UK Energy Costs

Debate between Elizabeth Truss and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 8th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

If hon. Members will allow me to make a bit more progress, I may be able to answer their questions before they have asked them.

The Opposition need to understand—

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Copies of the written ministerial statement have been made available to some Members, but there are not enough for everybody—[Interruption.] If I might finish my point of order: is it possible for sufficient copies to be made so that we can all see the statement?

[Mr Speaker]

As we both know, that is not a point of order, but it is certainly a clarification that the copies are now coming out. We are printing them as fast as possible to make sure that all Members have the ability to read them. It is with great disappointment that we are doing so, but that is a matter of fact.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Debate between Elizabeth Truss and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

What I think we have heard today is that Members on both sides of the House agree that there is a real problem with the way the Northern Ireland protocol is operating, and that needs to be solved. I hear people saying that they want to get an agreed solution with the EU. I hope that the EU will change its negotiating mandates so that we are able to achieve that.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary made it clear that one of her primary reasons for acting in this way is to try to get the Executive back up and running in Northern Ireland. However, she also said in her statement that the Bill

“ensures that goods destined for the EU under the full checks and controls”,

so there will still be checks. On that basis, has she received an assurance from the DUP that, even with these continued checks, it will agree to re-enter the Executive?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have been clear that our No. 1 priority is to restore the balance in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which has been undermined by the operation of the protocol. What we are proposing—and I will be bringing out more details on this in due course—is a green lane of trusted traders that is properly protected for goods into Northern Ireland, and a red lane for goods that have to go through the full customs controls into the EU single market. I am very clear that, as well as the protection of the UK single market, part of our agreement is the protection of the EU single market.

Ukraine

Debate between Elizabeth Truss and Kevin Brennan

Monday 28th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

Yes, I will make sure that that is the case.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I am afraid that the system that the Foreign Secretary has outlined is not humane. My constituent’s mother-in-law is in Dublin, less than an hour’s flight from Cardiff, but she cannot come to stay with her family member in Cardiff because they are on a global talent visa for the next two years and therefore do not qualify for the family scheme. They are being told to make the application under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. That is ludicrous, as they are in rented temporary accommodation while they are here. Will the Foreign Secretary have a word with her ministerial colleagues in the Home Office to stop this nonsense and allow people in? If they were the constituency MP involved, every Member of the House would say the same as me: this situation is absolutely ludicrous. Can the Government do something about it?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I will certainly happily take forward the hon. Gentleman’s case with the Home Secretary.

Sanctions

Debate between Elizabeth Truss and Kevin Brennan

Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

This really pertains to a number of questions that have been asked. What we are doing in building up our evidence cases about the oligarchs is sharing information with our G7 allies, so we are working together and getting that information quicker. That work is already under way. That taskforce already exists. Of course, alongside the legal services, the public relations services and the accountancy services, we will look at the insurance services that these oligarchs rely on. This is all about being able to do this quicker, because every single country has the same issue. The US takes time to build up cases against oligarchs because generally their organisations are so complex and opaque. The work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is doing on the Economic Crime Bill will also help to make it easier for us to understand their corporate structures.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I think all of us, particularly those of us who were Members of the House in September 2001, realise that a page has been turned in world history and a new chapter has begun that will resonate not just now but for many years. The important thing is our shared values, and the way that we respond in the months and years to come. On the specifics of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, she said that over 50% of Russian trade is denominated in dollars or sterling, but so that the House can understand the impact of our Government’s actions, how much of Russian trade is denominated in sterling?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I do not have that figure on me, but I can get it to the hon. Gentleman. The point that I was making is that the action that we have taken on clearing is in conjunction with the United States, so between us we are able to cover 50% of that trade.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Elizabeth Truss and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

What assessment she has made of the effect of the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement on the UK’s position in global trade.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

The agreement that we have struck with the EU is great for the UK. It delivers on our promise to the British people and takes back control of our laws, our borders and our money. It proves that we can succeed as an independent trading nation, and builds on the deal that we have struck covering 63 countries around the world.

