Apprentices: Financial Support

Debate between Gordon Marsden and Kelvin Hopkins

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan, and to speak in this debate in the middle of National Apprenticeship Week. I begin by paying warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and congratulating him on securing the debate. He has modestly mentioned before, and again today, his experience in this area. Colleagues who served with him on the Public Bill Committee for the Technical and Further Education Bill—new colleagues in particular— will have recognised his breadth, depth and wealth of experience in this area, having been an FE tutor, a governor, and a chair of the all-party group on further education and lifelong learning. Latterly, as the Minister and I know, his contributions in that Bill Committee were excellent.

I am delighted to take part in the debate. This week is an opportunity for all MPs, regardless of party, to celebrate the tens of thousands of individual successes—from young beginners to older workers acquiring new skills, and the successes of the colleges, training providers and employers who inspire them. I was privileged to speak yesterday at the celebration of apprenticeships conference, which was organised by Lindsay McCurdy and her team from Apprenticeships 4 England to pay tribute to the huge number of talented and hard-working apprentices up and down the country.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. When apprenticeships are successful, many apprentices go on to have highly skilled jobs, overtaking even those who have been to university, including graduates, and they are ahead both in promotions and earnings by the time university students get started.

[Gordon Marsden]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which could reverberate usefully around the Chambers of this place thanks to individual MPs and Ministers—I know that the Minister who is here today talks about that frequently. Those who pursue that route of learning while they are earning, to use that phrase, can be enormously successful.

As Members know—including those of us who have sat on Select Committees, where we listen to hours and hours of discussion, debate and evidence—sometimes little things stick with us. I remember well something that happened 10 years ago, although the illustration is still relevant. I worked on a Select Committee inquiry comparing apprenticeships with higher education. We heard from a young man who worked at BAE Systems. He was not my constituent but came from a neighbouring constituency. I will not mention his school—it was outside Preston—but he said, “When I was at my secondary school, most of my mates ended up going to university and I did not feel that I either could or would. They used to say that I was a bit of thicko, but I got this apprenticeship with BAE Systems.” He spoke about where he was in the process, and of course BAE Systems supported him through his degree. He also said, “I will have the last laugh on them, because I will come out with a very skilled job and a degree, and no student debt.”

Today is not the day for me to engage in discussing spiralling student debt, least of all with a Minister who is not responsible for it, but that point is important. The more that the costs of higher education rise, the more important it is to get the message across to people that it is not a question of having apprenticeships or higher education. The two can dovetail extremely well, but to do so, people need the financial support and encouragement that we are debating today.

I was very happy to speak at the celebration of apprenticeships conference. On Monday I also met people from the motor industry, which has been effective and successful in this regard. We talked about the sector skills council that is associated with it—the Institute of the Motor Industry—and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. The industry has been very successful in supporting Government programmes such as the apprenticeship trailblazers, and in giving apprentices support—sometimes financial support and sometimes information, advice and guidance. There are some very bright sparks in a number of different sectors.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend mentions the motor industry. Vauxhall is a leader in that industry, and I know Vauxhall well, being from Luton. In recent years it has encouraged young people from local schools and colleges to tour the factory to see what life is like in manufacturing, and it has recruited new apprentices. Vauxhall found that its workforce was ageing, but now it is getting younger again, because it is taking in many more young apprentices and is showing the way forward for positive companies. If other companies were as positive as Vauxhall, we might do rather better.

[Gordon Marsden]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is about the process involved, and I will talk later about the barriers to doing that sort of thing that young people experience in schools, for instance. It is important that various sectors act.

I have talked about the importance of the motor industry, but there is also the service industry. That raises questions not only about support but about the many opportunities available. I mentioned Apprenticeships 4 England and Lindsay McCurdy. Last year she brought a great bunch of apprentices, including a talented group of young apprentice hairdressers from Michaeljohn Training in Manchester, to a meeting that I sponsored in one of the Select Committee rooms. As an apprenticeship week present, they presented me with a very lifelike model head—I still have it on my office shelf—to demonstrate their skills in colouring and styling. One of these days, if I am feeling mischievous, I suppose I might ginger up the occasional official or other policy maker who seems to think that the route to successful jobs and apprenticeships is simply through higher-level manufacturing, digital or technical areas. The truth is that if we are to achieve the 3 million target, which the Minister and his colleagues are so keen to hit, and really expand the opportunities for young people, we will need the service sectors just as much as we need manufacturing and other sectors.

Oppositions do not get much opportunity to blow their own trumpet about success stories, so I shall. I am very proud of the fact that the last Labour Government introduced the National Apprenticeship Service and, indeed, National Apprenticeship Week in 2008. They also revived apprenticeships, taking them from 65,000 starts in 1996-97 to 279,700 by 2009-10. Those increases have continued under successive Governments.

The last Labour Government also linked the creation of apprenticeship placements to public sector contracts across a range of Departments and projects, including Crossrail. Such infrastructure projects will remain a crucial conduit for apprenticeship expansion, as I have said. As well as financial support, informal encouragement is extremely important for widening the diversity of the apprentices who take part in those great projects. I was fortunate enough to see that two years ago when I went down the construction tunnel at Farringdon and saw some of the people working on it. They were young Londoners, including a couple of young women and a young man from a BME community who had started off selling ad space and was now proud of his tunnelling qualifications. It is worth remembering that 60% of the construction work on Crossrail is outside London, so there is a lot of scope in the supply chain for many more opportunities for young people. Projects such as Crossrail and its commitment need to become a vital part of our regeneration and productivity across the UK.

[Gordon Marsden]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent and highly relevant comment. I remember having the same experience many years ago when I served on the Advisory Committee on Works of Art, looking into the repair of stuff in this place. The project is important because a lot of bespoke skills will be needed, not least those relating to architecture. There are some very challenging issues—logistics, wiring and God knows what else—that will potentially engage a whole gamut of people.

That is what it is all about; it is about economic impact, but it is also about improving the careers and life chances of hundreds of thousands of young people—and, indeed, older people. We talk a lot about apprenticeships, but we have not always talked enough about apprentices and their individual issues and challenges. The need to increase the focus on improving access and social mobility, which I know the Minister feels strongly about, as I do, is a crucial part of the equation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North has already referred to the Government’s continuing failure to address or understand apprenticeships. The fact that the Department for Work and Pensions does not class apprenticeships as approved education or training is leaving many individuals and families thousands of pounds worse off. I pay tribute to a survey that appeared in The Times Educational Supplement on 10 February under the headline “Apprentices ‘treated like second-class citizens’”. It was carried out by the National Union of Students, via the National Society of Apprenticeships, which it sponsors.

My hon. Friend read an important but slightly dispiriting list of the ways in which apprentices are financially disadvantaged in comparison with students. If the Government hope to reduce the growing skills gap in this country with a push to create 3 million apprenticeships, why are apprentices and apprenticeships not included as approved education or training? There has been spirited discussion about that in the House of Lords recently, which I will come on to shortly. The Government need to make progress on this.

The Times Educational Supplement article states:

“Research by the NUS and TES has revealed that…some apprentices earn as little as £3.40 an hour”.

That figure will rise to £3.50 in April. There is a separate issue, which we probably do not have time to discuss in detail today, about how many more employers could go the extra mile, over and above the existing rate. That rate can sometimes be particularly difficult for younger apprentices to exist on, given their personal family circumstances.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I hope my hon. Friend does not mind my interrupting his flow. He talks about companies; one of the problems with companies, particularly small companies, is that they sometimes have short lifespans and then apprentices are lost. The great advantage of big projects such as Crossrail—which I, too, have visited and been impressed by—is that they give long-term certainty to apprentices, who spend a long time doing a job and then come out with a lot of experience and with high skills that set them up for the future. We have to try to focus apprenticeships on those areas in particular, so that apprentices do not lose out and suddenly find themselves unemployed and having to get a job without skills.

[Gordon Marsden]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. He is absolutely right about the contribution that larger employers and large long-term projects can make. However, we are all products of our individual constituency circumstances and experiences. My experience as a Member of Parliament in Blackpool is that, although a lot of people go and work for large organisations outside Blackpool, such as BAE Systems, there are also a huge number of very small businesses and microbusinesses. In my experience, if we can engage small and medium-sized employers, particularly in areas where there is a close-knit SME community—there are obstacles to doing so, such as hiding the wiring for them and ensuring that there is back-office support, but they are outwith the debate—those SMEs are sometimes the best advocates for other colleagues and small businesses taking them on board. I think it is about both, not either/or, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the importance of the support that can be given by those organisations and the supply chains that contribute to them.

The article about NUS research states:

“Disadvantaged apprentices are missing out on thousands of pounds in support available to students”.

The National Society of Apprentices took up that point in its written evidence to the Technical and Further Education Bill, which stated that

“upon taking up an apprenticeship, a young person’s family will become ineligible to claim child benefit and child tax credits. This will inevitably have a negative impact on that family’s household budget, which is not covered by the earnings made by an apprentice’s salary given the apprentice minimum wage is barely over £3 per hour”,

as it was at the time.

Shakira Martin, the extremely active and feisty—I say that with approval—NUS vice-president for further education, has elaborated on that point. The article quotes her as saying that

“the idea that apprenticeships were a desirable way to ‘earn while you learn’ was ‘far from the truth’”.

She said:

“Apprentices are treated like second-class citizens, as workers and as learners. Financial support like Care to Learn [for apprentice parents], and Child Tax Credits for parents of apprentices, is not available…If apprenticeships are going to be the silver bullet to create a high-skilled economy for the future, the government has to…support apprentices financially to succeed.”

Otherwise, we will fail to capitalise on the benefit of expansion.

In the update that it circulated to Members today before the debate, the NUS elaborated on that point: “Apprentices are not necessarily eligible for council tax exemptions in the same way as other students. While those paid under £195 a week are exempt, many are unaware of this. Often councils do not advertise this discount on their website, and we are increasingly becoming aware of apprentices being wrongly charged council tax. Additionally, one of the implications of the apprenticeship reforms is that fewer apprentices will be eligible for this discount, not because they are being paid more, but rather”—this is a really important point that I would like the Minister to grasp—“because apprenticeships are no longer required to include a qualification which is necessary for the exemption. Apprentices earning over this amount are obliged to pay council tax.”

I referred earlier to the fact I had spoken at an event on Monday organised by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies, and the Institute of the Motor Industry. That event was preceded by a seminar in which there was discussion of all aspects of the apprenticeship levy, the introduction of the Institute for Apprenticeships and so on. One thing that came out, both in informal conversations and in the speeches that were made at that event, was how worried and concerned a body of employers remain about the issue of qualifications not being properly included, from their perspective, in the new standards that have come out of the skills plan and the Sainsbury review. That is a vexed issue, and I would not expect the Minister to want to dilate in detail on it today, but if he has not heard about it already from people in the industry, I am sure that he will hear about it presently.

I do not want to go on too long about this particular aspect, but it is crucial. I refer again to the debate held in the Lords on 27 February as part of the proceedings in Grand Committee on the Technical and Further Education Bill. My colleague, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, pressed the Government on this issue and tabled an amendment. Baroness Buscombe, the Front-Bench spokesperson who spoke on behalf of the Minister in the other place, said that some of the issues that had been raised were outwith the scope of the Department for Education. She was right; they are, because they are Department for Work and Pensions issues, and indeed the issues around council tax are for the Department for Communities and Local Government. Of course, that does not stop Ministers in either House having discussions with their colleagues in other Departments.

Baroness Buscombe also said that she could not change the definition of apprentices. As one or two Members of the Lords asked, if the Government cannot change it, who can? Perhaps the Minister could change it. If he cannot do so, or does not feel that it is his role to do so, powers could be given to the Institute for Apprenticeships so that it could change the definition, either by an amendment in the Lords, or in the Commons if any amendments come back from the Lords for us to discuss further on the Floor of the House. Or, I would argue, that could be done by delegated legislation. I will leave it at that, but I would like the Minister to consider some of those issues, because they are quite significant.

