Arms Export Licences (Saudi Arabia)

Debate between Stephen Twigg and Elizabeth Truss

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I said earlier, I unreservedly apologise for the errors that were made. That is why, when this was brought to my attention as Secretary of State on 12 September, I took immediate action to stop this happening.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Court of Appeal identified a failure by the Government to meet their legal obligation to make a systematic assessment of past possible violations of international law. The Secretary of State today has acknowledged a failure to share information across government. Surely these failures demonstrate that we no longer have a robust system of arms control in this country.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have found specific errors, for which I have apologised and taken immediate action to address, but overall, as the Court of Appeal itself points out, we have a robust and rigorous process.

Child-care Ratios

Debate between Stephen Twigg and Elizabeth Truss

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement on the Government’s plans for changes to statutory regulations for child-care ratios.

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

The Government announced in January, in the “More great childcare” document, the intention to give nurseries more flexibility over staff-child ratios where they employ suitably qualified staff. We have consulted on what those qualifications should be. The consultation closed at the end of March. We are now considering the responses and will make further announcements in due course.

The current system of child care is not working for parents. Too many parents in the UK are struggling to juggle their work and child care arrangements. Families in England pay some of the highest costs in the world, with 27% of their income going on child care, compared with 11% in countries such as France. We also know that this Government spend more than £5 billion on child care, which is twice the OECD average, and as much as countries such as France and more than countries such as Germany. As well as our new schemes, such as tax-free child care, we need to ensure that we get better value for money for the investment that the Government put in, so we are looking at other countries, such as France, Ireland, Holland and Germany, which manage to combine high quality and affordability in their child care provision.

At present, we have the tightest ratios in Europe for children under three. We also have the lowest staff salaries. Nursery staff here earn £6.60 an hour on average, which is barely above the minimum wage. Annual earnings are £13,000, which is well below the averages of £16,000 in France, £20,000 in Denmark and £22,000 in Sweden. The ratio for two-year-olds in England is 4:1, whereas it is 6:1 in Ireland, 6:1 in Germany and 8:1 in France, while in Denmark and Sweden—countries that the shadow Secretary of State has explicitly advocated—there are no national staff ratios at all.

Our proposals will allow nurseries that hire high-quality staff to exercise professional judgment. This is exactly the same concept that we have used in academies, giving high-quality institutions the autonomy to make decisions for themselves and to exercise professional judgment. The ratios are not compulsory. This is about professionals in the child care sector being able to exercise their judgment and to deliver an affordable, high-quality service to parents. Our evidence suggests that—[Interruption.] Well, the Department for Education economists have looked at this in detail, and our evidence suggests that nurseries will be able to pay higher staff salaries and reduce costs to parents.

Let us remember the legacy of the previous Labour Government. The real cost of child care, which every family in this country faces, has risen by 77% in real terms since 2003, and child care inflation is going up by 6% every year. If we do not do something about this by reforming the supply of child care, it will become prohibitively expensive and many parents will not be able to afford to go out to work. We also want to encourage more providers to use the higher ratios for three and four-year-olds and to hire high-quality staff. All the international evidence from organisations such as the OECD suggests that the higher the quality of the staff, the better the outcomes for children. The previous Labour Government have admitted that, during their period of office, they got this wrong. The number of childminders halved, child care costs doubled, and Beverley Hughes, the former children’s Minister, admitted that Labour had got it wrong.

[Stephen Twigg]

Well, yesterday we were told that the Government were pushing ahead with their plans to weaken child-care ratios despite widespread opposition. Late last night, however, the ink was not even dry on the Gracious Speech when we learned that the Government might in fact be U-turning on their policy. Is not this yet another example of chaos and incompetence at the heart of Government policy making?

When the Minister came to the House in January to announce this policy, we told her that she was threatening the quality of child care, doing nothing to address the spiralling costs of child care and dismissing the advice of her own experts. Since then, the—[Interruption.]

