Apprenticeships

Gordon Birtwistle Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

We all support apprenticeships and think they are a good idea, and we all congratulate the young people and the companies involved.

I have some questions about the motion. First, because there is so much support for apprenticeships, will the Opposition withdraw it so that we do not need to vote on it? Secondly, if there is to be a vote, will the Minister confirm its legality? As I understand the motion—I am not a legal expert—it commits not only the Government, but local authorities and others using public money to put the requirement to offer apprenticeships into contracts, and I am not sure whether we are allowed to do that. Will the Minister clarify whether that is a legal issue that we need to be concerned about before we vote? I am happy to support the trend of the motion but I would not like to vote for something that cannot be delivered for legal reasons. I am sure the Minister can take advice before he winds up and clarify whether we are able to commit local authorities, for example, to the requirement in the motion. I also question whether we would fall foul of value for money contracts by insisting on companies meeting the requirement. I would like clearance on that before I vote.

It is great that we have apprenticeships in progress. We already do what the motion calls for, apart from committing other authorities to the requirement to offer apprenticeship opportunities. The major companies that we deal with already do so and I support that, but I would like clarity from the Minister that we would be voting on a motion that could legally be implemented.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gordon Birtwistle Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I do not know why the hon. Lady and, indeed, all Opposition Members keep referring to this as a bedroom tax. It is not a tax. It is timely and necessary action to deal with our out-of-control welfare bills, and that action is needed because of the way in which our economy was driven into the ground by the Labour party. It was in power for 13 years, during which no effective welfare reform took place and during which money was spent on a series of vanity projects that only left the country saying, “Thank heavens that a coalition Government have two parties clearing up the mess left behind by that crew of socialist wreckers on whom we wish nothing but a rapid path to contrition.”

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

Over the past 15 years, professional, face-to-face careers advice has virtually vanished from our schools. Could the Minister advise us when it will return?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes. The new duty for independent and impartial careers advice came into place in September, and this summer Ofsted will do a thematic review to assess how well schools are implementing it, where it is being done excellently and where it is not yet being implemented correctly. I look forward to receiving that review.

Industrial Policy and Manufacturing

Gordon Birtwistle Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of industrial policy and UK manufacturing industries.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for today’s debate.

A debate on industrial policy, particularly with regard to manufacturing, is overdue. It is also extremely timely, given the recent publication of Lord Heseltine’s review, “No stone unturned in pursuit of growth” and a number of recent developments, including Ford’s announcement of the closure of its plants in Southampton and Dagenham, and what we saw earlier in the year with the Coryton oil refinery. It is also an opportunity to highlight some of the excellent work being undertaken by the all-party associate manufacturing group, of which I am an officer, along with the hon. Members for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) and for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and several others. I know they will all make contributions today.

I believe that the UK has an incredibly important manufacturing sector—one that has huge potential, but one that needs a successful industrial strategy that would contain a number of elements and could carry widespread support across this House. One factor common to countries that have successful industrial polices is that the fundamentals of the strategies are widely shared. Businesses can invest for the long term, knowing that the rug will not be pulled from under them. Lord Heseltine makes that point on page 8 of his report, when he asks for the “maximum political consensus possible”. I would like the work of the all-party group, as well debates such as this, to become the basis of precisely that.

Let me say at the outset what a debate about industrial policy is not. It is not misty-eyed romanticism for a return to the 1970s. This is forward looking, not backward looking. I believe there is a case for a modern industrial strategy that allows for our manufacturing sector to be a driver of prosperity for many years ahead. When people from across the political spectrum, such as Lord Mandelson and Lord Heseltine, seem to be coming to a consensus behind this, too, there definitely appears to be some momentum building for it.

One part of Lord Heseltine’s report jumped out at me—not the lovely picture of Manchester town hall on the back cover, welcome though that is in any Government report, but paragraph 10 on page 5, where Lord Heseltine says:

“Whether we look at the well established mature economies such as the United States or the new thrusters of the BRICs, there is one clear message we overlook at our peril: the public and private sectors are interdependent. Only by working together and learning to understand each others’ strengths and capabilities will we succeed.”

I firmly agree, and I want to mention a number of areas where our industrial strategy should reflect that—in skills, investment, procurement and the image of manufacturing as well employer-employee relations.

