Student Maintenance Grants

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Joseph Johnson]

There is an immediate grant saving of £2.5 billion, which comes directly off the budget deficit. As I just mentioned, there is of course the prospect down the line of some loans not being repaid, as a result of a conscious decision by the Government to invest in the skills base of the country and to allow people to pursue incomes that do not enable them to pay off the full value of the loan. The economic value of the savings, as I just said, is £800 million a year in a steady state.

I challenge the Opposition to explain how they would fund their alternatives. I note that the Labour party has in the past year put forward competing higher education funding policies, although they share one significant feature: their huge cost to the taxpayer. Labour’s leader, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), said in July that fees should be removed completely, with grants retained in full. The policy was costed by Labour itself at £10 billion. Such policies move us backward. They are unsustainable and, at a conservative estimate, would add more than £40 billion to the deficit over a five-year Parliament. We should be clear about what the results would be: more reckless borrowing, more taxes on hard-working people, and the reintroduction, inevitably, of student number controls. We have lifted student number controls and we will not allow the Labour party to reimpose a cap on young people’s aspirations.

I will deal with the risks associated with this policy as set out in the equality analysis, but let me first quickly respond to the false accusation that we refused to publish the assessment until prompted to do so by the National Union of Students. That is simply not true. Every year, when the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 are amended, an equality analysis covering the changes is published on gov.uk. This is standard practice. On 14 September, in a written response to a parliamentary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), I said:

“The Government expects to lay amendments to the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 later this year and publish an Equality Analysis when the Regulations are laid. The Equality Analysis will include an assessment of potential impacts of the changes.”

Only on 22 September 2015, more than a week after that answer was given, did the NUS give notice that it would seek legally to challenge our policy. There has been no evasiveness in the presentation of the policy or its potential impacts.

I will deal now with some of the issues identified in the equality analysis and how they will be mitigated. Let it be remembered that similar issues were identified as a result of the 2012 reforms, but did not crystallise. Indeed, we now have a world-class higher education system, with record numbers of disadvantaged students in higher education, the highest rates of BME participation in higher education and more women in higher education than ever before. Our impact assessment explains that the risks will be mitigated by at least three factors, including the 10.3% increase in the maximum loan for living costs, the repayment protection for low-earning students and the high average returns on higher education.

More funding is also being provided through access agreements: in 2016-17, £745 million is expected to be spent by universities through access agreements, up from £404 million in 2009-10. That is money that makes a real difference to disadvantaged students, and we will of course monitor the progress of the policy through the data available from the Higher Education Statistics Authority and the Student Loans Company.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

At the University of York, 40% of students get a maintenance grant. What assessment has been made of the impact on universities of not attracting students because they simply cannot afford to attend?

[Joseph Johnson]

As I have already said, we are making a record amount of financial support available to students, and students from the poorest backgrounds will benefit from a 10.3% increase in financial support. They will have more cash in their pockets than ever before.

I hope that I have been able to clarify some of the misconceptions about our policy, the steps we are taking to increase living costs support and the process surrounding it. I will finish by directing Labour Members’ attention to the interview with Ed Balls in Times Higher Education this week, which should be of interest to them. He said that the

“blot on Labour’s copybook”

was that

“we clearly didn’t find a sustainable way forward for the financing of higher education”.

He went on to say:

“If they”—

the electorate—

“think you’ve got the answers for the future, they’ll support you”.

We have a plan for the future. In a time of fiscal restraint, we are taking action to ensure that university finances are sustainable, so that more people than ever before can benefit from higher education.

Forced Adoptions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered forced adoptions.

Forced adoption is necessary; sadly, there are circumstances in which it is right that the state removes a child from their birth parents. I have seen cases in my constituency that made me think, “Thank goodness that there is a system of adoption, that there are good people working in social services who intervene and that there are foster parents willing to care for children. Most of all, thank goodness that there are loving adoptive parents who offer loving homes to children who tragically were not born into one.”

But I have also seen cases that made me feel a little uneasy. I have met tearful grandparents who are about to see their grandchild for the last time and are adamant that social services never seriously considered them as alternatives to adoption. I have often listened to those who feel that their families have been broken up by what they regard as a cartel of family courts, family lawyers and social services. Taking a child from their birth mother by force is a very big deal. Those who make such decisions need to be accountable, but currently they are not. The family courts are shrouded in secrecy. There are too many cosy vested interests operating in ways that are simply not fair or just.