[Stephen Twigg]

Since that announcement in January, the scale of public opposition to the Minister’s plans has been overwhelming. The Government’s own adviser on childcare, Professor Cathy Nutbrown, has said that the ratio plans make “no sense at all”. Today, the Minister has said that all the evidence demonstrates that what she is doing is right, but who supports her proposals? Is not this yet another episode of bad policy making by the Education Secretary? First we had the fiasco of shutting down school sport partnerships. Then we had the disastrous attempt to bring back CSEs and O-levels. Now we have a child care policy that is rejected by parents, nursery providers and the Government’s own experts. Will she think again and rule out this damaging policy once and for all? What lessons will she and her Secretary of State learn from this latest shambles? Does not this show once again that this Government have no plan for hard-working families?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have already outlined what our plans are; we announced them in our “More great childcare” proposal. Our plans have the support of Sir Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector, who commented on them in a recent speech. He has accepted the principle of higher-qualified staff having more professional autonomy. Andreas Schleicher of the OECD also supports our plans. Of course opinion is divided within the British academic establishment, as it is on many education issues. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman however that these policies are alive and well in France, Ireland, Holland and Germany. There is not a single country, including Scotland, where the ratios as are low as they are here in England. Furthermore, he has not come up with any response on what he plans to do about the appallingly low wages in the child care sector or the high levels of staff turnover, or with any ideas about how he is going to reduce costs. Is this another spending commitment that he is pledging when his party has already pledged many more spending commitments than it has the money to pay for?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Twigg and Elizabeth Truss

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

One of the issues we have identified is too early a reliance on calculators in some classrooms. There is also an over-focus on data in the primary curriculum at the expense of arithmetic and number, which are the basis of a strong mathematical understanding later in life. We are readjusting the balance to make sure that those core basics are secure first.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister join me in welcoming the formation of National Numeracy, which is a fantastic new organisation? It has expressed concern about the new maths curriculum for primary schools and says that there is too much

“rote learning and not enough emphasis on problem solving and using maths in real-life contexts.”

I agree with the Minister that numeracy is vital, but I fear that this may be a lost opportunity to improve maths education in primary schools. Will she work with National Numeracy and teachers to develop a maths curriculum that will really make a difference?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman visit Woodberry Down primary school in Hackney, which has already adopted the new national curriculum that we have suggested, including more advanced fractions, multiplication and division. I have seen the inspirational teaching at that school and the excitement on children’s faces as they play games using advanced fractions and grasp that the underlying principles of mathematics will help them for the rest of their lives. That is what our new curriculum does: it allows excellent teachers to inspire the next generation.

Secondary Education (GCSEs)

Debate between Stephen Twigg and Elizabeth Truss

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and anticipates my next point. We know from analysis of the CSE that it was, in practice, a school-leaving certificate for the poor. In the decade after its abolition, the number of the poorest pupils staying on at school after 16 increased by a very significant 28%. The CSE and O-level system was designed more than half a century ago, when our society was completely different—there were far more unskilled jobs and typically children were split off into grammar schools and secondary moderns. A pupil at a comprehensive in 1971 was 25 times more likely to take CSEs than a grammar school pupil—perhaps not surprising. A pupil in a secondary modern school was 50 times more likely to take CSEs than a grammar school pupil.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that the world’s skills are increasing and we need to compete? Can he explain why, under the Labour Government, in 2000 we were ahead of Germany in the maths league table, but by 2009 we were 12 places behind Germany? What did he do when he was in government to raise standards in vital subjects and compete with other countries?

[Stephen Twigg]

First, how would this solution help? As the hon. Lady knows, there are different international comparisons and analyses. The study carried out by the programme for international student assessment, PISA, to which she refers, shows one thing, but the trends in international mathematics and science study, TIMSS, shows something quite different: English results in mathematics are much better in TIMSS than in the PISA study. I take the challenge she sets out very seriously—we do need to do more and I am in favour of more rigour. What I do not understand is why that cannot be done by reform of the GCSE system. We can make GCSEs more rigorous. We do not have to go back to dividing children into sheep and goats at 14.

The hon. Lady is an authority on these matters and I pay tribute to her hard work, especially on mathematics. The number of young people taking mathematics at A-level started to increase significantly under the Labour Government. We need to do more to accelerate that trend and to explore all the ways we might do that, but surely she welcomes the fact that the number taking A-level maths increased under the Labour Government?

