(2 days, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the contribution of maths to the UK.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate, the Members who put their names to the application and those present today. I look forward to hearing their contributions.
A mathematician often begins with a conjecture—a statement that they believe to be true, a theory that is perhaps well informed by evidence but has yet to be widely accepted, thoroughly proven and fully implemented. If I had a blackboard, this is the theory that I would write up: that a thriving maths ecosystem is fundamental to the Government’s growth ambitions.
I have a deep affection for mathematics, and that may have led me to prepare rather more material than is customary for a Westminster Hall debate, but given the numbers in attendance I hope that Members will indulge me. There is something profoundly satisfying—to me, at least—about how mathematical problems yield to patient reasoning and how seemingly unrelated concepts can connect in unexpected ways. While my days of wrestling with differential equations are largely behind me, the habits of mind that mathematics taught me—breaking down complex problems, testing assumptions and seeking elegant solutions—remain with me in every aspect of my work, including in Parliament.
There is compelling evidence for my opening conjecture. In 2023, mathematical sciences contributed £495 billion to our economy: that is 20% of the UK’s total gross value added. To put that in context, mathematical sciences contribute more to our economy than the entire manufacturing sector. That figure is almost certainly an underestimate, as it does not capture the many downstream benefits of mathematics. The algorithms and encryption that empower and enable safe access to the internet, which are so fundamental to nearly every business across the country, are all built from mathematical foundations.
The impact is accelerating. According to research from the Campaign for Mathematical Sciences, between 2019 and 2023 there was a 6.2% increase in the proportion of jobs requiring undergraduate-level mathematics skills across all sectors, and 94% of employers anticipate placing at least as much emphasis on these skills, if not more, when hiring in the next couple of years. Whether it is the artificial intelligence revolution that will have an impact on healthcare, the quantum computing that will transform cybersecurity or the climate models guiding our path to net zero, mathematics is not just contributing to our present economy—it is building our future.
There is every reason to be optimistic about the next generation. Mathematics remains the most popular A-level subject, with over 100,000 students choosing it last year. That is more than ever before. Those young people clearly see mathematics as part of the future, and rightly so.
Britain has always been a mathematical powerhouse. We may be small by population on the global stage, but we are mighty—particularly in our research activity. The UK is home to 4% of the world’s mathematical sciences researchers, but their output represents 14% of highly cited articles. We are a global centre of excellence for mathematical sciences research, with top-ranked universities and research institutes, and some of the fastest-growing tech companies. In fact, according to the global innovation index, the UK is home to the world’s No. 1 science and technology cluster by intensity, in relation to its size: Cambridge. It is a privilege to represent part of that cluster.
From Newton’s laws to Turing’s machines, from Bayes’s theorem—a personal favourite to mine—to Hawking’s insights into black holes, which are possibly a personal favourite of the Chancellor’s, British mathematicians have repeatedly changed how we understand and interact with our world. Today, that tradition continues. Our cryptographers protect national security: GCHQ remains one of the UK’s largest recruiters of pure mathematicians. Our financial modellers help manage trillions in global assets, and our data scientists are revolutionising everything from drug discovery to climate science.
However, despite that remarkable heritage and current strength, we risk undermining our mathematical future through policies that, I accept, reflect difficult choices but seem to work against our mathematical advantages on the global stage. In their plan for change, the Government promised growth. They promised to raise living standards, revive our NHS, drive research and innovation, and deliver economic stability. Yet if mathematics underlies so much of the innovation that will be key to delivering those aims, some of the recent policy decisions represent what Marcus du Sautoy, Simonyi professor for the public understanding of science at the University of Oxford, has called a “national miscalculation”.
The cuts to the advanced mathematics support programme, universities across the country shrinking and closing mathematics departments, the cancellation of the exascale supercomputer in Edinburgh and real-terms cuts to the UK Research and Innovation budget for 2025-26 are just some of the concerning decisions. I acknowledge that they span multiple Governments, but cumulatively they risk creating a mathematical recession just when the global economy is becoming increasingly mathematical.
My asks for our mathematical future break down into three strands: research funding, higher education and mathematics in schools. The Government have ambitious and admirable aims, but real growth is simply not possible without an adequate pipeline of mathematicians and advanced mathematical skills. Continuing to attract the extremely productive researchers who bring so much economic benefit and soft power to our country should be a national priority. To that end, in 2020 the previous Government announced a welcome additional £300 million in Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council funding for the mathematical sciences to be deployed over five years, but only about 40% of that total was ultimately allocated.
At a glance, to the casual observer, it may not be obvious what £300 million of funding for PhD and postdoctoral study in such seemingly abstract disciplines as geometry, topology, algebra, combinatorics and number theory might mean for our country, but the impact of those studies is often much more long-term than successive Governments seem to realise. Once-abstract domains often become integral to new technologies in ways that have not been predicted. To name just one crucial example, computer scientists are increasingly looking to pure mathematicians to help them understand their own machine learning models.
Despite the Government’s determination that AI is vital to turbocharge every mission in its plan for change, from driving down NHS waiting lists to speeding up cancer diagnoses and saving time across the civil service, there appears to be a disconnect between that ambition and the long-term investment needed in the mathematical sciences to achieve those goals. The number of UK centres for doctoral training in the mathematical sciences has fallen from 11 to five, and the latest allocation of UKRI funding represents a real-terms funding cut, which will constrain the UK’s research output. Rather than continuing to pull the rug from under those who are constructing the backbone of our future technologies, would the Government consider exploring a new funding settlement that better reflects the value of the mathematical sciences and what they bring to the UK? Investment in mathematical sciences to fuel the UK’s growth needs to be far longer term than simply increasing postgraduate research funding contracts in the near term. That leads me to the second strand that I want to pick up: higher and post-16 education.
Ensuring the best possible mathematics education for students post 16 is crucial to strengthening the wider graduate pipeline. Boosting progression to mathematics degrees should be a key part of the Government’s growth strategy, I would suggest. With a sharp drop in UK mathematics undergraduate entrants expected over the next 10 years, from just under 7,100 to just over 5,600 by 2035—that is the forecast difference between 2030 and 2035—we seem to face a crisis in the mathematical pipeline, and that trend particularly affects mid and lower tariff institutions, where it is over three times more likely that students will go on to become teachers post-graduation.
