Further Education

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

The question we should be asking is: what will be the cost of these cuts? People will be getting lower-paid, lower-skilled jobs and drawing down on the state for longer periods of time.

There is excellent sixth-form provision in Greater Manchester, my own area, which is currently undergoing an area review. Winstanley College in Wigan and Loreto College in Manchester provide some of the best value-added in the country, and they outperform schools in getting kids from all backgrounds the highest grades in A-levels. I am sure that Conservative Members would be appalled to think their local sixth-form colleges could be under threat, but this is the reality in other parts of the country. Further massive reductions in funding will result in good sixth-form colleges and good school sixth forms closing. The 25% cut that the Chancellor has asked the Secretary of State’s Department to find is equivalent to the loss of half of all sixth-form colleges and one third of FE colleges.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that FE colleges are further disadvantaged in that they have to pay VAT, whereas free schools and sixth forms do not?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point; she is absolutely right.

Trade Union Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps it is because Conservative Members fear the inevitable visit of three ghosts on Christmas eve.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Electoral Reform Services, which has run more than 2,000 ballots, that there has not been a single security breach in all those ballots and that, therefore, it is a very secure mechanism?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree, and that evidence came out in Committee.

Workplace balloting is an available secure option that increases democracy in the workplace. The 1992 Act already permits workplace ballots to be used for statutory recognition ballots, under schedule Al. Workplace ballots of that nature are secure and overseen by qualified independent persons, usually Electoral Reform Services. The individuals and balloting agencies permitted to act in statutory recognition ballots are generally the same as those who act as scrutineers in industrial action ballots and other statutory union elections and ballots.

An analysis of Central Arbitration Committee reports indicates that turnout tends to be significantly higher in ballots where all workers voted in the workplace. Average turnout was 88%, and in combination ballots average turnout was 86.9%. The average turnout in postal-only ballots was 71.6 %. According to the TUC, there is no evidence that workers feel intimidated into voting a particular way when ballots take place in the workplace. Of the complaints that the CAC was asked to decide on, five were made by unions and one by an employer. None of the complaints was upheld.

We are told that electronic voting is not safe. Thousands of private sector, voluntary and political organisations use electronic voting every year. Electoral Reform Services alone manages more than 2,000 annually, and its report concludes that online voting is no less secure than postal balloting. It says:

“There are risks associated with electronic voting but these are essentially similar to the risks associated with any secure electronic process. Many of the risks are also of the same nature as the risks related to postal voting”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I understand the basis on which, under our law, it has, for more than 100 years, been possible to undertake industrial action lawfully. The hon. and learned Lady may well know that it was a judgment in the part of the world that I represent—along with my hon. Friends the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and for Cardiff Central—that, more than 100 years ago, led to the requirement for changes to ensure that, as in any civilised democratic society, working people had the right to withdraw their labour if they were involved in a trade dispute. I hope the hon. and learned Lady is not suggesting in any way, shape or form that there should not be that right. As I said earlier, if she was serious about wanting more people to be involved in decisions around trade disputes—in balloting and so on—she would support our new clauses and amendments, which allow for workplace balloting and e-balloting, and easier access to democracy for the people she purports to speak about.

[Rachael Maskell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that having facility time improves industrial relations in the workplace and therefore lessens industrial action?

[Kevin Brennan]

I agree; there is plenty of evidence that it saves money and facilitates good industrial relations. It is draconian and illiberal of the Government to interfere in voluntary agreements between employers and employees by means of central diktat in this way, and as regards their reputation, I believe that they will live to regret that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

It is entirely appropriate from time to time for payroll to be used in this way. Often, members pay into a credit union through their payroll. These things should be encouraged; they are very good for industrial relations.

This ban was not included in the Conservative manifesto or the Queen’s Speech, and no reference was made to it in any of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consultations or the Department’s impact assessment. As we have heard, there have been concerns among Government Members about this move as well. It is almost universally opposed, except by the TaxPayers Alliance, known colloquially as the tax-dodgers alliance, which gave evidence during the oral evidence stage.

