Safety of School Buildings
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bridget Phillipson
My right hon. Friend is right to draw our attention to that matter, and I appreciate the work that his Committee has done on it. It would also be helpful if we had some clarity today from the Secretary of State about the risks that might arise when RAAC interacts with asbestos. If she could say a little bit more about that, I am sure all Members from across the House would be grateful.
Bridget Phillipson
I am just going to make a bit more progress.
For a responsible politician, being in government is not simply a matter of pressing the agenda of their political party, their donors or those who profit from Government contracts. It is about rising to the challenges that face our country, and accepting the blame when things go wrong as the price of acclaim when they go well.
The point about RAAC was made very ably by the Secretary of State, who said:
“a school can collapse for many reasons, not just RAAC”.
They can indeed! So many things are wrong right now with our schools estate: there are faulty boilers, inadequate insulation, roofs leaking, and asbestos in around four out of five of our schools; and as the pandemic taught us, ventilation is simply not good enough in too many of our schools. How do we know that? The condition data collection tells us all of it. By the Department’s own admission, that exercise was not even a proper structural survey, despite coming 20 years after the risks of RAAC were first flagged, and seven years after the Government cancelled Labour’s school rebuilding programmes, having not even looked at hazardous materials.
The condition data collection found that more than 7,000 elements of the school estate were in poor condition and needed to be prioritised for replacement. Were all those someone else’s responsibility, too? Even the money that the Department did commit—the spending allocations of which the Minister for Schools speaks so proudly so often, with the keen pride of a Minister wholly oblivious to the scale of their own failure—was not all spent. Again, whose fault is that? Whose responsibility might that have been?
We are told that part of the difficulty in recent years has been finding the skilled labour to deliver the work that our schools so desperately need. I invite Conservative Members to reflect briefly on why exactly that might be. Could it be the dramatic overall drop in apprenticeship starts, the shortage of construction apprenticeships in recent years, or the utter failure of the Government’s apprenticeship levy to deliver spending on skills at the scale and pace we need? Could it be their wider failures on further education and in-work training? Thirteen years into a Conservative Government, who will take responsibility for that?
It was a Conservative Prime Minister who once savaged the press of this country for seeking “power without responsibility”. Today, that is the entire ideology of the whole Conservative party. That failure to accept responsibility is not merely the ethic of the Secretary of State and her Ministers; it comes right from the very top. Today’s Prime Minister was yesterday’s Chancellor, and we know—not just from the former most senior official at the Department for Education, but from the Schools Minister himself—that at the 2021 spending review, when even Ministers knew that the problems needed tackling urgently and the rate of rebuilding needed to soar, the now Prime Minister said no, and every Conservative Member accepted that. Cheaper champagne, yes; safer schools, no. There has never been a clearer picture of the priorities of the Conservative party.
The Prime Minister, fond as he is of private donations to his old school, has form on saying no to high standards in schools for other people’s children. He said no to the proper pandemic recovery plan that the Government’s own recovery tsar recommended. In 2021, he said no to the capital spend that would have kept our schools safe and our children learning. Last spring, he said no to the desperate pleas of civil servants in the Department for Education for the resources to make schools safe. In his spending review speech back in 2021, he even boasted of returning overall real-terms education spending in a few years’ time to the levels of the last Labour Government. That was not an admission, wrung as a repentant confession; it was a boast, made with pride, that one day—but perhaps not yet—he would take education as seriously as Labour.
Those who complain about party politics might reflect for just a moment on whether they would level the same accusation at the National Audit Office. In June, the NAO reported that
“Following years of underinvestment, the estate’s overall condition is declining and around 700,000 pupils are learning in a school that the responsible body or DfE believes needs major rebuilding or refurbishment. Most seriously, DfE recognises significant safety concerns across the estate, and has escalated these concerns to the government risk register.”
Just yesterday, in respect of RAAC, the Comptroller and Auditor General was clear that
“the long-term risks it posed took too long to be properly addressed”.
On the sustained inadequacy of the Government’s capital programme, he went even further:
“Failure to bite this bullet leads to poor value, with more money required for emergency measures or a sticking plaster approach.”
Failing to bite the bullet; poor value; a sticking-plaster approach—13 years into this Government, those are absolutely damning words from the Government’s own spending watchdog.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I rise as the Member of Parliament who, unfortunately, probably has more RAAC schools than any other. That does not take into account nearby secondary schools, three of which are identified on the list of cancelled projects in the Building Schools for the Future programme with RAAC in Colchester, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and which are all likely to be attended by pupils from my constituency.
I heave a deep sigh. Opposition day debates are about blaming the Government—I have been in opposition, and we all know that. They are not about what has fundamentally gone wrong and what lessons there are to be learned. Like the Prime Minister, as he pointed out earlier on the spending review, I can find no reference to RAAC schools in Hansard relating to any statement, urgent question or debate from 2010 when the Building Schools for the Future programme was cancelled, and cancelled it was for very good reasons. Labour’s motion is retrospectively trying to allocate blame in the past, not explaining what a Labour Government would do now or in future.
Dame Meg Hillier
I am tempted to my feet to say that there was a properly planned programme of renewal of schools, and although RAAC in itself was not the only issue being looked at, it was part of that discussion. Just because it is not named does not mean that there was not a plan. There was a plan, and a Conservative Secretary of State axed that on day one of the coalition Government.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
That is of no comfort to my constituents, I am afraid, because nearly all the schools concerned are primary schools, and there were no primary schools in the Building Schools for the Future programme because it was a politically driven programme funded by the discredited public finance initiative, which made it extremely expensive. I do not think we should go back there.
The Labour party does not actually criticise what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided last week to protect the safety of schoolchildren and teachers. That was the subject of my intervention on the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson). Does she think that the Secretary of State has done the wrong thing? I will give way to her now if she would like to say that.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
No, but the point is that this debate arises because the Secretary of State made a brave and courageous decision to act on the advice she was given. The Opposition has nothing whatever to say about that. She did the right thing. [Interruption.] If the shadow Secretary of State wants to intervene, by all means she may.
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Gentleman would do well to show a little humility for the mess that his party has created right across our schools.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
There we have it: the hon. Lady will not say that the Secretary of State has done the wrong thing. Let the politics play itself out.
What we have here is a much more fundamental, wider systemic failure in the management of building safety, which has gone on for decades. Dr John Roberts, the former president of the Institution of Structural Engineers, wrote in The Times earlier this week:
“As a chartered structural engineer in active practice from the early 1970s, I never considered using RAAC as it did not “feel’ correct for permanent structures.”
So why was it used? One lesson is that perhaps Ministers should encourage their officials to challenge them more with uncomfortable truths—let us agree that.
The wider question is why such a critical building safety issue was systemically neglected, decade after decade. We should thank the good Lord that none of the ceilings collapsed on a classroom of pupils, or the Government would by now be announcing a full public inquiry rather like the Grenfell inquiry. There the parallels continue, because like cladding, RAAC is a long-persisting and neglected building safety risk, which successive Governments have failed to address.
I and others, including the former fire and housing Minister Nick Raynsford, the former chief investigator of the Air Accident Investigation Branch Dr Keith Conradi, and senior buildings surveyor Kevin Savage, made a submission to the Grenfell inquiry. Our recommendations to help to address the failings are principally twofold and relate to unresolved conflicts of interest in the building safety management regime of buildings, which are not addressed by the Building Safety Act 2022 or the establishment of the building safety body, which is now a statutory function of the Health and Safety Executive. At present, it is the HSE—
Sir Bernard Jenkin
No, I will press on, if I may. At present, it is the HSE that decides how a building safety failure should be investigated, unless the Government take over with their own inquiry.
There is a need for a truly independent building safety investigation body, equivalent to the accident investigation bodies in aviation, marine, rail and offshore safety. No regulator like the HSE should also investigate safety failures, because it may find itself conflicted if part of the failure arises from a failure of regulation. That is what Lord Cullen found in the Paddington rail crash inquiry and why the Rail Accident Investigation Branch of the Department for Transport was established.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am sorry; I have no time.
The second conflict that needs to be resolved concerns the role of local authority building control bodies and their private sector counterparts, known as approved inspectors. The Building Safety Act will regulate the private sector approved inspectors but not local authority building control, which was not only responsible for approving the cladding on Grenfell Tower but, I hazard a guess, probably approved the building control on most of the schools built with RAAC.
The main point is that failures such as RAAC and cladding arise because of the failure of the building management safety system, which is endemic to that system. The failures also arise from the failure to find the causes of building safety incidents through a proper independent investigation body that possesses permanent, accumulated expertise that a one-off-public inquiry has to attempt to acquire from scratch.
I hope that amid the politicking, all political parties will recognise that such reforms are necessary in building safety management, or there will be more systemic failures in building safety arising from things such as the wrong cladding and the wrong concrete in the future. I have 15 seconds, if the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) would like to intervene.
Ian Lavery
Very briefly, does the hon. Member think that the Government’s 54% reduction in the HSE budget since 2010 is helpful in this situation?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would raise a point relevant to my speech. There has been enough politicking about this issue. I am making more serious comments about the building safety management system of this whole country, which affects a whole lot of other public buildings as well.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I support the motion, which stands in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) and the Leader of the Opposition. It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey). May I just correct him by saying that PFI was started by the Conservative Major Government?
