Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Prisk]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. With 87% covered in less than 22 weeks—unlike the progress that we often saw from Labour—there has been positive progress. On the private sector issue, LEPs are specifically business-led, and most encouragingly, in her local LEP, eight of the 14 participants—over 60%—are from the private sector. That is a very good example, which I know other enterprise partnerships intend to follow.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

In their response to the Select Committee report on LEPs, the Government have said that they will not impose performance management criteria on them. Will the Minister explain just how the performance of LEPs will be monitored and assessed?

[Mr Prisk]

The whole point about partnerships is that local priorities will lead, not central diktat. That is why we believe in ensuring that we enable partnerships to come forward and that they judge the issue on how they break down the local barriers to growth. We are committed to ensuring that the economy grows; these will be excellent vehicles to achieve that locally.

Building Schools for the Future

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend repeats a concern that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed—that the process by which individual schools and local authorities were selected for entry into Building Schools for the Future, even though it might have been conceived idealistically, in the end was not seen as fair. We need to ensure that the successor scheme guarantees that money is spent effectively and efficiently on those in the most need.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The residents of Sandwell have been let down twice by the Secretary of State. First, it was announced that Sandwell schools would be unaffected by the cuts, only for that to be rescinded a few days later. Secondly, he undertook to visit Sandwell to explain what had happened and then decided that he would not do so. Will he do something to restore the faith of the people of Sandwell in the Government’s intention by agreeing to make the consultation and review process totally independent, so that he is not left in the position of reviewing his own previous bad decisions?

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Performance)

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

Rather than prejudge what the first tranche of the regional growth fund will be, let us just wait for the outcome and decide which projects will proceed on the basis of the independent evaluation that they have had.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Vince Cable]

I have taken a large number of interventions. I will take one more, from the Chair of the Select Committee, and then move on.

[Mr Bailey]

The Secretary of State mentioned the manufacturing advisory service, and I welcome his comment that he is going to build on it. However, I had a meeting with a representative of that service who seemed very unsure what its future would be in the context of the new Government policy. Will he take the opportunity to give reassurance to members of that service?

[Vince Cable]

I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman that that organisation has a good record and a good future. If he wants to talk through the details, I am sure that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) will engage with him on that subject.

I was reviewing some of the areas where the Government inherited major problems and are now trying to deal with them—university administration, further education colleges, apprenticeships and regulations—but let me mention another, which does not even figure in the motion: the appalling history of Royal Mail and the Post Office. One of the things that we have done, which the previous Government were not able to do, is pass through the first stage of parliamentary scrutiny of a process that will eventually get those organisations on a sound footing.

Let us remind Labour Members what we inherited: a collapsing post office network, which had declined from 19,400 post offices to 12,000, mostly as a result of a forced planned closure programme; and a Royal Mail that had a negative cash flow in the last financial year of £520 million, an operating loss of £320 million and a pension deficit of almost £10 billion. We are taking the necessary action to solve those problems, whereas the previous Government had an opportunity to do so but walked away from them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let me start by saying that, on a personal level, I know from my discussions with Ministers that they are personally committed to the growth agenda. My reason for speaking in this debate is that I feel that they have failed to get their personal priorities and commitment translated across the rest of Government policy. Current Government policy on the economy and growth is politically driven and fundamentally economically flawed. Above all—even if one does not accept those first two premises—it is totally incoherent in its application.

The Secretary of State spoke at length about the comments of the former director-general of the CBI, Richard Lambert, but he failed to mention Mr Lambert’s subsequent comments:

“But my argument this morning is that the Government has not been nearly so consistent and focussed when it comes to policies that support growth. It’s failed so far to articulate in big picture terms its vision of what the UK economy might become under its stewardship.”

He went on—this is the crux of the matter:

“And it’s taken a series of policy initiatives for political reasons, apparently careless of the damage that they might do to business and to job creation.”

We must emphasise the importance of job creation and growth in dealing with the deficit. Mr Lambert pointed out in the same speech that the deficit was partly a result of public spending last year being up by 3% from 2008, but was, above all, because tax receipts were down by 13%. One would reasonably expect, in a policy designed to eliminate the deficit, that there would be a balance of measures designed to cut public spending and get economic growth, but what we have had are measures designed simply to cut public spending and not to get economic growth.

[Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman says that our policies are not designed to promote economic growth, but what about our tax policy, which will make us one of the lowest-taxed countries in the G7? Will that not generate economic growth?

[Mr Bailey]

I would love to talk about tax policy such as the VAT rise that is cutting demand, particularly in the construction industry, in which 7,500 people are going to be made unemployed as a number of businesses go down. I could go on for a very long time about the Government’s tax policy. Corporation tax cuts will benefit the rich—[Hon. Members: “Oh, come on!”] They will benefit the banking community and those within it, but I want to see an increase in capital allowances, which is what the manufacturing sector wants to enable investment to take place. However, I shall move on.

Let us consider the financial implications of economic growth for tax receipts. A 1% rise in gross domestic product brings in £7.7 billion in tax receipts. Over the lifetime of a Government, a 1% increase in GDP growth would bring in something like £37.5 billion—nearly half the deficit that the Chancellor says we need to cut over this period. It is therefore the responsibility of BIS to push and push for Government priorities to ensure that the elimination of that deficit is effected largely through economic growth, but it has failed to do that. I think that was acknowledged in Mr Lambert’s comments.

The growth White Paper has been abandoned because there was not enough in it—hardly sterling support for industry and the private sector. Some of the policies we are talking about do not involve any expenditure to implement but are about the priorities of other Departments and how they impact on growth. One would reasonably expect BIS to demonstrate to other Departments how they are damaging growth. Localism is one example. We have heard a lot about the abolition of regional development agencies and their replacement with local enterprise partnerships. By abolishing RDAs, the Government stripped away a core of local business support and they put in its place LEPs, which may or may not be successful, but which have not delivered a single job so far.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills for giving way. I have listened to the spokesman for the Opposition and to the hon. Gentleman, but apart from one costed programme to accelerate broadband I have not heard a single policy from Her Majesty’s Opposition. Is it too much to expect the Chairman of the Select Committee, who should know about these things, to announce some positive policies?

[Mr Bailey]

We would have sustained the level of support at local level that would have allowed manufacturers to benefit from the sort of programmes that were being developed to get us out of recession. However, the hon. Gentleman must forgive me if I concentrate on the issue at stake, which is the performance of BIS in promoting growth.

On LEPs, I am second to none in my praise for my local Black Country chamber of commerce and those who are committed to making it work. I shall do everything I can to support the LEP, but I know that there are serious reservations about the lack of funding it has for submitting applications and about the delay that occurred when its original application to become an LEP was turned down.

What, above all, is very worrying as regards the potential for LEPs is the fact that the planning proposals in the Localism Bill do not include LEPs having any role whatever in the process. How the Government can create a local organisation with a brief to drive growth but not include it in the local planning plans for a local community defies all credibility and belief. Without the support of local planning authorities, it will be difficult for local businesses to push for growth.

Immigration has already been mentioned. The revelations that we heard yesterday in the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee on the impact of the Government’s cap on recruiting people for vital, iconic businesses that have demonstrated time and again their ability to deliver jobs and growth are a real worry. Some of us thought that the Secretary of State had had some success in that regard, but it looks as though the headline announcements are not being reflected by the attitudes of the Departments involved. That is, in itself, a reflection on this particular Department’s ability to get what it needs from other Departments in delivering on an agenda that is essential for the Government and the economy.

BIS should be taking a lead role and ensuring that there is a growth impact test on the actions taken by other Departments. That is not so. This is why, under a Labour Government, we were growing ourselves out of—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call Simon Kirby.

Education Maintenance Allowance

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

This has been an important and good-quality debate, characterised by knowledge, determination and passion. It has been crowded and busy, with many more Members wishing to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, than have been able to speak. That reflects the importance of the matter and is a sign of the intrinsic unfairness that hon. Members and people outside see in the Government’s decision to scrap EMA. It reflects the number of young people who benefit from it who feel angry, betrayed and let down by the Government’s broken promises.

The Government’s approach to EMA, like their record throughout their education policy so far, is a curious mix of ideological zeal and simply making it up as they go along. On the one hand, their rhetoric is that they are keen to help young people to raise their ambitions and break down social, cultural and economic barriers to help them succeed. The whole House could agree with that, but on the other hand, as hon. Members have exposed time and again in the debate, the Government have disregarded clear evidence and gone back on their promises by scrapping one of the most successful policy interventions for decades in helping to achieve fairness.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Wright]

Very briefly, as I am short of time.

