Adult Literacy and Numeracy

Debate between Brian Binley and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I was teaching in Britain, where of course 1,000 million makes 1 billion—let us get that straight from the beginning.

I met Lord Moser recently at a reception in the House of Lords. He is an elderly man now, but he still despairs of the problem of adult innumeracy. Adults are bamboozled by politicians because we throw numbers about all the time—all parties do it. A Front Bench spokesperson can say, “We are going to spend £20 million extra on the national health service.” Twenty million pounds is absolutely nothing in the scheme of things in public expenditure, but £20 billion is a significant amount. Politicians constantly bamboozle the electorate, knowing that they can be not very sophisticated at handling such numbers.

I used to teach elementary statistics to A-level students studying sociology. I used to do simple sums with square numbers to find the square root. For example, the square root of 100 is 10—that is quite easy. When one of my students said that nine times nine was 89 and 10 times 10 was 110, I realised there was a problem. I have another anecdote. The daughter of a good friend of mine wanted to be a nurse. She had various O-levels, so I said, “Why can’t you be a nurse?” She said, “I can’t pass O-level maths.” I asked her why not. She said that she could not do multiplication because she had never been taught it—imagine that.

We have to go back to a philosophy of education and teaching that was utterly misguided. My wife and my brother are both primary school teachers. In the 1960s, 1970s and, to a certain extent, the 1980s, rote learning of tables was regarded as anathema—absolutely forbidden. Complete and total nonsense. Of course, I angered many of my good friends on the left who thought I was some sort of authoritarian, because I thought that learning tables was a good idea so that people knew that 12 times 12 was 144—elementary stuff.

When I first entered the House in 1997, I raised this issue with the then Schools Minister, Stephen Byers. I said that we had to look at teaching methods and the interface between teachers and pupils, particularly in primary schools so that pupils learn numeracy properly at the beginning. He said, “Oh no, that would be too prescriptive.” Sometimes we have to be prescriptive. We have to say that some things work and some things do not work. Let us look at other countries where numeracy is better.

The international comparison table published in The Independent yesterday showed that we are slipping down the table, and that 16 to 24-year-olds are actually worse than the previous generation. We are now quite low down the table, which is very worrying. If we are to produce the engineers and the skills we need for the future, we have to address numeracy problems. Governments have to look at what works and try to ensure that that is what is applied in schools. It is not enough to reorganise institutions—creating academies and free schools and so on. We have to look at what is happening in the classroom at every state school, because we have a problem.

[Mr Binley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I will refer to as my hon. Friend, because he is a friend. I am delighted that he is speaking so passionately from such an informed background—it is very helpful. I wonder whether we have enough of a joined-up approach to adult illiteracy and innumeracy. I also wonder whether we use our libraries enough, and whether the Minister ought to be thinking about using such facilities and giving them a new lease of life.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention.

We should try to have one-to-one teaching for adults with numeracy problems. I have done some coaching and have found that it is often the simple things that fox people. Not everybody is gifted at mathematics, but sometimes people are puzzled because they do not realise that a division sum can be expressed in different ways: by having one number over another, or by having two dots on either side of a line. People get confused, but it all means the same thing. How many times does 10 go into 100? Whichever way we write it down, it will always be 10. We have to have one-to-one tuition. During my coaching and teaching I have seen the light that appears in people’s eyes when they understand something that has mystified them all their lives.

We have to look at what happens in the classroom between the teacher and the pupil. We have to ensure that teachers in primary schools are comfortable with mathematics, can handle numbers and feel at ease with them. A deeply worrying statistic from 40 or 50 years ago was that 60% of primary school teachers had failed O-level maths. I am not saying that O-level maths is the acme of success, but it showed that they were uncomfortable with the subject. If teachers are uncomfortable with the subject, having them introduce children to mathematics is not a sensible way to proceed.

It is clear from the statistics published yesterday, and from the Moser report some time ago, that we still have a problem. We are slipping down the league table and Lord Moser still has concerns. I hope that the Government, whoever is in office, address this problem by looking at teaching methods and finding out what works. We need to ensure that the next generation of children do not become innumerate like so many adults today.

Network Rail

Debate between Brian Binley and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and of course that includes paying for the bloated, self-interested mass of people at the heart of Network Rail.

