School Expansion

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend. I certainly do offer my congratulations to Rainham Mark grammar school, and I particularly thank all those working in the school. I was pleased to attend the grammar school heads reception here in the Palace of Westminster last week, and say thank you to everybody working in the schools. I particularly note that that school is sponsoring a school in special measures, and I pay tribute to the work it is doing there.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

There is a fundamental contradiction in the Secretary of State’s statement. We can either have parental choice or we can have school selection: we cannot have both. Either the school chooses or the parents choose; we cannot have both. Does this new position suggest the Secretary of State is backing away from parental choice?

[Nicky Morgan]

I really do not know where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. The whole point of this is that it is about parental choice. [Interruption.] Families can absolutely choose; there is no compulsion to attend a grammar school. As I have already said, Trinity free school and the Knole academy will be nearby. There will be other schools as well. There is no contradiction. We are very clear: we believe in parental choice and we believe in excellent education for all.

Trade Union Bill

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

Nothing in this Bill infringes the right to strike. It asks trade union bosses to achieve a higher mandate for those strikes. That can only strengthen the position of those trade union leaders, who will have the power and authority to win a clear mandate from their members.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

rose—

[Robert Jenrick]

Let me continue. Today the majority of those in trade unions are not the working poor—53% of members are in professional, associate professional or managerial occupations. Only a minority are in lower skilled, invariably lower-paid occupations, such as caring, leisure, processing, plant and machine work. Today’s trade unions predominantly serve middle-income workers. The figures show that those earning less than £250 a week—roughly the equivalent of a full-time job on the minimum wage—are the least likely to join a trade union. Just 13% of those workers are members, which is a smaller figure than the proportion of those earning more than £1,000 a week, who make up 22% of trade union members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

The key issue is that trade union leaders should speak for their members and achieve a clear mandate from them.

[Christian Matheson]

rose—

[Robert Jenrick]

Other Members want to speak, so let me come to the end of my remarks.

The only unions and leaders who need fear these reforms are those who do not believe that they can regularly convince their own members of the veracity of their arguments—those who have essentially lost touch with the high ideals of the founders of the trade union movement. I think back to my ancestor, Mary Ridge. What would she have thought of the union leader who last year called a strike of teachers based on ballots that were years out of date and in which fewer than a quarter of teachers voted? It closed a special school in Newark at which parents, already struggling with the demands of juggling jobs and caring for children with special educational needs, had to take time off work or seek specialist childcare at short notice. What would she have thought of the female city cleaner on a low income trudging home through the streets of London because trade union bosses had taken tube drivers, whose average starting salary is £50,000 a year for 36 hours a week, out on strikes?

[Christian Matheson]

rose—

[Catherine West]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I welcome many of the provisions in the Bill, which brings some much-needed modernisation and a little common sense back into trade union law. As we continue to rebalance the economy and reform the public sector, we cannot leave trade union law unreformed if we are to continue to compete in the global economy. The measures proposed today are both reasonable and moderate and will enhance our economic competitiveness while protecting the essential rights of trade union members.

Clause 2, with its turnout requirement, has provoked some opposition, with the argument being made that if it were applied to politicians they might not meet the threshold. I would argue that that tends to apply only in local government elections, where there is a lack of voter engagement. There is no greater engagement than deciding whether to go to work on a Monday morning or not, so if the union’s cause is strong enough, meeting the turnout threshold should not pose a problem.

The need for the clause has been further supported by the comments made by union leaders today. The Labour party and union bosses are now effectively as one, and the Public and Commercial Services Union general secretary, Mark Serwotka, has said:

“We have the ability to stop austerity in its tracks, to topple this government and to ensure we get a fairer society.”

Those comments serve only to fuel concerns that union leaders, emboldened and unchallenged by the Labour party, will seek to use their members as pawns in some sort of cynical political power struggle.

[Christian Matheson]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that PCS is not affiliated to the Labour party?

[Andrew Bridgen]

I think it probably will be now that Labour has a new leader—it seems to be very politically aligned.

It should be noted that according to the Office for National Statistics, 3 million working days have been lost in the past five years due to labour disputes, more than 80% in the public sector. That is simply unfair on the hard-working taxpayer, so, on their behalf, I welcome clause 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

The great Jack Jones once said that working people have two ways to access power: their union card and their right to vote. Of course we organise first and foremost in the workplace, but this is also about the ability to influence legislation here in this House. The Government are determined to weaken both.