[Elizabeth Truss]

In fact, there was a massive drop in the number of students taking maths in 2000, when Labour introduced modular exams; that had a massively damaging effect. That number is now beginning to recover, which is indeed good news, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the previous Government were responsible for the drop in the first place and the decline in standards relative to countries such as Germany? He still has not answered my question about how Germany managed to reform its system.

[Stephen Twigg]

Let us learn from other countries’ systems. That is the point I was seeking to make. We recognised that there was an issue, which is why we addressed it and why, as the hon. Lady acknowledged, the number taking maths at A-level has started to increase, and not just since the change of Government in 2010; it predated that change of Government. When we debate these topics, it is important that we are balanced in our use of evidence. I am prepared to acknowledge the issue that she outlined as regards PISA, but I am sure she could acknowledge that we do a lot better in some of the other international research, including TIMSS.

The Financial Times has done an in-depth analysis of the proposed new CSE. It says that it

“will tend to be an exam for poorer children”.

It goes on to say:

“There will be a geographical effect, too, with some areas switching heavily to it. . . The CSE will be a northern qualification”.

This matters. The Secretary of State is in danger of putting a cap on aspiration for poorer children and for those living in the poorer regions of the country.

In last week’s urgent question the Secretary of State told the House that we already have a two-tier system, but he knows that at present pupils who sit the simpler foundation papers for GCSE can still get a C. Indeed, if their coursework is good enough, they can even get a B. With the CSE system, they will have a qualification on their CV which suggests to employers that teachers thought they had low ability. There is a real danger that they will simply stop striving for success.

The Labour Government started to narrow the gap in education between rich and poor. These proposals pose a real threat that the north-south divide will worsen and even fewer young people from the poorest families will stay on at school or go on to university. I am sure the Education Secretary has read the OECD’s research, which concluded that social mobility is lower in countries which

“group students into different curricula at early ages”.

Most scientific evidence now shows that teenagers’ brains can change late in life, even up to the age of 16. Professor Cathy Price of University college London found that teenagers’ IQs can jump by as much as 20 percentage points. She comments:

“We have to be careful not to write off poorer performers at an early stage when in fact their IQ may improve significantly given a few more years.”

Education Performance

Debate between Stephen Twigg and Elizabeth Truss

Thursday 12th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Twigg]

I will read that article.

Whenever we discuss test scores, there is always this argument about whether people are being taught to the test. Of course there are other pieces of research that show rather different outcomes. I know that this has been referred to in previous debates, but the trends in international mathematics and science study, which does not cover English or reading, looked at scores in years 3 and 9 between 1995 and 2007. In terms of progress in both mathematics and science, the United Kingdom was towards the top of the most improved countries in the world.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I mentioned TIMSS earlier. Part of the concern about TIMSS is that it is based on the curriculum of a particular country. It is not a standardised test that people sit across countries in the way that PISA is. Moreover, France and Germany did not take part in that study. We were still trailing all the Asian tigers, such as Japan and Hong Kong.

[Mel Stride]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

From a whole series of studies, including TIMSS.

[Stephen Twigg]

I am not sure whether TIMSS shows that, but I want to move on. When the hon. Lady spoke about China, she mentioned the cultural attitude to education, and that is clearly a factor. We know that in our own country from the data for achievement by ethnicity. Chinese and Indian children consistently outperform all other sections of the population in tests and exams, even when they are from the poorest families, as measured by free school meals, so there clearly are cultural factors.

In my remaining time, I will say a little about progress over time and highlight some successes in Liverpool. I will say a little about the factors that shape success and then something about learning from elsewhere. I want to say a bit about Teach First and about the US and Swedish experience of chartered schools and free schools respectively and then finish by saying something about E-bac and the surrounding debate around measuring achievement.

