Further Education Funding

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing this debate today. In the time I have available I cannot do justice to the multitude of speeches made, but Members have shown a sharp eye for details about travel, EMAs, keeping rural and other colleges going, unused space, capacity opportunities, FE in the global market and the drop in level 2 and 3 qualifications.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gordon Marsden]

No, I am not taking any interventions.

It is hugely important that FE is getting the attention it deserves; it is heartening and unprecedented in this year. Members have spent half the Session raising FE funding and raised related issues in recent education questions. The excellent Westminster Hall debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who is in his place, showed that not new challenges, not new issues, but new urgency was required from the Government, given the state of FE funding. The recent statistics from the Love Our Colleges and Raise the Rate campaigns have highlighted that brilliantly.

We know that the statistics are a standing rebuke to the failure of all three Governments in the past decade to fund FE adequately. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that spending and skills fell by £3 billion in real terms between 2010 and 2011. Those needing second and third chances have been hard hit and adult education has seen its budget cut by almost half. According to the Association of Colleges,

“Over the last ten years, colleges have had to deal with an average funding cut of 30%...Further education is the only part of the education budget to have had year-on-year cuts since 2010.”

The skills Minister knows all that and, to her credit, has tried to push her colleagues in Government, the Secretary of State and the Chancellor, on the funding envelope, but so far answer comes there none. This is at a time when the massive uncertainties around Brexit and its future impact on our economy make the role of FE in delivering new hope and skills all the more essential than at any time in the past 20 years.

Despite a unified sector lobby of the Government last autumn on the need for the Government to reverse their damaging cuts, the Chancellor has persistently failed to acknowledge it. In his financial Budget of October 2018 he talked about schools getting little extras, but FE did not even get the crumbs. Both he and the Education Secretary cannot be oblivious to the demands not only of the colleges but of everyone else involved in the world of FE—the training providers who make up 60% to 70% of delivery; the employers who see skills programmes, both highly specific and generic, as essential to their success; and the LEPs, combined authorities and mayors, all of whom see such things as essential to success in the 2020s. As a consequence, the fabric of sustainability for colleges has become fretted and threadbare. Last year, the Department stated that there could be a best-case scenario of 80 colleges at financial risk and a worst-case scenario of 150.

The National Education Union’s briefing states that colleges have suffered from cuts in activities such as tutorials, enrichment activities and additional courses. The Sixth Form Colleges Association has said similar things. Students have progressively had financial support reduced since the education maintenance allowance went, and the bursary fund that replaced it was insufficient. I know that the principal and teachers at the superb Blackpool and The Fylde College are moving qualifications across the piece, and they think action is overdue.

The Government must reassess urgently how they fund their apprenticeship programme. Last week Government stats showed that the apprenticeship starts between August 2018 and January 2019, two years from the levy launch, are still beneath the number of apprenticeship starts for 2016-17. A large part of that is because level 2 apprenticeship starts have fallen by more than a third in the space of a year. It is increasingly apparent that the Government levy is not designed or fit for purpose for SMEs or non-levy payers, as the Association of Employment and Learning Providers and Mark Dawe have consistently argued. We need to have a situation in which non-levy payers can train apprentices for small businesses, as some are having to turn them away.

We have seen apprenticeship figures go up, but the costs go up as well, so we have a Government, as the hon. Member for Gloucester emphasised in his speech, who need to take action at both ends of the cycle. Qualifications at levels 5 to 7 need to work. We need to sustain the fuel for them, but, as we have heard, levy payers and SMEs are starved of cash. The Government will seek to address some of the drops in qualifications through T-levels, but the money will not be seen in full until 2021-22 and we have no idea whether it will be sufficient. If there is a capacity issue, and, as we hope, T-levels take off, what capacity will the colleges have to deliver them if no additional funding is allocated by the Chancellor? Where are the institutions supposed to deliver them? Even more crucially, how will we bring them to fruition in the 2020s? Our concern is that setting T-levels simply as a competitor to A-levels will be counterproductive to their take-up and viability. We have to focus on 16 to 18-year-olds at level 3 standard whose preparation has been largely geared towards taking A-levels. Assuming that that will fly for T-levels is a risky strategy.

The AOC has said that the Government need to have a base rate increase of £1,000 per student as a minimum, so will the Government commit to that? Successful delivery requires teaching staff, as we have heard, with specialist industry expertise, up-to-date equipment and smaller class sizes. Average college pay is £30,000 compared with £37,000 in schools, and it significantly lags behind industry. The University and College Union, nationally and its many excellent campaigns countrywide, has said the same for years. Who will actually teach the T-levels? Existing teachers who have received very little in funding for years for CPD or new teachers?

The UCU spelt out in crisp terms in its submission to MPs for this debate what they ask Chancellor and the Education Secretary to do. Pay has fallen in value by 25% in real terms since 2009. Teachers in FE colleges earn on average £7,000 less than teachers in schools. We hear a lot about red lines these days, but will the Minister commit to a red line for her Department to get that changed? Since 2010, around 24,000 teachers have left the FE sector: a third of the total teaching workforce. What will the Minister do to ensure that colleges can increase the pay of teachers and ensure that we have a qualified workforce to teach T-levels after their introduction?

It is clear from what we have heard today that more and more Members across this House, especially in this Chamber, know that FE is an essential factor in delivering the fair, socially mobile, economic and community strategies that we will need in the 2020s. We in the Labour party, with our new national education service plans and now the launch of our lifelong learning commission, see FE as an essential building block to achieve that process. Progression, progression, progression is stamped through everything that we need to do in this area as through a stick of Blackpool rock. For now and for today, what Members in this House—all of them—require from the Government is something a little more short term and modest. If the Minster wills the ends, she must will the means. She must require from the Government something a little more. We must commit here and now to start to make good on the promises and the rhetoric that have so far not been backed up with the funding that FE needs, particularly from the Treasury. She and the Treasury must hear loud and clear all of the excellent speeches and demands, and praise for their colleges and training providers, that Members have spoken of here today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne Milton]

I will come to that point in a minute.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anne Milton]

I would love to give way to lots of hon. Members, but time does not allow. I will make some progress.

FE delivers not only high-quality provision for 16 to 19-year-olds but lifelong learning, which was mentioned briefly. As we heard in a moving story from one hon. Member, it gives people chances to learn that they never had as a young person and the opportunity to retrain when their skills become outdated, to gain higher qualifications and to move along the career path. It also provides patient and caring support for those who are struggling to gain basic skills, opportunities for families to learn together and support for parents to help their children, as we all want to help ours. Although further education’s breadth is its strength, that breadth makes it hard to define: it is not school, but it is not university, so we need to articulate a clear vision.

