UK Lags Behind In Child-Parent Wellbeing, Says Unicef

Children and parents in two contrasting European countries, Sweden and Spain, have significantly higher levels of wellbeing than those in a third, the United Kingdom, according to a survey and research by Unicef, the United Nations Children’s Fund.


















The survey examined attitudes towards materialism and inequality and found that parents and children had markedly different attitudes towards material possessions.

It was carried out among some 250 children, ranging in age from eight to 13, from all social backgrounds in the three countries. The findings were further discussed in three steering groups, one each in England, Spain and Sweden, of 14-year-olds. Twenty four families in the three countries were also observed and filmed.

“The message from them all was simple, clear and unanimous,” according to the Unicef report, “their wellbeing centres on time with a happy, stable family, having good friends and plenty of things to do, especially outdoors.”

Given the links, in terms of history, cultural and social policy thinking, between Ireland and the UK, the survey is likely to be of interest in Ireland, in particular to social workers, childcare specialists and policy analysts.

“Family life in the three countries was strikingly different,” says the report. It identified pressure on parental time in the UK, linked to long hours and both parents working outside the home, as having an impact on children, with parents trying to “make up” by buying things for their children.

“In the UK homes, we found parents struggling to give children the time they clearly want to spend with them whilst in Spain and Sweden family time appeared to be woven into the fabric of everyday life. We also noticed that the roles played by mothers, fathers and children within the family and the rules which governed family life were much more clearly defined in Spain and Sweden than in the UK.

“Moreover by the time many British children had reached secondary school, their participation in active and creative pursuits – pursuits that children said made them happy – had in fact dwindled, whilst this occurred less in other countries . . .

“Behind the statistics, we found British families struggling, pushed to find the time their children want, something exacerbated by the uncertainty about the rules and roles operating within the family household. And we found less participation in outdoor and creative activities amongst older and more deprived children.”

On materialism, the survey found that British children and parents both had problems.

For the majority of eight- to 13-year-olds in all three countries, “new toys, fashion items and gadgets were not central to their wellbeing”.

“Rather than wanting to acquire things for their own sake, material objects and consumer goods tended to fulfil a range of purposes in children’s lives: utilitarian, symbolic and social,” says the report.

“However, whilst most children agreed that family time is more important than consumer goods, we observed within UK homes a compulsion on the part of some parents to continually buy new things both for themselves and their children . . .

“We also noticed that UK parents were often buying their children status brands believing that they were protecting them from the kind of bullying they experienced in their own childhood.

“This compulsive acquisition and protective, symbolic brand purchase was largely absent in Spain and Sweden where parents were clearly under much less pressure to consume and displayed greater resilience.”

On inequality, in the UK this tended to be defined in terms of money and material possessions.

“Whilst the links between brands and inequality created tensions and anxieties for children in all three countries to some extent, these feelings were only shared by UK parents. Swedish and Spanish parents seemed not to belong to a “consumer generation” in the same way.

“Deprivation for Swedish parents was understood as living in an area where personal safety was threatened, whilst for Spanish mothers not being able to spend time with your children was seen to confer disadvantage relative to others.

“In the UK, inequality was also seen in access to outdoor, sporting and creative activities, with poorer children spending more sedentary time in front of screens whilst the more affluent had access to a wide range of sports and other pursuits.”

Children’s Well-being in the UK, Sweden and Spain: the Role of Inequality and Materialism (Unicef; June 2011) is a qualitative study and may be read online in full at unicef.org.uk/Latest/News/

David Cameron: Eton College Should Run A State School

David Cameron wants his old school – Eton College – to set up and run an academy funded by the taxpayer.












The Prime Minister confirmed that he met representatives from the £31,000-a-year boarding school this week to discuss taking over a state secondary.

Eton joined several other leading private schools at a Downing Street reception on Thursday staged to drive forward the Coalition’s flagship education reforms.

It is the latest in a series of attempts being made by the Government to court the independent sector as part of an expansion of the academies programme.

Earlier this summer, Nick Gibb, the Schools Minister, also addressed a meeting of the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference, which represents 250 leading fee-paying schools, over the issue.

The move is likely to infuriate teaching unions who are already opposed to academies which they see as the effective “privatisation” of state education.

But talking to the BBC, Mr Cameron insisted that the sponsorship of academies represented a “great way” for independent schools to fulfil their “charitable purpose”.

Asked if he wanted his former school to formally join the programme, he said: “Yes, I would like all private schools to engage in this agenda and if you look at most private schools many of them already run bursaries for children from less well - off backgrounds and partnering state schools.

“To me all private schools have always had a charitable foundation, a charitable purpose, and that's a great way to deliver that.”

He added: "The truth is the problem has been not enough good school places in our country...so anyone who can play a role in that - private schools included - is welcome through my door to talk about how we drive up standards."

Tony Little, the Eton headmaster, said that the Eton had close relations with local state schools and was examining "several possible routes" for greater involvement and "ruled nothing out".

An expansion of academies is being seen as central to the Government’s attempts to drive up standards of state education.

Under reforms, schools are given almost complete freedom to run their own policies on admissions, the curriculum, teachers’ pay and the shape of the academic year.

Top state schools are automatically given the right to apply for academy status.

Ministers also want the worst schools to make the switch under the leadership of a third party sponsor – usually outstanding state schools, charities, education companies and entrepreneurs.

Some 28 independent schools are also helping to run academies, including Sevenoaks, Dulwich, Wellington, Marlborough, Malvern, Winchester, Uppingham and Oundle.

But ministers are keen to get more independent schools involved.

Mr Cameron joined Eton at 13 and left in 1984. Lord Waldegrave, the former Conservative Cabinet Minister is currently the provost of Eton and attended Thursday’s meeting.

Childcare Costs Mean A Choice Of Debt Or Unemployment For Many Parents

Rather than facilitating work, the huge cost of childcare in the UK is a daunting obstacle – and government cuts worsen the bind.












David Cameron visits a nursery in London. His government's reduction of tax credits has made childcare even more costly for working parents.

I could understand why my bank manager was looking at me like that. It did sound a bit stupid. "You're about to start a job, and that means you need to extend your overdraft?" he said, dubiously. After years of scratching around as a student, I was finally about to draw a wage – but first, I needed to get myself just a bit deeper in debt.

I have two children, so before I could set foot in my office, I needed somewhere to put them, and childcare has to be paid for in advance. That's no minor outlay here in the UK, where we have the highest childcare costs relative to household income of anywhere in the world. A survey by the Daycare Trust and Save the Children explains how much of a barrier and a burden this can be, particularly to families on low incomes. Of the parents questioned, a quarter said that the cost of childcare had caused them to get into debt, but it's the poorest families (those with a household income of less than £12,000 a year) who experience the most crippling effects.

While the better off may have to compromise on swimming lessons or music tuition to cope with higher-than-inflation rises in nursery fees, the more impoverished are often forced to cut back on essentials such as food or heating to make up the difference. And sometimes, ends simply can't be met: a quarter of those in severe poverty said that they had given up work because of childcare costs. A third of them had passed on a job offer for the same reason, and a quarter reported that the expense of childcare had prevented them from taking up education or training.