As pupils, parents and teachers were preparing for a new school term last week and this week, they were met with horrifying news that threw into question whether their schools were safe to go into. Headteachers were left scrambling around over the weekend to arrange new sites and portacabins, or, worse, telling parents that their children were not to come into school this week.
Ruth Cadbury
I will not give way, as I know there are quite a few people to speak.
Schools have been rushing to book surveys to find out whether they have RAAC. This is a week when parents should be filled with joy and excitement about a new year, taking photos of their year 7s in their new uniform, not worrying about how to find holiday childcare for another week—or two weeks, who knows?
This situation did not happen by accident. Conservative Members like to pretend that the past 13 years were a fever dream, but this crisis stems primarily from the decision made in 2010 to cancel Labour’s Building Schools for the Future scheme. It was a massive and historic programme of investment. That investment would have benefited schools in my constituency and across England: schools that had RAAC; schools that have asbestos; and schools that had had little serious investment over the previous 18 years of Conservative government prior to 1997. In 2010, the Conservatives cancelled that programme because they do not know the value of investment or the role of public services, and did not care about the condition of our schools. The Prime Minister is so out of touch with the country that he struggles to use a contactless card machine. What hope do we have that he might really understand UK state schools?
When the Prime Minister was Chancellor, he made the decision to block extra funding to the Department for Education—funding that would have gone towards fixing, repairing and improving our school estate. One of the most senior civil servants in that Department even admitted that funding for school buildings was blocked because the Government wanted to push more towards free schools. For example, that involved paying £11.25 million of taxpayers’ money—way overpaying—for a former sports facility on old metropolitan open land in Osterley. Once again, the Conservative ideology trumps value for money and public safety.
We live in a country where ambulances do not turn up, the police have to be ordered to investigate crime and school buildings now face collapse. Thirteen long years of Conservative rule have utterly ruined our public services. There is no more fitting legacy than the fact that the public realm is literally collapsing in front of us. The letter I received from the DFE on Monday says that
“there is nothing more important than the safety of children, young people, and staff in education settings”.
Even if that were the view of officials within the DFE, it clearly was not the view of the Prime Minister, who was Chancellor in 2021 when the Government knew about this problem—indeed, there had been warnings long before that. If the Government really thought that there was nothing more important than the safety of children, young people and staff in education settings, why are schools collapsing and why are children being told to say at home this week?
Hon. Members have a choice today: they can vote with Labour and give parents the right to know who is responsible for this mess, or they can vote to conceal the true scale of the crisis and the Prime Minister’s failure to keep our children safe.
Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete in Education Settings
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gillian Keegan
Yes, I have, and there are not very many. There are two things that we need to know about Building Schools for the Future. The first is that it was not based on condition, and the second is that it did not include a single primary school. Many of the schools that we have identified—156 of them—are primary schools. I was not involved in the Building Schools for the Future programme, but I have looked at it in great detail. I remember it from growing up in Knowsley. The schools that were built did not contain a single classroom wall. Known locally as the “wacky warehouses”, they cost a fortune and then cost millions to put right afterwards. I point the hon. Lady to the James review, which was pretty scathing about the programme, saying that it was bureaucratic, that it failed to deliver—I think it delivered 180 schools—that it was not based on condition and that it built wacky warehouses in Knowsley.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
As the MP with eight identified schools with RAAC issues and two others under investigation, which is more, I think, than in any other constituency, may I thank her for her exemplary statement? It was perfectly rational and demonstrated that she personally has taken on her responsibilities despite the political dangers that she has put herself into. May I just ask about the caseworkers? Is there one caseworker for each school? If not, how many schools is each caseworker having to deal with? It would also be helpful if we could contact the caseworkers, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said.
Finally, may I ask about the school buildings that have already closed? Mistley Norman in my constituency, for example, was closed in July, and the Secretary of State will know that I had a meeting with Baroness Barran about that in July, which means that we have been working on this long before the issue blew up last week. Will the capital funding be made available to rebuild Mistley Norman School?
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend is right that he has many impacted schools in his area. On capital funding, the Chancellor was very clear that we will do whatever is necessary to keep children safe. There are three stages. The first is the funding to make sure that we put all the mitigations in place. The second is to look at revenue funding if that is required on an ongoing basis, and the third is the rebuilding programme. On the caseworkers, there are just over 50 of them, so they are more or less dealing with two schools each. On the matter of access to the caseworkers, as I have said, right now they are focusing on the schools, but the helpline is supposed to have access to the same information. Perhaps we will consider a specific approach for Essex MPs, so that we can go through the work in detail with some of the caseworkers, because I think that could be helpful.
University of Essex
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am grateful to you for granting me this debate, Mr Speaker, and it is a pleasure that you should be in the Chair, given that you are also the chancellor of the University of Essex. We are fortunate that you have taken on that role. I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills for being here, and I look forward to her reply to this debate. I hope she will convey the points of concern I am raising to her colleague, the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation.
As the UK prepares to leave the EU, universities, including the University of Essex, are facing much uncertainty: what access will there be for EU students and academics after the UK leaves the EU? What fees will EU students be liable to pay? Will EU students still have access to the UK student loans system? Will the UK continue to participate in EU research programmes such as Horizon 2020? Despite all that, I have never doubted that the UK’s universities will continue to thrive outside the EU, just as they did before we joined.
The 2018 QS World University Rankings put four UK universities in the top 10 in the world, and nine in the top 50. What is more, there are opportunities for universities when we leave the EU. By levelling the playing field between EU and non-EU students and academics, universities will be better able to compete with all our international rivals—the big US universities and the emerging universities of Asia, as well as the European universities. But the Government need to make decisions as soon as possible so that universities can plan for the future.
Since I was first elected for Colchester, North in 1992, I have had the privilege of representing the University of Essex in Parliament. We have a close relationship, and I am a member of the court of the university. Over the years, I have witnessed how much the University of Essex has contributed to academia, the local economy and the wider community. It continues from strength to strength. I make no apology for using this opportunity to set out the university’s progress and achievements. In June, Essex was awarded “gold” in the teaching excellence framework. Essex was also ranked in the top 15 in England for student satisfaction for the fifth year running in the national student survey, and 22nd in “The Times and The Sunday Times Good University Guide 2018”. Furthermore, Essex was ranked in the UK’s top 20 universities for research excellence in the last research excellence framework.
Very few universities excel in both education and research, while also performing strongly in measures of overall student experience, graduate prospects and quality of facilities. Essex is one of a very small group of universities that genuinely achieves that. As a result, Essex students benefit from a research-led education that not only equips them to succeed on their courses, but provides them with the skills to succeed in their chosen careers after graduation. I look forward to continuing to work with the university in the years ahead, as it builds on these achievements.
The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 will introduce a new regulatory framework. One of its effects is to establish two new bodies, one called the Office for Students and the other called UK Research and Innovation. I will not elaborate on the complex details of the reforms, but there is concern that those two bodies must work closely together, reflecting the importance of integrating research and teaching. I know that a consultation is in progress, but I hope the Minister can reassure universities about that in her response.
I commend to the Government the 2014 Public Administration Committee report on the effectiveness of public bodies, “Who’s Accountable?”. I was Chair of that Select Committee at the time. Ministerial directions will not be enough to ensure co-ordinated working. Our report found that to make things work effectively in such a situation, the Department must develop confident, open and trusting relationships, both within the Department on the two policy areas and between the officials in the Department and the leadership of those two public bodies. There is no other way to ensure a high level of co-operation between the two bodies so that the mutual benefits that result from excellent research and outstanding educational experiences are promoted.
This is proving to be a record year for recruitment at the University of Essex, with close to 6,000 students starting undergraduate or postgraduate courses this autumn. The university has seen unprecedented levels of interest in student places, with more than 20,000 applications for 4,400 undergraduate student places this year. This has allowed the university to continue to grow in size. In 2016, it had 14,000 students, compared with only 9,500 in 2012. The university plans to grow further, increasing student numbers to 20,000 by 2025.
The University of Essex has recruited more than 152 new academic staff over the past three years and invested heavily in its professional services. That recruitment continues as the university continues to grow. It is also making a significant investment, until 2021, of around £90 million in its teaching facilities, student accommodation, knowledge gateway building programme and sports facilities. I look forward to seeing the outcome of that work.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. As he knows, around half the University of Essex’s students live in the Colchester constituency. Does he agree that the university plays a huge social, cultural and economic role in Colchester’s prosperity? We are incredibly proud to have the university linked so strongly to our town.
Mr Jenkin
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. He will be as acutely aware as I am of what a big role the university plays in the civic life of Colchester and the surrounding area.
The University of Essex’s research is pioneering and world class. Its department of government, at which you studied, Mr Speaker, is ranked the best in the country in every assessment of research quality that has been undertaken. The university is also in the top four for social science research, fifth for economics and 10th for art history. Last year, the university secured £42 million of externally funded research income, including half a million pounds secured by a biological sciences research team to investigate marine bacteria, which will improve our understanding of the impact of global warming on this vital part of Earth’s life-support system.