When universities close maths departments, we do not just lose degree places; we lose the next generation of mathematics teachers. Specialist post-16 institutions, such as the Cambridge maths school, which serves many young people in my constituency, are fighting to increase access to science, technology, engineering and maths degrees. They recognise that investment in STEM education is vital to the UK’s future workforce. Through nurturing ambition, particularly among students from disadvantaged or underrepresented backgrounds, they are seeing impressive results, and I would like to share some of those: students with special educational needs and disabilities at the school represent double the national proportion of A-level further mathematics students; 8% of students have an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis compared with around 1% nationally, and those students are predicted to achieve an average grade of A*; and 46% of current year 12 students are female, which is remarkable given the national underrepresentation of women in advanced mathematics.
It is through not just excellent teaching that these young people are excelling, but targeted initiatives for inclusion. Cambridge maths school runs an access and application support programme that funds travel bursaries, test preparation support and interview coaching to remove barriers for disadvantaged students from across the east of England, but that support is precarious without solid Government backing. The disappearance of the pupil premium post 16, the school reports, is a significant oversight at a critical stage of education, particularly in specialist settings. On that basis, might the Government consider the merits of providing some ringfenced funding for access and outreach initiatives to recognise and protect the role of specialist post-16 institutions in driving social mobility and mathematical excellence?
The Campaign for Mathematical Sciences is also working to boost uptake of university mathematics courses through its maths degrees for the future scheme, which is rewarding universities that show genuine commitment to increasing the accessibility of their mathematics courses and those that commit to equipping undergraduates with the flexibility and foundational skills to move into a wide range of future careers. There are grants of up to £500,000, but that on its own will not be enough to support the sector. I hope that the Government will show the same commitment to the future of mathematical sciences that the universities winning those grants are demonstrating.
To move further back in the pipeline, to mathematics in schools, the Government have significantly scaled back the advanced mathematics support programme. In response to my written question, the Minister confirmed that with reduced funding of £8.2 million for 2025-26, the programme must now focus on narrower areas:
“supporting schools with low girls’ progression to level 3 mathematics”,
helping “disadvantaged students” and artificial intelligence-related skills. Although those priorities are extremely important, that nevertheless represents a fundamental reduction from the comprehensive programme that, since 2009, has increased A-level mathematics entries by nearly 40,000. The programme can no longer provide the broad-based support that it once did, and with funding beyond 2026 subject to spending review, there is ongoing uncertainty about its future. Although I understand that it makes the best of difficult circumstances, will the Minister acknowledge that that refocusing represents a significant reduction in our national commitment to mathematics education at precisely the time that we need to be expanding it?
Mathematics teaching is another pressing concern and the forecast decline in undergraduate numbers that I mentioned is even more rapid at mid and lower-tariff institutions. As I have said, those are the ones where it is far more likely that their students will become teachers post-graduation. I declare an interest as a governor of the Cambridge Maths Hub, a group that fosters professional dialogue about mathematics teaching between schools in Cambridgeshire, Peterborough, Norfolk and Suffolk. To quote the hub
“quality teaching is led by expert questioning, predicting, exposing and correcting misconceptions, and designing work that challenges students so they experience success when they apply their knowledge and think mathematically.”
To me and many others, that could be reframed by saying that mathematics teaching is best performed by mathematics graduates.
How will the Government work with universities to ensure that strong mathematics provision continues in every region? Could the Minister outline how mathematics teachers might be prioritised in the strategy to recruit 6,500 new teachers? Beyond that, I hope that the Government will examine what is being studied, as well as schools’ capacity to deliver the education. The current pass rate for GCSE mathematics retakes is one area of concern, with only just over 17% of nearly 200,000 post-16 entrants achieving grade 4 or above.
The Maths Horizons project recently found that 82% of polled teachers think that there is too much content on the national curriculum, and that that is impeding the success of many students. It argues the national curriculum still does not appropriately prioritise “teaching for mastery” and rigour, despite the efforts of the 2014 reforms to key stage 4 mathematics. On that basis, I hope that the Government will consider taking on board the findings of that Maths Horizons project research in its curriculum and assessment review and to find ways to rebalance—not cut down—the mathematics curriculum in schools.
If the UK is to remain a world-beating hub for research, innovation and growth, we must nurture mathematical excellence right from the beginning. The skills of logical reasoning, problem solving and analytical thinking that mathematics develops are not just useful for future mathematicians, but essential for all citizens in an increasingly complex world.
Mathematics is too important to be left to chance or to be treated piecemeal. We need a national strategy for mathematics with a comprehensive approach that recognises the fundamental role of mathematical thinking in everything from personal finance right through to national security, and from healthcare innovation to other areas of science. Such a strategy would co-ordinate efforts across the three areas I have outlined. It would ensure that our research base remains world leading, support our universities to maintain and expand mathematics provision, and give every child the mathematical foundation they need to thrive. It would recognise that mathematical skills are not just about producing more mathematicians, though we do desperately need them, but about maintaining our competitive edge in an increasingly quantitative world.
My asks have been multiple, from strengthening foundational mathematical knowledge in primary and secondary schools and widening access to mathematical sciences courses in universities to funding our research sector for the years to come. The Government must urgently examine every stage of the mathematical skills pipeline in detail and introduce a national strategy for mathematics to secure our future.
The Government have set out ambitious goals for growth, innovation and improved living standards. Mathematics is not just relevant to these aims; it is absolutely integral to them, as I have argued. To achieve growth, we need mathematicians, and for the UK to develop the best mathematicians, the sector needs strategy, investment and sustained attention. That is my conjecture on my imaginary blackboard. I hope I have gone some way to providing the supporting evidence for it, and I hope the Government will take up the challenge of providing the proof.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) for bringing this debate to the House. There may be plenty of things we disagree on, but when it comes to maths, I am sin2θ and he is cos2θ, and together we are at one. There are a lot more of those jokes to come, Mr Vickers.
