GCSE English Literature Exams

Helen Jones Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 172405 relating to GCSE English Literature exams.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, for the last Petitions Committee debate of this Parliament. I must confess that when I saw the petition, I had mixed feelings. English is my subject: it was what I was most interested in at school, I read English at university and my first job was teaching English. Being of my generation, my head is stuffed full of quotations from Shakespeare to Keats to D. H. Lawrence. My colleagues know that my party piece around this time of year is reciting the opening of the general prologue to “The Canterbury Tales” in middle English, but I will not inflict that on people here.

That knowledge of literature has hugely enriched my life, and I hope that it has enriched my students’ lives too; when they get back in touch with me after I have been in the papers, they say so. But—this is a big “but”— as the great cultural commentator Raymond Williams said, we are all prone to value the kind of education that we received over and above any other kind, but what we choose to teach, and how we choose to teach it, is a selection from what is available. He talked about

“what is thought of as an education being in fact a particular selection, a set of emphases and omissions”.

When we consider examinations, the question is what children should learn and how they should learn in order to be fitted for the world in which they will grow up, which will be very different from the one in which we grew up. In my experience, that question is seldom asked by Governments. We are normally subject to the whims of various Secretaries of State; some, perhaps, have had more than others. For instance, we heard about the need to teach “our island story”; then an English baccalaureate certificate was proposed and later abandoned. It is no wonder that teachers often find themselves in a whirlwind. No sooner have they got used to one set of instructions than they must get used to another. In all this, the fundamental questions about what we need to teach our children for the future are not dealt with.

Before I go on, I must say clearly that I think that the study of literature is enormously important for an understanding of oneself and society. Think of Chaucer’s pilgrims, chattering away down the centuries. Their jobs might not exist anymore, but the people can still be met, with all their strengths and weaknesses, in any street in any town. Nor do I believe that much literature is intrinsically too difficult for our children. I have taught Shakespeare to 11-year-olds. I got teenage boys to read Jane Austen by pointing out that her brothers read the books aloud to the officers of Nelson’s Navy, not notable for being a set of wimps. If Shakespeare’s groundlings could follow his plays, I see no reason why our children cannot—provided, of course, that it is a good juicy murder; there is nothing more boring than having to explain 500-year-old jokes to a class.

Although the choice of text is always one for teachers, it makes my blood boil when I hear people say that some things are too difficult for working-class children, because I was one myself. I say that because when people criticise the exam system, they are often accused of wanting to dumb things down. Nothing could be further from the truth in my case. It is true that the Government have changed the GCSE English literature syllabus so that it is now a linear subject with exams at the end of the course. A new grading system will be introduced this year, and coursework has been abandoned. That is consistent with this Government’s approach to examinations in most subjects.

I grew up with that system, and I was fortunate enough to be good at it, because I was blessed with a good memory, but I am not sure that I agree entirely with Ofqual when it says:

“We do not believe there are any skills in the draft content for English literature that could not be validly assessed by written exam, set and marked by the exam board.”

I might agree that the skills in the syllabus can be tested by an examination at the end, but whether those are the right skills is a different question. There is a place for a more extended and in-depth response to texts, especially those dealing with complex subjects and emotions.

That is where open-book exams can be important. The Government have abandoned the idea of coursework, although it might have been better to change the guidance and the time limits, but I believe that open-book exams can ask far more stretching and difficult questions of our children. The Government rightly said:

“Students should not be misled into believing that they will get good marks simply by memorising and writing out the poems or texts they have studied.”

That has always been the case, as any teacher knows, but the Government also said:

“Students will not need to learn and remember the exact words of poems or texts by heart.”

Moreover, the former chief regulator said in a blog post:

“Assessment is about learning and understanding, not memory.”

I would be convinced by that if not for one thing: in literature, the exact words are important. A great writer chooses words with precision. An approximation of what they said might not have the same force or convey the same sentiments.

The Minister might, like me, be old enough to remember the Morecambe and Wise sketch in which Shakespeare is writing rubbish and the milkman keeps coming in and helping him. Shakespeare writes, “It’s very cold, I said to Yorkie,” and the milkman suggests, “How about, ‘Now is the winter of our discontent’?” [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell- Buck) is laughing because she is definitely not old enough to remember it.

The Minister will also remember George Orwell’s strictures on people who use “petite” when they mean “little” and then say that it means “dainty”, or his way of curing people of using the construction “not un-”:

“A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field.”

Words matter. Words, like facts, are stubborn things. One must remember a great deal to be able to answer some of the questions in our GCSE exams properly.

The Government, and certainly Ofqual, might argue that extended and more difficult questions can be asked about the unseen texts in the exam. However, strangely, Ofqual prohibits people from having a whole text in front of them, saying:

“We do not expect an awarding organisation to provide a whole text as Stimulus Materials for an assessment for a GCSE Qualification in English Literature.”

I might believe that Ofqual understood what it was talking about if it did not switch from singular to plural in the same sentence and put totally unnecessary capital letters on “stimulus materials”.

I must admit that I am a bit of a sceptic about unseen texts in exams. I used to tell my students, “This is a completely useless exercise, but we will now learn to outwit the examiners,” and they did. We do not actually read literature like that. We do not read extracts; we read plays, novels or poems. It is Leavisite literary critical theory taken to its ultimate. It is a prime example of doing things because we have always done them like that.

The answer to the central question of whether open-book exams are better than exams without the text is that, as always, it depends what we want to test. Whatever Ofqual says, an exam that students take without the text in front of them depends to a large extent on memory. It is impossible to comment properly on a text, for instance to show how an author deals with characterisation, without being able to remember large parts of it. It is impossible to compare two poems without being able to remember large parts of them. Remembering, in itself, does not get a student good marks, but it is an essential prerequisite to answering many of the questions, as a number of the teachers who responded to our consultation pointed out. One said:

“Students must remember lines off by heart, as they are required to analyse them… It is a minimum requirement for the modern text question, as there is no extract.”

As a test of memory, that is not bad, but is that all we want to test? Many people would argue that open-book exams, on the other hand, allow more searching questions to be asked of students. They allow students to do more analysis and evaluation and to synthesise knowledge rather than repeat it. In other words, open-book exams are higher up Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, which teachers know about because they learn about it in training. It is also true that the skills required in an open-book exam are more like those that we use in real life—it is very seldom that we have to produce a piece of work in a rigid time limit, without recourse to any resources. It all depends on the examination being designed properly.

Open-book examinations have disadvantages, too. For instance, it is much more difficult to ensure that students have a clean text in front of them, without notes. There is also an argument that they may deter students from getting fully involved in the literature that they have to study, because they rely on having the book in front of them. It is often said that having the book makes the exams easier, although I am afraid that I disagree. I did open-book exams at university for some of my subjects—the Chaucer and Shakespeare unseen papers, which in those days were six hours long—and we had to know the texts very well to know where to look for quotations in the first place. I confess that I have not found a lot of evidence—it may exist, but other pressures have arisen—but the research that I have been able to find, from Washington University in St Louis, found that both sorts of tests enhanced retention of information.

The other issue that we ought to think about carefully is that our children are growing up in an age of information overload. They probably need to learn much more than we did about how to access information, assess its value, organise it and apply it. That may be done in other examinations, but it could also be part of our English literature examination. As I said at the beginning, my head is stuffed full of quotations, and I believe that to really engage with a piece of literature, a reader has to memorise some of it and make sure that they have internalised it. However, I also think that open-book exams can ask more testing questions. They can achieve what the Government say they want, which is to ensure that the brightest pupils can show what they are capable of.