Between 1997 and 2010, we saw a significant improvement in the scores in the key stage tests—the SATS—A-levels and GCSEs. The national improvement in the five A* to C measure was from 32% in 1997 to 55% in 2010. I wanted to use that fact to pay particular tribute to the schools in Liverpool, which improved by a more significant margin—from a miserable 24% in 1997 to 53% last year, which was just two points below the national average. Linked to that, because of the success that those children and young people have had in their GCSE results, more of them are staying on at school or college after the age of 16. Nationally, there has been an improvement from 64% in 1997, just below two-thirds, to 79% last year, just below four-fifths. Again, in Liverpool, there was much more significant improvement, from just over 50% in 1997 to 78% last year.

There is a very important debate to be had about why those rates are changing. I agree with the hon. Member for South West Norfolk that improving educational performance is not just about Governments waving a magic wand. We will always have a debate about resources. Resources are not the focus of today’s debate, but spending is clearly a factor. There is also a debate to be had about the appropriate accountability measures and I will return later to that issue. However, improving educational performance is actually about what happens at the school level and the local level. We know that, because we know that schools with very similar intakes that have very similar amounts of money spent on them perform very differently from each other. Improving educational performance cannot be only about the context or the amount of money that is spent, although clearly both those things matter.

I agree with the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock that the head teacher in a school is critical. The quality of leadership around and below the position of head teacher is also important. Governors are important, too; the hon. Gentleman referred to his own role as a governor. All those positions are also vital.

Let us consider what we can learn from elsewhere, because it is important that we examine all the evidence available. I have praised the Government for the expansion of Teach First. One of the earliest decisions that I had to make when I became a Minister in 2002 was about whether we should support a programme that was initially called Teach for London, but eventually became the Teach First programme. We can learn a great deal from the Teach First programme.

The hon. Member for South West Norfolk—or perhaps it was one of her colleagues—spoke about the attractiveness of teaching in some of the toughest schools and how the best teachers often may not want to teach in them. As I say, Teach First began in London before expanding to other parts of the country and the whole basis of the programme was to place some of the brightest graduates from some of the top universities in some of the toughest inner-city schools in London as teachers.

Some of the examples of teachers who have gone through the Teach First programme are truly remarkable. Moreover, the number of teachers who went through the programme and stayed in the education world rather than following other careers that are probably much better paid has been another truly remarkable achievement. Research by Manchester university shows that schools in challenging circumstances where Teach First graduates are first placed have seen a statistically significant improvement in their GCSE results and that there is a positive correlation between the degree of improvement at GCSE level and the number of Teach First graduates in a school.

Teach First is a great programme and a great example of learning from another country, because it was modelled on a scheme in the US that enjoys strong cross-party support. Whatever else happens in the field of education policy, we should all continue to support and encourage the further expansion of the Teach First programme.

Having said that, I should add that there is a need to be cautious when we are studying school reform movements in other parts of the world. When the case is made for the Government’s policy on free schools and academies, great emphasis is placed on the experience of the US charter schools and the Swedish free schools. In preparation for today’s debate, I have looked at some of the evidence from the US and Sweden, and I think that it is fair to say that the evidence from both countries is mixed.

I think that the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister who is here today have both referred to a US programme called KIPP, which is the Knowledge is Power Project. I had an opportunity to visit KIPP schools in New York and Texas some time ago and I was hugely impressed by what was being achieved in those schools. KIPP schools are a great example of how some of these new, more autonomous schools in the US are delivering, particularly for children from some of the poorest backgrounds. There is no doubt that both the US charter schools and the Swedish free schools are hugely popular with the parents of the children who attend them.

However, the evidence about the impact on standards of those schools is mixed. There have been a number of studies in New York that suggest there has been real improvement in the charter schools compared with non-charter schools and that in particular some of the poorest children from ethnic minorities have done better than they might have done otherwise. On the other hand, the Centre for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford university published a report in 2009 that suggested that there is a much more mixed picture across the US, including significant state-by-state variation. That suggests that the extra autonomy granted to those schools may in itself bring benefits—but there are clearly other factors at play in addition to that extra autonomy, which help to determine whether those schools are successful or less successful.