Rather than facilitating work, childcare becomes a daunting obstacle, keeping parents out of the workplace – and the poorer a family is, the more likely it is to remain in poverty for the lack of money to cover nursery fees. Single-parent families without savings or access to credit are effectively shut out of work.

The government likes to talk about getting people off welfare and into the workplace. "Over the last decade, thousands of people were simply abandoned to a lifetime on benefits, and a staggering 1.84 million children are living in homes where no one works," said employment minister Chris Grayling last week. Rightwing analyses talk about the "lack of work ethic … helping to fuel levels of unemployment".

But it's practical, financial limitations more than nebulous psychological causes that are often keeping parents from becoming employees, and the government's actions so far seem likely to worsen the childcare bind. Working tax credit was sliced in this year's budget, so that it now covers only 70% rather than 80% of childcare costs – a huge difference in the finances of those who need help the most. As the cuts agenda combines with a sneering rhetoric of disdain for the unemployed, this just seems like one more way of keeping the poorest poor, from cradle to grave.

Nadine Dorries' Abortion Proposals Heavily Defeated In Commons

Abortion amendment that bids to strip termination providers of their counselling role loses by 250 votes with supporters divided












Nadine Dorries debates plans to bar abortion providers from giving advice to pregnant women.

An attempt to strip abortion providers of their role in counselling women was heavily defeated in the House of Commons this afternoon after a split between the original supporters of the amendment.

MPs voted by 368 votes to 118 – a majority of 250 – to reject the amendment by the Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries after she lost the support of her co-sponsor, the former Labour minister Frank Field.

Dorries managed to win the support of three cabinet ministers – Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland secretary.

Field withdrew his support for the Dorries amendment after Anne Milton, the health minister, said the government would try to implement the spirit of her proposal.

Milton told MPs: "The government is … supportive of the spirit of these amendments and we intend to bring forward proposals for regulations accordingly, but after consultation. Primary legislation is not only unnecessary but would deprive parliament of the opportunity to consider the detail of how this service would develop and evolve."

Dorries hailed Milton's undertaking as a victory. She told the BBC's Norman Smith: "We lost the battle but we have won the war."

Milton distanced the government from the amendment towards the end of a stratchy debate in which Dorries said that David Cameron had initially encouraged her.

Dorries claimed that the prime minister had advised her on the wording of her amendment by saying that she should describe abortion counsellors as independent.

Dorries said: "I went to see the prime minister regarding this amendment and he was very encouraging. In fact it was at the prime minister's insistence that I inserted the word 'independent'. I attended a meeting at the department of health and at that meeting it was decided what the outcome, the process that would be implemented, to make this a reality."

The Dorries amendment would have stripped non-statutory abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and Bpas from offering counselling to women. This was designed to provide greater opportunities for independent counsellors, some of whom are influenced by pro-life groups, to provide counselling. NHS abortion providers would still be free to offer counselling.

Dorries claimed that the prime minister changed his mind under pressure from Nick Clegg, after the deputy prime minister was lobbied by the former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris. Dorries said: "Basically the Liberal Democrats, in fact a former MP who lost his seat in this place, is blackmailing our prime minister. Our prime minister has been put in an impossible position regarding this amendment. Our health bill has been held to ransom by a former Liberal Democrat MP."

A senior Lib Dem source dismissed her allegation. The source said: "That is utter rubbish. [Nick] doesn't need Evan to tell him the problems with her amendment."

The defeat was welcomed by Bpas. Ann Furedi, its chief executive, said: "Bpas is pleased to see Nadine Dorries' amendment so overwhelmingly rejected. We look forward to being able to focus our efforts on the issues which pose a genuine problem for women considering ending a pregnancy."

Dorries insisted that she did not want to restrict access to abortion. "I do not want to return to the days of back street abortionists," she said. "I am pro-choice. Abortion is here to stay."

The MP said that it was wrong for abortion providers to counsel women with unplanned pregnancies. "It must be wrong that the abortion provider, who is paid to the tune of £60m to carry out terminations, should also provide the counselling if a woman feels strong or brave enough to ask for it. If an organisation is paid that much for abortions, where is the incentive to reduce them?"

Diane Abbott, the shadow public health minister, said: "This amendment is a shoddy, ill-conceived attempt to promote non-facts to make a non-case – namely that tens of thousands of women every year are either not getting counselling that they request or are getting counselling that is so poor that only new legislation can remedy the situation. In matters of this kind, if legislation is the answer then you have almost certainly asked the wrong question."

Public Reject Dorries' Abortion Proposal

Tomorrow, MPs will debate whether to prevent abortion providers from counselling women seeking an abortion. The motion – put forward by Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries as an amendment to the Health and Social Care bill – is being opposed by the government, and pro-choice groups are backing a rival amendment, which reinforces the status quo. The amendement's author, Lib Dem MP Julian Huppert says:










"The present system which allows women access to evidence-based guidance works, therefore I cannot see why we need to change it. I do not want to see us opening the door to anti choice organisations which could prevent women making their own decision on such a momentus issue."

And a YouGov poll released today shows that, were the public to be voting instead of MPs, they would be much more likely to back Huppert's amendment than Dorries'.














Fewer than one-in-four people support changing the law to prevent charities like BPAS and Marie Stopes from providing counselling, while 40 per cent oppose it. And, strikingly, Conservative voters are no more likely to support Dorries' motion than the public as a whole. In addition, a majority dismiss the notion that "it is too easy for women to obtain abortions in Britain":














These results are hardly surprising in a country that is predominantly pro-choice, as shown by a poll yesterday showing more than three-to-one support for the claim that "if a woman wants to have an abortion, she should not have to continue her pregnancy".

Two-Thirds Of Schools Ignore Legal Requirement To Provide Daily Act Of Worship

Most schools ignore the legal requirement to hold a daily act of worship for their pupils, a new study has found.

Almost two-thirds of parents told a survey that their children do not attend a daily act of collective worship at school.

And a majority of people thinks that the law on daily worship on schools should be no longer be enforced.















Assembly: But two-thirds of schooldchildren do not attend a daily act of worship.

A Church of England spokesman pointed out that the BBC Local Radio poll did not differentiate between primary and secondary schools, and argued that most primary schools do have collective worship or a daily period of reflection.

'The law states that all maintained schools must provide a daily act of collective worship, with the exception of those withdrawn by their parents,' he said.


















Praying: The Church of England says that collective worship promotes pupils' 'spiritual, moral, social and cultural development'.

'The Church of England strongly supports this - although it is not its job to enforce it - as it provides an important chance for the school to focus on promoting the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of its pupils.

'Collective worship is when pupils of all faiths and none come together to reflect - it should not be confused with corporate worship when everyone is of the same belief.'

However, 60 per cent of the public do not support enforcing the law which prescribes a daily act of worship in all state schools, with older people more favourable towards the law than the young.

A small majority (51 per cent) of those aged 65 or over believe it should be enforced, but only 29 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds agree.

Following the release of these findings, National Secular Society executive Keith Porteous Wood called for the law on collective daily worship to be repealed, saying it infringed pupils' human rights.