There is a case for both kinds of examination, and the Government should think seriously about making at least some English literature exams open-book in future, but the real issue is that for a long time we have not thought seriously about what our children should learn and how they should learn it. I know that the Minister has a genuine interest in providing the best possible education for young people in this country; he and I may sometimes disagree about methods, but I do not doubt his commitment. Since this Parliament is coming to its end, little can be done at the moment, but I hope that in future he will apply his mind to what exactly we want to test through different types of examination. There is no getting away from the fact that being good at English literature requires some feats of memory, but that is not all we should try to test. I hope that we will think about that, and about what the petition asks for, in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

There is very little for me to say, except to thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) for her contribution. I listened carefully to the Minister’s detailed response, and thank him for it. No doubt we will discuss the matter at length on other occasions. In the meantime, may I say what a pleasure it has been to chair the Petitions Committee and that I wish colleagues if not the best of luck, at least a sunny election campaign, with little rain?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 172405 relating to GCSE English Literature exams.

Workplace Dress Codes (High Heels)

Helen Jones Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 129823 relating to high heels and workplace dress codes.

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hanson. I also wish to discuss the joint report by the Petitions Committee and the Women and Equalities Committee on the same subject.

Hon. Members here will remember how the petition came about. Nicola Thorp, who created the petition, worked for an agency called Portico. In December 2015, she was sent for a job as a temporary receptionist at the headquarters of PricewaterhouseCoopers in London. When she arrived, she was told that the smart black shoes she was wearing were unacceptable because they were flat; at the time, Portico’s dress code specified a heel height of between two and four inches—for women, not men. She was offered the opportunity to go out and buy a pair of high heels. When she refused, she was sent home without pay.

Two things immediately struck me about that story. First, there was never a suggestion that Ms Thorp was not smartly dressed; anyone who knows her knows that she is impeccably turned out at all times. Secondly, it was clear that wearing high heels was a requirement that impacted far more on women than on men. In fact, most of Portico’s dress code at the time—to its credit, it has since changed this—was about how women should look. Not only were women to wear high heels, but they were compelled to wear make-up. It was specified that they should wear a minimum of foundation, powder, light blusher—I am not sure whether “light” referred to its colour or its application—mascara, eye shadow and lipstick or tinted lip gloss: not just any old lip gloss, but tinted lip gloss. Make-up was to be regularly reapplied throughout the day, and women were excused from wearing it only if they had a medical condition.

Women also had to wear what were described as skin-coloured tights, but the sort of skin-coloured tights that I would wear—taupe, natural tan and so on—are not at all suitable for women of colour. In fact, at one time, a black woman who turned up in black tights was told she should change them for a flesh-coloured pair, which were, of course, not the colour of her flesh at all. Portico even specified the acceptable shades of nail varnish; there was a colour chart.

The Petitions Committee decided to investigate these issues, and asked the Women and Equalities Committee to join us; I am very grateful to members of that Committee for their help and support on this. We took evidence from employees and Portico, the TUC and the Institute of Recruiters; the Confederation of British Industry declined to give evidence—an attitude it might want to rethink in future when dealing with my Committee. We also heard from barristers who specialise in employment law, and most importantly from women themselves; we set up a web forum on which they could tell us their experiences.

It is fair to say that what we found shocked us. I was going to say that we found attitudes that belonged more in the 1950s than in the 21st century, but the 1850s is probably more accurate. We found that women—especially young women in vulnerable employment—were exploited at work and threatened with dismissal if they complained. They were forced to bear pain all day, wear totally unsuitable clothing for the tasks they were asked to perform, or dress in a way that they felt sexualised their appearance and was demeaning but which they had to put up with if they needed a job. For that reason, I am very grateful to the women who came forward to give evidence to us in public, because that took a great deal of courage—courage that I would probably not have had at their age.

Let me deal with high heels first. There are people who think that we should not have investigated this at all—in fact, they think it is a bit of a joke. Yes, it is true that women sometimes wear high heels, but there is plenty of evidence about the damage from wearing heels long term; that is well known and has been for some time. We received written evidence from the College of Podiatry and individual podiatrists on our web forum setting out just what that damage is. Wearing high heels long term alters balance, reduces flexion in the ankle and weakens calf muscles. Over time, that can make women much more prone to a number of problems, including stress fractures, Morton’s neuroma, ankle sprains and bunions, and it causes a reduction in balance that lasts into old age, putting people more at risk of falls.

Most importantly, we heard from women who told us that they were forced to wear high heels even during pregnancy; that their feet hurt so much at the end of the day that they could not walk; and that their feet bled while they were working. When they tried to raise those issues, they were dismissed. Nicola Thorp told us that:

“Girls would be in tears because their feet were bleeding…and you’d just get laughed at”.

That is not a joke for any woman—it is particularly not a joke for older women who may not be able to wear heels or for women with disabilities. In fact, many women gave evidence that they were put off applying for certain kinds of jobs because of the dress codes. That evidence was confirmed by the director general of the Institute of Recruiters, who told us that such dress codes “definitely” reduced the pool of women applying for jobs. We also heard how unsuitable being made to wear heels was for the tasks that those women were expected to perform at work, such as moving furniture, walking long distances—we heard from people who had been in cabin crew and had to walk long distances in airports—standing all day and even climbing ladders. It was not funny.

We discovered that few employers carried out a health and safety assessment on this issue. Portico told us that it had not done so, and it is not alone. We heard evidence from both the TUC and the Institute of Recruiters that there is very little information available to employers about this kind of footwear problem; there is plenty of information online and on the ACAS website about when people should wear steel-toe-capped boots and so on, but there is not very much on the health and wellbeing issues surrounding footwear.

Dress codes that impact more on women go much further than making them wear high heels. We heard from women who could not even travel to work without wearing full make-up or else they would be disciplined. We heard from cabin crew who were all forced to wear the same shade of lipstick. We heard from women who were told near Christmas to unbutton their blouses a bit when selling to male customers. We even heard of a women being told to dye her hair blonde.

The problem with these issues is not just that they are discriminatory and impact more on women; it is that they both stem from and feed into an attitude to women in the workplace that is totally reprehensible and concentrates on a stereotypical appearance, rather than on skills that women can bring to the job. Our witnesses told us how demeaning they found that.

One woman who had worked as a cabin crew member told us that she thought her appearance was sexualised for the sake of the business, which was both dehumanising and humiliating, given that male cabin crew were simply expected to look smart; those of us who fly regularly will know exactly what she meant by that. Another woman who worked in retail was told near Christmas to unbutton her blouse a bit and wear shorter skirts to sell to male customers, which she felt devalued her skills as a saleswoman and her knowledge of the products.

It gets worse. Frequently, these issues go hand in hand with a work environment in which women are harassed and younger women in particular have to put up with daily comments about their bodies from managers and are exposed to unwanted attention from customers. We heard, for instance, of women being asked when they were finishing work; of women receiving unwanted attention online, amounting to harassment; of people trying to find out where women lived or, if they were abroad, what hotel they were staying in; and even of women being followed home from work by customers. All that is unacceptable in the 21st century. It degrades women.

The Government think that the law is fairly clear on this. In their answer to the petition, they were clear that the requirement to wear high heels, as experienced by Nicola Thorp, is illegal under the Equality Act 2010. We received some legal evidence that suggested the law is not quite so clear. The legal opinions we heard suggested that a conventional dress code, for want of a better term, might not constitute direct discrimination under the Equality Act, because men and women tend to dress differently. However, if that dress code impacted more on one sex than another, it was likely to be indirect discrimination. The problem is that indirect discrimination can be justified if it is reasonably necessary in pursuit of a legitimate end, but there is not a proper definition of “legitimate end”.

