Business of the House

Debate between Siobhain McDonagh and Lucy Powell

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

May I start by welcoming the news that the Princess of Wales has completed her chemotherapy and is moving on to the next stage of her recovery? Like you, Mr Speaker, I place on the record my thanks to the Speaker’s Chaplain, the Venerable Patricia Hillas, in her final week. We thank her for her contribution to this House.

I congratulate all the newly elected Select Committee Chairs; they play a very important role in this House. I also send my regards to Terry Wiggins, who has served us as a chef for an astonishing 50 years. We all know Terry as the mainstay of the Debate, and I am sure that he will miss serving up the famous House of Commons jerk chicken. I know that he is looking forward to having more time for walking with his dogs. They must be the best-fed dogs in the country.

This week, for the first time in 14 years, a Labour Bill became an Act. The Budget Responsibility Act 2024 ensures that there can never again be a repeat of Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget. It comes as we grapple with the £22 billion black hole left by the Conservative party—what a stark reminder that is of the importance of economic stability.

The theme this week is the Government honouring their commitment to all those who have been let down. We have published the Renters’ Rights Bill, which will finally end no-fault evictions—a measure long promised but never realised. In order to help unlock town centre regeneration, we have begun reform of outdated compulsory rules—levelling up, remember that? And to the workers of Port Talbot Steel left hanging by the previous Government, the Business and Trade Secretary announced a new deal, welcomed by workers and their representatives.

Today, we introduce the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, otherwise known as Martyn’s law, meeting a promise that the Prime Minister made to Figen Murray, who lost her son Martyn Hett in the Manchester arena attack. I am personally delighted that we are doing this today. This is a Government of service, delivering their manifesto, sticking to their promises and cleaning up the mess left by the Conservative party.

Work began this week on another commitment that we made, with the first meeting of the Modernisation Committee. I thank Members from across the House who have joined and contributed to the process so far, including the shadow Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who is taking his membership very seriously indeed. This morning, the Committee published a memorandum setting out its core principles and early priorities, and I encourage Members from across the House to take a look at that.

We seem to be developing a common theme in these exchanges. The Conservatives lost the election badly because they crashed the economy, made people worse off and did not fix the foundations of this country. The shadow Leader of the House seems to think that we can just carry on as we were, but we saw that movie and it did not end well.

The shadow Leader of the House asks me about the prisons crisis—[Interruption.] Okay, he say it was the management of the prisoner release scheme. Let us just remember that we inherited from the Conservatives prisons on the point of collapse. After the riots, we came within 100 places of our prisons overflowing. If we had not acted, courts would not have been able to hold trials and the police would not have been able to make arrests. Our entire criminal justice system was on the brink of collapse. Police chiefs warned his Government that failing to act before the election would increase the risk considerably, including the risk of serious disorder. What did his Government do? Absolutely nothing. We took the difficult decisions that we had to in order to ensure that our prisons and the whole criminal justice system did not collapse. The previous Government ducked the big issues, as ever; we acted. I will not take any lectures from him about that.

I notice that the shadow Leader of the House did not ask me about the NHS. The damning findings of the Darzi report, out this morning, are another utterly unforgiveable example of the state of public services that we inherited from the Conservative party. The true scale of the crisis in our NHS, experienced by all our constituents, family and friends every day, has been laid bare this morning. Does he want to take the opportunity to apologise for that? No, I did not think he would.

I also notice that the shadow Leader of the House did not repeat the claim that he often makes that the previous Government left us a booming economy. Is that because yesterday’s growth figures confirmed what we all know: that under his party’s watch, we had no growth, falling living standards and a stagnant economy? That is the legacy of his party, and he knows it.

We are fixing the foundations and stabilising the economy. That is why the Conservatives lost and we won. We will not put our heads in the sand. We are keeping our promises—to renters, to steelworkers, and, today, to Figen Murray—and restoring the trust in politics squandered by the Conservative party. This is the change that the country voted for, and the change that we are delivering.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on glioblastoma drug treatments? As Mr Speaker and she will know, 3,200 people each year are diagnosed with this death sentence. It is the largest killer of the under-40s, and life expectancy at five years is just 5%. Without Government intervention in the pharmaceutical industry and the NHS, there will be no improvement for another 40 years, and we will continue to see the same number of people traumatised, dead and scandalised.