The battle to attract and retain a skilled work force is a constant issue for industry. All major economies face it, and there is no magic bullet. However, the age profile of our skilled work force in the UK, which creeps ever upwards, should be of huge concern to us all. Every company I visit tells me that the skills pipeline does not work as it should. I believe we should be looking at two things here. First, we should be looking at ways to devolve skills funding more directly to business itself, and in exchange business should guarantee that they will provide the high-quality apprenticeships we all want to see.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the biggest problems is the careers advice offered to young people in schools from the age of 12 onwards? The careers advice is normally given by teachers who have only ever been teachers and have no concept of industry outside school. Would it not be better if we had dedicated and qualified careers advisers in every secondary school in the country?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman makes some good points. Careers advice is variable. As I understand it, we are moving away from face-to-face interactions and more towards website-based and telephone-based careers advice services. Whether that will have the effect we would want is probably a matter of concern to us all.

We need to make apprenticeships work for the long term. I know Government Members are always well armed with statistics on new apprenticeships, but I would say to the Minister that there is a quantity versus quality debate to be addressed here, and an issue to do with how many apprenticeships are effectively developing the skills of our next generation. This is an area where more needs to happen.

When I visit manufacturing businesses in my constituency, I am always struck by just how many skilled people started off at British Aerospace. Whether we meant it or not, it seems to me that in the past British Aerospace acted to all intents and purposes as an active industrial intervention, but with that role diminishing we do not have anything that really fills the gap.

As for investment, I am sure that nearly every Member in the Chamber could report the same conversation with local businesses about the banks’ lack of interest in what they do. Businesses say that funding halved overnight during the financial crisis, but that it was never that good beforehand. It seems that, as banks nationalised their business operations and their heads were turned by sectors of the economy that may have been more lucrative in the short term, they were no longer interested in the steady success of their manufacturing clients.

We must find a way of securing for our manufacturing businesses the investment that they need. It seems to me that there is a growing consensus on the need for a British investment bank, whether it is modelled on Germany’s KfW or on France’s Financial Stability Institute, and I am attracted by the idea of a regional or sectoral structure. The proposed green investment bank could form part of a wider strategic investment bank, with a remit to generate long-term returns based on investment in infrastructure and businesses across strategic sectors.

When it comes to procurement, I could simply use the word Bombardier, but there is plainly a view throughout industry that the United Kingdom’s current attitude to procurement represents a wasted opportunity for British business. Let me make it clear that I do not endorse protectionism. Some of the local firms in my constituency have been extremely successful in the export markets, particularly the aerospace businesses, and I think that talk of protectionism at home fails to recognise their achievements. A company delivering a contract here in the UK does not have to be British, but it should be possible to consider how we might be able to make procurement policy work for the UK economy in an intelligent way while still honouring our commitments to the single European market.

I was recently made aware of the problems of Manganese Bronze in Coventry, which could lead to the disappearance of iconic British cabs from the streets of London. The Mayor’s clean air strategy means that as many as 2,000 cabs may have to be replaced in December this year. With Manganese Bronze in administration, the market is now wide open for Mercedes vehicles manufactured in Germany. Surely there could have been a better way.

Another problem is the image of manufacturing. Modern manufacturing is clean and safe, but that does not seem to be widely understood. In fact, at a recent event held by the all-party group in Rochdale, some businesses reported struggling to convey the message that it was also well paid. I did not consider the problem to be particularly significant until I listened to the evidence that industry leaders gave to the group. If we are to try to increase the share of the economy that manufacturing represents, we will need to tackle that. I am not thinking of short-term rebranding or anything that smacks of a gimmick; I am thinking of a long-term campaign—similar to that requested by the hon. Member for Burnley—to get the message across to schools and make them understand what modern British industry is really like.

Finally, I want to say something about employer-employee relations and employment law in the UK. I have deliberately left that subject until the end of my speech, because I suspect that it is the one on which there will be the least consensus. Let me explain my view by giving an example from my constituency.

Kerry Foods, in Hyde, is the largest private sector employer in Tameside. It makes, among other things, Richmond and Walls sausages. Food manufacturing, incidentally, is a much undervalued part of British industry. A few years ago, Kerry needed to adopt the principles of lean manufacturing. It needed to be able to scale its production up and down much more quickly in order to remain competitive, and it therefore needed to consider moving from a five-days-a-week to a seven-days-a-week working pattern. That had big implications for the work force, who were strongly unionised, so Kerry decided to work with them and with Unite, the recognised trade union, to deliver it. In effect, Kerry told the union what it needed, and the union asked the work force to design a shift system that worked for them.

The staff knew that the company’s bottom line was staying profitable, and the company knew that there had to be something in it for the staff. They agreed on the new shift system and a 3.5% wage rise for two successive years, dropping to 2.5% in the third year. That is more than most of our constituents are getting at the moment. My constituents who work for the company have told me that they felt that the consultation process had been extremely sincere, inclusive and open to recommendations, and that input from the union had made it into the final proposals. Unite also sent its reps at Kerry Foods to “change at work” courses which would help them to understand the company’s objectives and deliver the agreement of the work force to the new system. I should add that the company pays for a full-time convenor at the site through facility time, in line with a great deal of best practice.