On industrial action, in 2002 I led a million-strong strike in local government. We put in place arrangements to ensure that not one example was found of, for example, people in care homes or looked-after children being put at risk. Why? Because workers always enter into sensible arrangements in the public interest to protect those whom they serve.

[Christian Matheson]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He used to be my boss, and a very good boss he was too. In his many years as a trade union official, can he remember any instance of a strike that was entirely politically motivated?

[Jack Dromey]

The idea of cabals of shop stewards who pursue nakedly party political or political agendas is a myth peddled by the Conservative party.

Of course sometimes, for example with London Underground, there will be disruption, but one cannot in a free society shackle the right of working people to withdraw their labour. Ballots before industrial action? Absolutely. Sensible measures to get turnout up? Without hesitation. There can be workplace balloting and e-balloting. However, it is absolutely wrong to apply in this Bill a test that, were it to be applied in this place, would mean that very few people would come here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I draw the attention of the House to my declaration of interests, which includes membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions. For 15 years, I was an official with Unite, which gives me much more experience than some Conservative Members in dealing with industrial relations. That included dealing with some of the best managements in the country, such as at Vauxhall in Ellesmere Port. Twice I worked with local management to save that plant by winning new models for the workers to build—something at which they are excelling now. That was achieved by consent and on a partnership basis. I saw no evidence from any management I worked with of a desire within British industry to bring in such legislation.

Some of the proposals in the Bill are so bizarre that I cannot help but wonder if they were put in just so that they could be removed at a later point in the Bill’s passage to give a false impression of just how reasonable the Government are. Other hon. Members have mentioned the armbands provision and the provision on tweeting during industrial action. If I as a member of a trade union and a Member of Parliament tweet in support of an industrial dispute, would I face prosecution?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend might be guilty of wildcat tweeting—[Laughter.]

[Christian Matheson]

That would be a terrible crime, and I would not wish to be accused of such a grave offence.

The Bill would be bad for the economy, because trade unions—yes, working with management—help to spread the wealth that the country creates. The richest countries are not the ones with the 1% wealthiest elite, but the ones with the highest average wages. The country with the highest average wages will win every time, but that runs contrary to Conservative philosophy.

I remember Prime Minister’s questions just before the summer recess when the Prime Minister criticised tube drivers in London because they were well paid and did not need to go on strike. Well, they are well paid because they are members of a trade union.

The Bill is about power. It is about removing power from any form of organised opposition to the Conservatives’ dominance. They know that individual people are stronger when they stand together and therefore opposition to the Conservatives will be weakened by removing that collectivism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) explained so eloquently. The Government realise this. In typically cynical and dishonest fashion, they cloak the Bill in the claim of protecting the public when in fact it does the opposite: it makes families and ordinary people much more insecure by taking away one of the few avenues of protection they have in their economic and working lives.

There is a sinister and dangerous authoritarianism to the Government’s actions. Attacking the funding of the Labour party, as the Bill clearly and deliberately does, breaks many long-standing political conventions. It is part of a pattern that other hon. Members have identified: the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 taking away the ability of charities and unions to campaign in a general election, but not big businesses and newspapers; allowing local communities to decide on whether to have fracking in their local communities, but then, if they decide against it, the Government driving it through anyway; and the Human Rights Act 1998, which so many Conservative Members want to abolish, despite it being one of the few pieces of legislation that protects the rights of individuals against the state.

We live in a pluralistic democracy at present, but that pluralism and democracy will be eroded yet again in a manner that is sinister and troubling. Trade unions are an essential part of any democratic civil society and that is presumably why this unpleasant, authoritarian Government are attacking them tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Like many hon. Friends here tonight, I am proud to declare an interest as a long-standing trade unionist. I would run through the list, but I would probably run out of time as I only have three minutes. One of them is the National Union of Journalists, on whose ethics council I served and which stands up for the basic freedoms necessary for a healthy, functioning democracy.

It is through that prism that I look at the Bill, which cannot be considered in isolation, but must be seen in the context of so many other proposals from this and the previous Government. The list is depressing. Other members have mentioned the gagging Act but, as a former BBC journalist, I am also alarmed to see public broadcasting under attack in favour of its politicised, corporate-owned and Conservative-supporting rivals.