[Kevin Brennan [V]]

I was genuinely interested in what the Secretary of State would say, because so far none of the 30-plus free trade deals that she has rolled over with non-EU countries since 2019 is actually set to deliver any increase in exports compared with what was previously forecast. According to her own economic impact assessments, even the Japan trade deal, which she has lauded, will result in only a £2.6 billion increase in UK exports, not the £4.3 billion forecast inside the EU. Can she explain—preferably without reverting to wishful thinking, personal attacks or party political rants—exactly how Britain is going to be better off?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s political advice there. I note that he did not vote for a deal with the EU, even though he previously said that no deal was unacceptable. The figures that he is quoting on Japan from the EU are crude figures that are completely out of date and were created from data before the financial crisis in 2008. The fact is that the Japan deal that we have struck goes further and faster in areas such as data and digital, the creative industries, and food and drink—all areas where the UK has a comparative advantage. There are huge opportunities ahead, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to embrace them.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Elizabeth Truss and Kevin Brennan

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)]

I am delighted to be here to close the Budget debate. We have had a very good debate over the past few days. To be honest, though, I am just extremely grateful to be able to get a seat on the Front Bench, because, let us be honest, that has not been guaranteed over the past week.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am afraid that I only have 10 minutes. The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) did not give way, so I am not going to be able to either.

This is a Budget that will help working families and that will grow our economy, and I am pleased to say that it has been welcomed from all quarters—from the cider drinkers of Somerset, to the whisky drinkers of Scotland and Britain’s motorists, who will see better roads and a continued freeze on fuel duty, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch).

Families have had their taxes cut and their wages hiked, and the FSB says that we are firmly on the side of Britain’s small businesses. The Resolution Foundation has welcomed our changes to universal credit, and even the shadow Chancellor has welcomed our tax cuts, saying that our measure

“will put more money in people’s pockets”

and inject more demand into the economy. It is just a shame that his party does not agree. I can almost hear Momentum sharpening their pitchforks. But I want him to know that all is not lost because, shadow Chancellor, you have friends on this side of the House. You might have to sit on the Home Secretary’s knee, but there is space for you on our Front Bench.

It is not an accident that we have seen an additional £100 billion coming into the public purse in this Budget. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) suggests, this is not a fluke or luck. It is because of the decisions that this Government have taken since 2010: reforming the welfare system, cutting taxes for people, and cutting corporation tax to bring more investment into our economy and get more business start-ups going. What happened on the Opposition Benches? Well, Labour Members opposed all those measures, tooth and nail. They opposed our welfare reforms that got more people into work; they opposed our corporation tax cuts that brought more tax into the public coffers; and they opposed our measures to improve skills and education that have meant that our children are doing better.

Instead of Labour Members realising the error of their ways, they have come up with even more extreme policies. They want to create a socialist superstate controlled by the politicians at the top of the Labour party. Their eye-watering spending pledges would mean £1,000 billion more in tax and borrowing, job-killing tax hikes on hard-working families, and the relentless talking down of everything that is good about our country. If we listened to Labour, there would be fewer jobs, lower wages and less money to spend on public services, so we refuse to listen to this catalogue of envy and despair.

Instead, we have delivered a positive, aspirational Budget, giving people more control over their own money. We have put £630 a year for families into universal credit. We are cutting taxes for those on the basic rate by £130 this year, making people £1,200 better off. And we are raising the higher rate threshold so that people do not start paying higher rate tax until they earn £50,000. This is not about giving tax cuts to millionaires; these are people on medium incomes who were dragged into the top rate of tax under the Labour Government.

At the same time, our strong economy means that we can fund the services on which everyone relies, which is why this Budget has included extra money for defence, schools, the health system and local authorities, and we are going to spend this money in a way that delivers results. The hon. Member for Bootle talked about children’s services. Not only are we giving councils an extra £650 million to pay for adult and children’s social care; we are also rolling out programmes such as “No Wrong Door” in North Yorkshire. That programme has meant fewer children in care, fewer ending up in trouble with the police and fewer ending up in accident and emergency. It is a great example of how, by spending money in the right way, we can cut long-terms costs for the taxpayer and, more importantly, ensure that our children get the best possible start in life.

I also want to applaud the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for what she said in this debate. I applaud her for her bravery in standing up against those gangs targeting young women in her area. I am very happy to discuss in the spending review the issue that she raised.