I am sure the Minister will tell us that we need to increase the number of adoptions. In a sense, I do not disagree. I am sure he will point out that there are almost 70,000 cared-for children in this country, and he will make a sound case when he says that surely more should be adopted. Superficially, that is a powerful argument. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the life chances of children who are adopted, rather than cared for, are vastly improved. Should we not, therefore, seek to adopt more? That is great, but if the unintended consequence of setting targets is that there is pressure to break up families who might otherwise stay together, I think that is wrong. Many of those 70,000 cared-for children are young people and teenagers. We need to ensure that the pressure to adopt does not lead to infants being removed from mum or toddlers from granny and grandpa.

It is reassuring to think that the adoption system and the family courts are presided over by dispassionate, wise experts who are always right—if only that were so. The Court of Appeal, in a judgment only two years ago, expressed real concern about the

“inadequacy of the analysis and reasoning put forward in support of the case for adoption”.

Criticism does not come much more strongly than that.

We like to think that expert witnesses must be right. Surely they weigh up all the evidence; after all, they are paid to do that for a living. But the truth is that many of the social workers and medical experts who testify on behalf of local authorities do so anonymously. Often, those unnamed experts give evidence about families they have never met and situations of which they have no first-hand knowledge. There is the notorious case of Fran Lyon, who I believe has, in effect, fled to Sweden as a result of the heavy-handedness of our family court system. Solicitors represent families in particular court cases, but the local authority against which the family wants legal advice is often also a long-term client of those solicitors. It is all a little too cosy. The Law Society might be happy with those arrangements, but others might worry that there is a legal cartel in the family court system.

I could make lots of cheap points by highlighting individual examples of injustice, but I am not going to do that. One does not need to look too far on Google or in the tabloid newspapers to find outrageous examples of injustice. The powerful case against the family court system and the adoption system at the moment comes not from individual cases, which rightly make us feel uneasy, but from the aggregate data. I submitted freedom of information requests to every local authority in England and Wales to see what proportion of care orders were converted into adoption orders. I will give hon. Members just three examples.

In the London borough of Enfield, over a six-year period between March 2009 and March 2015, there were 96 care orders, 93 of which were converted into adoption orders. That is a 97% conversion rate. In north-east Somerset, over a one-year period in 2013-14 there were 16 care orders, 15 of which were turned into adoption orders. That is a 94% conversion rate. In Reading, over a one-year period in 2013 28 care orders became 22 adoption orders. That is a 79% conversion rate.

It all seems pretty automatic: if someone gets a care order, they lose their kids. The staggeringly high rate at which care orders are converted into adoption orders suggests that justice is not being done. Once the legal process begins, almost nothing—not legal advocacy, not the circumstances of the family, not the willingness of loving grandparents to raise their grandchildren—can stop it. It is a done deal; it is a fix.

It is urgent that we make the process and the family courts much more open and transparent. Of course, being a cartel, they are not going to like it. Cartels tend not to like transparency. Hon. Members who were in the House in 2009 will remember a famous example of a cartel not wanting openness and transparency. But those are not arguments against openness and transparency; they are the arguments of a cartel.

Jack Straw, the former Minister, came up with some excellent proposals to ensure openness and transparency in the family court system. Unfortunately, his civil servants got their claws into the proposal, and the legislation that was passed was a watered-down measure that did not achieve what he set out to do. Sir Humphrey prevailed. The law does not belong to the lawyers; social services do not belong to social workers; and the family courts are not the fiefdom of a self-referential legal profession. I hope that Sir James Munby, who is leading a review, is prepared to take on the vested interests and has the courage to open up the system and break open the cartel.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Nobody would deny the importance of safeguarding children who are at risk, but there is huge inequality in the system. Parents do not get the advocacy and support they require to be given a fair opportunity to show they can support their children. Instead, they have to go through a forced adoption.

Compulsory Emergency First Aid Education (State-funded Secondary Schools) Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Friday 20th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I am sure some schools will do this in an extremely high-quality manner and may well produce certificates, but the Bill does not prescribe that, so there will inevitably be a variance in quality between schools such as some of the ones I have spoken to, which will do this to the absolute best of their ability, and those which will do it in a pretty meagre fashion.