More importantly, not only can tribunals decide cases differently in different parts of the country, but very few cases are getting to tribunal at all. We heard that there is very little case law or advice for employers. When I asked the managing director of Portico, during our evidence session, whether it had occurred to him that his company’s dress code might be discriminatory, he said that it had not at all. That is one reason why we suggest that the Government need to provide much more information to employers about not only the health and safety aspects of their dress code but what may constitute discrimination. That is particularly true for smaller employers that do not have in-house solicitors and HR departments.

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. The evidence in our hearings about what is happening on a day-to-day basis was pretty shocking, to be completely honest—particularly as a man. My question relates to the information provided for not only businesses but individuals. It is quite clear that we are not seeing enough cases coming forward. Where can information become available, so that there is greater resilience within the group of women affected by this?

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I will come on to that issue later in my speech. It is very important that people have information about their rights, but information by itself is not enough.

We found that there were real issues about enforcement and access to justice. Women told us that when they raised these concerns, they were belittled. One said,

“I was told that I would be fired straight away if I chose to put flats on.”

Another was told that she would have plenty of time to rest her feet when she was unemployed. Women do not take these matters further for several reasons. Many of them are in insecure employment; they may be on fixed-term or zero-hours contracts. They may not have worked for long enough to bring a claim against their employer.

Awards in this area are fairly low. We were given a ballpark figure of £250 to £1,000, which is less than the cost of going to a tribunal nowadays. That is simply not good enough. A right that cannot be enforced is not a right at all. We also found that these cases were not getting as far as a tribunal all the time. That is why we are calling on the Government to look at increasing the penalties on employers for breach of the law. Penalties should be set at a level that does not discourage people from bringing a claim but disincentivises employers from breaking the law. As one of our witnesses said, in the current climate, employers take a punt that no one will bring a claim.

We have a situation where not only is this happening in an insecure workforce, but because the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s budget has been cut, it is no longer bringing as many test cases to test out the law. We are in the same position with the Equality Act as we were many years ago with the Equal Pay Act 1970. The Equality Act sets out general principles, but because English law proceeds by an accumulation of case law it needs to be fleshed out by people bringing cases. We also think that if the Government gave tribunals the power to issue injunctions to stop the use of discriminatory dress codes, these cases could be dealt with more quickly.

Funding and access to justice are key issues. We are very grateful that since our report was issued, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has told the Equality Advisory and Support Service to notify it of any cases involving dress codes, so that it can decide whether litigation and enforcement action are required. We are also grateful that it has started a campaign on social media to inform women of their rights. However, as the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) said, much more needs to be done. We are calling on the Government to start a campaign targeted at areas where people are most vulnerable, such as the hospitality industry, to inform employees of their rights and employers of their obligations.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

To build on a point the hon. Lady has made, does she agree that it is one thing to inform people of their rights, but it is critical that employment tribunal issue fees are set at an affordable level, so that people can exercise their rights and seek a remedy in the courts?

[Helen Jones]

I absolutely agree. Since the fees were raised in 2013, these cases have fallen off a cliff; they are not being brought any more. We have to remember that many of these women work in non-unionised workplaces, so a union cannot bring a claim. The Equal Pay Act was extended by unions bringing test cases on behalf of their workforce. That is not happening any more.

Ultimately, women must be able to enforce their rights. If only those who are well paid and in secure jobs can do that, not those who are low paid and in insecure employment, we do not have equality. If older women or women with disabilities are deterred from applying for jobs because of the dress code, we do not have equality. If women are forced to bear pain all day at work or put up with a toxic working environment, we do not have equality. If young women are subject all the time to comments about their bodies at work, we do not have equality. What our Committee thought would be a nice, limited inquiry exposed a number of issues in the workplace that will need further study and action by the Government.

[Ben Howlett]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again; she is most generous. One issue that has come up time and again, not just in relation to this report but from the women and equalities perspective generally, is the fact that the concept of dual discrimination is not enshrined in the Equality Act currently. The hon. Lady makes a powerful point in relation to both age and gender. Does she agree that it would be appropriate for the Government to consider implementing the dual discrimination provisions to help women to bring their cases to trial?

[Helen Jones]

Yes, I could not agree more; the hon. Gentleman is right about that issue. We also say that if the existing law is not shown to be working, the Government need to take action to clarify the law.

As I said, we thought at the beginning that this would be a short inquiry, but it has exposed a number of issues in the workplace: widespread discrimination against women; stereotypical views of what women should look like, dress like and behave like; outdated attitudes towards women in the workplace; and the constant belittling of women when they try to challenge those attitudes. The conclusion that I have come to is that we have a long way to go to solve these problems but I hope that the Government will take them seriously, because women in the workplace deserve—everyone in the workplace deserves—better than that stereotyping, better than the pain and inappropriate clothing that they are forced to put up with, and better than the attitudes that women encounter every day.

I think, as a Member of Parliament, that we have undergone a long struggle for women to be accepted in this place, but our life is a bed of roses compared with that of women in low-paid and insecure employment and what they have to put up with every day to keep their jobs. I hope that the Minister sees that this is not a trivial issue but a very serious one that affects women every day at work. The Government must now take it seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

I thank all colleagues who have spoken in this debate. Among the parliamentarians here, I see women of different ages, shapes and heights. We have all managed to do our job without anyone telling us how to dress—funnily enough, it does not matter. We need to get that message across to employers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), who has had to leave the debate, spoke about the impact that wearing high heels can have. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) rightly said that the best dress codes are limited in scope and do only what they have to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) pointed out how degrading many women find the requirements imposed on us. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) brought to bear her own experience of working in personnel and set out what needs to be done. As many hon. Members have said, a clear message needs to go out today that employers need to review their practices in this area. I was pleased to hear that the Minister has written to trade bodies to get them to remind employers about their duties under the Equality Act 2010, because too much discrimination still goes on in the workplace.

Anyone who suggests that a woman can only do her job wearing 3 or 4 inch heels does not understand the job and has never spent the day in heels. Anyone who suggests that we choose an airline based on the shade of lipstick worn by the female cabin crew really needs to wake up and smell the coffee. It is outrageous that such things are still going on today. Equality in the workplace should be a given; it should not be something that people constantly have to fight for. It benefits employees, but in the long term it also benefits employers, because it gives them a much more diverse workforce with different skills and attitudes.

I am glad that the Minister has made it clear today that she shares our concern about discriminatory behaviour and that she knows that it is unacceptable. I look forward to the Government’s response to the Committees’ report. In the end, however, women have to be able to enforce their rights; we can get only so far with information and exhortation. At the end of the day, people need to go to a tribunal. It is a long time since I practised law, because I have been here in Parliament for nearly 20 years, but I do not see a difference between what the Minister calls a “strategic” case and a test case. I think they are exactly the same thing and I will be glad to see the Equality and Human Rights Commission taking on some further cases in this area.

I also thank Nicola Thorp, who started this petition. Already, it has achieved a great deal and I hope that we will achieve more in the long term. She put her head above the parapet and endured a lot of abuse on social media for doing so. As I said before, these issues are not trivial; they contribute to a toxic atmosphere in the workplace that demeans women and does not give them equality. I hope that we shall move on from our report to ensure that such equality becomes not just an aspiration but a reality in the workplace for all women, even those who are poorly paid and in insecure jobs.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 129823 relating to high heels and workplace dress codes.