As well as addressing the immediate issues we face, this Budget backs entrepreneurs to take risks, make investments and grow their operations. We have slashed business rates by a third, which has been welcomed by my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Derek Thomas), for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) and for Solihull (Julian Knight). We have cut corporation tax to the lowest level in the G20. We have increased capital allowances from £200,000 to £1 million. What all that means is that companies want to grow, want to invest in Britain and want to take more people on. It means more jobs for people across this country. It means higher wages. We are now seeing real wages rise for the three quarters of people who are employed in the private sector. It also means that we are able to afford money for our public services. We are launching 10 new development corporations across the country, so we will not just have Canary Wharf—we will have Canary Wharf in the north and all other parts of the country. We are creating a special economic zone in Teesside, with new freedoms to grow.

But this is not just about cold, hard cash; it is about realising people’s aspirations, dreams and hopes for the future. It is about being able to afford a holiday or a car, and it is about more opportunities for young people emerging from our schools and our colleges.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Elizabeth Truss and Kevin Brennan

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

Yes, I completely agree with my hon. Friend that it is the responsibility of schools. It is also in a school’s interest to make sure that students are given the best possible study opportunities. We think that schools should use study leave sparingly and make sure that there are opportunities to study at school when students do not have a home environment conducive to study.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

When the Secretary of State said recently that every child should have a room of their own in which to study, was he deliberately undermining the Government’s bedroom tax policy or was he using his platform as Education Secretary to push back the frontiers of ignorance a bit further by giving us a practical demonstration of the concept of irony?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My Secretary of State was making an absolutely clear case for a better planning system in order to ensure that we have the homes we need across the country. As I have said, there should be opportunities available, both at school and in the home, for children to study.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Elizabeth Truss and Kevin Brennan

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

We will ensure that our attendance procedures are absolutely correct, so that we know whether students are at school or not. If they are being home-schooled, that is a decision for their parents; if they are at school, they must be properly at school, and their attendance records must be properly monitored.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May I take this opportunity, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, to wish Her Majesty a speedy recovery?

The Minister is actually making the curriculum less flexible. For instance, she is insisting that primary school children will have to study Dafydd ap Gruffydd. Can she tell us about Dafydd ap Gruffydd, and can she spell Dafydd ap Gruffydd?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, in that we are ensuring that students gain a good chronological understanding of history throughout their school career. During my own school career, I spent one lesson studying Sir Francis Drake and the next talking about the princes in the tower. I would certainly have preferred a school career that enabled me to learn about chronology and understand our island story.

A-level Reform

Debate between Elizabeth Truss and Kevin Brennan

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May I thank the Minister for her statement and for advance sight of it? I understand that the Secretary of State is rather busy today, which is why we have her and not him, and why I am speaking rather than my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg)—[Interruption.] I am not being patronising. I have welcomed the Minister’s statement.

It is somewhat ironic that the cause of the Secretary of State’s busy afternoon is that he has been summoned before the Procedure Committee to account for his Department’s failure to answer parliamentary questions. In effect, he is not here for his examination because he is in the headmaster’s study for failing to do his homework. As the part-time Minister for Schools does not do exams, the hon. Lady has made the statement, and I am glad she did so.

The Secretary of State first announced his plans to scrap AS-levels in July 2010. He now says that AS-levels will not be scrapped as such, but just rendered irrelevant by the fact that they will not count towards a final A-level grade. To describe that as a dog’s dinner would be an insult to the pet food industry. It is no wonder that leading universities are opposed to the change.

Why, when the Secretary of State says he wants to consult Russell Group universities on exam reform, has he completely ignored its opposition to this emasculation of AS-levels? Dr Geoff Parks, director of admissions at Cambridge university, has said:

“We are worried…if AS-level disappears we will lose many of the gains in terms of fair admissions and widening participation that we have made in the last decade.”

He warns—Government Members should listen to this—that:

“We are convinced that a large part of this success derives from the confidence engendered in students from non-traditional backgrounds when they achieve high examination grades at the end of year 12”.

The question the Opposition want the answer to is this: why are the Government treating the views of admissions tutors on what helps state schools pupils to gain Oxbridge admission with such total contempt? That view is shared across the university sector—it is the view not just of Cambridge university, but of the million+ group and Universities UK.

In addition, the Secretary of State says he wants to create “facilitating subjects” in A-level that are ready for teaching in 2015, but they will only be in the EBacc subjects. Yet again, there is no value for creative subjects or computing and engineering. What has he got against those subjects? His plan means there will be two types of A-levels: one designed, blessed and endorsed by him; and another that is seen as less valuable—once again, that is a two-tier system from the past.

