Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

The simple answer is absolutely yes. It is frustrating that despite examples of good and best practice in local authorities up and down the country in a matter where speed is of the essence and where people are focused entirely on the best outcomes for children, there are other local authorities—I fear that my hon. Friend’s is among them—where that is not the case. The adoption scorecard will ensure that local authorities that are not pulling their weight or doing the best by children are named and shamed, and ensure that they get their act together and up their game, because it should be in the best interests of the children.

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

Ofsted’s latest report also stated that there was little evidence that delays were caused by social workers seeking the perfect match, which the Government have so far focused on. Rather, Ofsted mentioned parties to court proceedings demanding repeat assessments because they lacked confidence in social workers’ reports. What are the Government doing to tackle the issues that are really slowing up adoptions, rather than simply chasing easy headlines?

[Tim Loughton]

Given how much work we did before the general election, and how much we have done since, on the whole gamut of adoption, the hon. Lady will know that chasing easy headlines is the least of my concerns. I am concerned about getting a better deal for children who find themselves in the care system through no fault of their own. That means dealing with children’s services departments that are not treating adoption as a priority, dealing with the family justice system, which is too slow and tardy, and ensuring that every step of the way we are focused on getting the best outcomes for children who find themselves in the care system. That is not an easy headline; it is something that the Government place a great priority on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Teather]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on this point, which is one reason we are about to begin trials of payment by results with local authorities and children’s centres—to ensure that they are focusing on the families who most need early intervention. It is one of a range of areas where we are trying to focus much more on outcomes, rather than just inputs.

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

The Department for Education has just published an interesting report showing a clear link between poor parenting and antisocial behaviour in children. What is the Minister’s view on the report and its recommendations for more family support and early intervention, and does she not agree that the short-sighted reductions to the early intervention grant, particularly in deprived areas, run counter to her own Department’s findings?

[Sarah Teather]

As the hon. Lady might know, last summer we announced that we would trial a new offer of parenting classes for all parents in three specific areas. That will be an interesting exercise, and we shall see what happens and whether we can encourage more people to come forward and take part in parenting support. Of course, children’s centres offer this kind of targeted, highly intensive work for families in many situations, and schools can use the pupil premium to pay for that, should they choose to do so

Rural Schools

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Westminster Hall

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

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) on securing today’s interesting and important debate and on making a powerful case. He told us about the proposal to close Captain Shaw’s school in Bootle in his constituency, which has 16 pupils. I think we would all agree that, in bringing the matters before the House today, he has represented his constituents with great passion. Such decisions can be made only at a local level, but it is right for my hon. Friend to seek to raise the profile of the issue by securing today’s debate. The points that he has raised here should be fully considered by the local authority before making any final decision.

We also had interesting contributions from a number of hon. Members today, including the hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and—in a rather impromptu manner, but no less interesting and important —the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael).

Before I start, I should set out my own credentials and declare that I live in a distinctly urban area of Newcastle upon Tyne, and it takes me only three hours to arrive here by train. None the less, there is a strong case to be made here in today’s important debate about the issues that face rural communities, especially in relation to schools.

Contrary to the assertions made by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, Labour had, within a year of coming into government, introduced a presumption against closures of rural schools. The year in which the number of rural school closures was the highest was 1983, when 127 were closed. The rate of closures continued at about 30 a year until 1997. The measures taken by Labour reduced closures to an average of seven a year throughout the period we were in government. Furthermore, under the Education and Inspections Act 2006, the presumption against closure was strengthened by requiring that the closure of rural schools must take the effect on the community into account and look at alternatives.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

Will the hon. Lady tell me whether the closure of schools under the Labour Government could have been stopped at the national level?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Sorry. I did not quite understand the question.

[Mr Turner]

I am trying to ask whether under the previous Government, closure of schools could have been stopped, as it had been before 1997, by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

That is a point to be debated. I think the hon. Gentleman was asking whether the Secretary of State could have intervened to stop the closure of state schools.

[Mr Turner]

indicated assent.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Not during that period, and not now.

[Rory Stewart]

I do not wish to debate statistics, but I am afraid that the idea that the average rate of school closures since 1997 is seven is a severe underestimation. I could name, off the top of my head, seven schools in my own constituency that were closed in the past five years.