The Association of Colleges is also concerned about the discrepancy between the current national minimum hourly wage rates of £7.20 for those aged 25 and over and only £3.40 an hour for apprentices. Someone aged 22 in the first year of an apprenticeship is entitled only to that apprenticeship rate, whereas in any other area they would be entitled to the minimum hourly rate of £6.95 for 21 to 24-year-olds. That is a disincentive, which is an issue we really need to take on board. I think the Minister and I share common ground on this, but I believe that attracting more 19 to 24-year-olds into apprenticeships is extremely important, because many of them have life skills that 16 to 19-year-olds do not possess. However, many of them have had difficult circumstances that have meant they have not been potential apprentices. If they come from that sort of background, the financial disincentive—the disparity that I have set out—is really significant.

The National Society of Apprentices has said that the existence of a low apprenticeship national minimum wage is unnecessary and complicated for both apprentice and employer. It says that it is possible for someone to be on three different minimum rates during a four-year apprenticeship. That increases the risk of accidental underpayment of apprentices—that is a concern for employers—and apprentices have said that it demeans the value of the work that they contribute.

The Minister will be relieved to know that I am coming to the end of my section on finance issues. Of course, this is a good day to discuss finance, because we have the Budget coming up later. There may be nothing in the Budget about these issues—I am not expecting a last-minute conversion between now and half-past 1—but in all seriousness, they will continue to concern people, and I hope that he, his colleagues and indeed all of us will continue to press the Treasury hard on them.

As I said, the Government have talked about their apprenticeship programme being as inclusive as possible, which means that we must ensure that the most disadvantaged young people are not put off becoming apprentices. However, a report published by the Learning and Work Institute this week says issues to do with that expansion are not being addressed as strongly as they need to be. Particularly in respect of black and minority ethnic young people and care leavers, we tabled amendments to both the Higher Education Bill—that is outwith this morning’s discussion—and the Technical and Further Education Bill. Those amendments would have ensured that the new Institute for Apprenticeships set targets for improving access to apprenticeships and progression within them. After all, the Office for Students has a mandated responsibility for addressing access issues under the Higher Education Bill, so why does the Institute for Apprenticeships not have a similar responsibility? The Learning and Work Institute has called for the new Institute for Apprenticeships to have that responsibility, and we wholeheartedly agree.

There is also the issue of how people are put off becoming apprentices because of their low-income background. Teach First said in its progress report in 2016 that in every region in England, young people from a low-income background were less likely than their wealthier peers to become apprentices, and it suggested that financial barriers for those from low-income backgrounds were part of that. That is consistent with the finding reported by the Social Mobility Commission that youngsters from poor families took up only 10% of apprenticeships even though they accounted for 13% of those completing GCSEs.

In its briefing for this debate, the AOC said that it fears that the Government’s existing approach to financial support means that many young people from disadvantaged backgrounds face barriers to accessing apprenticeships, which is a disincentive for them in applying for apprenticeships in the first place.

I want to touch on gender issues, which is appropriate on International Women’s Day. The AOC has said that women continue to struggle financially on apprenticeships. A recent report by the Young Women’s Trust showed that women receive an average of £4.82 an hour compared with the male average of £5.85. According to a survey by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, the proportion of apprentices reporting an increase in pay continues to be dominated by men. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the Young Women’s Trust was concerned by the fact that 16% of women were out of work after their apprenticeship compared with 6% of men. It said that the differences in occupational segregation by gender have hardly changed in more than a decade. For example, the proportion of construction apprentices who are female has only risen from 1% to 2%.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Of course, one of the problems is that some of the apprenticeships leading on to higher-paid work tend to be dominated by men. However, as my hon. Friend may know, there has been a campaign recently, including a meeting last week, to promote the idea of women in engineering. Does he agree that the Government ought to encourage more women to go into such areas, where they can develop skills and earn much more money?

[Gordon Marsden]

I absolutely agree. To be fair to the Government, I think they have said that on a number of occasions. Nevertheless, if the perception of a pay gap continues, with associated career blockages, into the 2020s, that will play havoc with our aspirations to get far more women into those careers in the first place. That is why in the last apprenticeships debate I asked the Minister about the Government’s equality analysis of the funding changes to apprenticeships last autumn and how we will track improvements in apprenticeships.

People from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are also under-represented. I know that the recent McGregor-Smith review underlined that point. However, I would like the Minister to say whether it is still the Government’s target to increase BAME apprenticeships by 20%, which was the target set by the previous Government. That is important given the issues we are discussing today.

I do not have time to deal with care leavers in great detail, but when care leavers move into independent living, they often begin to manage their own budget fully for the first time. There are concerns that because of a lack of financial education and financial support, those young care leavers are frequently falling into debt and financial difficulty.

The Minister and I have both talked about the importance of traineeships, but the Government have been silent so far on what we can do to look at the negatives that still exist in the system. We need to know what progress the Department is making on the issue with the Department for Work and Pensions. A major stumbling block for the Minister’s predecessors has been the brokering of a cross-departmental deal that would enable traineeships to be more accessible and inviting for young people and employers. That goes to issues around clawback and jobseeker’s allowance, which I do not intend to talk in detail about today.

Finally, I want briefly to address travel costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North touched on the issue significantly in his speech. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) made excellent points about the particular problems in rural areas, and our colleagues from the Democratic Unionist party made some good points on that as well. There are two or three areas where financial support is most at risk. We have heard the statistics about £24 a week being spent on travel, which is about a quarter of the salary of an apprentice, if they are earning the national minimum wage.

In the light of the area review process and the creation of the so-called fewer, more resilient colleges, the National Society of Apprentices is concerned that travel time will be too much for some apprentices, which will impede access to certain roles. That echoes some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman and others have talked about. That is why we tried to make changes to the Technical and Further Education Bill in Committee and on Report to enable the institute to take on board the need to improve travel concessions. We have pledged to restore the principles of the education maintenance allowance, which provided so much support for young people’s travel costs in pursuing their studies. Apprentices remain a significant proportion of those affected, with approximately 360,000 at colleges being in that category.

There are other issues and scenarios to consider. What will happen if colleges become insolvent or training providers go bust? The insolvency issue has been an important part of the Technical and Further Education Bill. Where the challenge of college insolvency occurs—hopefully it will be infrequent—that could pile up extra travel time costs for apprentices who have to change their place of study as a result. More recently, the Minister and I attended the session organised by FE Week, so he will know that there have been concerns about large providers going out of business, leaving apprentices with huge loan debts to pay and no qualifications. How do the Government plan to compensate them? I have raised those issues with the Government and the Minister, and he is aware of them.

Careers advice has been touched on, and it is an important issue. It is not directly important for financial support, but young people who get the best careers advice in college or school are more likely to be able to seek out the better apprenticeships, with better support and everything that goes with it.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The problem with careers advice has been significant for many years. Does my hon. Friend agree that just making young people aware of the possibilities when they are very young—possibly at primary school, but certainly at secondary school—is very important?

[Gordon Marsden]

I absolutely agree. That is why I warmly welcome Lord Baker’s amendment to the Technical and Further Education Bill, which would ensure that schools have to give access to advice about apprenticeships. I also fully support the ten-minute rule Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin)—he was with us briefly at the start of the debate—which would allow businesses and FE providers to go into schools and let students know about the opportunities. I am encouraged by the fact that the new Ofsted chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, who I have spoken to recently, is sympathetic to Ofsted making a much stronger case in ensuring that apprenticeships rate higher in the information given in schools.

Why does that matter for financial support? It matters because in general, knowledge is power. Advance knowledge enables those who have it to be a step ahead in getting better apprenticeships. There will always be excellent employers and sharp would-be apprentices who will be able to access some of the funding, but if we want to make a step change, we have to have major change across Government in how apprenticeships are treated legally and financially. All of us want to make that progress, but it is time to tackle the shortcomings that put so many off apprenticeships or cause them to be dispirited or in trouble and therefore drop out. That must surely be a good thing to do, not simply for National Apprenticeship Week, but for all the year round.

Technical and Further Education Bill

Debate between Gordon Marsden and Kelvin Hopkins

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Marsden]

Possibly a full meal, for those of a vegetarian instinct.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend and I, and indeed other Members, tabled a number of amendments in Committee that the Government do not appear to have taken on board. They were not pressed at the time, but we had hoped that the Government would bring some of them forward as their own amendments. Is he somewhat disappointed by that?

[Gordon Marsden]

I am always slightly disappointed when intimations of progress in Committee are not met with specifics on Report. Of course, the Government have the opportunity this evening, in commenting on our amendments, to do something about it, and indeed to accept some of them in principle. If they think that the amendments are defective but the basic principle is fine, they should take them on board.

Technical and Further Education Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Gordon Marsden and Kelvin Hopkins

Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 1st December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Gordon Marsden]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 22, page 10, line 7, at end insert—

“(2A) The education administrator may, in performing his or her functions for the purpose of achieving the objective of the education administration, request information, advice or guidance from practitioners with an understanding of education regarding the management of a further education body.”.

This amendment would allow an education administrator who, under the eligibility outlined in clause 15, might not necessarily be an education specialist to supplement his or her knowledge.

The amendment pursues an issue that we have already discussed, but in the context of the experience or knowledge of higher education that the education administrator will need. The Minister and I had a useful exchange about the capacity of the education administrator to reach out, either within an organisation or peripherally to it. The amendment would allow an education administrator who meets the eligibility guidelines outlined in clause 15, but might not necessarily be an education specialist, to supplement his or her knowledge.

Our friends in the National Union of Students were particularly anxious for the amendment to be tabled, and we have taken their points on board. As the Minister will know, the NUS has welcomed the provisions that relate to insolvency, but it, too, is nervous—well, “nervous” is perhaps the wrong word, but it is certainly concerned. It believes that the process should be underlined as strongly as possible and that, in the twists and turns of what will inevitably be a fraught and taut process for all concerned, the administrator should be able to take further advice, even if he or she has some past experience. The amendment would make it clear that the educational administrator may seek that advice.

The Bill does not require the person appointed to deal with the college’s insolvency to know anything about colleges or the FE sector; under clause 15, they need only be an insolvency practitioner. We do not dissent from that, because we have already had a conversation about it and we are entirely reassured by the points that the Minister has made. However, the education administrator will have substantial powers over the future of an education body and its students, and indeed over the education body’s management, as clause 22(1) sets out.

Bearing in mind that the period of time for which they might have to manage the FE body’s affairs will be somewhat elastic, it would seem sensible to ensure that the administrator can get advice from people who actually know how to run an FE body. Better still, obviously, would be to have an administrator who was either very close to or within the FE sector. That was the intention behind amendment 34. After all, the Bill is designed to recognise that context, which is why it includes the education objective and entitles learners to continue their studies. Amendment 5 would just ensure that the Bill makes that provision and allows the education administrator access to whatever information and advice they may need to fulfil their duties. I am sure that the Minister wishes that to be the case. We suggest that it is a fairly obvious point—the Association of Colleges and the NUS think so—but it is not obvious in the Bill currently.

Without straying beyond the narrow lines of the amendment, I merely say to the Minister that there are many options for practitioners who could be called upon with an understanding of further education management. That could include chairmen or governors of FE bodies, former FE commissioners, or perhaps even retired people from those areas or from awarding bodies. Will the Minister give us some further details about whom he imagines an education administrator might wish to consult? Whatever avenue he wants to go down to assure us in that respect, it is important that the administrator has the advice of experts to make the correct call.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I will be very brief. I support my hon. Friend. One of the problems for the FE sector and, even more, for sixth-form colleges is that the whole sector has been bedevilled by decisions being made by people who are unfamiliar with those sectors. Many people involved in politics have come through a school or university environment; they have not been through further education. Many areas do not have sixth-form colleges, so people are not quite sure what they are. It is important that we have people with knowledge of the sector—educationally and organisationally —to make judgments on these matters. I just wanted to support my hon. Friend with those few words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden]

I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 22, page 10, line 10, leave out “have special educational needs” and insert—

“(a) have special educational needs;

(b) are care leavers;

(c) are parents;

(d) are carers, carers of children, or young carers, as defined by the Care Act 2014; and,

(e) have other particular needs that may be determined by the appropriate national authority.”

This amendment would make provisions for the particular needs of additional groups of existing students to be considered by an education administrator in pursuing the objective of an education administration.

Having touched on the issues of special needs, we want to probe a little further and more broadly beyond what has been said. The Minister has already given strong assurances on the general issue of special educational needs, but he will be aware of particular circumstances affecting some categories of people who take the big step, given their experiences, of engaging with further education. I am sure that everyone would agree that we do not want those groups of people, in particular, to be disadvantaged, and we certainly do not want them to suffer more disadvantage than students ordinarily would in the circumstances.