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. I know what an amazing campaigner she has become on the issue of brain cancers, following the tragic death of her much loved sister, Margaret, whom we all dearly miss to this day. My hon. Friend and I both know many people affected by this terrible disease, which is the killer of so many, and delivers people such a terrible prognosis. It is absolutely heartbreaking. I will ensure that the Health Secretary has heard what she has said. Should she apply for a debate on the subject, I am sure that it would be very welcome to the House.

Joint Enterprise

Debate between Siobhain McDonagh and Lucy Powell

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate on this difficult issue, which is not a small matter. Does she agree that 4,500 people are currently in prison having been caught by the wrongful application of joint enterprise law? Men, women and children are serving long sentences for crimes that they did not commit.

[Lucy Powell]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. We know it is at least that sort of figure—we do not have accurate figures.

Social Mobility

Debate between Siobhain McDonagh and Lucy Powell

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend’s excellent point fits entirely with one of the main thrusts of the Social Mobility Commission’s report, which is that there are huge regional inequalities, particularly between our growing and vibrant cities, where many graduates live and work, and our heartland towns and former industrial places.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Does she agree that it is not just geography but ethnicity that makes a difference? We sing long about the successes of London, but if we look at who is doing well in our schools, we see that it tends to be young people from black and Asian backgrounds, with white working-class kids still not making progress.

[Lucy Powell]

That is another excellent point. My hon. Friend will know about that issue from her own constituency.

Social Mobility Commission: State of the Nation Report

Debate between Siobhain McDonagh and Lucy Powell

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the contents and recommendations of the annual State of the Nation report from the Social Mobility Commission; notes that despite welcome measures by successive governments to improve social mobility the Commission warns that social mobility is getting worse, the reasons for which are deep-seated and multi-faceted; and calls on the Government to lead a renewed approach in the early years, in education, skills and housing, to improve social mobility.

This motion stands in my name and those of the right hon. Members for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg).

May I start by putting it on record that my thoughts are with the victims of the terror attack yesterday? I thank the emergency services for their dedication, bravery and service, and the House staff who looked after us so well yesterday. That we are meeting today shows that we can carry on with our democracy and debates in such times. It also shows that we often come together in this House, as we are doing today in the spirit of this important debate on social mobility.

This debate, with Members on both sides of the House joining together to champion social mobility, is welcome and timely. I have been delighted to work closely with the right hon. Members for Loughborough and for Sheffield, Hallam over recent weeks, and it is our hope and intention that we continue that work beyond today to truly build a cross-party consensus for a strategy to tackle social mobility. I also thank the Government’s Social Mobility Commission for all its important work. As it has consistently warned, by all measures social mobility is getting worse, not better. It recently said:

“Low levels of social mobility are impeding the progress”

of many in our society, “not only the poorest”. That is the context for our debate.

We need a better understanding of what we mean by increasing social mobility in the modern economy. Too often, social mobility is thought of in terms of plucking the one or two lucky ones out of disadvantage and taking them to the top—the so-called “council house to the Cabinet table” journey. That understanding is really unhelpful when we are looking at the challenges and opportunities that our country faces, and the strategy required to deal with them. In today’s context, social mobility is about everyone being able to make economic and social progress, unconfined by the disadvantages they begin with. With Brexit, automation, digitaisation and huge changes to work, that process is going to get harder and ever more squeezed. No longer can this just be about those who go to university, as everyone needs to gain a rich, stretching education and the skills to succeed.

To put it another way, if we look ahead to the needs of the economy in, say, 2022, forecasts by the Social Mobility Commission show that there will be 9 million low-skilled people chasing just 4 million jobs, yet a shortfall of 3 million workers for the higher-skilled jobs. That is before the effects of Brexit. The biggest barrier to dealing with this issue is known as the long tail of underachievement. At the same time, companies such as Google say that we are not producing enough of the right engineering graduates for their growth. Britain has the third highest proportion of graduates in non-graduate jobs in Europe, with only Greece and Estonia behind us. No wonder our productivity is so poor compared with that of other OECD countries. In fact, it takes a British worker five days to produce the same amount of work that a German worker can do in four days—that is the stark challenge we face. Any social mobility strategy must therefore also be inextricably linked to our industrial strategy.

These huge challenges require a new national mission built on consensus and evidence to turn them into real opportunities for the country, and that is what we hope to address with this debate and our work. But, let us be honest, although much progress has been made by successive Governments, the political cycle means that every party is guilty of looking for a quick fix or a new wheeze that might appeal to voters, rather than the more difficult job of putting in place a clear and determined strategy. Let us look at the evidence and stick with it, even if at times that means giving praise to our opponents, as we will be doing today.