I am a former maths teacher, I am married to a maths teacher and I am looking forward to the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) commenting on how good the maths teachers are in her constituency. In fact, when I first met my wife—this is a little bit raunchy—I told her she was 1/cos C. Only the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and I will get these jokes, unfortunately; I apologise that my speech is not going to be at the same intellectual level as that of the hon. Gentleman.
I taught secondary school maths in schools across Essex, and the two things students most often asked were a) “When are we going to use this in real life?”, and b) “Will this be on the exam?”. I am genuinely passionate about maths, not because it is on the exam or because there is a problem to be solved, but because maths in itself is a beautiful thing and something that we should enjoy. Those questions were therefore incredibly frustrating.
After part a), they would sometimes add another line: “When will we use this in real life? And don’t say engineering.” I have to say to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire that I was not a maths graduate—I was actually an engineering graduate, but I think he will understand. There is a lot of maths in engineering, and I was wholly qualified to teach it. I genuinely believe that we should love maths and not see it as a challenge to overcome but a tool to help us. I do not want to write a shopping list that says I am buying six apples and five bananas if I can use a and b instead. That is really important.
On part b), one of my favourite things to teach, which is not on the curriculum, is the Fibonacci sequence. When I teach the Fibonacci sequence, I show pupils how that leads on to the golden ratio and how the golden ratio applies in real life to the shape of leaves or seashells, or to the amount of bees that live in a hive. In fact, Liz Hurley can be compared to the golden ratio. On literature, paper sizes are based around the golden ratio. When we read a book, we are likely to find that something significant happens around 61.8% of the way through, because this is a really important ratio. It is not just mathematical—it occurs in real life. I genuinely think that is interesting. I want to emphasise that we have a habit of talking about maths as a kind of challenge—almost a monster in the room—but it is not. It should be seen as our friend.
The question of the role of maths in the UK is substantial, so I have thought about it a little more at the local level as being about the use of maths in Harlow. Hon. Members will be aware that Harlow is the home of Hannah Fry, who shares my passion for mathematics. It is also where George Hockham and Charles Kao invented the fibre-optic cable. It is fair to say that such an invention could not have happened without the use of applied mathematics. In fact, any business, school or organisation in Harlow will rely on maths, whether that is to fill out tax returns or produce wage slips. Maths is absolutely everywhere.
I find that one of the biggest frustrations with maths is that it seems to be acceptable for adults to say, “I’m not very good at maths.” When I was a teacher, some colleagues and senior colleagues said it. In one of the schools I worked at—I will not name which—one of the deputy heads, a fantastic English teacher, proudly said on stage in front of students, “I was never very good at maths.” Imagine the impact that had on young people, who were perhaps already struggling with maths, about the importance of learning it.
I am not saying it is right to criticise people who struggle to read or spell, but I am pretty confident that someone would not say that in the same way they are happy to say that they are not very good at maths. I appreciate I am talking in jest a little, but I hope the Minister will take from my speech the hope that we can challenge that misconception and say that it is important to be able to do maths, as the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire mentioned.
I was not going to be too political, but in preparation for hearing the shadow spokesman claim that we have never had it so good on maths teaching as we did under his Government, I say to him that that is as imaginary as the square root of minus one. I respectfully point out that the number of qualified maths teachers—yes, I am one of them—went down under his Administration. More and more, schools were forced to rely on non-specialists to teach maths. Some did so very successfully, but clearly when it comes to higher-level maths—A-level maths and A-level further maths—we want specialist teachers, even if they are engineering graduates, to tackle that.
I welcome the fact that the Government have started to bring confidence back into the teaching profession and, dare I say, that with today’s announcement, they will also ensure that the young people we teach have full bellies and are able to learn. I will finish on a positive note. As a sci-fi fan, I welcome the fact that, if we ever meet alien life forms, it will be mathematics that serves as our common language.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) on securing this debate. It is heartening to hear about his love of maths as well as the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince).
I have to confess that was not my experience of school. I was at a school which had a quirk: we had to sit maths GCSE twice—once in year 10 and in year 11. Although I can report to the House that I achieved a good grade in both exams, there was a clear narrative: that maths was a difficult subject, and definitely not for everyone. A lack of enthusiasm for the subject certainly pervaded among many of my peers and was allowed to go unchecked within the education system at large. I do not blame only my school for that; I think it was a common thing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow said, we need to challenge that. I have done the best to challenge it with my daughters, the youngest of whom sat her maths GCSE paper yesterday, so we will see whether I have been successful.
We must have an approach that emphasises the critical importance of maths in our primary and secondary education systems and its foundational nature for so many aspects of education and life, and that also encourages a love of maths as part of a love of learning. Maths is key to problem solving and supports logistical reasoning and analytical thinking. It develops flexible thinking and creativity. Mathematical problems often require trying different approaches and tackling a question from multiple angles. Those skills equally apply in arts and the humanities subjects as they do in the maths and sciences. Maths is therefore foundational in building those essential critical skills.
The practical applications of maths matter too. Financial literacy is important for us all. The Education Committee undertook an inquiry into financial literacy in May last year, in the previous Parliament, and recommended expanding financial education at primary level, the appointment of financial education co-ordinators in secondary schools and the provision of high-quality independently provided learning materials in all schools. Budgeting and saving, planning finances for the future, understanding how loans and interest work, and contributing to a pension pot are all skills that every young person should have when they leave school.
Maths is a specialist subject, and we need skilled teachers to deliver interesting and inspiring lessons from reception all the way through to A-levels and on to higher education. There have been real challenges with the recruitment of new maths teachers for a number of years, with just under three quarters of the target of 3,000 teachers recruited for the current academic year. There are so many career opportunities open to graduates with degrees with a strong mathematical component, so it is important that the Department for Education offers strong incentives to train, recruit and retain maths teachers. I welcome the Government’s commitment to delivering an extra 6,500 teachers in England. It is critical that that target includes a good level of new maths teachers, appropriately supported to be recruited and retained within our education system.