Maintained Nursery Schools Funding

Helen Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Only a few hon. Members have put down their names to speak, but there are rather a lot present. Interventions are welcome, but I will not tolerate their being used as an opportunity to make a speech.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered funding for maintained nursery schools.

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. It may help if I say at the outset that I do not intend to speak for long and will take only a few interventions; otherwise I shall be unfair to colleagues, many of whom want to make speeches.

We are here because we fear for the future of maintained nursery schools—the jewel in the crown of early years education. Maintained nursery schools have an outstanding record of providing for the very youngest children; 60% of them are rated outstanding by Ofsted, and 39% as good. That record of excellence is equalled nowhere else in the education sector. It is not anything like equalled even in the early years sector, where only 17% of other nurseries and preschools, and 13% of childminders, are rated outstanding. One would think that any Government would want to preserve and even expand a system that achieves such a degree of excellence, but unfortunately the reverse is true. The Prime Minister told me last week that she wants

“good-quality education at every…stage”.—[Official Report, 25 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 285.]

However, when the Government started their consultation on early years funding, it is fair to say that it caused panic in the maintained nursery sector.

The response to the consultation has done little to allay the feeling of panic, because the Government want to fund all providers equally. They tell us that the average amount paid per hour for three and four-year-olds will rise from £4.56 to £4.94, and that no council will receive less than £4.30 an hour, so that providers can be paid at least £4. That would sound extremely reasonable if all providers had to abide by the same rules and do the same things, but they do not. That is the real problem. Even with the transitional funding that the Government have promised, one in 10 nursery schools still think they will have to close by July and 67% believe they will have to close by the end of the transitional funding.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Warwick Nursery School and Whitnash Nursery School in my constituency will face a funding decrease under the proposals. Does she agree that the Government should revisit those proposals, so that such nurseries are not placed under a disadvantage or, worse still, forced to close?

[Helen Jones]

I agree absolutely, for reasons that I hope to set out. Having just seen that every school in my area will lose money under the Government’s so-called fair funding formula, even though we were already one of the lowest-funded authorities in the country, I think that we should treat everything with a fair degree of scepticism until we see the basis on which all the funding is allocated.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate. We have a similar problem at the Hillfields nursery in Coventry, whose funding is similarly under threat. It has an excellent achievement record; Ofsted has affirmed that. More importantly, I agree that what is happening is disproportionate through the country.

[Helen Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The real problem is demonstrated in the foreword by the Secretary of State to the Government’s consultation response. It displays astonishing ignorance for someone holding her office, because she talks continually about childcare. Childcare is not the same thing as early years education, and Ministers must stop confusing and conflating the two. Maintained nursery schools provide early years education. They are schools and must employ qualified teachers. They must have a qualified head. Indeed, many of the headteachers in the sector are highly qualified. More than 80% are qualified at master’s degree level or above, because their job is highly skilled.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

Unlike schools, they are not allowed to academise, for example, or to form unions of different schools that would allow them a centre of gravity that might just enable them to get through the difficulty.

[Helen Jones]

That is an interesting point, but not one that I have heard from maintained nurseries, which value their independence and their different way of working, and want to keep that special atmosphere. The problem, of course, is that they are funded not as schools but through the early years formula, which has been consistently cut by the Government. Its various incarnations have had various names, but the Library has produced figures showing that the predecessor grants that were originally rolled up into it would have been worth £2.79 billion in 2010. There was an immediate cut to £2.48 billion and continued decreases and, based on our indicative figures, the sum will be £1 billion by 2019-20.

The problem is that at the same time, the Government have changed the way they fund local authorities. Those authorities have the power to fund nursery schools on a different basis from other providers, but they do not have an obligation to do so. They face a double whammy, because most maintained nursery places—65% of them—are in the most deprived areas. It is councils in those areas that have faced enormous cuts in their budgets, so that some are struggling even to fund statutory services. It is no surprise that there is pressure on maintained nurseries to close or amalgamate.

Maintained nursery schools provide outreach to families, support to other providers, and initial teacher training places. Nowhere else in the sector does all that. Yet they achieve enormous success with children from the most deprived families in the country. Sandy Lane Nursery and Forest School in my constituency serves, mostly, two wards, Orford and Poplars and Hulme, although it takes children from a wider area too. Those wards are among the most deprived 30% in the country. In Orford 33.7% of children are growing up in workless families. In Poplars and Hulme the figure is 32.9%. The fact that the nursery is rated outstanding in those circumstances is a tribute to the skill and expertise of the staff, but that is by no means unusual. The Government should pay heed to the words of a former chief inspector of schools, who said:

“The only early education provision that is at least as strong, or even stronger, in deprived areas compared with wealthier areas is nursery schools”.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a very good speech. The evidence is certainly there, from health visitors who see children at an early age, that targeted interventions for deprived families, single mothers and people in other situations that may interfere with a child’s life chances make a real difference. That is actually investing to save later on, because of the reduced rates of family breakdown and the improvement in a child’s life chances.

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is interesting that there is a fair degree of consensus on that across the House. The evidence is there: if the Prime Minister really wants to improve social mobility, she will stop fixating on grammar schools and start investing in maintained nursery schools. Even if I believed that there was a test that could measure the innate ability of 11-year-olds—I certainly do not—as opposed to them being tutored for that test, 11 is too late for many children. They need intervention earlier on.

For example, the Ofsted report on Sandy Lane Nursery and Forest School in my constituency is clear that most children come to the school with skills well below the level expected of their age group. However, by the time they go on to reception, the vast majority are achieving at the right level for their age. Furthermore—one of the teachers has tracked children’s progress through primary school—they maintain those gains in future years.

The fact that the school achieves that, while at the same time catering for children with disabilities and other special needs, and while—unusually for Warrington, which is largely white, British and monoglot—they have children speaking eight different languages, is amazing. On a recent visit there, I saw that all the children learn to sign; they all learn Makaton, because there are children there with communication difficulties and the staff want them all to be included.

Like most nursery schools, my local nursery also caters for children with special needs and disabilities. Some 49% of maintained nurseries are attended by children with the most severe degree of disabilities, 69% are attended by children with moderate disabilities and 72% are attended by children with mild disabilities. They get more referrals from councils than other providers, because they have the expertise. If nurseries close, the Minister has to tell us where those children will go. We already know that 42% of parents of children with disabilities find difficulty in accessing the early years provision that they are entitled to.

Maintained nurseries actually do more than simply cater for children with disabilities and special needs—they also provide advice to other providers. For example, a teacher at my local nursery co-ordinates provision for nought to five-year-olds with disabilities and special needs throughout the borough. Again, that is common: 46% of our maintained nurseries provide disability and special needs support to the local authority; 43% provide it to other maintained settings; and 47% provide it to private and voluntary sector settings as well. That outreach work, not only to families but to others in the sector, is a vital part of maintained nursery schools’ work.

Since the coalition Government took what I think was the retrograde step of not requiring children’s centres to employ a trained teacher, that expertise is largely in maintained nurseries. Some 71% of maintained nurseries support their local children’s centre and 60% of them support private and voluntary settings. In fact, in my area, the maintained nursery, the children’s centre and the private nursery were all built on the same site, precisely to facilitate that exchange of expertise. Because there is a real need to raise standards across the early years sector, we ought to cherish and facilitate that sharing of expertise.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a truly outstanding speech in support of maintained nursery schools. We heard reassurances from the Minister at the recent meeting of the all-party group on nursery schools and nursery classes, but my hon. Friend will be aware that those assurances are insufficient given the imminence of the threat to our maintained nursery schools. Of the more than 400 nursery schools, 67 think they will close by the summer. We need urgent action, not just warm words for the future.

