Tim
Loughton: I am a bit disappointed, which I have not been
much in the Committee so far. The Minister seems to be moving into a
position in which it would be easy for him to accept at least one of
the amendments in this small flourish of amendments, as he described it
earlier. He made all the right noises and pointed to the problems with
the educational achievement gap, which we all know about and which has
been widening. He pointed out that the 7 per cent. achievement on the
O-level criteria has improved to around 12 or 13 per cent.
The achievement by children who are not in care has improved rather
more, so that last year the gap worsened. Children in care are being
left behind, and more so than their cohort as a whole. That is also an
important consideration for children in care, because some 80 per cent.
of the 61,000 children in the care system in England and Wales are of
school
age. This
goes to the heart of what is essential for improving conditions for
looked-after children in the education system. It was not therefore a
surprise to me that the Minister agreed with everything that we said.
He also said that the Government will set out in guidance the role of
the designated teacher—I think that he said
“teacher” and not “member of staff”. He
agreed with the significant role of governors in promoting educational
achievement, and said that that there would be regular reports to
governors. Everything he said seemed to agree with what we had said,
but then he ruined it by saying that the amendments were not necessary
because the issues could be set down in guidance. Clearly, the Minister
has got confused as to what is a designated member of staff and what is
a designated teacher; he slipped seamlessly from one term to the other,
without realising that the Bill does not say “designated
teacher”. I could not find in any of his comments any downside
to putting “designated teacher” rather than
“designated member of staff” in the Bill. He gave lots of
good reasons why the amendments were well intentioned and appropriate,
and no good reasons why the Committee should not adopt them, at least
those relating to a designated teacher and a designated
governor. The
hon. Member for Ceredigion made some good points in support of his
amendment, which is based on the same principle as the amendments in my
name and those of my hon. Friends. He showed from his experience how
much more attention needs to be given to the issue by teaching staff.
As he said, it is not a question of meaningless
titles, but of proper titles being given to the right people along with
the right tools to do the job, backed up in statute. That is what the
amendment is about. He quoted my hon. Friend the
Member for
Buckingham, who said that this should not be another
job that gets piled automatically on the SENCO—the general
repository of all things slightly odd. The job needs to be done by
somebody who is focused on looked-after children and who has the
appropriate training, overseen by the governors. There will also be a
governor with the responsibility of ensuring that that training has
taken place, and that reports on the progress of looked-after children
and the school’s policy towards such children are discussed at
governors’ meetings, that they are not just another little box
that you have to get around to ticking. The hon. Gentleman rightly says
that the governing body is responsible for overseeing that, but it
would be so much better if there was a designated governor who was
responsible for ensuring that the governing body was doing everything
that it should be—not just the minimum—to ensure that the
policy was implemented. It is not the designated teacher who will be
responsible for that, but the head and the senior staff severally, on
the same basis that it will be the governing body jointly and
severally. Again, I could not see a downside to a designated governor
in what the Minister
said. I
take the Minister’s point that the information that I called for
should, under the Education (Pupil Information) (England) Regulations
2005, be made available to every person with parental responsibility
for a child. He gave a satisfactory answer on that matter, and also
regarding amendment No. 30 on promoting well-being, in that that is
catered for elsewhere. The Minister did not make a case for why having
a designated teacher and a designated governor would in any way damage
the Bill or hamper—beyond what is intended by forthcoming
regulations—the role of the school in doing what we want it to
do. On that basis and to ensure that the Committee is awake, I will
push the amendment to a vote. I ask the Committee to support the lead
amendment, which is about having a designated teacher and a designated
governor. Question
put, That the amendment be
made:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
8.
Division
No.
1] Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 20
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
21Entitlement
to payment in respect of higher
education
Annette
Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in
clause 21, page 17, line 3, after
‘higher education’, insert
‘or further education and training,
including apprenticeships’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 32, in
clause 21, page 17, line 8, after
‘higher education’, insert
‘or further education and training,
including
apprenticeships’.
Annette
Brooke: I had better say at the outset that this is a
probing amendment because I rather suspect that I have applied my
thoughts to the wrong clause. However, I hope that the Minister will
accept the argument that I put forward even if the amendment is tabled
in a highly technically inefficient
way. The
amendment is about parity of treatment for care leavers in their future
education. I welcome the support that is offered in the clause to
previously looked-after people who decide to go to university.
Ministers have pointed out that only 6 per cent. of looked-after
children go on to university. There is a massive discrepancy between
that figure and that for the rest of the population. I therefore
appreciate the bursary. However, it is also important to appreciate
that 30 per cent. of care leavers aged 19 are not in education,
employment or training. While the gap is not quite as large as with the
university figure, it is still highly significant that a third of care
leavers are not in education, employment or training. When the
Children, Schools and Families Committee looked at this issue, it
recommended that a broader bursary system be introduced for
looked-after children in post-16 education and
training. I
recognise that the Government are putting forward support in clause 22
in the way of a personal adviser in certain circumstances. The
Government have responded in other arenas by saying that they have
measures to support young people who are not in education, employment
or training, such as by not charging fees for courses. If we want to
ensure that we put as much emphasis on carrying on in training as on
going to university, we must give a little more financial assistance to
care leavers. I have deliberately included apprenticeships in the
amendment because that could be an area where just that little bit of
extra support is
needed. I
hope that the Minister will respond to the general principle rather
than the adequacy of the amendment and say why there should not be more
assistance for the important proportion of care leavers who are not in
education, employment or training and will not immediately take a
university route, but who need support at this vital
time.
