Recruitment and Retention of Teachers

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

I could not agree more.

The irony is that the Government’s criticism of teachers comes at a time when teachers are working harder than ever before. It is a scandal that the teaching workload is growing out of control and that, even as they work harder than ever, teachers remain so undervalued. The Government must know that this is happening. Their own figures tell the story of the teacher retention crisis. In the 12 months up to 2013, 50,000 qualified teachers left the state sector, equivalent to one in 12 of the entire profession, and the highest rate for over a decade. Furthermore, 100,000 teachers never even taught despite finishing their training.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I used to be a teacher and I have trained teachers. In my view, the problem is that it is no longer fun, and that teaching, which used to be a wonderful career, is now drudgery. Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister to make teaching more fun, both for the pupil and for the teacher?

[Louise Haigh]

Absolutely. That is why we are losing so many teachers every single year.

The total wastage rate, or loss of teachers, from the sector is now at over 10%—the highest for over a decade. To make matters worse, the number of teachers taking early retirement has risen to levels not seen since the Conservatives were last in power nearly two decades ago. Is not the Minister concerned that his own Government’s policies have caused a crisis in teaching numbers, the consequences of which will be felt by parents and pupils nationwide?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

On the contrary, Teach First has been a huge success. The purpose of Teach First is to attract people who might not otherwise consider entering teaching and ask them to commit to two years, so there has always been the expectation that a considerable number of the graduates who come into Teach First will leave and go into other careers in the City or elsewhere. The overall retention rate of more than 50% is actually staggeringly successful and reflects just how successful Teach First has been in recruiting high-calibre graduates into teaching.

The strong recruitment and retention figures have not been achieved by lowering our expectations for the quality of those joining the teaching profession. Almost three quarters of teachers now have an upper second or first-class degree, 10% higher than in 2010. A record proportion of teacher trainees—17%—have first-class degrees, and for several years running teaching has remained the most popular career destination for graduates of Oxford University. Teach First has played a huge part in that.

In spite of those successes, we recognise that there are still challenges. As the economy improves and the labour market strengthens, high-performing graduates are being tempted by opportunities in other sectors. Our task is to continue to champion teaching as a career choice for the brightest and the best, and not only to attract those people into our classrooms but to keep them there once they have joined the profession.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gibb]

I am happy to give way to the right hon. Lady, who I think has been itching to get in for a few minutes.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I thank the Minister. He talks about the 1% vacancy figure with what headteachers in Slough might feel is a degree of complacency. At what point would he think the level of vacancies was unacceptable?

[Mr Gibb]

It would be a figure considerably higher than 1%. If I may cite another figure, UCAS publishes statistics every month, and they show that acceptances are down by 2% compared with the corresponding period last year. That is an improvement on last month’s figures. We are not complacent, and we understand the challenges that exist, particularly with the strong economy that we have, but being 2% down does not represent the crisis that Opposition Members are intimating.

The Government are responding to the challenges. We have funded the geographical expansion of Teach First into every region of England, and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley’s home city currently has 28 participants completing the two-year programme. A further 21 teachers who have already completed the programme are still teaching in Sheffield schools. The expansion will give Teach First the scope to reach 90% of eligible schools by 2016. That will strengthen the Government’s commitment to recruit more top teachers throughout the country, including in rural, coastal and disadvantaged areas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

My hon. Friend asks a very good question. We had to make a difficult decision about whether to continue to fund particularly heavy programmes more generously, which meant making savings elsewhere. The cut in the funding rate for 18-year-olds was the saving on which we decided. I accept her argument that there are some individuals for whom that third year is vital. All of those things will be considered in the spending review, but for this financial year, the funding rates will be as announced.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

T10. On 5 June, the Chancellor, rather unusually, announced amendments to the budget for further education. I do not think that we have yet had full details of how that will affect those 14 to 18-year-olds in further education. Perhaps the Minister could update the House on that matter.

[Nick Boles]

If I am right in understanding that the right hon. Lady wants to know whether the 16-to-19 funding rate will remain as was announced in March, I believe that I gave an answer in a reply to an earlier question. I am happy to restate that the funding rate for 16 to 19-year-olds for the 2015-16 academic year will remain as announced in March.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Universities, Science and Cities (Greg Clark)]

I certainly congratulate my hon. Friend, along with colleagues, on his lobbying for that important expansion of that new enterprise zone. We are seeing across the country that enterprise zones are one of a number of policies that are attracting and driving jobs. Very large numbers of jobs are being created, reversing the pattern under the previous Government.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

T7. In the time that he has been in government, East Berkshire college has lost 40% of its Government funding, and the courses that have been hit, while apprenticeships have been protected, are technician-level courses, so we will not have the nursery nurses, the lab technicians or the IT technicians that business and industry desperately need. What is he going to do about it?