I accept that lists can be invidious, but we feel that care leavers, parents, and

“carers, carers of children, or young carers, as defined by the Care Act 2014”

are three groups that may be particularly vulnerable to disruption in their studies, as we have discussed. The amendment is designed to signal to the administrator the importance of taking those groups into account.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Earlier my hon. Friend made a point about distance of travel. Groups such as parents and those with caring responsibilities will definitely be affected by travel over longer distances. I am sure that he has that in mind.

[Gordon Marsden]

My hon. Friend is right. He has read not only my mind, but my postbag. Only half an hour before coming here I received an email from Unison, which raised some of those issues with respect to its members who fit into one or two of the categories in question. It made precisely that point about distance, which I was anxious to make in my exchange with the Minister about the education maintenance allowance. It was not simply about cost; it was also about time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden]

I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 23, page 10, line 31, at end insert—

“(2) The education administrator may not transfer assets of any further education body to a private company where he or she considers that more than half of the funding of the acquisition of the asset came from public funds.”.

This amendment would ensure further education bodies with a track record of accruing assets publicly, could not be transferred to a private company.

We come to an amendment that is longer than the clause it seeks to amend. That might suggest that the amendment is otiose, but I do not think it is; I think the clause ought to have been expanded a little more— but then I would say that. I want to focus some attention, at a certain length, on this issue. On our side of the Committee, that raises some really big issues about what would happen to the transfer of assets from a further education body to a private company.

Information produced by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the dissolution of an FE corporation specified that assets should be transferred only to charitable bodies:

“The Secretary of State and the CESF are concerned with the appropriate use of those capital assets that have been acquired/developed/redeveloped with public funding and the conditions for their transfer and usage…FE corporations are advised to undertake early discussions with the Skills Funding Agency to identify the relevant assets and any potential repayment of some, or all of the associated grant or proceeds of sale…The regulations include a requirement that the FE Corporation publish the proposed arrangements for the transfer of the property, rights and liabilities of the FE Corporation…The Dissolution of Further Education Corporations and Sixth Form Colleges Corporations (Prescribed Bodies) Regulations 2012”—

that would have been an interesting secondary legislation Committee to sit on—

“lists the bodies to which an FE Corporation can transfer its property rights and liabilities upon its dissolution. It is expected that all transfers should be made to charitable bodies, and for the purpose of education.”

It is on that point that I want to focus my remarks on the amendment. The document continues:

“Where the bodies are not charities then it must be transferred in accordance with the charitable purposes of the trust.”

It then links to a whole list of prescribed bodies to which assets could be transferred, including sixth-form colleges and governing bodies.

The point I start from is that to say it is “expected” that all transfers should be made to charitable bodies is not the same as saying it is “required”.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Is the stronger case not that such properties should be transferred back to local authorities? That is where the property came from in the first place.

[Gordon Marsden]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and possibly opens up a new area for policy discussion in certain political parties. The reality of the situation is that in practical terms most local authorities would struggle to take on those responsibilities at the moment, but he is absolutely right to make the point—I will expand on it—on the genesis of the assets.

Given the genesis of those assets and their development over the years, we need to look with extraordinary care at any circumstances in which they might go into the private sector. Incidentally, that does not necessarily mean that we are saying that the bona fides of the private sector potential acquirers are bad. We simply recognise the fact that it would be the transfer of something that is largely of public value into the private sector without taking any account of the genesis and development.

I want to explain why I think this issue is so important. When colleges were incorporated in 1992, it took them formally outside the aegis of local authorities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North said, but we have to take into account that that asset base of building in many cases was built up with local authority support and funding over a 20 or 30-year period.

The Minister has visited my local college, Blackpool and The Fylde College. I think he went to the Bispham campus, which is right at the other end of town and not in my constituency. When he arrived, the Bispham campus no doubt looked nice and shiny and new, but it did incorporate—I am not sure how much it still incorporates—buildings and elements that go right back to the 1950s and 1960s. Indeed, when the Building Colleges for the Future process was taking place in the 2000s, that was one of the arguments for demolishing that building and relocating it in the centre of town. It did not happen for a variety of reasons. At the time I was rather annoyed that it did not happen, but nevertheless I am just illustrating the point that many of the buildings that we are talking about have accreted their estate either on an active financial basis or by the ceding of lands by local authorities and other organisations.

Apart from that, over the years since then large sums of public money have often gone directly to support and build the estates of FE colleges. In the 2000s, the then Labour Government brought forward the major programme of Building Colleges for the Future. Despite the fact that the programme was curtailed and certain places, including my own, missed out on the final stages, it was a commitment of literally hundreds of millions of pounds—other Members in the House got their completely new college and everything that went with it—and that is without taking account of the other areas of non-private sector funding. Sometimes that was through very complex relationships that might involve lottery-associated bids. Sometimes it was through the significant sums of money put in under the old regional development agencies. As I know well, having shadowed the regional growth funds in my previous portfolio, sometimes it was through regional growth fund developments, and sometimes there are offshoots of European structural funds. It is important to remember all of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden]

The Minister has been characteristically courteous. If I were able to take his reassurance as the end of the matter, I would, but unfortunately it is not the end of the matter. I will make a few brief points.

The Minister says that the proportion of public assets that might be disposed of to the private sector in the event of a college insolvency as a total is very small, percentage-wise. We could trade figures on what that percentage might be, but none of us knows. The fact of the matter is that it is about the area where that happens and the impact there. A college that has tens of millions of pounds’ worth of assets built up in a particular area and is crucial to the local community may be basically forwarded on to a private provider.

I accept what the Minister said; we are not saying that all private providers are bad or are leeches, but that is not the issue at stake. The issue at stake is whether private providers should be allowed automatically to take on valuable assets that have been accrued via the public sector in the event of an insolvency. The Minister said himself that it is not about private providers, but he also said that transfers could include private education providers.

In terms of real-life events, private providers are well equipped normally with lawyers and accountants. Who will monitor the detail of this? Will it be a slightly harassed education administrator? Will it be officials in the Minister’s Department? I doubt it.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

As a member of a local authority many years ago, I saw the representatives of a town shopping centre—an asset that was owned by the council but rented on a long-term basis—who were skilled financial advisers, run rings around the local authority treasurers, who just could not cope with the power ranged against them. We have to be very careful, because when big money is involved, companies will get the best brains to ensure they win.

[Gordon Marsden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If it were not for the track record of problems in the FE sector over the past three to four years that I have described, we might be more sanguine, but this is a really important principle that should be established on the face of the Bill. I am afraid that on this occasion, I will not withdraw the amendment and will press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden]

I entirely understand that. I was not suggesting that people are slothing on the job; I was merely making the reasonable point that the Bill necessarily involves a lot of administrative time—I put it no stronger than that—and that raises in my mind some ongoing concerns about the capacity, either of the Department or of some of its institutions, to take some of these things forward. I will leave it at that.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I just want to say that I am deeply disappointed that we cannot discuss the regulations in detail. Perhaps I am alone in that.

[Gordon Marsden]

All I can say is that my hon. Friend is a shining example to us all. He shames us deeply.

Let me make my own brief and pathetic response to clause 30, in the context of the Stakhanovite task that my hon. Friend has just suggested we undertake. I have a practical question for the Minister. On clause 31, the policy note talks about the way in which the power will be used to make decisions. For simplicity, I say to the Minister that although I am making this point specifically about clause 30—it affects chapter 4, which is very important because it is the special administration chapter —my question is generic and may be relevant to other clauses as well. It is very straightforward. When these revised instruments and regulation-making powers are brought forward, will there be consultation in any shape or form with the various stakeholders—FE bodies, the Association of Colleges, the Collab Group and others?

That is not for the sake of consultation itself. There have been occasions in the past, although I am not suggesting in this particular Department or area, when the lack of such consultation on detailed regulations between representative bodies—it normally has to be done at that level—and officials from the Department has produced anomalies that subsequently have to be rectified. It would be interesting to hear if the Minister can offer any reassurance on that.

[Gordon Marsden]

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 37, page 18, line 14, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State must ensure the list of disqualified officers is made publicly available.”

This amendment would ensure that a list of disqualified officers was publicly available.

The amendment is fairly straightforward, so I will not detain the Committee long. Again, we hope that these situations will be very rare, and we certainly hope it will be very rare that people are disqualified as a result of them. However, if disqualified people are involved, the principle of transparency is extremely important. This is a probing amendment, to find out how this might be effective.

Perhaps it is worth mentioning what the explanatory notes say about clause 37:

“This clause gives the Secretary of State the power, in relation to further education corporations and sixth form college corporations, to make regulations that have the same or similar effect to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. This will mean that, like company directors, members (i.e. governors) of those corporations can be disqualified from acting as such in the future and the power allows the Secretary of State to make provision so that when a person is disqualified as a director of a company they can also be prohibited from acting as a member of a further education corporation or sixth form college corporation.”

I repeat that we all hope and assume that these occurrences will be irregular. However, would it not be logical for the list of disqualified officers to be made publicly available, to ensure transparency and to allow colleges to easily assess applicants to their own corporations in the future?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I support the amendment. In my experience of life, it is often the rogues who are most plausible and we have to have lists of people to make sure that people do not get through the net, move to a different part of the country and take up a job, before we find out that they have twice been a rogue, not just once.

[Robert Halfon]

The disqualified officers to whom the amendment refers are those members of an FE body that is a statutory corporation who have been disqualified by the court on the grounds that they have been found liable by the court of wrongful or fraudulent trading or other similar offences under the Insolvency Act 1986 as applied by the Bill. Wrongful and fraudulent trading are provisions of insolvency law that will be applied to governors and others involved in running FE bodies that are statutory corporations in the same way as they apply to directors of, and those who run, companies. That is the purpose of the amendment.

It is right that a list is kept of those individuals who have been disqualified and that such a list is available to the public, so that it is evident which individuals should not be appointed as governors of colleges in the future. However, there is no need to provide for that specifically in the Bill. There is provision in the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 for a register of disqualification orders to be kept by the Secretary of State and for that register to be open to inspection—as we continue to refer to that Act, I propose that we use its acronym, the CDDA.

Clause 37 will allow us to replicate provisions of the CDDA; therefore it already allows us to achieve what hon. Members seek with the amendment. I have made it clear that I intend to consult on secondary legislation made under the Bill. That includes regulations made under clause 37, so it will be transparent that we will include a provision in regulations that is the same as, or similar to, the provision that exists in the CDDA, modifying it as necessary to make it work effectively for disqualified members of college corporations. On those grounds, I hope that the hon. Member for Blackpool South will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden]

I thank the Minister for that explanation, in particular on subsection (2), which I had circled and was going to ask him about. He has now answered the question, so we have no problems with the clause. Indeed, it is very important, at a time when the Government continue to embark on devolution initiatives in this area, that a national database should be maintained.

The only observation that I would make—I think this view would be shared by a number of my colleagues—is that the process that is going ahead is somewhat piecemeal and somewhat curious in its restrictions. Some of us might like to see rather more rapid action, and rather broader and more ambitious ways of ensuring that, in the future, not simply adult skills but a much broader range of issues are devolved. However, that is outside the scope of the Government’s amendment and the clause, which we are very happy to support.

Amendment 18 agreed to.

Amendment made: 19, in clause 38, page 19, line 9, leave out “(4)” and insert “(3)”.—(Robert Halfon.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 18.

Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 39 to 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Further education bodies: senior management

“A further education body shall be required to include in its senior management team a person or persons with professional financial qualifications having specific responsibility for oversight of financial management in the body.”—(Kelvin Hopkins.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It is a pleasure to rise to speak to these new clauses, which I drafted myself and are borne of my own experience in college governance and teaching. That is particularly the case for new clause 1, which is about having internal experts with professional qualifications who would suffer severe reputational damage if they did not make sure that the college accounts and financial matters were all in order.

When I was chair of governors of what was then Luton College of Higher Education—it became the University of Luton and then the University of Bedfordshire —the principal decided that the accounts were not really up to scratch, and so spent a summer going through every detail of the college’s finances. He found many thousands of pounds unaccounted for, which he was then able to use to the benefit of the college. He happened to be a graduate in mathematics, which meant that he was at least numerate and could deal with accountancy, but accountancy is a specific skill.