In pressing ahead, the Government have failed to secure substantial employer support for their proposals, with many employers, particularly in local government and the health sector, having expressed concern that they could undermine positive industrial relations, which are vital for the delivery of quality public services. Is it any wonder that that is the case, given that employers and trade unions were not consulted? We believe these provisions are unnecessary and draconian, and I give notice that we may wish to press amendment 9 to a vote later—for some strange parliamentary reason, it does not come at this knife.

[Rachael Maskell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this further complicates the situation in the health environment when people pay not only a levy for the industrial support of a trade union, but a professional levy that goes towards the professional support they have with their work?

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend highlights the lack of thought, consultation and proper scrutiny that has gone into this proposal. It is unravelling by the minute as hon. Members bring their expertise to bear on the implications that it has out there in the real world.

Let me draw attention to some of the other amendments in this group. The Scottish National party has tabled a raft of amendments, some of which were moved in Committee. I understand that the SNP may wish to divide the House on new clause 2, which is in the spirit of our new clauses 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Given the time available, if the SNP does that, we will support it in lieu of our new clauses—the same applies in respect of new clause 10. At this point, I should allow somebody else an opportunity.

[Lucy Frazer]

Trade unions play an important role in protecting the rights of employees: through their collective power, they have the ability to balance the scales against an employer, who invariably has greater economic and social power than the employees in its workforce. Last week, I met a few trade union officials from my constituency, and was struck by the passion and desire they have to do their job in representing others. But therein lies the crux of this legislation: it is a union’s job to represent its workforce, so its actions must represent their wishes. It is important that when a union has the power to bring a school, hospital or factory to a temporary standstill, its actions actually reflect the will of its members. I say that for three reasons.

[Rachael Maskell]

rose—

[Lucy Frazer]

I ask the hon. Lady to let me develop my argument a little further. First, those who suffer most in a strike are not the employees or employers but the public. The employees do not suffer, because any loss of income from the strike may well be covered by the union. The employers of the large concern do not suffer, because they will be paid their salary in any event. It is the public, and only the public, who suffer, first as the consumer and later, when the bill comes in, as the taxpayer. The public end up picking up the tab for both sides.

In the winter of discontent, the main victims of the low pay offensive in the public service were the old, the sick, the bereaved, children and the poor. It is not only this Government who have made the point that it is right that action by a trade union should reflect the mood of its members. The need for democratic accountability by the union was also recognised by the Labour Government. Their White Paper in 1998 entitled “Fairness at Work” specifically drew attention to the need for accountability:

“Laws on picketing, on ballots before industrial action and for increasing democratic accountability in trade unions have all helped to improve employment relations. They will stay.”

It is for that reason that it is right that these measures, which are right as a matter of principle, should apply to the whole of the UK .

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I fully accept that. If we want to talk about productivity, we need to look at that, instead of trying to highlight something that is not really a problem.

[Rachael Maskell]

Days have been lost through industrial action because the negotiators, whether that is the Mayor of London or the Secretary of State for Health, refused to come to the negotiating table, refused to talk to the trade unions, and have been spoiling for a strike, as we are seeing now over the junior doctors contract. Surely the Bill should be about improved industrial relations which give a voice to working people, as opposed to crushing that voice.

[Ian Lavery]

I entirely agree. As I said earlier, does anybody want this Bill? Has anybody asked for it? Even some of the major Tory party donors have said it is purely union-bashing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said, and he was absolutely right, that is what Tories do. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Why is it only trade unions that are being singled out in this way? I think we explored some of the reasons earlier in this afternoon’s debate.

New clause 1, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and his colleagues, is similar to the new clause 12 we tabled in Committee. It would insert in the Bill a ban on the supply of agency workers during industrial action. As we know, the Government are planning to remove the ban on agencies knowingly supplying agency workers to replace striking workers. Kate Shoesmith, the head of policy at the Recruitment & Employment Confederation, which has nearly 3,500 corporate members, has said:

“We are not convinced that putting agencies and temporary workers into the middle of difficult industrial relations situations is a good idea for agencies, workers or their clients.”