The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, of which I am Chair, scrutinises the UK Statistics Authority, which has done work on what is known as big data. As Chair of that Committee, I am delighted that the University of Essex won £27 million from the Economic and Social Research Council to support its work on understanding society up to 2021. It is the largest longitudinal statistical study of its kind, and it provides crucial information for researchers and policy makers about changes in attitudes and behaviours over time and on the causes and consequences of deep-rooted social problems and change in people’s lives. The university’s status as a leading centre of expertise in analysing and handling big data, such as that generated through the Understanding Society programme, received further validation in 2016, with UNESCO’s establishment of its only chair in analytics and data science at the university.
I would be grateful if the Minister set out how the Government will remain fully committed to recognising and rewarding research excellence wherever it is found, whether at Essex or elsewhere. I would also like to pay tribute to the late Anthony King, who, in 1968, became reader in government at the University of Essex, which gave him the opportunity to shape the department, which now enjoys such a renowned reputation.
University of Essex research has impact through partnerships with businesses of all sizes. That work was recognised when the university was ranked in the top 10 in the UK for engagement with business through what the Government recognised as knowledge transfer partnerships, and supported through the programme run by Innovate UK, to help businesses improve their competitiveness through better use of UK knowledge, technology and skills.
The knowledge transfer partnerships are one of the main ways in which the university ensures its research feeds into business activity, and the range and scope of those partnerships is extensive. For example, Essex works with the digital agency, Orbital Media, to use artificial intelligence to create automated online GP services. Essex also works with the organisation Above Surveying, which will use the latest technology to improve the way its drones monitor and inspect solar farms.
Essex is continuing to expand its business engagement and the University of Essex Innovation Centre is now being built on the Colchester campus. This is a joint initiative with Essex County Council and the south-east local enterprise partnership, which, when completed, will provide space and support for up to 50 start-ups and smaller high-tech businesses in the Knowledge Gateway research and technology park.
The university’s research impact also supports public institutions in tackling challenging social and economic issues. In conjunction with Essex County Council, the university has appointed the UK’s first local authority chief scientific adviser, Slava Mikhaylov, professor of public policy and data science, who supports Essex County Council to develop policy rooted in scientific analysis and evidence.
Essex was one of the very first universities to start offering degree apprenticeships in higher education, which provide students with the skills that industry needs and allow them to combine studying for a full degree with gaining practical skills in work. Such apprentices get the financial security of a regular pay packet, while providing businesses with a cost-effective way to bring in new talent and skills or develop their workforce. Tech giant ARM, alongside local small and medium-sized enterprises, is already offering degree apprenticeships in partnership with Essex. The university’s work in this area is hugely beneficial, with both students and businesses standing to benefit a great deal from these opportunities.
This determination to use research to drive growth has led to Essex being asked to lead a £4.7 million Government project in the eastern region and to grow the economy through improved productivity by encouraging collaboration between universities and businesses. The “Enabling Innovation: Research to Application” network will build collaborations to support business innovation across Essex, Kent, Norfolk and Suffolk.
I am enormously proud of the University of Essex’s work. However, I am also proud of its global outlook and international spirit.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I declare an interest: I went to Bristol—I am sorry about that. As an MP from the south of the county, may I confirm to my hon. Friend that the reach of the university goes across the entire county and indeed beyond? In the south of Essex, we greatly value the economic contribution that the university makes to the life of our county.
Mr Jenkin
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. At the point where I am celebrating the University of Essex’s global reach, it is entirely appropriate that Southend and Rayleigh should be included in the equation.
Staff and students come from all around the world and the university collaborates internationally on a high proportion of its work. The Times Higher Education rankings for 2018 placed the University of Essex second in the UK for “international outlook” and I am delighted that applications to the university from international students continue to increase. I am also delighted that, on their arrival in Essex, international staff and students are met with such an open and inclusive welcome.
As the UK regains control of its borders following Brexit, I urge the Government to ensure that barriers are not put in the way of universities such as Essex, one of the UK’s great export success stories, continuing to attract talented students and staff from around the globe.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as having an excellent chancellor, the University of Essex is a great centre for the local community it serves, not just the global community? This summer I was fortunate enough to give out graduation certificates to hundreds of students who attended during the summer break. Does my hon. Friend agree that the university serves a useful purpose in that regard?
Mr Jenkin
I am very grateful for that intervention because I did not have that element in my speech.
The Government will be aware that EU membership has obliged us to provide support for students from EU countries. Leaving the EU will provide us with an opportunity to support more students from poorer countries, and I encourage the Government to look at how the UK can do this. The higher default rate among EU students taking out UK taxpayer-funded student loans is a burden. According to figures released by the Student Loans Company earlier this year, this figure stands at approximately 4% for EU domiciled student loan borrowers compared with around 0.5% of English domiciled student loan borrowers. The percentage of students who are yet to have their repayment status confirmed, or who have not supplied their incomes and have therefore been placed in arrears, is also higher among EU domiciled student loan borrowers.
It is hard for the Student Loans Company to pursue loans being repaid from abroad. These losses should not fall on the British taxpayer, nor should British students have to pay higher interest rates as a consequence. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the UK will no longer be obliged to offer student loans and subsidised fees to EU students after the UK leaves the EU, not least because these students come from far wealthier countries than other countries that we should want to help more.
Essex is also leading the way on women’s equality, so it is appropriate that this Minister, who is also the Minister for Women, is replying to this debate. Essex gave its female professors a one-off salary increase in 2016 after an audit revealed a pay gap between its male and female professors. It was the first university in the UK to do so and the decision was covered in national media. This was a brave and bold move, and, one year on, the gender pay gap between male and female professors has not reopened. The university and its vice-chancellor, Professor Anthony Forster, deserve credit for this.
I do not need to say how important universities are to individuals, to our society and to our economy. They transform people’s lives through education and the value of their research, provide businesses with people who have the vital skills they need, and make a crucial contribution to the UK economy. They enrich our society and culture as places where conventional wisdom can be challenged and where contentious issues can be debated with passion on all sides. The University of Essex was one of the few universities that remained officially neutral during the EU referendum. I personally helped to find speakers from both sides of the argument for a major debate hosted by the university just prior to the vote. Essex has set the highest example of impartiality and protection for freedom of speech.
In conclusion, I am sure that the Minister will want to join me in congratulating the University of Essex for all that it is achieving. However, I hope that she will address the concerns I have raised, particularly those arising from the UK’s decision to leave the EU. These uncertainties about access for foreign students and academics to UK universities, or about the replacement of EU funding, are not dependent on the outcome of any negotiations with the EU. The Government can decide things such as our future immigration policy right now. The Government can decide now that they will guarantee, at least in principle, to replace EU funding with UK funding, particularly as when we leave the EU we will no longer be required to support non-UK EU spending, which amounts to some £9 billion a year. There is no excuse for extending uncertainty unnecessarily. I hope that the Minister will at least agree with that.
Children and Social Work Bill [Lords]
Bernard Jenkin ExcerptsTuesday 7th March 2017
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Children and Social Work Act 2017 View all Children and Social Work Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 7 March 2017 - (7 Mar 2017)
Edward Timpson
I have indicated that we expect bullying to be covered in primary school, and of course we have to cover all facets of bullying, as it comes in many forms. Of course, it will be a matter for the school to make sure that that is age appropriate, and it will start to put in place the building blocks of the development of that child’s understanding, ensuring that by the time they move on to secondary school they are well placed to move on to the next level of subject matter that they will need to understand.
Schools will need to ensure that RSE is inclusive and meets the needs of all young people.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am yet another Select Committee Chair who very much welcomes this development and the courage with which the Government are putting it forward, but there is a point to be made about what is allowed to be taught in primary schools and the fact that children’s experiences start well before they leave primary school. They are learning about these things and asking questions about them long before they leave primary school, and there is nothing in this Bill that will prevent teachers from responding to curiosity and dealing with these issues as they arise in the normal course of any other part of their education.
Edward Timpson
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s indication as a Select Committee Chair that he joins the club of Chairmen who support this important move. He is right that there is scope within these measures for schools to tailor their response to this subject matter in a way that best meets the needs of their pupils. There is already some excellent material available from the likes of the PSHE Association that sets out how they can do that in an age-appropriate way and in a way that meets the challenges that we know the modern world throws at children at an ever more tender age.
Trade Union Bill (Discussions)
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will instruct his adviser on ministerial interests to launch an inquiry as to whether discussions between Ministers and officials and representatives of trade unions or the Labour party concerning amendments to the Trade Union Bill constitute a breach of the ministerial code of conduct. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)
The Cabinet Office has advised me that there is no breach of the ministerial code and nothing for the Prime Minister’s adviser on ministerial interests to investigate.
The Trade Union Bill is now in ping-pong and, as is customary at such times, Ministers have held regular discussions with shadow Ministers to discuss possible compromises that would secure passage of the Bill and delivery of the commitments made in the Conservative party’s manifesto. On the basis of the amendments passed by this House yesterday evening, I can reassure my hon. Friend that we are well on the way to securing all our manifesto commitments—ballot thresholds for strikes, reforms to the role of the certification officer, a tightening-up of rules around facility time, action to stop intimidation of non-striking workers, and the introduction of a transparent opt-in process for union members’ contributions to political funds.