'As the BBC survey confirms, the law requiring daily collective worship is being widely flouted, and because the law should not be brought into disrepute in this way, it should be repealed,' he said.

'England is the only country in the western world to enforce participation in daily worship in community schools.

'To do so goes beyond the legitimate function of the state and is an abuse of children’s human rights, especially those who are old enough to make decisions for themselves.'

The survey was carried out by telephone in July and interviewed over 1,700 adults, including 500 parents with children at school in England.

The Reformist Case For Clegg

One ally of the deputy Prime Minister suggested to me yesterday that the press was missing the most significant aspect of Clegg’s speech on education: Clegg acknowledging that free schools would now be a permanent part of the educational landscape. This ally argued that this was a big deal given that a year ago Lib Dem conference had voted to boycott these schools.









The Lib Dem leader is considerably more liberal than his party. This means that he sometimes needs, so the argument goes, to sweeten the reformist pill with some Lib Dem rhetoric. Hence the emphasis on free schools being fair schools in yesterday’s speech.

But this internal Lib Dem party management is frustrating for Conservative ministers. They complain that it often leads to concessions which undermine the effectiveness of a whole policy.

Why Cameron Must Stop Running Scared Of These Abortion Zealots

Many who gaze across the Atlantic have long been amazed at the way in which the toxic issue of abortion fundamentally distorts the U.S. political agenda.

With a certain amount of smugness, the British have told themselves that things are very different in the UK.

Here, such issues are settled not by divisive decisions of the courts, as in the U.S., but through the democratic and unifying route of Parliamentary debate and votes.

Yet now it appears that abortion hysteria is beginning to distort British politics, too.



















Amendment: Frank Field and Nadine Dorries have been pushed the law changed, yet it looks as though their proposals will be lost after a screeching u-turn.

Just one week ago, an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill drafted by Tory MP Nadine Dorries and Labour MP Frank Field looked set to sail through the Commons on a wave of general approval.

Their amendment — to be debated in the Commons this week — aims to break the stranglehold of abortion clinics which are the sole state-funded providers of counselling to pregnant women who are contemplating abortion.

The measure would open up to independent counsellors this optional process of advice and guidance to avoid any possible conflict of interest by abortion providers.

According to opinion polls, no fewer than 92 per cent of MPs, along with around three-quarters of the public, said they supported the amendment. For its part, the Government let it be known that it was already developing proposals to introduce independent abortion counselling for women.

Nevertheless, the amendment now seems likely to be lost because the Government has performed a screeching U-turn and urged MPs to vote against it.

In an unprecedented letter to Tory MPs, Health Minister Anne Milton said that ministers would themselves vote to block it. This has been interpreted by some Tory MPs at least as a covert attempt to whip them all into the ‘no’ lobby.

Yet abortion has always been decided by free votes rather than the imposition of party lines. So why has the Government suddenly decided to wreck both the amendment and this sacred constitutional protection for issues of conscience?

















Unprecedented: Anne Milton sent a letter to Tory MPs saying that minister would vote to block the proposals.

It has been suggested that this was yet another example of Nick Clegg forcing David Cameron to adopt a Left-wing position. Well, maybe.

What seems more plausible, however, is that with the Prime Minister’s antennae so finely tuned to the Guardian/BBC agenda, he simply took fright at the vitriol being hurled from the Left.

If so, this demonstrates once again the power of the campaigns of instantaneous demonisation and denunciation now employed to silence those who uphold a socially conservative position by tarring and feathering them as swivel-eyed bigots. It is particularly instructive that the amendment’s co-sponsor, Frank Field, has not been subjected to the abuse being hurled at Nadine Dorries.

For Field is a decent and principled man of the Left. But those seeking to characterise the measure as an import from what they portray as the knuckle-dragging, U.S. Right-wing Christian fundamentalist agenda cannot acknowledge Field’s involvement.

For this would destroy the demonisation strategy by suggesting the amendment is motivated by sound and decent principles. So, tellingly, Field has been all but airbrushed out of this venomous campaign. It is Dorries, the Tory bogeywoman, who receives the hate mail and death threats.

The impetus behind the amendment is a change in British attitudes. While only a minority would want abortion made illegal once again, thus returning to the evils of back-street butchery, there is now widespread revulsion over two aspects in particular of the current situation.

The first is the unmistakeable humanity of the foetuses subjected to late abortion. The second is the enormous abortion rate, which last year amounted to more than 200,000 terminations in England and Wales.

According to Dorries, up to half of those women who have independent counselling change their minds and decide not to abort. However, when women are referred straight to an abortion clinic for counselling, that number can be as low as 8 per cent.

It does not follow from these figures that the two abortion clinics providing most of the available counselling, Marie Stopes International and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, are subjecting vulnerable pregnant women to pro-abortion propaganda.

Maybe they do exude a more subtle ethos of pro-abortion sympathies — but that would hardly be surprising, since they are, after all, abortion clinics.

The reason for the different rates might merely be that women who seek out independent counselling have a more open mind in the first place and so are more likely to decide to have the baby.












Counselling service: Statistics appear to show Marie Stopes and other clinics to be be pro-abortion and therefore offer advice that way - but it is not surprising given that abortion is the very reason they exist.

Whatever the explanation, surely only a zealot would be complacent about the huge number of abortions — a number which was never envisaged when the procedure was legalised.

Dorries has been pilloried for declaring that she wants to bring the number down. Yet how can any decent person not want to bring down the huge rate of what should only be a procedure of last resort?

Some of the objections used in the past week — that if tens of thousands more children were born as a result this would put pressure on social services — have been spine-chillingly callous.

They are sobering evidence of the brutalisation of attitudes that abortion virtually on demand has brought in its wake.

So if independent counselling would reduce this toll, who could possibly object? Only the pro-abortion zealots, whose visceral hostility to faith-based counselling is based on the fact that this changes some women’s minds.

This is no more than opposition to thinking independently. To put it another way, to the pro-abortion lobby, if a woman decides against having an abortion after counselling, she has been brainwashed, but if she decides to go ahead with it she has reached her own decision.

Now we can see the vacuity of the pro-abortion slogan: ‘A woman’s right to choose.’ From the reaction to the Dorries-Field amendment, a woman only has the right to choose counselling that is pro-abortion.


















Compromise: Louise Mensch has put forward proposals suggesting women should be able to receive support from faith based charities and abortion clinics.

Having said that, it does seem unnecessarily divisive to prevent abortion clinics from themselves offering counselling. Surely women should be able to access counselling from both faith-based charities and abortion clinics, as another compromise amendment by the Tory MP Louise Mensch is suggesting.

This would seem to allow various folk to climb down from their respective trees. After all, Downing Street said the Prime Minister supported providing women with more counselling about their pregnancies, but didn’t want to shut down what was provided by Marie Stopes and the BPAS.

Nevertheless, the Government has refused to back even the Mensch compromise. By way of explanation, the Department of Health came up with a prize bit of obfuscatory waffle about there being no need to define independent counselling.

This makes little sense. The real reason is surely that this Conservative Prime Minister is running so scared of the ‘nasty party’ tag that no compromise with the Left is possible.