The CIPD, the professional body for HR, which has about 140,000 members, warned that the Government’s plans to reform trade union laws are “an outdated response”, given the challenges employers face today.

[Rachael Maskell]

In the dispute at Northampton hospital, the pathologists were locked out of the lab and the trust brought in agency workers. That escalated risk to such an extent that samples were not able to be used for testing. Is it not the case that agency workers can make things far worse rather than better?

[Kevin Brennan]

They can make matters far worse. When we look at this proposal alongside clause 7, it becomes clear that the introduction of an extended notice period is there to give the employer additional time to organise agency workers to undermine the industrial action, as well as to be able to prepare for legal challenges. My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: this is bad for safety and bad for service users, and bad because it could serve to prolong industrial action unnecessarily. It will also be bad for the general public. Conservative Members ought to care about the fact that it will also be bad for social cohesion in this country. Presumably, as a next step the Government will be getting the Department for Work and Pensions to sanction the unemployed for refusing to act as strike breakers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

Many of the arrangements are contractual, so removing them would cost the employer a significant amount, estimated to be around £6 million.

[Kevin Brennan]

So much for the party of business, imposing costs on businesses that have entered into voluntary agreements.

I hope the hon. Member for Stafford will seek to divide the House on his amendment, which is thoughtful and moderate, rather like the hon. Gentleman himself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I do not believe that the wearing of a badge or armband, or some other means of identification, is onerous in the way that the hon. Lady suggests. In fact, it is something that unions widely do already as part of the code on picketing, which actually says that everybody should wear an armband.

I must admit that in Committee I was somewhat bemused by this part of the argument and the briefs provided by Amnesty International and Liberty in the evidence that was given. Both are excellent human rights organisations that undertake extremely important work around the world dealing with executions and torture, yet the wearing of an armband by one person so that they are identifiable during a strike presents them with a big issue. I do not agree. We are not asking everybody taking part in a strike to wear an armband, but simply asking the organiser of a particular event to do so in order to identify themselves.

[Rachael Maskell]

rose—

[Victoria Prentis]

I am going to finish, if I may.

This seems to be an entirely reasonable and, more importantly, proportionate measure. There is a clear public interest in ensuring that trade unions take responsibility for the conduct of the pickets that they organise. It is only fair that the rights of those who belong to unions are balanced with the rights of hard-working taxpayers, including those in my constituency, who rely on key public services.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Edward Timpson]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the already impressive impact the adoption support fund has had on helping families trying to care for some of the most vulnerable children in our society. It is clear that such a positive approach across the board will help many other families struggling in similar circumstances to bring about those excellent outcomes. The special guardianship review, which is under way, and the improvements to social work reform will help to deliver better pre- and post-placement support for all those children who need it.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

At my last surgery I had two families who were taking on kinship responsibilities. They have less ongoing support than adoptive parents. Will the Government ensure that they get support equal to that which adoptive parents receive?

[Edward Timpson]

In the previous answer, on the support that we have offered on adoption, I touched on some of the other support that is available to kinship carers in their own local authority area. That is why through Ofsted inspections of local authorities and through the family and friends statutory guidance we have made sure that there is a greater emphasis on the support that we know works for kinship carers. More importantly, the announcement on shared parental leave will help many of those families who have a grandparent who works and who is helping with childcare, by providing the flexibility they need to have a much better balance between having a family and having good childcare in place.

Trade Union Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am proud to declare that I am a trade unionist and was an official of Unite for 17 years before coming here. I rise to oppose this anti-trade union Bill. Should we be surprised by it, for have not the powerful always sought to take power from those people who get on and build our country? I refer to those people working in our services and in our public sector, and those who are in the engine room of driving up productivity and building our economy. The trade union movement has seen inequality throughout the past 200 years, and today men and women experience it daily. Against this adversary—against the crushing hand of bad employers or the state—men and women have organised, and nothing will stop their spirit in fighting for justice and making sure that they have better rights for the future.