As hon. Members have noted, funding per student has not kept up with costs. For 16 to 19-year-olds, we have protected the base rate of funding at £4,000 until the end of this spending review period, but that has been eroded by inflation. The Association of Colleges and the Raise the Rate campaign’s funding impact survey report have highlighted many of the issues and financial challenges. Reductions in 16-to-19 funding over recent years have partly been due to falling numbers of students; the number of 16 to 18-year-olds in the population has been falling for 10 years. The level is now 10% lower than in 2008-09, which poses difficult challenges for the sector, but it will start to increase again from 2020.

FE colleges are complex institutions that need to manage ebbs and flows in training provision and finance. On average, vocational courses cost more per student than academic programmes, so we provide more funding for most vocational courses for 16 to 19-year-olds through the programme cost weights. Further education institutions therefore actually receive more funding per 16 to 19-year-old student than school sixth forms, but that is purely a reflection of the greater costs.

I think that the thrust of the message from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester was that we need to do more to help our colleges. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) spoke about the productivity potential of people who attend FE and about fairness. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) spoke about equality of opportunity; I wonder whether he might send a nice YouTube clip of this debate to the Chancellor, who I am sure would find it riveting. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) rightly noted that, despite it all, 81% of colleges are rated as good or outstanding.

Our debates on FE put the case for it front and centre as a driver of social mobility. Bearing in mind the precious little time we have had today, I am sure that the opportunity for part 2 of this debate will come very shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden), spoke about T-levels, which will receive an additional £500 million in funding when they are rolled out. In fact, it was in Clacton that I met a woman who said probably one of the most poignant things I have ever heard. She had left school with no qualifications and was a single parent with three children, but she had gone back and done level 2, level 3 and level 4 qualifications. When I met her, she was doing level 5. I asked her why she had done it—what had suddenly inspired her to do it when her children were in their teens? She said, “Because I thought I was worth it.” There is nothing better to hear.

Wages of FE staff are lower than in schools. FE staff are incredibly committed individuals who carry on because of the demonstrable difference that they make to young people’s lives. Further education colleges are independent and set their own wages, but that does not make recruitment and retention any easier.

Differences in life expectancy were briefly mentioned. One of the most significant correlators with poor health is level of education. Better-educated people have better health; I say that as a former public health Minister. The issue needs to be highlighted, and there may be an opportunity to expand this campaign into questions of health—I put that forward as a suggestion, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and the hon. Member for Scunthorpe will take it on board.

One hon. Member spoke about second chances, and we often talk about third or fourth chances. I have had the privilege of seeing those fourth chances change people’s lives.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the Minister and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on their speeches. One of the great issues in my constituency is mature students who had a family early or who did not have much interest in education at school but pursued an interest in it at a later stage. Further education can give them that opportunity, as it does at South Eastern Regional College in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that mature students need opportunities in the same way that young people do?

[Anne Milton]

Very much so. This is absolutely about those second, third and fourth chances.

My hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Steve Brine) and for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), both former superb Ministers, are now putting their weight behind the campaign to raise the profile of FE and highlight just how important it is for the prospects of young and—never let us forget—older people.

I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—keep on meeting her. We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) and my hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), among many others. They all made excellent contributions.

Education

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nick Gibb]

That is, of course, one of the purposes of introducing the regulations today and the guidance is very clear about the importance of LGBT issues. However, we also want to make sure that we have a wide consensus on these issues. They are ultimately a matter for teachers in schools to decide. I will come on to that point in a little more detail.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Minister, like others in this Chamber I have a real concern over the rights of parents. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to help me on a specific point relating to the regulations that I know many others cannot understand. Given that RSE is to be taught in secondary school, how will it be possible to withdraw a child from sex education but not relationships education? Logically, a withdrawal from sex education must surely also be a withdrawal from relationship education unless the two subjects are taught separately. What is it to be: teaching RSE as an integrated subject with the right of withdrawal from RSE as a whole; or splitting the subjects in two, so that one can apply the right of withdrawal to just sex education? It is either one or the other.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before the Minister replies, I remind the Chamber that a lot of hon. Members wish to speak, so interventions need to be brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am very happy to contribute to this debate. I would like to focus on the distinction between relationships education and sex education in relation to the right of withdrawal. Earlier, when I intervened on the Minister, I asked him to address the lack of clarity on how a right of withdrawal from sex education, but not relationships education, will work in practice when relationships and sex education is taught in an integrated manner.

The truth, of course, is that relationships education has been a part of sex education since the Education Act 1996, which requires that sex education be

“given in such a manner as to encourage those pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life”,

and that pupils

“learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children”.

In that context, parents have been able to withdraw their children from sex education, which includes relationships education, since 1996. I suggest that the Government now propose to change the scope of that right of withdrawal by renaming sex education as “relationships and sex education” and applying the right of withdrawal only to sex education, not to relationships education.

If relationships and sex education is taught as an integrated subject, how can one withdraw a child from sex education but not from relationships education? The Government’s proposed changes will put parents and teachers in an impossible situation; in some cases, I suspect that it will put them on a collision course. Teachers are being told that they must teach relationships and sex education in an integrated way and that, if necessary, they should be able to remove young people from some parts of their lessons, but not others.

As I see it, the Government could address the problem by amending the regulations, either to mandate that sex education and relationship education be taught as two separate subjects or to ensure that the right of withdrawal continues to cover both sex education and relationships education. The latter decision seems to me more sensible and would be very easy to make. I expect the Minister will reiterate the position the Secretary of State took on 25 February, when they took a slightly different view. There is, however, no such restriction in the Children and Social Work Act 2017, which states that regulations

“must include provision…about the circumstances in which a pupil (or pupil below a specified age) is to be excused from receiving relationships and sex education or specified elements of that education”.

Ministers could decide, on the basis of the 2017 Act, to allow a parent to withdraw a child from all elements of the curriculum. I have received considerable correspondence on this matter, and others in the House have the same concerns as me about the rights of the parent, so I suggest that he withdraw the regulations or make it clear where we stand and bring them back to the House in much better shape.

Children Act 1989: Local Authority Responsibilities

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this pertinent issue. The “no recourse to public funds” condition applies to people who have arrived in the UK in a range of immigration categories, including students and workers and their spouses, who may have the right to work but not to access benefits. There is considerable confusion over what services people with no recourse to public funds are entitled to, which has led to terrible suffering for both adults and children, including many British-born children, who fall through the net of Home Office and local government support.

It was interesting that I was met with departmental confusion simply in trying to secure this debate. Over the past few days, the Department for Education, the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government were each in turn named as the Department that would to respond to this debate, and I fear that that speaks to the profound confusion around accountability—namely, which body or institution is responsible for assisting those who have no recourse to public funds.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady has secured an important Adjournment debate. Does she agree that the biggest duty of care we owe is to children who rely solely on the state to look after them? All local authorities must understand that that duty includes considering historical cases to ascertain the safety of children in foster care. More than just the bare minimum, that duty means taking responsibility for the welfare of a child who has no one else in their corner, and it is essential that all local authorities understand that. I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this important matter forward for debate. Let us get it right.