As a student, I was taught economics by a former Treasury official whose next-door neighbour was an elderly lady who wanted him to deal with her accounts. He had to explain that an economist is not an accountant; it is a very precise skill and not something that one can just pick up at will. My closest university friend was a professor of accountancy. I know only too well that accountancy is a professional skill that needs great minds. I also understand that some of the people with the highest IQs in our country are accountants. Clearly accountants are important people, and it is important to have them involved.

At Luton Sixth-Form College, one of the deputy principals is a qualified chartered accountant. She is a superb member of staff who makes absolutely sure that all the forecasts and all the financial details are under control. We have been guided by her for many years now. It makes us feel at ease. We know that the finances are well under control, well understood and thoroughly explained to us on all occasions. Many years ago, before she was employed, I was on the finance and general purposes committee, and I remember the problems I had just getting to grips with it, and I am a numerate person with a degree that includes economics and maths. It was difficult stuff, but we had some good accountants on the governing body.

This is an important issue. If one wants to avoid insolvency, the best thing to do is ensure that one has someone with the skills to ensure one does not get into that situation in the first place, and that alarm bells are rung. As governors and politicians and Government Members, we are all well aware of what the problems are. If a principal is wilful and wants to do things beyond what they should be doing, and they have a weak financial adviser without professional qualifications, they will get away with it. There is also the question of competence; a principal may not be competent at dealing with accountancy.

Accountancy is extremely important. It sounds very boring, but I am glad that accountants are there. I would not want to have the responsibility of making decisions on financial matters without the advice of serious professionals. I have no doubt that some members of the Committee are qualified in accountancy. I am not asking Members to put their hands up, but they are about.

I have been a governor of Luton Sixth-Form College for 23 years continuously. I was also a governor there for two years in a previous period. I have been comforted by the fact that we have always had at least two qualified accountants on the governing body who can question and check the accounts and assure us that they are right, that we are not making mistakes, and that the college is in good financial order, especially when we are under pressure. We are under financial pressure; there has been the VAT issue, which I will not go into now, but we have debated it on many occasions. It is a great comfort and reassurance that we have professionals sitting on the governing body who can look at an account, make sense of it, and ensure that we are doing the right thing. It is not just a question of numeracy, which I have; it is about the specific skill of accountancy.

New clauses 1 and 2 would make a very valuable addition to the Bill. I hope that the Government will accept them or build requirements of that kind into the Bill to ensure that colleges are well governed and well managed in financial matters.

[Gordon Marsden]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on speaking to the new clause with his customary insight and from past experience, which are powerful advocates for the mechanisms he proposes. There are not many vehicles in the House for the regular praising of accountants. I am tempted to say that if we were in the middle ages and my hon. Friend, with the passing of years, were to pass away, he might be subject to a posthumous cult of the patron saint of accountants. The serious point is that everything my hon. Friend said is valid. Whether what he proposes is done in a formal way, as he suggests, or by strong direction, the Government would do well to take on board his proposals.

Technical and Further Education Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Gordon Marsden and Kelvin Hopkins

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 1st December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Gordon Marsden]

Good morning, Mr Bailey. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The Minister is right to say that we welcome the concept of the insolvency regime. We think it is necessary in the context that I talked about at the end of the last session, so we do not intend to oppose the principle of it in any shape or form. However, as the Minister has observed, we intend to probe—more sharply on some aspects than others.

If I may, Mr Bailey, I will speak to the two amendments we have tabled separately; although they are linked, they have rather different focuses and emphases. Amendment 1 aims to ensure that an appropriate assessment is made of any potential impacts on students and their education if an education administrator puts a further education body into special administration and takes action such as transferring students to another institution, or keeps an insolvent institution open for existing students. We recognise that the decision whether to transfer students to another institution or to keep an insolvent institution open for existing students is fraught with potential difficulty and will certainly demand great skill and finesse on the part of the education administrator. The Minister may wish to bear that in mind when we consider later Opposition amendments, which will probe him a little more on the nature, experience and qualifications of the education administrator.

The crux of the amendment relates to some of the matters we discussed when considering similar provisions in the Higher Education and Research Bill. The amendment would ensure that the entitlement that the Bill gives students to continue their education works in practice. We know that cases of colleges failing or other crises have arisen both in FE and in HE. I do not want to exaggerate those issues, because I take on board the points made by the Association of Colleges and other college organisations that the vast majority of FE colleges conduct their affairs in a very wholesome and satisfactory fashion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North has mentioned previously.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Amendment 1 is very simple and I hope the Government will be minded to accept it in some form. Have we had any response, contribution or advice from the Association of Colleges or the Sixth Form Colleges Association? Do they broadly agree with the Government’s proposals? Are they agreeable to our amendment?

[Gordon Marsden]

My hon. Friend is right that we need to get support from those organisations. The AOC has raised particular issues relating to later Opposition amendments, such as amendment 34 to clause 15. Some of those concerns will be explored when we consider those amendments.

The ambitions of the special administration provisions are noble, but amendment 1 is intended to serve as a safeguard against any unintended consequences. As we know, even isolated incidents of colleges that hit the headlines can have a deleterious effect on the sector. The sector is in a delicate state at the moment—I will not put it any stronger than that—so if this provision is needed, we should do what we can to avoid problems with the impact on students and education.

As far as I understand it—I say that with due modesty, because some of this is quite technical—the education administrator will be given four options for supporting students to continue their education if their college becomes insolvent: selling assets to keep a college afloat; bringing in another body to take on functions of the college; transferring students to another college; and keeping the college

“going until existing students have completed their studies”.

That last phrase is rather ambiguous, and it would be good to hear the Minister’s thoughts on it. Whether in his response to the amendment or later this morning, it would be useful to hear whether there are any thoughts on the timeframe of that option.

All the options are sensible. I do not think that any member of the Committee would suggest that they should not be pursued by the education administrator if students’ education were put in jeopardy by insolvency, but there are questions about the finessing of those options, about which option the administrator thinks it best to pursue, and about the timeframes. Again, the Minister may want to say something about potential timeframes as we go along. Sometimes the education administrator might need to use more than one of those four options, perhaps at different points in the process. Our amendment addresses what that will mean for students in those different circumstances. To do that, we propose that an assessment be made of the impact of the administrator’s decision on students and the local community, enabling any negative impacts to be appropriately mitigated.

We are realistic. We know that sometimes difficult situations bubble up over a long period of time and there are amber warnings, but sometimes, because some of the problems have been concealed, they blow up very rapidly and hit the headlines. Ministers, the new institute or, indeed, the Skills Funding Agency may have to move swiftly in such circumstances. We understand that. We do not want this to become an over-bureaucratic, long-winded, time-consuming process, but we believe that a definitive assessment is needed somewhere in the process.

We have several concerns. If an administrator keeps a college going so that existing students can finish, for example, one can see the potential benefits for the students. While it will depend on the nature of their contract—the University and College Union and others have previously raised concerns that the FE sector is becoming a mélange of shorter term contracts—there will be lecturers and staff on contracts of significant duration, and it would be understandable, perhaps highly probable, that they would seek to leave. After all, the involvement of an education administrator is essentially a sign of a potentially failed college and that their employer, at least in the way that he, she or it employs them, will either close or change in the near future. Any exodus of staff in such circumstances could have untold impacts on the quality of education that students receive. We, and I am sure the students at such colleges, want to know what transitional measures are envisaged to maintain the delicate balance needed to protect the quality of education that students receive at a college that is being kept open on life support. That is option 1.

Option 2 is an administrator deciding to begin selling off college assets to address the insolvency issues, or just to keep the college afloat. What protections will there be so that resources that are integral to a learner’s studies will not be sold off? I understand that it is impossible to make an absolute judgment in every case on whether an administrator should do one or the other. It will obviously depend on the individual circumstances and assets and so on, but computers and ICT—I think “digital services” is the more up-to-date term—spring to mind. Often worth a significant sum, they may be an attractive asset that is easy to sell quickly for a good taking; on the other hand, selling them off could leave less equipment to share between the college’s remaining students, which would have a negative impact on their learning experience.

Additionally, the area reviews and mergers need to be thought about in great detail. In our evidence session I traded questions with the FE commissioner on the impact of that. He takes a more sanguine view of that process than the Committee and I do, but time will tell. What we know is that in circumstances where learners need to be transferred to another college—that does not necessarily mean that the whole body will close, as someone suggested—the college building could continue but, for whatever reason, the students in a particular department or area are transferred to another college, possibly for economies of scale. It is not necessarily that one particular college is closed and absorbed into another.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

These events would be of great concern to students and staff alike if they happened, but we hope they will not and we will try to ensure that they do not. However, if there are to be changes, would it not be wise—or essential—to make sure they take place during the long summer vacation, so that they do not disrupt students in the middle of courses during in the academic year?

[Gordon Marsden]

My hon. Friend, as always, makes a good and practical point. I have two observations. One is that crises cannot always be managed and sometimes they blow up from nowhere. My other observation is that among the pressures on FE colleges these days is the fact that the long summer break is becoming less long. That is true for FE students as well as other students. However, my hon. Friend’s general point is absolutely right and needs to be taken into account.

There are plenty of questions to be answered for students. How close to their home and their old college would the new college or facility—it may not be a completely new college—be? How much more expensive and time consuming would it be to get there? We know that college students have to spend a considerable amount of money on travel and we know that the mechanisms for supporting them are highly variable, particularly with local authorities’ discretionary spending being cut to the bone in a range of areas. There is already a risk of making some education and courses inaccessible for the less well-off.

What financial support does the Minister envisage might be available to help such students to access education at a new institution if it turns out that the challenges are considerably greater? For example, would the new college have the capacity to respond to any influx of new students? As I have indicated, insolvency might result in some students finding themselves forced to travel longer distances to continue their studies, but there is no reference in the Bill to mechanisms by which they might be supported or compensated. I understand that that is not something that should necessarily go into the Bill, but while I appreciate that a lot of things must be worked out, it is a bit worrying that it seems that, even at this stage, not much thought is being given to some of these issues. If it is, I apologise.

Mergers between colleges can be harmful to the social fabric and social mobility, particularly for young people in rural and suburban areas, and might force them to travel 30 or 40 miles to college. I raised this point in Westminster Hall about a year ago with the Minister’s predecessor, who seemed to be somewhat miffed that I referred to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), being decidedly agnostic about the prospect of mergers. That was the case, however, and it was because the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency is very rural, so he has a lot of knowledge and concern about the issue.

We must make a distinction between the geographical situation when there is insolvency and the mechanisms to deal with it. For example, when two colleges merge in a suburban or rural setting, the implications for the ability to maintain courses, and thus viability, will be significant if issues such as travel loom large and make it impossible for existing students to go there or for future students to want to go there. Even in urban areas—parts of Greater Manchester, for example—public transport is not necessarily good. In my constituency, travelling west to east or east to west on public transport tends to be more difficult than going north to south. There is a range of concerns.

We have seen during the ongoing area review process that the Government have encouraged colleges either to merge or to close. The new FE commissioner said in evidence that provision at levels 1 and 2 in particular needs to be as local as possible to learners, whether in an urban or a rural area, but he accepted that if people do not have the wherewithal to travel, they will not be able to do so. Shakira Martin of the NUS said in the evidence session:

“It is also not clear how the Government will make sure that the education the student receives in the college is kept open and to a high-quality standard. For example, the area review process may have unintended impacts. There will be fewer colleges, further apart. How will travel costs and access”—

time is an issue as well, not simply cost—

“be addressed?”––[Official Report, Technical and Further Education Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2016; c. 51, Q69.]

In evidence, Bev Robinson, the principal and chief executive of Blackpool and The Fylde College, who was a member of—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden]

I was talking about how travel costs and access would be dealt with and I was about to quote the comments of a witness, Bev Robinson, the principal and chief executive of Blackpool and The Fylde College. She said:

“I would wish to make sure that learning within a reasonable travel-to-learn pattern was protected as well as students.”––[Official Report, Technical and Further Education Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2016; c. 51, Q70.]

I see nothing in the Bill about where the funding to support this process will come from, and Ministers have not said a great deal about it.