I gave that example in order to demonstrate that trade unions are not in themselves anti-competitive, and do not constitute a blockage to our economic prosperity. Given the right approach, they can make a very significant contribution to British industry. They should not be demonised. The Ford work forces in Dagenham and Southampton were given very little notification of the recent announcement, let alone a chance to serve as part of a solution to the problem. That was a missed opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

May I say how delighted I am to follow the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) in this important debate? I must also thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling time for it. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on manufacturing, along with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), one of the most consistent messages I hear is that the UK needs to have a comprehensive industrial policy setting out the key economic objectives and the policies we need to achieve them. We need, as a country, to get back on a more sustainable path to growth, which means seeking to balance our books—specifically, by reducing our trade deficit—so that Britain can be more resilient against future shocks and thrives in a more competitive world. Any industrial policy needs to consider the full range of the UK’s economic strengths, from financial services to creative industries and renewable energy. However, the most effective way of achieving a more sustainable growth trajectory is to boost manufacturing and our industrial capacity.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

May I advise my hon. Friend that in 1997 manufacturing was responsible for 22% of our GDP and we had a £4.4 billion surplus on the balance of payments, whereas by 2008 that had reduced to 12% and we had a £42.6 billion deficit on the balance of payments? Does that not show that manufacturing and exports are vital to this country?

[Chris White]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I note the figures he uses. One target the Minister might like to consider in an industrial strategy is about 15% by 2015—that works in so many ways.

We cannot afford merely to dismiss a large part of our global economy. Emerging markets are focusing on production and industry already, but they will not focus on those things for ever. Soon they will seek to compete with the developing economies in highly lucrative services, as well as in research and development. Where will the UK go then? We need to compete in manufacturing, as well as in services and the creative economy, if we are to succeed in the years ahead. The narrower our economy becomes, the more unstable it will be. We need a broad-based economic strategy, and manufacturing can and must play a crucial role in delivering that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

I congratulate my two colleagues—my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—on securing the debate. I also congratulate the new hon. Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) on his maiden speech. I remember doing mine two and half years ago. I hope he is as enthusiastic in two and a half years as I am now. It does not take long for the House to kick the strength out of people.

The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) put the debate into perspective when he said that, in the past 60 years, we have gone from being the major supplier to the world to being a minor supplier. In 1958—nearly 60 years ago—I turned up on my first day as an apprentice engineer at a company in Accrington that employed 5,000 people to produce textile machinery that was sold around the world. It is no longer there, and has not been for many years. I have been involved in manufacturing almost throughout the period he described.

We can get growth going in numerous ways. The one thing the Chancellor can do in two weeks’ time is give 100% capital allowances for investment in capital, buildings and the like for the manufacturing sector. As I understand it, the major companies in this country, and companies from abroad who wish to invest, have £70 billion stashed in banks. One hundred per cent. capital allowances for just two years would boost investment and the money would be spent in the UK.

Another major problem is the supply chain—it is a problem in the automotive and aerospace industries. It needs to be resolved. To get rid of our balance of payments deficit, we need to increase exports by 15% and reduce imports by 15%. It does not sound like a big task to export 15% more and import 15% less. I have asked companies whether they are able to do so. The vast majority in the aerospace industry say, “Yes, we can. We’ve got order books for 25 years ahead, but we do not have a supply chain to feed our order book, so we are having to import. We would really like to manufacture in the UK so we have our own supply chain.” We need to resolve that, but we also need the staff to work in the supply chain—the young people to work in the supply chains of our top industries, such as the aerospace, automotive and chemical industries, are not coming through. The supply chain gap is a major problem.

We have a major skills gap. I visited Rolls-Royce in Derby only last week and asked to see its apprenticeships training programme. I was delighted to hear that it takes on 40 extra apprentices every year not for Rolls-Royce, but for the supply chain—companies that supply Rolls-Royce but that cannot afford to take on apprentices. Those small companies want high-class apprentices and to deliver the skills of the future, and Rolls-Royce takes them on at its own expense so that its supply chain is secure.