The question of compulsory opt-in to trade unions’ political funds was one of the most contentious, especially in the House of Lords. Noble Lords referred the clauses in the Bill to a special Select Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Burns. Following the Select Committee’s report, the House of Lords voted by a large majority to accept an amendment to restrict the opt-in to new members and to exclude existing trade union members.
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I hold regular meetings with trade union leaders and the general secretary of the TUC, not just in relation to the Bill, but in relation to other responsibilities of mine, including our support for the excellent work of Unionlearn.
Trade union support for the campaign to remain in the European Union is not new and should not come as a surprise to anyone. The TUC declared its support for the campaign in February. The GMB union did the same on 22 February, Unite on 14 March and Unison on 13 April.
Mr Jenkin
We all remember the Prime Minister foretelling that the next great scandal would be a lobbying scandal, and here it is. Trade union leaders have been complaining that they are unable to campaign effectively for a remain vote in the EU referendum while the Government’s Trade Union Bill has been threatening trade unions and their funding. The Bill would have implemented a Conservative manifesto commitment to
“legislate to ensure trade unions use a transparent opt-in process for union subscriptions”.
As a result of the amendment being accepted, a 19-year-old who has just started a job and is a member of a trade union will now never be asked by a trade union whether he wants his political fund subscriptions to be taken out of his pay packet.
The Prime Minister told the House of Commons on 15 July last year:
“There is a very simple principle here: giving money to a party should be an act of free will. Money should not be taken out of people’s pay packets without them being told about it properly”—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 885.]
and he likened that to mis-selling. On 16 March, the Minister in the other place described the Labour amendment, which the Government have now accepted, as a “wrecking amendment”. Yesterday, the Minister made a wholly unexpected concession when he announced his decision to abandon opposition to the change in the Bill.
It is now being reported on Channel 4 News and in today’s papers that those unexpected concessions are linked to a £1.7 million donation that trade unions might make from their political funds, which are now much larger than they would have been, to the Labour remain campaign, Labour In For Britain. Until recently, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) was trying to raise £75,000 for a few leaflets, balloons and badges; now the campaign is getting £1.7 million. It has been confirmed to me by more than two independent sources that No. 10 instructed those concessions to be made after discussions with trade union representatives. That being true would amount to the sale of Government policy for cash and political favours.
Lest there be any doubt about the impropriety of this deal, Her Majesty’s Opposition should ask themselves this question: what would they be saying if this Government had altered a Bill in order to give extra money to the Conservative party or to the Conservatives’ remain campaign, Conservatives In? My hon. Friend the Minister should ask himself this question: what would have been the reaction if a Labour Government had changed a Bill in order to favour the Labour party’s ability to support the Government on some controversial policy and in order to give the Labour party money? This stinks—it reeks the same as cash for questions. This shows that this Government really are at the rotten heart of the European Union.
The seven principles of public life require public office holders to
“avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence…their work.”
The ministerial code states:
“Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises”,
or appears to arise,
“between their public duties and their private interests”.
In this matter, the Labour party constitutes one of their private interests.
Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister instruct his adviser on ministerial interests, Sir Alex Allan, to launch an investigation? If my hon. Friend the Minister and the Cabinet Office are right, he has nothing to fear from such an investigation.
Nick Boles
May I start by saying that I have the greatest respect for the passion and commitment, which have lasted for not just years but decades, that my hon. Friend has brought to the cause he advocates with such vigour—that we leave the European Union? I have nothing but total respect for that passion and commitment.
I just want gently to correct my hon. Friend on a few points of fact, because he focused so much on the important question he raised that a number of the things he suggested about the current mechanism for union members’ subscriptions to the political fund were not absolutely correct.
The first point to make is that it is not the case that somebody who has recently joined a trade union, and to whom the new requirement for an opt-in will therefore not apply, will never be asked whether they want to pay into the political levy—very far from it. There is a long-standing legal requirement that they are offered an opt-out from that political levy and that that is communicated clearly to them. That opt-out is not just a one-time thing; it is not something they are offered only when they join—it is something they can exercise at any time, and they need to be reminded of it regularly.
The other thing to say is that, while estimates from different unions vary, the overall estimate is that roughly 13% to 14% of all trade union members joined in the last year. I am not going to suggest that all trade union members will have needed to opt in to the political fund over this Parliament, but a substantial proportion will have.
I am afraid my hon. Friend is also not correct to say that we are talking about a Labour amendment. The amendment was moved by Lord Burns—somebody for whom I know my hon. Friend has the greatest respect, as a fearsomely independent former permanent secretary. The amendment flowed out of a Committee in which there was some very fearsome representation of all parties. It was clearly inspired by Lord Burns’s argument that it is not reasonable to ask people who have signed up to an arrangement in good faith then to have to sign up again through a different process simply because we have changed the law later on. I did not agree with that argument, and nor did we in this House, but what happened often happens when the House of Lords feels very, very strongly on an issue, when there is a very, very large majority against the Government’s position, and when an Independent Member of the House of Lords has moved an amendment that has secured support not just from the official Opposition and from the Liberal Democrats but from a huge number of Cross Benchers—and not just from Cross Benchers but some very significant members of our own party.
I urge my hon. Friend to look at the people who spoke in the debate and voted, or very assertively chose not to vote, in support of the Government’s position. They included not just Lord Cormack and Lord Balfe but Lord Forsyth, who supports the same campaign on the European Union that my hon. Friend has supported and who, both privately and publicly, said that he thought it was a profound error for us to pursue a compulsory opt-in for all existing members. So it is not right to say that it was just a Labour position.
My hon. Friend suggested that it was inappropriate for the Government to do anything in terms of making changes to legislation to further private interests, and of course he is right. However, it is not right, and not even in the passion of the moment is it fair, to categorise the official policy of Her Majesty’s Government in that way. We support the proposition that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union. He disagrees, honourably and valiantly, but it is not a private interest—it is Government policy.
Mr Speaker
Points of order really come after statements. The hon. Gentleman has had a good run, and he should be patient. I am sure his point of order can be heard later, if it is sufficiently important to warrant either his staying in the Chamber or his returning to it.
Repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I realise I am craving the indulgence of the House. I would not normally seek to intervene in a debate when I was unable to attend the opening speeches. I understand, however, that the main protagonists have yet to speak, so I will use this brief opportunity to give my pennyworth in the hope that they may each be able to reply to one or two of the points I will make.
I have been listening to the debate, but I wonder if I could take the House back, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) did, to the beginning and to when the coalition was being formed. When it was formed, I remember it was announced that there were going to be some constitutional changes, including this one. We were told that we were ushering in a new era of the new politics that was going to transform the people’s perception of how we conduct ourselves in this place. It was going to show the parties re-engaging with the enthusiasm of the voters and that, as a consequence, this would be a much happier country. I remember having a conversation with a Minister on the stairs going up to the Committee Corridor. He said to me that politics, after five years of the coalition, would be unrecognisable—that is what he said. If we ask voters today what they think about how politics looks today compared with four years ago, I think they would say that it is all too recognisable.
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone described—I understand he has had to leave the Chamber in a rush because he is attending to other duties in the House—has turned this place in upon itself even more than it was before. We are even less focused on what the voters think because we have given ourselves tenure. We have given ourselves security. We have given ourselves a fixed-term lease that cannot be challenged. And there is the idea that this was done as some selfless and noble act! I am amazed that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) —I am afraid he is not in his place at the moment—should keep raising the question of how the Prime Minister might exercise his power with regard to partisan considerations. Well, perish the thought that any Prime Minister would ever do anything with partisan considerations in mind! I look back at previous Prime Ministers and think to myself: did Gordon Brown ever act in a partisan manner? No, no, never! Did Sir John Major or Tony Blair ever act in a partisan manner? No, no! The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was obviously yet another selfless Act introduced by a Prime Minister, with no party considerations involved! I think we are being asked to stretch our imaginations a little too far.
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act is one of the most partisan and self-interested Acts of Parliament that has ever been put on the statute book. It did not just provide MPs with tenure; it provided the coalition Government with tenure. It was providing the coalition with security; it was providing them with a five-year guaranteed supply of money from the taxpayer for their Administration. It was self-interested on the part of the Conservative Ministers who wanted to give themselves tenure. It was self-interested on the part of the Liberal Democrats to give themselves tenure not only in this coalition but in a future hung Parliament to guarantee that the only option would be another five-year coalition in which they, the smallest party, would once again have influence disproportionate to the number of votes they received. Even I missed the point about why the Labour party was so happy to give tenure to the coalition. The Labour party knew it was in a mess. It had a deeply unpopular ex-Prime Minister who had just been thrown out of office. It was going to have a long, protracted leadership election process. The last thing it wanted was another general election within six or 18 months. It was in no fit state to fight one, so of course it also supported the Act. This has created a politicians’ paradise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, it is designed to shut the British people out of the decision about what kind of Government they should be able to choose.