The last point I want to make is that we must not completely override the opinions of headteachers who take the view that the ultimate priority for their schools has to be maintaining academic standards and discipline and tackling the other challenges they face. Sadly, not every school in my constituency is a high-performing one. In fact, two have been in and out of special measures and have great difficulties. I would love first aid and CPR to be taught in those schools, but I caution Members who would override the view of a headteacher that the immediate priority for their school is to use school time, such as it is, to pursue academic standards, discipline and literacy and numeracy.

In conclusion, I reiterate my point that the Bill, while hugely important in many respects, suffers from the fatal flaw that it does not represent the views of many of our headteachers—those at the coal face who will have to implement this.

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Gentleman is building his analysis on the basis of having spoken to five heads, yet 84% of teachers support this. How can he justify his evidence on five conversations?

Further Education

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

The question we should be asking is: what will be the cost of these cuts? People will be getting lower-paid, lower-skilled jobs and drawing down on the state for longer periods of time.

There is excellent sixth-form provision in Greater Manchester, my own area, which is currently undergoing an area review. Winstanley College in Wigan and Loreto College in Manchester provide some of the best value-added in the country, and they outperform schools in getting kids from all backgrounds the highest grades in A-levels. I am sure that Conservative Members would be appalled to think their local sixth-form colleges could be under threat, but this is the reality in other parts of the country. Further massive reductions in funding will result in good sixth-form colleges and good school sixth forms closing. The 25% cut that the Chancellor has asked the Secretary of State’s Department to find is equivalent to the loss of half of all sixth-form colleges and one third of FE colleges.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that FE colleges are further disadvantaged in that they have to pay VAT, whereas free schools and sixth forms do not?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point; she is absolutely right.

Trade Union Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps it is because Conservative Members fear the inevitable visit of three ghosts on Christmas eve.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Electoral Reform Services, which has run more than 2,000 ballots, that there has not been a single security breach in all those ballots and that, therefore, it is a very secure mechanism?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree, and that evidence came out in Committee.

Workplace balloting is an available secure option that increases democracy in the workplace. The 1992 Act already permits workplace ballots to be used for statutory recognition ballots, under schedule Al. Workplace ballots of that nature are secure and overseen by qualified independent persons, usually Electoral Reform Services. The individuals and balloting agencies permitted to act in statutory recognition ballots are generally the same as those who act as scrutineers in industrial action ballots and other statutory union elections and ballots.

An analysis of Central Arbitration Committee reports indicates that turnout tends to be significantly higher in ballots where all workers voted in the workplace. Average turnout was 88%, and in combination ballots average turnout was 86.9%. The average turnout in postal-only ballots was 71.6 %. According to the TUC, there is no evidence that workers feel intimidated into voting a particular way when ballots take place in the workplace. Of the complaints that the CAC was asked to decide on, five were made by unions and one by an employer. None of the complaints was upheld.

We are told that electronic voting is not safe. Thousands of private sector, voluntary and political organisations use electronic voting every year. Electoral Reform Services alone manages more than 2,000 annually, and its report concludes that online voting is no less secure than postal balloting. It says:

“There are risks associated with electronic voting but these are essentially similar to the risks associated with any secure electronic process. Many of the risks are also of the same nature as the risks related to postal voting”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I understand the basis on which, under our law, it has, for more than 100 years, been possible to undertake industrial action lawfully. The hon. and learned Lady may well know that it was a judgment in the part of the world that I represent—along with my hon. Friends the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and for Cardiff Central—that, more than 100 years ago, led to the requirement for changes to ensure that, as in any civilised democratic society, working people had the right to withdraw their labour if they were involved in a trade dispute. I hope the hon. and learned Lady is not suggesting in any way, shape or form that there should not be that right. As I said earlier, if she was serious about wanting more people to be involved in decisions around trade disputes—in balloting and so on—she would support our new clauses and amendments, which allow for workplace balloting and e-balloting, and easier access to democracy for the people she purports to speak about.

[Rachael Maskell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that having facility time improves industrial relations in the workplace and therefore lessens industrial action?

[Kevin Brennan]

I agree; there is plenty of evidence that it saves money and facilitates good industrial relations. It is draconian and illiberal of the Government to interfere in voluntary agreements between employers and employees by means of central diktat in this way, and as regards their reputation, I believe that they will live to regret that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

It is entirely appropriate from time to time for payroll to be used in this way. Often, members pay into a credit union through their payroll. These things should be encouraged; they are very good for industrial relations.