Hon. Members mentioned careers advice. I am horrified when I go to schools in my constituency and hear about the careers advice that is given to young people. Basically, it is nothing—no careers advice that is of any use is given. Some young people would be interested in going into manufacturing, but nobody advises them what it is about. It is high time that the Department for Education looked into careers advice in schools. We need young people who really know what manufacturing is about.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Higher and Further Education

Gordon Birtwistle Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

Two and a half years ago, I arrived in this place and two years ago I was introduced to the Browne report on the future funding of universities, which had been asked for by the previous Labour Government. It was to be studied not only in itself, but when the country faced a catastrophic financial situation. I could not have agreed with the Browne report as it was, because having universities charging unlimited sums was not acceptable to me. So I told the current Secretary of State that I could not agree with it and that he had to do something for the poorer families in the country, particularly those in my constituency. We then got the proposal that we have now, with the change from an unlimited to a limited amount of money. The Browne report, asked for by the Labour Government, was talking about making it unlimited. Now, not only was the amount to be absolutely limited at £9,000, but there would be national scholarships to help young people from families who did not have the funding to go to these places. That has happened quite a lot in Burnley; a lot of young people have gone on these special scholarships, getting their first year and, we hope, their second year free at the colleges.

When I went back to the town to discuss the matter with the young people there, I was astonished to hear that they had been fed the story, particularly by the Labour party, that they would have to find the money up front—that the £21,000 would have to be paid before they turned up on the university doorstep. That was parroted by the Labour party and in some of the press.

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman is making a serious claim against the Opposition. Will he say on precisely what occasion anybody speaking on behalf of my party said that?

[Gordon Birtwistle]

A number of members of the Labour party in Burnley were saying to the young people of Burnley, and convincing them, that they would have to find the money up front. That was obviously not the case, so I told them that they would not have to pay the money up front, that the money would be given to them up front and that no repayments would have to be made until they were earning £21,000. They then asked how much they would have to pay when they were earning £22,000, which is a gross salary of £1,850 a month. When they are on that income, their repayment to the taxpayer for funding their education at university will be £8 a month. When I asked them whether they would mind paying back £8 a month if they had a salary of £1,850 they said, “Of course not. We understood that it would be lots more than that.” I then asked them to assume that they were on a salary of £25,000, which is a substantial salary in Burnley, and so would be collecting more than £2,000 a month. When I asked whether they would then object to paying back £30 a month to the taxpayer who had funded their education at university I was again told, “Well of course not, but that is not what we have been told. That is not the understanding that we have. So we are happy to do it.” I even got the student union rep at the university of central Lancashire to say, “That is far better than what we have now.” The young people of Burnley are getting a better deal now than they had before, and that convinced me to support the proposals in the Bill.

I also compared the number of students who go to university with the total number of students who leave school. About 40% go to university, which means that 60% do not. So I looked at the prospects for those young people who do not go to university—I am thinking of the apprenticeship scheme. I was an apprentice engineer in 1958. Over the past 25 years, various Governments, particularly the last one, took the decision to destroy apprenticeships. They said that they did not need apprenticeships, that they would pray and bow to the City and the finance sector, so never mind the manufacturing sector—let it go. The Indians and Chinese could do the manufacturing and we would just make money out of the finance sector. We all saw what happened to the finance sector: it caught a cold and we all got pneumonia.

We have to support manufacturing, so the Government have invested in 800,000 young people who are now apprentices. Many of them are going to university but are being funded by the companies that they work for, which means that they are getting degrees and have a job, but do not have any debt. That is the kind of forward thinking that the Government should demonstrate and that is what we have had.

[Mr Lammy]

I welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said about apprenticeships, but does he share my concern that we have too many apprenticeships that are for less than six months and many apprenticeships in parts of retail that are not like the apprenticeships he described, such as the one he went on?

[Gordon Birtwistle]

I have some sympathy with that comment, because I believe that apprenticeships should be for a real job and I agree that young people should not be taken on on short-term contracts and called apprentices. I have met many young people in Burnley who are on real apprenticeships in engineering, distribution, motor mechanics and so on and they are doing very well out of it.

I also want to comment on the £350 million that the Government are putting in to university technical colleges. Technical colleges are another thing of the past—people who did not go to grammar school but to the secondary modern school could manage to get to a technical college halfway through. Technical colleges trained people to go and do a job in industry, but we gave up on them in the 1960s. They are now coming back and we will have 32 university technical colleges.

Young people will be able to leave secondary school at 14 and be trained at the colleges for a real job, doing subjects into which the businesses in the area will have input. Those companies are now involved with the university technical colleges, which are delivering young people into the jobs that this country needs. We are desperate for engineers and scientists, whereas there are more people with law degrees stacking shelves in supermarkets than doing anything else. We need to start making things and training people to do the jobs of the future and that is what the university technical colleges will do with young people. If we take the colleges, together with the apprenticeships and the young people who go to university, we have a good deal.

I do not see the arguments against our approach and what I have heard from the Minister tonight suggests that the funding system proposed by the Opposition is equal to the previous funding system, which has bankrupted the country. I do not want to go back to those days. I want real jobs, for real young people studying at university, and the delivery of everything else that goes with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Birtwistle]

What would the debt be under a cap of £6,000? Does the hon. Gentleman have many students in his constituency who, with a salary of £1,850 a month, would object to paying back £8 a month?

