, and they should compel us to act in the interests of the nation.

National minimum standards will allow for a fairer system overall, for which the cost will be wholly outweighed by the benefit of ensuring that the most vulnerable people across the country are treated equally. I trust that Members across the House and from different parties will agree with that after hearing some of the shocking statistics that I have outlined.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I will briefly comment on the part of clause 2 that relates to the local offer, before turning to the amendments and new clauses. I will try not to detain you for too long, Mr Wilson.

I am not really clear on the local offer. The Minister has a great deal of experience of the local offer; he pioneered the approach in the Children and Families Act 2014. I am not entirely sure how different what he proposes in the Bill is from the offer in that Act. I took the trouble during the lunch break to look at the rather helpful report from the Children’s Services Development Group entitled “The Local Offer, Children and Parental Rights”. It has a nice foreword by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on autism. You will be delighted to know that I will not read the report to you, Mr Wilson, but there are some things in it that are worth noting.

The offer, as it exists in the Children and Families Act, was intended to help local authorities to identify gaps in provision and to make sure that they were addressed, and the report assesses how successful that has been. It found that there are significant variations in the offers made across the country, with some quite good examples in east midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, and some very poor examples in the west midlands and the south-west. It also found that less than 4% of local authorities have a named person whom anyone trying to understand the local offer can contact, while less than half of all local authorities listed independent specialist schools on their website, despite that being a requirement that the Minister set out in the Act. There is also a significant variation in the information that is provided on those websites. The Children’s Services Development Group says that a best practice guide for local authorities and a mandated template for the local offer would be helpful.

I draw the Committee’s attention to that because the Opposition suggest that it would be helpful to the local offer in the Bill if there were minimum standards by which we could judge the progress of the Minister’s proposals. I asked him to look again at the experience of the local offer in the Children and Families Act and to check whether there is a risk that local authorities will simply seek to replicate that kind of approach in this piece of legislation. I am not saying that that approach is useless, but I am sure the Minister will share my disappointment that it has not been as successful as anticipated in its operation so far.

I turn to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn has just been tackling about the needs of children leaving care. The Minister and I obviously got into the wrong place before lunch when I thought that he was telling me that I should not be too concerned about the educational and mental health outcomes for children leaving care. If that is not what the Minister was saying, I am more than happy to accept that.

However, I took the trouble to go back and have a quick look over lunch at some of the things that we know. I looked at the report by Saunders and Broad which examined long-term mental health conditions—the very things that my hon. Friend has just been talking about—with a greater propensity among children in care and leaving care, who suffer from depression, eating disorders and phobias.

I looked at the mental health and wellbeing report produced by the Select Committee on Education in the fourth Session of Parliament. The first line of that report says:

“The mental health of looked-after children is significantly poorer than that of their peers, with almost half of children and young people in care meeting the criteria for a psychiatric disorder”.

That report, as the Minister knows, went on to recommend that child and adolescent mental health services should be made available for all looked-after young people up to the age of 25, in recognition of the distinct issues which this vulnerable group of young people experience as they attempt to leave the care system.

I also looked at the situation on employment. As I understand it, these are the Government’s figures: three-quarters of care leavers are inclined to leave schooling without any formal qualifications. Of the Government’s study of 26,340 former care leavers aged 19, 20 and 21, 40%—nearly 10,500 young people—were not in employment, education or training, compared with 14% of all 19 to 21-year-olds. The percentage of care leavers who could be described as NEETs has risen by 1% in the past two years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Wilson.

Amendment 28 would extend the duty on local authorities set out in clause 3 to include access to a mental health assessment for care leavers. When a care leaver requests support from their local authority and the local authority conducts an assessment of their needs, it must include an assessment of mental health and emotional wellbeing that is carried out by a qualified mental health professional. The corporate parenting principles set out in clause 1 make it clear that local authorities should promote the mental health and wellbeing of care leavers. Currently, there is huge amount of unmet need in the area due to squeezed budgets, high thresholds and the lack of relevant specialism in adult mental health services.

[Tulip Siddiq]

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are now 5,000 fewer mental health nurses than there were in 2010, and 1,500 fewer mental health beds? The amendment is more important than ever to ensure that mental health does not slip even further down the agenda.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I was not aware of those statistics. I knew the situation was dire, but I did not realise how bad it had actually become.

Young people leaving care are much more likely to have mental health problems than other young people: they are five times more likely to attempt suicide; many have suffered abuse or neglect before coming into care; and they may have moved around several placements, making it hard to form stable relationships with carers, professionals or even friends.

The Government have committed to piloting mental health assessments for children in care, but there was no mention of young people over 18 who have left care. We all know that turning 18 does not mean that people stop being vulnerable and stop needing support. In fact, mental health problems often manifest at the challenging time of transition into adulthood. At 18, young people can no longer access child and adolescent mental health services; they have to rely on adult services—but only if they are lucky enough not to slip through the net in transition. The reality is that if young people with mental health needs are not getting help, it is unlikely that they will be able to make the most of other opportunities such as education, training or employment, because mental health problems can have a debilitating effect on all other areas of their life.

On Second Reading in the House of Lords, Lord Nash acknowledged that:

“All the evidence shows that care leavers are among the most vulnerable young people in our society. Many are still struggling to overcome the impact of the trauma they faced in childhood and, in most cases, they are expected to make the transition into adulthood without the unconditional love and support of a family or close circle of friends. As a consequence, they are far more likely to end up NEET, more likely to experience homelessness or mental health issues, and more likely to end up in the criminal justice system. However, with good, stable care and a more personalised and supported transition into adulthood, those stark facts need not be the culmination of their time in and leaving care.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 June 2016; Vol. 773, c. 112.]

Clearly the Government know what the problem is, yet they have still failed to provide a full solution.

If the mental health and emotional wellbeing of every child leaving care is not professionally assessed, how will we know whether they are ready to cope in the adult environment? We cannot just expect them to leave care and cope in a vacuum, without some appraisal of their wellbeing. We would not allow that for a physical problem so we should not allow it for a mental health one. We must put in place measures to prevent care leavers from falling off the cliff edge of care. Assessments would provide a basis for care leavers to address their future needs, albeit under a different system.

Given the vulnerability of the young people in question and the likelihood that they will face challenges relating to mental health or emotional wellbeing coupled with the difficulty of accessing those services, it would be good if the Minister took the opportunity to extend the duty in clause 3 to include mental health. Amendment 29 would extend the duty on local authorities to include access to a mental health assessment for care leavers; and it would ensure that if amendment 28 is agreed, the assessment will be carried out by a qualified mental health professional.

