British Indian Ocean Territory

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that the Government need to reflect on their own conduct. The British public are about to have to fork out huge amounts of money for a deal that has had no scrutiny or public airing whatsoever. The lack of transparency is one thing, but when we see this being repeated across every Government Department and even in a Prime Minister’s statement, it is simply unacceptable. There is something deeply shameful about the conduct and the lack of transparency of this Government.

Secondly, on the negotiations, the Mauritius Prime Minister has publicly given a chronology of the counterproposals his Government have put forward to change the agreement reached and announced by his predecessor and the UK Prime Minister. He has stated to his National Assembly that, upon taking office in November, he had—guess what?—reviewed the deal. This is exactly the same deal that the Foreign Secretary has described as “a very good deal”, and one he was “confident” that the Mauritians were still really sure about, yet the Mauritian Prime Minister concluded that the deal

“was so bad that we said, no way!”

There is video footage of that as well. It is available online for everyone to see. He claimed that he subsequently submitted a counterproposal to the UK and that the UK Government responded on 16 December.

Then, on 31 December, Mauritius submitted its response and requested a meeting in January, which was quickly arranged and held. That meeting took place. The Mauritius Cabinet then met on 15 January and, soon after, its delegation, led by its Attorney General, Gavin Glover, came to London to meet the Minister and the Attorney General, Lord Hermer. So, according to the Mauritians, a series of counterproposals and responses were exchanged, but when we have asked the Government about whether counterproposals were received and what they were, including at questions yesterday, Ministers have continually refused to say.

I find it astonishing that this House has had to rely on Hansard from the Mauritius National Assembly. It is very good; I recommend that colleagues read it. We have had to rely on that Hansard to find out what UK Government Ministers are up to. That is why our motion demands the publication of a chronology so that we can know what has happened. When we hear from the Minister, perhaps she can confirm whether this account from the Prime Minister of Mauritius is correct.

The Minister should also explain to the House the role that the Attorney General has been playing in these negotiations, because written answers have stated that his meeting with the Mauritius delegation last month was a “courtesy meeting”. But the Prime Minister of Mauritius has stated that when his Attorney General met his British counterpart, Lord Hermer, and the Under-Secretary of State in the Foreign Office, they both assured him of the commitment of the UK Government to signing the agreement between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. Giving that assurance seems to demonstrate that the Attorney General was actively playing a part in the negotiations, rather than attending a “courtesy meeting”, and in view of that previous interest in the British Indian Ocean Territory, questions will rightly be raised about his involvement. So can the Minister confirm whether the Attorney General has recused himself from these matters?

Thirdly, we know from the account given by the Prime Minister of Mauritius that concessions have been made over sovereignty, even though Ministers here have refused to confirm or admit it. The joint statement of 3 October said:

“For an initial period of 99 years, the United Kingdom will be authorised to exercise with respect to Diego Garcia the sovereign rights and authorities of Mauritius required to ensure the continued operation of the base well into the next century.”

When we asked yesterday whether a change had been made, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said:

“The fundamentals of the deal remain the same”.—[Official Report, 25 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 618.]

But if the fundamentals of the deal remain the same, why has the Mauritius Prime Minister said that

“there have been changes. The British agreed. We insisted that the sovereignty issue is the crucial and the most important issue…We insisted that it be clear that we have complete sovereignty on the Chagos, including Diego Garcia. The British agreed to that and this has been changed.”

And why is it that, in a letter sent to me this week by the Foreign Secretary, he does not use the word “sovereignty” in relation to the lease, only stating:

“The UK would retain all the rights and authorities we need to ensure the long-term, secure and effective operation of the base.”

The difference in the language between the joint statement from October and this letter to me matters. The Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister might not realise it, but removing sovereignty is a fundamental change, and it matters for the defence and security of our country.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend’s point is not merely semantic, because in international law—which I know holds great sway on the Labour Benches—those who interpret our entitlements will look closely at whether we have sovereign power or only power by means of an agreement that can be torn up by Mauritius.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Lady will be aware, because I have been on the record on this, that I was entirely critical of the beginning of those negotiations when I was in government.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the former Security Minister for giving way. I put this question to him:

“How can the base—which serves as an indispensable naval, air, and intelligence asset—be more secure under the sovereignty of another nation, rather than under our own?”

Not my words, but the words of another former Security Minister, Lord West.