Research released in 2015 by the National Union of Students and the AOC showed that only 49% of further education students can always afford their travel costs. The average travel time for those surveyed was two hours and 48 minutes a day, for an average distance of 11 miles. Many young people—about 40%—rely on financial support from parents or guardians for travel costs. The problem is of course exacerbated by the lack of national funding schemes to get young people to college. Even the minority of councils that offered discounted travel for young people on a discretionary basis are now less likely to do so, following major Government cuts. The amendment would require those matters to be considered so that appropriate measures could be put in place, although such issues are difficult to legislate for and there are unknown consequential effects. Invoking education administration powers may affect students, but that is precisely the point of the amendment: it would ensure that whatever impacts the powers have in practice, they are assessed within the local circumstances of the college in which the powers are needed. That is an important part of the education administrator’s responsibilities.

If students have to travel longer distances to college, incurring higher costs, it strengthens our argument that education maintenance allowance should be reintroduced to help cover those expenses.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. For poorer students travel to colleges is expensive even now, particularly in sparsely populated rural areas. The closure of a college in one town and having to go to a town many miles further on will cause great difficulty in financial terms and in terms of the time spent travelling and the reliability of public transport.

[Gordon Marsden]

My hon. Friend again makes a very good point. It underlines our concerns and why we think such issues need to be taken into account.

Amendment 2 is designed to ensure that, within the circumstances in which the process takes place, all relevant stakeholders are fully consulted about decisions taken by the education administrator in respect of the future of the institution. This touches on a theme not dissimilar to that which we discussed during the debates on schedule 1 to the Higher Education and Research Bill, where consultation with staff and students was a high priority.

The amendment would ensure that there is full consultation with various bodies or groups representing further education staff and students. Members of the Committee might ask, “Is this necessary? Surely the students and the student body are bound to be informed,” but I have to say—Members may have experience of this—that is supposed to be the case when businesses fail and companies go bust or when something cataclysmic happens, but often workers or employees are not kept in the loop. We should legislate for the worst scenarios and the worst employers, not for the best.

It is important that the education administrator should consider representations from relevant stakeholders such as students and staff, as they have invested two or three years of their time and money in studying and their livelihoods will depend on the institution in question. It is surely not too much to ask that the education administrator should have the responsibility placed on him or her to consider those representations, too.

The other group it is vital to consult are recognised trade unions at the further education body. The positive influence of unions on training and skills in the workplace and in colleges is another key reason why unions should be consulted. Research by Unionlearn has shown, as I have mentioned before, that the union effect on skills across the whole economy is significant and has strengthened in recent years. I am obviously referring to the training that goes on at work, but often the trade union representatives who operate in a college will be either union learning reps themselves or closely associated with union learning reps. That point needs to be made. On the union learning fund, an independent evaluation has demonstrated a range of new findings about the positive impact of union learning for both employers and employees. That also has a bearing on the necessity and advisability of consulting the recognised trade unions at the further education college in question.

I will finish with those remarks, but I ask that the Minister gives some thought to both amendments. These are things that should happen, and by making the amendments we would ensure that they do happen.

Technical and Further Education Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Gordon Marsden and Kelvin Hopkins

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Gordon Marsden]

We have a weaker version of that. The Education Committee interviewed the chief inspector-designate of Ofsted and was not satisfied, but the Secretary of State was satisfied and that process went ahead. Amendment 17 is not proposing some form of constitutional innovation; it is something that goes on already.

Sometimes the Minister or the Secretary of State agrees with the view of the Select Committee and sometimes, if the Select Committee has said no, they do not. I do not have a problem with that. In terms of raising the profile of the institute, which is surely what we all want to do in the run-up to its formal launch in the spring, this would be a very useful measure for the Government to agree, which would send out a signal.

As I said, this is a probing amendment. If the Minister were to say, “It is probably more appropriate for just one of them—the chair or the chief executive—to have it,” we would not argue with that. Agreeing to this measure would send out an important signal about how important the Government consider this issue to be. The Select Committees have already shown interest in apprenticeships, technical education legislation and the apprenticeships levy, as the Minister well knows because he has been before them, so I cannot believe that they would not be happy to perform this duty. That is the basis on which we tabled the amendment.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I support what my hon. Friend says about amendment 17. It is very important to have representation by an apprentice or someone who has recently been an apprentice, so the board gets feedback from someone who has been on the receiving end of the experience, rather than just from people who think they know about it, but may not know it all. An apprentice who has spent considerable time going through the system will have a lot to offer to the board, so that is very important.

It is important to have members of the board who are different from the rest of the board. In the past, having one woman on a board—nowadays, we have many more than that, I am glad to say—made a difference to the nature of the discussions. Having representatives from minority communities on boards makes a difference by broadening the discussions and making them better. Assumptions that might have been made if the board were made up of small “c” conservatives and middle-aged white men in suits—I am one of them—can be challenged. We see too many people like me, and not enough of other people—[Interruption.] I said people like me, not necessarily me personally. It is important to recognise that there are other voices and other views, and the way to get those views represented is to have such people on the boards. Having at least one apprentice on a board is a good idea, although it should be someone who is experienced—someone who is coming to the end of their course or has just completed it, not someone who is at the beginning of their course. I strongly support what my hon. Friend said, and I hope the Government take cognisance of his views.

Turning to amendment 32, I have chaired two confirmation hearings and I sat on a committee interviewing an appointee before they went for their confirmation hearing. I think it is an extremely good exercise that has improved the quality of the appointments in recent years, so I very much welcome it. Occasionally, the people have not been ideal for the job and have chosen to stand down before going right through the process; I think that shows wisdom. Sometimes the Government and Ministers have been reluctant to let go of appointments, but they have now done so, and I think they are pleased with the job that Select Committees have done on confirmation hearings. I really do think that this would be a very good idea.

It is particularly important to have confirmation hearings for the chair, although perhaps the chair should deal with the chief executive. The confirmation hearings I chaired were to do with that role. It might not have been a chair—it might have been a director or something—but we were essentially interviewing for the chair role. It was extremely interesting and very useful, and I think that in each of those hearings we got the right result. I support amendment 32 in principle, even if my hon. Friend does not press it to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden]

I will treat the Minister’s two responses separately. On amendment 32, which deals with the appointment of the chair and chief executive, yes, there is always the argument that because we are speeding towards setting the institute up—I do not criticise that—there is not time for a confirmation process. I hope that I do not misrepresent him, but I think that is the gist of what he said.

All these things are contextualised. I do not want to open old wounds, but the Institute for Apprenticeships has not had a great record with shadow chief executives—not because of their calibre, but simply because of the time for which the first stayed and the fact that the second, Peter Lauener, is doing the job two days a week. To be blunt, that has aroused scepticism—or to put it positively, a wish to be reassured—among stakeholders across the board about whoever the new chief executive is. It seems to me that an appointment hearing would be neither inappropriate nor unreasonable.

The Minister cannot have it both ways. He tried to persuade me the other day that I did not need to worry too much about the institute having only 60 employees because an enormous number of other people were doing things, but if that is the case, it is a rather more significant organisation than the Minister’s bald figures and comments suggest. To be frank, I am not sure that is the strongest of arguments.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

There is not necessarily a correlation between the importance of an institution and the number of people involved. Some institutions may be quite small but extremely important. As my hon. Friend says, size is not so significant.

[Gordon Marsden]

My hon. Friend may well be right. Significance is the important thing, and I just think a confirmation hearing would be appropriate for a new organisation such as this. As the Minister said, such a hearing may well take place in some shape or form with a Select Committee anyway, but we will see. We will not press amendment 32 to a vote at this point, but we reserve the right to return to it on Report.

Let me turn to amendment 17. I listened carefully to what the Minister said in addition to his point about the proposed apprentice panel to report directly to the board, and I am bound to say—this is an instant comment, not a considered reflection—that I think that is a positive and enlightened approach. It addresses many of the issues that concern us and I think will concern apprentices, and although the devil is always in the detail, it could be an elegant way of squaring the circle, to use the Minister’s phrase. We will see how things go and wait to see the list of appointments.

Incidentally, our proposed amendments are not comments on individuals. I always take the view that we are making legislation for a generation and we have to make it for all individuals. Having said that, I am particularly encouraged and pleased with the Minister’s response. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and for the penetrating questions he put to the witnesses. Hopefully that will be a by-product of the process, and that is entirely right. I am also bound to observe that there are other factors pushing it down this route. One of those other factors is the underlying financial weakness of the sector. When the further education commissioner gave evidence—he talked of 82 or 84 colleges in a merger position—he was, to be blunt, far more optimistic and gung-ho about the outcome of those mergers than I would be. From memory, some other members of the Committee expressed a different point of view. The truth of mergers is that they do not always work out well, and this was commented on by Mr Pretty from the Collab Group. He made those observations based on his own experience. There are a number of factors here. Changing priorities in public funding is a reduction, it is how some colleges have struggled with large debts or partially completed capital investment projects. The latter partly reflects weaknesses in the planning and financing of capital projects under the former Learning and Skills Council.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Two or three points were made about mergers during our evidence sessions. One was that it is not just a question of scale. Sometimes colleges are not enormous, but they still work well separately. Sometimes mergers take place where a weak college is merged with a strong college, which turns them into a joint weak college, not a joint strong college. So there are all sorts of possibilities, probabilities and problems with mergers, and they should be judged carefully on their own merits.

[Gordon Marsden]

My hon. Friend is right, and what he says is underpinned by his great experience in this area. I am not saying that every area review that produces merger proposals will automatically result in colleges finding themselves in a financially weaker position and therefore more in need of the insolvency clauses in the Bill than otherwise, but it is part and parcel of that aspect.

It is not just FE colleges feeling the strain. It was helpful to have the presence of the Sixth Form Colleges Association in the evidence session. It, too, mentioned courses having to be dropped as a result of funding pressures. Three quarters of colleges have limited the size of their study programmes and more than a third do not believe that next year’s funding will be sufficient to provide the support for educationally or economically disadvantaged students.

In my neck of the woods, as well as the excellent FE college, Blackpool and the Fylde College, which the Minister visited, is Blackpool Sixth Form College, which is also an excellent college that has, over the years, done splendid work on the vocational side, in traditional qualifications and with the previous Aiming Higher programmes. Although the college is outside of my constituency—it is just in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace)—it takes students from three or four constituencies. It has done splendid work, but the previous principal and the current principal have had to juggle the finances very carefully indeed to complete some of the programmes they wanted to do for the college and for the physical infrastructure. Sometimes the physical infrastructure of such colleges is 30 or 40 years old, and needs renewing.

I am reflecting on the various factors that give rise to the clauses we are passing into legislation. I want to focus us on the detailed conversations we will have when we move on. The picture of fragility that I described makes it even more important that the insolvency clauses and the position of the educational administrator, which we will talk about in considerable detail in due course, are a real answer to this problem, rather than something that sounds good on paper but does not do the business in practice.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I have some experience in these matters. There have been funding pressures in all spheres of post-16 education, although not necessarily in universities, which seem to be well funded compared with other areas. In spite of the fact that there are advantages of scale in producing wide ranges of subjects in whatever qualification one is taking, some of the smaller subjects are, even now, dying. We are getting to a point where subjects such as modern European languages are being lost entirely from an area because no college or school will teach them any more. That is tragic. We should be creating more variety of opportunity in technical and academic education, not less.

My second major speech when I first came into this place was about funding for sixth-form colleges and the fact that they did a superb job. I said that funding constraints were in danger of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs: the sixth-form college sector. They do a fabulous job and I know from experience that we should have created more of them. Sadly, a view was held that we should create lots of schools with small, less efficient sixth forms with much narrower subject ranges, instead of sixth-form colleges. I think that went in entirely the wrong direction. I hope that I can persuade the Minister and others that we ought to look more favourably on sixth-form colleges and FE colleges if we are to make serious advances in educating and training our young people better than we have done in the recent past.