This ban was not included in the Conservative manifesto or the Queen’s Speech, and no reference was made to it in any of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consultations or the Department’s impact assessment. As we have heard, there have been concerns among Government Members about this move as well. It is almost universally opposed, except by the TaxPayers Alliance, known colloquially as the tax-dodgers alliance, which gave evidence during the oral evidence stage.

In pressing ahead, the Government have failed to secure substantial employer support for their proposals, with many employers, particularly in local government and the health sector, having expressed concern that they could undermine positive industrial relations, which are vital for the delivery of quality public services. Is it any wonder that that is the case, given that employers and trade unions were not consulted? We believe these provisions are unnecessary and draconian, and I give notice that we may wish to press amendment 9 to a vote later—for some strange parliamentary reason, it does not come at this knife.

[Rachael Maskell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this further complicates the situation in the health environment when people pay not only a levy for the industrial support of a trade union, but a professional levy that goes towards the professional support they have with their work?

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend highlights the lack of thought, consultation and proper scrutiny that has gone into this proposal. It is unravelling by the minute as hon. Members bring their expertise to bear on the implications that it has out there in the real world.

Let me draw attention to some of the other amendments in this group. The Scottish National party has tabled a raft of amendments, some of which were moved in Committee. I understand that the SNP may wish to divide the House on new clause 2, which is in the spirit of our new clauses 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Given the time available, if the SNP does that, we will support it in lieu of our new clauses—the same applies in respect of new clause 10. At this point, I should allow somebody else an opportunity.

[Lucy Frazer]

Trade unions play an important role in protecting the rights of employees: through their collective power, they have the ability to balance the scales against an employer, who invariably has greater economic and social power than the employees in its workforce. Last week, I met a few trade union officials from my constituency, and was struck by the passion and desire they have to do their job in representing others. But therein lies the crux of this legislation: it is a union’s job to represent its workforce, so its actions must represent their wishes. It is important that when a union has the power to bring a school, hospital or factory to a temporary standstill, its actions actually reflect the will of its members. I say that for three reasons.

[Rachael Maskell]

rose—

[Lucy Frazer]

I ask the hon. Lady to let me develop my argument a little further. First, those who suffer most in a strike are not the employees or employers but the public. The employees do not suffer, because any loss of income from the strike may well be covered by the union. The employers of the large concern do not suffer, because they will be paid their salary in any event. It is the public, and only the public, who suffer, first as the consumer and later, when the bill comes in, as the taxpayer. The public end up picking up the tab for both sides.

In the winter of discontent, the main victims of the low pay offensive in the public service were the old, the sick, the bereaved, children and the poor. It is not only this Government who have made the point that it is right that action by a trade union should reflect the mood of its members. The need for democratic accountability by the union was also recognised by the Labour Government. Their White Paper in 1998 entitled “Fairness at Work” specifically drew attention to the need for accountability:

“Laws on picketing, on ballots before industrial action and for increasing democratic accountability in trade unions have all helped to improve employment relations. They will stay.”

It is for that reason that it is right that these measures, which are right as a matter of principle, should apply to the whole of the UK .

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I fully accept that. If we want to talk about productivity, we need to look at that, instead of trying to highlight something that is not really a problem.

[Rachael Maskell]

Days have been lost through industrial action because the negotiators, whether that is the Mayor of London or the Secretary of State for Health, refused to come to the negotiating table, refused to talk to the trade unions, and have been spoiling for a strike, as we are seeing now over the junior doctors contract. Surely the Bill should be about improved industrial relations which give a voice to working people, as opposed to crushing that voice.

[Ian Lavery]

I entirely agree. As I said earlier, does anybody want this Bill? Has anybody asked for it? Even some of the major Tory party donors have said it is purely union-bashing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said, and he was absolutely right, that is what Tories do. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Why is it only trade unions that are being singled out in this way? I think we explored some of the reasons earlier in this afternoon’s debate.