[Tom Tugendhat]

As my right hon. Friend knows, the noble Lord, a former Labour Security Minister—and, of course, a former First Sea Lord—knows well that those bases occupy a crucial part not just in our airbases, with strategic reach into the middle east and south-east Asia, but in the intelligence collection business that sadly we need to engage in to keep our people safe. The idea that we should hand over those bases in order somehow to satisfy an advisory ruling is, I am afraid, wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend is right. Why can the Government not tell us whether the Chagos deal will come from the defence spending uplift? It is public money, not the Government’s money. It comes from taxpayers who are already overtaxed, so the Government could at least tell them where the money will come from.

The Chagos deal may make sense through the eyes of internationally focused lawyers and officials responding with utmost caution to the advice they are given, but the Opposition believe fundamentally that sovereignty is not something to be lightly surrendered, including to the United States of America, if I may say so to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage).

[Sir John Hayes]

What we do know about the financial deal is that it is linked to inflation. It is therefore inconceivable that Ministers will not have had that modelled. They will have a view about the likely increase in inflation and the total sum involved, and it will be astronomical, which is why they are trying to disguise it.

[James Cartlidge]

My right hon. Friend is spot on. They know how much it will cost; they are just not being transparent with public money.

I turn to the speeches made by my hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made an excellent point of order earlier, in which he made the point that the Minister had said—this is the crucial argument that they depend on—that the ITU could somehow threaten our spectrum at Diego Garcia. Yet, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the Telecoms Minister was very clear in a written answer dated 12 February:

“The ITU cannot challenge the UK’s use of civilian or military spectrum.”

That is bang to rights.

The most extraordinary point that we have heard today from a galaxy of Government Back-Bench speakers is that somehow the Opposition should not be calling for this debate. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones), the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) all said that somehow we should be debating important issues, such as buses and so on, yet the argument from Ministers is that this is critical to national security. If that is the case, surely we should be debating it in Parliament. We are going to keep on debating it until we finally get some answers.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) made an excellent point. Along with the shadow Foreign Secretary, I recently had a wonderful and very moving meeting with many Chagossians up in one of the Committee Rooms, and they were clear that they have had no meaningful consultation with the Government and no face-to-face meetings. That is absolutely shameful.

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

John Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor is as committed as I am to ensuring that we have the right skills within the economy, because without them we will not be able to deliver the economic growth that is the No. 1 mission of this Labour Government. But we are committed to reforming the failing apprenticeship levy, reforming the system and converting it into a growth and skills levy with more flexibility for employers. As a first step, this will include shorter-duration and foundation apprenticeships in targeted sectors, making sure that we are working more effectively with employers in order for our economy to grow.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I welcome the commitment to skills that the Secretary of State is articulating, but will she recognise that too often the advice given to young people, particularly from schools, is to pursue an academic career—I use the word “academic” in the loosest possible sense—rather than to engage in practical learning? That means that while the shortages she describes are profound, there are also many people who are graduates in non-graduate jobs owing a lot of money and with pretty useless degrees.

[Bridget Phillipson]

I was almost on the point of saying that I agreed with much of what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, but unfortunately he went and ruined it at the end with that comment about the value of university education and of having the chance to gain a degree. Where I do share common cause with him is that I want to make sure that all young people have a range of pathways available to them, including fantastic technical training routes, including through apprenticeships, but I also want to make sure that young people with talent and ability are able to take up a university course if that is the right path and the right choice for them.

As we were recently celebrating National Apprenticeship Week, I took the opportunity to see across the country some of the fantastic routes that are available in areas such as construction and nuclear, with really wonderful job opportunities and careers where young people are able to make fantastic progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

The further education and skills sector is of strategic importance, and equipping our workforce with the skills that employers need is critical for economic growth. Ensuring that there are opportunities for young people and those mid-career to access high-quality training in order to enhance and develop their skills is vital for breaking down the barriers to opportunity that hold back far too many people. For far too long, the further education and skills sector has been the Cinderella service of our education system, patronised with lip service about how important it is, always regarded as second best, and never allocated the level of funding needed to really deliver.

Despite the fact that at the very peak only around one third of 18-year-olds go on to university, our school system is overwhelmingly orientated to communicate to young people that university is the option they should all aim for, rather than supporting a plurality of education options post-18, all of which can equip them well for a successful career. That has created a postcode lottery in which the high-quality further education and training opportunities that are available in some parts of the country are not available everywhere.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Lady is making a profoundly important point that reinforces what I said earlier about careers advice and guidance. When I was skills Minister, I introduced a statutory duty on providers to make available free and independent advice. The problem is that that is often done by means of the internet. Schools will refer students to the internet, rather than bring people such as independent advisers into the school to guide them. She is right that the best solution to the problem she sets out is exactly that kind of involvement from careers advisers with students.