Technical and Further Education Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Gordon Marsden and Kelvin Hopkins

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Gordon Marsden]

The amendments take us back to the heart of the principle that we think should be guiding the establishment of this institute. There is no broad difference between the intentions of the Minister and indeed the Government about the need to involve a broad range of stakeholders. The issue is perhaps—though I hope not—how we create mechanisms that effectively deliver that process. The Minister and you, Ms Dorries, will be familiar with the proverb, “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.” I am not suggesting that the Government want to put in place a beggarly structure for the institute, although some of the issues around capacity still need to be resolved. It is fundamental to make sure that groups developing apprenticeship assessments have adequate representatives of all relevant stakeholders. I do not think we can simply do that by saying, “We can leave it up to the individual groups.”

I have served on enough Committees in this House to know the danger of prescribing particular quotas for people from certain areas. I am not going to take us too far down memory lane, but in the early 2000s, when the then Government were developing policies on further education, we had lively debates on some of the new structures and whether, for example, there should be a trade union person on every area council. I am acutely conscious of the dangers of tokenism in quotas.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I understand the point my hon. Friend is making, but surely the sensible way forward is to have broad guidance, either in the Bill or in subsequent secondary legislation.

[Gordon Marsden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has huge experience in this area and in the structures that have come and gone. It is about getting the balance right. I come back to something I said on Second Reading: when one is establishing new institutions, it is important not just to set frameworks and assessments but to set the tone. It is the tone that will determine whether the Government, or in this instance the institute, get the buy-in and involvement that will make that institute a success.

When we discussed the issue of capacity, the Minister was absolutely right to say, “Well, it’s not simply a question of who’s on the board. It’s all the various other groups of people who are involved on the various sub-groups, and all the rest of it.” However, the buy-in will depend upon those groups feeling that it is made very clear in the Bill that there is a place for them. As I say, it does not have to be a sort of automatic quota-type thing, but it has to reflect something solid and positive.

We had a relatively lengthy discussion of this principle under the Higher Education and Research Bill, in relation to the office for students and who in that new office should be involved from the student body. The thing that got the headlines was about putting students on the office for students board, but the amendments that were tabled during discussion of that Bill referred to other bodies as well, such as the assessment groups.

That discussion is relevant to the present one because the issues are broadly similar, with the exception that in the higher education world the principles and the organisations that allow involvement by other stakeholders have been far more developed than they have been in the technical education world. Therefore, we think it is very important that matters such as the contribution of other stakeholders to the assessment process, as well as trade unions, colleges and providers, should be put in the Bill. In the Higher Education and Research Bill Committee, the Minister’s colleague said, “Well, yes, it’s really important that all these things happen,” but they had to happen miraculously, without being put in that Bill. The Committee divided and the Government had their way, but I am glad to say that the Universities Minister went away, reflected, and tabled an amendment on Report which, although it did not give us everything that we and other stakeholders might have wanted, established the broad principle that students should be involved on the board.

I ask the Minister today to think carefully about this issue in the context of other advice that he might have received from elsewhere. I also say to him that it is much better at this stage to send that signal to stakeholders, some of whom are already concerned about whether they are part of this great step forward, than it is to shelter behind the idea of, “Well, we don’t want quotas, so we don’t want to have at least one person who comes from a broad range of employers in a given occupation, or at least one relevant person from the trade unions, or at least one person who can represent or promote the interests of students.”

Getting the tone right at the beginning is absolutely crucial to get the buy-in that everyone who wants this institute to be a success needs. If the institute is going to be accretive in its first year, when it will deal principally with apprenticeships, and in the second year it will take on the elements for technical education, then the Government have time to put the practical implications of this amendment into practice. There does not have to be a big bang, and then officials will say, “Well, how do we identify these people? How do we do it?” That is the point of amendment 15.

As with amendments 16 and 14, we still regard it as imperative to see who is assembled to prepare an apprenticeship assessment plan. It is also valuable to be able to experience that process in real time and to see what it takes to introduce and check assessment plans. Those are the principles underlying an addition to the Bill that is modest, but extremely important in setting the tone and sending the message about all the good and generous things that the Minister talked about only a few minutes ago such as inclusion and ensuring that all talents are taken on board. If faces are set against the measure, there will be much disappointment among stakeholders.

We and the Government want the institute to start off with that broad co-operation—not co-operation through gritted teeth, with people saying, “This is what you’re doing as a Government, so we’d better knuckle down and get on with it.” We want people to say, “Yes, they’ve got it right. We want them to go forward with this.” Amendment 15, which is a modest proposal, would be a great benefit in that respect. That is why we are moving these amendments.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I will speak briefly in support of my hon. Friend. The reality is that those who have become chief executives and chairs of organisations—those with leading roles—are frequently strong characters who want their own way. Some will not want to include in their organisations and structures people who are likely to challenge them. I have seen at least one notorious leader—he has now left, I am pleased to say—who wanted his own way. He would have liked acquiescent, docile and amenable people in his organisation, not people who put alternative points of view, which is actually often a healthy thing. In this place, we want people to put forward alternative points of view and have a range of opinions, even within parties, so that we get things right. We can make mistakes if we allow a wilful leader to have their own way without ever being questioned, let alone challenged.

My hon. Friend is right. We do not want to cause problems within these bodies, but it is important that a range of insights into what is being done is represented within them. I have concerns about giving too much power and freedom to wilful individuals who may not wish to be constrained by having, for example, a trade unionist on the board. Indeed, there are those who will not want a trade unionist on a body, whether that body is a board or a committee deciding on apprenticeships. I strongly support my hon. Friend and hope that the Minister can be persuaded.

Technical and Further Education Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Gordon Marsden and Kelvin Hopkins

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 24th November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Gordon Marsden]

I will refocus to the extent, Mr Bailey, of saying that all the issues I describe have a consequence on the effectiveness of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, which we are being asked to approve to set up as a new body. The Minister has not convinced us that that new body will have the capacity it needs to deliver all this. I have explained some of the reasons for that.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Would it not be intelligent to look at what is done in other countries that are more successful at training people—notably Germany, which would be a good place to start—to compare the quality of apprenticeships and the resource that goes into training apprentices in those countries?

[Gordon Marsden]

Of course my hon. Friend is right, but one would also hope and think that the Department had done that already. There is a healthy industry of comparative studies out there, not just in the public sector but in the private sector. No doubt, the Department takes advantage of that. My point is that, if we want the institute to progress properly and to do everything it needs to do—what it says on the tin—we need more reassurance.

The final area on which we need reassurance is the implications of Brexit. Hon. Members might ask what Brexit has to do with the Institution for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. Well, a lot. If the Government do not manage to get the sort of money from, for example, European structural funds, which have traditionally supported the expansion of apprenticeships and small businesses in areas of the country with strong local enterprise partnerships, the Government’s ability to reach that figure will be affected. That is why we have to ask those questions about capacity, capability and join-up.

I have not even talked, you will be relieved to know, Mr Bailey—

Technical and Further Education Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Gordon Marsden and Kelvin Hopkins

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 24th November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Gordon Marsden]

My hon. Friend has been in the House for only a relatively short period of time, but she is making some absolutely excellent and spot-on points. In this context, we are concerned with the specific ways in which the measure will affect people’s ability to take up apprenticeships, and that is what I will focus on.

This is about more than information in schools; it is also about who can come into schools to influence people’s career choices. I, for one, have praised a number of companies for what they have done to offer apprenticeships to adults. In terms of young people, British Gas, for example, has for a number of years had a crack team of female ex-apprentices who go into schools and colleges to break down gender stereotypes. Without suggesting that the institute should be prescriptive in that respect, I think that it could and should encourage the breakdown of gender stereotypes in terms of applications for apprenticeships.

It works the other way around, as well. There is a young man in my constituency, a nurse, who has been very active in the campaign for NHS bursaries. We need more men in the nursing professions and the caring professions, and many of those people can come through apprenticeships. Again, there is a role for the institute. Incidentally, another issue is the commitment to continuous professional development, in which the new institute, particularly the technical education side, will play a role. We must be careful there as well to extend continuous professional development outwith the usual groups of people from a professional background.

Those are some of the issues of which we must take cognizance when considering the amendment. Unfortunately, the representative from the National Society of Apprentices was unable to give evidence on Tuesday due to a family illness, but the National Union of Students —it is important to add that the NUS figures are not dissimilar to those from the Industry Apprentice Council—has stated:

“We want the…government to invest in a truly national careers system that delivers impartial careers information, advice and guidance”,

and that in surveys, 21% of apprentices said that they had never received information about apprenticeships.

The NUS draws attention to a point that will not have escaped the Minister’s attention—I know that he was questioned closely on it by the Sub-Committee on Education, Skills and the Economy. The NUS found that the current approach to careers advice is exacerbating skills shortages. Those are some of the arguments that we believe it is important to take on board when considering the amendment.

I had a similar discussion in Committee with the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation. We did not always agree, but we came to some convergence of our views. It is important when establishing a new organisation to give some direction or guidance in the Bill establishing it, in this case in schedule 1. There should be some emphasis on the signals sent to the outside world about what sort of organisation it is going to be. Will it simply be a bog-standard Government quango or non-departmental public body, or will it be a forceful campaigning institution? We had a debate this morning about how campaigning it could be with a relatively modest workforce, but that makes the issue all the more important. Given the references that the Minister made, perfectly reasonably, to the range of people who will not be members of the institute but will be supportive, it is extremely important to send out the message in the Bill that the institute must have regard to that function.

That is extremely important, because governance in this area is relatively underdeveloped, when compared with governance in higher education, which the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation and I discussed during the Higher Education and Research Bill Committee. It may have been reasonable for him to have told me in that Committee that there was no need for me to worry about putting a measure in the Bill regarding the OFS, because the Government had been doing all these other things for years in that area. I did not agree with him, but he had a point. The point about this measure is that although we are not exactly in the stone age when it comes to access and participation, we are certainly nowhere near as far down the line as in higher education.

Amendment 10 continues that theme, but in more specific fashion. It would require the Government to specify in its apprenticeship targets the proportion of new apprenticeship starts for those who were looked-after children, and for people with disabilities. It would ensure that the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education increased the number of apprenticeship starts by care leavers and people with disabilities, so it is linked to the strategy arguments for access and participation that we put in amendment 9.

It is curious how targets are sometimes set; the Government already have targets to increase the proportion of black and minority ethnic apprentices by 20%. It might make sense for them to do the same for people with disabilities and care leavers, though I do not say what the proportion should be. We also seek clarification from the Minister on the progress on the BME targets, if he has those figures to hand. Those targets were set under the previous Government and were never formally incorporated in legislation. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that the Government were still working to meet those targets. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), having fought the good fight, with others, on apprenticeship funding in disadvantaged areas—the Minister listened to his arguments—has also been pressing on these issues due to the nature of his constituency.

The Government’s apprenticeship funding proposals last month recognised that 19 to 24-year-old apprentices who had previously been in care, or who had a local education authority health and care plan, might need extra support. The majority of respondents to the Government survey supported that, with more than twice as many agreeing with the proposal than disagreed: 53% to 26%.

I make a more generic observation that it would be helpful for the Minister to consider: in recent years, in debates on apprenticeships and where they should be focused, a dichotomy has often been proposed between adult apprenticeships for those who are over 24, and apprenticeships for those who are 16 to 18-year-olds, with a greater focus on the latter. I have sometimes felt that we needed to shine more light on 19 to 24-year-olds generally as a target area, because that range often includes people who have had all sorts of problems, sometimes of their own making, and sometimes absolutely not; I am thinking of family circumstances and issues of bereavement, and a number of them have been carers. I know of nearly 1,000 young people in Blackpool who are actively caring for family members.

I have always taken the view that the 19-to-24 range is a crucial cohort from which we should be recruiting apprentices. Even though those young people might have fallen by the wayside before 19 for whatever reason, they often bring with them zeal, experience of hard knocks, and a desire to do even better during the apprenticeship period. That is particularly important. Of course, the Government have recognised the importance of looked-after young people by extending the remit of their care plans up to the age of 25. I pay tribute to the Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families for that. It is a good start, but it is important to guarantee that every necessary step is then taken to ensure access and opportunity for care leavers.

Looked-after children achieve less highly at GCSE than their counterparts and often miss out on parts of education. There may be a history of abuse in their background.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am interested in my hon. Friend’s comments on looked-after children. They may have been held back in education not because of a lack of ability, but because of their disturbed personal circumstances. Given a secure environment, they can in fact progress, probably more rapidly than others, and become very effective employees and good citizens.