New clause 1, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and his colleagues, is similar to the new clause 12 we tabled in Committee. It would insert in the Bill a ban on the supply of agency workers during industrial action. As we know, the Government are planning to remove the ban on agencies knowingly supplying agency workers to replace striking workers. Kate Shoesmith, the head of policy at the Recruitment & Employment Confederation, which has nearly 3,500 corporate members, has said:

“We are not convinced that putting agencies and temporary workers into the middle of difficult industrial relations situations is a good idea for agencies, workers or their clients.”

The CIPD, the professional body for HR, which has about 140,000 members, warned that the Government’s plans to reform trade union laws are “an outdated response”, given the challenges employers face today.

[Rachael Maskell]

In the dispute at Northampton hospital, the pathologists were locked out of the lab and the trust brought in agency workers. That escalated risk to such an extent that samples were not able to be used for testing. Is it not the case that agency workers can make things far worse rather than better?

[Kevin Brennan]

They can make matters far worse. When we look at this proposal alongside clause 7, it becomes clear that the introduction of an extended notice period is there to give the employer additional time to organise agency workers to undermine the industrial action, as well as to be able to prepare for legal challenges. My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: this is bad for safety and bad for service users, and bad because it could serve to prolong industrial action unnecessarily. It will also be bad for the general public. Conservative Members ought to care about the fact that it will also be bad for social cohesion in this country. Presumably, as a next step the Government will be getting the Department for Work and Pensions to sanction the unemployed for refusing to act as strike breakers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

Many of the arrangements are contractual, so removing them would cost the employer a significant amount, estimated to be around £6 million.

[Kevin Brennan]

So much for the party of business, imposing costs on businesses that have entered into voluntary agreements.

I hope the hon. Member for Stafford will seek to divide the House on his amendment, which is thoughtful and moderate, rather like the hon. Gentleman himself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I do not believe that the wearing of a badge or armband, or some other means of identification, is onerous in the way that the hon. Lady suggests. In fact, it is something that unions widely do already as part of the code on picketing, which actually says that everybody should wear an armband.

I must admit that in Committee I was somewhat bemused by this part of the argument and the briefs provided by Amnesty International and Liberty in the evidence that was given. Both are excellent human rights organisations that undertake extremely important work around the world dealing with executions and torture, yet the wearing of an armband by one person so that they are identifiable during a strike presents them with a big issue. I do not agree. We are not asking everybody taking part in a strike to wear an armband, but simply asking the organiser of a particular event to do so in order to identify themselves.

[Rachael Maskell]

rose—

[Victoria Prentis]

I am going to finish, if I may.

This seems to be an entirely reasonable and, more importantly, proportionate measure. There is a clear public interest in ensuring that trade unions take responsibility for the conduct of the pickets that they organise. It is only fair that the rights of those who belong to unions are balanced with the rights of hard-working taxpayers, including those in my constituency, who rely on key public services.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Edward Timpson]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the already impressive impact the adoption support fund has had on helping families trying to care for some of the most vulnerable children in our society. It is clear that such a positive approach across the board will help many other families struggling in similar circumstances to bring about those excellent outcomes. The special guardianship review, which is under way, and the improvements to social work reform will help to deliver better pre- and post-placement support for all those children who need it.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

At my last surgery I had two families who were taking on kinship responsibilities. They have less ongoing support than adoptive parents. Will the Government ensure that they get support equal to that which adoptive parents receive?

[Edward Timpson]

In the previous answer, on the support that we have offered on adoption, I touched on some of the other support that is available to kinship carers in their own local authority area. That is why through Ofsted inspections of local authorities and through the family and friends statutory guidance we have made sure that there is a greater emphasis on the support that we know works for kinship carers. More importantly, the announcement on shared parental leave will help many of those families who have a grandparent who works and who is helping with childcare, by providing the flexibility they need to have a much better balance between having a family and having good childcare in place.

Trade Union Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am proud to declare that I am a trade unionist and was an official of Unite for 17 years before coming here. I rise to oppose this anti-trade union Bill. Should we be surprised by it, for have not the powerful always sought to take power from those people who get on and build our country? I refer to those people working in our services and in our public sector, and those who are in the engine room of driving up productivity and building our economy. The trade union movement has seen inequality throughout the past 200 years, and today men and women experience it daily. Against this adversary—against the crushing hand of bad employers or the state—men and women have organised, and nothing will stop their spirit in fighting for justice and making sure that they have better rights for the future.