I like to think that David Higgins is possibly the right man for the job in the appalling organisation we have, but he has a difficult job at the moment. During the time in question there have been the accidents at Grayrigg, Potters Bar and Hatfield. There has been pressure for prosecutions, but Network Rail has constantly said “Not our fault.” It has tried to escape and avoid blame. As to the recent accidents on level crossings, it is interesting that just in the past couple of weeks David Higgins personally apologised to the parents of the two girls who were killed. That is a different attitude from that of previous Network Rail management.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

I do not quite have the same memories as the hon. Gentleman of British Rail, but I shall let that go and take up a more positive point, about the role of the regulator. We have got that totally wrong. It is ineffective. Is not that where we need action to help David Higgins?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

That is another point I was going to make: regulation. At the time when Tom Winsor left the Office of the Rail Regulator, there was talk in Government circles, which leaked out, that the Government—the Treasury and, indeed, the Department for Transport—wanted light-touch regulation. They did not want the ORR to regulate too hard, because that might damage profits. It might make privatisation less popular. If a regulator of any kind is told “Light-touch regulation”, they will either go along with it and take the money, or say “I am not going to be blamed for things that go wrong,” and stand down and do something else. I suspect that that might have been the case with Tom Winsor, but there we are.

The Government must take hold of the matter. The speech today by the hon. Member for St Albans has started, I hope, to move the tectonic plates. Governments and Network Rail management have refused for years to face the problems, and the costs have been massive. If the Government want to save money, one way to do it would be by sorting out Network Rail. I suggest that they should first make it a proper public corporation again: one that is transparent and accountable—ultimately to Parliament through the Secretary of State—and subject to freedom of information inspection. There are inherent problems of cost, but those are caused by the contracting culture. Track maintenance was taken in-house when it became incredibly costly. Time and again I raised with the Secretary of State, under the previous Government, the question why track maintenance costs are four or five times higher than they were in British Rail’s day. The simple answer was that it was about contracting. There was contracting, subcontracting and sub-subcontracting. There were costs at every level whenever the work was contracted out, and of course there were project managers and lawyers negotiating contracts at every level. People were filling their pockets with public money.

British Rail directly employed its own staff at every level, from the engineers who designed and controlled the work to the track layers at the grassroots level. They were all employed in particular areas, so that they had possession and ownership of their own area of track. If things went wrong, it was the engineer’s fault. He was permanently employed and he was accountable. He knew that his life was in the railway industry being employed by British Rail and he had to get it right. In the case of subcontracted staff, perhaps from overseas—they might have signed on as subcontracted staff or contract staff from elsewhere—they disappear after the work is done. Nobody knows who has done the work, and of course there is no sense of accountability and no sense of loyalty. They are just doing a job for the money. That is quite different from the type of attitude that British Rail engineers had. They believed in railways and they were passionate about their work.

There are still many of those BR engineers about today, but they are being abused and rubbished by this appalling organisation called Network Rail, where they are employed as consultants. Network Rail has to depend on them, because they are the only people who know how to do the job, but Network Rail does not inspire loyalty and commitment to the industry. People love railways—I love railways—and when they work inside the industry, they devote their lives to it. It is like loving a work of art. They have those attitudes, which is exactly what we want. We want people back in the industry who are permanently employed, who are responsible for sections of track—their track, and if it goes wrong, it is their fault and they feel totally responsible.

We have an expensive operation. Some years ago, the Department of Transport held an internal seminar on project management and its costs. It invited Don Heath, the manager who had been the guiding light and chief engineer in charge of the east coast main line modernisation and electrification, and it called in the west coast main line privateers. Don Heath was asked how much of his total budget was spent on project management, and he said 1%. The privateers were asked how much of their budget was spent on project management, and they said 50%. It was 50 times more. Direct employment by a dedicated engineer working for BR compared with a mass of private companies and subcontractors speaks for itself.

We want the direct employment of engineers; engineers in charge; engineers who care about the railways; and engineers who are permanently employed and have a life in the railway industry and believe in it. We want committed and responsible people in charge, not fly-by-night subcontractors.

I must not take too long, but I want to raise a few more issues before I finish. I put down an early-day motion a year ago to register my opposition to the use of agency and subcontracted labour. My EDM is quoted in our debate papers. It stated:

“further notes research undertaken by the RMT union and academics demonstrating that the complex network of contractors and subcontractors means there are tens of thousands of rail workers employed by a multitude of companies undertaking renewals and that substantial savings could be achieved if renewals were instead carried out in-house as was the case before railway privatisation”.

I made that point a year ago, and it is still true today.

The Office of Rail Regulation has recently found that Network Rail is in breach of its licence and that

“major asset failures, congested routes and poor management of track condition”

contributed to poor performance of the rail network in 2011.