[Mr Bailey]

Since EMA was introduced in my local authority area of Sandwell, the number of students getting A-levels has doubled and the number of students from my constituency going to university has increased by 78%. Does my hon. Friend agree that those statistics underline the importance of the matter?

[Mr Wright]

Absolutely, and I shall come in a moment to how young people have benefited from impressive ways of raising attainment, encouraging increased participation and encouraging better behaviour.

I wish to take the House back to the points that the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), made in June. As has been mentioned a number of times, he confirmed categorically in the House that the Government were committed to retaining EMA. A matter of weeks later, they scrapped it. I have to ask, is anybody in charge at the Department for Education? Does anybody have a clue what is going on there? What utter incompetence!

The justification for scrapping EMA keeps moving, from “It hasn’t been successful” to “Its impact has been limited” to “It hasn’t been an effective use of public money.” I suggest that the Government simply fail to recognise the improving life chances that it has provided. It has been a success, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) has just mentioned and as many other Members have said. It has started to break down the link between participation and success in further education and household income, as my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) said.

For far too long, there has been a direct correlation between post-16 participation rates in education and household income. Frankly, moving on from school to the sixth form or an FE college depended not on whether a person was bright enough but on what their parents earned and where they lived. We have started to break that link with EMA. It has been subject to one of the most extensive and robust evaluations of any education policy ever undertaken in England, begun and presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). He made a fantastic contribution to the debate, and I thank him for the points that he made.

An evaluation by Ipsos MORI concluded that the majority of providers believed that EMA had been effective in reducing the number of NEETs, increasing learners’ attainment and having a positive impact on their attendance and punctuality. It has raised participation by about 5% and attainment by about 3%, and the Government seem to acknowledge that. In a ministerial answer in another place in July, the Under-Secretary Lord Hill acknowledged that

“the monetised benefits of EMA outweighed the costs”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 July 2010; Vol. 720, c. WA118.]

Sadly, the Secretary of State did not acknowledge that today.

We heard from the Secretary of State an elegant, articulate and incorrect argument about the economic picture. We heard about academies, free schools, the English baccalaureate—everything, in fact, except EMA. I seem to recall that it took 19 minutes for those letters to pass his lips. Frankly, we saw alarming mood swings in him. It got to a point where we were really quite concerned about his behaviour. He had a bit of a hissy fit—a bit of a moment. It got to the point where the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) said that it was slightly unfair of the Opposition to hold the Government to account.

The Secretary of State rather lost control, just as he has lost control of his Department. Given his comments before the general election and the comments of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, in June, to which I alluded—he committed to retaining EMA—what has the Chancellor done to wreck the economy that means they have to go back on their word? The Secretary of State said this afternoon that to govern is to choose, and that to choose is to prioritise, but it is very clear from his remarks that young people—or children, as he patronisingly referred to 16, 17 and 18-year-olds—are not the Government’s priority.

The Secretary of State made encouraging noises. He acknowledged that greater flexibility is needed in the system, and spoke of individual circumstances, courses that might be selected, rural areas and travel costs. The Opposition are keen to work with him to look at the matter again. However, I was surprised and shocked when in one of his more surreal, bizarre and psychedelic moments, he urged the good people of Hull to vote Liberal Democrat. That is a worrying trend among senior members of the Government. We saw it in Oldham East and Saddleworth. We look forward to the formal merger of the Conservatives and Lib Dems—or is it a takeover of the Conservatives by the Lib Dems?

Moving away from the Secretary of State’s more psychedelic moments, let me go back to his point about flexibility in the system. I agree with him that more flexibility is needed, but by introducing more flexibility, he runs the risk of making the system more complex, more bureaucratic and therefore more expensive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Willetts]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that that problem needs to be tackled at all stages of the educational process, in early years, at school and at university. I am pleased to inform the House today of a new initiative, an excellent collaboration between KPMG and the university of Durham, whereby school leavers will go straight into employment with KPMG while also studying at the university, with their fees paid by KPMG. That is an excellent example of the type of initiative that we want to see.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

What assessment has the Minister made of the disconnect between the cuts in higher education funding, particularly in the arts and humanities, and the delayed implementation of the education White Paper, which contains the new funding arrangements? Universities will have cuts before they get the new funding arrangements following that White Paper.