This Bill sets out to rob these people of those basic human rights, making it almost impossible for workers to exercise their right to take action, as detailed ballots are already so difficult to implement. From talking to so many employers, particularly in the public sector, I know how they struggle to implement the current legislation on industrial ballots. One employer has 250 workplaces and has to know the jobs taking place in them and the grades involved. Obviously, as they do not know where their staff are, they struggle with the legislation. The Government are now introducing more bureaucracy for employers, wasting more of the employers’ resources. The advanced details that the Bill introduces deal with things such as the dispute plan, which interrupts industrial relations. That should be the subject we are debating today: how we create good industrial relations, and how we resolve the disputes and solve the real challenges facing workers at this time.

I wish to talk briefly about responsibility in industrial action. Last year, NHS staff raised a dispute about their pay, having experienced a 15% real-terms pay cut while managers had had an 11% pay increase over the past six years. The dispute was registered. Time and again, we wrote to the Secretary of State, asking him for a meeting. We had a string of solutions to offer, but he refused to meet us. He was spoiling for a ballot and industrial action when we could have resolved the issue around the table. Nine months later, after a day of action, he conceded. We have more days of strike action in the public sector, because the Government are using it as a tool against workers. But workers are responsible; they stand up for their rights and they always will. This piece of legislation should be ditched, so that it will not harm our members.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the number of teachers in training.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)]

Teaching is an increasingly popular career choice for the best and brightest. Some 73% of graduates starting teacher training hold a 2:1 or above—the highest proportion ever—and last year we recruited 94% of our postgraduate initial teacher training target. We have exceeded our postgraduate recruitment target for primary trainee teachers for 2015-16 and are making good progress with secondary recruitment, but we have more to do to ensure the best graduates enter training.

[Rachael Maskell]

With only 61% of teacher training places being filled in 2014, with 38% of teachers leaving the profession after one year, with thousands of new teachers never reaching a classroom and with thousands more leaving the profession because of stress and exhaustion, will the Secretary of State acknowledge the crisis in teaching and tell us what she will do about it?

[Nicky Morgan]

I am afraid that I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s figures. I just said that last year we recruited 94% of our postgraduate initial teacher training target. We also do not recognise the claim that so many teachers are leaving the profession after their first year. In fact, more than 90% are still in the profession after their first year. Of course, we recognise the pressures on teachers, who do a fantastic job up and down the country, which is why I launched the workload survey last year and why we have introduced specific schemes to recruit teachers to specific subjects. In addition, as I mentioned, we are already ahead of our primary teacher target for this year.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that we would be better served by putting areas of trade on the positive list, rather than the negative list, so that we could include the areas of trade that we wanted in the trade agreement, as opposed to including all services, with only those named being removed?

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

I agree with the hon. Lady.

What is demanded, and what we require, is a clear and unambiguous exemption from the deal that guarantees that democratically elected Governments in Scotland and beyond cannot be forced to privatise services, and that any attempts to roll back previous privatisation will not be open to challenge under the new rules. These conditions must be explicit.

We come now to one of the areas of greatest concern: the process known as investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS. Including this type of measure in the agreement potentially undermines the right of European Governments to regulate effectively on a range of issues. As the Minister will be aware, the most relevant example of that is the recent action by the Uruguayan Government to legislate to increase the size of the health warnings on cigarette packs, in an attempt to reduce the number of people smoking and improve public health.

In response, the multinational tobacco giant, Philip Morris, used a similar process to sue the Uruguayan Government. The concern of many of us, including the Scottish Government and our trade unions, is that similar measures could be used by private organisations here to limit our democratically elected Government’s powers in a range of important areas. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) has considerable experience in this area, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I understand that if he catches your eye he hopes to raise it before the Minister replies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I do not have that information in my pack, but I shall be happy to provide it. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise will reply in writing to any detailed questions that Members may have.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I want to make a bit of progress, but I will give way later if I have time.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire referred to concerns, which have certainly been expressed to me, about the potential impact—or the alleged potential impact—on our national health service. All of us in the House have a responsibility to provide our constituents with the facts as we best understand them, and not to fuel scare stories. I therefore think it important to say that absolutely nothing in the proposed deal would threaten the public nature of our public services, and, in particular, our national health service.

Education and Adoption Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on sharing his experiences with us. I am sure he will bring real value to the House. I also thank the other four new Members who have given their maiden speeches today.