The Conservative-led Select Committee on Education rightly recommended that a dedicated mental health assessment by a qualified mental health professional be completed for all looked-after children, so healthcare professionals and local authorities have a solid and consistent foundation on which to plan the best care for a child. The recommendation was based on an extensive body of evidence from experts that clearly showed why more action and less talk are needed.

The Government’s response to the Select Committee report on mental health acknowledged the vulnerability of looked-after children and the need for timely and effective mental health diagnosis and treatment. The Chair of the Committee said of the Government’s response:

“We are pleased that the Government have set up an expert working group for looked-after children’s mental health and wellbeing; however, having conducted a lengthy and detailed inquiry on the issue, we are disappointed that so many of our recommendations have simply been referred to that group.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 496WH.]

I was similarly dismayed to observe that the Government’s response to the report deflected many answers to the new expert working group on the mental health of looked-after and care-leaving children. Although I make no criticism of the experts appointed to the group, both chairs of the expert panel had already submitted evidence to the Committee, so further consultation seems a somewhat unnecessary duplication. The consultation will serve only to cause further delays, meaning that more children will suffer unnecessarily.

Services are inconsistent across the country, and initial mental health assessments are highly variable. Many local authorities are not meeting their statutory requirements to ensure that all children are properly assessed even when they enter care, so it is important that we get the basics right. We can do so only with professional assessment as children enter and leave care.

It is astonishing that currently children entering care are asked to fill in strengths and difficulties questionnaires, from which it is decided by people who are most likely not medically trained whether the child qualifies for mental health intervention. Administration of the forms from local authority to local authority is patchy, with great variations in timeliness of completing the form. It is not uncommon for the questionnaire not to be completed at all. Only a trained mental health practitioner should be able to assess a patient’s needs; such needs cannot be determined simply from ticked boxes on a form.

It is not enough just to say that help is out there. There are difficulties with the availability of mental health provision for all children, including difficulties accessing and navigating the system. Accessing mental health care, asking for help and overcoming stigma are hard enough for any young person, even those with strong, supportive families; we must acknowledge that. A mental health assessment is one step in ensuring that children get the care and support they need for healing to take place and for them to be integrated into society and feel part of it. That is why they must be assessed on leaving care as well. The whole point is to ensure that care leavers are robust enough to leave care as independent adults who can go out and find work, start families and participate in society fully, like everyone else.

Amendments 30 and 31 strengthen support for care leavers who are also parents. Despite their extreme vulnerability, the particular needs and circumstances of young parents who are looked-after children or care leavers and whose own children are subject to child protection inquiries are not sufficiently identified, recognised or addressed in care planning regulations and guidance. These amendments seek to establish a duty on local authorities to ensure that advice, assistance and support are offered to all looked-after children and care leavers who are young parents. It will help ensure that important information is not overlooked when plans for such young people are made by expressly identifying critical sources of information which should be drawn upon in formulating plans to keep the young parent’s child safely in their care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

If I withdrew the amendments, would the Minister consider updating some of the guidance on mental health assessments? In the pathway plans I have seen in the past they are not given the prominence they should have.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I echo the shadow Minister’s comments on pathways. In the past three years, the number of female teenagers who have been admitted to hospital with eating disorders has more than doubled. That is particularly relevant for female care leavers who suffer eating disorders such as bulimia, anorexia and binge eating. A lot of these disorders were not reflected in the past and were not at the forefront of the minds of the people assessing not only care leavers but teenagers in general, especially female teenagers. The Mental Health Foundation clearly labels eating disorders as mental health problems. Will the shadow Minister comment on the fact that when we make legislation and take into account society’s problems, we need to be aware that things are changing? Things that did not previously have the prominence they have now must be acknowledged by authorities, especially with the rise of social media—

[The Chair]

Order. That was only supposed to have been an intervention.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I have made my point. I apologise.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I will withdraw the amendment, but perhaps will return to the matter at a later date. However, I wish to press to a vote the amendments on recognising care-leaving parents, who have particular vulnerabilities. The Minister has not satisfied me that they are being provided for in a holistic way, as it seems to depend on which local authority area people live in. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 30, in clause 3, page 4, line 11, after “child” insert “, including their needs as a young parent where applicable,”—(Mrs Lewell-Buck.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Timpson]

In some respects, in what I hope are very limited cases, that situation already arises, where a child or young person has been moved out of their host local authority and they are not content with the arrangements that have been set up in the new local authority. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me? They may want to pursue that through the advocacy that they are entitled to. We are seeking to ensure that when that situation arises, though we hope it does not in the vast majority of cases, if at all, there is whole local authority ownership of that issue and that transcends local authority boundaries. That would ensure greater consistency of approach, not just from social workers but those who are responsible for housing and other functions of that local authority.

If the hon. Gentleman looks at some of the changes that we have already made to the residential care system for children, if a child moves out of area, that has to be signed off by the director of children’s services of the host local authority and there has to be a proper level of consultation and agreement between the local authorities as to what the arrangements will be. The aim is to ensure a good and consistent level of service provided by both the local authorities, irrespective of where the child happens to be between the two of them—in some cases it is more than two.

It is important to recognise that these seven principles and the areas they cover are designed to touch every aspect of that child’s time in care. By having to have regard to those principles, we will end up in a situation in which local authorities more widely are taking account of their responsibilities more seriously, irrespective of the type of placement that child or young person is in, their age, their background, or the sort of placement that is best suited to their needs. The whole point of having statutory guidance is to try to assist local authorities in coming up with practical ways, as well as engendering the culture change we want to see, to make sure that we get the improvements that we want to be part of.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson; this is my first Bill Committee, so please bear with me if I ask questions that seem obvious. I understand that someone could be moved out of their local host borough. If they move to another borough, who has the primary responsibility for the child and where is their assigned social worker: in the host borough or the new borough?

[Edward Timpson]

The original local authority where that child was taken into care continues to have overall responsibility for their care. That is why it is important that they co-ordinate very closely with the receiving local authority to ensure that the child is cared for as well as they possibly can be. When that breaks down, it is often a consequence of the host local authority not having that real sense of responsibility and, in a sense, passing that responsibility on to the receiving local authority. That should never be the case.

In my previous life as a family law barrister, I was involved in cases where local authorities were unaware of where a child was living in the local authority to which they had been transferred. That is unacceptable, and it is exactly the sort of issue that Ofsted would be interested in when inspecting a local authority. What we are really trying to push for with these principles is to ensure that we get that continued level of interest, responsibility and determination, with local authorities still seeing those children as a high priority when fulfilling their role as corporate parent. That should never be diluted because the child happens to be moving around the system geographically.