I turn briefly to the question of attainment in mathematics. Last year, 65% of pupils achieved a standard pass at grade 4 or above at GCSE in English and maths, but disadvantaged pupils were less likely to meet the expected standard—only 59% of them did so, compared with non-disadvantaged pupils. That means that 35% of young people are routinely not getting a qualification in maths while they are school. That should be a concern to us all. We want every young person to fulfil their potential in maths.
Currently, those who do not achieve a grade 4 or above are expected to resit GCSE maths during their post-16 education. For some students, that means multiple resits of a subject that they have already found challenging for several years at school, and it traps them in a cycle of failure, just at the point where they should be discovering a love of learning and finding their vocation. The Education Committee has been looking at this policy as part of our inquiry on further education and skills, and asking whether that really is the best approach for all young people who do not achieve a grade 4 or above.
For some students who achieve grade 3, the extra work in a new environment that is different from school may help them to successfully resit their maths GCSE, but for others repeated, unsuccessful resits can be demoralising and counterproductive. We have yet to report, so I cannot draw conclusions on behalf of the whole Committee, but we have received quite compelling evidence that embedding practical maths content into the curriculum for the particular subjects needed for the student’s chosen course of study may be a better way to support students on vocational pathways to achieve the level of both English and maths that they will need to apply later on in life, rather than the endless cycle of GCSE maths resits.
Moving beyond GCSEs, it is good to see that maths is the most popular A-level subject, with more than 100,000 entries for A-level maths last year, as well more than 17,000 for further maths. But within those statistics, more work is needed to tackle the gender gap, because just 37% of last year’s maths A-levels were taken by young women, and a mere 27% of last year’s further maths A-levels.
Increasing the number of girls taking maths will help to tackle the gender gap in science, engineering and maths at university and beyond. Having positive role models, and improving understanding of just how many well-paid and rewarding careers are out there, for which maths can help, are definitely two important approaches, but we need to do more. There should be more practical support available in our schools to overcome that gender gap in maths.
Maths is an important component of many STEM degrees and myriad careers. To underpin a high-skill, high-wage economy, we need more young people with a good training in maths. I will end there, but I will just say that the Education Committee looks forward to scrutinising the curriculum and assessment review, and to scrutinising the Government’s recruitment of teachers, and we hope to see good progress in improving maths education and attainment for all pupils, across all our demographics, in every part of the country.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) for securing this debate. Like him, I have a deep affection for maths. In fact, I would probably go further and say that I am a maths nerd. And, like him, I believe that it still influences my thinking now, including here in Parliament. I love maths for its own sake. I was inspired as a child by watching shows such as Johnny Ball’s “Think of a Number”, I was only too happy to get a scientific calculator for my 11th birthday—I am not sure many 11-year-olds would be—and I went on to study maths at university, so I could not pass up the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
Having said that I love maths for its own sake, though, I want to make the case that mathematics does not just contribute to our country in the headline-grabbing ways highlighted by my hon. Friend, such as AI innovation, although those are obviously very important. I believe that having a mathematically literate population can contribute to our society in myriad smaller ways, too, by ensuring that we can all think critically about what we are told, and make better decisions about our own lives.
There is a somewhat old-fashioned idea that, as long as people can work out their change when shopping, that is all the maths they need. It is true that basic numeracy is important, even in a world where we are more likely to wave our cards at a machine than to pay with cash, and where, contrary to teachers’ expectations in the 1980s, most of us do carry calculators around with us. From working out how long it is until the train or bus, or measuring whether that flat-pack furniture will fit in our living rooms before we buy it, to scaling up a cake recipe, there are plenty of ways in which basic arithmetic matters, but I think the importance of mathematics to every one of us goes way beyond that.
In a world where we are bombarded with information and misinformation daily, mathematics is vital to the critical thinking that stops us getting scammed and helps us to make truly informed decisions on matters such as healthcare and our personal finances. I will illustrate that with an example from a few years ago, when the BBC reported:
“Teenagers whose parents smoke are four times more likely to take it up themselves, experts have warned.”
There was an absolute bombardment of people saying that that was rubbish because their parents smoked and they did not, but let us look at the figures. What the article said was that
“4.9% of teenagers whose parents smoke have taken it up too. By contrast, only 1.2% of teenagers whose parents do not smoke begin to do so.”
It was absolutely right to say “four times more likely” but, even with parents who smoke, the vast majority—more than 95%—will not go on to smoke themselves. Those misunderstandings reoccur across many examples of scientific and medical stories in our mainstream press.
If we do not understand numbers, how can we make truly informed decisions about medical treatment? Do we really understand what a one-in-a-thousand risk of a side effect is? What does it mean if a contraceptive is 95% effective? What does it mean, in absolute numbers, for a treatment to carry a 10% increased risk of a type of cancer if the original risk was extremely low, and how does that compare with the risks of not having the treatment?
I think it became evident during the pandemic that people—including some at the highest levels of Government, apparently—did not understand the concept of exponential growth. We heard from Lord Vallance in the covid inquiry that the Prime Minister at the time had been “bamboozled” by graphs. He apparently wrote in his diary:
“Watching the PM get his head round stats is awful. He finds relative and absolute risk almost impossible to understand.”
Most of us will not have to lead the country through a pandemic, thank goodness, but we do need to make decisions about our own lives.
When it comes to school education, I can understand the sentiment of those who wanted to extend maths, but doing another two years of what has already not been working does not make any sense. I would rather see a focus on rebalancing the curriculum to 16, and ensuring that we have specialist maths teachers to deliver that and inspire our young people today.
I often speak on the subject of special educational needs, so before I finish, I will briefly say something about dyscalculia. Schools in England have a responsibility to identify and support students with special educational needs arising from specific learning difficulties, and that includes dyscalculia. But there is no requirement for teachers to learn about it; it is poorly understood and awareness is very low among both professionals and parents. Given that maths is so important to our lives and that dyscalculia is about having difficulty with understanding number-based information, I make a plea that it should be taken more seriously.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) for securing this debate and for the passionate speeches from across the Chamber, which highlighted that maths is not just an academic subject but a fundamental gateway to prosperity, opportunity, and innovation for individuals across the UK.