[Kate Osamor]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who makes a valuable point. I will go on to express similar concerns around the responsibility for looking after such children and the fact that many children have been and are being failed.

Local authorities, in practice, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, on a strategic level, need to get a better grip on the issue and take responsibility for the people affected. The picture is currently bleak, but the legislation is very clear. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 provides a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in need in their local area. This means that local authorities must do whatever possible to ensure sufficient services and measures are in place where a child’s health or development is not being achieved or maintained, or where it is being diminished.

This support is not considered a public fund and includes accommodation, subsistence and help for children with additional needs, such as a disability. For many destitute migrant families, section 17 support is their only opportunity to feed themselves and put a roof over their head. One of the last comprehensive national studies of children from families with no recourse to public funds receiving section 17 support was in 2015, when an estimated 6,000 children were receiving such support.

I tabled a written question on 12 December 2018 asking the Home Office whether it had any up-to-date data on children in need with no recourse to public funds, based on applications showing a change in their parents’ circumstances. I received a response from the Minister for Immigration on 20 December stating that no ideal data was being held “entitled ‘Change of Conditions’.” I used that wording in my question, and maybe it is not correct, but I was trying to ascertain the data for people whose circumstances have changed. I was told:

“Answering this question would require manual inspection of all family and private life leave to remain applications within the date range. This would incur disproportionate cost to the public purse.”

When we are talking about the livelihoods of young children, I would hope the public purse could extend to ensuring that we are looking after those children.

Special Educational Needs: Wiltshire

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Society can be judged by the quality of the provision it makes for its most vulnerable members. I therefore welcome this opportunity to raise the situation of vulnerable people in my constituency, particularly those who have special educational needs.

Last week, the consultation ended on Wiltshire Council’s plans for a dramatic change to the provision for children with SEN in the county, and I would like to begin by highly commending Wiltshire Council for prioritising special needs and for being prepared to pledge serious money—£20 million—on a root-and-branch upgrade to provision for children who have complex and severe learning and physical disabilities. That does Wiltshire Council a great deal of credit, and I pay tribute to the councillors and officials involved in trying to make things better for some of my most vulnerable constituents.

However, the edge was taken off that for me when I was summoned at the end of last year to hear precisely what the council was planning to do with the money it wants to spend. I wish to take some time this evening discussing that and impressing upon the Minister how important it is that the council thinks again. Survey data shows just how unpopular the council’s approach is, closing, as it does, two well-loved schools that are at the very heart of their communities in order to create a very big one in a relatively remote location. I hope the local authority will listen to concerns expressed and adopt a different model for my most vulnerable young constituents that retains at least one of the threatened schools.

I want the Minister to help, because the Government have already been quite helpful: they have helped with £350 million in new funding for SEN announced in December; they have helped through the dedicated schools grant, with an 11% uplift in real terms for high needs between 2014-15 and 2019-20; and they have helped through the Children and Families Act 2014.

A key feature of that legislation was the SEN “local offer” that local authorities are now required to make. The offer has to be developed in partnership with the children and young people involved, their families and the relevant professionals. The attached code of practice is clear: it expects the local offer, from birth to age 25, to be developed and revised over time through regular review and consultation. Indeed, that collaborative, consultative approach runs through the legislation like a vein through granite. It is mandated; it is not an optional extra; it does not mean the local authority making up its mind and presenting users with faits accomplis. It suggests a collaborative, consultative approach that does not waste public money on working up a case that is so clearly contrary to the wishes of its intended beneficiaries.

Wiltshire Council has for some time wanted to close smaller special schools. We got wind of a warming-up exercise last year, when a member of the council made some adverse remarks about the inadequacy of hoists at Larkrise School in Trowbridge—claims that were incorrect and had to be retracted. It all runs contrary to the approach encouraged by the 2014 Act and its associated code of practice. Wiltshire Council’s vision for special education in Wiltshire is in many ways an exemplary document—it says all the right things—but at its heart it would close two schools, one in my constituency and one in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan): Larkrise in Trowbridge and St Nicholas in Chippenham.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this issue forward. As Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, he will know only too well the experiences we have had in Northern Ireland in relation to special needs education. The increasing demands on special needs education are exceptional. In England, some 1.3 million children are in special needs education and needing it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need sweeping reform of the support available to pupils and schools to ensure, as he, I and everyone in the House would agree, that a pupil is not prevented from reaching their potential because of a lack of support services available in their postcode? What he needs in Wiltshire, we also need in Northern Ireland.

[Dr Murrison]

I of course agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was once a governor at a special school, before I was elected. If I reflect on the provision then and the provision now, I am quite clear that matters have improved, but that does not mean to say that we should be complacent. What the hon. Gentleman said is correct: we need to ensure that every child has the ability to reach his or her potential. That is as true of a mainstream child who is going to become a doctor or a lawyer—or even a politician—as it is for a child at a special needs school whose horizons, in a classic sense, are necessarily going to be rather more limited. They are equally important and their potential needs to be maximised.

The proposition before the council is that it closes two schools and builds a big school on the site of a third one. That would be a very big school by SEN standards, and many of us have concerns about that, because this particular subset of the school population undoubtedly benefits from a provision that is more intimate than perhaps would be necessary for their mainstream compatriots. That would necessarily not be the case were this big school to be created in place of the ones it would replace. The council refers to the big school as a centre of excellence, but my contention is that we already have a centre of excellence in my constituency—it is called Larkrise School.

The claim is made that Larkrise is bursting at the seams and that its facilities and equipment are insufficient, but there is more to a school than bricks and mortar, and there is more to a special school than hoists. The school community understands that, which is why it is so opposed to the local authority’s prescription. It is clear that, being strapped for cash, the council has to balance the books. Rightly, it worries about the financial deficits that have been projected for each of the special educational needs schools, but deficits are projected at several mainstream schools, too, and nobody is suggesting that the solution is to close them.

The county’s financial position is not helped by its having to place 300 special educational needs pupils outside Wiltshire because of the long-standing insufficiency of in-county provision. Those of us who represent seats in Wiltshire will be well used to people attending our advice surgeries to discuss that. The council wants to remedy this out-of-county placement situation by creating a new school with 350 places serving the north of the county. Although the way that the numbers are presented in the consultation documents makes comparison very difficult, 350 places seems inadequate to cope with the planned closures, the out-of-county placements and the growth that is projected given local population increases, housing demand, and the recently announced moves of the residue of the British Army in Germany largely to Wiltshire and the need to accommodate them. Even by its own arithmetic, the council appears to be set on under-provision. That means that out-of-county provision is bound to continue, that projected spend on the new school will be greatly exceeded, or that the new school will very quickly become overcrowded, or, more likely, a combination of all three.