Anyway, what is the Secretary of State doing designing exams? Is he going to write the questions and mark the papers too? Is he overstepping his powers? Is that what the Minister meant in her statement by “stepping back” from the design of A-levels? Are the plans an order from the Secretary of State or just an expression of preference? Given the widespread opposition to his plans, we need to know their status.

Today’s statement, as so often, is backward looking, and for the few and not the many. Let us have exams that open up life chances rather than reforms that will slam the door of opportunity in the face of the many.

[Elizabeth Truss]

It is absolutely no surprise that the Labour party opposes any change to our system: they are the educational reactionaries; we are looking to the future. We are looking to compete in the modern world, which is why we have leading universities, such as Cambridge and Imperial, helping us to develop the new curriculum. The Opposition oppose any change; they want students to be on an exam treadmill at age 16, 17 and 18. We want students to have the opportunity to think, to learn, and to study subjects in depth; they just want constant exams.

We have discussed these changes with the Russell Group, which is bringing forward proposals and leading these reforms. I have also been in conversation with Universities UK and the 1994 Group, as they want to be involved too. I suggest that the Opposition get with the programme, otherwise they will be left behind even further. Let us not forget what happened under Labour Governments. Let us not forget Curriculum 2000, which saw a drastic reduction in the number of students doing maths A-level—down 20% in two years. We are now the country with the lowest number of students who are studying that important subject in the entire OECD.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is absolutely right: we have some fantastic universities. That is why we are so excited that they are getting involved in developing new qualifications. Not only are they helping us with new qualifications—[Interruption.] I think the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) should actually speak to some of these academics and maybe he will get a slightly less biased picture.

[Kevin Brennan]

I do.

[Elizabeth Truss]

Well, I do not know who he was talking to. The point is that not only are we developing new A-levels, we are also developing a new mid-level maths qualification with Mathematics in Education and Industry and Tim Gowers, which I am very glad the Opposition support.

Life-saving Skills in Schools

Debate between Elizabeth Truss and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We have had a very good debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), whose name appears at the head of the motion, on her very fine speech, which drew a lot of agreement across the House. She was absolutely right to emphasise that without compulsion, we simply will not get the levels of performance and the number of lives saved that we want, in comparison with other countries. I shall return to that point later.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) rightly said that we must not underestimate what children are capable of. The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) rightly said that we need to get on and train the next generation of life-savers, and he mentioned, as other Members did, the survival rate of 2% to 12% of cardiac arrests in this country compared with 52% in the better jurisdictions. He also, movingly, told us about his own personal experience involving his father, which brought a lot of sympathy from across the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) did her speech gangnam-style, which I thought very appropriate. On MP4’s album, track 2, “Love’s Fire,” is also about the same rhythm, although it is not as well known as the other examples given. The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) also spoke with personal experience. I can assure him that no one was saying, “Thank God it’s over,” at the end of his speech, which was a very effective contribution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), who herself is common sense on legs, told us that it is simply common sense for us to be teaching these skills and making that teaching compulsory. She gave us real examples of where young lives had been saved. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), who brought her personal experience as a trained lifeguard and who saved her future husband as a result of that training. Only time will tell whether she lives to regret that but, all joking aside, she showed the importance of these skills. Briefly, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) drew on his personal experience.

We support the inclusion of life-saving skills as a compulsory element in our schools. We are open-minded, as hon. Members said, as to how we achieve that—PSHE might be the best subject in which to include that on a statutory basis. The motion does not actually spell that out, but it says that everyone should learn these skills. My question on these occasions is always, “If that is what the House wants to happen, what is the transmissions mechanism to ensure that it does happen?” The Government frequently talk about the necessity of following the examples of high-performing jurisdictions when we are looking at what schools do well and at the outcomes, so how about, on this occasion their following their own advice and looking at what happens in high-performing jurisdictions around the world as far as life-saving skills are concerned? I am afraid the evidence is clear that unless the Government spell out that such training should be compulsory and must be taught in schools, it simply will not work and we will continue to have the very slow progress in saving lives that the hon. Member for Newton Abbot talked about in her speech.

That would not be acceptable, because we are talking about people’s lives. What is the barrier anyway? All the arguments against the proposal have been demolished in the debate, so the only objection can be an ideological one relating to telling schools what to do. That is not a good enough reason when we are talking about saving lives. Unless this is made a requirement in all our schools, it will happen only in some of them. We can already see that on the ground.

