Social Mobility Commission

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

Our 30 hours’ free childcare offer is available to lone parents, who need to earn only about £6,500 a year to qualify. That is a great opportunity for lone parents to get into the workplace, to start putting some money into the family budget and to get themselves and their families out of the difficult financial situations in which they may find themselves.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

The former commission was valued across the political spectrum for its independent advice. Can the Minister assure us that in contrast to Norwich’s social mobility opportunity board, where a crony has been appointed, he will consider allowing a Select Committee to appoint someone to this public position?

[Mr Goodwill]

I had thought that the hon. Gentleman was better than that. I think we have some great people on the board in Norwich, and I look forward to working with them to provide better opportunities for people in Norwich.

Schools White Paper

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

May I begin by apologising to the Secretary of State? Owing to the reduced speaking time, I shall not be able to make my traditional pop at the Inspiration Trust. I am sure that there will be other opportunities in the future, but I wanted to put that on the record.

Like so many other Members on both sides of the House, and like so many parents and teachers up and down the country, I am baffled by the Government’s policy of forced academisation. Normally, when assessing a new initiative in any policy area, I consider three key questions: what does the consultation say and what are the views of the key stakeholders, what is the evidence for and against the policy, and how will new institutions created by it be held to account?

The answers to those questions are usually quite long and complex, and that is especially true of education, because it is a complex topic and there are many different views, often strongly held. However, in the case of the policy of forced academisation, the answers are not long and complex; they are brutally short and simple. Consultation: none. Evidence: none. Accountability: none. How are we to take this policy seriously? This is the most significant reorganisation of education policy in the United Kingdom since the second world war, and it was not even mentioned in the Conservative party manifesto, written less than a year ago. Was that the result of a deliberate choice to keep it secret from the electorate, or was it made up on the hoof at some point in the last 11 months? Whichever it was, one thing is certain: it has no mandate whatsoever from the public of this country. The White Paper that sets out this policy contains no evidence section to support the proposals it makes. It simply omits that, replacing it with a few cherry-picked, one-off examples that support the policy. Perhaps that omission has been made because the evidence simply does not exist. The fact is that this is just another lurch in an incoherent and unthought-out series of zig-zags on how our children are educated.

Perhaps it is on the question of accountability that this whole policy really shows up the hypocrisy of this Government. We have heard again and again in recent days about how keen they are on “transparency”. We have heard them many times talk about “choice” and “localism”. Yet again this Government say all the right things but do the exact opposite.

The White Paper in effect begins the process of accelerating the handover of the entire state education system to a series of semi-private bodies that are completely unaccountable to parents or the communities in which they reside. Why? Because parents, teachers and communities will no longer have the right to representation on boards of governors. Therefore, I urge the Conservative Members to have the honesty and integrity to put paid to this White Paper. If you do want it, put it in your next general election manifesto and take it to the people—let them decide their children’s future. See if they are as keen to have millions of pounds of public assets handed over to the private sector for next to nothing. No transparency. No choice. Another nail in the coffin of local democracy.

Student Maintenance Grants

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The barrier becomes insurmountable for such young people. I was one of five who all managed to go to university and got grants throughout that time. For my family it would have been impossible for us to access a university education.

Being able to say to worried parents, “Yes, there is some support available. Yes, you will be able to apply for financial help” makes a massive difference to the decisions the family will make. When there is less family support, the financial support offered by a grant becomes a lifeline. Students can of course apply for loans to support them through their course, and many do, but we have to understand that loans are not viewed the same by children from different backgrounds. For families living under the constant threat of debt, for whom life is a continual battle to survive between meagre wage packets, the decision to take out a loan, incurring further debt, is extremely difficult, and often it is one that they just cannot take.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the hon. Lady on that point. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the debt of the poorest 40% of students will increase by £12,500 to £53,500. I do not know where Government Members are coming from, but from my point of view, as someone who came from a working-class background, that would have put me off going to university and it will put off many thousands of other students. The policy is not about social mobility. There is no social justice in it. It is about social cleansing and keeping such students out of university, and it is wrong.

[Carol Monaghan]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman.