[The Minister for Skills and Equalities (Nick Boles)]

What we are doing is investing more in apprenticeships than any previous Government, and apprenticeships create lab technicians and nursery nurses—[Interruption.] They do. They are very successful, and they are much more valuable than full-time college courses. An apprenticeship for a nursery nurse or a lab technician is a much better way to go for a young person than any other.

International Women’s Day

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I think we have made important progress in that regard, particularly under the present Government but previously as well. For women under the age of 40, the gender pay gap has all but disappeared, and when we disaggregate the overall data, we see that progress has been made. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is worrying that the gap has not disappeared completely, but, as I am sure he knows, that has much to do with some of the choices that women are making about how they want to lead their lives, which they have an absolute right to do, and also with some of the choices that they are making early in their educational careers. We need to ensure that they are fully aware of the implications of those choices.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady said that the pay gap for women aged 50 and over had increased, and suggested that that might be partly to do with choices that women make. Is the enormous increase in unemployment among members of that group, compared with the decrease in unemployment in every other cohort, a result of choices that they have made?

[Maria Miller]

I think the hon. Lady misheard me. I referred to women over the age of 40, and I did not say that the gap had increased. However, she is right in one respect. I am sure that there are many reasons for the pay gap to continue, and I think that she and I share a desire for the position to change. I shall say more about that later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I have been reflecting on the function of Back-Bench debates. It is important that we get things out of them rather than just listen to ourselves. This is a debate about an issue on which there is not an enormous difference between parties. The first task of such debates is to move culture on; the second is to do things and get allies to change things; and the third is to advance policy.

On shifting our culture in relation to the role of women, I want to give the media some faint praise. It is great that the BBC has aired the documentary about the rape and murder of a woman in India. It is deeply shocking that the documentary has been banned in India and utterly horrifying that Mukesh Singh, who was responsible for the murder, suggests that women are more responsible for rape because they go out late at night and look pretty, as though men are helpless in the face of how women look. We can use this Chamber to make it clear to each other, the UK media and India that that attitude to women is unacceptable, that it damages the reputation of India internationally, that we are standing up against it and that we are proud that we have shown the documentary in the UK.

The media have done another helpful thing in relation to women and politics. Michael Cockerell’s recent programme about this House started with two young women MPs. It was very important to be able to see that the activists and Members in this House who represent constituencies are not just fusty old guys in suits—I speak as a fusty old woman in a suit—but represent some of the different parts of our society. It is a failure in democracy that people are becoming less committed to believing that it is the best way to run a country or, as Churchill put it, the worst form of Government except for all the others. People feel less comfortable about it and I think that one of the ways in which we can make them feel more comfortable is by letting them see people like them in this Chamber. It is a big challenge for all of us to make sure that the diversity of all our communities is represented in Parliament.

When Mr Speaker was in the Chair, he challenged us to name women whose portraits should be in this place. I nominate Baroness Ros Howells from the other place, who did so much, following the fire that killed so many teenagers in Deptford, to bring that evil murder to light and get justice for the community. Perhaps Mr Speaker will read Hansard and commission a portrait of her.

I started by talking about the rape and murder in India. We have to focus on how many women are murdered, because it is a terrible problem across the world and in the UK. The recent Femicide Census showed that 694 women had been killed by men over four years and that 46% of them were killed by men they loved.

[Mary Macleod]

Does the hon. Lady agree that domestic abuse statistics in the UK are still intolerable? Two women a week still get killed in the UK by a partner or former partner.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Yes, I do—that is absolutely horrifying—and I am really worried that the reduction in quality refuge provision for women who are at risk means that more women will be murdered.

As I have said, we should not just shift our culture and understanding, but change things. I invite every Member to vote on Tuesday week for a real change for a very vulnerable group of women: domestic workers who are grossly exploited by their employers. The other place has tabled an amendment to the Modern Slavery Bill and we have an opportunity to support it when it comes back to this House. I am absolutely certain that the Government have no intention of doing that, but following this debate we could decide that our commitment to those women—bold, brave women who have their passport taken away and are expected to sleep on the kitchen floor and, in some cases, to work for 24 hours for no money—is more important than our commitment to our party Whip. If we did that, we would demonstrate that this debate expresses solidarity among women—because, overwhelmingly, domestic workers are women and they are enslaved here in Britain—that we will not put up with it and that we will be prepared to stick out our sharp elbows and make a difference for that group of women.