Earlier this afternoon, just before I dashed over here for the debate, I was talking to children from Lansdowne primary school in my constituency. I took the opportunity to talk to them about life-saving skills, and some had been taught those skills, but only as part of their first aid club activities. When I asked whether they thought that everyone should learn them, they were unanimous in agreeing that they should. Children and young people are up for this, and as has been observed, they are like sponges and can learn these skills quite quickly. The training need not take up a huge, burdensome amount of time in the curriculum. There is therefore no reason for the Government not to listen to what has been said by Members on both sides of the House today and come forward with proposals to ensure that this training happens in all our schools.

As the Government’s changes to the school system continue, this proposal will become more difficult to implement. It is already the case that nearly half of all secondary schools do not have to follow the national curriculum, following the academisation programme. We have heard today about the £1 billion overspend on that programme, which will take money away from other areas of the Department for Education’s budget. We have no evidence yet to show whether their academisation programme is working. It is fine to change the name and governance of a group of schools, but we need to see evidence that that is working. There is, however, evidence of the negative impact of those cuts being felt elsewhere. If academies are not required to follow the national curriculum and cannot be directed to introduce these programmes, it is likely that the life-saving skills situation will get worse. The Minister needs to get a grip on this.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)]

Was it not the case that the previous Government who introduced the idea that academies would not teach the national curriculum?

[Kevin Brennan]

Indeed it was, but that was a small, targeted programme aimed at a small number of schools in deprived areas. The hon. Lady’s policy is completely different, in that it aims to roll out academy status. I think that about 47% of secondary schools in England now have that status. So her policy is on a completely different scale from ours, and she must adjust her policy according to those facts.

The Minister will no doubt say that she hopes the proposals will be introduced as a result of the motion being passed today, but unless she can tell us, perhaps in her forthcoming announcements, that they will be made a statutory part of PHSE or that she has some other way of achieving this, it simply will not happen. I can predict here and now that, if she does not take action, we will be back here debating this issue in a couple of years. Unless she makes this training a compulsory part of the curriculum, the statistics will not get much better.

We support the motion, for all the reasons that have been outlined in the debate, and the Minister should tell the House whether she agrees with what has been said. I know that she won the “Minister to Watch” award yesterday at The Spectator magazine’s Parliamentarian of the Year awards. During her acceptance speech, she thanked the Secretary of State for Education for “not fettering or gagging” her. Well, here is an opportunity for her to show that she is not being fettered or gagged by the Secretary of State, that she is her own woman, that she is in charge of her brief and that she is going to get on and make this training compulsory, as everyone here has called for today.

School Governors

Debate between Elizabeth Truss and Kevin Brennan

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. What I am saying, though, is that the capability of governors and the outcomes of governance will be assessed as part of the Ofsted assessment. It is not just a matter of looking at the academic performance of the school; it is also about understanding what the governors are doing and how they are carrying out their duties.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Government have legislated so that some schools that are doing well academically do not have to be inspected. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) was making the point that that can mask corrupt practices and there will not be sufficient governance or training in place for governors to monitor that properly and nip it in the bud before it becomes a huge issue.

[Elizabeth Truss]

The Ofsted inspection will take place in due course, if the school performs below satisfactory levels. The reality is that, often—I could tell the right hon. Member for Exeter about similar cases in my constituency—poor performance on financials is related to poor overall school performance.

My colleague, Lord Hill, who leads on governors in the Department for Education, has already presented the awards for school clerk of the year, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove, who also spoke about ensuring higher take-up. I understand that Lord Hill has committed to doing so again next year, which is good news for all of us.

I was interested the suggestion that we run a “becoming a governor” campaign and will take that back to Lord Hill for further discussion. We are, of course, happy to listen to suggestions from all parties in the House about how to improve standards of governance. As right hon. and hon. Members rightly said, there is a process for ensuring that all governing bodies attain the capability that we want, so that they can carry out their functions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud raised some other issues. His organisation’s work promoting skills in governing bodies is important. He is right; we need wider recruitment of governors, including business people who have financial skills that would help, as the right hon. Member for Exeter mentioned. My hon. Friend welcomed our efforts to relax the constraints on the size of governing bodies, so that we have governing bodies that are fit for purpose and offer the right scrutiny of what head teachers and schools are doing.