[Catherine McKinnell]

No, but I agree that the hon. Gentleman has made a powerful case for the concerns in the area, regarding the decline that he feels he has witnessed in his area. I feel that all hon. Members today have made a powerful case for state intervention, particularly in such areas, and for serious consideration to be given to how the state can intervene in the market to try to ensure that rural areas do not suffer disproportionately, particularly in the cuts environment that we are facing at the moment. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the concerns that have been raised today.

[Neil Carmichael]

I do not think I was making a case for state intervention. I was making a case for empowering our local communities to take charge of their own schools and to take hold of the opportunities given by the Academies Act 2010, autonomous schools and active, vibrant communities.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarification. The overall impression that I got from hon. Members’ contributions today is that there clearly is a powerful case for concern about a purely market-led approach to education and the impact that that can have on rural communities.

[Mr Reed]

There is a world of difference between allowing communities to flourish and determine their own future, and throwing areas of market failure further to the forces and whims of the marketplace. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are all struggling with the following point? We are all debating different notions of rurality, and we are not considering some things that she will be aware of—as this is writ large in her own constituency—which are issues and notions of peripherality? They are the big issues that are driving the problem.

[Catherine McKinnell]

That is something we have witnessed not just in rural areas, but in urban areas. We need to ensure that taxpayers’ money and state support goes to all areas and all children—at the end of the day, they are what we are talking about today—that they benefit equally, and that that support is distributed equally across the country. We are debating that important wider issue.

Sometimes, when we consider all the factors, including the cost of additional school transport and the extreme case that was mentioned, in Alston in Penrith and The Border, it can make the case for closure of a small rural school more marginal. We were clear about the need to presume against closing rural schools when we were in government. In January 2008, the then Schools Minister, Jim Knight, now Lord Knight of Weymouth in another place, wrote to local education authorities. He said:

“Over the last 10 years, we have made it a statutory requirement for councils to presume that rural schools should stay open. There is not, and never has been, any policy for closing rural schools...We require councils to assess the full impact of closure on rural communities and allow every single parent to have their voice heard—and I am writing to local authorities to underline their legal duty to protect popular rural schools. This is not about funding. This is caused by falling birth rates coupled with families moving from rural to urban areas, which leaves some communities with falling numbers of pupils.”

He also said that local authorities should think creatively about their future planning and look at forming federations or consider collocating with other services to ensure that their buildings are viable.

Labour’s record was to reduce significantly the rate of rural school closures and to make it more difficult for failing ones to automatically lead to the seemingly easy option of closure.

One way of keeping rural schools open is to ensure that there are more opportunities for them to collaborate in an imaginative way. Despite the rhetoric that the Government sometimes spout, no school is an island. In the case of rural schools, that is particularly important—a point that has been highlighted by hon. Members today.

Under the previous Government, the Department for Children, Schools and Families undertook a research study in 2009 to look at case studies of formal collaborations between small rural primary schools in ways that could improve their services and viability. We saw examples of that occurring in sharing business managers and head teachers, creating patterns of executive leadership and sharing governance through federations and shared trusts. The study found a rich variety of informal collaborations but less awareness of formal collaborative models. It found that many of the 2,500 or so small primary schools in the country could benefit from more formal collaborations.

The main recommendations of the report include: producing better information and guidance of statutory models of collaboration; local authorities should develop strategic plans to promote formal collaborations; local authorities and Church of England dioceses should co-operate more closely; and local authorities should advocate formal collaborations more effectively through governing bodies and local communities.

One of the collaborations that was looked at involved shared trusts. In the unbalanced debate that there is at the moment because of the obsession with free schools and academies, not enough attention is being paid to the potential of trusts not only to keep open small rural schools, but to provide a coherent and integrated model of education in rural areas.

One of the most exciting developments is the spread of co-operative trusts. There are now more than 150 co-operative schools across the country. Particularly in areas such as Cornwall, there is real interest in that approach. Supporting co-operative models was a policy of the previous Labour Government and a commitment in “The Children’s Plan,” launched in 2007. By embedding what is essentially a social enterprise ethos in schools, co-operative schools can be based on values of collaboration and partnership, rather than the negative forms of competition between schools that the Government sometimes seem to advocate.