In some ways, the picture in Sweden is quite similar. The Swedish free schools are popular with parents. One piece of research that I looked at showed higher grade point averages in free schools compared with those achieved in other Swedish schools. It has been suggested that in an area with a concentration of free schools, there was a wider positive impact. On the other hand, other significant studies that I looked at earlier today suggest that there has been a general worsening of performance in the Swedish school system in recent years, so that it is perhaps the case that the free schools have not delivered the national system-wide improvement in Sweden that their proponents originally anticipated.

Furthermore, there is real concern in Sweden—this is different from the experience in the US of the charter school system—that the gaps in terms of socio-economic achievement have widened in the country. Admittedly, those gaps in Sweden have always been much narrower than the gaps in the UK, so I still think that we have a lot to learn from Sweden and from some of the other Scandinavian countries. Nevertheless, we still need to tread with care on both sides of this debate, because I have heard both advocates of the Government’s proposals and critics of them somewhat overstating the case for or against by citing evidence from the US and Sweden. As I said, the evidence from those countries is decidedly mixed.

There is a very difficult debate to be had about how we measure how well schools are doing—and, indeed, how such measurement can itself have an impact on what happens in schools. That is really the debate about E-bac. That is a very difficult debate; I do not think that it is easy or straightforward at all. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock said something that I passionately agree with—that we should make the contextual value added the key indicator of schools. He then added a very important caveat by saying that we must also find a way to make CVA understood. I remember that when I was a Minister I said, “Why can’t people see that the value that this school is adding is actually far more significant than the raw score?” But people did not look at the value that was being added. They looked at the raw score.

The dilemma that all of us who care about education policy face is how we best measure schools and how we ensure that that measurement does not distort choices. I am concerned about E-bac, but that is not because I am not passionate about history, geography and modern foreign languages; I am passionate about all three of those subjects. However, I am not convinced that making them compulsory for all children, which could happen as a consequence of the E-bac, or emphasising them over other subjects, is necessarily the wisest way to encourage more children to have a passion for, and therefore to learn, foreign languages, history and geography.

The jury is out. We need to look at that issue further. As a Minister, I had some responsibility for the work that we did on modern foreign languages after they were made optional. I had mixed views. In the end, I think that it was probably right that they were made optional. What we sought to do was to encourage primary schools to take up modern foreign language teaching. We have seen a big expansion in such teaching in our primary schools in recent years. I hope that that will result in primary schoolchildren having a passion for foreign languages and that they maintain that passion as they go on to secondary school. That was the thinking behind encouraging language teaching in primary schools.

I can understand the desire of a new Government who are in a hurry to do something quick on E-bac, but I worry that it is effectively being introduced retrospectively. As I said in the Education Bill debate yesterday, there are schools in my constituency that are getting year 10 pupils who are midway through the year to change subjects so that they do E-bac subjects, because the school thinks that it will be measured by the performance in those subjects. I am not convinced that that will either prepare those children well for the world of work or give them a passion for those subjects that they have been told they must switch to.

I will finish by referring to the other thing that I agree with the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock about—the importance of recognising that progress takes time. The political and educational cycles are not exactly the same. When the Minister responds to the debate, he will say that of course the Government want to see progress. We were the same when we were in government.

We all want that progress for good reasons; it is not only to gain political kudos, but because all of us are passionate about children and young people being able to do well at school, so that they are fully equipped and have the best possible chances later in life. However, we often expect change in schools to happen too quickly. We set hurdles that cannot be crossed. As the hon. Gentleman said, schools cannot necessarily improve every year, because they have a different set of children each year. That is not an excuse for failure; it is just a recognition of reality.

When we assess how well schools do, let us look at subjects beyond English and maths, but let us not lose that vital core of literacy and numeracy. Let us look at a school’s progress over the previous five years, and let us look at value added—at how well particular children do at age 16 compared with how they do at age 11.

I very much welcome the opportunity I have had to participate in this debate, and I apologise for taking a bit longer than other Members. However, as I am the only Member on the Opposition Back Benches today, I can assure everyone that everything I have said is on behalf of all Labour Back Benchers. It is vital that we regularly debate education because, in spite of our real policy differences, we all know that education is vital if we are to be a successful economy and a fairer society with greater social mobility.