[Helen Jones]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The lack of urgency from the Government worries all of us who support the continuance of our maintained nurseries.

Maintained nurseries do a lot more than I have already described. They have regular contact with families. Because they are trusted by families, they can refer those in difficulty to other services, such as domestic violence services or English as a second language services for those who do not speak English. That is vital in ensuring that a child’s life chances are not damaged early on.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

This is a timely and tremendous debate, because my constituents are really worried. On the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), does my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) agree that despite the Government’s wish to appear to be supporting working families and caring for the quality of early years education, they are trying to do that on the cheap? That decimates any remaining credibility they have on the issue. We need them to do the right thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend; I said in a previous debate that there can be good early years provision or there can be cheap early years provision—there cannot be good, cheap early years provision. It requires high ratios of staff to children and properly trained staff. What sort of Government would want to put such a high-achieving sector, with such a wealth of expertise and such a record in promoting social mobility, in jeopardy? This Government, apparently. The Prime Minister’s repeated assertions about social mobility will ring hollow if maintained nurseries, which are the best engine of social mobility, as proven by study after study, start to close.

The Government need to look at this urgently. They need to ensure that they get a grip, to stop closures from coming this summer and to ensure the future of our maintained nurseries. They need to review the funding arrangements, and to recognise the interaction with other council funding; so far, they have not managed to do that. They cannot cut and cut and expect the same services. They also need to commit not only to interim funding, but to properly funding our maintained nursery schools.

Maintained nursery schools have far greater duties and obligations than other providers in the sector, and are supporting many of those other providers. What has consistently bedevilled early years provision in this country is that we do not have enough trained staff; most of the properly trained staff we have are in maintained nursery schools, and we would be very foolish to lose them. I can never make up my mind whether Ministers simply do not understand the difference between early education and childcare, or whether they are trying to disguise the fact that they have not properly funded their decisions and commitments on childcare, and so are taking money away from maintained nurseries. That needs to stop now.

The Government need to take this seriously. If they do not, the life chances of a whole generation of children will be damaged in a way that cannot be made up for later. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) was right: every teacher will agree that, with early intervention, money is saved and problems are avoided later on in the education system. The Government need to understand that and do the best they can for our youngest children. That, after all, is the mark of a civilised society. The Minister needs to make some commitments to that in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Caroline Dinenage)]

It is an enormous pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on securing this important debate, and indeed all the hon. Members from different parties who have taken part; they have spoken with great passion about their own experience of maintained nursery schools. It has been great to hear the support from across the House for these valuable educational providers.

The issue of maintained nursery schools is of huge importance. I am pleased to have the opportunity to set out very clearly the Government’s position on the valuable contribution that they can make, not only to the lives of disadvantaged children, but to the wider early years sector. I want to make it very clear that the Government are committed to exploring all options to address the issues that nursery schools face, and we remain committed to ensuring that nursery schools have a bright future and can continue to meet the needs of the communities they serve.

Nursery schools do indeed have an impressive history. Central to the development of the very early nurseries was the recognition that disadvantaged children could thrive and overcome their circumstances by attending nursery settings that blended both care and education. Today that approach is backed up by robust research. We know that the first few years of a child’s life are critical to shaping their future development. We also know that high-quality pre-school education reduces the effects of multiple disadvantage on later attainment and progress in primary school. In addition, we know that many maintained nursery schools go beyond the bounds of their immediate communities, using their pedagogical expertise to help other providers improve the quality of their provision.

In short, although maintained nursery schools are attended by only 2.8% of the two, three and four-year-old children who benefit from funded early education places, they nevertheless make a huge contribution to disadvantaged children and to the early years sector as a whole. Like other Members, I have seen that in my own constituency.

[Helen Jones]

If, as the Minister says, she understands and values the contributions that maintained nursery schools make, why did the Government create this problem by going for a flat funding formula? She says she is trying to put it right, but the problem is entirely of the Government’s own making, is it not?

[Caroline Dinenage]

I think that the hon. Lady is being a little narrow-minded. I was a mother under the previous Labour Government and both my children were in childcare. That Government presided over some of the most expensive childcare in Europe. I was literally working to pay for my childcare under her stewardship. We can all talk about past mistakes.

[Helen Jones]

rose—

[Caroline Dinenage]

If the hon. Lady sits down, I will make a little progress. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

I would. Briefly, I thank my colleagues for their contributions to this debate. I am far from reassured by what the Minister has said. She offered no certainty to nursery schools and clearly does not understand the problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered funding for maintained nursery schools.

National Funding Formula: Schools/High Needs

Helen Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The pupil premium is largely unaffected, but as my hon. Friend points out, there is now an element to ensure that the children of forces families are not disadvantaged when, as often happens, people get posted to different places and their children have to switch schools. That was one reason we were keen to handle the mobility issue carefully within the funding formula.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Schools in my constituency are among the lowest funded in the country, so we will look with interest at what the Secretary of State is proposing, but those schools are struggling now because of the Government’s actions: cuts to the education services grant have taken money out of the dedicated schools grant; schools are being inadequately funded under legislation on additional need; and our high-needs block is very underfunded. What will she do to assist these schools now, before the new funding formula comes in and before even more damage is done to the education of children at school now?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady raises a number of issues. On local authorities and school improvement, we have launched a strategic school improvement fund to ensure school improvement, particularly in those parts of the country where schools have made less progress than we would have wanted. In relation to high needs, as I set out, no local areas will see a reduction in their funding, but areas that have been most underfunded will see 3% gains over 2018-19 and 2019-20, which I hope she will welcome.

Free Childcare

Helen Jones Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 132140 relating to free childcare.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.

The petition has so far garnered more than 132,000 signatures, but the amount of public engagement generated through the Petitions Committee has been quite astonishing. We have had 33,000 posts on our Facebook page, which has been viewed by more than 492,000 people. I did a webchat, which, for someone so useless with technology, is a step forward in itself. A number of people also emailed me personally and some of the stories they told were quite heart-breaking.

The difficulties that many parents have to go through simply to go out to work ought to give us all in the House pause for thought. Because of the difficulties they face, some of those parents, understandably, are quite angry, and sometimes their anger—not in the majority of cases—turns against the wrong target, which is those getting free childcare for two-year-olds. I want to set out the position as it is because there is a misunderstanding. Many people think that free childcare for two-year-olds is only available to parents who are unemployed, but that is not the case.

As we all know, all three and four-year-olds are currently entitled to 15 hours of free childcare for 38 weeks of the year. The provision was brought in by the Labour Government for four-year-olds for 33 weeks of the year, and it was gradually extended. It is a universal provision and most families take up their entitlement. That Government also sought to start to extend free childcare to the most disadvantaged two-year-olds, and the coalition Government broadened that further. It is available not only to those on income support or income-based jobseeker’s allowance, but to children in the poorest working families: those in receipt of tax credits and—the last time I looked—with an income of less than just over £16,000. Crucially, the provision is also available to looked-after children, to children with disabilities and to children with special educational needs. I say that it is available to the children, rather than the parents, because that particular policy is aimed at tackling disadvantage in the early years so that children are ready to start school and benefit properly from their education.

The Government have taken a different course, and seek to extend free childcare for three and four-year-olds to 30 hours a week. Crucially, that is not a universal provision. It is for working parents only, and will be subject to minimum and maximum income limits. It is currently in the pilot stage, and I have reservations, which I will come to later, about how it will be paid for. There is no doubt that the situation is very confusing for parents, and it is understandable that many of them are very angry at the problems they face because the cost of childcare has risen alarmingly in the past few years. It rose by 30% on average between 2010 and 2015, which is five times higher than the rise in wages. The parents who have contacted me have told me about the problems they face not just with childcare during the day, but in getting after-school childcare and holiday care.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady is making an important point about the need for flexibility in the timing of childcare. I am particularly encouraged that the Scottish Government, after a major consultation, have launched a series of trials to ensure that, in Scotland, we can offer places where and when families need them. Does she agree that those steps are significant in making the provisions work for everyone?