There are the devastating cuts to legal aid and the restrictions on judicial review, undermining the fundamental principle of universal access to the law. The snoopers charter is extending the power of the state to scrutinise us, while our powers to scrutinise the state are watered down by the freedom of information “review”. There is the plan to repeal the Human Rights Act, a great achievement of the last Labour Government. Perhaps most perniciously, there are the fundamental attacks on our democracy: more appointments to the other place, millions disfranchised, and boundaries fixed in favour of this Government’s own party. Quite simply, this Bill is part of the same agenda.

The rights to freedom of assembly, freedom of association and freedom of expression are all enshrined in the convention on human rights, and all are undermined by this Bill. This goes beyond anything proposed in the modern democratic era even by Conservative standards—and they can go quite low. In 1947, Churchill, hardly a militant socialist, acknowledged that

“the right of individual labouring men and women to adjust their wages and conditions by collective bargaining, including the right to strike”

were “pillars” of British life, but today’s Conservative party apparently wants to demolish those pillars. Those who seek justice at work will be tracked and treated like criminals, their social media monitored and their details shared with police. Those who protest will be forced to wear identifying marks and carry letters of authorisation.

[Christian Matheson]

It is sinister.

[Clive Lewis]

Yes, it is sinister.

This is an attack not just on workers’ rights, but on our most basic and fundamental human rights. As Liberty has said:

“Applied to any type of protest these proposals would be a mark of an authoritarian and controlling Government.”

Of course, this Bill does not only pick off individual trade unions; it also attacks the very existence of trade unions. Unsurprisingly, trade union political funding is at the centre of this attack, while the Tories’ millionaire donors are rewarded with seats in the other place.

Not only does this Bill have the wrong answers, but it is not even asking the right questions. It shows that the powerful now wish to hold the powerless to account.

I did not come to this House just to give voice to the voiceless, but also to let them have their own voice, and tonight I shall vote to do exactly that.

Education and Adoption Bill

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate those hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches this evening. In particular, I was intrigued by the comments of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) about his experiences with Ofsted. I want to return to his words during my speech.

This afternoon, Labour has been accused of being ideologically driven in our concerns about the Bill and in our reasoned amendment. I believe that the opposite is true. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) talked about Greek mythology, and I might invoke that myself and describe the Bill as something of a Trojan horse. Among all the talk of standards and of improving schools, I think that there is another hidden agenda, which is the philosophical aim of taking the delivery of public services away from the public sector. I think that is one of the Government’s real motivations.

The Bill vests greater centralised power in the Secretary of State, who appears to have decided that forced academisation is a golden bullet to improve school standards, but proportionally more academies are at “requires improvement” stage or below than local education authority schools. There is therefore evidence of an ideological drive from the Government, because their stated aim is to create at least 1,000 new academies during this Parliament, whereas the number of schools that are failing is about 250. The gap between those two figures suggest that this is about ideology rather than standards.

That gap must be why the Secretary of State has chosen to move the goalposts by introducing the new concept of a coasting school, although of course we do not know at this stage where she has moved the goalposts to. Accountability switches from parents and the local community via its council to the Secretary of State, meaning more centralisation from a Government who say one thing but do the opposite. It means fewer parental choices and less involvement.

One in four academies have seen their headteachers depart in the past year, prompting fears of a leadership crisis. Indeed, according to figures from UHY Hacker Young, which audits academy accounts, the figures are higher among secondary schools. The survey showed that although some of the departures are due to retirement, a tougher inspection regime and failing morale among headteachers were largely to blame. UHY Hacker Young said that the situation was putting potential heads off applying for the top job, causing an imminent recruitment crisis. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) talked about the recruitment crisis in the teaching profession and she was absolutely right, but if the Government’s aim is to force the academisation of schools and bring in superheads, where will all these superheads come from if we cannot recruit heads for existing schools?

The Government will turn to forced academisation for ideological purposes, despite there being no evidence that it will work or that it will address the problems of leadership. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke passionately about the importance of leadership.

Let me return to the role of Ofsted. I understand that a firm inspection regime is needed, but there is despair in the teaching profession at the way Ofsted and the Government constantly change the goalposts for the targets that schools and teachers are expected to meet. There is a reliance on too many bare statistics, and teachers in Chester tell me that they are spending not enough time teaching and too much time reporting on how they are teaching. One very experienced school governor—of an academy, I hasten to add—in Chester last week spoke to me of a

“cold wind of an obsession with accountability, measuring performance. It’s all quantitative…. With Ofsted there is a fear of failure rather than a celebration of success.”