[Tristram Hunt]

I am happy to have taken that intervention, which allows me to say that the debt would be less because we would be charging £6,000 as a cap rather than £9,000.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gordon Birtwistle Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am sure the regulator will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s case. As I have said before, he was the head of an outstanding further education college. However, it is only appropriate to say that when the regulator appeared before the Education Committee, she made it clear that she saw it as her mission to deal with problems associated with grade inflation. It was on that basis that a Committee of this House approved her appointment.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

More than 20 children in my constituency have not been allocated any of their three preferences for primary schools, leaving some children without a school place this year. Will the Secretary of State meet me to hear a solution proposed by a local headmaster, which Lancashire county council refused to discuss?

Careers Service (Young People)

Gordon Birtwistle Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for bringing this debate to the House, as I believe it is valuable—one of the most important debates I have attended since being elected. It is only a shame that so few Members are present to hear the contributions. [Interruption.] I am not naming names, just making a comment. The principle behind the motion is very good, but the way in which it has been written is very poor. [Interruption.] Those might be the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) but they are not in this motion. The problem with it is—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) has only just come into the Chamber, yet he seems to think this is a joke.

The motion says:

“That this House believes that the Government should act urgently to guarantee face-to-face careers advice for all young people in schools.”

It does not tell us how many times, at what stage careers advice is needed, or how old the young people should be. Let me explain why I believe it has been badly written. If it had been written differently, I might have been able to support it.

When I was leader of Burnley council some three years ago, I went to a junior school to speak to some year 6 students who were just about to leave the school and go on to secondary education. The headmistress had invited a number of prominent people in the town—the mayor, myself and one or two more—to say what our jobs were. After we had told the young people what our jobs were, we asked them what sort of vision they had for their future. One little girl said that she was interested in becoming a nursery nurse, as she had some siblings and was keen on looking after them. The shock for me came when one young man said, “I want to be a benefit claimant.” That was the aspiration in life of a young man of 11, and he had never been given any different advice. When I asked him why, he said, “My dad and uncle are benefit claimants and we live very well off it, so why should I get up every morning to go to work?” When I told the head teacher afterwards how stunned I was at that, she said, “I’m afraid that’s the way of the world round here.” I then decided that I would look into how that happened, and what we could do to try to stop it.

After that we got talking to people in the secondary schools. The secondary schools in Burnley have gone through a torrid time, although I am pleased to say that they are now recovering. Nobody in here needs to tell me about privileged students; if they came to Burnley, they would find that we do not have very many privileged students at the moment. I thought it would be a great idea to get the companies involved, and we managed to get a big company involved in every school. They carry out a lot of careers advice because they are the professionals; they know what educational skills they need from the people who are coming to them.

A lot of young people want to go on to university, and that is fine, but a lot of young people are going on to university to study subjects that do not qualify them for any jobs when they have finished studying them, while there are a number of jobs in manufacturing, particularly in Burnley, for which we cannot get staff. One company in Burnley is looking for 300 skilled workers and cannot get them. It has suddenly decided that taking on a vast number of apprentices, through the Government’s apprenticeship scheme, is a good idea. But a young person of 16 does not get to be a skilled airframe fitter or aero-engine fitter by the time they are 17. The process takes four or five years. For the past 30 years that process has not happened; we have let the whole thing fall apart. I am not blaming the Labour Government or the previous Tory Government, but that has happened; this is where we are.

We have a careers service that has failed the young people of this country for the past 30 years, and we desperately need to do something about it. We do not need the Government to do everything; we need to get the professionals from industry involved. Why do we not invite Sir John Rose, who has retired from Rolls-Royce, to talk to people and advise them about how he would run a careers service? He has run Rolls-Royce for donkey’s years and made it very successful. I do not think that the Government can do this on their own. People outside government can give better advice than anybody within it.

I suggest that the Government should examine what they are doing. I accept the need to do more and if money is available, I hope that they will do more. I also think that the local colleges and further education colleges could do more. Twice a year Burnley college has a careers day, when it invites all the companies from Burnley and most of them attend. They put stands up and speak to young people, and they take vast numbers of young people on as a result of those nights. One company took six apprentices on as a result of one of these nights—young people who had never thought of going into that sort of industry.

We cannot take too narrow an approach to this issue. We should expand it to include everybody involved in employing young people once they have finished school or university. I implore the Government to examine all the options. As I have said, I am disappointed that the motion has been so badly written. [Interruption.] It is not my right hon. Friend’s motion; it is the shadow Secretary of State’s motion. It is badly written—but if it had said, “We want to do this at certain times of people’s education and there is some money for it here,” I assure hon. Members that I would have supported it. Unfortunately, the Opposition motion does not say that.