Being a governor can help build the individuals’ skills and experience. We have talked a lot about how the governors’ skills and experience can contribute to the schools’ performance, but we should also see it the other way round. I know a lot of people who have benefited from their time as a governor and have been able to build up their capability to understand how a school works and education policy, management and financial scrutiny.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned the platoons that we are seeking to support in society. In that regard, it is important that we retain governorship as a voluntary service, because it is a two-way process, with members of the community gaining experience as well as contributing to the future of a school and schools gaining from that experience of the community. The Government do not have any plans to pay governors and go away from the well-established principle of voluntary governance. There might be times—for example, if a school is in trouble and an interim executive board is needed for that failing school—when payment might be appropriate, but in the general run of things, we support a continuation of the voluntary governance principle.

Financial Education

Debate between Elizabeth Truss and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 15th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May I first apologise to House as I may need to leave before the debate’s conclusion, depending on how long we run on for?

I congratulate the all-party group on financial education for young people on producing its report, and I pay tribute to the hon. Members for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) for the work that they put into it. [Interruption.] Did I miss somebody out? I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). Does anyone else want a mention while I am on my feet? I pay tribute to everyone who has been involved in the report. It is very thorough and much work went into taking the evidence. It is of the standard of a Select Committee report—perhaps even better than some Select Committee reports.

I also congratulate Members on getting Martin Lewis to help with the report, although it sounded as though that was not too difficult for the hon. Member for North Swindon, and on getting 100,000 people to petition for today’s debate. More broadly, I pay tribute to the role that Martin Lewis has played in improving public awareness of finance issues through his website and other media. When I was a Minister with responsibility for consumer issues, he was very supportive of a reform that I introduced and from which I hope some Members here might have benefited. I refer to the measure on 0% credit card offers under which repayments by consumers henceforth went on the most expensive debt first—exactly the opposite of what used to happen, when credit card companies would pay off the 0% debt first and leave people with a very high rate of interest on any remaining balances. That is the kind of understanding that consumers need to have when taking up so-called 0% credit card offers, including on arrangement fees.

Knowing how to manage money and be a savvy consumer are vital life skills in an increasingly complex world, but why do more young people not start learning this at school? That is the question at the heart of today’s report. As a former head of economics in a Cardiff comprehensive school, I am well aware that this issue has been on the agenda for many decades. I can remember some of the earlier initiatives on improving financial education in schools, including the early days of school banks, when young people were encouraged to make deposits in the school bank, often supported by the local branch of their bank or building society.

Education is about giving young people the skills and knowledge that they need to get on in life, which is why every child should learn not only the three R’s at school but about pensions, saving, borrowing and mortgages. As the report shows, despite many of these initiatives down the years, the provision of financial education across the country is still extremely patchy, as the Minister acknowledged when he referred to the Ofsted report. That is why we would have had compulsory financial education in every school last September, through personal, social and health education, under plans that the previous Government set in train in the then Department for Children, Schools and Families before the last general election, again with the help and support of Martin Lewis from MoneySavingExpert.com.

We said that financial education should be a compulsory part of the curriculum, as part of PSHE, with improved training and tools to give teachers the confidence to teach it. The law to make that happen was going through Parliament when the general election was called last year. However, as we heard earlier, those on the Conservative Front Bench, including the current Schools Minister, refused to support it—probably for other reasons, to do with their objection to the sex education provision in PHSE—and so the plans were scrapped.

There have been 18 months in which no progress has been made, which is why the report is so welcome. It gives us an opportunity to try to find a way forward, and perhaps a cross-party consensus, on a vital issue for the long-term good of our country. I am therefore pleased that the e-petition calling for financial education to become a compulsory part of the curriculum has been a success and that it has sparked today’s debate. The report is also timely, as there is a review of the curriculum under way, as the Minister said, which gives the Government a perfect opportunity to listen to the thousands of people who are backing the campaign. As I said, every child should learn how to manage their money. It will set them up for the rest of their lives, and financial education lessons might also enable them to teach their parents a thing or two.

Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue)—who is on the Front Bench, in the Whips’ corner—sent me an e-mail yesterday after we talked about this issue. Hon. Members will be aware that the Prime Minister praised her yesterday for her work with citizens advice bureaux. She said:

“One of the side effects of the project I managed delivering to schools/colleges was a rise in demand for debt advice from the parents…They talked to their children and realised there was a problem.”