[Mr Willetts]

As I said earlier, it was clear in the grant letter that we sent to the Higher Education Funding Council for England that over the next few years, as the teaching grant income of universities falls, there will be increased income through the graduate contribution scheme. We believe that by the end of this Parliament, universities could well have a higher total income than they have at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

I believe that officials are discussing the matter with other Departments that are involved in it. I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The cuts in higher education funding will begin at the beginning of the next financial year, in April 2011. The university year will not end until the summer, and the new income streams from tuition fees will not arrive until some indeterminate time in the future. There is a disconnection in the cash flow to higher education. What is the Minister doing to prevent it from damaging higher education?

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

As I explained earlier, we are of course providing an alternative source of income for universities as graduate contributions come in. There will be a reduction in the teaching grant in the coming year, just as there will be public expenditure savings across many Departments, but universities will be able to go through that period, and we expect that at the end of the current Parliament, they will have a higher total income than they have at present.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Willetts]

I think I read an interesting article about that important initiative in Times Higher Education the other day. I congratulate my hon. Friend on drawing the House’s attention to it.

We are committed to broadening participation in higher education. That is what our £150 million scholarship scheme is all about, and initiatives such as the one described by my hon. Friend are very valuable.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

15. What assessment he has made of the effects of the abolition of regional development agencies on access to unspent funding from the European regional development fund.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

My Department is working with the Department for Communities and Local Government to develop new delivery structures for the European regional development fund to replace the RDAs. We aim to ensure that the programmes continue to be implemented with minimal disruption.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the Minister for his reply. In the west midlands, £113 million of ERDF money is still as yet unallocated. About 40% has historically been allocated to projects through the regional development agency, but the RDA is now to go, and there is no sign on the horizon of an alternative delivery mechanism. Can the Minister assure us that mechanisms will be found to spend that money before 2013, or will it go to the Treasury?

[Mr Vaizey]

That money will be spent. Local enterprise partnerships and local authorities can apply for it, and we intend to announce a new delivery mechanism next spring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

I have already met Lord Young to discuss his review, and I will be working with him. The House will want to pay tribute to Lord Young for his award yesterday as peer of the year.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the commitment, given by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), in response to my first question, to setting up structures to access European regional development funding. Will the Minister confirm that money will be available to get the projects together to do that?

[Mr Prisk]

The officials are dealing with that issue at this precise moment. Once we have an answer, I will come straight back to the hon. Gentleman.

Speech Therapy Services (Children)

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Mr Streeter. It is important because of the very large number of children in this country who require speech therapy to make the most of their lives. I am delighted that the Minister is able to join us today and apologise for dragging her away from the important work of putting together the Green Paper that we anticipate. I pay tribute to the personal interest she has shown in the matter not only since getting her job in government, but when she was in opposition.

I will not start by reciting the usual litany of depressing statistics associated with speech and language therapy as my opening gambit, which would be a little predictable. Instead, I will start by paying tribute to the work of some of the charities involved and to the previous Government. What we have today is the end result of a process. It started with a charity called I CAN, which ran the campaign, “Make Chatter Matter”, and spent three years building awareness among politicians, such as us, about the importance of speech and language communication. That led to the Bercow review, the better communication action plan—brought forward by the previous Government—the appointment of Jean Gross as communications champion and the designation of 2011 as the year of speech, language and communication.

We are part way along an important journey that was initiated by the previous Government and then taken up by the current Government. That is why it is really important to pay tribute to the fact that a Green Paper is now coming forward. Among all the organisational changes that we are planning in public services, I am delighted that the Government have found space in their schedule for a Green Paper on the important issue of special educational needs. It is a welcome opportunity to entrench greater choice for parents, earlier identification of the needs of those with speech and language difficulties, more tailored support and improved transition services, which I believe are so important.