As I have said, the third role of Back-Bench debates is to advance policy. Over the past few years I have been banging on about older women—a category that I never particularly expected to get into, but it crept up on me and bit me on the bum. It is a real issue that the peak earning point for men comes when they are in their 50s, while the peak earning point for women comes when they are about 40. The narrowing of the pay gap is being achieved not by Government policy, but by history, because, although it has narrowed for younger women, it is enormously wider for older women.

It is great for Government Members to say, as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has, “Look at all these people we’ve taken out of tax,” but if we look at women’s income, we will see that the majority of them have not benefited from that. The average pay of women entrepreneurs—lone, self-employed women—is £9,600, according to the Office for National Statistics. That group of women has not benefited one jot from the increase in personal allowance.

[Emily Thornberry]

Is it not also right that, if the minimum wage was raised to a living wage of £7.65 outside London and £8.80 in London, 1 million more women than men would benefit from it?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Absolutely—my hon. Friend is quite right.

After the election of 101 Labour women in 1997, I did a piece of work about how much difference was made by having a lot of women in Parliament. One of the most obvious differences was a shift from the wallet to the purse. Fiscal decisions made by that Government hugely increased the income of women and, to a lesser extent, benefited men. The problem is that precisely the opposite has happened under the present Government. I am really sad about that. I do not believe that that was intended by Government women and I want them to be allies in trying to remedy the problem.

I want to talk specifically about older women and work, because there is a real crisis about keeping women in work. One statistic that is burnt on my brain is the fact that two thirds of the people who work beyond retirement age are women. Two thirds of those women earn entry-level wages, while two thirds of the men, who are the other third of people who work beyond retirement age, are on top-level wages. The story is that the guys keep going because they are enjoying themselves—they have chauffeurs, and there are all the nice things about being on the board—but women continue to work because their families need the money.

In public services, we do not have an intelligent way of keeping women in touch with the workplace. I praise the Government for appointing Dr Ros Altmann to look at the needs of older workers. I am very glad that she is about to produce a report that, for example, will look at women and the menopause. From talking to organisations such as the Royal College of Nursing and the National Union of Teachers, I know that the people for whom they are taking employment cases are women in their 50s and 60s who have been managed or pressed out of their careers. As one woman in my constituency said, “What happens is that you are always first in the queue for redundancy and last in the queue for a new job.” It is very striking that our jobcentres do not make enough of a difference for such women. The Work programme has found sustained employment for just over 10% of the women over 50 referred to it, which is much lower than the level for men of the same age group and lower than the level for every other group. We do not have an intelligent strategy to help to keep older women in the work force.

What is worse is that one reason why older women come out of the work force is that we are the default carers, as other Members have said. We not only make sure that there is breakfast cereal on the table, but we look after the children, the grandchildren, the elderly relatives and our husbands when they have a sudden illness. Yet we do not have proper policies to ensure that a women who suddenly has to do unexpected caring can have a period of adjustment in her employment to work out whether the person she is caring for is going to die, which means that she could go back to work at that point, or whether they will have long-term caring needs. We do not have a policy on adjustment leave in the UK—some individual employers do, but the majority do not—and it seems to me a no-brainer that the Government should legislate to provide for such leave.

The Government should also legislate to enable women who take time out to stay in touch with the workplace. When they have to leave to look after someone, they lose contact with the workplace and cannot find help to get back into it. In a recent e-mail to me, Ms Altmann wrote:

“I would like to see special programmes introduced to help women carers (and male carers…) back into the workplace after they have taken time out, or more flexible working to allow them to combine work with caring.”

The Government may have to incentivise employers to do that, but it is a no-brainer: if we want to use all the talent that exists in our community, we need to let women make such adjustments.

The problem with policies made when women are not in the room is that women are regarded as “not men”—as though their lives were the same as men’s lives when actually they just are not. For example, women’s prisons are very ineffectual at helping women to rehabilitate themselves. Why? Because they think that work is the best form of rehabilitation. That is absolutely true for men, but the best form of rehabilitation to prevent women from reoffending is being able to look after their children. If a woman is given the chance to be reunited with her kids and to look after them, she is enormously less likely to offend. Yet despite all the insights of the Corston report, we do not have a national programme to ensure that that happens for every woman, which is just sad.

