Social Mobility

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 28th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Rosindell, to serve under your chairmanship. I apologise to hon. Members for not being here earlier, but I was speaking in the main Chamber in another debate. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), and I was fascinated to hear what she had to say. Her experience was similar to my wife’s experience. She came from a working-class family, and passed the 11-plus. Her parents did not understand what the 11-plus or GCSEs were, but she eventually went to teacher training college and became a teacher. However, she would never have been able to go through college had she not had two things: free tuition and a full grant. She would not have had any income from anywhere, but she received free tuition and a full grant. That was one reason why I spoke in this Room in 1998 to oppose the introduction of fees and charges for students, and the abolition of grants. That remains my position even now. I believe that we should restore free tuition and full grants for students.

I want to talk about the deeper divisions in our society, which I think still exist. The churn in social mobility is within the top 20%, 40% or even 60%. Our society is deeply divided between the elite academic layer and the great mass of people who have no aspiration and very little achievement. If one looks at the OECD statistics for educational achievement, we have the best at the top and the worst at the bottom. Something is profoundly wrong with what we do with our young people in that bottom 10%.

On a recent visit to Denmark with the European Scrutiny Committee, I spoke to politicians and officials about pupils speaking English. We were told that 95% of people in Denmark speak English. One cannot imagine 95% of people in Britain speaking any foreign language, apart from those who have come here from abroad with two languages. There is something different about Britain. I think that there are historic reasons for it, which have, I think, been touched on by George Orwell and other writers. We have preserved in aspic the divisions in our society, which go back to Shakespeare’s time. If we look at “A Midsummer’s Night Dream” and the attitude of the king and others when they are watching the play within a play performed by Bottom, the weaver, we can see that it is a case of, “Let us be nice to the simple folk.” That social division was vast then, but it is still recognisable today. We have not changed as other societies have changed.

I used to work as a research officer for the National and Local Government Officers association and was often trundled out to talk to visiting foreign groups. I was describing British society to some social workers from Hamburg. They were very uncomfortable and said, “By your definition, all Germans are middle class.” That was because their attitude to education and aspiration are so different from ours. They do not have such deep divisions.

I am chair of the all-party group on social science and policy. We recently had a breakfast seminar on social mobility, in which Professor Paul Gregg from Bristol university said that the divisions within our society are still there and that social mobility at the lower level has reduced rather than increased in recent years. I am strongly in favour of making education the best it can be and of ensuring that everyone learns, but there are still attitudinal divisions within our society. The hon. Member for Thurrock told us how her friends said, “Why are you bothering to go to university? Why not stay with us?” My wife had the same pressures. “You don’t want to go to school. You want to come and get a job and get some money in your pocket,” they said, but she said, “No, I want to be a teacher.” She had to fight against the attitude of her social class and family. That attitude was common in those days, and is still there today.

Bryan Gould, who was an MP many years ago, went back to New Zealand because, as he said, he was so depressed about the social divisions in Britain. There was this attitude, he said, that somehow education was “not for the likes of us”. There was deference. Instead of being angry about being in a lower social class, many just accepted their lot. He felt that that was deeply conservative and very depressing.

Clearly, we must have the best possible education. We also need to intervene to try and change our culture, and get it across to young people that the possibilities in life are much greater than the horizons that they are looking at, and that if they do study well at school and have the right education, they can expand their horizons; they can learn a foreign language and know about things.

I have so many anecdotes to tell because I have read about this subject for a long time. In the 1980s, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research did a lot of research on this matter and it had an exchange of teachers between Moscow, in the then Soviet Union, and London. The Russian teachers spoke English and were quite happy to come and teach here. The English teachers could not speak Russian, but they went to teach in Moscow. They came back and said that the standard of education in Moscow was astonishing. They said that the children were doing things at 16 that we do at university. The Russian teachers were asked what they thought about the English pupils. They said, “The children were very nice and we enjoyed teaching them, but they didn’t appear to know anything.” We have had serious problems in our education and in our culture, but people did not seem to worry about it. We have started to do things differently.

The advocacy of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) for the 11-plus and selection is mistaken. They were a social divider, which hived off one in five of the population. In my family, passing the 11-plus and going to university were compulsory. My parents were academics, and therefore it was expected. The thought of failure was unacceptable. That was opposite to my wife’s experience. We can talk about such things.

The 11-plus divided families and friends, and gave people completely different attitudes to life and what they could expect from it. My theory, and it is only a theory, is that that division has rippled forward through generations. Those who went to university from working-class backgrounds became middle class and their children did the same; those who did not do so carried on with working-class culture. That cultural division has remained with us, which is one reason why I so oppose the 11-plus.

[Mark Pawsey]

On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, why has social mobility reduced since the abolition of the 11-plus?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

As I said, I think that the divisions have rippled forward. I think that we have also failed in education. We are addressing the problem now.