Having grown up with foster siblings, I also know how important it is to demonstrate consistently that someone cares for and supports these children and young people; that someone worries about their safety, their relationships and their aspirations, and that they will help them realise their ambitions. Most children and young people are fortunate to have families who do that for them, but I want that for looked-after children and care leavers, too. As the local authority stands in place of these children’s parents, it is important that they should seek to act as any good parent would, as I said a few moments ago. If we take an examination of Ofsted reports that tell us where that is done well—Trafford, Hackney, Hertfordshire and Lincolnshire—we see that that is where corporate parenting is at its strongest. That is what this clause is designed to do, and what I believe it will achieve.

As was the case in the other place, this group of amendments seeks to ensure that corporate parenting principles are meaningful and practical. I believe that they are. Ofsted already has corporate parenting firmly on its radar. The inspection framework refers to corporate parents nine times, and I have no doubt that inspectors will have these principles clearly in their sights when they assess how well a local authority fulfils its corporate parent role. I have already had the pleasure of discussing this clause with Ofsted’s lead on social care, Eleanor Schooling, and I am confident that they will understand and want to test how local authorities are responding to these new principles.

As well as the wording of the clause, local authorities and Ofsted will have the statutory guidance that will be made available under this clause. As I have alluded to, that will include more detail on how the principles will work in practice, and the importance of embedding them within the culture of the organisation, driven by strong leadership from the top, as well as examples of how each principle could be applied on the ground. We plan to consult formally on draft guidance in the new year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

I do not want to take up too much of the Committee’s time. Having listened to the Minister, I am in no doubt about his aspirations. I also had the benefit of shadowing his post in the previous Parliament, and I have no doubt that his actions are well intentioned. However, I wonder whether he will be able to achieve his ambitions with this set of proposals, which is why the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields is of such significance. The danger here is that we have a set of words but no guarantee that they will translate into action.

I would have liked the Minister to explain to the Committee why there are seven principles in the first place. There were three others suggested in the House of Lords, but they were rejected out of hand. The Minister has made no reference to those whatsoever, and we have been left almost short-changed in terms of the information we have. The danger of not making this a duty is that although the Minister might think that this is the heartbeat of his legislation, to other people it looks like window dressing. The statute books are littered with children’s legislation that has been nothing more than window dressing.

That is why we should take advantage of this opportunity to probe exactly what these principles will do. If they are that important, why is the Minister not prepared to insist that local authorities should act on them? It is hard to find fault with their general wording, but I wonder whether in fact they give local authorities a great many opportunities to dance around the issues.

I note that the Minister spoke of his desire not to straitjacket local authorities, which was his reason for saying that they must “have regard to” the principles, rather than imposing them as duties. He took as his example clause 1(1)(e), about having high aspirations. I want to probe that a little further to see what he really has in mind. Are those aspirations governed by the local authority’s view of what might be high aspirations?

Once a child comes into care, their health is likely to deteriorate, particularly their mental health, which has a 50% greater chance of resulting in some kind of episode. Their education is likely to deteriorate, which is why we have created the post of virtual school head. That is why there was so much emphasis in what the Minister did in the previous Parliament on trying to raise children’s educational aspirations. Whose aspirations are we talking about: the local authority’s, the child’s, their natural parents’ or their advocate’s? Who will determine what is a high enough standard for that child? The rest of us would determine for our own children, and we would want the absolute best for them. But when the Minister talks about aspirations, whose decision will be the determining factor?

The Minister talks about not wanting to straitjacket the local authority. He gave an interesting example about refuse collection not necessarily being an area where one would want to tie the local authority into aspiration. On the surface, I would agree with him. He went on to say that in the case of housing that might be different. What about the quality of housing that a young person is placed in? Does that not affect aspiration? What about the level of the repair service they receive, if the place is in a difficult, high-rise block with mould and water running down the walls? What about the local environment that the young person is placed in? If the local authority deems it all right to put them in a run-down block of flats in a difficult part of town, where the walls are littered with graffiti and there are needles, syringes and broken bottles everywhere, does that not affect a young person’s aspiration? Should that not be something the Minister is telling us about?

Actually, clause 1(1)(e) has a huge impact on how that young person is affected. If these principles mean anything at all, should we not be leaving the Committee absolutely certain that the Minister for Children and Families is saying that the principle of aspiration, as defined in clause 1(1)(e), means that no longer will any local authority be allowed to place a child in the appalling environmental conditions that can do nothing but diminish their aspiration and affect their overall wellbeing and health?

I want to check on one other thing. In the other place, Lord Nash referred to the Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families. Has the Minister had a change of role? Has something been slightly altered? If these principles apply specifically to vulnerable young people, I wonder what that distinction is. We all know that many kinds of young people come into care, driven by many different factors, but often those who have suffered the worst neglect and abuse are the most vulnerable. If he is saying that an additional level of consideration should be applied to them, it would be good to know that.

I understand the Minister’s point—this was raised by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent—about a young person received into care by one authority who then lives in another authority. He will know as well as I do the tragedy of that. It is probably best exemplified by events in Rotherham and Rochdale. When these children, often from the south of England, are transferred to authorities in the north of England, they are completely forgotten. That is why it was possible for some of the terrible things that happened there to take place and go unnoticed. The Minister said that both authorities would have responsibility. When I pursued him on the question of conflict between authorities, he assured us that the present system is designed to cater for that. I want to raise that question once more, in relation to the point his hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset made at the outset of the Committee about the different levels of cuts and finance available to local authorities.

If a child is received into care by one local authority and then sent to live in the care of a different local authority, and if there is a set of proposals for their welfare—their education, for example, or perhaps they need counselling because of trauma they have suffered, or particular needs that were identified through an assessment following their placement—and it is deemed that they should receive a particular kind of formal support, what would happen if the local authority that received them then refused on the basis that its budget situation had since changed substantially, to the extent that it could no longer afford that service? Who would be responsible for ensuring that these principles were applied? Would it be the local authority where the child is now residing, which would undoubtedly argue that the bill had to be picked up by the local authority that had received the child into care?

I raise that point because, as the Minister said at the outset, these principles are the heartbeat of his legislation. The principles are worthless unless we know exactly how they will be applied and how they will directly affect the interests of a particular child. If the Minister cannot give us a graphic description of how that would work, these are empty principles; they are not principles that underpin a better future for children. Otherwise, this is empty legislation and these are empty words on paper that will litter the walls and shelves of social work offices up and down the country and contribute nothing to the welfare of the young people we are concerned about.