Clearly, there is still work to be done. There is an organisation in the north-west called speechbubble.co.uk —why they have to add “.co.uk” to everything these days, I do not know—which works in my constituency and many others in the region to encourage better quality speech and language provision. In its survey of SEN co-ordinators, it found that more than half had never heard of the Bercow report and were not even aware of that ongoing process.

Members must forgive me, for I will now embark on a bit of a shopping list of issues that I think still need to be considered in the Green Paper. Given the time available and the number of Members who wish to speak, they will have to forgive me if it turns into something like an episode of “Supermarket Sweep”, rather than a shopping list. I will do my best not to lose coherence.

It is crucially important that I pay tribute to my own speech therapist, Mrs Williams, who saw me for four years, between the ages of five and nine, to help me learn to communicate better. It was only when I was preparing for the debate that I began to think about what she had taught me, as I never really thought about it at the time. She was not teaching me to make a noise or how to speak, but how to communicate and get my message across. There is often a misconception that speech and language therapy is about putting stuff into people’s minds so that they have something to say. There was plenty going on in my mind—far too much, actually—so my mouth could not keep up when I was trying to express it all. She taught me to slow down and not to panic, stammer or trip over myself. Although that is not always ideal within a parliamentary setting, when one might have a six-minute speech limit, it is still a useful lesson today. There is no need to rush. Just because one has things to say, one does not need to get them all out in 30 seconds.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Unfortunately, I will have to leave before the end to attend a meeting, which I apologise for. He rightly paid tribute to the work of his speech and language therapist. Does he agree with me that it is important that all levels of the Government work with the Royal College of Speech and Language when developing their policies in that area so as to maximise the potential benefit they can get from it?

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and agree entirely. Our speech and language therapists are a much underused resource, and as time moves on they will be in much more demand. A report shortly to be published by the International Longevity Centre will tell us how, with the growing incidence of Alzheimer’s and the difficulties that adults with communication problems will face, the pressure on speech and language therapists will increase far more.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Prisk]

This is something that we have raised with the banks. On Monday, however, I want to go further—that is when we will convene our new small business economic forum with the express intention of bringing Government, businesses and the banks together so that we can deal with these issues and start to ensure that credit is available for all businesses, large and small.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State has rightly commented on the obligations of state-supported banks to do more to help our small businesses in the interests of the national economy. Will the Minister tell us whether the new growth fund set up by the banking taskforce and announced yesterday will have on its board a Government representative in order to influence policy decisions?

[Mr Prisk]

We met the banks yesterday and are perfectly willing to engage with them on how that could happen. We may well wish to ensure that the Government have a stake in that role, but as we received the recommendations just yesterday, I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that he chairs will understand that we want to examine them more closely. The new growth fund is a positive step which will deal with the gap that Rowlands identified in the case of mid-cap businesses. It is a welcome step, and the Government want to work with the banks to make it work effectively.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I think that there is cross-party consensus that major infrastructure projects such as high-speed rail and new nuclear and renewable energy schemes are essential not only for the future of our economy but for the greening of the economy. However, they often attract local opposition. There is huge concern within the business community about the proposed abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission. What representations is the Minister making to ensure that the successor planning regime does not allow nimbyism, masquerading as local democracy, to strangle those schemes at birth?

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

What we are changing is the quango that will report on the final decision. We are not changing the streamlined system that will sit behind it—we think it is good; for business and for infrastructure—but we do think it important that when a final decision is made on a major infrastructure programme, it is made by a Minister standing at this Dispatch Box who is accountable to this House. I think that is an important principle; it will not undermine business investment and it is good for democracy.

Building a High-Skilled Economy

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

Well, I said I was interested in dance. I am interested in sufficient drama to add to the theatricality of this place, without which it would be poorer.

During the years of the Labour Government, Labour Members often alleged that the largesse for further education would end if we came to power. If the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), my opponent and friend, were to wish to repeat his unfortunate appearance on “Celebrity Mastermind”—I do not want to remind him of that too much—he could do worse than choose the Thatcher Government as his specialist subject. We came to realise during our time in opposition that the Labour party spent more time speaking about 1979 than about the present. They were preoccupied with that in their dark years, and perhaps that is not surprising for a party that usually looks backwards rather than forwards, whereas the Conservative party is committed to progress and taking our country to where it needs to be now.