[Gordon Marsden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He raises a whole subset of questions that we cannot go into this afternoon about the strength of support in schools for young people in those circumstances. That ties in with what I was coming on to say. The Special Educational Consortium, which has submitted evidence to the Committee, along with Barnardo’s, has made some important points. There are real challenges, because less than half of disabled people are in employment, compared with 80% of the non-disabled population, and only 5.8% of adults with a learning disability who are known to local authorities are in a job, which underlines the importance of the Maynard review. On top of that, the proportion of apprentices with learning disabilities has decreased: it was 11% in 2010-11 and is only 8% now. But the good news is that for all apprentices, the success rate of completing their frameworks has risen considerably, and that is true for those with disabilities as well.

The climate for advice on apprenticeships for those with disabilities has declined markedly. Jobcentre Plus’s own disability employment service has a ratio of only one adviser providing support for every 600 disabled people, which was a key cause of concern highlighted by a Work and Pensions Committee inquiry in 2014. In answer to a written question in October 2015, Ministers revealed that the number of jobcentres employing at least one full-time equivalent disability employment adviser had fallen from 226 in 2011 to just 90 in 2015. The Minister may be familiar with the comprehensive Little and Holland review that in 2012 made some 20 recommendations in this policy area. We are not here today to solve the problems of the Department for Work and Pensions or jobcentres, but all that underlines the importance of those targets being firmly in the mind of the institute and, indeed, in the minds of the Minister and his colleagues.

Technical and Further Education Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Gordon Marsden and Kelvin Hopkins

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Apologies, Ms Dorries. I have finished now; thank you.

Shane Chowen: I would argue that there would be opportunities in the Bill to place extra emphasis on those kinds of issues that the country faces in international trade negotiations, such as basic literacy and numeracy.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q I would like to ask this, while remaining within the scope of the Bill. There has been some interesting discussion about priorities, adult skills, training and so on. I want to return us to discussing the institute. If you had been here earlier, Shane, you would have heard a number of questions put to Peter Lauener about the nature of the institute, what its capacity might be and so on. I want to talk about one thing that strikes me about what the Bill is trying to do.

The institute had an interesting genesis, because it did not start out as an institute at all; it started out as a wish list in the Enterprise Bill by the previous Government as to who could actually look after apprenticeships. At one stage, it was going to be trading standards. Obviously, that subsequently was decided not to be the way forward, so the Government brought through, in the Enterprise Bill, the first genesis of the Institute for Apprenticeships, and like Topsy, it has just growed—very beneficially, I think, but that does raise some interesting questions that go to the heart of skills policy and of the new structure that will be set up, so I would like to ask the three of you, from your different perspectives, to answer this. We have heard a lot about apprenticeships. Obviously, that was discussed this morning with Peter Lauener. The technical qualifications are coming into this institute anew, but they bring with them the issue of how many people—actually, adults—need to be retrained and reskilled, the issue of what technical means for them. What should the balance be between the new institute focusing, obviously, on apprenticeships because that is a key Government target—

Technical and Further Education Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Gordon Marsden and Kelvin Hopkins

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Gordon Marsden]

I will not ask you about your experience with the banks.

Ian Pretty: Don’t ask! There are sections of the proposed legislation that talk about indemnities and guarantees given by the national authority, be it the UK Government or the Welsh Government. Again, that is fine. I am sure it must be giving some comfort to the creditors, but the risk, of course, is that the Government become the guarantor of last resort. It is noticeable that other sections of the legislation refer to the college that is in administration having to re-fund. It depends on the sums of money that are involved, but if you do that you run the risk of never getting out of the insolvency cycle.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Q Two issues have been raised in the past few minutes. One is mergers, and I think that David Hughes suggested that there could be a case for not enormous colleges staying as independent colleges; some might merge, but each could be judged on its own merits. But that should not be elided with the issue of sixth-form colleges doing A-levels and the contrast with small school sixth forms. I should say that I am a 25-year governor of a sixth-form college, a former teacher in further education and the chair of the all-party group on sixth-form colleges. The statistics produced by the Sixth-Form Colleges Association overwhelmingly show that sixth-form colleges do better in educational achievements and in value for money, and the Government would do well to persuade schools, local authorities or whoever to pool their sixth forms and create many more sixth-form colleges. That would be enormously advantageous to the country, to education and to young people.

The other issue is governance, which Ian Pretty talked about. I agree strongly that we ought to have breadth in our governing bodies. I have to say that the governing body of which I am a member has invariably had at least two members qualified in accountancy and at least two with legal qualifications, as well as members from the education sector, including primary and secondary schools, and from local businesses. It is small, tightly knit, monocultural governing bodies—perhaps drawn only from small local businesses—that tend to get out of control and that do not do too well. There was one glaring example of that in my constituency—I will not mention its name, but many of you will know about it. It got into a disastrous state, although it has now been picked up by a superb new principal. That breadth of governance, with all sorts of skills as well as commitments, is crucial. I wonder whether you accept that that is a sensible way of doing things.

Richard Atkins: Shall I begin? First, on interventions and area reviews, the quality of governance is critical to the success of the college—more critical than many governors realise. I see that when I go into colleges that are not doing well. Getting the sort of governing body that you describe, with a broad base of skills and knowledge, is essential. I pay tribute to the chairs and to the role they play in the area review. They are giving up a huge amount of time and showing enormous commitment to their colleges by coming to all the steering group meetings and taking part in this. Governance is critical to the quality of colleges. I agree with David that the size of a college is not the key determinant; we have some successful big colleges, but we also have some very successful small, niche colleges. Logically, you would think “How do they survive?” but actually they are doing very well.

Another point that I did not make earlier is that, although area reviews are leading to these 88 mergers—I am thinking about the area review that we are about to start in your constituency; I was talking to the two principals last week—in some areas we are simply generating collaboration short of a merger at a level that we have not seen for a long time. I happen to know that those colleges in your area have already been to see me to talk about a new form of collaboration. If that is the best solution for that area, and the data underpin that, we will support it. Merger is not the single blind answer in every case; collaboration short of a merger may well be the best solution in certain cases.

David Hughes: I want to assert that governance in the FE sector is very strong. I know that the Minister is very interested in helping to improve it, but we have a sector with very strong governance. These are independent organisations taking big business decisions over the long term, and in the vast majority of cases they deliver a very high-quality service and achieve a surplus. For many years, in the Learning and Skills Council and the Skills Funding Agency, I did a job that was not dissimilar to the FE commissioner’s: overseeing all the colleges that were getting into difficulties. It is quite striking that, despite all the funding cuts and all the competition, there are still only 20 colleges in financial difficulties. That is a very familiar number; it was not dissimilar through the noughties and into this decade. Despite all those challenges, FE and sixth-form colleges have proved incredibly adaptable and have responded really well to the funding environment.

Let me just go back to the fact that higher education is generating a surplus of more than 4% every year. The Higher Education Funding Council for England thinks that that is a problem, because it is only 4%, but FE has had a deficit in the last two years. That is not a commentary on the lack of good leadership and governance, but on the competition and the funding levels. We need to address that; otherwise, we still will not have the technical and academic education we need for young people and adults in this country. These are really important issues. It is not easy, because the economy is not doing as well as anyone wants. We are looking to the autumn statement this week and perhaps the Budget in the spring. As Lord Sainsbury said this morning, how do you properly fund technical education in this country, possibly for the first time ever?

Bill Watkin: I will respond to your comments about the growth of sixth-form colleges in the context of the economies of scale they offer, the quality of qualifications, their outcomes and their support for young people. I would also add that, with the population shift, the number of 11 to 16-year-olds is growing.

There is an interesting example of a proposed merger between a sixth-form college and an academy chain. The school, which has a large sixth-form provision, is looking to shift all of its sixth form across to the sixth-form college, and then to build capacity for 11 to 16-year-olds to serve the community. That is an example of a successful outcome of an area review recommendation. There is also the opportunity for sixth-form colleges to roll out their successful brand and open up a free school 16-to-19 provision, as happened in Pontefract.

I am pleased that the Government are reviewing the approval process for small school sixth forms. We have been invited to contribute to that review. I sincerely hope that there will be a different way of considering applications to open up schools’ sixth forms.

Professor Alison Fuller: I certainly do not want to downplay the importance of governance and efficiency—we are talking about public money, after all—but I do not want us to lose sight of the issue of efficacy and quality, which we started the session off with. The initiatives in the Bill will potentially achieve a step change in quality if we get this right. We know how much this matters, because the population performs very poorly in the OECD’s programme for the international assessment of adult competencies survey—the adult skills survey, which is administered to 27-year-olds. The added value from 15 to 27 is very weak, in terms of the age range, when you compare us to countries that have strong upper secondary and strong vocational and technical systems. The legacy effects that we are suffering as a consequence of the current system and what happened historically are playing through into the economy, life chances and wellbeing more generally. The prize is huge, but so is the challenge. I am a little concerned that an over-emphasis on governance may deflect from the really difficult thing—the quality issue.

Ian Pretty: Can I build on the discussion on mergers, which I think is a healthy one? To me, the merger is the merger. It is very easy to say, “We are all going to merge together. It’s all going to be wonderful, and the world is going to be fantastic,” but if you look at the statistics across all sectors—commercial and public—only 25% of mergers ever achieve their objectives. Post-merger integration is the most difficult thing. Part of that is that you have to understand the logic of the merger—is it a logical merger or a “shotgun” merger?—because that can have an impact. The studies show that, when they are successful, it is because of culture and cultural fit. Within the FE sector, some colleges are more likely to be able to culturally fit with another than others.

Having been on the receiving end, when I was in government, of ministerial decisions to merge, I can attest to the fact that it is difficult. The merger between Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise was an interesting experience, to say the least—I promptly walked out the door and went to the private sector.

You have to look at the logic of the merger, and then there is the whole point about post-merger integration. We have talked about whether there is enough funding, and all that sort of stuff, but do you have the right leadership? Do you have the right cultural fit that will make the merger work? Does the merger have the right objectives?

The other thing that is worth looking at is that we see regional college groups merging, and we see alternative versions of collaboration. Devon recently announced the launch of the Devon Colleges Group. The colleges have not merged together; they are collaborating. That is quite significant. You will then see that some college groups are working very well as merged entities or as groups. Hull, for example, is a successful college that has HE sections and FE sections. Warwickshire has merged a large number of colleges together, but it has not got rid of the place. It can therefore maintain community.

Going back to one of my earlier points, it is worth looking at the experience of places like Scotland. North East Scotland College has been a highly successful regional college group around Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, and it has campuses that are 40 miles apart and still work—it still succeeds. It is worth looking at those models, but it is about the objectives of the merger. There must be a clear post-merger integration plan, because that is where you are going to get more success, rather than just saying, “We need to knock this together to get a smaller number of colleges.”

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Gordon Marsden and Kelvin Hopkins

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marsden]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an instance of which he has the full details but I do not. I will not comment on the particular point but will comment on the general point, which is as I have just said: these matters are best dealt with by discussions with the enforcement officer before the ticket is issued. To that extent, I think we are at one.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The reality is that if we relax legislation of this kind, especially when the exemptions are not on the face of the Bill, certain people will take advantage of the situation—drive in bus lanes because they think they might not get caught, for example. There were cases some years ago in which CCTV of cars in bus lanes picked up many vehicles that were driven by criminals on the run for other causes. Once a criminal, always a criminal, and such people will take advantage.

[Mr Marsden]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point that underlines why the Government should have given much more careful consideration to the thoughtful proposals and sometimes quite detailed comments submitted by the various groups before bringing forward these measures as part of this rag-bag Bill.

We do not object to the Government’s amendments reining in the use of CCTV in place of everyday traffic enforcement but, as is obvious from the comments we have already heard today, the whole House would welcome answers from the Minister, so we can ensure that vital spots such as bus routes and school runs continue to be protected by CCTV and we know the details of how that will be assured in legislation.

Amendment 61 would remove clauses 10 to 12. The Deputy Leader of the House will not want to hear this, but we strongly oppose the Government proposals on changing taxi and minicab law simply and crucially because it will put passengers at risk. I listened carefully to his opening comments: he said the Government are determined to see the reforms implemented, which reminded me of the old speaker’s note, “Argument weak here, shout like mad”—although, to be fair, being a Liberal Democrat, he did not shout. He really ought to take note of what Members have said today, particularly the interventions from my hon. Friends the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) about the particular concerns that women have —my hon. Friend the Member for Slough referred to an awful case—and about the vital issue of enforcement. On the basis of the reassurances he has given today, the Minister cannot guarantee that the Government will be able to enforce the current safeguards. The issue is one of enforcement.