Mr Jenkin
I totally agree. The whole question of House of Lords reform was also being advanced for party political interests.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley asked who should have the power to dissolve Parliament. Should it be the Prime Minister? I put it to him that holding that power is part of the authority of being Prime Minister. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) described it, part of the poisoned chalice of office is that the Prime Minister holds that power. By passing the Act, we have robbed the Prime Minister of part of that authority. We have robbed the Government of part of the authority of office that the Government live on a day-to-day basis, subject to the confidence of the House of Commons. That has been taken away and represents a fundamental change in our constitution.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) wants not only a written constitution and the continuation of fixed-term Parliaments, but the separation of powers. Basically, he wants an American constitution rather than a British constitution, but let us look at the American constitution. First, it is paralysed. It cannot get its deficit down and it cannot elect a strong Government. It can elect a President, but the separation of powers means that Congress can defeat everything the President wants to do. I do not think that that is a very good recipe. We do not want to follow that. In any case, the separation of powers is based on a misapprehension of how constitutions work. There is, in fact, no such thing as a separation of powers in any constitution. That was what Montesquieu thought he understood about the British constitution. The need for a separation of powers was the lesson that the American founding fathers thought they had learned from him about the British constitution. However, in the American constitution the President, the Executive, vetoes legislation and appoints the judiciary, and the legislature conducts pre-appointment hearings on the senior people in the judiciary. There is always overlap between the functions of government, and ours is a system of parliamentary government in which the Executive can hold office only with the permission of Parliament.
The Act has fundamentally altered the balance of power in our constitution. English votes for English laws, which many of us, including Labour Members, want, would require only a minor adjustment to Standing Orders and the running of the House, yet people are saying, “Oh, we’ll have to have a constitutional convention.” The Act made a far greater change but without a constitutional convention or any consultation; there was absolutely no debate. It was not even explained to the Conservative parliamentary party before we agreed to the coalition. It only became apparent that there would be a Fixed-term Parliaments Bill when the coalition agreement was published. Well, we have all learned our lesson, and the Conservative party will not be forming a coalition in the next Parliament until we have seen the coalition agreement in draft, and we will want to go through it line by line to ensure that such sleights of hand are not repeated.
Mr Allen
I hate to intrude on the private grief between the coalition partners, which this debate has become preoccupied with, but I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to paint me as just a champion of the American constitution. Unlike him, I believe that the British people are perfectly capable of organising their own constitution, and they do not need him, other colleagues or the Conservative party to tell them what the constitution should look like. I would like them to work it out for themselves, and I have faith that they are perfectly capable of doing so.
Mr Jenkin
I am a little mystified by that intervention. If we are to make changes to our constitution, we need a mechanism by which to do it, and that will have to be done by elected representatives—it is called democracy; that is what we believe in—and so it will finish up here. If there was ever to be a codified constitution in this country, it would have to be debated and decided here, if perhaps subject to a referendum. I am mystified by the idea that in the estates, villages, towns and cities, the constitution is going to write itself, like some virtual programme on the internet. I don’t think so.
The Act is a fundamental and dangerous change to our constitution because it threatens the privileges of the House. I do not mean our special, personal privilege; I mean the protection of our freedom of speech from questioning by the courts. Under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, what is said or done in Parliament cannot be questioned or impeached in any other place. However, the Act could result in the courts adjudicating on what kind of vote has taken place in Parliament, because it provides that the Speaker would have to write a certificate stating there had been a vote of no confidence or a two-thirds majority in favour of a Dissolution before the Prime Minister has the authority to go to the Queen and ask for one. It is possible that those votes could be disputed, and because it proceeds from an Act of Parliament, those disputes about who went through which Lobby and on what basis would end up being argued about in a court. This potentially runs a coach and horses through the very important question of parliamentary privilege.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
During the passage of the Act, did my hon. Friend speak or vote against the measure he now so roundly condemns?
Mr Jenkin
Yes, I did. On Second Reading, those of us in the other Lobby were staggered at how few we were—this was in the glowy aftermath of the announcement of the new politics—and I said, “You might feel lonely today, but don’t worry. One day, this whole Parliament will rue the day it passed this Act.” It will either be got rid of or we will find ourselves in the midst of the most almighty and intractable political crisis where a majority wants to dissolve Parliament and have a general election but we cannot do so. That is the prospect held out by the Act.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, we still do not really know what the Act means. It stipulates fixed-term Parliaments, but then it makes provision for shortening Parliaments. We have no idea what uncertainty it will create. The Act, passed to create political certainty, could become a source of the very uncertainty, instability and crisis it was intended to avoid. In that case, I hope Parliament would have the sense to take a Bill through this place and the other place as quickly as possible to clear this off the statute book. I commend the other place for its attempt to respect the wishes of the coalition to fix the term of this Parliament but to include a sunset or renewable clause so that it would have to be renewed at the beginning of each Parliament. At least that would have put the choice in the hands of the new Parliament. As it is, if we have another hung Parliament, we could find ourselves in that crisis sooner than we thought but with no sunset clause to get us out of the crisis.
Stephen Twigg
I will return to that issue, which relates directly to a point that the hon. Gentleman made. He referred to the review, and I welcome the fact that there will be a review, but I am certainly not persuaded by anything that I have heard today that it would make sense to do what the motion says and repeal the Act. I would like to set out the reasons why.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) suggested that Labour had supported a fixed-term Parliament because of our predicament following the general election in 2010. The problem with that argument is that it was in our manifesto prior to the 2010 general election. Labour was committed to a fixed-term Parliament. Our view was to have a four-year fixed-term Parliament, and we were persuaded by our review of policy in preparing our manifesto of the democratic case for having a four-year fixed-term Parliament.
Stephen Twigg
The fact is that we fought an election in 2010 on a manifesto commitment to move to a fixed-term Parliament. That was a long overdue reform and I am delighted that my party committed to that in 2010.
Stephen Twigg
I do not accept that. However, if the motion were to say that we should review that aspect of the Act, it would have a stronger basis. The motion says that we should repeal the entire Act. I have not heard an argument that persuades me that we should do so.
Stephen Twigg
I simply do not accept that, because there is still the provision within the Act for confidence motions on the basis of a simple majority. We are only at the tail-end of the first Parliament in which the Act operates. It makes sense to say, “Let this run its course for this Parliament and the next and then have a review.” That is a sensible way of making constitutional reform.
Stephen Twigg
No, I am not going to give way again.
The previous position gave the Prime Minister and the party of the Prime Minister an enormous advantage. Opportunistically timed elections allow Governments to ask voters to assess their performance at the time most favourable for that party. Research shows very clearly that British Prime Ministers from both main parties have made extensive use of this power, to time elections for reasons of partisan advantage. Just under 60% of our post-war elections in this country have been called early by the Prime Minister of the day.
It is inevitable under that previous system that partisan advantage played a part in prime ministerial decisions about when to call an election. When a Government party has been confident of its re-election, the Prime Minister would usually go to the country after four years, rather than five. As I said in an intervention, Margaret Thatcher did so successfully in 1983 and 1987 and Tony Blair did the same in 2001 and 2005. Of course it does not always work, as was pointed out. Harold Wilson went to the country in 1970 expecting he would make use of his lead in the opinion polls and be re-elected, and he was not. Nevertheless, his intention was to go early because he thought he would win.
Parties that are less confident of their electoral position have tended to continue into their fifth year, leaving their reckoning with the electorate until the latest possible date. We saw that happen in 1997 and in 2010. It cannot be right that the governing body, of whatever party, has this massive in-built advantage.
Research from Oxford university suggests that strategically timed elections have allowed governing parties to achieve a bonus in elections over the past 70 years of about 6% in public support. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act creates a more equitable electoral playing field among the parties of Government and those of Opposition, which can only be healthy for our democracy.
It is now nearly 40 years since Lord Hailsham warned of the dangers of an “elected dictatorship”, with powers increasingly centralised with the Executive. Fixed-term Parliaments are one—only one—of the ways we can counteract that, by taking away the Prime Minister’s greatest chip: the ability to threaten a recalcitrant minority coalition partner, their own Back Benchers, or troublesome Opposition parties with the Dissolution of Parliament. That can be done at the behest not even of the party of Government, but of the leader of that party, the Prime Minister.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North that in the longer term there is the possibility— I do not put it any higher than that, as I am a realist—that fixed-term Parliaments can help contribute to a different style of politics. A greater responsibility of the Executive to Parliament demands a more pluralist style of governance. Some, like the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), clearly do not like the idea of pluralism. The idea that not all the knowledge and wisdom lies in his own party is clearly alien to him, but I think there are many in the British public who actually quite like the idea that people can sit down together and work together in the national interest. People get very frustrated with politics when we fall into petty tribal battles, and prefer grown-up debate about the issues.
Stephen Twigg
No, as I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already.
More often in this place, we can work together to try to find more common ground. Fixed-term Parliaments will make that more likely.