As a consequence of that preoccupation with the past, we were left with another Labour Government who spent until they broke the bank. As a result, even before they lost office, they were already cutting adult skills. Last year’s pre-Budget report said—I have it here for those hon. Members who have not had the opportunity to go to the Library to collect it—that £300 million would be cut from the adult skills budget if Labour returned to Government. When Members hear complaints about the new Government’s performance, they should set them in that context. Mandy was first to the table to say he would cut his Department, and encouraged his colleagues to do the same. People are still making phone calls to my office to try to find him, to ask exactly where the cuts would have fallen.

While Labour Members were drifting further and further out of touch into a world populated by fictional numbers rather than real people, Conservatives were talking to adult educators and adult learners about their experiences. We were talking to employers about their skills needs and to union learning representatives about the obstacles they face in creating a learning culture among their members. So that it is unequivocal, so that there is no question and no doubt, let me say that I and the Government are committed to unionlearn; we celebrate all it does and all that it will continue to do with our support and encouragement.

As a result of the conversations we had and dialogues we enjoyed, we learned important lessons about the indispensability of further education as an engine of social and economic change. History teaches us that the better educated a nation’s people are, the more economically prosperous they are likely to be—their general levels of health will be better, too, their communities will be more united and their family and social bonds will be stronger—and the more they will appreciate the things that money cannot buy, but without which life is colourless. All deserve their chance to see, hear, taste and touch beauty.

The conviction that education is the key to so much more than a wage packet drove pioneers, such as the founders of the Workers Educational Association, who sought to take learning, until then the preserve of the privileged few, out to the many. The impulse that promoted better manual skills also created the penny classics that did so much to spread the love of English literature throughout society, and the growth of choral and instrumental societies that brought great music virtually to the factory floor. The fire that drove adult education’s pioneers still burns, and it drives the coalition Government’s programme for further education and skills. The challenge we face in rebuilding a system fit for purpose is scarcely less imposing than was theirs in building a system from scratch.

In recent years, the link between skills and craftsmanship—I am not afraid to call it craftsmanship—the ideal of self-betterment and the pleasures of learning as a means of gaining wider and richer perspectives on the world have been allowed to wither. But not any longer: we in this Government will make a bold case for that relationship—a firm case for the cohesive power of learning, how it changes lives by changing life chances and increases prospects both to gain and prosper in a job, and in all the other ways that I have described.

No one denies that one of the key functions of Government is to create, as far as possible, the right conditions for economic success, and none would deny, I hope, that adult skills policy is one of the most powerful economic levers at any Government’s disposal. But the time has come finally to acknowledge that a socialist model of centralised planning has failed, even in terms of its own narrow criteria for success. We really cannot continue the micro-managed, target-driven, bureaucratic regime that for years has dogged further education and damaged our prospects of raising skills levels.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you and the House will not underestimate the scale of the challenge. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills reported in “Ambition 2020”, published last year, that on recent trends we are likely to slip from 18th to 21st in the OECD rankings for intermediate level skills by 2020. Shadow Ministers will be familiar with the report.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I happily give way to the new Chairman of the Select Committee, whom I welcome in that role.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the Minister for his kind words. I welcome him to his position and look forward to seeing him in our Committee in due course. I congratulate him on his bravura performance—indeed, it has been quite theatrical at times. He commented on the top-down approach. I note that his colleague the Minister for Universities and Science has written to higher and further education organisations inviting them to publish employability statements. Today the hon. Gentleman placed a statement in the Library saying that the Government would be introducing measures to give

“learners the information they need to drive the system, through the publication of clear and consistent information.”

If that is not an example of a top-down and potentially bureaucratic approach, what is it? Could he enlighten us?

[Mr Hayes]

I want to be generous; as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that is in my character. I know that the hon. Gentleman is new to the task, but he has been an assiduous member of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, and a frequent contributor to debates in the Chamber. As such, I hoped he would have known that the key plank of my party’s perspective on this subject—indeed, the coalition’s perspective—is the need to inform and empower learners. It is critically important that people get the right advice and guidance, and part of that process is explaining to them the likely employment outcomes of pursuing courses of study and training. We are encouraging universities and colleges, and the reformed careers service that we will bring in, to give people a very clear understanding of what will happen if they embark on particular routes. What are their chances of getting a job? What sort of job will it be? What are the wage implications? How might they progress thereafter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is the first time I have had the privilege of speaking in the Chamber while you have been in the Chair. May I also congratulate all those new Members who have made their maiden speeches today? I have not heard them all, but I have certainly heard most of them, and on the basis of what I have heard, those Members are going to make a significant and worthwhile contribution to the Chamber while they are here.