The Minister should therefore consider once again whether his principles are so essential to his legislation that they should be applied as a duty to the local authority, which should have no wriggle room from addressing them. That is the only way he will ensure that he gets the outcomes that I am sure he wants to achieve.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I note what the Minister said about a holistic approach to looking after these children. He mentioned front-line staff and the council working together as a whole, which I agree with. I was a councillor for many years in a council that is rated in the top three boroughs in the country, and I was also a cabinet member. We faced a £80 million shortfall overall and I had to make a 30% cut to the services that I was in charge of. Although I appreciate the sentiment behind these principles and I think they are very timely and needed, will the Minister comment on the fact that councils are stretched? Front-line staff are disappearing because they cannot afford to keep them on, and councils are struggling to provide even the basic services because of the lack of funding.

This is not a political point. Councils across the country are struggling with what I saw first-hand. I appreciate the sentiment that there should be an holistic approach to looking after these children—and I agree that that should happen, because they are the most vulnerable in society—can we carry that out at a time when councils are struggling with their funding because of the cuts to local government budgets from national Government?

[Edward Timpson]

This debate has been helpful in teasing out a little more understanding of the purpose of the principles. I accept that the principles in themselves are not going to transform the life of every child in care. However, as I have set out, we seek to provide a strong and comprehensive set of principles that will apply to all local authority officers, irrespective of their role, and which will engender a shared sense of responsibility and push to the forefront of their mind the impact of their decisions on children in care and care leavers placed with them.

I want to reassure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who thinks about these things very deeply and cares about making sure that we come up with an approach that will have a positive impact, that the principles are not set in isolation. All the underlying responsibilities of local authorities remain in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We have seen that the implementation of the local offer for special educational needs and disabilities is just that: an inconsistent approach and a patchwork model across the country.

A minimum level would be a benchmark that could never be lowered but could always be built on and improved. Surely that is the gold standard that we would want for all our care leavers. There is no evidence that introducing a set of minimum standards limits innovation and creativity; it is a simply a failsafe level of care. It would give clarity to both the local authority and the care leaver on what they can and cannot expect.

Care leavers often say that they struggle with what they are or are not entitled to. This would give them absolute clarity and help them plan better for independence. In practice, I lost track of the number of times when I dealt with parents who were themselves former care leavers. I went through everything and told them what they had been entitled to and they did not have a clue. This would be a good way to avoid such situations at the outset. Children should know what they are entitled to. If there is a minimum standard, they will always know what to expect.

A minimum standard would ensure that services offered would not be withdrawn when budgets are further cut by central Government and would let the people we are discussing know that their local authority and other agencies in their area really do care about their future and are committed to it wholeheartedly. Leaving the local offer to each local authority would not achieve that. The Minister must agree that we cannot justify a single child leaving care failing to receive the information that they need.

Will the Minister explain how he will ensure that the local offer will be accessible to all care leavers, whatever their circumstances when they leave care? How will he ensure that every single local authority will provide a local offer that meets the standard necessary to ensure the best possible outcomes for care leavers? Will he be taking any additional steps to ensure that there is not simply another postcode lottery that will leave a vast number of vulnerable young people unable to access the resources and support that they need? We cannot allow discrepancies in the level of care of the scale that I spoke about earlier to continue. There is no other practical way to achieve that in a timely manner.

I move on to amendment 26. As I have said, leaving care is a difficult process. Care leavers are faced with a set of difficulties that other children their age simply do not face. Is that in part why the Government introduced the local offer for care leavers that I referred to?

It is astonishing that the Bill is devoid of any mention of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. There are more than 3,000 such children in the UK care system. According to analysis of Home Office data, nearly all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children under 16 are fostered at some point. I assume that the Committee and others would think that when those children leave care they are entitled to the same support and assistance with their transition to independence as their peers—but they are not, despite being the most vulnerable of care leavers, having fled conflicts and horrors that most us can hardly begin to imagine.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank my hon. Friend for her speech. I agree with her: when we talk about unaccompanied asylum seekers and children, we are talking about the most vulnerable in society. My local authorities, Camden and Brent, have taken in asylum seekers and are looking after children. Does she agree that putting a duty on local authorities across the country to do that would send a clear signal to the rest of the world that we are acting as a leading country and taking charge of a situation where we should be doing more?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I welcome what is happening in my hon. Friend’s area. I agree completely with her comments. Once children who are unaccompanied asylum seekers reach 18, they are treated differently from other care leavers.

I recall working with many children who had escaped from conflict. Like children who have suffered abuse, their skin was grey and their eyes were emotionless. There was a look of permanent fear etched on their faces and they had an intense wariness of adults around them, which was reflected in their every movement and word. I have seen children slowly lose that look after being in placement for a while. The terror and sadness lift from their overall demeanour, because that is what feeling safe and being fed, clothed, cared for and away from a traumatic and ever-changing volatile environment can do for a child.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. I am sure that Hansard will show us all exactly what he said.

[Tulip Siddiq]

Does the shadow Minister think that the situation that the Minister described in his comparison is one that we should strive for, or should we have different standards?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I think we should all have the highest possible standards for all our children, whether they are care leavers or not. That is something we should always strive towards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

It is not a compliment where I come from.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the hon. Member for North Dorset for his contribution and his support for the shadow Minister’s amendment. I spoke in the debates on the Homelessness Reduction Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I commend many of the suggestions in that Bill. Is the shadow Minister aware of the Barnardo’s report, which outlines that young people leaving the care system are particularly vulnerable to homelessness because they cannot find appropriate accommodation when they leave?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I am aware of that report, which makes heart-breaking reading. There are lots of reports out there about care leavers. Following up on the intervention by the hon. Member for North Dorset, I agree that some local authorities have done good things in this area, but there should not be a piecemeal approach; support should be offered to all care leavers across the board. Why should one care leaver in one authority have a different service from another one? Care leavers do not care about localism; they want their local authority to give them the same thing as their friends and other care leavers next door.

Draft Childcare (Early Years Provision Free of Charge) (Extended Entitlement) Regulations 2016

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2016 General Committees

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to face the Minister again under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. It will come as no surprise to anyone listening that the Labour party welcomes any initiative to extend free childcare, but examining the regulations and the explanatory memorandum provides another opportunity to touch on several important concerns about the policy that have been expressed by Labour Members and sector leaders since it was first announced. None the less, the Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee on the regulations, as above all else we want swift progress ahead of the national roll-out of the entitlement.

