Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andrew Pakes and John Hayes

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

Yes, of course I acknowledge that role. It is important to point out that many of the universities do great work. I would not want to disparage that work, and the hon. Lady is right to draw the House’s attention to it.

The point I was really making is that, sadly, many people are driven down a pathway that is just not right for them. That is because of the underestimation of the significance of practical accomplishment, both at an intellectual level—the unwillingness to recognise that practical accomplishment is of a high order—and at a practical level in terms of the advice that people are often given and may later regret. It is not easy for a young person to know quite what path to take, and if the advice they get skews them towards one route or another, it is fairly likely that they will be ill equipped to make a considered judgment. I am simply making the argument for, at the very least, a degree of equality about the advice we give to people.

This Bill is questionable in a number of respects, and in particular, as has been highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and others, in the way that it presents the future management and control of apprenticeships and the standards associated with them. It is right that employers play a key role in that process, but the Bill is silent on the role of employers.

I am not an unbridled admirer of the Institute for Apprenticeships. I did not create it. In my time as Minister, and indeed as shadow Minister, the standards were guaranteed by sector skills councils. I would have gone for a sector-based approach myself. Had I stayed in office, I would probably have developed that further and emulated the German approach by establishing guilds. I began to lay some of the foundations for that as Minister, and I would have gone for such an approach rather than where we ended up. Having said that, what is critical about either that kind of sectoral approach or the apprenticeship institute being abolished by the Bill is the role of employers in ensuring that what is taught and tested meets a real economic need. We cannot detach that economic need from the structure by which we guarantee the quality of apprenticeships.

So, there is the issue of quality, and again the Bill is unconvincing in that respect. My right hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that if quality is lowered, the numbers can be increased. Indeed, the Labour Government prior to 2010 introduced programme-led apprenticeships, which were taught entirely outside of the workplace. They were still called apprenticeships but were unrelated to any particular employer or sector. That is not the way forward, and any diminution of standards will further undermine the status of practical learning. I simply say to the Minister that if the Secretary of State is going to take back control—to borrow a popular phrase—it is vital that simultaneously we hear more during the passage of the legislation about how standards will be maintained, because at the moment we have few assurances to that effect.

I will say a word on numbers, partly to advertise my own effectiveness in government. When I became the Minister of State for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, I was able, due to the promotion of apprenticeships, to drive their number to the highest level in modern times. I became the Minister in 2010. By 2011/12, we achieved 521,000 apprenticeships. That has never been equalled since, and we are now down to about 340,000. To say a word about previous Labour Governments, I inherited 280,000 apprenticeships, and the average number of apprenticeship completions from 2000 to 2009-10 was less than 100,000 a year.

As we debate these matters going forward, it is vital that the Government commit to the apprenticeship as a key determiner of their skills policy. The number of apprenticeships and their quality will allow the Government to drive up skills levels and, therefore, to meet economic need.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has been listening attentively to my speech so far.

[Andrew Pakes]

I am worried that I might damn the right hon. Gentleman with faint praise because when he cited the numbers from when he was the Minister, one of the determinants of his success was the involvement of trade unions in the sector skills council and the partnership. While we have talked lots about employers, he was an advocate in his party of involving trade unions. Unfortunately, Ministers after him excluded trade unions from that involvement. Is he advocating that trade unions should be involved in the new system?

[Sir John Hayes]

I am immensely flattered that the hon. Gentleman has followed my career with such assiduity. He is right: I defended Unionlearn and would continue to do so. Trade unions can play a vital part in ensuring the outcomes that the Government say that they seek and that I certainly believe in. Indeed, I went on a delegation to Germany—this is a minor digression, Madam Deputy Speaker—to look at their apprenticeship system with employers and trade unions, because I know that the combination of trade unions and employers was critical to driving the skills agenda. Again, it would be useful to hear from the Government what they think about that. How will they engage with the trade unions? Because trade unions are not mentioned in the Bill at all, we are left to wonder what will happen, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said in his excellent speech, when the Secretary of State seizes control of apprenticeships from the current structure.

There are a number of other questions to be put. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) made a very good point about SMEs. One challenge when I was a Minister, and for subsequent Ministers and this Government, was in engaging more SMEs. I am not sure that we were successful in that. I launched a review of how we might do that; it was typically by making the system regulatory and trying to review some of the paperwork. Again, as the Bill moves forward, what more will we hear about how to engage more SMEs? If we say to someone in my constituency that there are really good engineering apprenticeships in Derby, which I am told is in the same part of the country—or in the same region at least, whatever that means—we might as well be saying that there are apprenticeships on Mars, because they will not be able to get to Derby to study. We really need the spread of apprenticeship accessibility, which SME involvement provides. It is the only way of creating the reach that is necessary to engage more young people and adult learners in acquiring those skills.

I have one or two further questions, with which I hope the Minister can deal. I have already spoken about employers. On the status of the new body, is it the Government’s intention, as the Secretary of State implied— but no more than that—for it to become a non-departmental body in the end, or will it always be an in-house body? Anyone who has been close to government will know the significance of those two options. It needs at the very least to be a non-departmental body if it is to have the necessary freedom and independence to respond to employer need and changing economic circumstances. The Secretary of State hinted that that might be the direction of travel, but we do need to know more when the Minister sums up.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Debate between Andrew Pakes and John Hayes

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

That was quicker than I expected, Madam Deputy Speaker, so thank you. It is a privilege to speak in the debate.

Nothing goes to the heart of the health, wellbeing and prosperity of a nation more than being able to feed and look after ourselves. Britain’s farmers and our farming workforce are part of the essential infrastructure that keeps this country going. I am proud to represent a constituency with such a rich food and farming heritage. Farming is in our DNA.

I pay tribute to our farmers and farming workforce. When we talk about any other industry, we recognise the skilled workers that deliver for Britain: the steelworkers, the miners, the nurses and the doctors. We should start every debate on food and farming with the same recognition for farmers. Food security begins with the incredible work of our farmers, and I thank them. We talk about people going the extra mile to look out for each other and care for our communities; farmers do that every day. This should therefore be a welcome debate on the future of farming. It should mention farming profitability and allow the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) to talk about agri-technology and how we increase profitability. I hope that he does so shortly. Instead, what do we get? It is political opportunism from a party that should know better. I am proud to be part of the largest contingent of rural Labour MPs in Britain’s history. Labour Members were elected to protect and support our rural communities, and we will do just that. After 14 years, it is a bit rich of Conservative Members now to claim that they are backing Britain’s farmers.

[Sir John Hayes]

I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, said about recognising and celebrating the work of farmers, and indeed farm workers, but does he understand—I am sure that most Conservative Members understand this well—that assets and income are entirely different things? Farmers’ assets are our landscape. Their wealth is our common wealth—something that the Government have seemingly failed to appreciate by imposing a tax on farmers that confuses their ability to make a living with the asset that is essential for them to feed the nation.