The Minister talked about the “targeted consultation”—a wonderful phrase. We were told by Harold Wilson some while ago that a week is a long time in politics. Perhaps the Minister, being a Liberal Democrat, thinks that 10 days is an eternity, but 10 days is in fact the amount of time that was allowed for this “targeted” consultation. I doubt whether many people listening today will be particularly impressed with that process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marsden]

Not on my part, I do not think; I think the only thing to be declared is the hon. Gentleman’s attempt to pursue something on a blog that, as various people know, may or may not have some foundation. In this case, it obviously does not have much foundation.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

A primary union concerned with this issue is the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which is not affiliated to the Labour party, sadly.

[Mr Marsden]

My hon. Friend makes the point for me.

The truth of the matter is that once again an ideological imperative to be seen to be cutting red tape is resulting in vital principles of good governance being relegated. Although we have rightly had a long drawn-out process from the Law Commission’s proposals to consider all the interests involved—I shall come on to some of those in due course and perhaps put the hon. Gentleman’s somewhat paranoid mind at rest—it has been marred by the Government’s rushed and risky proposals. These plans have been poorly drafted and badly consulted on and they could put the travelling public in danger.

Taxis and private hire vehicles play a vital part in connecting people’s lives. They provide a wide range of services—everything from trips to the airport to early morning trips back from nightclubs. They are an essential means of transport for a wide range of people without access to a car, particularly in cut off or rural locations. For young people—sometimes for recreation, but also for work, training or family commitments—and for older people, they are a lifeline, providing mobility and social cohesion.

Previous work, including that of the Transport Committee in 2011, showed that the regulation governing the trade is often complex and contentious. We, therefore, like so many organisations outside this House, hoped that the DFT would approach reform in an inclusive, comprehensive and balanced way, especially looking to use the expertise of users, taxi operators and local councils in piloting a new course. Sadly, that has not been the case. Opposition to these measures is widespread: the police, industry bodies and members of the trade themselves are warning that they have severe safety implications. Yet Ministers have introduced the specifics of the plans late in the passage of the Bill, leaving little opportunity for real engagement with industry stakeholders.

Despite the excellent speech made on 29 April in Westminster Hall by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield—he has been steadfast and vocal on the threat that this part of the Bill poses to vulnerable taxi drivers, and even today has been meeting delegations from a range of organisations concerned about the proposals—it is still not clear why these measures were not included in the Bill on Second Reading, so they could have been debated more fully. Is this a reflection of their on-the-hoof nature, or a conscious attempt to avoid the criticism that would inevitably follow?

The context of today’s discussion is important. We should consider the questions that the rise of new services such as Uber pose about the impact of new technologies on the trade. The Government must be clear about what priorities they set for private transport companies, and surely those should be safety and security. That is quite the opposite of the piecemeal reforms being introduced in the Bill. What is needed is a far more comprehensive look at the regulation and enforcement of the taxi and private hire trade. That is exactly what the Law Commission announcement about the need for a new national framework underlined, so why on earth are this Government cutting the ground from beneath the Law Commission’s feet with these ill-thought-through proposals?

In the detail of the clauses we are opposing, the Government plan to allow people without a licence for a minicab to drive one when it is off duty. That could or will greatly increase the potential for rogue minicab drivers, who appear no different from legal drivers on the streets and could threaten vulnerable passengers, including women, who enter their vehicles. It will be nearly impossible to enforce these rules; it will be difficult to monitor whether a minicab is in service or off duty, and whether the driver is a minicab licence holder or not. The Minister may respond, as he has before, by talking about London—several times in his speech I thought he was grasping at London like a drowning man grasping at straws—but other areas of the country do not have the same resources for enforcement, and the sad truth is that rapes and sexual assaults committed by people purporting to be private hire drivers are not uncommon. The changes to the law are rightly an issue of public concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marsden]

I do agree, but as importantly, so do most of the people involved in the MV Derbyshire campaign and, indeed, the Minister, John Prescott, who opened the inquiry.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I strongly support what my hon. Friend says. In more recent times, we have had new technology, which might not have been available when an accident happened. We now might be able to investigate and find the causes of ships sinking or whatever, because of new technology.

[Mr Marsden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is an iterative process, which simply exposes the weakness of the Minister’s argument.

[Mr Marsden]

The hon. Lady makes an absolutely valid point. Context is all, particularly in this case, which was crucial to the duty being put into law. MV Derbyshire sank in 1980 and was found only in 1994. That example prompted reinvestigation many years after the original incident.

The duty that the Government want to scrap was used in 1998 to reopen the formal investigation into the loss of the Derbyshire in September 1980. The Derbyshire disappeared south of Japan during Typhoon Orchid. All on board—42 crew and two passengers, who were wives of crew members—lost their lives. She remains the largest UK ship ever to have been lost at sea.

A major union-funded search for the vessel in the 1990s, supported by the International Transport Workers Federation—a global organisation, with affiliates in Britain, including the RMT, Unite, the National Union of Seamen, Nautilus International and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and broader support from the Public and the Commercial Services Union, the Communication Workers Union, the GMB and others—was required to make that breakthrough in discovering the wreck of the Derbyshire. That effort identified the wreck in 1994 and led to the introduction of the duty in the 1995 Act to establish the necessary evidence and place the legal obligation on the Government to reopen the investigation.

After nearly 20 years of campaigning, the investigation into the cause of the loss was reopened in 1998, and great credit for that decision goes not just to the organisations I mentioned but to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who galvanised the local campaign and ran an all-party group on the subject, and of course to John, now Lord Prescott, who, as Secretary of State for Transport, invoked the powers for the reinvestigation because he drew on his awareness of the struggle that unions and families had undertaken to find the missing ship. He has recently described the Government’s attempt to remove the duty as a massive insult to those who campaigned for the truth about the Derbyshire.

The steadfast way in which the friends and family group that set up the campaign, based in and around Liverpool, and the poignant memories brought back by the 20th anniversary this year of the finding of the ship testify to the huge importance of the power to reinvestigate, not just to find out new facts but, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said, to support and recognise the loss of those who were affected. All this has been reflected in the wording of amendment 1.

The reinvestigation absolved the crew of any blame for the loss of the vessel and led to significant improvements in the safe operation of bulk carrier class ships and the understanding of typhoon conditions. For those reasons, the claim made in Committee by the Solicitor-General, who is not in his place, that if a wreck is discovered many years after an accident, safety insights would be irrelevant or out of date, really does not hold water. That argument was disproved by the case of the Derbyshire. Maritime accidents may be relatively rare, but they are tragic events and it is crucial to understand them as fully as we can.

Although it relates to a different mode of transport, the recent search for the Malaysian flight MH370 demonstrates that even in today’s technologically advanced world there are circumstances in which even our greatest efforts struggle to match the vastness of the oceans our ships and planes traverse. Who knows when future evidence on that incident will emerge as to the plane’s final fate? It might take months, years or even decades.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It may indeed be technology that has not yet been developed that will solve those problems.

[Mr Marsden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the context of this debate, the MH370 incident shows that in other circumstances, where such incidents might affect British ships and citizens, Ministers must have flexibility and the power to reopen inquiries. [Interruption.] The Minister says that that is absolutely right, but I will go on to demonstrate that the inadequacies of his clause as drafted would not allow that to happen. If any such tragedy were to occur in British maritime in the future, we must have the law in place to guarantee that men and women working on our ships, and the families who rely on them, get the answers, however long the recovery of evidence takes.

The Government’s preferred approach in this Deregulatory Bill is to retain a discretionary power—a weaker section of the 1995 Act—to rehear such a case if the Secretary of State suspects that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. That is simply an unacceptable weakening of the Secretary of State’s ability to protect seafarers and their families. It downgrades rights from a duty to a mere choice.

Sadly, that was reflected by some of the Solicitor-General’s comments when defending the change in Committee. In response to a challenge from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), the Solicitor-General said:

“We are talking about something similar to a judicial inquiry, with all the formality and costs associated with it. It is not just about money, but about taking up the time of a huge number of people. If it is a worthwhile exercise, because it will help safety or clear someone’s name, it is obviously worth doing, but it is pointless and expensive if it happens many years later.”––[Official Report, Deregulation Public Bill Committee, 11 March 2014; c. 311.]

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman did not intend it, but he seemed to suggest that there should almost be a statute of limitations on the timescale that influences a Government’s response. I am sorry to say that grief, support and the ability to find the truth are not always amenable to an automatic, time-limited cut-off point.

There is also a circular problem inherent in the Government’s proposal. It is not clear how the Secretary of State can be expected adequately to assess the existing evidence in order to suspect a miscarriage of justice without the sort of rigorous, independent work carried out by the marine accident investigation branch. The work will now be undertaken by the branch only if the Secretary of State requests it because he already suspects a miscarriage of justice.

It has been claimed that the removal of the duty can be described simply as tidying up in order to synchronise the 1995 Act with other recent guidance. However, recent MAIB guidance has made it very clear that its remit lies only in dealing with the reporting of the circumstances of an accident and not an investigation of its root cause. The MAIB is not—I repeat, not—responsible for enforcement or prosecution of any responsible bodies. Those functions are still underpinned by the 1995 Act.

There is one other factor to take into account: reinvestigation inevitably might mean that difficult truths are unearthed about the adequacy and focus of previous assessments by officials and the Department when making an initial judgment. Any Minister should be able to pursue the process subsequently without fear or favour. Under the element of discretion that the Government propose, that ability might be, or could appear to be, hampered, but retaining the existing duty protects those in government—of whatever party—from any suggestion of partiality with regard to taking forward the reinvestigation process.

The Government’s impact assessment cites a human rights argument in defence of the clause, claiming that the possibility of the future automatic investigation of an accident could have an impact on the career prospects of survivors. However, the Derbyshire reinvestigation showed the value of being able to step back from an initial rush to judgment on the culpability of crew for the accident, because new evidence eventually established unrelated causes.

I have been hugely impressed by the work of campaigners such as Paul Lambert, who represents the families who lost loved ones in the MV Derbyshire accident. They still feel that this is a key issue, as does Mark Dickinson, the general secretary of Nautilus International, who takes a keen interest in the case, not least because, as a member of the International Transport Workers Federation, he helped to co-ordinate the search for the Derbyshire in 1994. I am pleased that amendment 1 has been signed by many hon. Members, several of whom hope to speak in the debate. Some have been contacted by constituents who have been affected by tragedies, while others represent coastal communities. Some are simply loth to see an important safeguard sacrificed so unthinkingly.

On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) emphasised the importance of maintaining the thrust of the existing duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is to be applauded for frequently, tirelessly and with determination raising this and related maritime matters inside and outside the House. As hon. Members might suspect, there is a real worry that several aspects of the Bill show that the Government, in their bid to be seen as shedding regulation, risk blinding themselves to the value of apparently minor existing legislative provisions and specifications. However, the example of maritime investigations shows that the need for such detail has been vindicated by the blood, sweat and tears of those caught up in such tragedies, and the bitter years of struggle to uncover their causes.

Regrettably, our attempt in Committee to delete clause 35 in its entirety was defeated. However, in an attempt to build consensus, we have tried to recognise the Government’s argument that the Secretary of State should have the flexibility to avoid the costs of reinvestigation when it is absolutely clear that new evidence will be of little or no value to determine the causes of the accident, and if no interested parties are calling for a reinvestigation. However, amendment 1 would ensure that if there was a reasonable possibility that new evidence would provide significant new information about the causes of an accident, answers for the surviving families or safety lessons for today, the duty to reopen the investigation would be retained.

It is imperative that we retain a stronger power than that in the Bill so that the Secretary of State’s default setting is to reopen investigations. We owe it to those who have died or been injured not to remain silent on that point. We must send a clear message to Ministers and civil service administrations of now and the future, and to the men and women who do such valuable and vital work in our maritime economy today, that justice and safety will always come first, which is why I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to reject clause 35 as it stands by voting for amendment 1.