The plans anticipate no sixth form. Instead reliance will be placed on the county’s further education college, Wiltshire College, for 16 to 19 provision, together with a vaguely defined private provision. No further details are given. For example, we do not know how many days a week pupils aged 16 to 19 will have.

All this is of great concern as SEN pupils across the UK have been let down historically in our system in the transition from school to adulthood—from school to life as supported young people in the community. Provision for 16 to 19 is absolutely crucial in this transition. Wiltshire Council’s consultation document asserts that the new centre of excellence will be able to provide what is called

“outreach capacity to support mainstream schools.”

It is not clear what is meant by that. On the face of it, there is a risk that resource will be diverted from the severe and profound to the milder end of the SEN spectrum. That is surely not what is intended. If it is, it needs to be stated in plain terms. The perception is not helped by the confusing terminology used in the text and the apparent misunderstanding of which schools currently offer what, in what is admittedly a complex and overlapping needs mix. Response to the consultation has rightly honed in on that.

Last month, I took part in a march in Trowbridge in support of the threatened schools. Predictably, there were children, parents and teachers, but what struck me was the number of ordinary citizens with no direct link to the school. The orthodoxy is that society wants people with disabilities of the kind that special schools deal with to be hidden away. The orthodoxy is that society is embarrassed by them and that they make it feel uncomfortable. Well, that may be the orthodoxy but it is not true in Trowbridge. Larkrise has a very special ethos. It does not believe in the hiding away of kids with the most profound difficulties. Its students are part of the local scene, out and about in the community. Nobody gawps at them, looks away or crosses the road, because they are an accepted and expected part of the community. They are recognised, welcomed, and helped in the shops, and that does not happen by accident.

We must not hide special needs children away in remote large, impersonal facilities, miles from their homes and communities. That is the very opposite of inclusion. It is segregation. Now I know that that is not the intent of the council, but it would be the consequence of its plans as drafted. Mobility today means that, like as not, children in mainstream schools will make their adult lives away from the towns in which they grew up, but children with special educational needs are much more likely to remain. Where they are is where they will be. Larkrise understands that, which is why its staff, ably led by headteacher Phil Cook, have put so much effort into local involvement and ensuring that their children are integrated in the community. I know that a similar situation applies at St Nicholas.

It is not surprising that, in its latest report, Ofsted rated Larkrise as “good”. It is surprising that the council believes that shutting this good school in Wiltshire’s county town should be part of its plans for raising standards. That is particularly so, as the council’s own task group stated that

“it would not be appropriate to combine all three schools into one site”,

and its “School Places Strategy” document says that children are best educated at the heart of the community—absolutely.

Over the year, parents with statemented children, and now children with educational health and care plans, have been to see me in my advice surgery. Invariably, the issue is not directly about care or education, but about transport.

Catholic Sixth-form Colleges

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Thomas]

I should not have allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene, because he has stolen a line from later in my speech, but he makes a good point and I will return to it later.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for being unable to stay and make a speech in this debate—I have a meeting with a Minister—but I want to make this point. Does he agree that, given the fact that schools are increasingly becoming secularised, parents must have the option to have their child educated with faith as a cornerstone and to have an input into spiritual teaching, and that the Government cannot and must not ignore this point but instead must take it into consideration when allocating funding? Spiritual education is so important in this day and age.

[Gareth Thomas]

I recognise the continuing and strong support for spiritual education, and it continues to be a striking feature of many of our communities that there is strong support for faith schools. In the context of the debate, there is strong support for this Catholic sixth-form college, which inspired me to seek Backbench Business Committee approval for this debate, and I am sure that there is also strong support for the other Catholic sixth-form colleges across the country. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

[Jim Shannon]

To re-emphasise that point, when it comes to parents seeking a school for their children to go to, it is so important that they have a choice between secular teaching and faith-based teaching. When it comes to funding and assistance, we obviously look to the Minister for some support, but it is important that people have that choice and that that choice is available in Members’ own constituencies as well.

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about choice. I suppose the essential point of this debate is to say that there needs to be a level playing field in funding. A child who wants to go to a certain type of school or college should not see that there is better funding for one particular institution than there is for another down the road. I am sure that is a point he will agree with.

Instrumental Music Tuition

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I congratulate him on bringing this matter forward. Does he not agree that funding cuts to schools have meant that many schools have had to cut their additional programmes, and that music very often is the first to go? More Government emphasis and dedicated funding to schools will ensure that people whose parents cannot afford to pay for private lessons have at least an avenue to see children introduced to the wonderful world of music. I know some people in my constituency who had an opportunity at school to learn music, and who are now talented people who can earn an extra income. Those are the possibilities that exist for those who have the opportunity.

[Douglas Ross]

I am very grateful for that intervention by the hon. Gentleman who is an assiduous participant in these Adjournment debates. He raises two or three issues that I am going to come on to in the remainder of my speech about ensuring that we do not price people out of music. I am talking about not just the musical talent that people develop as they go through music instruction, but the benefits to the wider community that are sometimes forgotten. I will expand further on those points later in my speech.

As bitter a blow as the announcement of the fee increases was, the knock-on effect was just as significant. Our valued, talented and hugely respected head of music instruction service, John Mustard, resigned from his position after 30 years of dedicated and loyal service. John specifically blamed the increase in charging for his decision. He said:

“The reason is simple, I cannot agree with the decision by the council to raise the cost of music lessons by 85% to what will be the highest level in Scotland. In a low wage economy such as Moray this will have the effect of depriving many young people of a valuable skill and pleasure for life. I regret this deeply but I cannot be part of a decision that will do so much damage to a service I have built up to national acclaim over the last 30 years.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

I respect what the right hon. Gentleman has said. In my previous role as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, I represented those islands as part of the wider highlands and islands region. There is undoubted talent within the islands, and that has spread further now. Musicians from Orkney and from Shetland are going on to receive national acclaim, and that shows how important such traditional music is.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again—he is most gracious. He referred to culture earlier. In Northern Ireland we have a tremendous band culture that probably comes off the back of the Royal Black preceptory and the apprentice boys. Many of these young people started their musical expertise and talent in schools through the education system. With regard to retaining the culture, that is where it starts and then the community brings it together. I support what he says. For us in Northern Ireland, culture is very important, as it is for him as well.

[Douglas Ross]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very compelling point. We have to remember that what young people learn at school and through extra-curricular activities outside school at a young age will stay with them throughout their life. They will improve in their music playing and other things during their life, but getting that early introduction is vitally important.

