EBacc: Expressive Arts Subjects

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Kerry McCarthy

Monday 4th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I think this is the first time that I have spoken under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. It is a pleasure to do so.

There have been some excellent speeches so far, and I agree with everyone who has made the case for the importance of arts education and for the need for us to continue to value that education. The narrowing of focus about what constitutes a valid qualification concerns me across the board. Obviously, we are here today to discuss arts education, but we have also seen, for example, life and environmental sciences being scrapped at GCSE and A-level. That seems nonsensical to me, because the best way of getting children interested in science is to link it to their natural environment, to issues such as climate change, and to what they see all around them.

As we have heard, participation in creative subjects and gaining a qualification in them are immensely rewarding for pupils, particularly those pupils who struggle to excel academically. I was talking to a number of senior educationalists at the weekend; we are fortunate in Bristol that several of our new councillors have a background in education in cities such as Bristol and Leicester, which have high levels of deprivation and much ethnic diversity. They could not stress enough how important arts subjects are for some pupils who will never be very good at English, maths or other traditional subjects; the arts get those pupils through the doors of schools. Headteachers have said that to me as well.

[Mr Christopher Chope in the Chair]

The fact is that all the secondary schools in my constituency were rebuilt under the last Labour Government, through the Building Schools for the Future programme, so they have music studios, art rooms and sprung dancefloors that the children can use not only during school hours but after school as well. The arts get children through the door of the school, and if that means they then enjoy the school experience, feel more confident and make friends with other pupils, they are much more likely to thrive in the academic subjects as well.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It reminds me of when I attended a local school’s opening of its sport centre to the community. Alan Shearer, who was a former pupil, spoke passionately about the difference that having sport—football in particular—available at school made to him, and how that was the only reason he went to school. He got his maths, and he got his English, but it was a sport that brought him through the door. The arts too can be a driver for young people to come to school and enjoy the experience.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Absolutely, and that is certainly the case with sports in Bristol’s schools as well. Some Conservative Members for neighbouring constituencies are keen on the idea that we take education more seriously, that we should all learn Latin and history—a few years ago one of them wrote about “joke GCSEs”. In a city like Bristol, where 40% of the jobs are in the creative sector, it is a running joke that if you do a Mickey Mouse degree you end up with a job at Aardman and win an Oscar. That is certainly not something we should sneer at.

We also have the BBC’s natural history unit, which combines learning about natural history and the life and environmental sciences with learning the sort of skills that could lead to someone being one of the amazing cameramen who manage to film things that no one has ever caught on film before. Studying these subjects is not something that people do just for their self-fulfilment, although it is important on that front; it is very much part of getting a job and thriving when they leave school.

MPs have been sent a useful briefing by an organisation called MillionPlus for Thursday’s Backbench Business debate on creative industries and the economy—we seem to have several debates about the creative sector this week. The briefing focuses on the role of universities in supporting the creative sector, pointing out, as has been said, that the sector is worth £84.1 billion to the UK economy and is one of its fastest growing areas, providing 2.8 million jobs. MillionPlus says that 70% of people in creative occupations are university educated, but that numbers

“studying many creative subjects at school and university are falling and the talent pool will inevitably decrease”.

It points to the potential sidelining of creative subjects in schools and expresses concern about the narrative that has built up that STEM subjects are somehow far more worthwhile than creative ones. Of course STEM subjects are important, of course our future economic growth depends on people wanting to go into those sectors as well, but one set of subjects should not exclude the other.

MillionPlus’s concern is that with the Department for Education promoting certain “facilitating” subjects that focus on STEM and not on creative courses at GCSE and A-level, as well as the introduction in 2016-17 of the new performance measures based on the eight key subjects, there is a risk that more and more schools will design their curriculums in a way that marginalises creative subjects, as many speakers have already mentioned. We cannot really blame schools if they feel compelled to go down that path. If they are going to be judged on key areas, they do not want to risk being left behind when compared with other schools.

I asked people earlier today on social media if they had any comments on the matter, and one of my constituents got in touch to say that her son was forced to drop all but one arts subject for year 10 because of the league tables for EBacc. She felt that that had very much held him back.

I want to mention two specific areas—I do not want to go over the ground that has already been covered. On music in schools, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that suggests that in some areas fewer than 20% of schools offer music beyond key stage 3 and fewer than 5% offer it at sixth form. There was a meeting of all-party parliamentary groups last week, which I think the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), a relatively near neighbour of mine, attended. I could not attend, but my researcher went along. The case was cited at that meeting of a west London borough where out of 15 state-funded schools with secondary age pupils all but one was rated good or outstanding but only six offered music post-key stage 3 and only two offered it post-key stage 4. Just last week, the music hub there learned that two of the secondary schools, both of which are academies, will offer no music at all from year 7, which is a sad state of affairs.