That is an outcome of not ensuring that women can think through every bit of policy. In Back-Bench debates, we can criticise policy and say that we have better ideas, but we need to be on the Cabinet Committees and in on every decision. If we were, instead of women being treated as men who menstruate, we could treat them in accordance with the reality of their lives, and we could devise policies to ensure that we employ women’s talents in the work force, use women’s ability to care for our families and have a society in which women play the role of which they are absolutely capable, but which they cannot currently play.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

I very much hope so. We need to pay more attention to this. My hon. Friend may know that I have been a great supporter of mandatory reporting of sexual abuse for a long time, because of the efforts of my constituent Tom Perry. I think this falls into a similar category, and I hope we make good progress.

The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley entered the House in 1984. I think she is the longest-serving Member in the Chamber at the moment, and I am probably the second-longest-serving Member. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) makes a comment from a sedentary position. I am certainly the Mother of the Government Benches in this debate, although I am not sure how much good that does. In the 23 years I have been in Parliament, I have seen an awful lot of changes: changes that have been good and changes that I am surprised have not happened. Sadly, we still have an awfully long way to go at home and abroad before women truly have equal roles and responsibilities in politics, public life and business, and have true equality. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) in calling for the implementation of the report she referred to in her contribution.

I hope we can build on what I and colleagues in the 90s originally called the “mainstreaming” of equality issues in legislation and in this House. It is sad that today, all these years later, we are having to contemplate setting up a Select Committee to deal with this. But as we have not mainstreamed gender issues in our legislation and in the activities of this House and in the wider world, I add my voice in support of a Select Committee of this nature, as I would support the calls for Baroness Chalker to be immortalised in bronze, in oils or something else entirely. It is important to remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in my time in this House I saw the first female Speaker, in the form of Betty Boothroyd. I am second to none in my admiration for the contribution that that woman made in the Chair. Our two female Deputy Speakers also make an excellent contribution to this place. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

May I just bang the drum a little bit for my party? I am pleased to say that Baroness Shepherd was in fact the first Minister with specific responsibilities for women’s issues in Government. Time moves on and we seem to forget that both the Labour party and the Conservative party—with other parties, I would admit—have tried to forge the way forward for women. When I was looking at some background papers for this debate, I was particularly pleased to see that under this Government all the FTSE 100 companies have at least one female board member. There are more women in work—they now number some 14.4 million—than ever before. Colleagues have mentioned other firsts, but I would like to mention one close to my heart, which is the Right Rev. Libby Lane becoming our first Church of England bishop. That is a milestone. Wing Commander Nikki Thomas this year became the first woman to command an RAF fast jet squadron. I remember when I was doing my armed forces and parliamentary fellowship with the RAF that much was made of Jo Salter, who was our first RAF fast jet pilot. It is good to see women taking their place in the front line, quite rightly, and we should continue to allow that to happen.

I am proud to have been the first female Secretary of State for Wales, and I am pleased to be joined on these Benches by two other colleagues who have served as full Cabinet Members. It is right that we need to have more women progressing up the political ladder and that they have the opportunity to make a contribution to this country, particularly at Cabinet level. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) and for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) who both made very valuable contributions to the government of this country.

These debates are not new to me. In fact, on 7 March 1996, as the Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Education and Employment with responsibility for women’s issues under Baroness Shepherd—what a long title that was!—I was able to introduce the debate on international women’s day. It was, I believe, for a Conservative the first debate on the Floor of the House in Government time. It is sad that we have gone backwards, having to apply to the Backbench Business Committee to have this debate, and that it had been relegated to Westminster Hall. Mainstreaming of this matter should mean that the Government of the day, of whatever complexion, secure this debate on or around international women’s day on the Floor of the House every year. It should enter the political lexicon.

When I introduced that debate, I had recently returned from Beijing where I had led the UK delegation at the UN conference on women. Baroness Chalker was alongside me, again fighting the good fight, as was Baroness Browning, who was then the Member for Tiverton and Honiton. I have to say that I greatly miss Baroness Browning in this House. Among her other nicknames from male colleagues she was often referred to, in a friendly fashion, as Boudicca. At least Boudicca is immortalised in public art in a bronze not far from here. Perhaps we could do with a few more women outside among the bronzes that decorate our city.

We were in Beijing to consider the progress made on women’s issues since 1985 and negotiate the very large document on the global Platform for Action. We had taken 18 months to prepare for the conference, working with the most amazing women’s organisations and non-governmental organisations, including the Equal Opportunities Commission, which was headed that year by Kamlesh Bahl, and the Women’s National Commission. They put in the most tremendous work.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Does the right hon. Lady share my regret about the abolition of the Women’s National Commission?