But what is nice about thinking there is nothing wrong with 200,000 abortions a year? What is nice about wanting to prevent pregnant women from accessing different types of counselling? What is nice about demonising people in order to shut down debate?

Surely this is what is really nasty. The country is crying out for leadership to stand up to this kind of bullying and intimidation. The Prime Minister should get up off his knees and support women’s genuine right to choose.

Health Ministers Vow A United Front Against Plans To Tighten Up Abortion Laws

Health ministers promised yesterday to vote en masse against Commons moves to tighten up Britain’s abortion laws.

Backbenchers are seeking an amendment that would change the law to stop charities carrying out abortions, such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, from offering advice to women considering a termination.

In a letter to Tory MPs last night, public health minister Anne Milton said she and ministerial colleagues would not support the change.




















David Cameron said that the was sympathetic to the proposals on abortion made by Nadine Dorries and other MPs, but he would not in favour of them.

She said she had no evidence that organisations such as the BPAS were causing ‘any harm to women’, despite claims from pro-life groups that the charities are biased because they earn money from terminations.

And she said she did not want to create an extra ‘hurdle’ for women seeking an abortion.

Mrs Milton reiterated that the Government would put forward proposals this year to ensure women had access to independent counselling.

The Health Bill amendment, to be tabled by Tory Nadine Dorries and supported by Labour’s Frank Field, aroused fears that faith groups opposed to abortion on moral grounds would start to offer counselling.












Offering advice: Charity Marie Stopes, based in central London, is against the backbench proposals.

David Cameron has already signalled that he will vote against it.

Mrs Milton said in her letter: ‘We are very sympathetic to the aim of ensuring that all women requesting abortion are offered impartial, informative counselling.

‘However, on the issue of preventing abortion services from offering counselling, we disagree with the amendment.

‘What matters is the quality and independence of view of the advice given. Counsellors should stick to the facts, not promote a particular view, and most importantly help to support women to make their own decision.

‘It is important to be clear that the Government’s position neither represents a criticism of existing counselling services, nor hopes to create an extra hurdle for women to pass before successfully requesting an abortion.

‘We have no evidence that existing abortion counselling services are causing any harm to women.

‘If pressed to a vote, my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health and I will vote against the amendments. This is because the amendments exclude existing abortion services from offering counselling.’

Tory backbencher Louise Mensch has said she will also put down an amendment, saying women should be offered counselling by independent organisations that are neither abortion providers nor faith groups.

A source at the Department of Health said that although ministers had not yet seen the text of this amendment, they were likely to vote against it because they did not see the need for legislation defining independent counselling.

School Dinners To Rise By 17%, Warns Consumer Watchdog

Parents will have to pay up to 25% more for their children’s school dinners, a survey has found.













Consumer watchdog Which? discovered the price is rising in two-thirds of schools across the country this year – while the quality of food could plummet.

Parents would rather give their children packed lunches as they believe them to be cheaper and their children do not like school dinners, according to the research. Schools in Poole are the most expensive in the country at an average of £2.50.

But Doncaster Council has increased prices by 17% to between £1.70 and £2 a meal while Lewisham has upped theirs by 14%, from £1.40 to £1.60.

Bolton saw the biggest increase at 25%, although its prices still remain the lowest in the country at £1.25.

It is estimated that 55% of students would need to take school meals in order to keep costs down.

But the research just 45% of pupils in England have them. Richard Lloyd of Which? said yesterday: “It will come as an unwelcome surprise to hard-pressed families to see some local authorities increasing prices well above inflation.

“Meals in most areas are still a relatively low-cost and low-hassle way to provide a decent lunch for your kids.

“But if schools cannot find ways to protect the extra funding that has gone to school meals and increase the numbers taking them, there’s a real risk of even more hikes or a drop in standards, undoing progress made in the past five years.”

First 'Free Schools' To Open Next Month

The 24 state-funded schools set up by teachers, charities, education experts and parents will not follow national curriculum.












Michael Gove, the education secretary, says too many children are 'failed by fundamental flaws in the education system'.

Twenty-four "free schools" are to open next month, the government has announced.

The schools – state-funded and set up by teachers, charities, education experts and parents – are spread throughout the country but mainly concentrated in deprived areas with poor records of academic achievement.

They have the same legal status as academies and do not have to follow the national curriculum, giving them more freedom than local authority schools.

The Department for Education has confirmed that funding for all 24 schools has been signed and agreed.

Under the coalition's plans, the schools will also be able to prioritise the most disadvantaged children in their school admissions arrangements.

Education secretary Michael Gove said: "The most important thing for any parent is to be able to send their child to a good local school, with high standards and strong discipline.

"That is why we are opening free schools across the country. I am delighted to announce that the first 24 will open this year.

"Too many children are being failed by fundamental flaws in our education system. The weakest schools are concentrated in our poorest towns and cities, and we are plummeting down the international education league tables.

"In spite of years of investment, the situation is worsening. Children from disadvantaged homes are still falling behind. A change of approach is vital.

"By freeing up teachers and trusting local communities to decide what is best, our reforms will help to raise standards for children in all schools."

The 24 schools will open at different times during September – 17 are primary schools, five secondary and two are all-age schools.

They will open between 10 to 15 months after submitting their initial plans to the DfE. In the first application window, 323 groups applied to open free schools.

When selling the idea, the government referred to the similar American charter schools, saying that in New York they closed the gap separating inner-city students from those in the wealthiest suburbs by 86% in maths and 66% in English.

UK Riots: Young Yobs Back On Streets Despite David Cameron's Pledge

Young offenders who took part in the rioting and looting that blighted Britain’s streets this week are walking free from court without facing significant penalties.













The 12-year-old boy caught on camera stealing a bottle of wine from a Manchester Sainsbury's (left) hides his face as he leaves court last week.












11 year girl old rioter emerges from Nottingham Magistrates Court.












A 17-year-old girl from Croydon (pixelated, right) is accused taking two televisions from her local Richer Sounds hi-fi shop.












Riot suspect Chelsea Ives, who is an Olympics ambassador and met Sebastian Coe and visited the House of Commons.












Miss Leigh is arrested after she was filmed looting JD Sports in Tottenham.












11 year old boy and 22 year old Jason White (right) leave Highbury Magistrates Court after appearing on looting charges.


Despite David Cameron's promises that they would face "punishment", a string of juvenile criminals have been allowed to return home with their parents.

Several of the young rioters have been pictured in national newspapers committing crimes. Nonetheless, they retain the court's protection of legal anonymity.

The sentences being handed down have dismayed police and MPs after the Prime Minister's promise that rioters would "pay for what they have done".

Further undermining Mr Cameron's tough rhetoric, Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, backed the courts. He rejected the Prime Minister's call for new sentencing rules.

According to the Metropolitan Police, about half of the 240 people to appear in court so far charged with being involved in the London riots are younger than 18. The Met has arrested 1,009 people in connection with the disorder and 464 have been charged.

Mr Cameron this week promised offenders would not escape punishment because of their age, but several cases yesterday increased concerns that young rioters were not being held to account.