Relationships and Sex Education

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, as I often do in this place. I thank the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for bringing the petition before the House and setting the scene—she took many interventions.

There has been a divergence of opinion among contributors so far, and I want to make it quite clear that my contribution will be along the lines of parental rights. I want to maintain that in my speech and am clear in what I am saying. In the past I have made my concerns known in the House about the proposals to limit the right of withdrawal from sex education. It is a shame that the Government have not listened to my views or to those of many esteemed colleagues, and that we have to debate this issue again.

This morning I spoke to the Secretary of State for Education, who I knew would be making a statement in the Chamber today. We talked about this matter at some length. To be honest, at the end of the discussion I gently and kindly said to him, “Minister, unfortunately you and I will have to agree to disagree.” We have a very clear difference of opinion on what the Government are trying achieve and where they are going on parental rights.

Prior to the draft regulations and the guidance published in July 2018, I was quite hopeful that the Government would uphold the parental role and responsibility in relationships and sex education. When we discussed the Children and Social Work Bill on Report, the Minister’s approach seemed to be pretty balanced, and I thought we were moving in the right direction. Parents are of course the primary educators and guides of their children, which we should not forget. They play a central role both in helping their children to grow up into successful adults and in protecting them from harm—that is the responsibility of the parent. However, parents are telling us that they want schools to help them to deal with complex and fast-moving issues to ensure that their children grow up equipped with the knowledge and the skills they need to be safe and successful.

The Government have set their scene very clearly. However, the draft regulations and the guidance were sadly lacking in the help they have provided parents as the primary educators and guides of their children. Parental responsibility has been taken away, and the final decision of whether children at secondary school undertake sex education might soon be in the hands of headteachers rather than parents.

I asked for a legal opinion on what has been put forward. It seems to me that the regulations as published have not changed the parental right of withdrawal, which remains with the headteacher. The legal opinion that I have sought states:

“If any parent or any pupil in attendance at a maintained school requests that the pupil may be wholly or partly excused from sex education provided as part of statutory relationships and sex education, the pupil must be so excused until the request is withdrawn unless, or to the extent, that the head teacher considers that the pupil should not be so excused.”

It is clear that the headteacher takes over the role and does not allow the parent to provide the type of input into the process that I would like to see. During the passage of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, there was no indication from the Government that they were moving in this direction. There was no mention at all of headteachers assuming a responsibility that has always been with parents. It is one thing for parents to ask for help from schools, but quite another for them to ask for their authority to be supplanted—it is entirely different. Would those same parents who ask for help deem what the Government have proposed to be a help or an incursion and overreach? My guess is that it would be the latter.

Much of the debate comes down to an understanding of the boundary between the family and the state. Government seem to have decided that headteachers—not parents—now know best for children, which should not be the case. They seem simply not to trust parents, and it is a profoundly dangerous precedent to set. There is certainly an interesting comparison to be made with the right of parents to withdraw children from religious education and worship at school. Section 71 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 states:

“If the parent of a pupil at a community, foundation or voluntary school requests that he may be wholly or partly excused—

(a) from receiving religious education given in the school in accordance with the school’s basic curriculum,

(b) from attendance at religious worship in the school, or

(c) both from receiving such education and from such attendance,

the pupil shall be so excused until the request is withdrawn.”

The right of withdrawal from religious education and worship has remained uncontested since 1998. I imagine that if the Government were proposing to remove that right from parents, colleagues of different parties—both those with or without a religious background—would be rightly outraged, yet the Government have deemed it appropriate to undercut the authority and the responsibility of parents on relationships and sex education. RSE includes some of the most contentious topics taught in school, and it is a perfect example of where parents will want to exercise their rights, as outlined in article 2 of the first protocol of the European convention on human rights, which the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) spoke about. It states:

“In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”

That is what I believe the Government should be doing. These are issues of a personal nature—matters of morality, and it is best left for parents to decide how to raise their children. It is not for the state to decide the morality and standards of each family in the United Kingdom. It is for those families and parents to decide, and it should not be otherwise. Someone might not agree with how I bring up my children and I might not agree with how they bring up theirs, but fundamental to the values of a democratic society is our respect of the privacy of each other’s family life at home and our upholding of the freedom of conscience, thought and religion. That is what I believe and, although I suspect many hon. Members present believe that too, others may have a slightly different opinion.

I understand that it is right that we do not press our faith or religion on others. That is why parents have the right to withdraw their children from religious education—I understand, respect and accept that. I implore colleagues—particularly the Minister, whose responsibility it is to respond to our remarks—to understand that it is not right for headteachers or the state to press their values and morality on parents by not allowing them to withdraw their children from relationships and sex education.

Sadly, as colleagues have also noted, it is fairly impossible to understand how a right of withdrawal would actually work in practice, given the blurry line between relationships education and sex education. In reality, sex does not take place in a relationship vacuum, so we should not teach it in such a way—we must be careful about how it is taught. I understand that the Government’s draft guidance to schools addresses that point, which is another example of something that the Government have said that is correct. The end result, however, seems to leave a void.

It is nonsensical to stress that relationships and sex education should be taught in an integrated way, as one subject, and then to allow parents to withdraw their children from sex education. That will present overwhelming challenges both to schools as they draw up their curriculum and to parents as they try to figure out when and how they can make the request for their child to be excused in the light of the interlinked nature of the subject. As I see it, the Government have an easy solution to those problems: put back into the regulations a right for parents to withdraw their children, and extend that right to both relationships education and sex education. That is a simple fix that is entirely in the Government’s power to implement, given that they have not yet laid the regulations before the House. That can easily be done now with a consultation process before the potential legislation.

As you were very clear on the time limits, Sir David, I will conclude my remarks. I ask the Minister to listen to my concerns and those of my esteemed colleagues and not to push forward with the radical change that will diminish and undermine parents and parental control. I implore him to uphold families and parental responsibility and authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Gibb]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, which was also made passionately by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I reiterate and refer all hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, to paragraph 47 of the guidance, which clearly says—and I acknowledge what she quoted—that

“except in exceptional circumstances, the school should respect the parents’ request to withdraw the child.”

That is clearly set out and schools have to have regard to those requirements.

Going further, the school has to set out its policy on its website—I will come to that in my comments—and it has to consult parents. There are sections in the guidance that clearly set out that schools should be consulting and working with parents when they are developing their policies for relationships and sex education, and when the right to withdraw will apply, so that parents are aware of what their child’s school will be teaching and when. When schools are introducing the curriculum they should be consulting parents.