The regulations are largely practical in providing a statutory framework for the policy, but the context presents a challenge to their feasibility. Childcare providers and local authorities will be keen to know whether they can truly expect to meet the demands being placed on them. Before I ask about the pressures faced by providers and authorities, I will say that the Government’s response to the early years funding formula consultation, which has somewhat changed the terms of the guidance we are discussing, offered some much-needed changes, which I welcome wholeheartedly.

Maintained nursery schools offer an excellent education to some of the most disadvantaged young children, so the guarantee of their supplement throughout this Parliament is welcome. It removes at least one unnecessary challenge for local authorities in fulfilling the measures outlined in part 4 of the regulations. Furthermore, the Opposition welcome the recognition in paragraph 9.8 of the draft explanatory memorandum of

“issues with the way the funding system currently works to support children with SEND”.

The extra funding offered for disabled children is certainly a welcome change in step, but the response from providers and sector leaders still shows the latest offer from the Government to be insufficient to achieve the requirements set out in the regulations and the policy more broadly. The difference between the cost of delivering free entitlement places, per the regulations, and the funding received from Government remains significant. Sector leaders at the National Day Nurseries Association and the Pre-school Learning Alliance have been clear that unless the gap is closed entirely, it will be difficult to secure free childcare, per part 2 of the instrument. Does the Minister believe that the concerns over the latest funding announcement are well founded? Can she say with certainty that the current offer is sufficient to implement the regulations?

Given the duties on local authorities outlined in part 4, Committee members may wish to note that the chair of the Local Government Association’s children and young people board said:

“Both councils and childcare providers are under severe financial pressures”,

and that councils

“remain very concerned that the increase in funding will not be sufficient”.

That is important because the main difference between the 2014 regulations and the draft 2016 regulations is a 20-page definition of a working parent. The decision to restrict the additional entitlement to working parents will therefore produce significant bureaucracy for local authorities and may ultimately confuse parents about whether they actually qualify. I would appreciate the Minister’s reflections on whether local authorities are equipped to handle the regulations. Specifically, it would be good to hear whether her Department has considered the extra bureaucracy being generated and whether it has a plan in place to deal with that.

I welcome the analysis in paragraph 9 of the explanatory memorandum—on the Government’s consultation—regarding the delivery of the extended entitlement, but I was surprised by some significant omissions. I am worried that there is no mention of the fact that almost two thirds of the early years providers responding to the same consultation said that they were concerned about funding. I am surprised that a memorandum covering guidance to support parents into work makes no mention of the fact that of the 25% of providers who thought there would be an impact on disadvantaged families, just 4% thought that impact would be positive. I hope the Minister will comment on some of those omissions, which constitute some of the most important findings of that consultation. The guidance seems to be missing a long-established trend in the early years acknowledged in Sir Michael Wilshaw’s annual report: that the increase in early years places has not kept pace with the increase in the early years population. How confident are the Government that there is sufficient capacity to meet demand for the extended entitlement?

The instrument before us has several laudable aims: to impose a duty on local authorities to secure early years provision; to have high quality within that provision; and to provide proper framework of eligibility. However, the positive aims, which I welcome, must be backed up with adequate resources and, most importantly, proper funding to guarantee the long-term viability of the scheme. Members of Parliament from both sides of the House and across the country have been campaigning relentlessly on behalf of early years providers and families in their constituencies to get the needed support. In particular, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), for Kingston upon Hull East, for Ashfield, for Dagenham and Rainham, and for Ealing, Southall for all the work they have done.

The idea of 30 hours of free childcare is absolutely welcome but it must be fully funded. My fears are that it is not, so I would appreciate reassurance from the Minister t his afternoon.

Free Childcare

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who opened the debate, for all the work she has done in raising the importance of the issue we are debating. She said at the beginning of her speech that she was not very savvy about technology, but she has done an amazing job, not just by having web chats but by engaging a record number of people on Facebook—mothers and fathers from across the country. It is not just about social media, however; it is about the number of face-to-face meetings she has had, the amount of research she has evidently done and the personal experience, as a secondary schoolteacher, that she has brought to the House. There are lots of people in Government who might not believe in experts but I believe in listening to them, and it is evident from my hon. Friend’s speech that she knows what she is talking about.

This is the first debate I am responding to as shadow Minister for early years, but I do not need to have that role to recognise that to give every child the best start in life, nothing is more important than the care they receive in the first few years. High-quality childcare is critical for our economy, as has been mentioned over and over by Members on both sides of the House. The biggest barrier for parents and carers returning to employment is the cost of childcare, and parental employment is vital to lifting families out of poverty.

I grew up in London in the ’80s and I remember the struggles my parents had when it came to providing childcare. We did not have grandparents around—something other hon. Members have mentioned. Before 1997, access to childcare, as well as its quality, varied enormously, and it is not a secret that Labour revolutionised the sector by introducing universal free childcare. Every three and four-year-old became entitled to 15 hours’ free childcare a week for 38 weeks of the year, which was a life-saving opportunity for parents. The measure was a huge success, with more than 90% of children aged three and four benefiting.

Another thing I benefited a lot from—as I am sure parents on both sides of the House have too—were the Sure Start centres, which were also created by a Labour Government and which served every family in the community, regardless of how much money they had. Labour expanded school nurseries and more than doubled the number of childcare places. Most importantly perhaps, we extended maternity leave from 12 weeks to 12 months, increased maternity pay and introduced paternity leave. It is shocking that it took so long, but it happened. We made childcare a key part of our plans to support families and to make work pay, but today’s debate, in 2016, shows that huge challenges remain.

Make no mistake, the petition speaks directly to the failure of the Government’s childcare policy over the past six years. Nevertheless, it is clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House, of different political colours, feel they have shared ambitions for childcare. Even if we believe in different ways of achieving those ambitions, we agree that childcare is a priority that needs to be addressed. The Government’s response to the petition fails to recognise, I am afraid, the effects of chronic underfunding on providers, but it at least acknowledges that childcare costs profoundly affect parents across the country. Labour agrees with the Government that disadvantaged two-year-olds are less likely to access formal early education than their more affluent peers and that they therefore deserve the support that will level the playing field. Further, we do not believe that we should pit those out of work, often because of circumstances beyond their control, against working parents struggling to afford childcare. We believe a distinction needs to be made between work incentive schemes and policies that must be pursued to give equal opportunities in life to impoverished children, and also to children who are disabled—a point made movingly, over and over, by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern).