In separate cases in Manchester, two 12–year–old boys walked away from court after being involved in looting. One admitted stealing a £7.49 bottle of wine from a Sainsbury's store and was given a ninemonth referral order.

In court, the youngster appeared ashamed of his actions. But after the hearing, he and his mother swore at reporters.

The other Manchester boy was handed a four–month referral order after admitting using threatening words and behaviour. Several other youths also walked from Manchester city magistrates' court. A 16–year–old boy admitted handling £120 worth of stolen goods and was given a 10–month referral order and ordered to pay prosecutor costs of £120.

A 15–year–old girl was also given a 10–month referral order for stealing alcohol from a Tesco store after admitting burglary. And a 17–yearold was given 18 hours of community service after admitting possessing cannabis.

Mr Cameron has made repeated attempts to dismiss worries about sentencing, promising a hardline approach to rioters. Earlier this week, he warned that even the youngest offenders would face heavy penalties. "If you're old enough to commit the crime, you are old enough to face the punishment," he said. Ministers have spoken of removing benefits and council housing from those convicted of rioting or looting.

In Nottingham yesterday, an 11–year–old girl, who only left primary school last month, smirked and refused to apologise when put before a judge.

She admitted causing criminal damage on Tuesday by smashing shop windows. A judge gave her a nine–month referral order because of her age.

Referral orders are for those under the age of 18 and are a mixture of community work and intervention programmes to help rehabilitation or alter behaviour.

In London, an aspiring dance teacher was filmed as she took a flatscreen television from a looted store, then went back for a second.

The 17 year–old was part of a female gang that allegedly forced its way into the Croydon branch of Richer Sounds. She turned herself in after her picture appeared in the newspapers but retains her anonymity for legal reasons. She was remanded at Westminster magistrates' court to appear at a later date.

James Clappison, a Conservative member of the home affairs committee, said he was "very concerned" about young rioters' light sentences.

"The courts are failing to hand down sufficiently tough sentences," he said. "We need deterrent sentences, but we are not seeing that. Magistrates need to think again."

Police chiefs also expressed concern at soft sentences.

David Attoh, 18, this week admitted stealing two designer T–shirts in Hackney, east London. A magistrate told him that the two days he had spent in a cell awaiting his hearing was adequate punishment and freed him.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stephen Kavanagh of the Metropolitan Police said officers who had tackled rioters were dismayed by such sentences.

"Some of us have been disappointed by some of the early sentences we have seen, especially those officers who have been on the front line facing the violence and disorder," he said.

Mr Kavanagh said Tim Godwin, the acting Met Commissioner, had raised concerns about sentencing with ministers. MPs were yesterday recalled from their summer break to debate the riots and Tory backbenchers pressed Mr Cameron to make good on his promises.

Angie Bray, whose Ealing Central constituency saw serious violence, challenged Mr Cameron: "Can he assure my constituents that those who are found guilty will feel the full force of the law, including prison sentences?"

Mr Cameron replied: "People taking part in violent disorder should expect to go to prison."

He also suggested that sentencing rules could be toughened. "We are keeping under constant review whether the courts have the sentencing powers they need and we'll act if necessary," he told MPs.

Government sources said options for change include increasing magistrates' powers to jail offenders. Under current rules, magistrates can jail offenders for a maximum of six months. That could double to a year, sources said.

However, even as Mr Cameron was speaking, Mr Clarke appeared to rule out any change on sentencing. In a BBC Radio Four interview, Mr Clarke said "enough" prison sentences were being imposed.

He said: "The system is working."


David Cameron has promised to confront the “moral collapse” in British society that led to last week’s riots. "We will fight back against gangs, crime and the thugs who make people's lives hell and we will fight back hard, he said. "There is no 'them' and 'us' - there is us. We are all in this together, and we will mend our broken society - together."

Cutting Benefits Of Single Parents Will Increase Number Of Kids In Poverty

Slashing benefits of single parents who don't look for work will increase child poverty and family hardship, a report has warned.

Gingerbread, the charity that represents lone parents, wants ministers to abandon the "big stick" of benefit sanctions proposed in the Welfare Reform Bill.















Interviewing 200 single parents it found most were keen to work but felt hampered by lack of support from Government and employers.

Gingerbread chief executive Fiona Weir said: "Single parents are branded bad mothers if they are not there for their children and derided as benefits scroungers if they stay home - they feel caught in a trap."

The Government says getting single parents to work is the best route out of poverty.

But Gingerbread claims welfare reforms will make it tougher for single parents to juggle work with raising a family.

There are 1.9 million single parents in the UK who care for about three million children. Until last year, those with children aged 16 or younger could claim Income Support and weren't forced to seek work.

They had to attend "Work Focused Interviews" at the Jobcentre twice a year to discuss returning to work.

Since then, the Government has introduced a major change, gradually moving single parents with children aged seven and over from Income Support on to Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA).

To claim JSA they must attend Jobcentre Plus every two weeks and show they are actively looking for work. Claimants who fail to meet these conditions or who turn down a job without "good cause" can have their benefits cut by up to 40%.

The Bill aims to make parents of children as young as three take part in "work-related activity".

Many single parents are already being squeezed by the recession.

Calls to Gingerbread's helpline suggest more lone parents are seeing maintenance payments slashed as ex-partners lose their jobs.

Gingerbread's research also found many parents were keen to work but said it often didn't pay. "Childcare, travel and school meal costs can wipe out the benefits of many lowpaid, part-time jobs and leave parents out of pocket," says Weir.

Gingerbread wants employers to be more flexible to help single parents juggle work and family responsibilities and says the state could lead by example by offering more flexitime, parttime work and job sharing.

It believes single parents should have childcare costs covered through working tax credits and get their youngsters school meals free.

The DWP stressed the Government was commited to ensuring work pays for lone parents. Work & Pensions Secretary Yvette Cooper has announced a trial that from next year will mean they can earn £50 a week without losing benefits. And the bill has been amended so victims of domestic violence will not have to look for work for three months.

"We need to help families out of poverty by helping parents work, and we will always do so in a way that also supports family life," said Cooper. Here we speak to three single mums facing the challenges...

For expert advice call Gingerbread's free helpline on 0800 018 5026.

The full-time mum

Mother-of-two Jaqueline Carroll says she feels "stuck in a rut" on benefits.

"I want to work," the 33-year-old from Liverpool says. "I think it's terrible that the Government is threatening to take money off single parents instead of help them.

"Some single parents advisers are good - but some ask why you don't apply for jobs starting from 8.30am. When you say you can't because you have to drop your child off at school, they go 'oh you're just being negative'."

Jacqueline was shocked when she went for a supermarket job. "The first thing they said was 'if any of you want cushy hours, forget it. The good hours are for people already here'."

The part-time worker

Wendi New, 40, had to give up her job teaching young offenders in prison when her marriage broke up 12 months ago.

She says staff at her local Jobcentre tried to push her to work at a supermarket, despite her qualifications. Now she has a job teaching children with behavioural problems closer to her home in Lowestoft, Suffolk. She works 18 hours a week and brings home about £900 a month.