There has been some success in widening access, which must be applauded, but there is a danger that the excellent work that has been done will be brutally undone if these grants are scrapped. Last week in a different context I heard a Member on the Government Benches refer to grants as “free money”. Let me be clear: grants are not free money. Grants are paid back. The grant that I received when I was a student was paid back by more than 20 years as a physics teacher. The bursaries provided to student nurses are paid back when they provide vital care in our NHS. The grants paid to students across these isles will be paid back when they take their place as educated contributors to our workforce and to our nations.

In Scotland education has been a key national priority for over 300 years and the Scottish Government’s commitment to our young people is clear. The UK Government have to ask themselves whether they value education and the benefits to society that it brings. Do they value the skills gained by our young people, or is this simply another attack on the most vulnerable?

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Children and Families (Edward Timpson)]

I recall meeting my hon. Friend a few years ago to discuss the benefits derived from the work of Free the Children. It is good to hear that she remains a strong advocate of extracurricular activities that support academic attainment and employability skills and that help children to become active citizens. That is why this year we have invested more than £5 million in building children’s character resilience, including £3.5 million in grants to help organisations across the country, not just in London, to deliver competitive sport, volunteering and social action projects.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

T3. A number of parents whose children attend the Hewett academy in my constituency have made complaints about the implementation of a new uniform policy. At short notice, parents are being told that they must buy a new, full and costly uniform. Children who do not do so have been forced to attend the learning support unit—what is, in effect, an exclusion room. With limited academy accountability, what can Ministers do better to protect parents who cannot afford such upfront costs from their children being punished?

[Nicky Morgan]

I am very happy to look into the individual case, but I am afraid to say that this is about the hon. Gentleman and others yet again putting more barriers in the way of that school dramatically improving. Since 2005—for more than 10 years—the school has been below the national average for five A* to C English and maths GCSEs. It is now an academy and it is sponsored by a trust, which the hon. Gentleman knows has done extremely well for another school, Norwich primary academy, in his constituency. I am happy to look at the individual case, but the hon. Gentleman would do better as the local MP to work with the school to raise the educational attainment of all children.

Education and Adoption Bill

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in favour of my new clauses 4 and 5 and the new clauses and amendments in the names of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns).

We need to make a wealth of important changes to the Bill. It is a great honour to follow excellent contributions from hon. Members who are clearly passionate about educational standards. I do not doubt that the Government share that passion, but the problem is that none of the measures in the Bill will improve those standards. The Bill is based on an overriding assumption that academisation will automatically drive up standards and that the centralisation of power is the way to deliver it. Unfortunately, the Government have been simply unable to evidence that assumption at any stage of this Bill.

As such, the Bill before us today is a missed opportunity—a missed opportunity to address the profound teacher recruitment and retention crisis, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan)outlined, that is predicated on a demoralised, overstretched workforce and a burgeoning young population. It is a missed opportunity to drive up standards in academies where underperformance stubbornly persists—an issue that the Bill inexplicably excludes. It is a missed opportunity to put parents, teachers, assistants and the local school community at the heart of the agenda. That is why Labour Members were disappointed that the Minister refused to take up any of our sensible amendments in Committee, which would have demonstrated a cross-party willingness to drive up educational standards.

Let me explain the contrasting principles behind my new clauses 4 and 5. First, school improvement simply cannot take place without the consultation and involvement of parents, teachers and the school community. Secondly, we must strengthen the accountability system that is, even in its current form, all too lacking, particularly for academy chains.

New clause 5 would place a new duty on the chief inspector of Ofsted to inspect the overall performance of any academy chain to ascertain whether it is carrying out its functions appropriately; and it would give the Secretary of State power to direct the chief inspector to inspect any academy chain and specify which areas need inspecting. That is particularly important for financial stability, where several academy chains such as E-ACT have come unstuck. The new clause, supported by the chief inspector of Ofsted, will go some way towards opening up the accountability system for academy sponsors, which has not caught up with the rapid expansion of academies generally.

The speed at which schools converted into academies or joined multi-academy trusts has increased at a dramatic rate over the past three years. In 2012-13, the Department opened three times as many sponsored academies as in 2011-12, and by December 2014, 3,062 schools had converted to academy status—far in excess of expectations. This, of course, will continue apace under the Bill, as regional school commissioners scrabble to find sponsors in pursuit of centrally set targets.