The Government should also be frank about the fact that those out of work are not receiving the free childcare to which their two-year-olds are entitled, with only 42% of families in England who qualify receiving it, which compares with the uptake of Flying Start provision for two-years-olds under the Labour Administration in Wales, which stood at 86% in 2015.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady’s flow, but I would like to correct her, as she has just given out a completely factually inaccurate statistic. Some 70% of eligible two-year-olds are taking up their entitlement to a funded learning place.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the Minister for her contribution, but the source I have, which I believe and which is very credible, says that it is 42% of families, so we will have to figure out who is right. I would just like to point out again that under the Labour Administration in Wales the uptake of Flying Start provision for two-year-olds stood at 86% last year.

Labour believes that the Government have failed to deal with unacceptable local variations in the information that is available to families who could benefit from the childcare offer for two-year-olds. I have seen it myself, when knocking on doors in my constituency, and the Public Accounts Committee has heard that only 30% of parents are even aware of the family information services. That weakens the value of the childcare already on offer, when the socioeconomic gap in educational attainment is large and the benefits that come from high-quality provision for disadvantaged children are clear for everyone to see. Extending the entitlement to 30 hours a week for working families is likely to place further strain on quality and access for the most disadvantaged children, so we need to tread carefully. Labour believes that that is due to the policy criteria, the capacity of the sector and the quality of the provision that can be offered under the current funding rates. Will the Minister outline in her response how her Department will improve the quality and consistency of the information available to parents and also explain how providers can double provision with the funding they currently have?

It is clear that Government measures to help working families have been insufficient and have led to the justified anger seen in the petition. Over the last Parliament, the cost of a part-time nursery place for a child under two increased by 32%. A family paying for that type of care now spends in excess of £1,500 more than they did in 2010, and wages have been largely static, which adds to the pressures on working families. The member of the public whose Facebook post prompted the conversation we are having spoke for many when he said:

“Myself and my wife work full time and pay over £800 per month for childcare…If we had another child, I would have to give up my job, as it’s simply outrageous the amount we have to pay”.

On the Facebook page are other poignant comments by people who are struggling to make ends meet because of childcare costs. That individual’s experiences are also reflected in research by the Resolution Foundation, which shows that more than a third of mothers who want to work are unable to do so because of high childcare costs. That issue was referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South spoke extensively and eloquently about the problems of the current labour market. She told us the story of Linda from Merseyside. I can safely say to her that there are countless other Lindas, not just in my constituency but across the country, who will be able to relate to that story. Of course, childcare is not only a women’s issue—a point that has been made—but it is no secret that the pressures of childcare fall disproportionately on women, in lots of situations, especially the one that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North mentioned.

I want to come back to the tax-free childcare scheme that the Government speak about. The Government talk about helping those who are just managing, but the cap on working tax credit means that in 11 local authorities the average cost of part-time childcare now exceeds the support on offer. Furthermore, the tax-free childcare scheme, which I am sure the Minister will mention, has been poorly communicated and twice frustrated by Government delays. Research has indicated that the scheme will only deliver for those on high incomes, meaning that it may not support the families who need it most. Labour believes that it is proving to be a wasted opportunity in addressing the root cause of mounting childcare costs, not least for those struggling to make ends meet.

I also want to touch briefly on the funding formula and the lack of places. We believe that the extortionate costs that parents face—different Members have mentioned that over and over again in this debate—are the result of reduced funding being given to providers and the shortage of places available. Under the new early years funding formula, many providers will receive a much lower hourly income for free early education places, which is a disgrace. That reduction is happening when providers are experiencing higher running costs and expanding provision to keep alive the Government’s pledge of 30 hours of free childcare a week. Anyone who listened to the last Education questions will know that I have raised the issue over and over again.

The Family and Childcare Trust reveals that the number of English local authorities reporting a shortage of free early education places for three and four-year-olds has more than doubled. Figures from the House of Commons Library show that the number of places available has fallen by 45,000 since 2009. The figures speak for themselves. The Department for Education recently announced that it was paying £3 million for a private consultancy to find the 45,000 places needed to make the 30 hours’ free entitlement work. That is a choice figure. The costs that providers face, such as business rates and pension auto-enrolments, are fuelling the rapid increases in childcare costs. However, what worries me is that more than one quarter of local authorities will lose money through the funding formula while being asked to manage the costs and to double the childcare entitlement. A 2015 report by the Institute for Public Policy Research explored the possible consequences of such a funding gap. It said:

“Underfunding the 30 hours offer would lead to a smaller, less flexible market as providers…either exit, reduce the breadth of services that they offer, take on fewer children, or refuse to offer the free hours…This would reduce parental choice and potentially push up costs for paid hours or other services outside of the free offer, such as childcare for most under-3s”.

I will draw my remarks to a close, because I want to hear what the Minister has to say. In addition to their punitive funding formula, the Government have as yet refused to commit to supplementary funding for nurseries beyond the two years. Nurseries have been clear, both in the conversations I have had and in writing to all Members of the House, that the cocktail of funding pressures will ultimately push them into an unsustainable financial situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North eloquently referred to that in her speech. I hope the Minister will put an end to the uncertainty and immediately commit to funding to guarantee the long-term future of nursery schools.

Labour believes that working parents are bearing the burden of the Government demanding unachievable expansion in provision while providing woeful under- funding. It is no secret that the autumn statement is happening this week. We demand that the Chancellor provides parents and teachers across the country with the funding to keep nurseries open, to reduce the costs of funded places and to meet the Government’s 30 hours promise to parents. I hope the Minister will be able to offer even the slightest encouragement that those figures will be in the Chancellor’s autumn statement.

I finish by echoing the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North, who secured this debate. The early years cannot just be seen as an add-on. They are crucial to social mobility and to children reaching their full potential. Most importantly, they are crucial to the future of our country and the productivity of our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

I did not know that interesting statistic. The hon. Lady is right. Providing better early education can only ever be a really good thing.

Some hon. Members have asked why all two-year-olds do not get a fully funded place. Such places are not offered to all two-year-old children because evidence tells us that the greatest proportion of parents return to work and need childcare when their children turn three. Some parents feel that two years is too young for their children to be in formal childcare and prefer to keep them at home. I was similar to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and did not stay in the childcare environment for as long as I could have done. That probably gives me an added respect for the amazing individuals who work in that incredible profession.

We wanted to focus resources where they would have the greatest impact for the largest number of families. That is why we prioritised the introduction of an additional 15 hours for the working parents of three and four-year-olds.

The main driver behind the two-year-old programme is to improve outcomes for the children who need the most help in getting the best start in life. For that reason, we do not impose conditions on parents who are eligible for a place, but we hope the programme will support parents from poorer backgrounds to move into employment and training. We have come an incredibly long way since 2013. As I have already mentioned, 70% of eligible two-year-olds now take up their entitlement to a funded learning place.