"I'd have to work 50 hours a week in a supermarket to earn that. I couldn't do it and look after Hollie. Even now if Hollie's ill I have to take unpaid leave and then I'm worse off than I'd be on benefits."

The full-time worker

Charity worker Sarah Davidge from Bristol wants to work to provide a "positive role model" for her daughters Meg and Beth.

"You have two jobs - work and parenting. But you don't feel as if you do either to the best of your ability. I can't stay late at work and I don't feel able to devote as much time as I'd like going through homework with them."

Sarah admits she is luckier than many lone parents - earning about £25,000 for a 35-hour week, and her employer is flexible about hours.

"But a lot of companies aren't so flexible. The Government should encourage choice, not try to force people to take the first job going."

The Benefit Trap: Working Families Feel The Squeeze

Iain Duncan Smith's tax and benefits reforms are hitting the most vulnerable in society, say leading think tanks, and threaten to undermine any notion that work pays.









Low income families are becoming worse off and the prospect of work less attractive as government reforms of tax and benefits systems aimed at encouraging people back to work take effect.

The warning comes in the wake of a series of reports from respected think tanks that have analysed the impact of the reforms being led by work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith.

Their findings reveal that an urgent rethink is needed, highlighting problems in the interaction of income tax and tax credits with other benefits.

‘Cuts to childcare tax credits could leave some parents losing 94p for every extra pound they earn,’ according to a report from the Resolution Foundation. It cites the example of a single mother on the minimum wage who would be just £3 a week better off if she decided to work four days a week rather than three.

Lone parents, 92% of whom are women, are worst hit by cuts, losing 8.5% of their annual income by 2015, according to The Fawcett Society. Its analysis was based on research undertaken by the highly regarded Institute for Fiscal Studies using the government's own models.

‘The government talks a lot about promoting responsibility and backing aspiration, but on the ground these cuts are actually stopping single parents from getting on,’ says Fiona Weir, chief executive of Gingerbread that represents lone parents.

‘It is unacceptable that single parents are bearing the brunt of cuts and this research proves again that the government must do more to support single parents, including further investment in childcare, training and employment support.’
Childcare costs

In the past, parents have been able to claim back up to 80% of childcare costs up to £300 a week, depending on income. For a family with two children or more this works out at a maximum of £240 a week. But since April the proportion these costs a parent can claim back has been reduced to 70 per cent and capped at £210 a week – a loss of £30 a week.

The Resolution Report calculates that almost 500,000 working families have lost an average of £426 a year in childcare benefit since April of this year, rising to an average of £600 a year in London, with some as much as £1,300 a year worse off.

According to the Daycare Trust’s 2011 annual survey of child care costs, the average yearly expenditure for 25 hours nursery care per week for a child under two is £5,028 in England, £5,178 in Scotland and £4,723 in Wales. This works out at around £96 a week on average.

But for parents working from 8.30am to 5.30pm childcare costs are nearly double at £172 a week, with some parents paying as much as £11 an hour for child care.

School Buildings Scheme Scrapped

Hundreds of school building projects are being scrapped as England's national school redevelopment scheme is axed by the government.

Education Secretary Michael Gove said 719 school revamps already signed up to the scheme would not now go ahead.

A further 123 academy schemes are to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

His department has been reviewing Labour's Building Schools for the Future scheme since the election.










It concluded that all local authority schemes that have not reached financial close would not go ahead, saving "billions" of pounds.

This means 706 schools in the existing BSF programme which have reached financial close will continue, but officials will see how savings can be made within them.

Another 14 projects in local authorities further down the BSF priority list would be considered to see if a small number of revamps could be brought forward.

Mr Gove said: "The Building Schools for the Future scheme has been responsible for about one third of all this department's capital spending.

"But throughout its life it has been characterised by massive overspends, tragic delays, botched construction projects and needless bureaucracy."

'Dysfunctional'

He called the scheme "dysfunctional" and "unnecessarily bureaucratic", with nine "meta stages".

He added: "It is perhaps no surprise that it can take almost three years to negotiate the bureaucratic process of BSF before a single builder is engaged or brick is laid."

Some 180 schools have been rebuilt or revamped since the programme was introduced by Labour in 2004. And building is about to start in 231 schools.










But 1,100 schools have already signed up to the scheme, investing time, energy and money into drawing up plans for redevelopment, but have not reached financial close.

Originally all of England's 3,500 schools were to be revamped by 2023. The plan was to replace out-dated buildings with facilities that suit modern education.

'Tragedy'

But Mr Gove said the national building scheme had been beset by red-tape and delays.

He BSF had "failed to meet any of its targets", and that while 200 secondary schools were meant to have been rebuilt by the end of 2008, only 35 had been completed, with a further 13 refurbished.

He said the whole way schools are built needed radical reform to ensure more money is not wasted on pointless bureaucracy, to ensure buildings are built on budget and on time.

A review is being set up to see how capital funds can be used to rebuild schools more effectively.

This is being led by the operations director of the Dixons Store Group Sebastian James and includes Professor John Hood, former vice-chancellor of Oxford University.

'Woefully run down'

Shadow education secretary Ed Balls said the decision was a "tragedy" for teachers and parents who would have benefited from new facilities.

He said: "Today is a black day for our country's schools."

He added that he and his Labour colleagues would fight to "save our new schools".

Christine Blower, the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said there was "no excuse for leaving schools which were promised new buildings swinging in the wind".

"Poor learning environments have a negative impact on the education of children and young people.

"School buildings were woefully run down prior to Labour coming to power in 1997 and while much has been done to improve them there is still a lot more to do."

Ty Goddard, head of the British Council for School Environments, said waste and bureaucracy had been a real drag on BSF, but said it was important to remember how important it was to invest in school buildings.

Chris Keates, Nasuwt general secretary, said the announcement would devastate parents and schools, and condemn thousands of children and young people to a future of Dickensian education.

Child Benefit Cuts For Better Off Are Fair - Cameron

David Cameron has defended plans to cut higher rate taxpayers' child benefit, saying it is fair to ask them to contribute to cutting the deficit.













He said he knew cutting the benefit for people on more than £44,000 would not make him popular - but it was the "right thing to do".

Labour's Yvette Cooper described it as an "unfair attack on child benefit".

The BBC understands the government plans to introduce a tax break for married couples in this parliament.

The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson said government sources had told him that there would be a tax break for married couples introduced in this parliament - which is due to run until May 2015.

He said that although the original Conservative policy was to limit the tax breaks to basic rate tax payers, the coalition agreement did not repeat that and the chancellor might seek to partially compensate the stay-at-home mothers who feel aggrieved by the child benefit cut.

On Monday Chancellor George Osborne said that from 2013 the benefit would be removed from families with at least one parent earning more than about £44,000 a year.

Hours later children's minister Tim Loughton told Channel 4 News the move to cut the benefit from 1.2 million families might need revising, with possible compensating measures for those "genuinely in need". He later said people were "over-excited" by his comments and he was not calling for a review.

However, Ms Cooper, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said the government's policy was "now unravelling" adding: "They have clearly been taken aback by the reaction of parents across the country.