[Mrs Gillan]

I think, as with everything, time moves on. Not least, devolution has broken up what used to be the Equal Opportunities Commission of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the days when I was responsible for it. However, there is still a requirement for organisations that represent equal opportunities, and so perhaps in that sense I do join the hon. Lady in regretting it.

The Beijing conference was inspirational. There were 17,000 participants and 30,000 activists. The NGOs were based some way out of Beijing, and there was inclement weather. Many of these women and champions of women attended the conference in some of the most amazingly awful conditions of mud and deprivation because they were so desperate to pursue their single purpose of gender equality and the empowerment of women.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden mentioned, this is the 20th anniversary of the Beijing conference. The UN has given its main campaign the title “Empowering Women, Empowering Humanity: Picture It!” with “Make it happen” as the subtitle. The platform for action was the most progressive blueprint ever for advancing women’s rights. UN Women says that even 20 years later, the Beijing declaration and Platform for Action remain a powerful source of guidance and inspiration. With no fewer than 189 Governments involved in its drafting, one can imagine what was involved. The civil servants on my team spent many hours, including through the night, fine-tuning the document so that we could all sign up to it. In many countries, the tenets it set out have proved to be a platform for improvements for women. Around the world, UN Women says that more women and girls than at any previous point in time now serve in political office, are protected by laws against gender-based violence, and live under constitutions guaranteeing gender equality. I would say, however, that no country has yet finished the agenda. I really hope that in this 20th year since the declaration we can give more impetus to progressing the critical areas of concern that were set out. I hope that in winding up this debate or in any declarations that are made on 8 March the Minister will ensure that the Government set out what they are going to do to build on the platform for action.

In the mission statement of the declaration, we stated that one of the objectives was the

“full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms of all women”

and was essential for the empowerment of women. I want to explore this a little further in the light of propositions that are being made to change our own human rights legislation and our relationship with the European Court of Human Rights. I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Council of Europe and serve as vice-president of the Political Affairs and Democracy Committee in that capacity. I am today seeking assurances that we will not be taking any action that would weaken the protections afforded to British citizens and, in the context of this debate, particularly women.

For example, one of the proposals is to limit the reach of human rights cases in the UK so that British armed forces overseas are not subject to persistent human rights claims that undermine their ability to do their job and keep us safe. That sounds very sensible and something we could all agree with. However, this change could prevent, for example, a case that was brought recently under article 2 of the European convention on human rights, which enabled the tragic death by suicide of a female Royal Military Police officer after reporting that she had been raped in Germany by two colleagues to be re-examined in a fresh inquest. That re-examination allowed the full circumstances of the background to her suicide to be taken into account, and the Army has now introduced a special code of practice exclusively to deal with blue-on-blue rape and sexual assaults. We have to ask whether, if we limited the reach of human rights cases to the UK, it would be possible to pursue that case.

The current situation on human rights has afforded much needed justice in many cases involving women. The tragic case of my namesake, Cheryl James, who was found dead at the Princess Royal barracks in Deepcut, has taken a long path since her death in 1995 to July 2014 when Liberty successfully used article 2 of the ECHR—the right to life, which includes the right to an effective and independent investigation when there is a state involvement in the death—to gain the High Court order for the original verdict to be quashed and a fresh inquest to take place.

Let us consider modern problems. Liberty persuaded Dorset police not to return intimate photographs of sexual abuse victims to their abuser by using article 8 of the ECHR, which provides for a right to private life. If any proposal is going to restrict the use of human rights laws to the most serious cases, this sort of action and protection may be prevented and may be unable to be brought. The photographs of the abused children were just family photographs—they were in swimsuits enjoying themselves—but their potential return to their abuser on his mobile phone after he came out of prison added to their feelings of exploitation and powerlessness. I would be very concerned if this sort of protection, and the means whereby it could be invoked, were to disappear. I hope that no changes that we make to human rights law would prevent what I consider to be an important plank in the protection of women and children in this country.

As we celebrate women and their achievements here and throughout the world, I hope we can use the 20th anniversary of Beijing to refresh our efforts to achieve the vision we aspired to for a world where women and girls can exercise their freedoms and choices, and realise all their rights. I hope that we would not contemplate a narrower set of laws that may be regressive and may not allow future generations of women either here or abroad to be fully protected from the sorts of circumstances that I outlined in the latter part of my speech.