A representative from the music hub said that the impact of the EBacc changes is that music teachers are being used as flexible cover or are leaving and not being replaced, and that the result will be that music drops out of schools completely. That is also something that people involved in music education in Bristol have said to me—that with that casualisation of the profession we will end up losing the skills pool, because people simply cannot make a living from being brought in for the occasional lesson. The music hub representative at the meeting said that that means

“no music for prize day, school fairs, community events; no school musicals/Christmas concerts. What a joyless experience for our pupils, particularly when we remember that for many music is the only thing that will engage them and develop positive attitudes towards learning.”

Is it not rather disingenuous of the Government to say that music is a compulsory subject for five to 14-year-olds when academies do not have to follow the curriculum? How can the Minister provide real reassurance that music will not drop out of some schools entirely? I look forward to hearing from him on that point.

My last point is about social diversity in the arts, which we have already touched on. The actor Ralf Little, of “The Royle Family” fame, was reported in the papers today as saying that Caroline Aherne, who died at the weekend, showed

“that working-class people can be on TV, being ourselves”,

but that her death

“is a reminder how much she and her writing were, and still are, the exception.”

Julie Walters has said previously that she would not have a chance of making it as a working-class actor if she was starting out today, and there is an ongoing debate about why so many of the up-and-coming names on our stage and screen seem to have been educated at public schools. Last year, 92.1% of jobs in the creative industries were being done by people in the more advantaged socioeconomic groups, a figure that is up 20% since 2011. The well known actor James McAvoy has warned:

“I do care about a government that doesn’t prioritise arts in education. It is one of the first things that if you take it away, it’s a signal that the government doesn’t care about upward mobility any more. Art is one the first things you take away from society if you want to keep them down.”

Given how difficult it is for anyone from a normal background to break into acting these days, is the Minister concerned about the impact the changes might have on social mobility? Factors to consider are the enormous fees for drama and art schools, the need for financial support during the phase when someone is not sure whether they will break through and become a professional, the prevalence of unpaid internship, the effects of arts cuts on outreach programmes, and the increasing prevalence of low pay and no pay in the entertainment industries. I know that the previous Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was very concerned about the need to increase diversity in the arts—I went with a delegation from Equity to meet him when I was chair of the all-party Performers’ Alliance group. It seems, however, that all the work he was looking to do on increasing diversity, which I hope his successor is now taking up, could be jeopardised if we do not get it right at school level.

Finance Bill

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Kerry McCarthy

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a helpful point. One would question to what extent the Government can rely on their general anti-abuse rule when they still have to invoke targeted anti-abuse rules, many of which we debated in Committee. Yet the GAAR is supposed to provide reassurance in relation to these matters. Will the Minister clarify exactly how it will work? As the hon. Gentleman says, there is much debate about whether it is too general or too narrow—too general to be effective or too focused on what could be deemed by a reasonable person to be egregious behaviour, and therefore arguably too narrow. I would be interested to hear the Minister explain exactly how the GAAR will work in reality.

The Minister will be aware of the concerns raised in Committee about how the GAAR’s effectiveness will be reviewed. Our amendment calling for an evaluation to be held two years post-implementation was dismissed on the grounds that it would be impractical. At what stage does the Minister think it would be practical to conduct a post-implementation review, given that this is one of the Government’s main tools to tackle tax avoidance? At what point does he think it would be appropriate to consider whether the GAAR needs to be strengthened by, for example, a penalty regime? He has said that it will be kept under review, so it would be extremely helpful if he could provide details of the time scales involved.

One of the most widely held concerns about the GAAR is that it simply does not deal with many of the issues about which members of the public in particular are understandably angry with regard to corporation tax avoidance. The Minister has said that the Government have never sought to give the impression that they will deal with these issues, but many people feel that when they raise concerns about corporate tax avoidance the Government give the impression that their general anti-abuse rule will somehow deal with them.

We believe that the Government could and should use this Finance Bill to go much further on tax avoidance and on increasing tax transparency in particular. We have presented the Government with many opportunities to put their money where their mouth is and to take action now.