She continued:

“There has to be sufficient quality free debt advice available to cope with this demand in the local area—and the signposting needs to be sensitive and appropriate too. Teachers need to think about how they would deal with the issue—perhaps a session from the local CAB?”

To which she adds:

“if it’s still around that is!"

This is therefore a timely moment for a debate on financial education, with the review of the curriculum under way. We in the Opposition will be looking carefully at what the Government come up with when they conclude their review.

However, I think there is a paradox and perhaps some confusion at the centre of the Government about the curriculum. As I understand it, the Schools Minister and the Secretary of State are driven in their review of the curriculum in part by a desire to give more freedom to teachers, head teachers and schools to teach as they think appropriate for their local communities, with more autonomy for schools and head teachers. However, at the same time, Ministers—driven perhaps by the desire to generate the right kind of headlines—continually demand a specific approach to teaching all sorts of subjects, including history, as favoured by the Schools Minister and the Secretary of State. At the same time, there is a big push, backed by money, for more and more schools to convert to academy status or become free schools, thereby no longer being required to teach the national curriculum. On the one hand, therefore, the Government’s policy seems to be to exempt most schools over time—if their current plans continue—from teaching the national curriculum, while on the other hand they are revising the national curriculum to ensure that schools teach more closely what they want them to teach. At some point, some genius in the Department for Education will have to square that circle and explain how those two things will be delivered.

It is paradoxical, and perhaps even absurd, that if the Government get their way, we will have a national curriculum that the vast majority of schools will not have to teach. It will not matter what anyone recommends in a report should be made compulsory: it will not be deliverable unless there is some stick in the system. The Government cannot decentralise and at the same time dictate from the top, because ultimately the whole project will collapse in on itself.

[Elizabeth Truss]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I can see that the hon. Lady is itching to intervene.

[Elizabeth Truss]

Is it not about leadership, as the reality is that many academies and, indeed, private schools follow or tack along with the national curriculum? It is the role of the Education Secretary and the Department to indicate what kind of things students should know when they leave school.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am sure the hon. Lady is right; she thinks deeply about these subjects and makes intelligent contributions. The report, however, states:

“Personal finance education should be a compulsory part of every school’s curriculum.”

If that is going to be delivered, there must be some transmission mechanism. I am afraid that history teaches us, and future events will teach us, that exhortations from Secretaries of State—no matter how talented or eloquent they be—are not sufficient to make things a reality on the ground. As I say, there has to be a mechanism to make it happen.

In thinking about this issue, the Minister will need to clarify what the role of the national curriculum will be in a schools landscape where most institutions will not be required to follow it. How will that fit in with the original vision of a national curriculum to be taught by all schools across the country, as introduced by Kenneth Baker, now Lord Baker, who was the Secretary of State when I was a teacher back in the 1980s? How can the Minister ensure adequate teaching of financial education if most schools will ultimately be free to follow their own path?

Education Performance

Debate between Elizabeth Truss and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 12th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Elizabeth Truss]

I agree completely with the right hon. Gentleman. Too often, limiting choices are made early in a student’s educational career. I support the English baccalaureate because if that becomes a more general qualification, people will not limit their choices early on. The lesson from other education systems seems to be that delayed specialisation is a good thing, and that too much early specialisation has a damaging effect. I oppose the suggestion that GCSEs be taken earlier, for example, as I think that would be damaging.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady makes a thoughtful speech. On early specialisation, and given the point made by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), does she believe that selection at age 11, for example, is a good idea?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I would not personally have such a system, but existing grammar schools do very well, and to abolish the most successful schools would be a mistake; we should improve the other schools instead. My point is about how wide a choice students are given in each school. I am all for freeing up schools and enabling them to select should they so desire. A school in my constituency, for example, wants to select the 20% of pupils who find school hardest. That is a good thing, because it will put a group of learners together to study and achieve academic qualifications. I am in favour of more flexibility, although I am not in favour of imposing mass-selection across the education system.

I was speaking about examinations and how they have changed. One of my concerns is that in trying to ensure that examinations are fair for all students, a lot of use of judgment has been removed. For example, rather than having multi-step questions in which a student has to think about where they want to get to, we have one-step questions that ask for a simple response. That has damaged the ability of young people to think, be flexible and solve problems.