Child Sexual Exploitation (Oxfordshire)

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

My right hon. Friend is right to point to the culture of denial and disbelief. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith), there was sometimes a reluctance to believe allegations, even when victims presented themselves in a state at a police station. The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims is sitting alongside me, and I know that he is as appalled as we all are about this. As we have learned, there are lessons for the police that will be picked up at today’s summit.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State earlier said, “We on this side of the House are concerned”. May I take this opportunity to remind her that all Members on both sides of the House are united in their determination to drive out child sexual exploitation? I ask her to look at two particular proposals to increase resilience to such exploitation among children: first, to feed into the Home Office review of child advocates the lessons from this review; and secondly, to take up a suggestion made by worried mums in my constituency for parents’ PSHE so that they can better protect their children.

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Lady will appreciate that I cannot speak for Opposition Members, but I think that the tone of remarks from the shadow Education Secretary and others has shown that Members on both sides of the House are appalled by what has happened to the victims, and sadly not only in Oxfordshire, but in other local authorities. She will be well aware of what has happened to Slough’s children’s services and of the work that has been done there to set up the trust over the years. I understand her point about child advocates, which has already been taken up, and what she says about parents, whether in relation to PSHE or anything else. In this case, however, looking again at the serious case review, there were parents of victims also saying that they needed help, but they were not believed. That makes this case even more appalling.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Why is the Secretary of State pursuing a policy that is attacking grammar schools with large sixth forms, which are being underfunded for their A-level provision?

[Nicky Morgan]

I am well aware of that issue, which has been raised in a Westminster Hall debate in recent weeks. We fully support sixth forms and want to see them continue, but the hon. Lady will be aware of the economic condition in which her party left this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. We are taking money from the welfare budget to pay for apprenticeships that will set our young people up in life, while the Labour party is taking money away from pensioners in order to fund a misguided policy on tuition fees. According to the vice-chancellor of my own university, Loughborough, that policy would make 500 people redundant. Which 500 people in Loughborough does the shadow Secretary of State think should be made redundant?

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I have had a letter from the head teacher of the excellent Baylis Court secondary school in my constituency, pointing out that the cost of payroll changes involving, for instance, national insurance will be £222,000 next year, without funding. Moreover, the education support grant is to be cut by £53 a head. What difference will that makes to the girls’ learning?

[Nicky Morgan]

As we have seen during the current Parliament, schools have been able to raise standards at a time of straitened budgets. I have every faith in them. I believe that they will continue to raise their standards, and that all the young people in that school will benefit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

That sounds great. I can’t wait—I love Lancashire hotpot. Yes, please send me an invitation. Many congratulations on those food tourism efforts.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

5. What steps he plans to take to ensure that children learn about or experience the creative arts.

[The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

It is wonderful to have a question from the hon. Lady. For one terrible moment I thought she might not be here, but I am so pleased to see that she has arrived in time to hear me answer that we believe strongly that children should have every opportunity to learn about and experience the arts. At the beginning of this year, we announced another £109 million for music and cultural education. That takes the amount we have invested in music and cultural education to £400 million in this Parliament.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Perhaps the Minister would like to have a conversation with his friend the Mayor of London about the state of traffic in south London this morning.

Why has the number of children who experience the creative arts, except for film, declined every year that the hon. Gentleman has been responsible for this field? Why has the number of children studying art, drama and dance—creative subjects—at GCSE fallen so radically while he has been in charge?

[Mr Vaizey]

At the very last Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions of this Parliament, every one of which I have attended, I think the hon. Lady makes a slightly snippy point, particularly as the Taking Part survey shows that participation by children has increased for those aged between five and 10 and stayed at the very high level of 99.4% for those aged 11 to 15. There has been an 8% increase in those taking arts GCSE subjects since 2010 and participation in music, dance, art and design continues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Grant]

I have met the gentlemen from my hon. Friend’s constituency, and they gave me a fabulous black and yellow rugby shirt, which I put on. They are called the Bumbles, and they are fabulous. I will be happy to have a meeting or discussion with my hon. Friend about funding that event.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

T4. Earlier, the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy dodged his way around the figures that I cited from the Warwick report about the drastic decline in children’s experience and learning in creative subjects. Perhaps he will respond more positively to another of its recommendations, which is that every publicly funded organisation that deals with cataloguing and archives on the net should be encouraged to use the same mechanisms for the cataloguing of GLAM—galleries, libraries, museums and archives—so that the archives can be more easily accessed and searched by everyone.

[Mr Vaizey]

I was obviously premature in my last answer, Mr Speaker.

