Self-Employment

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Richard Harrington]

I absolutely agree. Indeed, I was also one of those people. My hon. Friend is talking about a business start-up scheme whereby if someone was unemployed, they got £100 a week. If they did well, they paid tax on it. That scheme helped a lot of people to start their business. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest will discuss many of the schemes that the Government are doing.

I have a final proposal for the Minister. There should be an institution at university level—whether it is called a university technical college, a special university college or whether it is part of an existing university, such as the university of Hertfordshire, which does a lot of work in the field of business studies and management training—that exists entirely to train and help people to set up businesses. The course should be run predominantly by people who are successful in business and who are prepared to give up their time to do that, rather than by people who have taken business studies. At least half the course should involve practical work on how to set up a business. Sir Richard Branson’s scheme for the youth investment fund could help to fund it, as perhaps could the Government if local business people were to become involved. Students may include mature students as well as those from sixth forms going into the normal higher education system, and when they graduate they should have set up a business that either works and is doing well, or does not work. If it does not work, it should not mean that they do not graduate, because many people in business try things that do not work.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mrs Grant]

rose—

[Richard Harrington]

I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery).

[George Hollingbery]

I have set up several businesses, some of which were not successful, but one of which was, and I am very aware of the shadow Minister’s reasonable point that 25% of people are seeking to go back into employment because of the difficulty in starting a business. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must be careful not to sugar-coat setting up a business? It is a difficult career, full of challenges, and if we teach it in schools and universities, we must be realistic. People must understand that failure is part of the education process, and that although it may lead to success, the road on the way will be bumpy.

[Richard Harrington]

That is an exceptionally good point, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend, like me, in later life has had to do the job that we are doing now instead of being in business. However, I know that he, like me, benefited greatly from his time in business. His serious point was well made. The alternative of salaried employment for a company is not secure either, and many people lose their jobs. My generation may be the last one that believed that the professions provided a job for life. There is a risk element now.

I return to my university college, which I hope the Minister will immediately decide should be located in Watford, because that is the obvious place for it. Watford is a good example for small businesses. It used to depend on two heavy industries—printing and lorries—but it now has more than 1,600 small businesses, and the employment background is small business, so Watford would be a suitable place for the college. It would be an ideal location because of being well known internationally as a centre for commerce, culture, intellect and so on.

My serious point is that the Government, with all the excellent measures that they are taking, should consider introducing a degree on setting up a business—obviously, that is not what it would be called—helped by local business people who would agree to take part for perhaps two or three days a week. Students could set up real businesses that would go on to provide real employment for people. That is where academia should meet the practicality of setting up a business.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I am very grateful to you, Mr Streeter, and I shall be very brief.

I shall mention two things that the Government have put in place. The first is universal credit, which is coming through as part of the Welfare Reform Bill. The 65% taper takes away the 16-hour-a-week cliff edge, which is incredibly important. Those who are unemployed and who are looking to start their own business from their own homes now have an incentive to look forward to the future. I am talking about them having not just a limited income but a proper business run for the long term. They can now go through that 16-hour barrier and not see some of their benefits disappear. That has a beneficial effect for those bosses who would employ such people in, say, restaurants, bars or whatever. They can invest in the training of such employees and expect them to remain full-term employees for the long term. That has to be a good thing both for the employer, who is generally self-employed, and the employees.

The second area is planning. Hon. Members who know me well will not be surprised to hear that I am going to bore them slightly on planning. They may ask, “How can that possibly relate to self-employed businesses?” Let me say very straightforwardly that I chaired a conference on that matter last Thursday. We talked about neighbourhood planning. It is now entirely within the remit of small businesses, especially rural ones, to petition for the go-ahead of neighbourhood development plans that take a real account of what local businesses need, particularly in regard to converting farm buildings and using redundant rural buildings for accommodation. I urge all hon. Members to make it plain to their constituents that there is a real opportunity for small businesses here. Small businesses can shape their communities around them and take full account of affordable housing all the way through to the conversion of redundant buildings for their business for the long term. It is a huge opportunity, and one that they should all take.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Marcus Jones, you have three minutes.

Academies Bill [Lords]

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Commons Chamber

Our amendment 26 would make the provision of PSHE mandatory in academies, but we still also take the view that we want academies to have good, open communication with parents on the issue of PSHE, and that each individual school and academy should develop sex and relationships policies.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

From reading the amendment, I am slightly confused. Perhaps the hon. Lady is about to develop this point, but what is the difference between compulsion and PSHE being mandatory, which is not mentioned in the amendment, and a “statutory entitlement”, which is?

[Diana R. Johnson]

We believe that all academies—we are dealing only with academies this evening—should have the subject of PSHE on the curriculum within the school day. That is what the amendment is intended to achieve. At the moment, as I understand it, and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, it will be down to academies to decide for themselves how, whether and in what format they wish to deliver PSHE. That is my understanding of the Government’s position.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Hollingbery]

May I pursue my point a little further? I am a new Member, so forgive me if I am incorrect. Amendment 26 would require

“a statutory entitlement for all pupils”

to PSHE, but it does not mention compulsion or say that PSHE should be mandatory. Could pupils who wish to opt out of PSHE do so? The word used in the amendment is “entitlement,” not “compulsion.”

[Diana R. Johnson]

The proposal is as it is. In the previous Parliament, there was a long debate on opting out of PSHE, especially regarding sex and relationship education. The proposed amendment does not address that matter, but if the Government were minded to accept it, they may have to consider it further. The proposal is for

“a statutory entitlement for all pupils”

in academies.

There was huge disappointment among parliamentarians and many other organisations at the failure of the previous Parliament to legislate on PSHE owing to the fact that the Conservative party would not accept the PSHE clauses in the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010 during the wash-up period. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats now have an opportunity for an early win on PSHE for our young people who will be educated in academies.