I reflect the point made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). As new generations and cohorts of parents and children go through, the school will want to continue to re-consult on the same curriculum, even if they are not changing it. The school needs to consult current parents, not just the parents from five or six years ago.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) is right that the Minister responds very well to comments that are put forward. I remind the Minister that, in my contribution, I referred to the regulation that states:

“If the parent of any pupil in attendance at a maintained school in England requests that the pupil may be wholly or partly excused from sex education provided as part of statutory relationships and sex education, the pupil must be so excused until the request is withdrawn, unless or to the extent that the head teacher considers that the pupil should not be so excused.”

Despite what the Minister says, it seems to me that the end result is that headmaster or the principal can overrule the parent, which I think is wrong.

[Nick Gibb]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. We have to take into account a range of views. Headteachers will want to respect the views of parents, but there may be exceptional circumstances. I do not want to iterate them in the debate, nor do we want to set them out, but there may be exceptional circumstances with a particular child when it is necessary to refuse the right the withdraw them. They will be very exceptional circumstances.

The previous position was that parents had the right to withdraw their child from sex education until the age of 18. That cut-off point for the right to withdraw is now untenable, as it is incompatible with developments in English case law and with the European convention on human rights. Therefore, we have sought to deliver a sensible new position that suitably balances the rights of parents with the rights of young people. We believe that we have done that sensitively and effectively. Parents will be able to request that their child be withdrawn from sex education and that request should—unless there are exceptional circumstances—be granted, up until three terms before the child becomes 16, at which point the child can decide to opt in. If a child takes that decision, the school should ensure that they receive teaching in one of those three terms.

As with other aspects of the regulations and guidance, we have tested this position with expert organisations, including teaching unions, a wide range of faith groups and subject associations, including the Association of Muslim Schools, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the United Synagogue, Parentkind, the National Police Chief's Council, the NSPCC, Barnardo’s, Mumsnet, Mencap, the Centre of expertise on child sexual abuse, the Council for Disabled Children and many others. They are listed in the response to the consultation.

We have seen huge support today for the incredible step we are taking with the new guidance and regulations. The guidance further stipulates the need for parental engagement during the development of the RSE policies. Good practice should include demonstrating to parents the type of age-appropriate resources that will be used in teaching. The regulations stipulate schools must have an up to date written statement of their policy, which must be published and available free of charge to anyone. We continue to be clear that parents should understand the content of all three subjects, and that schools should work to understand and allay parental concerns where possible. To respond to the point made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, we have been working with Parkfield Community School and the council to try to resolve the issue in a supportive manner. The regional schools commissioner has been closely involved in the situation and in meetings that have happened since the problem first arose.

Free Childcare: Costs and Benefits

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) on bringing this issue to the Floor for consideration. I deal with this issue every week in my office, and in particular with my staff. I will give the Chamber an example of how the matter works in practice.

I have six staff, five of whom are ladies, so the issue comes through clearly. They are of differing ages, though I will not mention their names or refer to their ages, because that is something we do not do, if we want to live well. My part-time worker is in her 50s and is a grandmother. I allow her flexibility to change her days so she can mind her grandchildren and come into my office on the days or mornings that she does not have the children. That is a practical arrangement that works for her and for me—that is important.

A further two staff members in their 40s have children in the last year of schooling, so they are able to work their normal full-time hours. It is easier when children attend secondary schools and further education. I also have a staff member in her 20s who is due to marry next year, and she has informed me that I should be prepared for her maternity announcement the following year, as she wants children right away after she gets married. Again, I support her wholeheartedly in that.

My parliamentary aide is in her 30s, and has a three-year-old and a four-year-old. Her childcare arrangements are more pressing. They are all key members of staff, but she is in particular. When she returned to work after her second child, we came to a flexible working arrangement that allows her to work at home on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays, when I am at Westminster.

In practice, when my aide’s kids are at nursery in the mornings, she works away for me, and when her husband gets home at 6 pm, she works on. She is my speech writer, preparing many of my speeches, so she probably has little to do—I jest, because I keep her busy. I talk the speeches over with her, but cut and add to them as I progress through the time. She is kept very busy, and her workload means that I sometimes see work coming through to me at 1 o’clock in the morning. That is a fact; it is how she does it with her flexible hours—I am very fortunate to have her working for me.

When I asked my aide about childcare, her answer was simple: “Jim, I earn too much to get help from Government but not enough to pay the £300 a week for someone else to mind the children. I am holding on for the P2s”—primary school—“when the kids are in until 3 pm, and I can then cut back on night-time hours.” That has made me ask some questions. How many young families working to pay for childcare are holding on by a thread until they get the care? How many grannies and grandas are missing out on actually relaxing in retirement because their children are not able to pay for childcare?

Too many families are over the threshold for tax credits and struggle to do it all. That was illustrated clearly by the hon. Members for Bristol North West and for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) in their contributions. Families earn too much for social housing, but not enough to be comfortable.

What we have is what I refer to as the working poor and there are a greater number of them, and every one of us could probably reflect that and illustrate that in our constituencies. I believe that if the burden of childcare was lifted, there would be benefits for the quality of life for so many families throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We need more schemes such as the tax-free childcare scheme, which puts 20% of Government funding alongside someone’s 80%. The fact is that, although that is good, not many people are aware of it and I look to the Minister to give us some illustration of what can be done to improve that. There are many people who just do not know about the scheme.

Some 91,000 families made use of the new tax-free childcare system in December, which is far below the expected number. What are the Government doing to increase that number and increase awareness, because official figures show that the Government had planned and budgeted for 415,000 families? We are far off that figure, for a scheme that was launched in October 2017. It is a gentle question, but hopefully it will receive an answer. At one point, 3 million could qualify for the help, meaning that only about one in 14 eligible families had applied for it. So we really have an issue to increase that number.

When we look at countries around the world, we see that we are at the top of the league for costs, and they must come down. Just yesterday in the provincial press back home, there was an illustration of the cost of childcare per child across Northern Ireland. In my constituency of Strangford, and in mid and east Down, we have the highest levels of childcare costs anywhere in Northern Ireland. We have a middle class that is squeezed beyond control, with rising rates, rising insurance costs for their home and car, rising food prices and rising petrol prices. Everything is more money, apart from their wages, which remain the same.

It is little wonder that so many people believe that it is better not to work. We have mothers and fathers who slog it out at work, and then try to cram in time with their children in the evening hours, and stay on top of housework and mundane issues. I believe that they need help.

I will finish with this comment: childcare is one way we can help and encourage women with young children to have a career, and find a way to do it all. So I urge the Government to expand the 20% help for childcare and bring us down in the global charts, instead of our being “Top of the Pops” for all the wrong reasons.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much. We have still got a lot of time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) on securing this debate and his welcome news—and the interesting way he introduced it.

I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on childcare support. It is a pleasure to stand in for the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who I understand is seeing family in Washington DC, which is appropriate, given the debate on families that we are having.