There is a legitimate debate to be had on the right length of a fixed-term Parliament. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) reminded us, in the 19th century the Chartists wanted annual elections and Parliaments; it was the one Chartist demand that was never implemented. Our manifesto in 2010 committed to four years, and, as my hon. Friend said, the length of time in New Zealand is three years. However, I think there is a good case—my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North made this case very powerfully—that a term of five years can have a stabilising effect on our politics, ensuring that Governments can make some important strategic and long-term decisions in the national interest, so I think it is right that we allow the five-year fixed-term Parliament to bed in. We can review it after two Parliaments, as the legislation allows, but it is far too early for us to consider repeal of the legislation.
EU-US Trade and Investment Agreement
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
I am grateful for and interested by that intervention. I will come to the general questions of the relationship between the UK Parliament and the UK Government and the requirement for a better and more formal system of scrutiny of decisions and involvement in the European Union. I will be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s remarks when he contributes to the debate.
Finally on the all-party group, we see this as active but time limited to the period of negotiations towards what we hope is a successful conclusion of the deal. Personally, I hope that Presidents Obama, Van Rompuy and Barroso are right when they declare that they want this deal done within two years.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Ifo Institute that the UK has the most to gain from a transatlantic free trade agreement, but the problem is that we are likely to be hampered by the foot-dragging and protectionism of other EU member states? Given that non-EU member states in Europe already have free trade agreements with the United States, it remains an option for us to leave the EU and enjoy our own free trade agreement with the United States. Can he think of one reason why we do not have a free trade agreement with the United States like that of Switzerland? Is it because we are in the EU?
John Healey
If the hon. Gentleman looks, for instance, at the Bertelsmann Institute’s report, he will see some interesting evidence on the assessment of the potential impact of a comprehensive deal. It points out that the countries that are in Europe but not part of the European Union are likely to lose out the most. Britain could gain tens or even hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the long term through an agreement. In contrast, countries such as Iceland are set to lose at least 1,000 jobs, while Norway is set to lose about 11,000 jobs. In other words, the countries in Europe that are not party to the agreement are likely to lose out in future. The evidence is rather different from that which the hon. Gentleman cites.
John Healey
My hon. Friend has a great deal of expertise and experience in this area, and he makes a strong case. I think that there is a cross-party view, irrespective of views on the British place within Europe, behind the value of well-negotiated and fair trade deals. The example of the Korean deal demonstrates that a deal negotiated through the European Union has particular benefits to Britain.
This debate is welcome though somewhat overdue. About three months, ago I contacted the House of Commons Library to ask for a briefing on the EU trade and investment deal. I said to the researcher, “I’m sure you’ve got something on the stocks; perhaps you could just update the standard briefing that you’ve got.” The response was, “We don’t have one. No one’s asked about this before.” The Library subsequently produced a very good briefing, as well as a very good briefing for hon. Members for this debate. That briefing, combined with the research that the Centre for Economic Policy Research has produced for the European Commission and the impact assessment produced by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, underlines just how important and ground-breaking this deal could be. Simply put, these are the biggest, most ambitious, best prepared bilateral trade negotiations ever. This would be the first ever such deal between economic equals. In other words, the partners have no significant imbalances in power or wealth.
Why do I say that these are the biggest negotiations? Together, the European Union and the US account for about 30% of global trade and almost half the world’s output. The more reliable of the studies and assessments suggest that if the deal is done, it could bring a boost to the UK’s national income of between £4 billion and £10 billion, and a boost to our exports of between 1% and 3% a year.
Why are they the most ambitious negotiations? The transatlantic trade and investment partnership aims not just to remove the remaining tariff barriers to trade between the EU and the US, but to reduce the non-tariff barriers by aligning the regulations, rules and standards to which we operate. It also aims to open the markets in services and public procurement.
Finally, why are they the best prepared negotiations? Really serious work has been going on for almost two years since the high-level working group on jobs and growth was set up between the EU and the US in November 2011.
It is important to remember that this is potentially a deal on trade and investment. Although the two-way trade between the EU and the US is worth about $1 trillion a year, the two-way investment flow is worth about $3.5 trillion each year. Of course, trade and investment have both been sole competences of the EU since the 2009 Lisbon treaty.
Mr Jenkin
I am interested in that aspect of the agreement. Historically, the UK has been able to access foreign direct investment free of EU interference. If such investment becomes subject to an international agreement, it will effectively become an exclusive EU competence. The other member states have been very jealous that we get so much foreign direct investment. How can the right hon. Gentleman be so sure that the deal will not be used to hamper flows of foreign direct investment into our country, because that would affect us far more than our fellow member states?
Mr Cash
I am sure that they will do their best, but whether they will do well enough has yet to be established. If we do not know what is going on during the negotiations —and if we do not even know what the mandate is—I must express my concern on that count alone.
I shall continue to quote from the Prime Minister’s letter:
“As David Lidington told your Committee when he appeared before it on 4 July, while the confidential nature of such negotiations means that formally depositing documents is not possible”—
which I have to say concerns me greatly—
“Ministers will keep the Committee abreast of significant developments in writing and we are happy to offer the Committee informal, private briefings on the progress of negotiations.”
We will be monitoring all this. I see that the Chairman of the Business, Innovations and Skills Select Committee, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), is in the Chamber, and I would be happy to exchange ideas and thoughts with him on this. He was a member of the European Scrutiny Committee with me for many years.
Mr Jenkin
Does my hon. Friend agree that the challenge will be to reconcile the differing objectives of the member states? That will be extremely difficult because, as a major European economy, we uniquely depend on imports, and we export more to the rest of the world than all the other member states except Germany. At the same time, we are dependent on trade with the EU. We have a unique set of circumstances and a unique economy, and it is going to be extraordinarily difficult to reconcile our requirements with those of the other, very different economies of the EU in one single agreement.
Mr Cash
I very much concur with that.
A number of extremely learned articles have been written about this matter, and they show that many European countries stand to be gravely disadvantaged by the deal. I cannot claim that we would be exclusively enhanced by it, but many of the Parliaments and trade associations of many other countries will also be watching these developments. Several countries will be given quite a jolt. An article entitled “Transatlantic free trade: boon or bane for economic cohesion in the EU” states:
“in a broad free trade agreement, trade activities between Great Britain and Sweden as well as between Great Britain and Spain are expected to drop by about 45%. Likewise, Sweden’s imports and exports with Spain and Finland will decline by 40%, and Irish-Dutch trade relations will shrink by 35%.”
All those factors must be taken into account.
However enthusiastic we may be about the concept of free trade, it is important to ask whether the deal is actually to be beneficial to the United Kingdom. It is our task to secure such benefits, and not only that of the EU. We also trade with the whole of the Commonwealth, and our trade relations with the emerging countries, the Commonwealth and the rest of the world have been improving. We have a net surplus of trade with the rest of the world of about £15 billion a year, according to the latest figures for 2012. However, we have a trade deficit with Europe. The figure for 2011 was minus £47 billion; it is now minus £70 billion. The Germans, on the other hand, had a surplus in 2011 of £30 billion, and it is now £72 billion. Many people believe that the United States will benefit the most from the deal, and those figures suggest that it will weigh up all those factors when dealing with these questions. This is a potentially difficult situation that will have to be dealt with.
An article in the Financial Times states:
“There would also be damage around the world from a sweeping US-EU deal. Advanced countries such as Canada, Australia and Japan would suffer, as would many emerging economies. Mexico and Chile, which have strong trading ties with the US, would be among the worst hit, along with most of Africa, Asia and Latin America—with the exception of Brazil.”
Brazil is in a lot of difficulty at the moment, however. The article continues:
“China’s trade flows with the US would shrink”.
There are many elements of all this that need to be thought out.
In the short time left, I shall draw the House’s attention to an article in Economia by Zaki Laïdi, entitled “Europe’s bad trade gamble”. Mr Laïdi is Professor of International Relations at the institute of politics known as Sciences Po in France. I am not saying that he has all the answers, but his article is well worth reading and can be obtained from the Library.
There are many conflicting views of the benefits that could be derived from the deal. The European Scrutiny Committee has made inquiries of the Government, and I would dispute the advantages of the EU-Korea free trade agreement. We know what the position is with regard to the EU, but unfortunately we cannot make any comparison with that arrangement to substantiate the claims of advantages for the UK.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
I consider this to be a very important issue. I want any new trade agreement between Europe and the United States to have a substantially positive impact on the economy of Britain and, indeed, that of Scotland. I think we can all agree that international trade deals are vital to the creation of long-term economic growth and jobs in a world that is becoming smaller and smaller.
I was pleased to note that the negotiations on this agreement were formally launched, at Lough Erne on 17 June, under the UK presidency of the G8. When the G8 last met in the United Kingdom, it was hosted by Gleneagles, which is in my constituency and which is perpetually linked with our attempts to deliver improvements in the world through the millennium development goals. I hope that Lough Erne may be remembered for playing a massive role in the equalising of access to the United States market for United Kingdom and, indeed, European Union businesses.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) on securing the debate. As he told us earlier, the United States and the European Commission have suggested that the deal could be completed by the end of 2014. As we know, it is a very complex deal. I may be a pessimist, but I rather fear that at some point we may be dragged into the 2016 presidential election campaign if we hit a road block, and I hope that matters do not stagnate during 2014 and 2015. I assume that, once the deal is done, it will have to be ratified in this place and in another 28 national Parliaments—including the United States Congress—as well as in the European Parliament, and I am also slightly concerned about the time that will be taken by its journey through 30 Parliaments.