It is therefore reasonable for systems of accountability to keep pace. That is all the more important because, as we have heard, performance levels among chains still suffer from significant variation. The Sutton Trust concluded in its recent report that the very poor results for pupils of some chains are of urgent concern. These concerns are about what happens not just in the classroom, but in the boardroom. The National Audit Office warned that the inability of Ofsted to inspect academy chains means that there is no independent source of information about the quality of their work, and called on the Government to ensure that the Department has an independent source of information for assessing the quality, capacity and performance of academy sponsors.

The lack of accountability and oversight by an independent body has its consequences—finance, audit and governance systems will suffer without rigorous independent inspections, and in some cases may not exist at all. In particular, the funding arrangements have been found to be open to abuse and conflicts of interests.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Our hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) touched earlier on the issue of transparency. Are you aware of the school in my constituency—the Hewett school, a local authority school—that was handed over to an academy chain called the Inspiration Trust by ministerial fiat against the wishes of the community and the parents of that school? One problem we have with the Inspiration Trust is that it refuses to publish the individual accounts of individual schools. Instead, it simply publishes very basic group accounts. I think there is a concern about conflicts of interests, which are not being highlighted in the way we would like. Will your new clause be able to challenge that and do something about it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman means well, but when he says “your” in the Chamber, he is referring to the Chair, and it is clearly not my new clause, but the new clause of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will rephrase what he said.

[Clive Lewis]

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) is indeed honourable for giving way. I was wondering whether my hon. Friend’s new clause could tackle the issue I raised.

[Louise Haigh]

I am very grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend raises an example—one he has raised on several occasions—that is exactly the kind of example my new clause intends to address.

The Institute of Education reported on the case of the Academy Enterprise Trust, a chain of some 80 academies, which paid nearly £500,000 into the private business interests of trustees and executives, with the payments ranging from project management to consultancy. In all cases, the services had not been put out to competitive tender and the AET’s accounts demonstrated a serious budget deficit.

Trade Union Bill

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I declare my interests: I am sponsored by trade unions—the cleanest money in British politics and far cleaner than on the other side of the House. Does my hon. Friend agree that on Sky News yesterday the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) described elements of the Bill as like something out of Franco’s dictatorship?

[Ms Eagle]

Great minds obviously think alike, and I may well come back to that issue later in my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Like many hon. Friends here tonight, I am proud to declare an interest as a long-standing trade unionist. I would run through the list, but I would probably run out of time as I only have three minutes. One of them is the National Union of Journalists, on whose ethics council I served and which stands up for the basic freedoms necessary for a healthy, functioning democracy.

It is through that prism that I look at the Bill, which cannot be considered in isolation, but must be seen in the context of so many other proposals from this and the previous Government. The list is depressing. Other members have mentioned the gagging Act but, as a former BBC journalist, I am also alarmed to see public broadcasting under attack in favour of its politicised, corporate-owned and Conservative-supporting rivals.

There are the devastating cuts to legal aid and the restrictions on judicial review, undermining the fundamental principle of universal access to the law. The snoopers charter is extending the power of the state to scrutinise us, while our powers to scrutinise the state are watered down by the freedom of information “review”. There is the plan to repeal the Human Rights Act, a great achievement of the last Labour Government. Perhaps most perniciously, there are the fundamental attacks on our democracy: more appointments to the other place, millions disfranchised, and boundaries fixed in favour of this Government’s own party. Quite simply, this Bill is part of the same agenda.

The rights to freedom of assembly, freedom of association and freedom of expression are all enshrined in the convention on human rights, and all are undermined by this Bill. This goes beyond anything proposed in the modern democratic era even by Conservative standards—and they can go quite low. In 1947, Churchill, hardly a militant socialist, acknowledged that

“the right of individual labouring men and women to adjust their wages and conditions by collective bargaining, including the right to strike”

were “pillars” of British life, but today’s Conservative party apparently wants to demolish those pillars. Those who seek justice at work will be tracked and treated like criminals, their social media monitored and their details shared with police. Those who protest will be forced to wear identifying marks and carry letters of authorisation.

[Christian Matheson]

It is sinister.

[Clive Lewis]

Yes, it is sinister.

This is an attack not just on workers’ rights, but on our most basic and fundamental human rights. As Liberty has said:

“Applied to any type of protest these proposals would be a mark of an authoritarian and controlling Government.”