Kevin
Brennan: The hon. Lady is as candid as ever in her
charming way on the amendments. I will try to answer in the spirit in
which she has invited me to respond. “Care Matters” set
out an ambitious and wide-ranging programme of work to support the
education and training of looked-after children and to ensure that they
are supported in making a successful transition into adult life.
Ensuring that they are able to pursue their chosen path post-18 depends
on high quality support earlier on. To ensure that they have the best
quality education possible, we have given them the highest priority in
school admissions, we have put the role of the designated
teacher—I am happy to say that again on the record—for
looked-after children on a statutory footing, we have introduced an
annual personal allowance of up to £500 for looked-after
children at risk of not reaching the expected national targets and we
are changing the way that local authorities support the education of
looked-after children by piloting virtual school heads. There are
therefore a lot of initiatives.
Support to
enable looked-after children and care leavers to thrive in education
goes wider than schools, as the hon. Lady said. That is why we have had
the right to be cared for pilots, which give looked-after children
greater involvement in deciding when they move to independence.
Similarly, as we debated earlier, the “Staying Put”
18-plus family placement pilots give young adults the chance to remain
with their former foster carers post-18 to provide additional
stability. We
will come to provisions of the Bill that extend the entitlement to a
personal adviser up to the age of 25 for all care leavers in education
or training, or who want to return to education or training. That will
be defined in the widest possible way. Access to a personal adviser
will mean that care leavers have access to a pathway plan to set out
their education and training needs and how they will be met. The
support of the local authority will enable them to meet their
ambitions. We
are committed across the piece to enable all care leavers, not just
those going to university, to make the choices about education and
training that are right for them, as we are for all young people.
Leaving care services should ensure that young people are supported in
the choices that they make and should help them to maximise the
assistance that is available to support their learning, particularly
through the provision of the personal adviser and the maintenance of
the pathway
plan. The
Government have also introduced a range of other support to help young
people entering education, including care leavers. It includes fee
remission and help with other costs, such as books and travel, for all
young people. Tuition costs for first level 2 or 3 qualifications will
be met in full for all young people up to the age of 25. Financial help
is available through adult learning grants, and learner support is
offered based on the needs of the individual. Priority is given to the
most disadvantaged, and those in care are identified as one of the
priority groups for that learner support. In addition, where a former
relevant child is in full-time further or higher education, sections
23C and 24B of the Children Act 1989 enable local authorities to
provide suitable accommodation during the vacation or pay the young
person enough to enable them to secure their own
accommodation. 5
pm I
understand and appreciate the hon. Lady’s concerns and the
sentiment behind the amendments. I hope that the Committee will
understand that the Government are committed to providing support for
care leavers in a range of education and training, but we must also
recognise the situation regarding care leavers’ access to higher
education. Only 6 per cent. of care leavers aged 19, as the hon. Lady
said, are in higher education, and that figure has remained largely
unchanged for a number of years. I think that we would all agree that
that is not
acceptable. The
work undertaken on the “Care Matters” Green and White
Papers revealed clear evidence that looked-after children face
significant additional barriers to higher education. For example, they
finish higher education with an average of £2,000 more debt than
their peers. During the consultation, children and young people said
that many care leavers are put off higher education by the belief that
they will not be able to meet the additional costs involved. Some 83
per cent. of young
people at consultation events for the National Children’s Bureau
“What Makes the Difference?” Green Paper thought that the
£2,000 bursary for higher education was a very good idea, and I
am sure that Committee members agree. Some 73 per cent. thought that it
would encourage more young people in care to go on to higher
education. Although
I understand the hon. Lady’s motivation, I hope that she will
accept my reassurance that we are committed to supporting care leavers
in further education and training, including apprenticeships; and that
that she will recognise that the clause acknowledges the unique
position of care leavers who enter higher education. The evidence is
clear about the specific support that they need to encourage them to
take up higher education without incurring additional debt. I hope that
she will agree to withdraw her amendment and support the
clause.
Annette
Brooke: I certainly support the clause. It is important. I
am, of course, rather disappointed by the Minister’s reply,
because it is important to identify additional areas where care leavers
need support. I appreciate the point about the personal adviser. We
hope that the many measures to support young people as they go through
school will help to improve the situation, and that the percentage of
looked-after children who are not in education, employment or training
will be monitored. With that comment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
22 and 23 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
24Extension
of power to make payments in
cash Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Annette
Brooke: I wish to ask the Minister a few questions
about the clause. In previous discussions, some of us have voiced our
concern that kinship care is not always given enough cash support when
it is most needed. The clause is important because it opens the door to
more payments. The problem is that I can see that there will be great
variation in local authorities’ use of the removal from section
17(6) of the 1989 Act of “in exceptional circumstances”.
I would be worried if there were to be no regulations and guidance on
the provision, to ensure that we are truly promoting kinship
care. I
seem to hear more and more from professionals that there are barriers
to kinship care because money is not available at the vital time.
Although I appreciate that the clause offers more, I would like an
assurance that it will make a difference and will support what
everybody wants, which is that that where kinship care is appropriate,
it is given every support and encouragement
possible.
| 