Free trade agreements are very important to Scotland. For instance, the agreements between the European Union and Singapore and between the EU and Colombia and Peru are vital to the Scotch whisky industry, which exported £4.3 billion worth of whisky last year. The United States is the top whisky export marketplace: more than £700 million-worth was exported to it in 2012. It goes without saying that there is no expectation that the negotiations will have any damaging effect on Scotch whisky exports, but I have given that example to demonstrate how important and valuable such agreements can be when UK businesses seize the opportunity to promote the best of British around the world.
It is possible that at the time the agreement is approved, Scotland will be facing an independence referendum. I fear that, if Scotland votes for independence, we shall be very short-term beneficiaries of this piece of work. Perhaps the Minister will tell us at some point whether he has received any representations from the Scottish Government about the challenges that Scotland would face if it became independent and, being outside the European Union, could not benefit from the agreement. Indeed, one has to wonder what would happen to all the benefits of all the other free trade agreements negotiated by the EU if Scotland became independent. What would be the impact on, for instance, Scotch whisky production, exports and jobs?
Let me now return to more mainstream arguments. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, it is important for us to be able to explain the benefits of the deal to the population of the United Kingdom so that our constituents understand what it means to them in their daily lives.
The deal has the potential to be the largest trade deal of all time because the building blocks of trade between the EU and the US are already in place. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne said earlier, one major British car manufacturer has already told Danny Lopez, the British consul general in New York, that it will save about £130 million annually from the elimination of tariffs as part of this deal. There are real gains and benefits for the UK and UK manufacturing from this difficult set of negotiations, therefore. The Government must ensure there is a road map that allows British SMEs to reap the benefits of this deal, because we will get real growth in this economy from the manufacturing and exporting SMEs.
It is difficult to conclude without referring to an issue that has hung over this debate: our membership of the EU. I do not always agree with the statements of Ministers in this Government, but I was pleased to hear the Minister without Portfolio say it would be very difficult for a trade agreement of this sort to continue if the UK left the EU. He might want to remind some of his party colleagues of the benefits of being part of the world’s largest trading bloc. That is important to the UK.
Gordon Banks
I fundamentally disagree. The Minister without Portfolio will tell the hon. Gentleman where he is wrong in his thinking. There is no doubt that if he speaks to the Scotch whisky industry it will tell him about the benefits of being in a large trading bloc. The Scotch whisky industry has benefited, and if the hon. Gentleman will not take cognisance of that, he will not take cognisance of anything.
This is a really important opportunity for the UK. I want it to be important for Scotland, and I want it to be important for Scotland in the UK and in the EU.
Matthew Hancock
The source of the statement was President Obama. He said during a press conference with the Prime Minister—I do not have the precise quote, but I have the substance of it—that he thought it was right to try to renegotiate a relationship before deciding to leave. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the precise quote. I think that it is better to listen to a politician, rather than officials representing a politician.
Crucially, the free trade deal must genuinely support free trade, which I think it will. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy commented on that, channelling Bright. Negotiating an ambitious programme is vital. Many numbers have been quoted in the debate. We are already negotiating trade deals with Canada, India and Japan, each of which represents 2% of our exports. The United States represents 15% of our exports. I think that sums up the scale and importance of the proposition.
The relationship is already exceptionally close and deep. The US is the top export destination after the rest of the EU, and the US and the UK are each other’s largest foreign investors, supporting over 1 million jobs in this country, and US investment stock in the UK is worth around £200 billion, which is eight times the size of US investment stock in China. The scale is important, the Government’s ambition is high, and all areas are in scope. Of course, as has been mentioned, the audio-visual sector has been set to one side, but there is the potential to include it if negotiations go in that direction.
With regard to whether regional jobs data can be made available, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne argued strongly that we need to ensure that we make the argument for the deal. We will look at publishing regional jobs data in as robust a way as possible. Arguments were made, not least by the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) and my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), giving specific examples of how the deal would help British businesses and jobs and be a positive force for the economy and prosperity. It is some of the specific examples that were given that make the case most eloquently and strongly.
Mr Jenkin
Will the Minister address the concern, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), that there are already vast disparities of economic potential in different parts of the EU, which has caused massive trade imbalances between member states? The danger is that a genuine free trade deal would exacerbate those tensions? Will the incentive in the EU not be for a more protectionist deal than we would want? How will he address that?
Matthew Hancock
The incentive in the EU is for liberalisation, because overall the analysis of the European Commission and the analysis that we commissioned on the impact on the UK indicated a positive impact on every member state. Of course there are winners and losers, but the overall impact on each part of the EU will be positive. That is what the Commission’s analysis showed.
Economic Regeneration (Harwich)
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am extremely pleased to have secured this debate on regeneration in Harwich. Harwich is both typical and exceptional. Harwich, Dovercourt and the surrounding area have suffered from the economic dislocation and isolation that have affected so many seaside towns and ports in the past 60 years or so. Throughout the Anglo-Dutch war of the 1670s, when Samuel Pepys was the local MP and secretary to the Navy board, to the Napoleonic wars, when Nelson himself oversaw the construction of the town’s defences, and the two world wars of the 20th century, Harwich was a key naval base. It closed, however, after the second world war.
During the ‘70s and ‘80s, the dock labour scheme drove the final nails into the coffin of the traditional ports industry, ensuring that the containerisation of freight was concentrated elsewhere. The huge opportunities promoted by Hutchison Ports for a five-berth container terminal at Bathside bay have so far been stymied by an excessively complex planning system and the downturn in world trade. Latterly, the chance of using that vast site for alternative economic development has been frustrated by the EU habitats directive.
Over the years, the growth of civil aviation and the channel tunnel have intensified competition for Harwich as a gateway to Europe. As elsewhere, traditional manufacturing businesses have gradually died out and the sea fishing industry has declined to one small commercial boat. Furthermore, Harwich is at the extremity of the commuting distance from London—a fact not made any easier by recent decisions to end the running of direct trains to and from Liverpool Street. Such things show up in the unemployment figures: just 5.1% of people are recorded as unemployed in Harwich, but that is well above average for the county as a whole at 2.8%, and above the national average of 3.8%.
Harwich is also exceptional. It has an outstanding history and heritage and is surrounded by the stunning Essex and Suffolk countryside and coast. The spirit of the place has not diminished and some industries thrive. Harwich has a specialist oil refinery and a major firework and explosives factory, and I watched on Friday as JCBs arrived at the old Navy yard for export. The railway, and the ferry and cruise liner terminal at Parkestone quay—now known as Harwich International—serve hundreds of thousands of passengers every year.
However, Harwich desperately needs new jobs and new sources of wealth creation, as well as improved infrastructure, a recognition of the importance of high-speed broadband, and to ensure that the A120 has the appropriate designation at national and European level to attract the funds needed for improvement. The immediate and pressing issue is for Harwich to respond to the exceptional opportunities offered by the offshore wind energy sector, which now employs around 4,000 people in the UK. Harwich is the UK’s largest windport. It has extensive experience with the Gunfleet Sands Array and is currently working on the Greater Gabbard and London Arrays. It has deepwater facilities and it is ideally located to take advantage of billions of pounds of investment in the future Thames Array and East Anglia 1 Array in the North sea over the next 10 to 15 years. However, if we do not provide the necessary infrastructure of skills and businesses to serve the tier 1 primary contractors that deliver that investment, there is a real danger that business will be transferred not just elsewhere in the United Kingdom but out of the country altogether, perhaps to Flushing in Holland. I therefore very much welcome the fact that Harwich is to be at the centre of one of the nine employer ownership of skills pilots launched by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It is questions about this that I wish my hon. Friend the Minister to address today.
The Harwich scheme is called “Energising Harwich”, and is aimed at being a passport to work for local people across the Haven Gateway low carbon supply chain. The Government are injecting £875,000 into the scheme over two years. It is being led by the Colchester Institute, and I am grateful to Gary Home and Brian Cairns of the institute for arranging a briefing for me on Friday. That was attended by the lead employer, AJ Woods, a leading steel fabrication business that has already been closely involved in the development of the Gunfleet Sands and Greater Gabbard wind array, and part of a concerted attempt to attract wind energy inward investment to Harwich.
The aim is to co-ordinate up to 40 other employers—small and medium-sized enterprises—in this scheme. A new social enterprise, the Harwich Mayflower project, aims to build a replica of the Pilgrim Fathers’ vessel, the Mayflower, which sailed from Harwich in 1620. It also aims to re-establish Harwich as a wooden boat and shipbuilding centre, providing training and apprenticeships for future generations.
The chairman of the Haven Gateway initiative and the chief executive of Tendring district council were also present at our briefing. Tendring district council is taking a close interest not only in this debate but in the whole project. Essex county council was represented by county councillor Ricky Callender, who represents Harwich. Together, the institute and Tony Woods have appointed Mandy Morris as project manager for “Energising Harwich”. This is a formidable team infused with creativity and determination to succeed. There have been too many Government training initiatives with the aim of simply filling schemes with people who may well finish up with qualifications, but find that they are of little relevance to the requirements of local employers. The challenge for “Energising Harwich” is to ensure that the skills learned equip local people and enable them to apply for jobs that will otherwise go to people from outside the area.