We also know that 84% of all two-year-olds who take up their entitlement do so in good or outstanding settings, which means that children are receiving their learning in high quality environments. That is fantastic progress and will ensure that thousands of disadvantaged children get the right start in life.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I am sorry the Minister seems a bit rattled by what I have said. I am the Opposition spokesperson and I will hold the Government to account and do my duty in making sure that childcare is properly provided to parents; and I want to hear about the funding. The statistic I cited, which the Minister disputed, was from the Family and Childcare Trust childcare costs survey 2016. In England, the uptake of free early education among two-year-olds stood at 58% in January and at 46% in London. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I am keen to tell the hon. Lady what I think. Because she is very new to her role, I am prepared to cut her some slack. If she chats to her hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South, she will find that she can hold the Government to account in a constructive and positive way, rather than in an endlessly and relentlessly negative way.

[Tulip Siddiq]

Will the Minister give way?

[Caroline Dinenage]

No, I have given way enough. In answer to her question, the figures are the Government’s figures and they are correct.

I want to make progress. We know that it is not only the most disadvantaged parents who need help with childcare costs. That is why we are increasing our investment in childcare from £5 billion to £6 billion a year by 2019-2020. We remain absolutely committed to providing 15 hours a week of early learning to all parents with three and four-year-olds. In addition to this universal entitlement, we will introduce 30 hours a week of childcare from September 2017, which will support more than 400,000 working families with three and four-year-olds, saving them around £5,000 a year in childcare costs. We want to remove the real financial barriers that prevent parents from going back to work or increasing their current hours, so that they can realise their potential and contribute to our economy and their children’s future.

[Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Lady is right. Flexibility is really important, which is why our recent consultation response committed us to offering free hours between the hours of 6 am and 8 pm to meet the needs of parents who work shifts. We also encourage local authorities and providers to offer the free hours over more than 38 weeks a year so that parents can stretch their hours, whether it is fewer hours over more weeks or during the school holidays. The flexibility that she talked about is really important.

At present, the Government are piloting the programme in eight early implementer areas. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North spoke about the importance of the really good trials going on at the moment. It is the same in the early implementer areas. Through these early implementers, more than 3,500 children have already taken up a 30-hour place one year early, which is giving their parents more disposable income and an opportunity to return to work or work more hours. We expect that figure to increase during the course of early implementation, because more parents will become eligible for the extended entitlement at different points during the year. I want to put on the record my gratitude to Hertfordshire, Newham, Northumberland, Portsmouth, Swindon, Staffordshire, Wigan, York and the childcare providers in those areas who have worked tirelessly to make the programme a reality.

The eight early implementers provide us with an opportunity to address key delivery issues for the 30-hour offer, and for us to test the practical ways that councils and providers can work together. Various Members have spoken about the specific challenges of different areas of the country: for example, the challenges in Aberdeen with the offshore workers. My constituency has a lot of families with partners in the armed forces, particularly in the Royal Navy, who face a similar challenge. That is why we have various early implementer pilots going on to look at all such challenges. For example, Northumberland is focusing on rurality and Staffordshire is focusing on work incentives, as is Swindon, along with flexibility, including the use of Saturday provision via a nursery attached to a hospital to support the staff who work there. Newham is focusing on developing a range of delivery models and supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities. Wigan and Hertfordshire are exploring partnerships through the use of childcare hubs and supporting parents back into work, and Portsmouth is supporting low-income families.

[Ian Paisley in the Chair]

Alongside our early implementers, we have also recruited 24 early innovator local authorities, which will provide valuable learning to support the roll-out of the 30-hour offer by developing approaches to support children with special educational needs and disabilities; developing scalable, flexible models that meet the needs of working parents; ensuring the sufficiency of the local childcare markets; and stimulating parental demand for the new entitlement to act as a work incentive.

I would like to point out that the consultancy that the Opposition spokesperson said £3 million is being spent on is actually not a consultancy; it is a contract to offer practical support to local authorities and childcare providers to help them get ready to deliver the 30 hours. It includes sharing lessons from the early implementers—

[Tulip Siddiq]

It is a consultancy.

[Caroline Dinenage]

It is not a consultancy. It provides courses and shares best practice. It is about being out there, on the ground, speaking one-to-one to administrators and deliverers. The hon. Lady really needs to look up the meaning of the word “consultancy”. It offers practical help on the ground to providers, and helps them to get the very best out of their business models.

The lessons learned from the combined delivery approach of the early implementers and innovators offer a unique opportunity to provide vital information to the local authorities getting ready to meet parental demand when national roll-out takes place. We are capturing learning throughout the year and sharing it with all local authorities to ensure that early implementation is a success—that is what the £3 million contract is about—and that full roll-out has the benefit of the learning that success generates. The more planning and testing we can do in the widest possible number of areas, the more likely we are to have a smooth launch of this key Government priority.

At the same time, the Government will introduce tax-free childcare from early 2017, which is intended to help parents with the cost of living by subsidising the cost of childcare. The tax-free childcare will be paid per child, rather than per parent, and childcare costs will be subsidised for children up to the age of 12, or 17 if they are disabled. The Government calculate that, once it is fully implemented, about 2 million working families across the UK will have access to the new scheme. It will give parents a 20% subsidy on their childcare costs, up to a maximum contribution of £2,000 per child per year, or £4,000 for disabled children. The scheme will effectively subsidise 20% of childcare costs—up to £10,000 per child.

In addition, the Government’s flagship welfare reform programme, universal credit, also offers help with the cost of childcare for parents on lower incomes, even if they work only a few hours a week. Working parents on universal credit can now claim up to 85% of their childcare costs. Together with the 30 hours and tax-free childcare, that amounts to an unprecedented level of support to working parents for their childcare costs.

The hon. Member for Warrington North talks as though the high cost of childcare—we all know it is high, and I have outlined the many things the Government are doing to tackle it—is a recent phenomenon. Many hon. Members who spoke today have the advantage of having youth on their side and of having young children— I am jealous of them—but I was a parent during the previous Labour Government, which the Opposition spokesman spoke about in such glowing terms. I put my children through early years childcare under a Government who presided over the most expensive childcare in Europe. I was working to pay for my childcare. The Government introduced the 15-hours offer, but not everybody offered it, and I had great difficulty accessing it. Childcare is one of the biggest obstacles to women getting back into work, which is why it is important that we have all the schemes I have talked about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Dinenage]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We must tackle the causes of poverty, and the Government have set out stretching ambitions to remove barriers to work and to increase employment. The 30-hours offer will contribute significantly, helping families with the cost of childcare.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I note the Minister’s earlier response, but I am sure she is aware that of the nurseries that responded to her very own consultation on free childcare half said that they were desperately in need of funding and a quarter said that they were not receiving enough money to cover their basic costs. In the run-up to the general election, the Conservative party promised millions of people in Britain that they would receive 30 hours of free childcare. Given that nurseries are struggling to meet even their basic costs, more money is needed—not just to fulfil this pledge, but to fight off the threat of closure. Will the Minister join me in pushing her Chancellor to include in the autumn statement next week the vital extra funding needed to ensure that our nurseries are protected?