Apprenticeships (Small Businesses)

Gordon Birtwistle Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing this important debate for Westminster Hall today. He has covered most of what I was going to say, but I would like to make a few comments about my experience in the manufacturing industry and with apprenticeships.

When I was 15 years old, with no O-levels and without even passing the 11-plus, I left secondary school to become an apprentice craft engineer. I studied at night school for three nights a week until I was 25, and finished up with two higher national certificates. Those are the type of jobs that we need now. We have stacks of young people leaving university with higher qualifications but in engineering we do not have the people coming through to make the products that the academics and the people from university design.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I commend my hon. Friend for making that point, because the statistics show that those from apprenticeship schemes have a much better chance of securing full-time permanent employment than graduates.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

My hon. Friend is correct. Anyone who has a skill in running, programming and setting computer-controlled machinery will never be out of work. In fact, in Lancashire, there is a big demand for such people, and some companies are paying golden hellos to steal operators from other companies.

In Burnley, on 20 June we are having a manufacturing summit at the brand new £100 million college, which is linked to a university that is also involved in advanced manufacturing—that is a small advert for what we hope to do. I am pleased to say that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills will be there, as will the managing director of Boeing UK, the chairman of AgustaWestland and many other big manufacturers, along with smaller manufacturers from north-east Lancashire. The event is about getting big and small manufacturers to come along to listen to the Secretary of State, but we have also asked local schools to give presentations and to bring students to listen to people in the industry, with a view to taking up apprenticeships.

At Business, Innovation and Skills questions this morning I asked about careers. It is vital that we instil in young people long before they reach 15 or 16 what the prospects in the work force are. Careers officers talking to young people at 12, 13 or 14 is important, because once they get to 15 and 16 it is too late for them to change their mind about becoming a doctor, vet, solicitor or barrister. They cannot have some careers because they do not have the qualifications, and cannot move into the subjects that might interest them in becoming apprentice engineers or entering manufacturing.

Burnley is one of the best places in the country for job vacancies. I spoke to the regional director of Jobcentre Plus, who told me that Burnley is one of the country’s brighter lights because vacancies have gone up by more than 30% since this time last year. That is a great result, but the vast majority of vacancies are for skilled manual workers, and the big problem is that we do not have a pool of out-of-work skilled manual workers. My son, who owns an engineering company, tells me that if a skilled worker is out of work now, he is no good and he will not be taken on. That is the situation, so we need people to replace those who are retiring. It is critical that apprentices come through to do the craft jobs, and work on machines for the products that go into advanced manufactured items such as jet engines and components for the nuclear and oil industries, where we are world leaders and sell across the world.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

It is a matter of concern, particularly when I visit manufacturing businesses in my constituency, that the employees have an average age between 45 and 60. Is that not a worry?

[Gordon Birtwistle]

I agree. That was to be my next point. A company in Burnley called Aircelle makes thrust reversers for the Trent jet engine. Three years ago the company employed 350 people; it now employs 800 people and has work for 15 years. Aircelle has been offered work from Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers, but has to turn it away because it does not have the skills.

I used to work for the company when it was called Lucas Aerospace, which was a long, long while ago. I walked around the place, and I said to the managing director, “I look at some of the people here and I remember them working here when I did, and I’ve been retired for three years. Some of these guys must be coming up for retirement.” He replied, “The age profile is a big concern because more than 80% of the work force is 40-plus.”

Another big problem for the company is that young people coming into the industry want to be designers and technicians, working on computers on the other side, and the guys who put the aircraft engine parts together are in short supply. It is a problem getting skilled fitters and process workers to come and do the job. The company is now a world leader in composites, but it is very difficult to get people to come and work on composite design and manufacture. Fortunately, it is using a lot of young ladies to do that now; because of the dexterity of their fingers, they are able to mould things in carbon fibre. I agree entirely that this is an issue that the Government must pick up. We must ensure not only that we train people to do the real top jobs but that we train young people to come in and do the jobs that involve physically making things.

As I said, at Burnley college we are having a manufacturing summit on 20 June. The council there has worked with the college. We spent £100,000 from the working neighbourhoods fund, and three years ago the college put in a further £100,000 to buy three Mazak advanced machine tools. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) will know of Mazak because the company is based in his constituency. The college ran an engineering course but could not get anyone to go on it, but as soon as we put in the Mazak machine tools the course was overwhelmed, because young people see that they can work in an office and a workshop and design a product, go on a computer and feed the design into the machine, and then make the product on the new CNC—computer numerical control—machine. They can see that it is a great job for the future. The days of what I call the garage on “Coronation Street” with engineers in blue overalls with oily rags in their pockets have long gone.