I was pleasantly surprised to read in The Guardian on Friday that the Minister voiced his intention to take firm action on this issue—the Minister is looking at me blankly; I am not sure whether he reads The Guardian—during last week’s Back-Bench business debate on multinational companies and UK corporation tax avoidance. I usually pay attention to everything the Minister says, but I confess that Friday’s revelation passed me by. Given his reported new-found enthusiasm for tackling the issue head on, the Opposition would like to take this final opportunity, through new clause 12, to persuade the Minister and Government Members to use this year’s Finance Bill to demonstrate a commitment to increasing tax transparency and to cracking down on tax avoidance both here and abroad. It is unfortunate that the Liberal Democrat Benches are devoid of Liberal Democrat Members, because this is their opportunity finally to walk the walk on this issue, given that they have been very good at talking the talk on it for so many years.

The nub of the issue is this: there has been a monumental breakdown in public confidence in the corporation taxation system and it is clear that the era of tax secrecy should end. At a time of austerity around the world, when people have lost or are losing their jobs and are seeing their services cut and the cost of living rising while the value of their wages does not, they are rightly angry when they see the complex and extraordinary lengths to which multinational companies may go in order to avoid paying their fair share of tax in the countries where their profits are actually being generated. People, including more than 1 million supporters of the IF campaign, are equally furious that aggressive tax avoidance activity is reducing the ability of developing countries to tackle the issue effectively and contributing to their failure to combat hunger and invest in the vital infrastructure that we take for granted. As the OECD estimates, these countries lose three times more through tax avoidance than they receive in aid every year.

The Opposition believe that rather than simply calling on the OECD

“to develop a common template for country-by-country reporting”,

which the G8 has said it will do, we should actively work with our G8 partners to ensure that all multinationals, regardless of sector, are required to publish a single, easily comparable statement on the amount of tax that they pay in each country in which they operate. That needs to be introduced as a matter of urgency.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is doing a good job of spelling out the sheer ludicrousness of countries losing more by profits being put into tax havens than they are given in aid. I am sure that she is aware of the recent ActionAid report, which mentions a single transaction made through UK-linked tax havens that would have provided the Indian Government with $2.2 billion in tax if it had not taken place offshore. Surely that is something that the Government ought to rectify.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend gives a powerful example of how ludicrous the failure to act on this issue is.

At a stroke, statements would give people, whether they are experts or not, the information they need to assess the amount of tax that multinationals pay. That would give British consumers the power to take such matters into consideration when they decide who to buy from. It would also give developing countries a vital boost to their resources so that they could tackle hunger and invest in the infrastructure that they so desperately need.

As the Minister is all too well aware, the Opposition have backed the calls of the IF campaign for a convention on tax transparency. We saw the UK’s presidency of the G8 as a prime opportunity to take international leadership on the issue by launching a convention at the G8 summit to establish a global standard of public registration for the ownership of companies and trusts. As the House knows, the G8 nations took a step in that direction; we have acknowledged that steps have been made in the right direction.

The G8 stated in “Common principles on misuse of companies and legal arrangements”:

“Beneficial ownership information on companies should be accessible onshore to law enforcement, tax administrations and other relevant authorities including, as appropriate, financial intelligence units. This could be achieved through central registries of company beneficial ownership and basic information at national or state level. Countries should consider measures to facilitate access to company beneficial ownership information by financial institutions and other regulated businesses.”

At the end of the day, there was a statement about what could or should be achieved or considered by G8 nations, and the UK promised to establish a register at Companies House on beneficial ownership of companies in the UK, but to make it available only to HMRC, not the public. That was a step in the right direction, but the Opposition feel that it did not go far enough. We believe that we need proper transparency about who is holding their wealth behind shell companies and trusts in tax havens, not just secret lists at Companies House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) put to the Minister doubts about the effectiveness of the UK’s proposed arrangements. Those doubts have been well articulated recently. Private Eye commented:

“Those with knowledge of the Companies House reality would take a great deal of convincing that it is about to become a tough enforcer able to scare global or even home-grown tax evaders—any more than it has ever deterred conmen the world over.

Companies House is merely a receiver and filer of documents. It is not set up to be reactive, never mind proactive. ‘We do not have the statutory power or capability to verify the accuracy of the information that companies send to us,’ a Companies House official candidly admitted to the Mail on Sunday last month when the newspaper wanted to know if a foreign currency investment company director actually existed. Hardly surprising when it is considered that there are 3 million ‘live’ companies on the UK register.”

Aware of the Government’s steadfast opposition to our proposals on country-by-country reporting and a global standard of public registration of company ownership, we have tabled new clause 12 to ask HMRC and the Government to at least review the possible effect of those measures. It is eminently reasonable and perfectly sensible for Government Members to support it. Crucially, on the subject of abusive tax arrangements, it calls on the Government to consider what steps they could take when working alongside the Governments of developing countries—not should, but could—to assess how UK companies could report their use of tax schemes that might have an impact on those countries, and how the UK could then assist in the recovery of that tax.