I have to say that I am intrigued. This is the Second Reading debate on the Government’s one piece of legislation addressing standards in education. We are left with a draft Bill that looks at a very narrow definition of something called “coasting” and proposes yet another top-down reorganisation in education, rather than looking at the causes of the unbelievable pressures on our schools at this time and at what would really make a difference to children’s education. Those pressures include the cuts to support services provided by our local authorities, the recruitment and retention crisis in our schools, the incredible pressures under which teachers are being put, and the funding crisis that many of our schools are experiencing. It is the causes that we should be debating today and what will really turn around the lives of our nation’s children and improve schools. Instead, we have to debate something called “coasting”. Even at this moment, we are denied the opportunity to have a clear definition of what that actually means.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising other issues and the causes of the difficulties, including recruitment and retention. A number of head teachers in my constituency have highlighted the increasingly challenging times they are facing as they try to recruit teachers and get teachers who have not been trained. They are finding it difficult to fill vacancies and are having to pay expensive introduction fees to agencies. That is having an impact on morale and team spirit in schools.

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend raises so many of the issues that are impacting on school standards today and the vital profession of teaching. We really must take heed of what she has said.

My second bemusement is that the Government talk about the urgency of improving standards in education, yet they are legislating only for schools currently under local authority control. Why is it acceptable that there are 133 failing academies on this Secretary of State’s watch? That certainly raises the issue of why the standards in those academies are not being questioned in this Bill. It is important to improve the outcomes for all children through the Bill. Why are alternative providers—perhaps even local authorities—not insisted upon for those schools?

There is a lack of evidence behind the Bill. The Education Committee proved that there is absolutely no evidence of net improvements in standards in primary and secondary schools that have become academies. Ofsted determined that other initiatives such as the city challenge were far more effective at improving standards. One educationist said:

“schools fail for a number of reasons and simply changing their structure may not address the whole picture”.

Therefore, in view of the evidence, why has there been this ideological move to turn more schools into academies? Tragically, after listening to parents, governors and heads of schools in York, it seems that schools are now seeing this as an inevitable process and are therefore debating whether it is better to jump before they are pushed and to have some control of the process in the meantime—and that includes even our outstanding schools. They are concerned that they will lose more resources; schools in York are seriously underfunded as we fall below national funding levels. The plea I have heard from all heads in York who have raised the issue with me is that the Government should do everything they can to improve school funding as the priority for raising standards.

I could stray into talking about the funding issues in further education, which are also having an impact on our education system. It is pointless to mend one part of the education system without looking at the challenges that will come later. However, I will return to the mainstay of the debate: who is now in charge of our children’s education?

Parents spend most of their time with their children—school holidays, weekends, mornings and evenings—yet the draft legislation is trying to take them out of the education-making process and is instead inserting the very remote Secretary of State. If this Government are at all serious about devolution and parental engagement, they will give a real voice to parents in the future of their children’s education. No one can have the interest of their children’s success closer to mind. Every parent wants to do what is best for their children.

In York, as we have debated the academisation of Millthorpe school and Scarcroft and Knavesmire primary schools—outstanding schools, I might add—it is the parents who have wanted all the information to hand to understand the best path for their children. We are about to enter the same debate at Hempland primary. Why detach schools from parents? Surely we should be involving them more. Why, instead, place the powers in the hands of the Secretary of State, who may know about what happens in Loughborough but will not know about the issues faced in the corners of York Central?

We should strengthen the parents’ voice, empowering parents’ involvement in their children’s education, and listen carefully to the issues they raise. In York, parents have called for a ballot over the multi-academy trust conversion exercise—one that Labour would have granted, but now denied by the Tory-led coalition council. We have to give parents the information they need, trust their expertise and give them a voice and the respect they deserve. After all, localism must be about trust.

I want to mention teachers and support staff and to put on record my sincere thanks for their outstanding dedication to our children, as they work day and night, often under extreme pressure, in giving their all. Teachers and support staff—not just heads—must also have a say. They cannot be told how important their professionalism is in one breath and then not be trusted to make the best decisions for children in the next.

The whole Bill—whether the education or the adoption clauses—boils down to trust. Are we going to trust the true professionals and the parents to determine what is best for children, or place everything in the hands of the Secretary of State, who is, after all, not an educationist?