I have a lot of sympathy with that recommendation. Putting museum and archive content online and making it easily accessible to both teachers for their lesson plans and students for their learning is an important issue. I will have a number of meetings in the coming weeks to discuss some ideas about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question and I will be visiting her constituency tomorrow to speak to local businesses—

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

What a surprise.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Lady says, “What a surprise”, but my hon. Friend is holding an event to talk about getting more disabled people back into work with a number of excellent local employers. The hon. Lady should congratulate her on that, rather than being churlish about it.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I cannot do better than report what the OECD said, which was that we had a long-term economic plan and effective economic policies, and that the performance of the labour market in the United Kingdom was “remarkable”.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend has taken a strong interest in this issue on behalf of his constituents and I agree with him wholeheartedly. He is right to praise Superfast North Yorkshire; the project is making excellent progress. Phase 1 is expected to complete in March this year, taking coverage in the county to 87%. Phase 2 will increase coverage to 89%.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

T4. When research by the Responsible Gambling Trust reveals that a third of fixed-odds betting terminal users have a problem with gambling, is it not time to end the £100 maximum stake, which means that a person in my constituency can spend his whole income in just four spins?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I know that the hon. Lady is concerned about these issues, and so am I. The Responsible Gambling Trust report endorsed the precautionary approach that we took in April, when we introduced proportionate and measured reforms that gave local authorities more power. I can also tell her that I shall be meeting the chief executives of all the betting industry companies in a few weeks’ time to see what more they are prepared to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

As I have already mentioned, research shows that the pay gap is mostly not about direct discrimination, but about the jobs and sectors that women enter and the progress that they make, particularly if they take time out of the labour market. In November, we announced that we were investing over £2 million in helping women, especially women over 40 and those working part time, to move from low-paid, low-skilled work to higher paid, higher-skill work. That programme of work is delivered by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, which will start by focusing on helping women to develop skills in science, technology, engineering and maths, retail, hospitality and the agricultural sector.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development research shows that people stuck in low pay—women who have been in low-paid jobs for 10 years—are more likely to be unable to escape it. I have not heard from the Minister any strategy to help those older women escape low pay. It is all very well talking about money, but what is happening on the ground to help older women?

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Lady did not listen to the answer that I have just given. We are investing money, working with organisations such as the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, and particularly looking at enabling women in low-paid, low-skill work to develop further skills, for exactly the reasons that she cited—so that they can have higher paid jobs, which obviously provides more security for them and their families.

Grammar School Funding

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Although I wanted to talk about the problem affecting grammar schools—one should be absolutely honest—as I said at the beginning of my speech, the problem affects not only grammar schools, but successful comprehensives with large sixth forms. The hon. Gentleman is right to make that point. I hope we can look at this issue in a bipartisan way. It should not be about grammar schools versus other schools, but about fairness. All sixth-form pupils, whatever school they are in, should be funded as equally as possible.

Supplemental funding for the disadvantaged is widely welcomed, and we all accept it. Part of the reason why I and others are such passionate advocates for grammar schools is that they provide a superb helping hand for pupils from less-advantaged backgrounds.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I have a number of brilliant grammar schools in my constituency, but one of the reasons why they are comparatively underfunded is that, compared with the other schools in my constituency, they do not attract the pupil premium because they have fewer pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. The funding system, which is skewed towards disadvantage, has disadvantaged grammar schools, so the claim that grammar schools help disadvantaged pupils is belied by the statistics.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Grammar schools can help people, in particular those from ethnic minorities. In the school that my son attends, 60% of the pupils are from an ethnic minority background, which is high. I believe that, if there were more grammar schools, we could do more to help people from disadvantaged backgrounds. One of the problems is that there are not enough grammar schools. We are not going to get into this debate now, but I wish county councils had the freedom to set up more grammar schools if they want to do so. That is what localism is all about.

The way that the funding is worked out—there is an over-emphasis on pupils who qualify for free school meals—is not adequately grounded in the hard evidence of the additional costs associated with disadvantaged pupils. The Government have injected additional funding into four sections: pupil premium; special needs; pupils who have failed GCSE English; and pupils who have failed GCSE maths. As I have said, that intention is laudable, but unfortunately, in many cases, it means that the Government have perhaps unwittingly pumped four different funding streams into the same child.

We also need to recognise that that funding increase has a converse effect on the opposite end of the spectrum in grammar schools and sixth forms more generally. It would be counter-productive to unbalance the funding of education so much towards disadvantaged pupils that we undermine centres of excellence in the state sector that we want to protect. This is not a zero-sum game: we can help disadvantaged pupils and promote centres of excellence. Surely that is the right way to proceed.