As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for science, innovation and technology, as the MP for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, I am proud to speak in this debate. I am someone who personally owes a lot to maths: I studied maths at A-level and went on to do a master’s in economic policy. At school, I was proudly somehow the school’s maths champion for two years in a row, but sadly did not quite make the cut for the maths Olympics—[Interruption.] I know.
Maths gave me much more than equations and graphs; it gave me the confidence to tackle problems, persevere through setbacks, and think logically under pressure. My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) beautifully explained how it is really about thinking and how it can help us to logically go through problems. Those skills have stayed with me, from working in the private sector to running my own business, and now in my role in Parliament. Maths has opened doors for me, and such opportunity should be a national priority.
For the Liberal Democrats, ensuring that everyone has access to high-quality maths education is essential for fairness and innovation and for securing our country’s future. It has been a real pleasure to hear from the hon. Members for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) about the importance of that and about upskilling our next generation. I particularly love how the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood talked about encouraging the love of maths and of learning, and about embedding maths into vocational subjects. It is important to look at the Finnish model, which asks how we can apply maths, because there are many ways to learn maths that are important to our everyday lives.
The Liberal Democrats also believe that every young person deserves the opportunity to develop strong maths skills regardless of their background. Maths skills are critical not just for economic growth, but for critical thinking, problem-solving skills and social mobility more broadly. We will champion proper funding for maths education and research as essential pillars of a forward-looking knowledge-based economy.
In my constituency, I see the best of the UK’s maths ecosystem at work. Alongside Rothamsted Research, our globally recognised research hub, are fast-growing local tech businesses. Our schools are working hard to ensure that maths is not just a subject learned in the classroom but a skill that inspires, empowers and prepares young people for life. My hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire talked about the importance of the tech sector, and how Cambridge is No. 1 for science and technology in terms of intensity, as well as the data science that comes out of that.
Coming back to the schools in my constituency, Tring Park school for the performing arts is a vocational school for future performers, but maths is celebrated there as a creative and intellectual pursuit. Pupils compete in math competitions—one may become a future maths champion—and are encouraged to see mathematics as a tool that complements their artistry, as has been mentioned. From subdividing music and choreographing patterns, to developing algorithms in digital art, students are not just taught to do maths; they are taught to be mathematicians.
At Roundwood Park school in Harpenden, maths is one of the most popular A-level subjects, with a thriving enrichment programme that includes university taster days, United Kingdom Mathematics Trust challenges and presentations linking maths to real-world issues such as AI, oncology and environmental economics. Its pupils go on to study maths, economics and engineering at competitive universities, and the curriculum explicitly links abstract thinking to practical application.
Alongside those successes, schools in my constituency tell me that they are struggling to recruit the teachers they need—an issue reflected across the country, as Members on both sides of the Chamber mentioned. For example, St John Lawes school in Harpenden, a high-performing comprehensive, has a fully staffed maths department today, but its headteacher warns that recruiting high-quality staff is becoming harder. To manage, it has invested in platforms such as Dr Frost Maths and Sparx to help to consolidate maths learning, but it knows that that is not a suitable alternative to great teachers. As the hon. Member for Harlow mentioned, there are fantastic maths teachers across Harpenden, so it is vital that we get recruitment right. Those new teachers are the maths teachers of tomorrow.
Nationally, the situation is much more concerning. Although maths remains the most popular A-level, undergraduate numbers are predicted to drop by 20% by 2035, with departments across the country at risk of closure, particularly at lower-tariff universities. Meanwhile, teacher recruitment in maths reached only 63% of its target in 2023-24, and schools nationwide are increasingly reliant on non-specialist teachers. That directly impacts students’ engagement and confidence, and is especially worrying for girls. Despite outperforming boys at GCSE, girls are far less likely to continue maths post 16. According to a 2024 survey from Teach First, more than half of girls lack confidence in maths, compared with 40% of boys. We are losing that diverse talent where we need it most. We urgently need to dismantle those barriers by promoting role models, tackling bias and ensuring that inspiring, qualified teachers are available to every student.
As the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology spokesperson for the Lib Dems, I see the fast-paced change in science and technology, and I believe it is vital that women play a leading role in that future. For many, that will start with maths and science, as the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood highlighted. That is why programmes such as the advanced mathematics support programme are so important, as they have boosted A-level and further maths participation rates, nearly doubling core maths qualifications since 2018. Recent cuts threaten their continued success, however, which is why we want to hear the Minister’s response on those schemes. We should expand them, not scale them back.
The funding shortfalls have broader implications for science and innovation. The UK’s domestic computing capacity has slipped from third to 10th globally, and the Government’s independent review warns that that undermines our global position in science and technology. The decision to shelve the £800 million exascale computer at the University of Edinburgh, crucial for breakthroughs in drug development and clean energy, highlights that worrying trend. I echo the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire about the implications of the real-term cuts to UKRI on the future of maths.
To lead in innovation, green technology and AI, Britain must invest in mathematical sciences. That is why the Liberal Democrats would champion proper funding for maths education and research as an essential pillar of a forward-looking, knowledge-based economy. In 2023 alone, mathematical sciences contributed £495 billion to the UK’s economy. I would love the Minister to outline the funding that is going into supporting maths education and research.
The Liberal Democrats would ensure that maths and STEM teaching reflects the skills children need, including statistics, coding and data science, taught through creativity and critical thinking. We would embed digital and data literacy across the curriculum. We believe in preparing students for a future shaped by AI and new technologies.
Maths is more than just numbers; it underpins critical thinking, innovation and our ability to solve global challenges. Our economic strength, national security and capability to tackle climate change, disease and technological breakthroughs all depend on robust mathematical sciences. Maths also helps to develop the future of each individual.
I wholeheartedly support this debate from my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. If we get this right, maths will not just be our national strength but secure our national future.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) on securing this important debate. We have had some fantastic speeches, and any debate in which Johnny Ball gets a shout-out is a good debate in my view.
Our profession, politics, is awash with mathematical metaphors. Lyndon Johnson famously said that the first rule of democracy is that you have to be able to count. In Westminster, the Treasury is always insisting on making the numbers add up. Lots of junior Ministers who interact with the Treasury and try to get money out of it discover that they get the square root of naff all from those discussions. Occasionally, when I listen to hon. Members who are less concise—they are not in this debate—trouting on in the main Chamber, I am reminded of the space-filling Hilbert curve, which is repetitious and capable of filling an infinite amount of space if left unchecked.