[Helen Jones]

I agree with the hon. Lady that we need flexible provision of childcare because what we have does not always fit with parents’ working hours. I will come to that later, but first I will give a few examples of the cost to parents.

Of course, costs vary throughout the country, but so do wages. One lady who contacted me from the north-west said that her family pay £840 a month for three days of childcare a week. Now, they are not highly paid and, to put it into context, that is exactly the same amount as their mortgage payment. Another parent from Surrey, at the other end of the country, got in touch with me. She and her husband have a reasonable joint income of £69,000, but they have twins. They have found that the cheapest way to provide childcare for their twins is to hire a nanny, but the cost of hiring a nanny is about £25,000 a year, which is more than a third of their joint income—an astronomical sum. These parents feel caught in a trap that is not of their own making. They want to work and, in many cases, they need to work just to keep their heads above water, yet a huge chunk of their earnings is being taken by childcare.

I was also contacted by a nurse who wants to go back to work in the NHS, and the country certainly needs nurses to go back to work. She found that, for a 12.5 hour day shift, she would be just £25 better off after paying for childcare. Her solution is to work night shifts, which, for various medical reasons, are not good for her. That is an example of the barriers people face just in doing their job.

The other issue that many parents raised with me was one of access, and that seems to be particularly true when one partner is in the armed forces. One family contacted me—again, not pleading poverty. They said, “We have a good income”, but they found that every time they moved, the decent nurseries, at a reasonable cost, were full, and they charge—certainly in the south of England—between £50 and £100 per child just to be put on the waiting list. Frankly, that is a rip-off that the Government could and should end very quickly.

Another member of the armed forces—a single parent who is not earning a high income—told me of the real difficulty she faced in finding childcare that would fit with her irregular working hours. Another family told me that when they move, they find that some local authorities provide free childcare for two-year-olds of military families, and that others do not, but those families have no control over where they are posted or, therefore, whether they can access that provision.

These are parents who are trying to do the right thing and set a good example to their children but, naturally enough, they want the best provision for their children, as we would all want for our children. That is why we should be talking about early years provision and early years education, rather than childcare. We want to provide the best we can for our very youngest children, but the problem is that for many years there has not been sufficient investment in the sector, and there are not sufficient qualified staff. I am convinced, as someone who began her career as a secondary teacher, that if we invested more in the early years, we would prevent many problems further along in the education system. Such a move would pay us because it is the right thing to do not only morally, but economically.

The last Labour Government recognised that problem and they particularly recognised the difficulty of ensuring that we had a sufficiently skilled workforce. Therefore, part of the job of Sure Start centres, which became children’s centres, was about providing day care, but it was also about giving advice to parents and, crucially, working with other providers and childminders to raise standards across the sector. It therefore seems a tragedy that the coalition Government decided to remove from centres in the most deprived areas not only the obligation to provide full day care but the need to employ a qualified teacher. There are some Ministers—I except the Minister present from this—who believe that anyone can teach, but I assure her that that is not the case. I suspect that many members of the Government would not last a day in early years provision. I know that I would not, and I am a qualified teacher. Early years provision is a highly skilled occupation if we are going to do it properly.

At the same time, the Government set up the early intervention grant and ended the ring-fencing of funding for children’s centres. They then reduced the grant year by year, meaning that not enough money was going into the system. The House of Commons Library estimates that the predecessor grants that were rolled up into the early years grants were worth £2.79 billion in 2010. Immediately on taking office, the coalition Government reduced the sum to £2.48 billion, and to £2.24 billion the year after—that is 10% lower than what they spent the previous year and 20% lower than planned. Two thirds of that money was spent on the under-fives, which gives an idea of the impact of the grants on the whole sector.

There was no extra money when the coalition Government expanded childcare for two-year-olds. They paid for it by moving some of the early intervention grant across to the dedicated schools grant, thus starving the rest of the sector of resources. The remains of the early intervention grant continue to go down. The grant was part of the start-up funding assessment when the Government changed to a business rate retention scheme for local government finance, and it was £1.71 billion in 2013, going down to £1.58 billion the following year. This year it is £1.32 billion and, if the indicative totals we have are right, by 2019-20 it will be just over £1 billion.

What is the point of this ramble through the byzantine pathways of local government finance? I must admit that I find it fascinating, but I have never found anyone else who does. The simple reason is that we can have good early years provision and we can have cheap early years provision, but we cannot have good, cheap early years provision. The real problem with what the Government are doing is that it pushes more of the cost on to parents because the free hours are underfunded, and it ensures that the expertise that was being built up in children’s centres is gradually disappearing as they close and as the services they offer are restricted.

There is doubt about whether the extended hours that the Government are offering will be properly funded. The National Audit Office published a report earlier this year in which it said that there was real difficulty because the Government’s implementation of the provision will mean the end of much cross-subsidisation. At the moment if a parent has, say, 40 hours’ childcare a week, 15 of those hours are paid for by the local authority but at a fairly low rate. The hours that the parent takes on are paid at a higher rate to cross-subsidise the other hours. If the Government do not properly fund the extra hours, several things could happen: the quality might reduce; many providers might not take part in the scheme at all; or there might be a further cost for parents because providers decide to charge more for other types of childcare, such as childcare for the under-twos, holiday provision and out-of-hours provision.

Several providers that have contacted me say that they are already struggling to keep going, even though low wages are endemic in the sector. Staff have contacted me about how little they earn, which makes it even more difficult to attract good, skilled staff. Those issues are important to parents because the Government estimate that the parents of some 390,000 children will want to take up the extra hours, which means an extra 45,000 places are needed. In fact, even more places are likely to be needed as the figure is likely to be an underestimate. If the policy is successful in getting more parents into work or in getting parents to work extra hours, even more childcare places will be needed. The Government’s response was to announce last year that they would increase the average national funding rate for early years to £4.88 an hour from £4.56 an hour for three and four-year-olds. That, of course, is an average. Many councils do not pay that amount because they are having such difficulty funding even statutory services that there is not enough money left to fund early years services.

It is fair to say that many providers found the Government’s response unconvincing. The Family and Childcare Trust told the Childcare Public Bill Committee that it was

“unlikely to be sufficient to address the strategic challenge the 30 hour offer presents”.

The National Day Nurseries Association found in a survey of its members that only 45% were likely or very likely to take part in the scheme. If so, the shortage of places that we already face will simply get worse. Already 45% of councils in England do not have enough places for families who work full time.

The second issue to which the Government must face up is where most three and four-year-olds access this provision. Some 58% of them are in the maintained sector, usually in nursery classes attached to a primary school. Many of those schools are on restricted sites and would not be able to expand even if capital funding were available, which at present seems fairly unlikely. There is also a bulge in the number of primary-aged children coming through the system. It does not take a genius to work out that if it is having to address a bulge in the number of primary schoolchildren as well as extra demand for nursery places, any school that can expand will expand to meet the primary provision because it has to—it is as simple as that.