We know from the Social Mobility Commission and others that when it comes to education, some areas are absolutely key. I will focus on a few of those now and I know that Members will pick up others in their speeches. First, I want to look at the facts on early years, which will not come as a surprise to those who know me well, because it is a personal passion of mine. By the age of five, children from disadvantaged backgrounds are already far behind their peers, with a developmental gap of as much as 15 months between those from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds. One study found that children in low-income households hear up to 30 million fewer words by the age of three than their better-off peers. The levels achieved by the time a child is five are still the biggest predictors of outcomes at GCSE.

What happens in the first few years of life is massively critical, yet that still does not demand nearly enough Government and policy attention. We have made some progress under successive Governments. The Labour Government did so through the extension of maternity leave, Sure Start centres, the integration and expansion of health visitors—that was continued by the Conservative Government—and the introduction of quality early education for three and four-year-olds. The introduction of the two-year-olds offer was much championed by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, and the right hon. Member for Loughborough developed the beginnings of a real life chances strategy. However, I worry that the recent focus has been on childcare and the demand of maternal employment rates alone, and less on social mobility reasons for investing in the early years.

A greater focus on what works and on joined-up working does not actually need to cost more money. For example, the quality and outcomes in Ofsted ratings do not match. After looking at this recently, I found that 91% of early years providers are rated good or outstanding, yet a third of children are not leaving those settings school-ready—that does not match up. There are other ways in which we could incentivise quality providers to work with—not in competition with—others in their locality. There could be more support for parents through regular contact, as well as things such as the ages and stages requirements. We have been doing some interesting work on this in Manchester. Remarkably, some of the most deprived communities in many parts of the country have some of the highest quality early years provision—this is often what we think of as the silver bullet in education—through maintained nursery schools and some of the nursery places attached to schools. Let us cherish those and not put them under threat. A proper focus on narrowing the gap before the age of five would have a real impact on social mobility.

Let us now consider slightly older children. By the age of 16, just one in three disadvantaged children gained five good GCSEs including English and maths, and that figure has remained stubborn over the past few years. We know what works in schools and we have seen it happen. It was epitomised by the London challenge, when leadership, collaboration, resources, the attraction and retention of outstanding teachers, and the development of Teach First all came together.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend like to thank Lord Adonis for all the work that he did on the London Challenge? Throughout all my time during the Labour Government, I found him to be the most effective and passionate Minister when it came to improving schools. He has a truly brilliant record.

[Lucy Powell]

I very much thank Lord Adonis for all his work and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who was a Minister at the time of the London initiative.

The London challenge was one of those Government initiatives that achieved real change, including the biggest rise in attainment we have seen in an area. The opportunity areas developed by the right hon. Member for Loughborough during her time in office are good successors, but they need to be matched by resources and the ability to attract and retain the best teachers. The pupil premium has been a remarkable development that has allowed those who are behind to begin to catch up during their time in school. Let us follow these learnings and not get distracted by things that do not work.

By the age of 25, many of these children will be in low-skilled, low-paid jobs. Only one in 10 low-paid workers will ever escape low pay. That is a pretty terrible outcome for them and our country and, as I said, those jobs are disappearing, too. Our skills strategy for post-16 and in-work training needs strengthening. I welcome the Government’s moves in this area. Proposals such as T-levels, the apprenticeship levy and the skills plan linked to the industrial plan are all very much to be welcomed. Although I have some criticisms of the way in which initiatives such as university technical colleges are working, they are a good idea, but they do need more focus and work.

Let us not implement some of these good initiatives badly, however, and lose what we know works. For example, on T-levels, we need to make sure that we continue to have the blend of technical and academic that will be so important for the jobs of the future. If we look at all our OECD competitor countries, it clear that it is critical that children continue to work on maths and English to a high level right to the age of 18. The post-16 reforms also need matching with other reforms, such as pathways out of university. As I said earlier, the underperformance and under-skilled jobs of many of our graduates fundamentally need addressing. Access to the professions is key, and other Members will talk about that.

Those are just three of the key areas that can drive social mobility—the early years, what happens in schools, and post-16—but we also know what does not work in terms of social mobility, and I want to talk about that for a minute. One thing that does not work is grammar schools. Unfortunately, under the current Prime Minister, grammar schools and selection seem to take centre stage in her vision for dealing with social mobility. They are sucking up all the oxygen in the debate, yet the evidence is clear: they do nothing for social mobility; in fact, they make it worse.