Network Rail

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pawsey]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend will expect me to stand up for my constituents who receive a good service. It is very important that we maintain that service, whether or not high-speed eventually takes place.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans referred to the accountability of Network Rail in the costing and management of its projects. Although we have a great new station at Rugby, there are very serious questions about how much it cost to deliver. Some of those questions were aired on the BBC “Panorama” programme on 16 January, when reporters were advised by the Office of Rail Regulation that soaring costs were an oversight, but that it was not possible to determine by how much the project had overspent. Our local newspaper, the Rugby and Lutterworth Observer, spoke to a member of the Rugby rail users group who talked about setbacks in the construction process leading to train services being stopped simply because Network Rail was unable to complete its work on time. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) drew attention to that issue.

We have got a new station, but the second matter regarding the changes at Rugby is the noise nuisance from the new track that has arisen since the works upgrade on the west coast main line. I have met Network Rail staff and approximately 25 residents to try to resolve that matter. In most cases, we are talking about residents who have lived in the area for many years. They had got used to living with the railway before the upgrade and were familiar and comfortable with the noise.

Many of the works that took place in Rugby were intended to enable trains to pass faster through Rugby station. Of course, the faster that trains travel—the higher the speed that they run at—the more noise is generated. In the district of Hillmorton, there are two separate noises: first, the absolute noise that the trains make; and secondly, a distinctive one-off thud is heard each time a train passes. I will come to that in a moment.

On major noise levels, my constituent Peter Bayliss invited me into his garden to listen to the noise. He showed me hand-held sound meter readings of between 89 and 90 dB for trains passing through at great speed. That was not previously a problem because, under the old alignment, trains slowed down to pass through the station. There appears to be no resolution to the issues faced by Mr Bayliss and his neighbours.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The M1 goes through my constituency and I have persuaded the Government to build noise barriers, which have made a considerable difference. Would noise barriers help in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency?

[Mark Pawsey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advice. We are continuing to talk about the problem, but we are effectively being stonewalled by Network Rail.

The thud has been the subject of correspondence between me and Mr Higgins, the chief executive, who has been mentioned. My most recent letter from Mr Higgins in that regard was dated 27 January. I was invited into a resident’s upstairs room, so that I could understand the impact of that noise disturbance. I will not detain hon. Members by telling them which room the lady constituent invited me into, but I was able to hear a very distinctive thud each time a train passed. The lady told me that the noise wakes her regularly in the morning. I use the line regularly, and as a passenger, I can identify the sound. The noise comes from something that I understand is called a switch and cross, which is a device that allows trains to maintain their speed. In his letter, Mr Higgins tells me that there is absolutely no fault with the equipment. That is something my constituents will have to live with.

In both instances, my constituents had come to live with the railway over many years and were comfortable with it. There has now been significant change. I do not think that Network Rail has taken that on board. There is little prospect of remediation for my constituents.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am sorry about that. Another suggestion is a floating slab track, whereby the track is insulated from the source of the noise and the vibration is taken out of the ground. That is another very good method of noise reduction.

[Mark Pawsey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advice and guidance, but I would have hoped that Network Rail would refer those things to me when I presented the problems to it. In each case, neither remedy has been proposed. Network Rail should be more responsive to a broader group of people, not only those who use the railway and its operators, but those who live by it. As a result of the improvements to the west coast main line, those people have had their quality of life significantly impaired.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South referred to his enthusiasm for HS2. Those who live close to the line or who are disrupted by the building of high-speed rail will be massively compensated for the disturbance and there will be all sorts of remedial measures. Unfortunately, I am talking about an upgrade to an existing line and my constituents will not receive those benefits.

The third issue that I should like to raise is access to the west coast main line during construction of the Rugby western relief road by Warwickshire county council. That long-awaited road, which was designed to relieve traffic pressure in our town centre, eventually opened to traffic on 10 September 2010. The works required the demolition of a road bridge at Parkfield road and the construction of a new bridge on a different alignment. For a variety of reasons, the history of that road’s development shows that it was not a successful project. The costs rose from the original estimate of £36.5 million to a final out-turn of around £60 million, with a substantial delay in delivery.

A report prepared by the county council draws attention to the reasons for both the increased cost and the delay. A substantial reason given was that problems arose in gaining access to Network Rail land to get necessary works done. There was some difficulty in getting—again, this is a technical term—forms A and B approved by Network Rail. That led to uncertainty in predicting when certain works could start, which, in isolation, added a cost of £2.3 million to the project. In addition, the reprogramming of some work in the diversion of a 25 kV power supply added £635,000 to the project.

The entire issue was the subject of a letter from the leader of Warwickshire county council to the then Secretary of State for Transport dated 5 September 2011. That letter refers to the need for a works agreement with Network Rail before any work can be carried out and to the delays in getting that agreement. I understand that a template is being negotiated by the County Surveyors Society. In this instance, gaps have been left that have led in turn to issues of contention.

The problem is that Warwickshire county council felt obliged to accept the terms imposed on it by Network Rail, which was the dominant partner in the arrangement. The county council certainly believes that Network Rail was less than constructive in enabling the bringing forward of a project that would give broader economic and community benefits. The county council has called for a review to establish more equitable terms, with regard to the wider public interest. Will the Minister comment on that? I raise the point today to support such a review.

Rail connections are very important in my constituency and, as we have heard, in the whole country. We clearly need efficient management of our track. I hope that the issues raised today will lead to improvements in how we operate and maintain this essential public service.