At the same time, the Government risk hugely damaging the best provision in the childcare sector, which is in maintained nurseries. Some 60% of maintained nurseries are rated “outstanding” by Ofsted, and 39% are rated “good.” Nowhere else in the education system even gets near that level of supply. In their consultation on early years funding, the Government say that they want to fund all providers equally. Wherever they are, each child will receive the same amount of funding per hour. That sounds reasonable until we understand that nursery schools are required to employ qualified teachers and a qualified head, and many of the heads in this sector are very well qualified indeed. Nursery schools also provide training places for staff. They do outreach work not only with families but with other providers. The very good maintained nursery in my constituency, Sandy Lane, is based on the same site as a children’s centre and a private nursery precisely so that the three can work together, but they need the funding to do that.

We are in a position where we risk getting rid of the best provision, or hugely damaging it, where the Government are underfunding childcare and where the cost is being heaped on to parents for the extra hours they purchase. Frankly, it is a mess. It is a national disgrace that we treat our youngest children in that way. By trying to do it on the cheap, we are putting huge stress on working families. I would love to be able to say that we can deliver free childcare for all working families, but we cannot do so without more money in the system and without more training for staff.

That situation cannot be solved overnight—it cannot, I believe, even be solved in one Parliament—but we need a national strategy for early years. The Government should consider it seriously and set up an inquiry, perhaps a royal commission, staffed by experts. I know that some Government Members do not like experts, but we need them. They are experts because they know something about the subject. The inquiry should do several things. It should chart a path to, if not free, at least heavily subsidised early years provision, and it should lay out how we can grow the workforce that we need. At the moment, for instance, when we need nursery nurses the most, the number of applications for training is falling. The inquiry should also set out how we can raise the skill levels of people already working in the field.

At the moment, if we are honest, a lot of children are being cared for by unqualified teenagers, who might be nice people doing their level best but who do not have the skills necessary to develop the minds of young children, at an age at which they are developing more rapidly than at any other time in their lives and need constant care. We must amend that to give them the best. I hope that such an inquiry would have all-party support, so that we could take a consistent approach through several Parliaments.

I recognise that it will not be enough to alleviate the problems that parents face now. I urge the Government to consider seriously what they can do to support parents. The first thing that they should do is end a policy that threatens the best provision in the sector. The Government need to consider how to develop maintained nursery schools, how nursery classes attached to primary schools can expand and what capital provision can be given for that. They also need seriously to consider raising the hourly rate paid for the care of under-fives. If they do not, decent providers in the private sector will not be able to continue. Those who try to provide good, decent childcare cannot do it without proper funding. The Government should work much more with businesses to develop workplace nurseries—not simply providing vouchers, but talking to businesses and explaining why nurseries are vital to retaining a trained workforce and why they benefit businesses as well as children.

The Government should also consider giving parents decent help now with the costs of childcare, perhaps by extending child tax credit or by other methods. What is happening now is not helping families or children. We need to stop thinking of early years provision as an add-on that we think about after we have thought about the rest of the education system and realise that it is the way to tackle disadvantage and ensure more social mobility. If the Government concentrated on early years provision rather than grammar schools, they would do much better.

[Kirsten Oswald]

The point about disadvantage is key. Mark McDonald, the Scottish Government Minister for Childcare and Early Years, has identified that high-quality early learning and childcare plays a vital role in narrowing the attainment gap, which is why there is such a commitment to increasing early childcare and education provision.

[Helen Jones]

It is certainly true that it narrows the gap, but I want to make the point that it is good for all children. All children deserve the best provision that we can offer them, and we are not offering them that at the moment. We need to get a grip on the situation, for the sake of families in this country and of our children. If we do not, although we might not pay for early years provision immediately, we will pay the price further down the line in educational failure, social disadvantage and children not reaching their full potential. I urge the Minister, when she replies, to take the issue seriously so that we can at last move forward in this often-forgotten and certainly underfunded area of our education system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Of course childcare is not just a women’s issue, but it is a fact that the labour market has changed because women have joined it in greater numbers, so we have to rethink how the Government support parents in work. As it happens, I am sure that in my constituency as many men as women care about the cost of childcare. As many granddads as nans are supporting their children to take care of their children. This issue affects the whole family, older and younger alike, for all the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North has set out: costs are cantering away ahead of wages and successive Governments have been too slow to be radical on childcare.

Another reality that we have to face is that we have a productivity crisis in this country: we are still working longer to make less than our competitors, and I think childcare plays a hidden role in that. Over the summer I went back to work—I did days at work with different types of businesses throughout the north-west, including in retail, manufacturing and care. Managers often told me that they wanted to find people to promote from within their businesses, who could do more, earn more and drive the business forward, but that people were not able to take on that extra responsibility because of their responsibilities at home. They did not think that they necessarily had the back-up to step up and get that promotion. Businesses can get people in through the door to do the basic jobs, but helping them to move on brings the risk of their fragile family caring responsibilities being unpicked.

[Helen Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that working hours have changed across the whole range of businesses and jobs? When I worked at holiday jobs in retail, for instance, we finished at 5 o’clock—it was 9 to 5. That is no longer the case, and it places a huge burden on parents.

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend is correct. These days, retail is 24 hours a day. She makes an excellent case for some sort of royal commission or cross-party inquiry into the matter, partly because we need to take a sectoral approach. The challenges in retail are immense, and so are the challenges in care. The NHS and the care sector need their own childcare strategy. We have a nursing recruitment crisis on our hands, and a lot of it has to do with care. When I was shadow childcare Minister in the last Parliament, I argued that the NHS needed its own childcare strategy, which the Department of Health should lead across Government. That has not happened yet, but it must. In the present situation, with the risk of Brexit and the possibility of an NHS hiring crisis, we must recognise that a lot of the problems are of our own making. Nurses, doctors and other health professionals—women and men—are really struggling to work the hours they need to and to stay in work as they wish to, when they simply do not have the appropriate back-up.

The world has moved on, as my hon. Friend said. We want our businesses to be as productive as they can and our public services to be as efficient as they can. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to think strategically and to question the infrastructure support we offer so that our economy can work well. I know that the Government are committed to cutting corporation tax, but I really question whether that is the priority for business right now. When we talk to people in the business community, they are more interested in business rates than in corporation tax, and they are definitely interested in childcare. The childcare challenge that many employees face is a problem for small and big businesses alike. As the CBI has said, the Government could have a real impact on dealing with the infrastructure challenge that childcare represents.

I have two final points: the first is about children, who I feel always get left out of this conversation, and the second is about a possible way forward, adding to the very good suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North.

Disabled children, who face particular difficulties in accessing the right care and support, are often forgotten in all this. Their parents are entitled to the same childcare support as everyone else. Given the communication difficulties and medical needs that children with disabilities may have, their childcare provision is clearly incredibly important. We now know much more about how to help children with disabilities to progress, but the earlier that help comes in their life—the earlier they get that support—the better and more successful it is. I have seen that with families in my constituency who have children with disabilities. If the Minister takes up my hon. Friend’s sensible suggestion of an inquiry, I ask her to include those who have expertise in working with families who have a child with a disability. We can do more than ever before to give those children the best possible chance of a successful life, so let us do it from the very beginning.

The second group of children who are often forgotten about is those who live in rural areas. Towns and cities face many challenges in getting the right childcare provision, because geography can be a natural barrier to access. Those challenges can often be overlooked in our modern economy. I ask the Minister to think about that too.

Frankly, even for those who do not face those challenges, being a parent of a small child is terrifying. All of us who have ever experienced it know that. We need to move towards universal childcare for a very simple reason, in addition to all the reasons that I have set out about the benefits it would bring to businesses and our economy. Being a parent can be a huge challenge for anyone, and the one thing that gives a parent a little bit of confidence is meeting that key worker in the nursery or the childminder who has brilliant expertise, so that they have someone in their life to ask, “Am I doing this right?” I know that in the past parents coped without help and support, but these days our experience is that difficulties with parenting can strike anybody, whatever their income level or their confidence.