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I was delighted recently to visit a school in my constituency, and a careers fair that gave young people the opportunity to meet many employers and providers of further education face to face, in order to give real meaning and reality to what such opportunities might provide in the future. It is important that young people have those opportunities.

Recently, I was delighted to visit the Lambeth college campus in Vauxhall, which is part of the Southbank University group, with my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). We met young people engaged in cutting-edge training in robotics, renewable energy installation, dental technology and game design and production. They were being equipped with valuable skills to help them to access high-quality jobs, with the possibility, in some cases, of progressing their training all the way to degree level at the university.

The college is a good example of a strategic vision being applied to skills at a local level to ensure that employers’ needs are being met, and that the best possible opportunities are made available to young people, but not everywhere can benefit from such a strategic approach at present. I therefore welcome the Bill, which will formally establish Skills England. It is encouraging that this Government are giving further education and skills the strategic prominence they need, and seeking to establish an effective national agency to deliver a step change in the strategy that underpins our approach to skills and the quality and availability of training opportunities.

Skills England has been operating in shadow form within the Department for Education since July last year. Following the passage of the Bill, it will become an executive agency. This important Bill will work to underpin many of the strategic aims of the Government, including the delivery of economic growth, the skills to provide the additional 1.5 million homes that need to be built, and the skills to drive the urgently needed transition of our energy sector to achieve net zero, and the much-needed improvements in our national health service and in social care.

As the first Skills England report highlights, we currently have a fragmented and confusing landscape that lets down learners, frustrates businesses and holds back growth. The current system that the Government inherited has been badly neglected and urgent action is needed to deliver the change and scale of ambition required.

While I welcome the Bill, there are a number of issues on which I would be grateful for further clarity from the Government. The Bill does not provide a statutory underpinning for Skills England, meaning that the Secretary of State and future Secretaries of State can make fundamental changes to Skills England or close it down without the consent of Parliament. That calls into question the ability of Skills England to deliver a stable long-term underpinning of the skills system over a period of time. I understand the Government’s urgency, but it is important that in delivering this change Skills England is placed on a really solid foundation.

In order to be effective in delivering the skills system that our country needs, Skills England will need to have leverage with a number of different Government Departments beyond the Department for Education, yet the chief executive of Skills England is the equivalent of a director-level post in the civil service, not a director general, calling into question the extent to which appropriately senior people from across Government will be required to act on its recommendations and work in effective partnership. As the Bill progresses, the Government should consider the seniority of the CEO in that light.

Partnership working with key stakeholders outside Government, including training providers, trade unions, employers and devolved authorities will also be critical to the success of Skills England, but none of that is written into the Bill, and the ways in which Skills England will be held accountable for effective partnership working are unclear. Will the Secretary of State take further action to address that?

The impact statement for the Bill states that there may be a drop in apprenticeship starts while the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education’s functions are transferred to the Secretary of State and then to Skills England, with a disproportionate impact on adult apprenticeships, disadvantaged learners and disadvantaged regions. Will the Secretary of State explain what steps she will take to minimise and mitigate that potential short-term drop?

The success of Skills England will depend on a series of wider factors that should be considered at the point at which it is being established. There is a significant issue with the funding of sixth form colleges, particularly around inequities in pay between teachers in schools and colleges, exacerbated by the failure to extend the recent pay increase to teachers to those employed by colleges. It cannot be right that a teacher in a college can be paid less than a teacher in a school sixth form for teaching exactly the same subject.

To drive parity of esteem between pupils following an academic route and those following a vocational route, it is important that sixth form colleges are able to both recruit and retain teachers. That means addressing the lower pay in sixth form colleges compared with schools, and the gap between teacher salaries and the salaries that teachers could receive in industry. It is a real problem for colleges seeking to recruit teachers of vocational subjects that those who have the skills to teach trade can often earn far more by practising that trade in the private sector. There is currently very little obligation on industry to release staff to deliver vocational education or to help to secure the pipeline of vocational teachers, including through post-retirement options. The Government should give further consideration to the recruitment and retention of high-quality teachers in the further education sector.

For some students in the further education sector, their school days have not been the happiest days of their lives. College or an apprenticeship should be the place where they start to find the things that they can excel at and where their confidence is built because they start to succeed. The importance of a functional level of English and maths is universally accepted and understood, so something is badly wrong in our education system when 38% of students do not achieve a grade 3 or above in English and maths at GCSE. The cycle of failure ends up continuing in the FE sector, which requires them to resit again and again. There must be a better way to ensure the functional skills in these subjects that employers need within further education, while enabling young people genuinely to succeed, build their confidence and thrive.