That reminds me of what Sir Michael Wilshaw was quoted as saying in January 2013, I think, in The Guardian:

“if morale is at an all-time low, then that is a good thing because that means that management”—

he is referring to schools’ management—

“is doing its job.”

To some, that may sound like the smack of firm leadership; to me, it sounds like a licence for workplace bullying. It is no surprise that 40% of teachers leave in their first five years on the job.

If teachers are to inspire our children, they have to feel inspiration themselves, and beating that inspiration out of teachers in a quest for figures and ticking boxes, all the while berating them as potential failures, will do nothing to raise standards. What will? Quality teaching and inspirational leadership make all the difference. The Government should be building leadership, not forcing heads out simply to justify academisation.

Last week, I visited an academy in my constituency, Mill View primary school, which under inspirational head Susan Walters has twice been rated outstanding, but it has achieved that rating because of the teaching and the leadership that she and her governors provide. She believes firmly in supporting her staff and in having a clear vision and goals that are understood and that all the staff buy in to. She shares responsibility within the school and she shares credit for success. She will drive staff forward, but their wellbeing remains her personal priority. She keeps parents engaged as well, whether using their expertise to help the continuing professional development that she provides for her staff, or perhaps planning school trips.

Chester Bluecoat primary is one of the most diverse schools in my constituency, with more than 20 languages spoken. Headteacher Vince O’Brien focuses on putting each child at the centre of their own learning programme and has maximised use of the school’s building environment to inspire the children’s imagination. Of course, he has also built a strong team of teachers and teaching assistants. Perhaps it is time we let teachers get on with the job they trained to do.

We should trust our teachers and not dangle the sword of Damocles over them. We should change the culture from threats and blame and fear of failure to one that aspires instead to celebrate success. The Bill does nothing to address the real problems in education; it only takes us down the blind alley of forced academisation driven by the Government’s ideology and not by a desire to raise standards. It raises more questions than it answers and provides yet more churn and change where stability is required. I cannot support the Bill’s Second Reading.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate hon. Members who have made their initial contributions in today’s debate. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), and particularly for Norwich South (Clive Lewis). He and I between us have doubled Labour’s representation in the east—from not a lot to, sadly for us, not quite enough.

The Bill claims that schools should do better, and no one is going to disagree with that, but the real question is whether the Bill provides the best way to go about it. Representing an education city, where nearly 1,500 young people are attending schools rated as “less than good”, if one trusts that definition, I find that to be a question well worth asking.

The trouble is that the Bill does not address some of the obvious problems, such as inadequate funding. As a Cambridgeshire Member, I can hardly stand up today without pointing out the chronic long-term underfunding from which Cambridgeshire schools have suffered by comparison with other areas. It is worth pointing out that, partly as a consequence of foolish decisions made in the past by Conservative county councils, today’s young people should not be made to pay for the political errors of previous generations. As the Government consider the national funding formula, I urge them to create a long-term change that will correct this imbalance. The last Parliament saw some limited progress in that area, and produced a welcome, although relatively small, sum for Cambridge schools. This progress, however, will need to be improved massively if we are to bridge the funding gap that has so weakened investment in schools for decades.

I would ask—I am not entirely sure that it will be achieved—for any changes made to be done in an equitable way across the country, rather than being just a further cash grab at other parts of the country that have already suffered and lost out heavily. I would ask, too, that any such funding changes do not reduce the minimum funding guarantee for the most disadvantaged schools, where such an impact would again mean the worst-off schools disproportionately bearing the brunt of Government meddling in education.

I suspect that that point will resonate with many of the people I meet in schools—the headteachers, teachers and support staff to whom I speak regularly. The problem with the Bill, as so many others have noted, is that further structural change is not what is needed to improve schools. What we need are good teachers, good leaders, good support staff and a whole team highly motivated, well rewarded and well regarded. Sadly, we are a long way from that. As we have heard, a record number of teachers left the profession last year, and, as a combined result of these incessant cuts, the attack on morale and the exodus of over-worked teachers, even in a prosperous city such as Cambridge, 7% of the teaching workforce is unqualified, and in some schools, it is double that number.