This Bill sets out to rob these people of those basic human rights, making it almost impossible for workers to exercise their right to take action, as detailed ballots are already so difficult to implement. From talking to so many employers, particularly in the public sector, I know how they struggle to implement the current legislation on industrial ballots. One employer has 250 workplaces and has to know the jobs taking place in them and the grades involved. Obviously, as they do not know where their staff are, they struggle with the legislation. The Government are now introducing more bureaucracy for employers, wasting more of the employers’ resources. The advanced details that the Bill introduces deal with things such as the dispute plan, which interrupts industrial relations. That should be the subject we are debating today: how we create good industrial relations, and how we resolve the disputes and solve the real challenges facing workers at this time.

I wish to talk briefly about responsibility in industrial action. Last year, NHS staff raised a dispute about their pay, having experienced a 15% real-terms pay cut while managers had had an 11% pay increase over the past six years. The dispute was registered. Time and again, we wrote to the Secretary of State, asking him for a meeting. We had a string of solutions to offer, but he refused to meet us. He was spoiling for a ballot and industrial action when we could have resolved the issue around the table. Nine months later, after a day of action, he conceded. We have more days of strike action in the public sector, because the Government are using it as a tool against workers. But workers are responsible; they stand up for their rights and they always will. This piece of legislation should be ditched, so that it will not harm our members.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the number of teachers in training.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)]

Teaching is an increasingly popular career choice for the best and brightest. Some 73% of graduates starting teacher training hold a 2:1 or above—the highest proportion ever—and last year we recruited 94% of our postgraduate initial teacher training target. We have exceeded our postgraduate recruitment target for primary trainee teachers for 2015-16 and are making good progress with secondary recruitment, but we have more to do to ensure the best graduates enter training.

[Rachael Maskell]

With only 61% of teacher training places being filled in 2014, with 38% of teachers leaving the profession after one year, with thousands of new teachers never reaching a classroom and with thousands more leaving the profession because of stress and exhaustion, will the Secretary of State acknowledge the crisis in teaching and tell us what she will do about it?

[Nicky Morgan]

I am afraid that I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s figures. I just said that last year we recruited 94% of our postgraduate initial teacher training target. We also do not recognise the claim that so many teachers are leaving the profession after their first year. In fact, more than 90% are still in the profession after their first year. Of course, we recognise the pressures on teachers, who do a fantastic job up and down the country, which is why I launched the workload survey last year and why we have introduced specific schemes to recruit teachers to specific subjects. In addition, as I mentioned, we are already ahead of our primary teacher target for this year.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that we would be better served by putting areas of trade on the positive list, rather than the negative list, so that we could include the areas of trade that we wanted in the trade agreement, as opposed to including all services, with only those named being removed?

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

I agree with the hon. Lady.

What is demanded, and what we require, is a clear and unambiguous exemption from the deal that guarantees that democratically elected Governments in Scotland and beyond cannot be forced to privatise services, and that any attempts to roll back previous privatisation will not be open to challenge under the new rules. These conditions must be explicit.

We come now to one of the areas of greatest concern: the process known as investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS. Including this type of measure in the agreement potentially undermines the right of European Governments to regulate effectively on a range of issues. As the Minister will be aware, the most relevant example of that is the recent action by the Uruguayan Government to legislate to increase the size of the health warnings on cigarette packs, in an attempt to reduce the number of people smoking and improve public health.

In response, the multinational tobacco giant, Philip Morris, used a similar process to sue the Uruguayan Government. The concern of many of us, including the Scottish Government and our trade unions, is that similar measures could be used by private organisations here to limit our democratically elected Government’s powers in a range of important areas. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) has considerable experience in this area, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I understand that if he catches your eye he hopes to raise it before the Minister replies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I do not have that information in my pack, but I shall be happy to provide it. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise will reply in writing to any detailed questions that Members may have.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I want to make a bit of progress, but I will give way later if I have time.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire referred to concerns, which have certainly been expressed to me, about the potential impact—or the alleged potential impact—on our national health service. All of us in the House have a responsibility to provide our constituents with the facts as we best understand them, and not to fuel scare stories. I therefore think it important to say that absolutely nothing in the proposed deal would threaten the public nature of our public services, and, in particular, our national health service.