Finally, I will raise the issue of the huge differential in the information provided to sixth form students as they decide on their next steps after school or college—a point made by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) earlier in the debate. When meeting with skills providers and school leaders in my constituency recently, many participants highlighted how a move to university was often presented as a natural, secure step, with multiple options and a well-trodden path through the UCAS process, while vocational options, including apprenticeships and degree apprenticeships, were not presented with the same clarity or coherence, or even within the same timeframe. That makes it harder for teachers to advise their students and for parents to have confidence in pathways that may appear less predictable and secure. If we want to see true parity of esteem between academic and vocational routes, that needs to change, and I hope that it will be a priority for the newly established Skills England.

The Education Committee recognises the strategic importance of further education and skills, and we have recently launched a substantial inquiry that aims to understand how the further education system can better equip young people with skills and qualifications for a range of sectors experiencing labour shortages while opening up a wider range of opportunities to young people and mid-career switchers. We will make our recommendations to the Government in due course, and we look forward to playing our part in scrutinising the work of Skills England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill because, while acknowledging the importance of reforming the delivery of skills and technical education, it fails to establish Skills England as a statutory independent body; because it centralises decision-making power in the hands of the Secretary of State; because it provides for the abolition of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education without ensuring a legally defined replacement; and because it lacks provisions to ensure that Skills England is directly accountable to Parliament.”

The Government are right that our skills system needs reform. The Liberal Democrats agree with the Secretary of State that our current fragmented and confusing skills landscape lets down learners, frustrates businesses and holds back growth, as she made clear in her foreword to Skills England’s first report in the autumn.

I and my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches share the ambition to build a high-skill, high-productivity workforce that can meet our economy’s needs, and reform is essential for that ambition to be realised. Like many in the sector, we were encouraged to hear the Government prioritising that last July in the King’s Speech, with the statement:

“My Government will establish Skills England which will have a new partnership with employers at its heart”,

but the Bill before us does not establish Skills England at all; it simply abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and transfers the functions directly to the Secretary of State. We need a strong, independent skills body with proper parliamentary oversight and genuine employer engagement, but this Bill delivers a centralisation of power in the hands of Ministers.

There are examples of bodies that combine independence and strong democratic accountability for the most critical policy areas. The Office for Budget Responsibility has statutory independence while being directly accountable to Parliament through the Treasury Committee. Its leadership is subject to parliamentary approval, its reports must be laid before Parliament and it has clear statutory duties to ensure transparency. The Climate Change Committee similarly has a clear statutory basis that ensures it can provide independent advice while being properly scrutinised by Parliament, yet the framework proposed for Skills England—or at least the draft framework for illustrative purposes, which is all that we have seen so far—falls far short of those models. Despite promises about working across Government, its governance structure is heavily Department for Education-centric. There are no formal mechanisms for co-ordination with other key Departments; there is no cross-departmental board representation; and there is no clear structure for aligning with bodies such as the Migration Advisory Committee, just aspiration. Are we to assume that the Government think that skills policy is not so critical to their mission that it warrants a stronger framework than the one we have seen?

This matters profoundly when we consider the scale of cross-Government co-ordination required. Skills England must work with the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council on future workforce needs; with the Migration Advisory Committee on reducing reliance on overseas workers; with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on green skills; with the Department for Work and Pensions on employment programmes; with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on priority sectors; and with the Department of Health and Social Care on workforce planning. Particularly in light of recent developments, Skills England must also support the Government’s strategy for defence and the critical industries and skills that we will need for our defence. As proposed, though, it will lack even director general status, meaning that it will struggle to drive the co-ordination of skills that the system so desperately needs.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for the independence of Skills England. He will know that Government Departments resist independence like most people resist disease, but his point is important because to get the kind of lateral action he describes in respect of the nuclear industry or other industries, it will be necessary for the body created to have a reach that Government Departments do not tend to have.

[Ian Sollom]

I agree. That cross-departmental and cross-industry working is a critical reason for the need for a truly independent body.

The implication for standards development is also concerning. Where we have had employer-led trailblazer groups setting standards, the Secretary of State can now bypass employers entirely. In limited circumstances and for minor changes, that will have the benefit of speeding up the review process, which has been frustrating for employers. There are, however, no safeguards to prevent ministerial control becoming the default approach. Instead of giving businesses a structural role, maximising responsiveness, the Bill makes engagement merely consultative. That speaks to a broader point: Skills England’s credibility with employers will be key if those employers are to buy into the Government’s skills vision for the country. Has the Secretary of State not at least considered the possibility that the proposed structure, whereby programmes can be driven at her whim or those of her successors, undermines that much-needed credibility from the start?