[Christian Matheson]

Is my hon. Friend aware that these problems are not just happening in Cambridge? The headteacher of one school in the Chester area has for financial reasons been unable to appoint a qualified modern languages teacher, while a music teacher who happens to have a French A-level is teaching early-years French. The head of modern languages in that school has expressed concern to me that the children affected might be lost to languages for ever. That is entirely because of a lack of qualified teachers—and that is due, in turn, to a lack of resources for appointing them.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is shameful that in one of my schools one in seven teachers is unqualified, and parents are horrified by that. I entirely endorse his comments.

Another issue that is not addressed in the Bill is the bizarrely named Priority School Building programme, which appears to be neither a priority programme nor a building programme. As we discovered last week, its rate of achievement is running at something like 5%. In my constituency, we have the rare occurrence of a new build that is currently under construction, but to such an incredibly low standard that the school has had to sell off its own assets to fund a widening of the corridors. The original plans would have made them so narrow that it would have been a depressing building. Far from lifting standards and inspiring pupils in a disadvantaged area, it would have made the situation worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

I think Mr Jones is absolutely right, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.

In a funny and self-deprecatory maiden speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) described how he was slightly taken aback by the ease and grace with which his employer took his resignation from the company on his election to Parliament. He made a serious point, however, about the importance of a good-quality education to a good start in life—something this Government are committed to giving to every young person.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), in an excellent maiden speech, expressed concern about the quality of broadband in parts of his constituency. Given the quality of his speech, I do hope that his wife managed to live stream it. My hon. Friend has already become an active member of the F40 group and today he again made the compelling argument for fairer funding. He also mentioned apprenticeships and, more broadly, the value of people working their way up to gaining experience in work. The Government are committed to 3 million apprenticeship starts over this Parliament, building on 2.2 million starts since 2010. These are real, paid jobs with real training.

A number of Opposition Members claim that the Government are wrong to pursue sponsored academy status to turn around failing or coasting schools, but it is the success of the academies programme over the past five years, and indeed before that, that gives us confidence that this is the right approach. The chief inspector of schools, in his annual report, wrote that:

“Overall, sponsor-led academies have had a positive and sustained impact on attainment in challenging areas”.

That is backed up by results that show that sponsored academies are improving their performance faster than maintained schools.

[Christian Matheson]

Is it not the case that Ofsted recently dispensed with the services of up to 40% of its inspectors? Does not that call into question the quality of some of the more recent school inspections?

[Mr Gibb]

Including the outstanding grade awarded to St Martin’s Academy in the hon. Gentleman’s Chester constituency? I would not be too scathing about Ofsted judgments if I were him.

Secondary schools that have been academies for four years have GCSE results that are, on average, six percentage points higher than results in the predecessor school. By comparison, results in local authority maintained secondary schools are, on average, 1% higher now than they were in 2010. For example, Outwood Academy Portland in Nottinghamshire became a sponsor-led academy in June 2012. In 2012, the proportion of pupils achieving five good GCSEs was just 57%; last year, the figure had jumped to 76%. There are many more examples that show how a school being an academy improves academic standards.

The Bill is about social justice. It is another important step to ensuring that all our state schools are delivering the quality of education currently found in only the best and that our adoption system is swift and efficient, so children can escape the unhappiness of a life of neglect or the uncertainty of life in care as swiftly as possible.

This Bill is about one nation—more action to ensure that schools in weak local authority areas such as Knowsley are as strong as schools in the best performing parts of the country; further progress to ensure that every child is a fluent reader by the age of 6, not just at Ark Priory Primary Academy in Ealing, but in every school in the land, and that every child is fluent in arithmetic and knows their times tables by the age of 9. We want every parent’s local secondary school to be preparing their children for life in a competitive world, and giving their children the best academic education, the best GCSEs, the best preparation for work, college or an apprenticeship, and the best preparation for entry into the best universities. We want that standard to be high in north Yorkshire, Blackpool, London, Birmingham, the west country and throughout the nation, in rural areas and on our coasts. That is what we mean by one nation.

We want those standards for everyone, regardless of social or economic background. That is what we mean by social justice. It involves taking on the vested interests, which is why in this Bill we are asking for the powers to say no to those who frustrate or delay improvement—enemies of aspiration and rigour. If hon. Members across the House believe in social justice, and if they believe in a one-nation education system, I urge them to support this Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made.