I shall put to the Minister questions that follow on from the points that I have raised and that respond to the points highlighted by other hon. Members. What are the Government doing to promote and encourage co-operative schools, particularly in rural areas? What are they doing to permit resources to promote the co-operative school model in the same way as they have earmarked funds for their pet project of free schools? How much money in total has the Minister allocated to the free schools policy? To what extent could that be diverted to other proposals? How much does it work out at per pupil? How many rural school closures could be prevented if money allocated to free schools in areas where there is a shortage of pupil places were diverted to small rural communities such as the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland is so concerned about? Will the Minister retain the previous Government’s presumption against closing rural schools? Will he guarantee that the current Government will ensure that the rate of rural closures does not go up on his watch? I have concerns and, indeed, there are many concerns among Labour Members that an over-focus on peripheral projects means that the Government are in danger of forgetting about the real issues that face rural schools. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

If I were a less experienced Member of this House, the hon. Lady’s erudition and charm might encourage me to make predictions about the Queen’s Speech, but it would be quite wrong to do so and I cannot possibly answer that question. What I will say is that the determination on this side of the House to seed opportunity by providing greater access to higher education is a profound one.

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

10. What recent progress he has made on determining the location of the green investment bank.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

In December, the Department invited applications to bid for hosting the green investment bank. The closing date was Monday 30 January, and a total of 32 bids were received. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a decision shortly.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Newcastle has submitted an outstanding bid to host the green investment bank, and as a region we have the right mix of natural environment, green expertise, infrastructure and professional services, all supported to grow under the last Government in order to make it a success. However, bearing in mind that we are the region with the highest unemployment levels, to what extent will the Government’s commitment to supporting private sector growth, particularly in areas suffering the greatest loss of public sector employment, be a factor in the decision-making process?

[Mr Prisk]

I do not wish to prejudice the case Newcastle has put forward as one of the applicants. All I will say is that we will look at the points the hon. Lady has raised as part of the criteria for all applicants, and make sure that we can get a decision out by the end of the month.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

School Sport

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate on behalf of the Opposition, Mr Amess. I wholeheartedly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate him on his work as the Minister with responsibility for sport in the previous Government, when he worked tirelessly to extend opportunities for engagement in sport to children and young people.

Given the contributions made during the debate today, it is clear that this matter needs to be far from a political game in this House. There have been positive contributions, and I am pleased that there still seems to be cross-party agreement on the importance of sport for children. The previous Labour Government and the coalition have focused on the Olympics in school sport. That emphasis is correct, given our commitment to host the Olympics next year. However, I want to use this debate to urge the Secretary of State for Education, through the Minister responding today, to rethink the Government’s decision to make such drastic and damaging cuts to support for school sport—I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) that the support has been cut—not just to ensure that we deliver on our Olympic promise, but to ensure that young people today get the sporting opportunities that can transform their educational outcomes and their lives.

School sport partnerships were at the forefront of ensuring that the second key Olympic pledge—to transform a generation of young people through sport—was met. Sadly, and regrettably, the coalition Government do not seem to have recognised the value of SSPs, despite their international acclaim. They were one of the reasons—along with the hard work of teachers, sports leaders and volunteers around the UK—why between 2002 and 2010 the number of young people doing at least two hours or more of sport a week rose from 25% to 90%. There has been a marked drop since the figures for 2010 were released, which is extremely worrying.

All the evidence suggests that cutting funding for school sports results in fewer young people accessing high quality sport opportunities. Some reduction in funding was expected, but to announce a cut to the entire £162 million grant so close to the Olympics, and when childhood obesity is such a key public health concern, was clearly wrong and sends out alarming signals.

The Secretary of State’s justification for the cuts is that the Government want to focus on encouraging more children to play competitive sports through the school games project which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham explained, is funded by multiple bodies including the Departments for Education, for Culture, Media and Sport and for Health, as well as the national lottery. There are, however, serious concerns about whether that funding will go any way to meet the requirement for sustainable funding that the school sport partnerships initiative offered our young people, and I seek clarity from the Minister about what consideration his Department has given to school sport post-2013.

Now is not the time to put our children’s sport at risk. One simple reason for that is because the cost of the sporting activities taken up by a young person, regardless of their ability, will negate the potential cost to the Exchequer of treating obesity and health-related problems later in that person’s life. In my constituency, about 25% of pupils in year 6—10-year-olds—are defined as clinically obese. They are not just overweight; they are obese. If the Government do not make a commitment now to provide sustainable funding for school sports, there is a genuine risk, both in Newcastle and around the country, that that percentage will increase, as will the cost of providing obesity-related health care.