[Helen Jones]

Before my hon. Friend finishes her speech, may I point out that parents in the past had a lot of support? Extended families lived together or near one another, which is no longer the case. People did not look after a baby on their own; they had grannies, aunties and great-aunties all around them. As families become more mobile, that support network tends to disappear, which is a real problem for parents.

[Alison McGovern]

That is a very good point. In addition, bearing in mind what we know now about child development compared with what was known many years ago, I would argue that childcare is a real expertise. All parents welcome expertise on the best way to help their child to develop. All the evidence shows that the most important learning years of a person’s life are those when they are very small, but that is terrifying for the parent of a very small person. We know that what we do in those important years will echo down that child’s life and we desperately want the best for them, so it is really great to have a professional there who can help.

We should have a vision that runs from the midwife who cares for the child when they are first born, and for the parents before that, through the health visiting system to which the Government have said they are committed, to that family working with a key worker through nurseries and some universal childcare provision. That way, all through the child’s earliest years, professionals would consistently be around the family to help them, alongside their extended family, where possible.

How do we do that practically, though? I wish to add a final thought to the mix. We have heard from the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) about the work the Scottish Government are doing, which is to be commended, but some new devolved institutions are also coming to England. We should look at how childcare is provided through local authorities, because there is a possibility of doing more and improving expertise if local authorities are able to work together across boundaries to come up with a good universal childcare proposal for their area. We might then benefit from the efficiencies of local authorities working together, and it would also help them to think strategically about the educational challenges faced by their city or city region and then to put investment in the right place. Ministers cannot know that from Whitehall. With the greatest respect to the Minister, she is never going to have a fine detail of knowledge about the best childcare arrangements for Merseyside, but we could do that in Merseyside for ourselves. Will the Minister think about how resources could be devolved out of Whitehall and given to city regions or groups of local authorities working together?

I am afraid I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North: in the end, I do not believe we have backed up our children with nearly enough finance. Nevertheless, if we are going to spend more on childcare, let us do it in an effective way that respects the different challenges faced by cities throughout the country and does not dictate from Whitehall how it should be provided. If we do that, people will get a real sense that the Government are prepared to back them up. Our economy will most certainly feel the benefit, but—much more importantly—so will every family in the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

Absolutely. The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. We have heard a lot today about maintained nursery schools, which do a fantastic job with children with special educational needs or disabilities. They need to be supported to carry on doing that work.

[Helen Jones]

Many maintained nurseries have special units for children with special needs. They take in disabled children. Does the Minister accept that that is another reason why maintained nurseries need to be fully supported in the extra responsibilities that they take on?

[Caroline Dinenage]

Absolutely. I am a great fan of maintained nursery schools. There is one in my own constituency, which has significant pockets of deprivation, that provides outstanding support for children. That is why the Government have committed, as part of the funding formula, to an extra £55 million a year for at least the next two years to support maintained nursery schools over and above the normal funding formula. Maintained nursery schools make up only 3% of childcare places. However, 98% of them are good or outstanding and 80% work in areas of disadvantage, which is why we want to consult them further about how we can support them in their very important work.

We know that good quality education at two can have a fantastic effect on a child’s development. We want children in care, children who have left care, adopted children and children with special educational needs and disabilities to benefit from that, as we have a duty to help them thrive and reach their potential. It is unacceptable that a child should have inferior life chances because of their background; this programme is key to tackling the problem. I am sure all hon. Members would agree that it is vital we help such children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

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

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

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

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

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

[Helen Jones]

I am sorry, but I cannot let the Minister get away with that. She is right that childcare has always been expensive, but the Labour Government expanded the number of childcare places in this country hugely and set up Sure Start and children’s centres for the first time. She cannot get away from the simple fact that the cost of childcare went up 30% under the coalition Government—five times the rate of wage growth. That is what has put so many families in such a difficult position.

[Caroline Dinenage]

As the hon. Member for Wirral South said, this is not a recent phenomenon; it has accumulated over a number of years. I can speak only from my personal experience—I know that the children of the hon. Member for Warrington North are a bit older. My children were accessing early years childcare during the years of the Labour Government, and I saw those prices go up exponentially. That is why we are dealing with this issue. In addition to various other policies that help many of the issues that have been described today, such as giving people access to flexible working and shared parental leave, which was never introduced under the previous Labour Government, more than £6 billion will be spent on childcare by 2019-20 in cash terms—[Interruption.] I know the hon. Lady is not listening, but that is more than any other Government have ever spent on this issue. It includes an extra £1 billion on the free early years entitlement.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I do not know, but I am keen to learn from best practice wherever I find it, so I will be hot-footing it back to my office directly after this debate to see what we can learn from what is happening in Scotland.

A large amount of the additional money that we are spending on childcare is going to increase the average funding rate. The Opposition spokesperson said it is going down, but it is actually going to go up for private and voluntary providers in 88% of local authorities, including that of the hon. Member for Warrington North, where the hourly rate will go up by 19%.

[Helen Jones]

The Minister is missing out the fact that going up from a low hourly rate to a slightly better one does not solve the problem. The Government’s problem when they introduce the 30-hour provision will be that, unless they fund those hours properly, they will simply raise costs elsewhere in the system, so parents will be unlikely to benefit. Once the cross-subsidisation is taken out, costs will go out somewhere else, whether for under-threes, out-of-hours childcare, or whatever. The low rate of funding throughout the system is what needs to be addressed—it leads to some providers struggling to maintain their provision and to endemic low wages in the sector, which work against recruiting skilled workers, and it does not provide the best quality of care.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I do not understand why the hon. Lady is saying that what we are doing is already leading to that, because we have not yet done it. The early years funding formula response has not even been published—it will be out soon. She is sniffing at a 19% rise in her area, according to the figures we saw in the summer, which seems a little unkind.

I was also a little disappointed with how the hon. Lady described early years professionals. She talked about them as unskilled teenagers, slightly undermining the quality—

[Helen Jones]

On a point of correction, I am sorry, but the Minister misquotes me. I said that children needed the best skilled and professional care but that some of them are being looked after by unqualified teenagers, who are not the professionals in this. The professionals are those who have the proper qualifications and experience. She really must not misquote me on that, because I was clear that the best outcomes for children are when they are looked after by skilled, experienced people.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I am grateful for the clarification, but the hon. Lady should be aware—I hope she already is and is just playing with me—that the quality of the workforce is already good and has been improving: 87% of staff in full-day care settings are now qualified to level 3, the proportion of such staff with at least that level having grown from 75% to 87% between 2008 and 2013, while the proportion of those with a degree or higher increased from 5% to 13%. We are not, however, resting on our laurels. We have a workforce strategy that will seek to support even further those excellent people who work in our childcare environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

I only want to make a few remarks to wind up. I am grateful to the Members who have spoken, but I am disappointed that the Minister has still not responded to efforts to reach a long-term solution to the problem, and one that can command support over several Parliaments, if necessary. We do not yet have that, and we will not get it without proper inquiry into the way in which we do early years education in this country. We should not elide childcare with early years education, and early years education is what we really want for our children, by the best-qualified and most experienced staff. She needs to address both the shortage of early years teachers—I say “teachers”, not other staff—and, despite what she has said, the underfunding. We need to progress to a long-term solution to the problem, and I am sorry that she did not address it in her closing remarks.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 132140 relating to free childcare.