Our system has also diminished the role of teachers, who, for too long, have been forced to jump through hoops. We have a textbook regime; many textbooks are designed by exam boards and are essentially “how to” guides on how to pass the exam, rather than engendering a deep knowledge and interest in the subject. I speak to a lot of teachers who spend their weekends preparing lessons for the week ahead and essentially reinventing the wheel in subjects that have been taught for decades, if not centuries. Teachers in other countries often use a respected textbook that enables students to study in their own time, rather than only in the classroom. One of our problems is that not enough responsibility for study is given to the student; instead, it is passed to the system. The student is seen simply as a cog in the wheel, or a sausage in the factory. A process that focuses on getting through the exam encourages students to value education as a piece of paper, rather than as a way of gaining and developing capability.

I am an ardent free marketer, and in answer to the question by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), I generally support freedom. However, I question our current set-up of examination boards, which is not a free market but an oligopoly of three organisations in a system. The innovation mentioned by those exam boards often involves innovating a race to the bottom to put easier qualifications into schools. The system also involves an incredible amount of regulation from Ofqual, which I have criticised in the past and which consumes a lot of public money. There is a strong reason for us to look again at the examination system and at how it can be better delivered. If we are to have national standards for exams such as the E-bac, and if we are to regulate exam boards, does it make sense to have those three exam boards in their current structure?

The issue of textbooks urgently needs to be addressed. We are one of the only countries in the world with this exam board structure, and where textbooks are set by the exam board. In my view, that is a conflict of interest. It would be better if independent bodies produced textbooks that students could study, and with which they could take responsibility for their own learning.

I mentioned subject choice. I want particularly to address the issues relating to low-income students, because one of the worst aspects of our educational performance is how much we let down low-income students compared with other countries. The OECD particularly highlighted that in its report; 77% of the performance in UK schools is down to socio-economic background. That is the second highest percentage after Luxembourg.

On the point about subject choice, someone at a private school or grammar school is twice as likely to study A-level maths as someone at a comprehensive school, and three times as likely to study a modern language. Students at comprehensives are seven times more likely to study media studies than students at private or grammar schools. What we have is essentially a reintroduction of the secondary modern in our school system. That huge segregation is a big problem. I have met bright students who are studying subjects such as psychology and media studies. Realistically, they will not have the opportunity to go to Russell group universities. We need seriously to address that.

The other point to make about Britain is that a study from Chicago showed that we have the largest differential between the teaching qualifications of teachers teaching low-income and high-income students. We are actively giving worse teachers to low-income students compared with other countries. The present Government have made excellent progress in reforming the supply side of our education system—opening up academies, developing the free schools programme and reforming the teaching profession. I would like further reforms, including an abolition of national pay bargaining. I would like teaching to become a really well-respected profession, and would like teachers to lead on some of the issues that I have been talking about.

However, the reform that we look to across our education system cannot be just about Government. We have been through 25 or 30 years of education reforms that Governments have tried to drive from the centre. That has happened under both Labour and Conservative Governments. It has shown that a wand cannot be waved by central Government. There must be a change in education culture in this country, and that must involve many institutions and people. One reason why I was so keen to have the debate today was to open up the discussion, not just in Parliament but at national level, about what sort of education system we aspire to.

We need to end the mindset that trades off quality and quantity. It is possible to have a high-quality, high-quantity education system. Countries such as Japan and Germany show that. Germany shows that it is possible to reform a system that has previously educated just the elite so that it becomes a much more broadly based system. The Germans are doing well on that basis. The English baccalaureate is a good start to focusing on the core subjects. We need to widen the number of people taking it. Reporting it on a points basis would be a good idea. Reporting how every student does proportionally on the E-bac would be a good idea. I would like that to be extended to A-levels, so that we get rid of the divide in what A-levels students are studying in different types of schools.

There is a strong case for removing low-value A-levels and GCSEs from the league tables. I said earlier that I thought that there was mis-selling of some vocational qualifications that were given the same value as other qualifications. We are lying to students if we say that those qualifications are of equal weight and worth when they are not. All we are doing is putting our universities in a very difficult position, because they are not getting the necessary applications. We are not getting people ready to enter the top universities because they simply have not studied the necessary subjects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

In response to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), we are not arguing that the standards have necessarily gone down, but rather that the standards in other countries are going up faster. That is the key issue.

[Kevin Brennan]

In one study.

[Elizabeth Truss]

From a whole series of studies, including TIMSS.