We have not yet mentioned the benefits to educational standards that derive from participation in sport. Research from Sport England, and around the world, has shown that young people who participate in sport are higher educational achievers. I do not doubt the Government’s sincerity in wishing to raise educational standards, but I wonder whether they genuinely appreciate the support that schools require to increase levels of participation in sport, and the lost opportunities for academic attainment that will result from cutting that support.

We warmly welcome the funding that has been committed to school sport by the Department for Education and will provide £32.5 million per year for PE teacher release funding over the next two years. There is, however, still great uncertainty about the future of that money and the extent to which it will be ring-fenced and protected. In allocating that money, the Government have deliberately placed a focus on competitive sport. That is important if we are to encourage the talented sportsmen and women of the future, and so that children and young people have the opportunity to engage in competitive sport and enjoy the challenges and benefits that it brings. None the less, competitive sport and non-competitive sport are not mutually exclusive, and we should encourage young people to participate in sport regardless of whether it is competitive. There are clear advantages for the health and general well-being of an individual if they engage in sport and exercise, in whatever form.

The Department for Education must accept that sport plays a key role in encouraging all children to be the best they can, both academically and in the lifestyle choices that they make and the relationships that they form with their peers and others. Sport plays a vital role in that development process, and the results achieved by school sport partnerships in reversing the trend of youth inactivity were clear and—as my hon. Friends have noted—internationally acclaimed.

A huge concern has been raised about the Government’s ability to measure their success or failure with regard to school sport. The school sport survey was conducted annually from 2003-04 until 2009-10, and those data have been invaluable for measuring the success of policies and highlighting opportunities for improvement. When defending their actions on school sport, the Government routinely respond with the claim that only 21% of children regularly took part in inter-school competitive sport. I reiterate the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South who called on the Minister to avoid reeling off misleading statistics when he responds to the debate.

Although arguments about the use of the school sport survey as a measure of success have been well rehearsed, my point is that the Government relied on that survey to make their case for cutting some support for schools, and to increase funding in other areas. That survey has now been scrapped in the name of reducing red tape, and it will make it difficult—I would hate to think that this is intentional—to measure the success or failure of the Government’s policies on school sport, and in particular the level of participation in sport and the effects of the cuts to school sport partnerships. Data from the active people survey show that adult participation in sport has—unsurprisingly—fallen in 19 sports over the past year, and increased in only four. That is the first fall in levels of participation in sport among people aged 16 and over since we won the Olympic bid in 2005.

Although the Government have definite ideas about deficit reduction, it is crucial that short-term savings are not made at a greater expense to the public purse in later years. Participation in sport at school plays a vital role in combating inactivity among young people, which can contribute to ill health, obesity and lower educational attainment.

I welcome some of the constructive comments made by the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) about areas in which the Government could invest and improve participation in sport for young people. He made a constructive suggestion about a national insurance deal to aid sports leaders, volunteers and teachers in encouraging out-of-school activities for young people. He also made useful comments about the way that school sport is judged by Ofsted, and whether encouraging sports teachers and rewarding them for their hard work could provide an incentive and help achieve higher levels of participation in sport. Sports teachers contribute many hours to running clubs for young people or sports centres, and that work often goes unrewarded and unnoticed. I am conscious of the number of sports facilities in this country that fall within the remit of the Department for Education. The vast majority of sports facilities in this country are found in schools, and it is vital that those facilities are made available to all young people.

School sport partnerships undeniably played a major role in increasing and supporting wider participation in sport. The Government have not only put those partnerships at risk, but dismantled the means by which the impact of the funding changes can be measured. The health and well-being of our nation is greatly enhanced and enriched through participation in sport—all sport, whether competitive sport or that aimed at increasing a person’s fitness levels or mental agility—and I am sure that all hon. Members share that vision. Will the Minister reassure hon. Members, as well as our young people, their parents and teachers and the army of sports teachers and volunteers up and down the country, that we will deliver not only on our Olympic promise, but on our commitment to helping our nation’s children develop into healthy and active achievers of the future?

Economic Growth and Employment

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

It is clearly the case, as we saw from the evidence of the Department’s permanent secretary to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee a couple of weeks ago.