"George Osborne and David Cameron obviously don't understand what it means for families on middle incomes to lose thousands of pounds a year."

The child benefit threshold was aligned with the higher-rate 40% income tax threshold to avoid complex means testing but there has been criticism that the move will penalise some families where one parent stays at home to look after the children.

While families with two earners on just under £44,000 each - but collectively about £80,000 - would keep child benefit, those with one earner on more than £44,000 would lose it.
'Makes sense'

Conservative former shadow home secretary David Davis told the Daily Mail the policy would encourage mothers to go out to work adding: "It would be fairer to consider family income rather than that of individuals."

The prime minister said he wanted to protect the poorest and neediest as the government tackled the £155bn deficit but told the BBC earlier that stay-at-home mothers could benefit in future from "some sort of transferable tax allowance to help couples".

Mr Cameron told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that while people on £44,000 were not rich - they were "a lot better off" than those trying to raise a family on £25,000 a year adding that the cut - estimated to save £1bn a year - "makes sense".

"In the spending round we're having to make difficult decisions. This is £1bn I don't have to take off the education budget.

"I want to make sure in Britain we have real social mobility and life chances given to the poorest children in our country so they can go to the best schools and the best universities and we can have a truly mobile Britain.

"That does mean in a spending round you have to ask better off people to make a contribution so you can protect the most vulnerable and help them have a better life."

He said it was "an argument about fairness" and pointed out Mr Osborne also planned to cap the amount of benefit people could receive - so they never got more than the average working family brought home in pay - estimated at about £26,000 a year.

That would mean benefits would be restricted to £500 a week from 2013 and would be thought to affect 50,000 households, who would lose an average of £93 a week.

The limit would not apply to people on disability living allowance, war widows' pensions and working tax credit.

Mr Cameron said 85% of people would continue to get child benefit and assessing the whole family's income would have necessitated "an incredibly bureaucratic and expensive" and "intrusive" system, means-testing every family in the country.

Accusing the previous Labour government of having "bankrupted the country", he added: "It is difficult. I wish I wasn't having to do this, but we have to deal with the problems in front of us."

Asked about speculation that other universal benefits - like winter fuel payments and free bus passes for pensioners - might be cut, he said: "Obviously you have to wait for the spending review announcement but I made some pretty clear promises to pensioners in our country, and those are promises I want to keep."

Sharon Shoesmith Wins Appeal Against Sacking Over Baby P Tragedy

Former Haringey council children's services boss Sharon Shoesmith has won an appeal against her controversial sacking in the wake of the Baby P tragedy after a judge upheld her claim that she had been unlawfully removed from her post.













The high court ruled that Ed Balls – children's secretary at the time of her dismissal – had failed to give Shoesmith the opportunity to defend herself from criticisms in a specially commissioned Ofsted report.

Balls used the report to support his dismissal of her at a live TV press conference in December 2008. In its ruling the court said: "She was denied the elementary fairness which the law requires."

The court also upheld her appeal against Haringey council, which formally sacked Shoesmith a week after Balls removed her. The ruling said the council's procedures were "tainted by unfairness".

Shoesmith said after the hearing: "I'm over the moon. Absolutely thrilled. I am very relieved to have won my appeal and for recognition I was treated unfairly and unlawfully." But she added that the sorrow of the child's death would "stay with me for the rest of my life".

An attempt by Shoesmith to quash an Ofsted report into the case was rejected, however. The ruling said Ofsted had complied with the requirements of the statute and of the common law.

Shoesmith was challenging a judicial review ruling made last year that cleared the regulator Ofsted, Balls and Haringey of acting unlawfully. Her lawyers had argued there was "procedural unfairness" in her removal from the £133,000-a-year post.

She had claimed that the manner in which she was dismissed was a breach of natural justice and the result of media pressure. She was seeking compensation for two years of lost salary, reinstatement of her pension rights, and a negotiated settlement from Haringey.

The court put off a ruling on compensation for Shoesmith, saying that the issue should be referred back to the high court for "further consideration".

It is understood the current children's secretary, Michael Gove, intends to launch an appeal against the court's ruling.

Shoesmith was sacked in December 2008 after the childcare regulator's report, ordered by Balls after the Baby P case, exposed failings in her department. The 17-month-old boy, since named as Peter Connelly, was on Haringey's child protection register when he died violently at the hands of his mother, Tracey Connelly, her lover Steven Barker, and Barker's brother Jason Owen, in August 2007.

James Maurici, representing Shoesmith, told the appeal court in March that "buck passing" between Ofsted, Balls, and Haringey had led to her being denied natural justice and a fair hearing.

He said Shoesmith had been a highly thought-of public servant with a successful 35-year career, but that she now faced ruin. She had held a number of senior education posts within local authorities and risen through the ranks before taking her post with Haringey in 2005. A year later she was singled out in an Ofsted report for providing "strong and dynamic leadership".

But in 2008, a "media storm" broke over Baby P's death and she became the victim of a witchhunt and political pressure which led to a flagrant breach of the rules of natural justice, Maurici said. He added: "On 1 December 2008, while trapped in her flat by the media, she had the extreme misfortune to see on TV Ed Balls at a live press conference announce he was directing that Haringey remove her from her post 'with immediate effect'." Balls told the press she was "not fit for office", and acted before Shoesmith had seen, or been given a chance to respond to, the report.

Maurici said, although high court judge Mr Justice Foskett had found her sacking lawful in a judicial review ruling in March 2010, he had said he did not think that "any fair-minded person could think that this was a satisfactory state of affairs."

The appeal judges were told of the "catastrophic" personal impact on Shoesmith following Baby P's death. Maurici said she had been unable to find any work since December 2008, experienced suicidal thoughts, and was still regularly hounded and vilified by the tabloid press.

James Eadie QC, appearing for the government, defended Balls's actions to the appeal court, saying urgent action had to be taken following Ofsted's "ghastly findings", which uncovered "dangerous" failings in Shoesmith's department that threatened local and national confidence in effective child protection.

Ofsted chief inspector Christine Gilbert welcomed the ruling, saying: "I am pleased that Ofsted has comprehensively won this case and that the original judicial review judgement in our favour has been upheld in every aspect on appeal.

"Ofsted carried out a robust inspection and came to a sound conclusion based on evidence. On any view, our inspection report was extremely critical and there has been no challenge to the finding that services for children in Haringey were inadequate. The fairness of our process and rigour of our inspection has now been confirmed through the scrutiny of not just one, but two court hearings.

"The most important thing, of course, is that Haringey's children's services are now much improved as a result and that children are better protected."

In a statement responding to the ruling, Balls declared "faced with the same circumstances I would make the same decisions again".

He added: "Ministers need to be able to exercise their legal duties and make judgments in the public interest based on independent analysis and advice. That is what I did - and I am concerned that this judgment will make it harder for ministers to do so in future. That is why it is constitutionally very important that the secretary of state has decided to appeal this judgment."

Haringey Children's Centre Cuts Battle Set For Government

CUTS to children's centres have been rubber-stamped as campaigners prepare to send a petition to the Government.