Standardisation has collapsed as a result of the fragmentation of the railway industry. We have chaotic technical standards imposing massive costs and building up problems for the future. We have trackside land reserves being sold off—asset-stripped for profit—so track is no longer accessible for essential repair work, because the land alongside the track has been sold off. We have blue-sky contracts being issued whereby contractors are paid according to emerging costs. In other words, they can charge what they like; we will just pay the bill at the end of the day. All this needs fundamental change. With the right people at every level in the industry, we can do that, but it depends on Ministers, on Government and on the Department for Transport taking hold of Network Rail and transforming it into something that is fit for purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, newly come as you are. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on obtaining the debate and on her speech. As many contributors have said, this is a vital debate. I hope that many of her comments will be recognised by the Minister and acted upon, because action is needed.

I pay tribute to those hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. By the nature of their contributions, I know that they take the subject seriously. I want especially to congratulate the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who has a long interest, massive enthusiasm and great knowledge of the subject. It is always a pleasure to listen to him, because he always speaks in such a friendly and good manner, which is a lesson to us all. I welcome this opportunity to discuss Network Rail, which is vital to the nation’s economy and well-being. That underlines the importance of the debate.

I declare an interest as chairman of the Northampton rail users group. Consequently, I will contain my remarks to issues specifically affecting my constituency. On that basis, I wish to explore three themes: the factors that make rail travel from Northampton increasingly unbearable, the urgency with which the rail industry must get a grip on its cost base—a matter that has been mentioned on a number of occasions—and the pressing issue of capacity and the need to face up to what must be done to relieve that pressure, especially for my constituents in Northampton South.

That leads me to the west coast main line, which is the nation’s most important rail artery and has the ability, given supplementation, to add enormously to our economic well-being, especially in Manchester, Leeds and the areas north of Birmingham. The current daily capacity crunch is intolerable for the west coast main line’s users and will become increasingly so as the months and years go by. Network Rail’s most recent assessment is that the line will be full to capacity by 2024. Some expert railwaymen—a number of whom sit on my rail users group, I am pleased to say—would argue that that capacity might be reached quite a bit earlier. So we are talking about an important matter.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman is again making a very effective speech. Two possibilities could alleviate the problem of capacity on the west coast main line fairly quickly: we could develop and improve the line from Paddington to Birmingham Snow Hill to make it an express route, and we could develop a dedicated freight line to free up the west coast main line for more passenger traffic.

[Mr Binley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, which I am sure the Minister has noted. My particular favourite is to ensure that High Speed 2 comes into being and is taken further, to Manchester and Leeds, because there is no doubt that transport systems cannot operate efficiently under the current pressures. That is one reason why we have the problems that we do, and it is one reason why the track is constantly in need of maintenance and repair, which makes the hold-ups even worse. We simply have to relieve that pressure. That is why I am a major supporter of High Speed 2. I argue that we should do our best to bring it forward as quickly as possible. I do not want to see High Speed 2 up and operating in 2030; I would much rather hear the Minister say, “We can make a target of 2024.” If the Chinese can put up a hotel in 14 days, we can do a little better than 2030.

I pay tribute to London Midland, because it has achieved a modicum of success, but that needs to be seen alongside the pressure. I feel for London Midland. I think it has many faults, but it is battling against a difficult situation. I make the point again that Rugby has been a problem in recent months. Rail travellers hate to get off at Northampton to circumvent Rugby by bus or, equally, to circumvent Milton Keynes going the other way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Binley]

Of course, that is right, but because Network Rail is a monopoly in some respects, it needs the Government and the regulator to be its friend and ensure that it operates competitively, but we know from McNulty that it does not. McNulty has also said that there is a subsidy of 31p per passenger kilometre at present, so there is 30% more cost and 31% subsidy. What would happen if those costs were reduced? In addition to the taxpayer and the consumer, there is a third factor in cost setting and cost payment—the train operators. Let a message go out loud and clear that they have a duty and a responsibility to care for their customers in a much more efficient way than at present.

I am concerned about Network Rail’s supply chains and the way in which it bids for jobs. When I was a managing director and wanted to get work done for my business, I would talk to a number of suppliers and ask, “What’s the best way of doing this? How do I achieve the most efficient answer for this job at the most efficient cost?” Are Members aware that Network Rail does not do that? It decides internally what it wants done and then goes to people to tender on the basis of its own decisions about how best to undertake the job. We have talked about the quality of middle management in Network Rail. No wonder that costs are so high when middle management is poor and does not even look for ways to be more efficient by talking to suppliers who know what they are doing in relation to a given task.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman is making yet another strong point. One of the problems in Network Rail is that contractors are required to work rigidly to specifications, even when those specifications are wrong. In British Rail’s day, the engineers locally would find out whether things were wrong and correct them as they went along.

[Mr Binley]

The hon. Gentleman talks some truth. I have never known a business man say that he wants an end product, only to ignore the supplier and say, “I’m not bothered about what you tell me is the efficient way to do it. This is how we are going to do it, because we know best.” But we do not know best—that is the reason why I would get a supplier in the first place.