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Fernandes]

I will not name any schools, but I have adequately defined the features and the hallmarks of coasting schools. It is clear that further guidance will be forthcoming.

After designing the vision of a knowledge-based curriculum for the free school in which I was involved, we secured approval and funding from the Government. We recruited staff and found a building. I am proud to say that Michaela Community School opened its doors last September to 120 12-year-olds and it is transforming their lives. Many of the children come from neighbouring council estates or areas such as Harlesden and Willesden. They have the chance to aim high because of inspired and innovative teaching. If one walks through the corridors, one can hear a pin drop, because pupils are quietly learning in their classrooms. I invite Members here to join them for lunch and they will see how polite they are. If they take a bus in the area, they will spot them by their impeccable uniform. Whether it is the practice of appreciation at lunchtime or the rigorous learning, Michaela Community School has been made possible only because teachers have been set free to teach and set high expectations. It was teachers, not the state, who saw a need and took action.

[Rachael Maskell]

Why has £241 million been spent on free schools in areas that do not have a crisis in school places?

[Suella Fernandes]

A key criterion for gaining Government approval for a free school is to establish need. There needs to be an established deficit in school places, which is evidenced in the data, to form part of the application.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

Given the case that my hon. Friend described from his constituency, does he agree that there are real points of concern in the Bill about the weaknesses of consultation not just on academy status, but on the identity of the sponsors?

[Clive Lewis]

My hon. Friend is right: there is neither sufficient consultation nor sufficient scrutiny.

Even a report for the Education Committee, with its Government majority, has said that

“checks and balances on academy trusts in relation to conflicts of interest are still too weak.”

Sadly I see nothing in the Bill to remedy that, and much to make it worse.

The Committee also questioned the so-called not for profit branding being used by many trusts and called for more regulation and greater transparency. Instead, the Bill offers less of both and fast-tracks academisation, removing any form of consultation and robbing communities even of the enfeebled fig-leaf consultations that the Academies Act 2010 offered.

A great Member of this House, the late Tony Benn, suggested five questions to ask those in power. I would ask them of the Inspiration Trust and many other academies. What power have they got? The answer: too much. Where did they get it from? From those on the Government Benches. In whose interests do they use it? Judging by the money that Theodore Agnew is pumping into the Conservative party, I speculate that it is not in ours. To whom are they accountable? According to the Education Committee, no one in particular. And the most important question of all: how do we get rid of them? We cannot.

I see nothing in this Bill that seriously challenges that glaring lack of democratic accountability. As Tony Benn said:

“Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system.”—[Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 685.]

That goes to the heart of my argument about why we must oppose the Bill. This is not just a smash and grab on our public schools, their buildings, equipment and the very land they sit on, but an attack on the values that we on both sides of the House should hold dear—the values of democracy, accountability and transparency, especially when dealing with the allocation and use of public funds and giving local communities a real say in their children’s education.

A total of 145 academies are currently rated as inadequate, but nothing in the Bill deals with that. With the Education Committee this year saying that there was no evidence academisation in and of itself has improved educational standards, we have to question why the Bill is before the House. I cannot believe that it is on the basis of a fair and open-minded assessment of the best interests of our constituents and their children. It is their interests that I represent, however, and in their interests that I shall vote against the Bill and, instead, vote for the Opposition amendment. I urge the House to do the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

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

[Rachael Maskell]

At Tang Hall School in my constituency the children are freezing in the winter. They have to wear hoodies, and they are still not warm. Will that not have an impact on standards in that school, and should investment not be put into improving school buildings to improve standards?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Indeed it should, and that resonates with those of us with long memories who remember what life was like under the Conservatives 20 years ago. We thought we’d got past that, didn’t we? If improving schools rather than cutting costs were the Government’s aim, they would be building to the highest standards, not the lowest.

I will conclude by reflecting on the acute pressure on school places, another issue that has not been addressed. In Cambridgeshire, which is a high-growth area, we expect to see a massive increase in numbers in the coming years. Is it not extraordinary that this pressing issue barely gets a mention in the Bill? It is not just a Cambridgeshire problem, because the situation is similar across the country. Why are the Government not addressing it?

A discussion on education is always welcome, but the Bill fails to address the issues that matter. Frankly, the problem is not so much coasting schools as a Government who do not understand the problem and so inevitably get the wrong answer—we could say, a Government who require improvement.