Funding cuts to four of Haringey's 19 children's centres, as well as a reduction in services at others, were formally agreed at a meeting at Wood Green Civic Centre yesterday afternoon.

All money will be withdrawn from the Highgate, Rokesly and Northbank centres, as well as a linked site at Tower Gardens, a decision councillors say they have been forced to make after Government cuts left the authority needing to save £41 million in the next year.

But campaigners are taking their cause to Westminster – Daisy Heath, organiser of a campaign to save the borough's children's centres, said she will write to Education Secretary Michael Gove on Monday.

She said: “We've got around 1,200 signatures on our petition – that's huge really when you consider the amount of people that use children's services.

“I'll be writing to Michael Gove to protest at the position the Government has put the council in where it's been forced to make these cuts.”

Ms Heath claims that the cuts will lower the social mobility of children in the borough.

Councillor Lorna Reith, cabinet member for children and young people, said that the reorganised children's centre service would focus on the most deprived areas.

She plans to organise remaining centres into four clusters, each with around four sites.

The council wants the manager of each cluster to coordinate services between centres so there is a variation of opening times and that they target vulnerable children effectively.

Clusters in more deprived areas such as Tottenham will continue a full range of services, spending £194 per child, but in more affluent areas centres that remain will only spend £72 per child.

The government has effectively cut the national Early Intervention Grant - which rolled up a number of smaller grants into one pot - by 22 per cent.

According to Haringey, its early years funding allocation overall has been cut by £7m to £15m.

Councillors made a 75 per cent cut to the youth services budget in February, including a £6.5m saving in the children's centres and early years budget.

Manor Green School's Respite Unit To Close Due To Funding Withdrawal

A multi-million pound respite care unit has announced it will close its doors indefinitely after opening less than a year ago.










Manor Green Residence, which provides respite care for children with severe learning disabilities, will shut on Friday, July 22.

A letter sent to parents and staff members on Monday from Manor Green School headteacher Ania Hildrey said the unit will close 'as a result of withdrawal of funding for the provision by two of the three local authorities funding the service.'

The letter also states that the school in Elizabeth Hawkes Way, Cox Green, is in talks with the Royal Borough about the 'possibility of a future service provision'.

"But what is clear is that there will be no service provision for the autumn term and highly unlikely for the spring term," she adds.

Staff at the unit, which is the only one of its kind in the borough, have been told there is a 'high risk' of compulsory redundancies and to look for other positions within the school or borough.

The 24-bed respite unit, which is managed by Manor Green School, provides short-term overnight accommodation for children with learning disabilities. It is used to teach pupils how to live independently.

It forms part of the £26 million specialist school which replaced Holyport Manor last September as a result of a 10 year campaign.

An investigation into the standards of care at the unit is still ongoing. The Royal Borough suddenly closed the unit in February following the suspension of three staff members. It was re-opened in March under an interim management team.

Ed Miliband Attacks Cameron Over Child Benefit Cuts In Confident PMQs Debut

Ed Miliband today attacked David Cameron over the coalition's plans to slash child benefit in his first Prime Minister's Questions.

The new Labour leader claimed hundreds of thousands of families would lose out under the measures, aimed at helping cut the benefit bill.

Mr Miliband condemned the policy to axe the handouts for higher rate taxpayers as a 'shambles' and urged the Prime Minister to reconsider.

He claimed a family of three will lose £2,500 through the cut backs and suggested this was equal to a 6p rise in income tax.

The plan has caused outrage after it emerged stay-at-home mothers with partners earning just above the threshold will lose out but families with two working parents who are each on a salary just below the threshold will still receive the benefit.















Mr Cameron retorted that it was not fair to ask people who earned 'one sixth' of Mr Miliband's salary to pay tax to cover his child benefit.

But the Labour leader again shot back: 'It's nought out of two on straight answers' and denied he was 'defending the rich'.

'I am defending the deputy head teacher at a primary school, I am defending the police inspector, all of whom are asking a straightforward question,' he said.

And to cheers from his own benches, he quoted Mr Cameron's words at a Cameron Direct meeting during the election campaign.

A confident Mr Miliband demanded to know exactly how many families with one parent out of work would be affected by the cut.

Mr Cameron, with his deputy Nick Clegg nodding behind him, said higher-rate tax hit 15 per cent of taxpayers and admitted the decision had been 'difficult'.

But he insisted: 'As we deal with the deficit, we do have to ask better-off people to bear their fair share of the burden.'

He asked Mr Miliband to justify giving money to the more well-off, but the Opposition leader shot back: 'I may be new to this game but I think I ask the questions and he answers them.'

Mr Miliband criticised the PM for refusing to give a straight answer and insisted hundreds of thousands of families would be penalised.

'The question they are asking is this - why should a family on £45,000 when one parent stays at home lose their child benefit but a family on £80,000 where both partners are working keep theirs?

'It doesn't strike people as fair, it doesn't strike me as fair, does it strike the Prime Minister as fair?'































He said then: 'I am not going to flannel you, I am going to give it to you straight. I like child benefit. I wouldn't change child benefit.

'I wouldn't means test it, I don't think that's a good idea. I agree with the Prime Minister, why doesn't he?'

Mr Cameron insisted Labour had to face up to reality and their legacy to the coalition of the biggest budget deficit in the G20.

He accused Mr Miliband or having no alternative proposals and took his chance to quote back the new leader's words earlier this year.













He quoted former Labour Cabinet minister Alan Milburn who said 'in times of plenty, giving child benefit to high earners is a luxury we cannot afford'.

But Mr Miliband declared he should face up to the huge loss he was handing to families - with those with three children losing £2,500-a-year.

'If he wants to take people with him on deficit reduction, he has got to show that his changes are fair and reasonable,' he said.

The Prime Minister quoted Mr Miliband's own words back in July that: 'Whoever is the Labour leader will by the time of the spending review have to show they have an alternative plan.'

'Where is the alternative plan?', he demanded.

But Mr Miliband was unbowed, claiming he had shown how the Government had no defence for the policy.

'He cannot explain to families up and down the country why they are going to sustain this loss. This policy has been a shambles from day one.

'The rest of the cabinet knew nothing about it... I bet the PM wishes the BBC blackout had gone ahead.'

He added: 'Isn't it time the Prime Minister had the grown up sense to admit this - he's got it wrong, he's made the wrong decision. He should tell middle income families up and down Britain he will think again.'

Mr Cameron accused Mr Miliband of deciding to stand up for the 'squeezed middle' after years of taxing them while Labour was in government.

'It's a completely transparent political strategy to cover up the inconvenient truth that he was put where he is by the trade union movement,' he said.

Likening Mr Miliband to his predecessor, he added: 'It is just short-term tactics and political positioning. It's not red, it's Brown.'

It had been suggested Mr Cameron would be happier to face the younger Miliband brother than David, the former Foreign Secretary.

But today the 40-year-old former Energy Secretary showed he will be no easy ride as the Government battles to push through drastic spending cuts.

At the start of the session, the two leaders had both agreed they would be able to work together in the national interest on many issues.

Mr Cameron congratulated his new sparring partner but added: 'As well as wishing him well, I hope he does the job [of Opposition leader] for many, many years to come.'