One of my greatest beliefs is in the non-linear nature of innovation. As hon. Members have already alluded to, mathematics is a brilliant example of that. It was never obvious, when the obscure philosophers who became logicians were faffing around with strange upside down a’s and backwards e’s, that they would lay the foundations for the computation that defines our world today.
I read in Quanta magazine that in the ’60s we discovered something that seemed perfectly useless: Penrose tiling—infinitely non-repeating patterns, which are very pretty and obviously totally useless, right? No: they are now used in quantum encryption. We have found a use for that seemingly useless thing.
The same is true of one of the UK’s greatest industrial successes: Arm, which does obscure-seeming work on reduced instruction set computing. What use is that? Why would anyone need a really tiny thing that does not use much power? But we all have mobile phones, and the intellectual property from that bit of Britain’s industrial policy is now in everyone’s pocket, all over the world. Mathematics is hugely important. I completely agree with all hon. Members who have said that.
I have been goaded by the brilliant speech of the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), who said that I would talk about the last Government, and of course I will. It would be inappropriate not to add some numbers to a debate on maths, so what happened to mathematics under the last Government? Let us look at some international comparisons.
In the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study—TIMSS—between 2011 and 2023, England went from 10th in the world to sixth in the world for maths, and from ninth to fifth for science. That is remarkable progress that puts us top in the western world. We are not quite at the level of the Asian people who dominate the table, but we are the best in the west.
I cannot tell hon. Members how Scotland and Wales are doing on that metric because their Governments chose to withdraw from those competitions as they did not like the scrutiny. However, I can give a comparison by stating where those devolved Governments are in the results of the Programme for International Student Assessment. Between 2009 and 2022, England went from 21st to seventh in the world for maths in PISA results, and from 11th to ninth for science. Whereas Wales —where a lot of the reforms that we had in England were avoided for ideological reasons—went from 29th to 27th for maths, and slumped from 21st to 29th for science.
That is part of a wider picture. I encourage everyone to read the brilliant report “Major challenges for education in Wales” by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which points out that the average deprived child in England is now doing as well or better than the average child in Wales. The gap is so big, and the deprivation progress has been so great in England, that the deprived child in England is now in a better position than the average child in Wales. That is an incredible situation.
Looking at the improvement in school attainment by IDACI—income deprivation affecting children index—decile, we see improvement across the income distribution under the last Government, but the biggest improvement in England was in the bottom half of the income distribution. That is true for maths throughout the educational life cycle. Today, 90,000 more children at key stage 2—the end of junior school—meet the expected standard in reading, writing and maths than in 2015-16.
That progress was driven by a number of measures, including our putting in 27,000 extra teachers over our time in government. Over the last Parliament, we increased real-terms per pupil funding by 11%. We brought in things such as maths schools and maths hubs, lots more low-stakes testing—my daughter is about to do the year 4 times tables test—and the key stage 2 tests. All those things, by the way, are still opposed by some people in the trade unions even though the evidence for the effectiveness of low-stakes testing, for example, is so strong. The National Education Union still opposes all forms of testing in primary school—a crazy position that we were right to reject in England.
There has been real progress as a result of those reforms. Although everything in England is far from perfect—there is loads of room for progress and lots of problems to fix—we can see what the alternative is. Where those reforms were not made for ideological reasons because the unions said no to academisation, school choice and school accountability, things got worse. The people who suffered from that ideology were not the rich and those who could afford to go private, but the poorest.
Some of the things being done now in schools are a mistake, such as hammering the budget for the advanced mathematics support programme. As has already been touched on in this debate, and as quite a lot of the people who care most about maths have pointed out, that is a big mistake. Jens Marklof, president of the London Mathematical Society, said that it will harm the chances of children from poorer areas. He said:
“There’s no AI without maths and if the government is really serious about its AI strategy they have to significantly scale up the support for maths education at all levels…The big success of AMSP was to enable kids who went to schools that didn’t offer further maths to give them this opportunity”.
Likewise, Adrian Smith, the Royal Society president, said it is
“spectacularly short-sighted to pull funding from programmes designed to support teachers and schools to deliver better maths provision.”
He also said:
“Our maths education is not up to scratch—too many young people are leaving school without the skills they need for life or the well-paid jobs that will drive economic growth”.
Dan Abramson, the chief executive of U-Maths, the umbrella organisation for university maths schools in England, and a professor of maths at King’s College London, said:
“For the UK to be at the forefront of AI and the data-driven modern economy, we need excellent mathematicians from all backgrounds, and we need more of them—that means more investment, not less”.
We set up the advanced mathematics support programme in 2018 to provide extra maths help to schools, and the Government have now cut it. I think that it is a mistake and I hope that they will look at it again. Unfortunately, that is part of a pattern. The Government have cut support not just for maths, but for physics, computing, Latin, cadets and behaviour hubs. A lot of the things that were doing a lot of good, including for maths, have been axed even though they are very small in the grand scheme of the Department for Education’s £100 billion budget. I hope that the Government will rethink those cuts.
The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire also wanted to talk about the higher education part of the piece. It is very striking that although 50% more people are now doing A-level maths—a great success—and the number of people doing double or triple science at GCSE has more or less doubled, which is great progress, that has not always translated into increases in the number of people doing maths at university. In fact, while there has been about a 20% increase in the total numbers entering HE courses at university since 2018-19, the number going into maths, while marginally up, is broadly flat.
Why is the improvement we are seeing in schools not leading to larger numbers doing maths at university? I am afraid that goes to the heart of the issues with our higher education system more broadly. I understand the logic of why tuition fees were brought in and I accept up to a point the idea of a market in higher education, but it seems to us that that market has gone too far. It is really a pseudo-market, because we rely entirely on young people aged 16 and 17 to drive the allocation of resources into our enormous higher education system.
