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

David Pinto-Duschinsky Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

If I may, I will start by joining my colleagues on the Government Benches in my opposition to new clause 1, new clause 4 and amendment 6. Well-meaning they may be, but I am impatient for change.

Stoke-on-Trent has one of the highest rates of youth disengagement in education, employment or training in the country. As always, when we look at those heat maps, we see the big yellow splodge in the middle of the midlands, which is Stoke-on-Trent, showing that we have one of the highest numbers of workers in the country with no form of formal qualification whatever. Our young people tend to find themselves unable to access any form of training or support that they need to make a future career for themselves.

I declare my interest as a governor of the City of Stoke-on-Trent Sixth Form College, as we offer T-levels. Even though I do not have an apprentice in my office like my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), as of next week a T-level student will be in a placement there for the next 18 months, to help their advancement.

My impatience stems from the necessity of identifying the skills that we need in the city I represent and of making sure that the next generation of young people coming through education have them. That is the only way I can see for us to fulfil our desire and ambition to rebuild our economy and attract those higher quality, well-paid and long-term jobs into the city that will mean higher wages and the ability to dig ourselves out of our city’s economic troubles. I do not expect or hope any Government to come over the hill like a cavalry, with a big sack of cash, saying, “Here you go—here is what you need.” It is partly on us to do that, by matching up the skills that we have and the skills that we need in the city to do the jobs of today and the future jobs of tomorrow. That is really important. The local skills improvement plan put together by our chambers of commerce and colleges has gone some way to achieving that. However, as always, it is a bit like wading through treacle, because we get to where we think we are going to be and all of a sudden something appears that makes it more difficult. Then, the people who struggle with that are the young people.

I am afraid that anything that seeks to delay the advancement of this Bill, such as new clause 1, new clause 4 and amendment 6, will not get my support this evening. I do, however, wish to spend a few minutes on my own new clause 2, which is a probing amendment. It is not intended to cause any frustration or Divisions; I say to the Whip that I am not seeking to test the House’s opinion on it. However, when we consider what apprenticeships will look like in the future and what they mean for cities such as Stoke-on-Trent, it is important to understand that level 7 apprenticeships, funded by the apprenticeship levy, are a genuinely important part of the educational offer available to young people in my constituency.

The week before last, I visited DJH accountants in Stoke-on-Trent, which is a significant regional player that is training its own generation of chartered accountants at level 7 using the apprenticeship levy that would otherwise just disappear into the Treasury. People there explained to me quite succinctly, and I agreed, that through their own means they simply would not have the available capital or cash to fund the quantity of training courses that they run. The apprenticeship levy allows them to grow a group of young people into chartered accountants. The people I met were all young. They were not at the mid or tail-end of their careers looking for a final bump before they got to their pension; they were young people who had come in after GCSEs, done their basic accountancy skills and had their eyes firmly set on a chartered accountancy qualification. The levy was allowing them to do that.

I asked the young people where they were all from, expecting them to be from the city, which they were. I then asked them where they wanted to work once they had their chartered accountancy status and, wonderfully, they all wanted to stay in Stoke-on-Trent and practise the craft that they had been learning. The economic benefit of that to my city is that if it were not for the ability of that company to train to level 7 using the apprenticeship levy, it would have to import that labour from neighbouring areas. So somebody who already had the level 7 qualification, or had been trained somewhere else through a company that could afford it, would come into Stoke, do the level 7 job, attract that level 7-equivalent salary and take it back to where they actually lived. That would mean that the level 7 salaries those young people were going to earn and spend in Stoke-on-Trent would end up migrating to other, slightly more affluent places in the midlands—and, candidly, there are many more affluent places in the midlands than Stoke-on-Trent.

The economic damage done by turning off the apprenticeship levy, or even the skills and growth levy, from level 7 apprenticeships could mean that the places such as Stoke-on-Trent that already suffer from ingrained regional inequality see it further ingrained into their local economies, because the people who have those skills travel in to do the work, or work from home, and the money flows out of the city and is spent in those other local communities.

There is also the message that we are sending to young people in the city. If level 7 qualifications are not available to them, they will be unlikely to have the means to pay for a level 7 qualification themselves. Having a level 7 qualification in Stoke-on-Trent is quite a rarity. You are more likely to find somebody with no qualification than with a master’s level qualification. New clause 2 is a hook to allow the Minister to go away and consider this. I do not believe for one second that it is the determination of the Government to artificially stymie or cap the aspirations of young people in Stoke-on-Trent by suggesting to them that those level 7 qualifications are not available to them.