[Jim Shannon]

They are all on three days a week.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

Are they? They are very fortunate to be on three days. In some of the big companies that make advanced products, food could be eaten off the floor because it is so clean, and young people see that.

An apprentice is an investment. Companies think nothing of spending thousands of pounds on a machine but will then worry about spending a few thousand on training someone to run it. It is important that companies think of apprentices as an investment for the future, because without them they will not have any staff for the future to make their product of the future, and the profits of the future will disappear.

The Government need to carry on with what they are doing. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, I am extremely disappointed that we have not seen anyone from the Opposition here today. That is a big disappointment because this is a big issue. They often go on about it in the House, yet when we have a debate like this they cannot be bothered to turn up. Having said that, I hope that the coalition Government will get on with it and complete the course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

As usual, my hon. Friend has made a pertinent comment, which brings me on to my next point. Useful work experience can be obtained in voluntary organisations. Similarly, I am a firm believer in part-time work, in which I was active in my younger days, particularly when I was at school and college. Part-time work is invaluable to young people in developing soft skills—my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester mentioned that earlier—and in relation to integrating into and learning about the workplace environment, which, to be perfectly frank, is completely different from a school or college environment. Young people going into a workplace are not dealing with teachers or their peers; all of a sudden, they are working with people who have been involved in the industry for many years and are not accustomed to somebody fresh and green from a school environment.

We must acknowledge that opportunities for part-time work for our young people, although important, are extremely limited. Although I acknowledge that we must do all that we can to keep our young people safe and ensure that they are not exploited in any way, we must consider the regulations that many employers face when employing youngsters part-time, which go far beyond health and safety. I received a useful briefing on employing children from the House of Commons Library, and I was astounded by the number of regulations that it contained. I would be surprised if many employers knew those regulations. If they did, it would frighten them to death to take on any young person part-time.

For example, the document states that young people may not deliver milk or work in a butcher shop. When I was that age, many of my peers did such work. I delivered milk with the Co-op milkman—I am not sure whether the milkman should have allowed me to deliver milk with him, but I went out and delivered it all the same. Many of my peers at school used to work for one of the local butchers part-time, and they gained invaluable experience. If we are to enable our youngsters to gain such invaluable experience now, we must ensure that we look carefully at the regulations to ensure that we put barriers in the way only when absolutely necessary. We must also consider removing a great deal of the bureaucracy, including what appears to be a draconian reporting culture, that employers must undertake. Does the Minister think that it is a healthy position effectively to bar youngsters from taking on many part-time jobs? Does he not agree that we should free up regulations in a sensible way?

[Gordon Birtwistle]

I had occasion a couple of years ago to question some young people about what they wanted to do when they finished school. One of them said that he wanted to be a benefit claimant. Does the hon. Gentleman think that working part-time for somebody might take that idea out of that boy’s head and help him change his view, so that he wanted to go into work rather than being a benefit claimant for the rest of his life?

[Mr Jones]

I totally agree. That is part of the problem, which my hon. Friend has highlighted. There is a culture in certain parts of this country in which work is frowned upon. I am glad to say that we now have a Government who want to get this country and our young people working and create a culture of work, rather than one in which being kept—staying at home and collecting benefits—is a job choice, not a safety net.

That brings me to the other risk that employers in my constituency tell me about, which concerns employee retention after several years have been spent training a young apprentice. Obviously, the costs of that training are borne by the Government, in the main, but there are also costs to the employer in training people on the job. Employers are concerned that a young person will come in, serve an apprenticeship and leave. In certain trades, including the craft trades such as bricklaying, plumbing and so on, people can quickly set up as self-employed workers, and employers are concerned that they will invest their time and money in training young people who will either get a job elsewhere or set up on their own. We must address that, whether through an incentive scheme for employers or by other means. We must do all that we can to encourage employers to take people on and overcome those risks.

We need to consider the barriers to career progression that make things more difficult for employers, particularly those who have younger employees. That was highlighted to me on a visit to MES Systems in my constituency, which has two fantastic young apprentices whom I met. One of the apprentices had just finished his time and had qualified as an installer of security equipment, but unfortunately that young man will have to spend this coming year working for somebody else, not because he cannot do the job independently but because the company could not get insurance on the van that he needed to drive to get around independently. That is a major impediment not only for the young person who is not getting the experience of working independently but for the employer, who knows that additional work is available but is hamstrung by the fact that that he cannot send a person out to do that work, allowing him to take on another apprentice. That is the type of barrier that we need to think carefully about.