Education and Adoption Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on sharing his experiences with us. I am sure he will bring real value to the House. I also thank the other four new Members who have given their maiden speeches today.

I have to say that I am intrigued. This is the Second Reading debate on the Government’s one piece of legislation addressing standards in education. We are left with a draft Bill that looks at a very narrow definition of something called “coasting” and proposes yet another top-down reorganisation in education, rather than looking at the causes of the unbelievable pressures on our schools at this time and at what would really make a difference to children’s education. Those pressures include the cuts to support services provided by our local authorities, the recruitment and retention crisis in our schools, the incredible pressures under which teachers are being put, and the funding crisis that many of our schools are experiencing. It is the causes that we should be debating today and what will really turn around the lives of our nation’s children and improve schools. Instead, we have to debate something called “coasting”. Even at this moment, we are denied the opportunity to have a clear definition of what that actually means.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising other issues and the causes of the difficulties, including recruitment and retention. A number of head teachers in my constituency have highlighted the increasingly challenging times they are facing as they try to recruit teachers and get teachers who have not been trained. They are finding it difficult to fill vacancies and are having to pay expensive introduction fees to agencies. That is having an impact on morale and team spirit in schools.

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend raises so many of the issues that are impacting on school standards today and the vital profession of teaching. We really must take heed of what she has said.

My second bemusement is that the Government talk about the urgency of improving standards in education, yet they are legislating only for schools currently under local authority control. Why is it acceptable that there are 133 failing academies on this Secretary of State’s watch? That certainly raises the issue of why the standards in those academies are not being questioned in this Bill. It is important to improve the outcomes for all children through the Bill. Why are alternative providers—perhaps even local authorities—not insisted upon for those schools?

There is a lack of evidence behind the Bill. The Education Committee proved that there is absolutely no evidence of net improvements in standards in primary and secondary schools that have become academies. Ofsted determined that other initiatives such as the city challenge were far more effective at improving standards. One educationist said:

“schools fail for a number of reasons and simply changing their structure may not address the whole picture”.

Therefore, in view of the evidence, why has there been this ideological move to turn more schools into academies? Tragically, after listening to parents, governors and heads of schools in York, it seems that schools are now seeing this as an inevitable process and are therefore debating whether it is better to jump before they are pushed and to have some control of the process in the meantime—and that includes even our outstanding schools. They are concerned that they will lose more resources; schools in York are seriously underfunded as we fall below national funding levels. The plea I have heard from all heads in York who have raised the issue with me is that the Government should do everything they can to improve school funding as the priority for raising standards.

I could stray into talking about the funding issues in further education, which are also having an impact on our education system. It is pointless to mend one part of the education system without looking at the challenges that will come later. However, I will return to the mainstay of the debate: who is now in charge of our children’s education?

Parents spend most of their time with their children—school holidays, weekends, mornings and evenings—yet the draft legislation is trying to take them out of the education-making process and is instead inserting the very remote Secretary of State. If this Government are at all serious about devolution and parental engagement, they will give a real voice to parents in the future of their children’s education. No one can have the interest of their children’s success closer to mind. Every parent wants to do what is best for their children.

In York, as we have debated the academisation of Millthorpe school and Scarcroft and Knavesmire primary schools—outstanding schools, I might add—it is the parents who have wanted all the information to hand to understand the best path for their children. We are about to enter the same debate at Hempland primary. Why detach schools from parents? Surely we should be involving them more. Why, instead, place the powers in the hands of the Secretary of State, who may know about what happens in Loughborough but will not know about the issues faced in the corners of York Central?

We should strengthen the parents’ voice, empowering parents’ involvement in their children’s education, and listen carefully to the issues they raise. In York, parents have called for a ballot over the multi-academy trust conversion exercise—one that Labour would have granted, but now denied by the Tory-led coalition council. We have to give parents the information they need, trust their expertise and give them a voice and the respect they deserve. After all, localism must be about trust.

I want to mention teachers and support staff and to put on record my sincere thanks for their outstanding dedication to our children, as they work day and night, often under extreme pressure, in giving their all. Teachers and support staff—not just heads—must also have a say. They cannot be told how important their professionalism is in one breath and then not be trusted to make the best decisions for children in the next.