This debate, above all, is supremely relevant to my constituents. West Bromwich West is a traditional manufacturing constituency that suffered enormously in the 1980s from the policies of the then Government. Unemployment rocketed, which resulted in the creation of a generation of people who saw no prospect of employment, and a culture of low aspiration, low expectation and low skills and training. Members said earlier that we should not live in the past. That is quite correct. On the other hand, it is important that we look to the past and learn from the mistakes that were made, so that we do not replicate them.

The mass unemployment in my constituency in the 1980s and the substantial reduction in the manufacturing sector resulted in a skills gap that, despite all the efforts of the Labour Government, has not fully been closed. Even as the economy and employment opportunities improved, there was still higher than average unemployment in my constituency, and employers complained to me that the skills they needed still did not exist locally. The reason was that in the 1980s, as the economy went into recession on two occasions and manufacturing collapsed, no efforts were made to pick up those who had been made unemployed and retrain them with the skills to fill the opportunities that would subsequently be created as our economy grew out of recession. The result of that was a drag on the local economy throughout the past 10 years of the previous Government, as they implemented policies that led to economic growth.

What we must not see is the recent recession and the fragile growth that we have seen since then operating in the same way. It is fair to say that the previous Government recognised that a recession provides an opportunity for those who cannot immediately get jobs or who have been thrown out of their jobs, given the right support, to get the appropriate training and skills that they have hitherto not had the opportunity to get, so as to equip them for the new jobs that will be created in the future. That I know was what was behind the previous Government’s approach to dealing with the problem over the past two or three years.

The current situation presents an enormous problem in that respect, although I would not pretend that it had arisen entirely as a result of the cuts that have been announced over the past two or three weeks. There were potential problems beforehand, particularly with the number of young people wanting to go into higher education and the places not being available. However, it was the previous Government who made provision for 20,000 new places and who put a particular emphasis on providing the budget for the key STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—which are vital if we are to equip manufacturing to take us out of recession. I have not heard any guarantees that this Government are going to ring-fence the funding for STEM subjects in universities to ensure that this area, which is so vital to our future, is sustained. This is particularly important because a number of universities are already reporting that, because the provision of those courses requires higher capital investment, they could be the first on the list to be removed. We could therefore be undermining our scientific, engineering and mathematical potential in vital sectors, at a time when it is so necessary to get us out of recession.

I also want to talk about a subject that I have not heard mentioned so far—the education maintenance allowance. In constituencies such as mine, where people have low incomes and, historically, low aspirations, the provision of that allowance is essential to give young people the confidence to go into further education and, eventually, higher education. With the increase in competition that is likely to arise for the lower number of university places—it might not be lower in absolute terms, but it could be lower, relative to the demand for them—there is a danger that young people from low-income and low-aspiration backgrounds could be crowded out of the competition for the scarce places. That will make the EMA strategically even more important than it has been in the past, if we are to ensure that university opportunities are open to people from all backgrounds and incomes.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

I wonder whether other hon. Members receive complaints about the education maintenance allowance, as I do. I, too, represent a constituency where there are people on very low incomes, but I get a lot of complaints that the allowance is badly applied and often abused.

[Mr Bailey]

Certainly in its early days there were some complaints, but they have not been reflected in my constituency. I had a meeting with the principals of my three local further education colleges only two weeks ago, and they stressed to me and my neighbouring Conservative MPs the important role that the allowances play in keeping young people between 16 and 19 in education in our area. I want to emphasise to the Government that they need to sustain the EMA as part of the infrastructure necessary to ensure that their stated policy of open opportunity for young people in universities can be maintained.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) mentioned the transfer of money from Train to Gain into apprenticeships and capital for colleges. I want to make one comment on Train to Gain. I find it odd that, if it is so bad—the National Audit Office certainly had criticisms of it—it has not been abolished and the money transferred elsewhere lock, stock and barrel. The Government seem to have created a hybrid system. My experience of speaking to local employers is that Train to Gain was extremely beneficial, and there is a whole raft of statistics that substantiate their claims for the programme. Train to Gain was also essential for many companies that had introduced short-time working, to help them to sustain a level of income for their employees to prevent them from going elsewhere or leaving the jobs market altogether, and to prevent the companies from losing their skills.