The number of young people over the age of 16 educated on a full or part-time basis has increased in recent years as a result of raising the participation age to 17 in 2013 and 18 in 2015. Schools and further education colleges have come under pressure to expand to accommodate such increased numbers. That is fair enough, but at the same time, the funding pot for post-16 education has become fixed, and the method of distribution has changed from a model that included higher levels of funding for courses with large practical elements, and incentives for institutions with high levels of success and retention.

The simplification of the funding system—funding is attached to the student rather than the course—is welcome, but the impact on high-achieving academic schools with large sixth forms, including the grammar schools in my constituency and others, has become considerable. The funding system means that, in some local authorities, students receive more funding for education from 11 to 16 than from 16 to 18—can that be right?—even though it is widely recognised, and obvious common sense, that the cost of delivering the curriculum increases as a student gets older. That is why many universities feel justified in charging fees of £9,000 a year.

As students move through the school system, they can exercise an increasing level of choice over the subjects they study, which tends to reduce financial efficiency. More broadly, there is a bigger perspective, which I want to end on. We need to think about that point, which I want to emphasise. The world is becoming more and more globalised. As the Prime Minister keeps telling us, Great Britain is competing in a global race for excellence. For us to compete successfully, we need more scientists, more engineers, more mathematicians, more doctors and more innovators.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I am proud to represent a town that has some of the best schools in the country and is in the top 10 for GCSE achievement; I am talking about both grammar and non-selective schools in Slough. I am very concerned about the consequences of the sixth-form funding situation for all schools in Slough. When I was first elected, not all the schools in my constituency had sixth forms, but they now do. Some sixth form pupils transfer from their secondary school to a grammar school, to do the A-levels that they want, but there is a thriving set of schools in the town. I am concerned that despite claims about protection of a balanced school budget, several Government decisions are harming those schools, particularly for children who want to stay on to do A-levels.

Targeting funding towards children with particular characteristics, measured by deprivation and low attainment, penalises schools that have low numbers of such students, as we have heard. That equally affects academic comprehensive schools in relatively prosperous areas, as many Conservative Members have said. Also, recent changes to the way the relevant characteristics are measured and funded through the local formula have resulted in some of Slough’s successful non-selective schools losing funding; Slough and Eton school in my constituency is an example. Our modelling for Slough for next year’s budget indicates that that suffering might be more widespread, largely because of the reduction in post-16 funding.

I am very concerned because I am with the parents of my constituency who recognise that although East Berkshire college is the right setting for some 16-year-olds—the adventurous kids who like the mix of vocational and academic subjects available there—there are other kids who need the closer pastoral network that exists in a school or want to carry on the sporting history and so on that they have developed in school. It is wrong that the Government’s funding arrangements for 16-plus are removing that choice for parents; one of my concerns about grammar schools is that the people who do the choosing are not the parents but the schools.

I wish that we had a range of schools that did not exclude children out but included them in, but that is beside the point in a debate about funding—at the heart of it, funding at sixth-form level. Funding for all post-16 providers is being reduced to the level associated with further education colleges, but school sixth forms just do not have the economies of scale associated with large college provision, so are disproportionately affected. Grammar schools with large sixth forms are the most seriously affected by the changes.

I have looked at the plans for schools in my constituency. Upton Court grammar school, which, I profoundly regret, changed its name from Slough grammar school, has given me a list of some of the ways in which it is affected:

“Cuts to the curriculum—we have already had to reduce the number of subjects that we can offer to students at GCSE and A level. We have collaborated with a nearby school to retain some subjects…Increased class sizes—to avoid operating at a loss we have comprehensively reviewed our work force needs and increased class sizes.”

It goes on to state that

“at a time when costs such as salaries (costs of living) and pensions (government reform) are rising our income is being reduced. The only thing we can do to counter this is reduce the breadth of the curriculum even further and reduce the level of pastoral support we offer to students.”

Frankly, that is not a record of which any Government should be proud. We must help all our schools with successful sixth forms to provide pastoral care and the range of options that kids are capable of following.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laws]

I can confirm that. It is right that such a programme should look at the condition of all schools and prioritise those that are in most need of help, rather than targeting either attainment or deprivation. I am aware that there are a number of bids from schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We will look at those closely and announce the results in January.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give a higher priority to schools in areas where the number of pupils is increasing hugely year on year? In our areas, the amount of money available to spend per pupil is squeezed down because the numbers are counted in October one year, but the number of pupils in the following 12 months increases exponentially.

[Mr Laws]

I think I have good news for the hon. Lady, because not only have this Government been considerably more generous than our predecessors in the allocation of basic need funding for our school system, but we are now allocating basic need funding for new school places for three years. In January, we will make another announcement of funding for basic need for 2017-18.