The whole Bill—whether the education or the adoption clauses—boils down to trust. Are we going to trust the true professionals and the parents to determine what is best for children, or place everything in the hands of the Secretary of State, who is, after all, not an educationist?

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Fernandes]

I will not name any schools, but I have adequately defined the features and the hallmarks of coasting schools. It is clear that further guidance will be forthcoming.

After designing the vision of a knowledge-based curriculum for the free school in which I was involved, we secured approval and funding from the Government. We recruited staff and found a building. I am proud to say that Michaela Community School opened its doors last September to 120 12-year-olds and it is transforming their lives. Many of the children come from neighbouring council estates or areas such as Harlesden and Willesden. They have the chance to aim high because of inspired and innovative teaching. If one walks through the corridors, one can hear a pin drop, because pupils are quietly learning in their classrooms. I invite Members here to join them for lunch and they will see how polite they are. If they take a bus in the area, they will spot them by their impeccable uniform. Whether it is the practice of appreciation at lunchtime or the rigorous learning, Michaela Community School has been made possible only because teachers have been set free to teach and set high expectations. It was teachers, not the state, who saw a need and took action.

[Rachael Maskell]

Why has £241 million been spent on free schools in areas that do not have a crisis in school places?

[Suella Fernandes]

A key criterion for gaining Government approval for a free school is to establish need. There needs to be an established deficit in school places, which is evidenced in the data, to form part of the application.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is shameful that in one of my schools one in seven teachers is unqualified, and parents are horrified by that. I entirely endorse his comments.

Another issue that is not addressed in the Bill is the bizarrely named Priority School Building programme, which appears to be neither a priority programme nor a building programme. As we discovered last week, its rate of achievement is running at something like 5%. In my constituency, we have the rare occurrence of a new build that is currently under construction, but to such an incredibly low standard that the school has had to sell off its own assets to fund a widening of the corridors. The original plans would have made them so narrow that it would have been a depressing building. Far from lifting standards and inspiring pupils in a disadvantaged area, it would have made the situation worse.

[Rachael Maskell]

At Tang Hall School in my constituency the children are freezing in the winter. They have to wear hoodies, and they are still not warm. Will that not have an impact on standards in that school, and should investment not be put into improving school buildings to improve standards?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Indeed it should, and that resonates with those of us with long memories who remember what life was like under the Conservatives 20 years ago. We thought we’d got past that, didn’t we? If improving schools rather than cutting costs were the Government’s aim, they would be building to the highest standards, not the lowest.

I will conclude by reflecting on the acute pressure on school places, another issue that has not been addressed. In Cambridgeshire, which is a high-growth area, we expect to see a massive increase in numbers in the coming years. Is it not extraordinary that this pressing issue barely gets a mention in the Bill? It is not just a Cambridgeshire problem, because the situation is similar across the country. Why are the Government not addressing it?

A discussion on education is always welcome, but the Bill fails to address the issues that matter. Frankly, the problem is not so much coasting schools as a Government who do not understand the problem and so inevitably get the wrong answer—we could say, a Government who require improvement.

Recruitment and Retention of Teachers

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of the reasons people are leaving the profession is work-related stress—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I appreciate that hon. Members are new to the House, but the hon. Lady must address the Chair. You cannot turn your back on the Chair; you are not addressing the hon. Lady.

[Rachael Maskell]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that people are leaving the profession due to the high levels of work-related stress? We know that 83% of teachers are experiencing work-related stress and 67% are experiencing mental and physical health problems due to excessive workloads, the target-driven culture, and over-burdening inspection regimes.

[Louise Haigh]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point.

The OECD workload diary survey found teachers working a staggering 50 hours per week compared with the average of 38.3 hours across the countries surveyed. It is becoming harder and harder to keep hold of qualified and experienced teachers. Frankly, that is no surprise. Demoralised, overworked and undervalued by a Government who treat the profession as a political football and a group to be taken on and beaten, its dedicated members are doing their best in extremely challenging circumstances.