I appreciate that there are concerns in the system about the levy not being used for its intended purpose, but to take people through higher level qualifications who already have a career behind them. There are obviously organisations and companies that have done that because, rather than send that money to the Treasury, they have sought to upskill their own workers. I understand why the Government want to get tough on that, because it is not what the levy was intended for, but the level 7 learners that I have met are all young. They are people who have a clear idea of the path and trajectory of the career they want to take, and the levy simply makes that more viable and likely to be achieved in an economically depressed and deprived place such as Stoke-on-Trent.

The other side of the issue is that 95% of the apprenticeships at the University of Staffordshire are at level 6, and 5% are at level 7. It provides level 7 training for the Ministry of Defence and a number of public services. Some of that is funded by the apprenticeship levy. That is an invaluable income stream for the university to deliver that training for people who then go back into the public sector to make it more efficient, to crack down on waste and to deliver those skills that we as a nation determine that we need.

That will undoubtedly need to be looked at as we have more defence spending, because we will need people with those level 7 qualifications in the defence sector, in the manufacturing companies, and in the electrical and chemical engineering companies. Ordinarily, companies in places such as Stoke-on-Trent will simply not have the capital or the cash to provide that. Only by drawing down from the apprenticeship levy will they be able to train people locally to do those jobs. If we are not training people to do those jobs, the opportunity that comes from that Government investment simply will not be felt in places such as Stoke-on-Trent, and the regional inequality that is already quite clear in my city will become more entrenched.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) talked about finding people finding career, and that is what all of us want for the young people in our communities. It is certainly what I want for the learners in my city, but that career should take them as far as they want to go. That career should take them, if they want, up to a level 7 qualification that allows them to build a life and a career that they enjoy and are happy doing. My concern is that the unintended consequence of the Government’s decision that level 7 qualifications will no longer be available from the apprenticeship levy will be that in cities such as mine, aspiration and ambition will be capped because the cash and the capital are simply not there to meet those young people’s demands.

I have no truck with or support for the delaying amendments of the Opposition, and I have no intention of doing anything with my new clause other than sitting down in a moment. I hope that the Minister will take back the concerns that I have raised this evening and see whether there is a way, maybe through devolution deals, through reorganisation or through the mayoral strategic authorities, in which certain areas could be able to continue with the levy funding for level 7 qualifications that we so desperately need.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

I rise to speak against new clauses 1 and 4 and amendment 6. The simple truth is that we cannot have any more dither and delay. Our starting point in this debate must be the fact that we are in a skills crisis, and one that lies at the feet of the Conservatives. Twenty-six years ago, I worked on the new deal taskforce for the Labour Government of the time, clearing up the mess that the Major Government had left in the skills system. Fast-forward over a quarter of a century, and once again we find the Labour Government having to clear up the mess in skills left by Conservatives.

Free School Meals (Automatic Registration of Eligible Children) Bill

David Pinto-Duschinsky Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 14th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood]

When we look at dietary habits in recent decades, we see that that is not confined to parts of the income spectrum. There has been a deterioration in the quality of diets going back over several decades that is quite separate from issues of poverty.

As of January 2024, more than 2.1 million pupils were eligible for benefits-related free school meals, which amounted to 24.6% of all pupils. In addition, more than 90,000 disadvantaged students in further education received a free school meal at lunch time. Collectively, this supported the children and young people who needed it most to ensure that they could make the most of their world-class education, boost their health and save their parents considerable amounts that they could not afford.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Wood]

I really must continue. The Government have promised to move on to the next Bill at quarter to two, so I need to keep interventions to a minimum.

We also introduced extensive protections which have been in effect since 2018. They ensure that while universal credit is being fully rolled out, any child eligible for free school meals would retain their entitlement and keep getting free school meals until the end of the phase; in other words, until they complete either primary or secondary school if their family’s income rises above the income threshold such that that would otherwise have stopped.