To touch on another constituency scenario, I spoke to the principal of a firm of accountants several weeks ago. The Minister will be glad to hear that he is looking to take on four apprentices as trainee accountants, but I am sad to report that to date, he cannot fill those vacancies, which is a sad indictment of careers advice and the link between employers, schools and FE colleges. It is important for the Government to tackle that issue. I hope that the all-age careers service will help with the quality of advice that our young people get, so that they can have proper careers and receive independent advice based on getting a job rather than on trying to meet exam targets or school or college league table targets. To many youngsters, that is important, but to some it is not as important as getting straight into employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ward]

There are measures to improve the system. It has failed in many instances. On getting information through to young people, I would add that the most important individuals for many young people as they go through their education—a blinding flash of the obvious—are the teachers, not the careers advisers. How many teachers have any experience of life outside of a school, whether in manufacturing, engineering or not being a teacher?

I am concerned that we miss a trick if we focus on developing the careers advisory service, recognising that it is a weak area that we could develop, without looking at the crucial issue of the experiences of the most influential characters in our young people’s education—the teachers themselves. Perhaps the Minister has something on that—it may not be his remit, I do not know—but exchanges between business and schools are important. When young people consider what they want to do with their lives, they should be surrounded by people who have experience of something other than going to university or being in another educational setting.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

In Burnley, we have got the big local companies involved with mentoring students in schools for the future. Is that something that the Minister will pick up, run with and expand across the country not only with big companies, but with smaller companies?

Oral Answers to Questions

Gordon Birtwistle Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

1. What steps he plans to take to encourage young people to take up careers in engineering and manufacturing.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

8. What steps he plans to take to encourage young people to take up careers in engineering and manufacturing.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

We are funding STEMNET, a programme that encourages young people to look at the possibilities offered by science, technology, engineering and mathematics—STEM—study and employment; we are providing a £180 million package that will see 50,000 new higher apprenticeships in sectors including STEM-related industries; and, of course, the main incentive is good manufacturing jobs, which is why I welcome the announcements yesterday and today from Nissan and BMW of large new investments in British manufacturing industry.

[Vince Cable]

Yes, my colleague is absolutely right. Indeed, I was at the Royal Academy of Engineering during the week, talking about how we strengthen that interface between education and the engineering industry, and as regards the careers service my colleague the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning has already written to schools, reminding them of their statutory responsibilities under the new careers service as it develops.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

Does the Secretary of State agree that careers advice should start at age 12, be delivered by experienced professional and independent advisers, and be available throughout every year of education?

[Vince Cable]

Again, my colleague is absolutely right. The careers service is fundamentally important. My Department and, in particular, my colleague the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning are talking to careers professionals about how to roll out a properly accredited system of careers advice and, indeed, about co-locating careers advice with the Department for Work and Pensions and Jobcentre Plus in order to ensure that the service is properly integrated.

Sure Start Children’s Centres

Gordon Birtwistle Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

Indeed, and with a 13% cut in the first year for my area. However, if my hon. Friend does not mind, I want to leave her and the Minister to debate that point, which is a valid one. We heard a disingenuous speech by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who implied that there was no need to make cuts of that order and that the Government were in some way protecting Sure Start. On the figures that my hon. Friend has given, that is not true around the country. However, if she does not mind, I will leave that point because, from my perspective, we would be grateful for a 13% cut—if I can put it that way—rather than what is actually happening.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman expand on this 45% cut? It has been said that the cut adds up to 15% over three years, so has he not got it the wrong way round? It is not 15 multiplied by three; it is 15 divided by three. Could he expand on how he has got to 45%?

[Mr Slaughter]

If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I am sure that he will get the point that I am coming to, but, in essence, because the money is not ring-fenced, my local authority has voluntarily chosen, in the face of what it says is a 13% cut from the Government, to make a 45% cut in the first year. That came about in the following way, which bears some analysis.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gordon Birtwistle Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

13. What his policy is on widening access to higher education for students from disadvantaged backgrounds; and if he will make a statement.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

20. What his policy is on widening access to higher education for students from disadvantaged backgrounds; and if he will make a statement.

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

This Government are committed to social mobility. That is why our higher education reforms have no payments up-front, more generous maintenance support and the extension of loans to part-time students. Last week we gave updated guidance to the director of fair access about access agreements and outlined details of our £150 million national scholarship programme.

[Mr Willetts]

We in the coalition Government do not believe in quotas, for the reasons that my hon. Friend rightly sets out. They would be not only undesirable but illegal because the autonomy of universities in running their own admissions arrangements has legal protection.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Burnley college, which is operating in a disadvantaged area, on its event last Friday, when dozens of companies met scores of young people who wish to take up apprenticeships in engineering? Does he agree that that is the right way to go and that the coalition Government are repairing the damage following the destruction of manufacturing engineering by the previous Government?