I think the truth is that Members here violently agree on the importance of high quality childcare. Evidence shows that high quality childcare supports young children’s development and helps to prepare them for school. Affordable and convenient childcare gives parents the ability to balance work and family life, allowing them to enjoy the benefits of a job, safe in the knowledge that their children are in good hands.

When the Labour party left office in 2010, only 15 hours of free childcare was available for three and four-year-olds. It was the Conservative-led coalition Government that introduced free childcare for two-year-olds from disadvantaged families. Early education from the age of two has long-lasting benefits for children, and we believe that it helps to promote a child’s emotional, cognitive and social development.

However, evidence shows that, on average, disadvantaged families are less likely to use formal childcare provision than more advantaged families, which is why the Government introduced 15 hours of funded early years education for disadvantaged two-year-olds in September 2013. Eligibility was expanded in September 2014 to include children with a disability or special educational needs from low-income working families, or who have left care. Our balanced approach to managing the public finances enabled us to do that. The extended learning programme for two-year-olds has been popular with parents. Local authorities reported in January last year that 72% of eligible parents nationally took up their entitlement to a place. That is a significant increase from 2015, when the figure was 58%.

A year and a half ago, we also doubled the childcare entitlement of working parents of three and four-year-olds to 30 hours a week. On the point made by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), only working parents are eligible for those additional 15 hours; the first 15 hours are universally available for parents of all three and four-year-olds. In its first year, the 30 hours of free childcare, alongside the Childcare Choices website and the childcare calculator, helped more than 340,000 children to take advantage of more high quality childcare, with savings for parents of up to £5,000 a year. Again, the Government’s balanced approach to the management of the public finances and the economy enabled us to do that and to provide that benefit to parents.

Independent evaluation of the first year of the 30-hours entitlement found more than a quarter of parents reporting that they had increased their working hours as result, with 15% of parents saying that they would not be working at all without the extended hours. Those effects were stronger for families on lower incomes, helping to fulfil our commitment to help disadvantaged families and to boost social mobility. Furthermore, surveys of parents highlight the impact that the 30 hours can have on parents’ working patterns, with a majority of parents reporting that the 30 hours have given them more flexibility in the hours that they can work, and a small but significant proportion of mothers reporting that the 30 hours had led them to enter work or to increase their hours.

The evaluation report quoted one parent as saying:

“By doing four days now instead of three…my company looks at my development and progression in a way that they wouldn’t if I was only doing three days.”

Some 86% of parents reported that they thought that their child was better prepared for school as a result, and 79% felt that their family’s quality of life had improved. The latest study of early education and development—SEED—report, published last year, also points to the clear evidence of the benefits of high quality early education for the cognitive and emotion development of all children aged two to four.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) asked for a commitment to support the most disadvantaged children, but that has been the driving force behind all our education reforms since 2010. On early years education, more than a quarter of children finish their reception year without the early communication and literacy skills that they need to thrive. The Government have ambitious plans to halve that proportion over the next 10 years. The Department is working closely with the sector to deliver on our commitment to reform the early years foundation stage profile. The reforms are an important opportunity to improve outcomes for all children, but especially to close the word gap between disadvantaged children and their peers. We know that the gaps can emerge much earlier in a child’s life, well before they enter reception. That is why we recently launched a capital bidding round of £30 million to invite leading schools to come forward with projects to create new high quality nursery places for two, three and four-year-olds. Those are the reasons why the Government are investing more than any other in childcare. We will spend around £6 billion a year on childcare support in 2019-20—a record amount.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution, I referred to the take-up figure of 91,000. The number that could take up the scheme is 417,000. I asked what the Government are doing to bridge that gap and ensure that people take up the scheme.

[Nick Gibb]

I will come to that point in a moment. We believe that the take-up of all the different schemes has been very high, but we always want to do more to ensure that it continues to increase.

The introduction of 30 hours has been a large-scale transformational programme, and such change can be challenging, but tens of thousands of providers have none the less responded to make it a success, because of their ongoing commitment to helping families. The evaluation of the introduction of the 30-hour entitlement found that three quarters of providers delivering free entitlement places were willing and able to deliver the extended hours with no negative effects on other provision or the sufficiency of childcare places. Almost two thirds of providers offered full flexibility with free choice to parents on when they could take the extended hours. Overall, we are already starting to see how the 30-hour entitlement is making a difference to families across the country.

The childcare market in England consists of a diverse range of provider types, allowing parents real choice in their childcare provision. The supply of childcare in England is generally high quality, with more than nine in 10 providers rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. There are strong indications that supply can meet parent demand for Government-funded entitlements. Nearly 79,000 private childcare providers were registered with Ofsted in August 2018 and more than 7,500 school-based providers, including maintained nursery schools, were offering early years childcare.

While there are some examples of providers closing, as the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) pointed out, there is no evidence of widespread closures in the private and voluntary childcare market. The latest official Ofsted data, published in December 2018, showed that the numbers of childcare providers on non-domestic premises is fairly stable over time, showing a marginal 2% decrease compared with 2012. Providers joining and leaving the Ofsted register is normal in a private market and can be due to a variety of reasons. In fact, more non-domestic providers joined the register between 31 March 2018 and 31 August 2018 than left.

Primary Schools: Nurture and Alternative Provision

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Ben Bradley]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention and particularly thank him and the other members of the Select Committee for coming along today. I absolutely agree—I will touch on this later—that it is important that this is not exclusion from the classroom; it is a nurturing and supporting environment to help the children to succeed.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on initiating the debate. The fact that so many hon. Members have intervened indicates our interest. Like the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), I believe that there is a real need for the short-term, focused intervention that is found in nurture groups for children with particular social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Does he agree that we need to increase the availability of nurture groups, which will allow individual children to reach their potential, but also ensure that teachers are able to better spread their time and energy throughout classes in which children who are unable to learn in a typical classroom set-up are being taught in a dedicated way that benefits everyone?

[Ben Bradley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Later I will touch on some statistics from Northern Ireland that I hope he will find interesting. I agree with him. The reason why the provision at Forest Town, in particular, works is that although it is in a separate building and environment, it is included within the school. That allows the teachers to engage with it and children to dip in and out, and allows the integrated and supported approach that the hon. Gentleman describes. It is incredibly beneficial.

The earlier we can get children and families engaged with nurture care, the better. Children learn best when they have strong self-esteem, a sense of belonging, and resilience. Nurture groups were first developed in London in 1969 by educational psychologist Marjorie Boxall. Large numbers of young children were entering primary school in inner London with severe emotional and behavioural difficulties, which led to high demand on special school places in particular. Marjorie Boxall understood that these children had not received early support and were not ready to meet the demands of primary school. As a response, nurture care was developed, and it has consistently proved to be an effective way of helping disadvantaged children.