On breakfast clubs, we all know that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, setting people up with the fuel they need to make the most of the day ahead, and the evidence supports that. At this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ought to declare an interest. My wife is in teaching, although she is providing one-to-one special needs teaching rather than in a classroom at the moment. We know that those children who do not have breakfast are more likely to have issues with behaviour, wellbeing and learning. That is why the previous Government expanded the provision of breakfast, investing up to £35 million in the national school breakfast programme. That funding supported 2,700 schools in disadvantaged areas, providing thousands of children from low-income families with a free nutritious breakfast at school to support their attainment, wellbeing and readiness to learn. Moreover, we trusted school leaders to deliver, building a breakfast provision that fitted the needs of their pupils. That involved five different models, ranging from a traditional breakfast club to a healthy grab and go. The programme has had great success in supporting those who needed it most and I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that his party will continue to support it until at least next March. I hope the support extends past that date.

Nutrition does not cease to be an issue outside of term time, which is why the previous Government rolled out the holiday, activities and food programme to support during holiday periods disadvantaged and low-income families in receipt of free school meals. Since 2018, the programme has delivered enriching activities and nutritious food to the children and young people who need it most, with more than £200 million each year delivering 15.6 million half days to children and young people across every single one of the 153 local authorities in England.

The Bill requires local authorities in England to identify each child of school age resident in its area who is eligible for free school meals. It also requires state-funded schools that identify a child who is eligible to provide those meals. We support the desire to ensure that all those eligible for free school meals have an opportunity to receive them, so do not wish to prevent the Bill from proceeding. However, I have a couple of questions about how the Bill will achieve that, which I hope that the Bill’s promoter can address in his closing remarks so that Members can consider that as the Bill proceeds.

I know that the hon. Member for Crawley has extensive experience in local government, and I think that 20 local authorities have now piloted their own auto-enrolment schemes at some point. In drafting the Bill, what consideration did he give to the burden that will be added to local authorities? Does he have any assessment or measure of the cost for local council tax payers and how that relates to both the savings for local families and the additional income for schools through pupil premiums?

The Bill would also give powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to make provision for the definition of the term “state-funded school”. In what circumstances does the hon. Member believe that a change in definition will be necessary?

I will be clear, as we were in government, that we believe in targeting support to where it is most needed. We believe that the state should do less but do it well—but that does include delivering sufficient support to those who need it most, and particularly to children and young people.

Hongkongers in the UK: Visas, Security and Services

David Pinto-Duschinsky Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for setting up this important debate. For me, this debate is freighted with some emotion for very personal reasons. When I was a student many years ago—this will give away my age somewhat—I helped to organise for Martin Lee to speak at my university. I remember how hard campaigners like him fought to establish a vibrant democracy in Hong Kong. I remember the hope we had for the future. It is heartbreaking to see how the situation has unfolded: with China’s promises turning to ash; with the repression that my hon. Friends have talked about; with publications like Apple Daily being shut down; and with British citizens such as Jimmy Lai resting in prison, denied their basic rights.

China, as the Prime Minister said, has clearly broken its agreement with Britain, but far more importantly, it has breached its covenant with the people of Hong Kong to respect their rights and freedoms and to allow them to live in the way that they were promised. In so doing, it has struck at the very heart of what makes Hong Kong so special.

[Jim Shannon]

At last week’s business questions, I brought attention to Jimmy Lai and the fact that he was denied his religious liberty. He was denied the Eucharist as a devout, practising Roman Catholic. That is how far China is prepared to go. There is an example of what the hon. Gentleman is talking about—he is absolutely right.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky]

I thank the hon. Member for his point. Absolutely—Mr Lai’s treatment is appalling. I welcome the Prime Minister’s words yesterday in the Chamber about the way he will hold China accountable for that, alongside engagement.

I am also incredibly proud of the way in which my community in Hendon and communities across the UK have welcomed new arrivals from Hong Kong. In Hendon, we have a large and growing Hong Kong population, particularly in Colindale. It adds so much to the life of our community, but those people have some serious concerns, as many others have expressed. I shall not echo in great detail the points that others have excellently made, but many of my constituents face great difficulty in accessing their savings and their futures through the MPF, and local financial institutions are not doing enough to help.

Similarly, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) made an incredibly important point about the recognition of qualifications; that is a real challenge for people in Hendon. We have also talked about access to public services, which includes everything from getting a national insurance number to finding schools, and about BNO status and ETAs.

The point I would like to rest on is that of transnational repression. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned overseas police stations, one of which was allegedly identified in my constituency. It is completely unacceptable that people in this country face surveillance, repression and threat simply for exercising their democratic rights—and that extends to the treatment of Members of this place.

Time is tight, so I will finish by echoing the points already made and by urging the Government to do what China has not: renew our covenant with the people of Hong Kong. I thank the Minister for her work on this issue.