The gradual move from teaching, or T, grants to a highly fees-based system gives Ministers far less control than they previously had. The Government’s decision last week to further reduce high-cost subject grants—T grants, as they used to be called—by a further 10% in real terms is a mistake in its own right because it hits the subjects such as engineering and science that we need for the future, and gives Ministers less control over what is going on in higher education.
The incentives set up by the pseudo-market in education have led to a great growth in courses that are cheap to provide but do not necessarily give great value to either the student or the taxpayer. We know from the leading work of the Institute for Fiscal Studies that, when we look at the combined perspective of the taxpayer and the student themselves, higher education is not worth it, at least from an economic point of view, for around 30% of those who go into it at the moment,.
Since the work that the IFS did, which is based on those who graduated during the mid-noughties, we have seen the graduate premium decline even further. The marginal students who we have been adding have even lower earnings, so those figures could easily be worse if we were to rerun that analysis now. That needs to be addressed.
There is absolutely sometimes a case for higher education to be simply beautiful—to do theology, art or whatever—and for it not to be of economic value, but we should be clear about when we choose to subsidise that. We should also be clear that things that are highly economically useful, such as mathematics and science, also have intrinsic value. They are also beautiful and there is an intrinsic value to studying them—that is not just the case for some of those things, particularly the creative arts, where we see the great concentration of those who end up with very low earnings and negative returns from an economic point of view.
We need to rethink. We need not just to patch up and mend the existing system, but to fundamentally rethink the incentives that it has set up. We should give ourselves the ability to make sure that we are investing in and driving up the growth of subjects such as mathematics, which are so critical to our future economy and security as a country. I will not go further into it than that, but the issues facing mathematics are, in a sense, part of the wider issues facing higher education. I hope that the Government will move from a patching up and mending attitude to a reformist and overhauling one.
The one thing I want discourage Ministers from doing is something that I am worried will come out of the Government’s curriculum and assessment review. Although I have lots of respect for Becky Francis, who is leading the review, one of the things that Ministers have been very keen to do is say that we need to have lots more time for arts subjects—for fun subjects such as music, drama and dance. That is fine in a sense, but Ministers have to be super clear about how they will find that time, and whether they are going to find it by funding some extra hours in the school day or something, because otherwise it inescapably means less time on other things. One of the good things that has happened, and one of the reasons standards have gone up, is that schools now spend about 13% more time teaching maths than they used to in 2010, so more time is going into this critical subject than was before. If we say that we want to have more time for something else, let us be honest about the trade-offs and what we are going to not do and let us also be honest about the consequences of that.
Chris Vince
This does not have to be a political point, but to answer the question that the hon. Gentleman just posed about where schools find the time: my argument is that maths does not need to be taught in a silo. Many subjects—even creative subjects such as art and music, and certainly design and technology—would include an aspect of maths. For many young people, being able to apply maths in those particular subjects would actually be really useful. Would the hon. Gentleman concede that point at least?
Neil O'Brien
I am happy to agree that we can bring maths into many other things, and that is also a fun way of teaching maths. In return, I put back to the hon. Gentleman that there are limits to that. If we want to have more time for something else, we have to say where it is coming from. The improvement in those international league table rankings that I mentioned has not come about as a result of some sort of magic. It has come about by us spending more time on that, putting more resources into it and making it a priority. Unfortunately, not everything can be a priority. If everything is a priority, then nothing is. The last Government chose to prioritise maths and STEM. I think it was the right decision. One can argue that we should go for a different course, but if we are going to do that, people should be explicit about it and honest about what they are actually going to do.
Let me not turn into the thing that I have already criticised—the space-filling Hilbert curve—and take up endless time in this debate. It has been a hugely important debate with brilliant speeches from lots of Members from across the House. I hope that the Ministers will act on some of the brilliant suggestions that have been made, and that we can further improve math education in this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
It is a real pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the many hon. Members for participating in this debate on an important subject. I am sure that you would agree with me, Mr Vickers, that their enthusiasm and passion means we can rest assured that this all adds up and that there is a level of agreement.
I thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) for securing this important debate and for his optimistic thoughts on mathematics and its being a significant part of our present and future society, especially for our young people, teachers and institutions, as well as economically.
I want to acknowledge what my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) said about maths being a beautiful thing—it is indeed. I enjoyed maths when I was at school and I still do it with my children, helping them through their own education; it is with us everywhere.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for her contribution and wish her daughter every success with her results. I agree that we need to celebrate, encourage and have a love for learning maths.
I will of course attempt to respond to the many areas of the subject that Members have mentioned so far. I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) for speaking so eloquently about the significance of number-based information and how relevant that is for our life in general and for life skills. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) on being a maths champion and on the many points that she raised. I thank all those involved in maths and the teachers in our schools, colleges and universities for doing such an excellent job in teaching our children, our young people and adults about this most important subject.
I do not perceive the debate as contentious. Nobody here today would say that maths is not important, because it absolutely is. We all agree on that. I loved maths when I was at school. It was one of my favourite subjects and it remains so. But why is it so important? It has a critical role to play in the future of the UK economy. Higher levels of achievement are usually associated with higher earnings and productivity, which are a key determining factor of economic growth. There is a strong demand for mathematical skills in the labour market. Such skills can increase individual productivity, earnings and employment opportunities and are important in everyday life and activities.
Many careers require maths skills, which change over time. I think it is safe to say that for most of us in this Chamber, the need for maths when we were starting out was different to the needs for maths today. We only need to mention the words artificial intelligence—it has already been mentioned—to recognise that. Excellence in maths is one of the many skills needed to drive growth in the AI industry, and we want to ensure that all children and young people have the foundational maths knowledge and equal opportunities to progress in their careers. Advanced mathematics underpins the development of cutting edge AI, which the Prime Minister has set out as a key driver in the plan for change, helping to turbocharge growth and boost living standards.
In schools, all key stages play an essential part in maths knowledge. Under the current curriculum, in key stage 1 pupils are taught a basic underpinning of mathematics, ensuring they develop confidence and mental fluency with whole numbers, counting and place value. The principal focus of mathematics teaching in key stage 2 is to ensure that pupils become increasingly fluent with whole numbers and the four operations, including number facts. The percentage of pupils meeting the key stage 2 expected standards in maths in the 2023-24 academic year was 73%.