Nurture groups tend to offer short-term, inclusive and focused intervention. The groups are classes of between six and 12 children, supported by the whole school—not just by specialist staff for that particular site, but by teachers from across the school and by parents, who are often included in the provision. Each group is run by a couple of members of staff. They assess learning, communication and emotional needs and try to break down the barriers to learning in the mainstream environment.

Crucially, the children who attend nurture groups remain an active part of their main class and their school. They are not excluded; they are not taken off site into alternative provision. They are able to engage in the classroom with their peers wherever that is possible and wherever they are comfortable. I will touch on this again later, but I strongly support programmes that allow children to remain in mainstream schooling to engage with their peers. That is better for the child and for the taxpayer wherever it is possible.

The relationship between staff and pupils in nurture groups provides a consistent and supportive example that children can base their own behaviour on. For so many children, role models are simply vital, and this caring approach can be hugely successful. It engages children with education, giving them a positive and enjoyable learning experience, and it can help where children do not get the same support at home.

Nurture groups have been working successfully for more than 40 years right across the UK. That statement is supported by a number of studies. Last year, in my constituency, I was pleased to meet nurtureuk, which is the national charity supporting this whole-school intervention. Its figures show that this provision works. One school in Kent running a nurture programme saw exclusions drop by 84%, which I am sure that hon. Members will agree is a remarkable figure.

A 2016 Queen’s University Belfast study also supports the effectiveness of nurture groups. It evaluated the impact of 30 such groups in Northern Ireland and found them to be cost-effective. In addition, although 77% of children who entered nurture groups exhibited difficult behaviour, that had reduced to just 20% at the end of the programme.

[Ben Bradley]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. The point that she raises may not be one for discussion now, but it is certainly interesting. There absolutely does have to be a balance. I am a firm believer—having been to a variety of schools, with different atmospheres—in discipline and teaching children the value of that, but equally in respecting the needs particularly of vulnerable children in cases such as these. I do not think that nurture care has to be a formal thing, but I do think that there has to be that flexibility of approach to give a more bespoke experience to children who need it.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind; he has been most gracious to us all in taking our interventions. He mentioned Queen’s University. I made a contribution in a debate last year and used the statistics to which he referred. When it comes to summing up and integrating all the information from across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there are many examples of good practice—the hon. Gentleman has used one from Belfast—and perhaps the Minister could take them on board.

[Ben Bradley]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will do that. It is important to weigh up all this evidence when we are deciding where to put our time and energy in education. I certainly think that primary school and the early years environment should be a key priority.

Over the last three years, school exclusions have risen by more than 40%. If there is ever a time to invest in early intervention and nurture care, it is now. This early support, if properly managed, can set children up for their whole lives at school. Some will continue to need help, and it is especially important that those children who have needed this low-level, ongoing support throughout their time at primary school do not then lose all this help when they go to secondary school; that transition is vital. We can be more inclusive, support children to stay in school, and reduce exclusions, but we have to invest in that both financially and with the time and training for teachers.

The links between school exclusion and social exclusion are well known. Children who are excluded from school are far more likely than their peers to have grown up in the care of the state or in poverty, and they go on to have much higher rates of mental illness and are more likely to end up in prison. That cycle needs to be broken somewhere. These children are the most vulnerable in our society and need greater support. We need to do more to provide a supportive environment and to ensure that our education system provides a positive, safe and reliable space for the most vulnerable children.

Nurture care can turn around a child’s life and help secure a stable future in adulthood. This is not a debate about financial efficiency, but I would like to highlight a 2017 Institute for Public Policy Research report, which argued that every cohort of permanently excluded pupils will go on to cost the state an extra £2.1 billion. The Government should support nurture programmes because that is the right thing to do, but I also argue that spending on nurture care is one of the best-value options for education expenditure. It is proactive, preventive support. Just as we are looking at prevention in the NHS long-term plan, so we should be looking at it in education.

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Funding

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Sir Gary. It is a pleasure to speak in this Chamber on every occasion, as it has been to hear the wonderful contributions made so far by right hon. and hon. Members. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) on obtaining the debate and giving us the chance to participate.

I am taking part because I take an interest in school budgets and in children. Having been consistently cut, school budgets are unable to deliver in the way they have previously. Classroom assistants are losing hours, and the wait to get a statement for a child is getting longer. Instead of treating the meeting of special needs as an obligation, we should look at it as an opportunity to give such children the best possible education to enable them to overcome difficulties and meet their potential. If that is not something that requires additional ring-fenced funding, I do not what does. I look to the Minister to see what she can do about releasing that funding.

There are 49,000 babies, children and young people with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions in the UK, and the number is rising. Most of those children have complex health needs. They need constant care and support 24 hours a day. Most will also have a special educational need and/or a disability. The success of the system depends on whether there is equitable and sustainable funding for children’s education, health and social care provision. With great respect, that does not seem to be the case.

In the short time I have available, I want to mention a briefing from Together for Short Lives, which says that respite breaks are a part of the system that is not working. Seriously ill children and their families rely particularly on frequent short breaks for respite, which is provided by skilled people, who can meet the children’s often complex health needs. It may be for only a few hours, but it can be overnight or for a few days at a time. It is important because the 24/7 pressure on parents of having a child with a life-limiting condition is immense. Social care is vital to help them relieve the stress, catch up on sleep, spend time as a family and do the things that other families do. Frequent short breaks for respite for seriously ill children combine health and social care. They help to maintain children’s and families’ physical and mental health. Respite care is immensely important. The short breaks provided by children’s hospices can help to reduce stress and mitigate the risk of parental relationships breaking down.

There are some incredible statistics from research involving 17 children’s hospices in England and Scotland: 64% of divorced or separated parents cited having a child with complex needs as a reason for the breakdown of their relationship. Furthermore, 75% had had no access to short breaks, and 74% rated short breaks as having a direct, positive effect. Short breaks are necessary to help families regain some balance in their lives. Couples whose relationships were identified in the research as “non-distressed” were found to have received 43% more hours of short breaks on average from a children’s hospice than those who were in distressed relationships. Quite simply, respite care makes a difference. The facts are clear. If we deal with children’s needs in this way, there will be a lifelong benefit not simply to the child but to the entire family.

Just as they did for adult social care, will the Government review how social care for disabled children in England is funded? Will they address the £434 million shortfall in funding for social care services for disabled children that has been identified by the Disabled Children’s Partnership, by setting up an early intervention and family resilience fund? Intervention at that stage will provide benefits at later stages, and if we invest now to improve the quality of life of those who are most vulnerable and struggling the most, it will be worth every penny.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I thank colleagues for complying with the voluntary time limit. It is now time for the Front-Bench speakers, but let us remember to leave Sir Vince Cable one minute at the end to respond to the debate.