Working offshore is a huge challenge. Unlike Teesside, for example, Harwich has had zero involvement with the offshore oil and gas industry. The key to the success of this pilot will be the ability of local employers to train people in the particular skills for the particular jobs they have on offer; otherwise it will prove a waste of time and money. Success depends on a breadth and depth of understanding between employers and the Colchester Institute. Employers are having to adjust, because the scheme requires companies, who may well be competitors, to co-operate and to deliver it. They need to understand the constraints attached to public money. Culturally, it is also hard for traditional training providers, such as Colchester Institute, to adjust to allow commercialism to lead the allocation of the funds available, but they must be supported in doing so.
I commend the Government for allowing the structure of this funding allocation to be so much more flexible than others before it so that it can fit employer needs. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills and the Skills Funding Agency should be congratulated. I am concerned, however, that it is too early to say how easy it will be in practice for the bid leader to provide the necessary paper trail to meet audit needs once the project is in progress. This is where I must press my hon. Friend the Minister to support necessary flexibility, or the pilot will fail.
There are three other main hurdles for the pilot. One is that employers must provide match funding to the value of 50% of the training fees—a big ask for small companies in the present climate. The second concerns legislative accreditations, which are not covered under this or any other funded programme and yet are essential to the employers’ survival. In most cases, the life of such accreditations is only two years and full retraining is required again thereafter. Maybe some rationalisation of training could be made. The pilot must have the flexibility to address that need, which includes statutory requirements for qualifications in manual handling, first aid and working at heights, and such things as machinery operation that are never, or very rarely, publicly funded. At Friday’s briefing, it was mentioned that even caterers and the food industry need to be trained to deliver support to offshore workers. These are referred to in the bid as “mandatory accreditations” and comprise a group of what are known as “tickets” that allow workers to go offshore. In their own way, they could be seen as legislative accreditations, but the bid explained that workers could not go out to sea without them and that each contractor required a different set. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that he is in favour of using this bid funding to support such training.
Finally, working offshore places huge demands on these businesses as employers. This issue arose during conversations between the Colchester Institute and employers. Offshore contractors need ISO 9001 accreditation and to be registered with Achilles or First Point Assessment Ltd, the trade bodies that approve and monitor suppliers on behalf of the utility and offshore oil and gas industries. Without accreditation, businesses cannot bid for contracts. Applying for them takes time and can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, but building the businesses’ capacity to operate and employ counts as much as does the training. There is a danger, however, that by concentrating on training the work force, this other aspect is neglected. Clearly, this support might not be available from the “Energising Harwich” fund, but funds will have to be found if these relatively small and vulnerable employers are to be able to compete effectively for the contracts on which these jobs will depend. I would be grateful if the Minister acknowledged that, and I look forward to his response, for which I am extremely grateful.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) on securing the debate. The hour is late and we are deep into apprenticeships week, so it is right that we debate the importance of skills in his constituency. As he started with Samuel Pepys, so I shall start with Chaucer, who first mentioned apprenticeships more than 650 years ago. Although this is a novel and innovative project, it has a rich history.
I was in Lowestoft earlier this month looking at the links between the skills system and the offshore industry developing all along the East Anglian coast. It is critical that, as new industries develop, we provide the necessary skills, but in the past our skills system has perhaps not been good at responding to the needs of new industries as they emerge. I am delighted that, like other parts of the country, my hon. Friend’s constituency is benefiting from the reinvigoration of apprenticeships. There was an 18% rise in the number of apprenticeships in his constituency last year and 740 starts.
We must do more to make the system more rigorous and responsive to the needs of employers, however, and the employer ownership pilot is a critical part of that. It is about a shift towards delivering skills through the needs of employers and seeing employers as customers of vocational skills. That is the big picture for the employer ownership pilot, for which my hon. Friend has set out a crucial and innovative bid.
In total, in round 1, which I announced within the first week of being in this position, the bid comprised £80 million of training activity over two years. The AJ Woods proposal, “Energising Harwich”, is an important part of that, bringing together local employers, working together, and the Colchester Institute, as my hon. Friend said. Bringing together different players in the consortium also ensures that the whole supply chain gets the chance to participate in the skills enhancements that are supported.
Regional employers in the project will contribute some £3 million over two years, which will be supported by more than £850,000 in public sector funding. The first thing he asked about was the need for flexibility in the paper trail and the audit. This is a pilot scheme, the purpose of which is to investigate new ways of delivering skills that employers need, in exactly the way he described, in order to support wider regeneration efforts. It is therefore crucial that we keep under constant review the audit needs and the bureaucracy surrounding the bids. With public sector money it is critical to have appropriate audit. However, we have to ensure that that does not get in the way of delivering the project. I will therefore take that point away and very much keep my eye on it, as the project develops, and try to ensure that the burden is minimal, considering the necessity for good audit, given that we are putting public sector money into the project.
My hon. Friend’s second point was about match funding of 50%. Co-funding of skills provision is an important principle. The beneficiaries are the wider economy and the employer, as well as the individuals who do the training. In this case the 50% match funding was agreed locally as part of the bidding process. It was not a ratio set by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, although we require some co-funding. Of course I recognise the challenge for some companies, especially smaller ones, in contributing their own cash and time, and it is appropriate that the model was developed locally.
Mr Jenkin
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. The first two concerns might be related, because the permanent secretary in his Department, as the chief accounting officer, will need to be satisfied that match funding has been delivered. However, given the way in which time and benefits in kind are costed in a small business, we all know that it is rather unlikely that some hard and fast, actuarially justifiable figure for match funding will be available. I therefore suggest that a little flexibility or generosity of understanding of what has been committed to meet the match funding will be required, and it is the accounting officer in my hon. Friend’s Department who will have to be satisfied.
Matthew Hancock
That is an important point. In a way, it answers the question about the need for flexibility in the audit requirements and the need for the accounting officer in the Department to be content that this is an efficient and effective use of public money, as well as being confident about surviving the ferocity of the Public Accounts Committee, should any hearing take place—not that there needs to be one on this subject.
Mr Jenkin
Forgive me, but my other point was that the businesses that are providing the 50% matched funding will account for it from their own resources. Some of these small businesses have their accounts audited, but they probably do not have the sort of comprehensive audit that one would expect of a bank or a major manufacturing business. There will have to be some leeway on that and, not so much a flexibility, but a recognition that everything is being done in good faith, rather than as a means of defrauding the taxpayer and getting away with committing less than 50%.
Matthew Hancock
Yes, I recognise that that is a strong argument. We are running this pilot precisely to work out those kinds of issues, especially with respect to small businesses, with which the Government are, frankly, not particularly well equipped to deal. We do not have a good history of engaging with them, and skills is an area in which the Government as a whole need to improve.
That links to my hon. Friend’s third point, which was funding for legislative accreditations, or accreditations that are near-legislative. The skills system has a general rule that legislative accreditations should be paid for by the employer, so as not to crowd out private sector funding with public sector funding, except in the case of unemployed people who need accreditations in order to get a job and who have no employer to take on the burden.
There is a link to co-funding. We recognise that funding for accreditations can in some cases be expensive. In many cases it is necessary, and it also forms part of the co-funding of the project. The two can therefore be linked. A limited amount of resources go into skills funding, and we try to focus it on skills that are transferable and that would not otherwise be paid for by an employer. After all, there is a £40 billion to £50 billion economy in skills provision across the whole economy, and the Government budget for adult skills is £4 billion, so it is important that we do not end up trying to pay for the entirety of training across the whole economy. We simply would not be able to afford that.
Those are my responses to my hon. Friend’s specific points, but I want to give him a broader, more generic, response as well. We are going into round 2 of the employer ownership pilot. The bids for round 1 of the pilot are important, in that we can learn from them how the system can work better and in different and innovative ways. This is an innovative example of companies large and small coming together to provide for a specific need, so it is important for the Government to learn from what works and what does not, and to change what needs to be changed to make the pilot deliver.
This is called the employer ownership pilot for a reason. Each of the projects is, in itself, a pilot, and I give my hon. Friend the undertaking that I shall take a personal interest in his project. I shall ensure that the necessary understanding of the context of running a small business and the costs relating to time that he mentioned are taken into account. I will ensure that I watch his project very closely, because it has the potential to unlock a new industry in an area that, for too long, has not had the vibrancy of a new industry. It has the potential to do a lot, not only for the town but all the way up the East Anglian coast. I will take away the points that he has raised and look into them in more detail.
I congratulate AJ Woods on the work that it has done, but I also urge the company to work closely with others to bring the project to fruition. As my hon. Friend said, the area has higher unemployment than elsewhere in the region, as well as skills shortages. That tells me that, for too long, the skills system has not been working properly. Where we have unemployment alongside skills shortages, there has been a problem. It is my job to try to fix that, and the employer ownership pilot is an important element of finding the solution. I want to work hard to make it happen and to learn what the Government need to do to deliver better and innovative skills, and I shall be happy to work with my hon. Friend on that.
Question put and agreed to.