I also want to say a few words about bureaucracy. When Labour was in government, it was a constant theme among the Conservatives that we were strangling education with top-down bureaucracy. Certainly, when I went round schools, I heard complaints about excessive paperwork and bureaucracy, and I cannot pretend for a moment that we were able to solve that problem. I am concerned, however, that despite all the coalition Government’s brave words, they seem to be heading the same way.

Earlier, I drew to the attention of the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), a statement he placed in the Library today about getting FE colleges to give

“learners the information they need to drive the system, through the publication of clear and consistent information about performance, quality and standards.”

That sounds like fairly top-down instruction, a recipe for extra research that has no particular relevance to the people being educated, and a whole lot of form filling and publications that will siphon off money that could well be used in other directions. I sympathise with the Minister up to a point, because it is a perfectly laudable objective, but the new Government have to realise that having laudable objectives and ensuring that they are translated at the local level involves some sort of imposition and resources that have to be calibrated and calculated to ensure that they are worth while.

I am coming to the end of my comments, but let me say that in my new position as Chairman of the appropriate Select Committee, I look forward to talking to Ministers and interviewing them on their policies. I wish them well, as this matter is absolutely vital not just to my constituents but to young and unemployed people everywhere and to this country’s future and its position in the global economy. Investment in skills is as important as investment in plant and machinery, and it has the additional benefit of improving the lives of those who are prepared to get involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

What I have noticed about the targets set by the previous Government—which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech—is how often they were not met. The Government set target after target which they then failed to meet. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the targets that they set for apprenticeships, but they set those targets and never met them. We will meet our target, and I believe that we will meet it within the next 12 months. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will soon eat his words.

We heard an awful lot today about the importance of manufacturing industry. I believe that the Government’s skills programme will ensure that it receives the support that it deserves, at the basic skills and education level. Labour Members may complain about the state of manufacturing industry, but they have a poor record in that regard themselves. The hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), the new Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee—I welcome him to his post—made a thoughtful speech on the subject, but I think he should bear in mind that whereas in 1997 manufacturing represented 20% of the United Kingdom economy, by the time the Labour Government left office the proportion had fallen to 12%.

[Mr Bailey]

Will the Minister not acknowledge that one of the reasons for that was the huge increase in the service sector? It did not reflect an absolute decline in manufacturing.

[Mr Davey]

Of course that is true of many modern economies, but I think it ill behoves the Labour party to criticise this Government in their early days, given that its own approach to manufacturing industry was not to turn the tide and go against the trend.

Although we have a huge amount in common, when Labour Members talk about the skills agenda they sometimes forget some of the record of which they should be less proud. I am thinking particularly of the quangocracy that grew up around the skills agenda. There is currently a patchwork quilt of quangos involved in that agenda. Members may be interested to learn how the position has changed. In government, the Labour party did not just create the existing quangos, but created quangos, abolished them and created new ones, all within 13 years. The fact that that instability and reinvention happened time after time shows that the Labour Government never really had a true vision. They constantly spent large amounts on new quangos while failing to get some of that money to the grass roots—to our communities. A lot of money was wasted then.

When the last Government set up the Learning and Skills Council, I was sent strategy after strategy by that august body. At first I thought that I had a real duty to read every single page, but when I visited the LSC and talked to its representatives, I realised that most of those strategies would never come to anything. I am afraid that that happened time and again. Huge amounts were spent on quangos, reports and consultancy, but less money went to the companies and learners who needed it. We believe that the need to rationalise the quangocracy in learning and skills is a key issue, and we will deal with it. We will do so while also having to look at the spending issues in this area, and there will be huge challenges. I do not think there is anyone in this House or involved in FE, HE or the education system in general who does not realise that we face difficult choices in this area, but we are absolutely clear that we will do our best with the money that we have got into apprenticeships and into the capital programme for FE to ensure that the priorities get the funding they deserve.