Oral Answers to Questions

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I would like to come back to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). The fairer early years funding plan has created a ticking time bomb for nurseries. Figures revealed by the Secretary of State’s own Department show that 25% of local authorities across the country will lose out financially. I am afraid that her earlier answer will do nothing to reassure the National Association of Head Teachers, which believes that that will lead to the closure of hundreds of nurseries. Will she today commit to a funding pledge for nurseries for provision for after the first two years, so that the pledge of 30 hours of free childcare will be honoured for all?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Caroline Dinenage)]

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Lady to her place on the Opposition Front Bench. I can reassure her that the funding formula that we have consulted on will make funding fairer, more transparent and more sustainable. Indeed, she is misinformed: our proposals mean that 88% of local authorities and their providers can expect to see their funding rates increase.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Edward Timpson]

The hon. Lady raises an area of education of which I have seen some excellent examples. However, she must remember the backdrop against which we are taking the education system forward. We have protected funding, with more money going into primary and secondary education than ever before, as well as a protected pupil premium of £2.5 billion over the next year. We have a strong curriculum for primary school children so that they learn the basics and have the building blocks to ensure that they have a brighter future. It is for schools to decide how they can achieve that, but they have the money to make it happen.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

12. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the schools admissions appeals process.

[The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)]

When parents are refused a place for their child at a school of their choice, it is important that they have the opportunity to appeal that decision. A robust system is in place for handling admissions appeals, including complaints about appeal maladministration. We are currently reviewing the admissions systems, including whether changes to the school admission appeals code are necessary. We will conduct a full public consultation on any changes in due course.

[Tulip Siddiq]

The Secretary of State recently stated her ambition for the Government potentially to ban civil society organisations from raising concerns about the admissions processes of schools. Those organisations perform an important public duty. Constituents have been in touch with me to say that they find the admissions process too complex and too lengthy to deal with by themselves. Does the Minister agree that banning civil society organisations from raising concerns will not only exacerbate the difficulties that parents already face, but further enable breaches of the admissions code?

[Mr Gibb]

The purpose of that announcement was to enable the chief schools adjudicator to focus on the concerns of parents and not to have the system absorbed by the need to handle multiple objections by campaigning organisations. That was a recommendation of the adjudicator as a consequence of her experiencing those issues in her term of office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

Yes, we have made some significant reforms to the D and T GCSE and A-level, working closely with the Design and Technology Association and the James Dyson Foundation to ensure we have high-quality D and T qualifications that lead on to higher education, apprenticeships and high-quality employment in the sector. I hope the qualification itself will lead to more young people taking it.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

T7. Last week I attended an event organised by Positively UK and the Royal Central School of Speech and Drama in my constituency to celebrate the lives of women living with HIV. Does the Minister agree that not enough is being done to educate children in schools about HIV and the support available to women living with it?

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Lady raises a very important issue. It is one of the very few explicitly statutory requirements that young people in secondary school have to be taught about the dangers of HIV. I share her concern. We need to improve the quality of PSHE education throughout our system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government allocate funding for new school places on the basis of forecasts of need provided by local authorities, and these forecasts change from year to year, reflecting local demographics and the effect of previous years’ capital spending. I know that the Department’s officials are in close contact with Bradford Metropolitan District Council, but I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend if he would find a further discussion helpful, and perhaps liaise through him with Bradford council.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

T5. Swiss Cottage School in my constituency is an outstanding school that looks after children with special, complex and emotional needs. Regrettably, it is having to turn away pupils because of limited capacity. Does the Secretary of State believe that her Department is doing enough to look after children with special, complex and emotional needs, and does she believe that there is adequate provision for such vulnerable children across the country?

[Nicky Morgan]

I actually visited the school in the course of the past year and found it to be truly exceptional. It is staffed by a wonderfully talented headteacher and members of staff. We have invested in all schools, both those catering for special educational needs and those in the mainstream, but there is more we can do to prepare teachers for teaching children with special educational needs. We have a dedicated capital funding stream for schools catering for children with special educational needs. I strongly encourage her school to apply.

Trade Union Bill

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

I will not test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by straying from the amendments, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the retrospective elements are particularly pernicious. Governments should refrain from retrospective legislation. I cannot believe, either, that the time periods were recommended by officials. When I was a Minister in the Department, any time period for consultation on a major change to a system involving business was always at least 18 months, so I am shocked if officials have advised Ministers that two months is sufficient.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The Government have often used the rhetoric of fairness in trying to conceal their savage attack on workers’ rights. Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals to replace striking staff with agency staff are draconian? This measure was banned almost 10 years before I was born.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she will have a chance to develop her point further when we debate that very matter.

Recruitment and Retention of Teachers

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point.

The OECD workload diary survey found teachers working a staggering 50 hours per week compared with the average of 38.3 hours across the countries surveyed. It is becoming harder and harder to keep hold of qualified and experienced teachers. Frankly, that is no surprise. Demoralised, overworked and undervalued by a Government who treat the profession as a political football and a group to be taken on and beaten, its dedicated members are doing their best in extremely challenging circumstances.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Teacher workload is often cited as a major reason for the increased problems with teacher retention. Forty-four per cent. of teachers in the Department for Education teachers workload survey said that their time spent on doing unnecessary and bureaucratic tasks has increased under the Conservative Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should investigate what those unnecessary tasks are and what can be done to relieve teachers of them?

[Louise Haigh]

I could not agree more.

The irony is that the Government’s criticism of teachers comes at a time when teachers are working harder than ever before. It is a scandal that the teaching workload is growing out of control and that, even as they work harder than ever, teachers remain so undervalued. The Government must know that this is happening. Their own figures tell the story of the teacher retention crisis. In the 12 months up to 2013, 50,000 qualified teachers left the state sector, equivalent to one in 12 of the entire profession, and the highest rate for over a decade. Furthermore, 100,000 teachers never even taught despite finishing their training.