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

I reiterate the point about the expertise that has been lost due to the abolition of the RDAs. The European regional development fund is another vital source of money for businesses. Millions of pounds, particularly in the north-east, remain unspent, and only one fund, from the regional growth fund in Manchester, has been used as match funding for ERD funding. That is a huge waste of important business support that could be going to people throughout the country.

[Mr Umunna]

Perhaps the Secretary of State will address that comment in his response.

Almost one year after the regional growth fund was announced, and six months after due diligence should have been completed, the winning bidder to which I have referred has still not received any money from the regional growth fund. It is clear to me, in that case, where the blame lies for the delay: it is not with the successful bidder. That organisation provides onward distribution of fund awards to businesses that desperately need it. As a result of the chaos, confusion and delay, the bidder in that case tells me that between 3,000 and 4,000 businesses are being deprived of the moneys they need, putting an estimated 11,800 jobs at risk.

What about the other bidders that provide the onward distribution of funds, and the businesses that could support jobs and growth? As I have said, the situation is a fiasco. It is no way to run a Department, and it is no way to treat our businesses or grow our economy. The Secretary of State and his Department are not doing enough to get our economy growing; what little they are doing, they are doing badly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

Adoption

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I sincerely pay tribute to the hon. Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) for securing this important and well-attended debate. Her work in this area, both in Parliament and as a family law barrister before her election, is highly regarded, and she gave an excellent speech that acknowledged the complexity of the issue. The debate has been extremely interesting, with excellent contributions from all hon. Members.

The debate is timely. As mentioned, last week was national adoption week. It has been running since 1997 and provides us all with a reminder of the need to raise awareness of adoption, the importance of encouraging adoptive parents to come forward, and the need to highlight the importance of adoption for those children who, for whatever reason, cannot remain with their birth parents. Ministers used last week to make a number of important announcements on this issue. I add my support, in particular, to the announcement that adopted children will be given the same priority in school admissions as looked-after children, which builds on the work of the previous Labour Government.

I welcome the new adopters’ charter, which sets out clear principles on how adopters should be treated, and I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is giving his backing to the Give a Child a Home campaign, which was launched by the British Association of Adoption and Fostering and the Fostering Network. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) set out so well, it is as important to focus on fostering and the people who give up their time to foster children as it is to focus on those who adopt.

The most high-profile announcement last week was on performance tables, which the Department for Education will use to assess local authorities. The aim is to act

“as a challenge to local authorities to do better for the children in their care.”

I agree that all local authorities, and society at large, could and should do better in terms of support for looked-after children. We all know that outcomes for looked-after children are unacceptably poor. We all accept that the fall in the number of adoptions is a concern, and we certainly all acknowledge that an average waiting time of two years and seven months for a child to be adopted is simply far too long. However, I am concerned that naming and shaming local authorities seriously risks painting too simplistic a picture of an incredibly complex issue. Have Ministers considered what impact the threat of tough action against those local authorities will have on the morale, recruitment and retention of already overstretched social workers?

The Government’s performance tables risk failing to present a true picture of a local authority’s performance. Hackney borough council came bottom of the new league table, placing only 43% of children with adoptive parents within 12 months of a decision to do so. However, as Hackney borough council stated:

“Placing a child quickly should not be the only consideration upon which authorities are judged. A placement breaking down is one of the most traumatic things that can happen to an adopted child. In Hackney, we have one of the best records of stability of placements; such is the quality of our placements, hardly any, if any, ever break down.”

There is also the risk of creating perverse incentives for local authorities to push for rushed adoptions—in place of special guardianship arrangements, or concurrent planning that might be more appropriate in the circumstances—to meet what risk being arbitrary targets. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich mentioned, we need to listen to Coram, one of the country’s leading voluntary adoption agencies. It stated that the Department for Education’s performance indicators

“don’t tell the full story of the experience of children in care…For example, they do not reveal how delays owing to court processes may affect the speed of adoption or how a child who appears to have been ‘waiting for adoption’ may have in fact been consistently fostered by the same parents who go on to adopt them.”