The programme of study for key stage 3 is organised into apparently distinct domains, but pupils should build on key stage 2 and connections across mathematical ideas to develop fluency, mathematical reasoning and competency in solving increasingly sophisticated problems. The mathematical content set out in the key stage 3 and key stage 4 programmes of study covers a full range of material contained in the GCSE mathematics qualifications. In 2024, 72% of pupils achieved a GCSE grade 9 to 4 in mathematics by the end of key stage 4. I should point out that that is based on the current national curriculum, but there is an ongoing independent curriculum assessment review, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. I welcome the Education Committee’s keen interest in this topic, and I am sure there are many other views as well.
Maths does not stop when someone leaves school. The study of maths post-16 is important to ensure the future workforce is skilled, competitive and productive. Skills developed while studying maths help adults with everyday life. There is an expectation that students will continue to study maths if they need to and, of course, if they choose to. From what I have heard from Members in this room, I am sure we all encourage those students who have an aptitude for maths to continue at A-level and Higher maths.
It is good to know that last year almost 100,000 students took A-level maths, and there was a 20% increase in students of A-level further maths. A-level maths remains the most popular A-level subject, as it has been since 2014. But there will also be those young people who did not get the grades they needed at school. Any young person who has not yet attained GCSE grade 4 in maths must continue to study maths under the maths and English condition of funding.
We support young people who are aged 16 to18 at the start of their apprenticeships to continue to develop vital maths and English skills during their apprenticeships, either through GCSE or functional skills qualifications. Gaining level 2 skills in these areas is important, giving young people the opportunity to progress in life, in learning and in work.
We do not stop with young people either. There are many adults who missed out earlier in life for whatever reason and need the right maths skills or qualifications to get on. Unfortunately, the numbers do not make good reading. Some 8.5 million adults have low maths or English skills, or both. That is why we fund adults aged 19 and above to study maths for free through our essential skills legal entitlements. This allows adults without level 2 maths skills to study high-quality qualifications such as GCSEs and functional skills qualifications and to gain the skills they need to succeed in life.
In 2023-24, we funded more than 100,000 adults to study maths through the legal entitlement. However, the number of adults studying maths has declined in recent years, so it is important to turn that around. Adults undertaking apprenticeships continue to benefit from the job-specific maths and English skills they need to do the job.
Although A-level maths is the single most popular A-level, we are not taking that for granted in our plan for change. We are investing £8.2 million to improve participation in and the teaching of advanced maths. The funding for the advanced maths support programme will support teacher career progression development and student enrichment, with a focus on girls and students from disadvantaged backgrounds, breaking down the barriers to success, so that all young people have the chance to progress to STEM and AI careers in the future.
The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire spoke about long-term investment in mathematics and mathematical science. I would like to talk briefly about the importance of undergraduate-level maths and the significant growth in demand for jobs requiring undergraduate maths skills. We fully recognise the critical importance of sustaining a strong pipeline of mathematics graduates to meet the evolving need of the economy, research and innovation sectors. Maths underpins a wide range of disciplines and industries. Ensuring a steady flow of skilled graduates is essential to maintaining the UK’s global competitiveness, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien).
It is encouraging to see that in 2023-24, 9,105 undergraduates qualified in maths, which is up 2.2% from the previous year, despite that figure being lower than in earlier years. It is also good to note that in 2024 there were more than 55,000 applications to main scheme full-time undergraduate courses in mathematics, an increase of 5.5% from 2023 and 10% from 2019.
Internationally, England has performed well in recent studies. However, there is still work to do and there is a significant difference in performance between different pupil groups, including a gap associated with disadvantage. In 2022, pupils in England achieved a mean PISA mathematics score of 492, which is significantly higher than the OECD average of 472. In 2023, pupils in England performed on average significantly above the TIMSS centre point in mathematics and science in both year 5 and year 9. They also performed significantly above the 2023 international mean in both subjects and in both year groups.
Many Members have talked today about teaching, teaching recruitment and our focus on that area. I will just reassure Members that we remain extremely focused on recruiting teachers, including maths teachers. We have a series of bursaries and scholarships, and we are also focusing on how we retain teachers. We will continue to focus on that, because we recognise that we need to meet that target of 6,500 teachers. I also reassure Members that we have had an increase in the number of teachers of maths at secondary schools and in SEND.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire for securing the debate and for speaking about the importance of maths. I am also grateful to all the other Members who participated in the debate for the significant points that they made. Everyone has made very valuable points about the importance of maths, so I hope that Members are happy that the Government share their views and the concerns they have raised. It is always good to find common ground and consensus across the House on important matters. The steps we have taken underline the importance of maths to individuals, to employers and indeed to the country.
Ian Sollom
I thank the Minister for the Government’s response to this debate and I also thank all the Members who contributed.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) rightly pulled me up on engineering, which I will squeeze into the mathematical sciences, and I apologise. He also shared his love of teaching maths. It was so wonderful to hear his excitement, for example, about communicating the idea of the golden ratio, the beauty of which is everywhere to be seen.
The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) touched on an aspect of financial education that I did not get to, although I would have liked to. She also spoke about those who do not achieve grade 4 and have to go through endless rounds of resits. I could not agree more that getting the teaching of mathematics skills into vocational training will be a much better way forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) spoke eloquently about how we are bombarded with information in the modern world. Understanding numbers is critical for decision making and understanding the world around us. She also touched on dyscalculia, which requires specialist understanding in schools. I look forward to hearing more about the Government’s plans for SEND in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) responded for the Lib Dems today. I, too, congratulate her on being a maths champion. I was not—I never achieved that particular accolade—but I hope that we are all maths champions today.
The spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), shared possibly the most obscure mathematics joke that the House has ever heard. However, his description of Hilbert space was totally apt.
I will wrap up my comments now, so as not to go on infinitely. We have had a really good debate today. It reflects the importance of mathematics to the UK, and long may that contribution continue. I am reassured by some of what the Minister said, but we will continue to scrutinise the Government’s plans as we see them being put into action.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the contribution of maths to the UK.