Of course, this Bill does not only pick off individual trade unions; it also attacks the very existence of trade unions. Unsurprisingly, trade union political funding is at the centre of this attack, while the Tories’ millionaire donors are rewarded with seats in the other place.

Not only does this Bill have the wrong answers, but it is not even asking the right questions. It shows that the powerful now wish to hold the powerless to account.

I did not come to this House just to give voice to the voiceless, but also to let them have their own voice, and tonight I shall vote to do exactly that.

Education and Adoption Bill

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

When the Department for Education was asked about quality gradings for academy chains, its response was:

“The disclosure of this information would prejudice or would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.”

The Department does not want any transparency when it comes to judging those academy chains. Why will Ministers not, in this Bill, allow academy chains to be judged like maintained schools?

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. We are talking about taxpayers’ money, so where are the transparency and accountability on expenditure? Why are parents and pupils at failing academy schools less deserving of fast and effective state intervention than those in the maintained sector? The Labour party believes every child should have a good education in every classroom and opposes this ideological protection of certain poorly performing schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and a particular pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who I think kicked this sorry excuse of a Bill into next week.

I congratulate the hon. Members for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) on their maiden speeches today. It’s a lovely feeling when you’ve nailed it—I know what it’s like.

I come to this debate as a governor of Thorpe St Andrew school—an outstanding local authority school; I am very proud of it. I will direct my contribution to the education component of the Bill, starting with what I believe is one of its overarching aims, namely, to build on the work of the Education Act 2011. If that Act could be described as the ignition of an engine to drive the dismantling of our public education system, this Bill is intended to turbocharge it—as the PM might say, “Fire up the Quattro, Nicky!”

In my constituency of Norwich South, the vultures are not just circling in anticipation of the Bill’s passage; they are already hacking away at the juiciest cuts. The Inspiration Trust has its beady eye on the Hewett local authority school and the £60 million of land that it sits on—land that belongs to the people of my city, not to what is little more than a corporation masquerading as a so-called educational charity. A secretive, unaccountable corporation in all but name, it has links to the very heart of this Government in the form of Theodore Agnew—a Conservative party donor and non-executive board member initially at the Department for Education, but now at the Ministry of Justice. I am sure that irony has not been missed by the parents and pupils of Hewett, who have seen little in the way of justice when it comes to having a say in their school’s future. That situation will be faced by many more communities if the Bill is passed in its current form.

In saying that, I recognise that there are good and decent academy chains out there, such as the academies run by the Co-operative Academies Trust, which are genuinely accountable and act in the public interest to improve the education of our children. Alas, the Inspiration Trust is not one of them. The Bill worsens rather than improves the chances of holding it to account.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the other problems with the Bill is the lack of academies and sponsors who are able and willing to take on the number of schools that the Government intend to convert? The Co-operative can take on only so many schools. Is he concerned that the schools he describes in his constituency may have little choice other than to be forcibly taken over by the trust that he mentioned?

[Clive Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes an important and alarming point. Like many other trusts, the Inspiration Trust has already gobbled up tens of millions of pounds worth of public land and buildings and now, emboldened by the Bill, it finds its appetite whetted for yet more pickings.

Last year, using freedom of information requests, an investigation by The Guardian revealed that academy schools have paid millions of taxpayer pounds into the private businesses of directors, trustees and their relatives.

[Rachael Maskell]

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

[Clive Lewis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have heard much discussion from Members on both sides of the House today, and a lot of questions have still not been answered. We are still trying to find out what “coasting schools” actually means. That term is central to the new powers provided in the Bill. Does the Minister not feel that the definition of that term should have been included in the Bill, so that we could be clear about the exact powers that we are voting on?

One of my biggest issues with the Bill is the huge number of powers that are being passed over to the Secretary of State, many of which are to be taken up by the regional schools commissioners, who have performance targets as part of their remit. Is there not a conflict of interest if those commissioners are to be rewarded for academising schools?

[Clive Lewis]

The regional schools commissioners report to the headteacher boards. In my constituency, one person who has been appointed to the headteacher board is Dame Rachel de Souza, who will now be making decisions on which schools will be academised and where there will be free schools. Does my hon. Friend not feel that there is something inherently wrong with that?

[Kate Osamor]

I totally agree, and that is what I want to ask the Minister. Does he not think that such people are wearing two hats, and that there is a grey area that needs more explaining?