As well as looking at how we increase the number of adoptions for siblings, black and minority ethnic children, children with disabilities and older children, surely the most important thing we must aim for is to increase the number of successful adoption placements, or talk in terms of permanent arrangements, rather than a simple increase in the number of adoptions. That point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey). Perhaps the most crucial part of the jigsaw in increasing the number of successful adoptions is improving the level of post-adoption support available to adoptive families and their children. Despite the legal requirements in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to provide long-term support to families after adoption, we are all aware, from anecdotal evidence and constituents’ experiences, that such support is currently not at the level it should be.

Indeed, Adoption UK reports that despite the fact that

“Great strides have been taken in acknowledging the need for adoption support services for families, and delivering some practical support…far too many families still come to Adoption UK, desperate for support.”

I recently received a heartbreaking letter from an adoptive mother of 20 years, who put the issue very succinctly:

“Given the number of adoptions that break down as well as the number of relationships which collapse under the pressure of attempting to deal alone with challenging behaviours, not enough consideration is being given to the consequences of not supporting adoptive families properly.”

She went on:

“I now know that providing a loving family for children who have had multiple carers and suffered abuse will never be enough. The children and indeed their adoptive families will need access to proper psychological/therapeutic support as well as respite and proper pathway planning during turbulent teenage years”.

The hon. Member for Erewash acknowledged this issue and that it deserves consideration and reflection. However, it is a crucial part of the jigsaw if we are to bring about an increase in the number of successful adoptions, which we all want to see.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred to the issue of care leavers. Last week was not only national adoption week, but national care leavers’ week. I had the privilege of attending the recent special meeting held by the all-party parliamentary group for looked after children and care leavers. I heard from several young people about the incredibly positive role that being in care had played in their lives, and their disappointment in the way that residential care, and being in care, is so often dismissed. I therefore wanted to put on record my serious concerns about some of the language used by Ministers in the media last week, who referred to children “languishing” in care. That language is not helpful for these young people, or in encouraging foster carers and adoptive parents to come forward.

Implicit in the Government’s decision to publish performance data is the view that adoption represents the gold standard for all councils to aim for. However, as was eloquently put by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, it should not be viewed as a one-size-fits-all solution. Adoption is not the right option for every child. Indeed, that approach has been criticised by the Fostering Network, which believes that focusing overwhelmingly on adoption risks skewing decision making, oversimplifying enormously complex and difficult decisions and ignoring the needs of the vast majority of children who come into care, who neither need nor want to be adopted.

In conclusion, the Government are absolutely right to focus on looked-after children and adoption. I look forward to hearing more about how the work of Martin Narey, the ministerial adviser, will be taken forward in the next two years. However, the Government must also recognise that adoption is not a panacea for looked-after children, or society at large. While being the most incredibly rewarding and enjoyable experience, raising a family can also be one of the most challenging and difficult experiences for people in the best of circumstances. Adoptive parents are not super-human. They, and their adopted children, need ongoing support if we are to increase the number of successful placements.

There is no doubt that the adoption process can and should be sped up, but that must not be done at the expense of ensuring the right path for the child. After all, to completely cut a child’s legal ties with their birth parents and family—choosing a family that can adopt them, making decisions about whether they will be able to live with any brothers and sisters and then moving them to live with a whole new family—is an enormous decision, which must be taken with great care.

I am sure that Ministers recognise that adoption is not the right answer for every child. I want to pay tribute in particular to the comments of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. I am sure that he shares many of my concerns—that we do not focus solely on adoption but on a child-centred approach that ensures results and the best long-term outcomes for all children, whatever their circumstances of care.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Teather]

I am sure that I or my colleague, depending who is most appropriate, will be happy to meet people to discuss that matter.

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

I am pleased that the Minister seems to be aware that looked-after children are nine times more likely than their peers to have special educational needs, yet while the number of children in care is increasing, support for special educational needs is decreasing. A recent report from Action for Children suggests that the impact of Government cuts on children and families will mean even more children being at risk of neglect and taken into care. There is no time to waste. What action will the Minister take now to reverse these worrying trends?

[Sarah Teather]

I welcome the hon. Lady to the Front Bench and look forward to working with her on these issues. I know that she has taken a particular interest in looked-after children and children in care. We have made it clear to local authorities that the early intervention grant should be spent on early intervention. We know that it is difficult for local authorities at the moment, just as it is difficult for the Government. We are all having to make difficult decisions, but I think that local authorities are the right people to make those decisions. In areas that are beginning pathfinder work, we will be able to test exactly how we can ensure that we support children with special educational needs better in a range of settings.