The Government’s own impact assessment worries that there will be a

“slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process”

caused by this new approach, and it reveals who will pay the price. It is adult learners, who make up 48% of apprentices and often face the greatest barriers to retraining; learners from our most deprived communities, whose achievement rates are already eight percentage points lower than those from affluent areas; and learners in regions such as the north-east, where apprenticeship starts are already lower and where every reduction in opportunity has a disproportionate effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Much of this debate has been about the purpose of learning—the Secretary of State began in that spirit—and I think we can all agree that the purpose of learning is both to deliver personal fulfilment, through the acquisition of understanding and competencies, and to fulfil a social purpose by providing for economic needs. John Ruskin said:

“The first condition of education is being able to put someone to wholesome and meaningful work.”

Apprenticeships embody—indeed, they epitomise—that purpose. A trainee learns from a mentor a skill that has use in a workplace.

The value of apprenticeships is why, when I was shadow Minister for universities, further education and skills, and subsequently the Minister in 2010, I set about revitalising the apprenticeships system. I knew that apprenticeships were well understood by employers, were widely recognised by the public and could be attractive to trainees.

I will make a point on adult learning, provoked by the excellent contribution by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). It is vitally important to understand that in order to skill our workforce and provide it with the necessary competencies to meet the Government’s economic ambitions, we really do have to reskill existing workers as well as making practical and vocational education attractive to new entrants to the workplace. Simply as a matter of numbers, if we train more young people but do not retrain the existing workforce, we will never deliver the capacity needed to fill the skills gaps and deal with the skills shortages that, as has been said repeatedly, inhibit our ability to drive the economy forward.

The Bill is about the management and maintenance of standards of apprenticeships. I understood why that mattered so much, which is why I set about elevating the practical, the vocational and the technical. I believe that practical, vocational and technical learning is as important as academic accomplishment. It has been a myth perpetuated by the establishment—I am inclined to say “the liberal establishment,” but I do not want to damn the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, having praised him so nicely—that the only form of prowess that counts comes through academic learning. That myth has been so pervasive that a former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, set out the extraordinary, bizarre ambition that 50% of people should go to university.

The number of people who go to university should be about their tastes, talents, aptitudes and abilities. We should not set a target and then shoehorn people into a system in order to meet it; we should allow a system to reflect those aptitudes, tastes and talents. Many people’s abilities rightly lead them not to an academic education but to a practical one, yet we have underpowered and undervalued practical learning for so long in this country, and we continue to do so.

Deep at the heart of that fault has been the careers service. As hon. Members have mentioned, the careers advice and guidance that people have got has guided them—even when it did not suit them—into an academic route that has ill-served them. Even though it has landed them with immense debts, it has rendered them unable to get the job that would allow them to pay off those debts readily. So it is really important that we look again at that advice and guidance.

As I have mentioned, when I was the Minister I created a statutory duty on schools to offer independent advice and guidance, but I should have insisted that it was to be given face to face, with a careers adviser visiting a careers fair or holding personal interviews with students to set out the various options available. Unfortunately, teachers, who have typically been to university themselves, know that route well, and they are inclined to say to young people, “Why don’t you do what I did, and follow the route that I took?” They are often less well informed about the practical and vocational routes that would lead people to acquire the kinds of skills that, as we have all said, are vitally important.

I should, at the outset of my remarks, have referred Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I am associated with universities. Indeed, I ought also to say that my background is entirely academic. I studied at two universities, Nottingham and Cambridge, and I have taught in two as well, so I do not really have any practical skills myself, unlike my dear father, who could turn his hand to almost anything—there was nothing he could not do, practically. I have to send out for a man in the village if I want anything done. So my case is not born of any personal prejudice. Indeed, maybe it is born of a certain envy of those that can make and do things in the way that Ruskin described.

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will happily give way. The hon. Lady is now going to test me on my practical incompetence.

[Mrs Brackenridge]

I have a couple of points to make. Does the right hon. Member acknowledge the important role that universities play in supporting technical advanced education? Does he also agree that, under the stewardship of the last Government, we saw a decimation of specialist careers guidance in schools?

[Sir John Hayes]

Yes, of course I acknowledge that role. It is important to point out that many of the universities do great work. I would not want to disparage that work, and the hon. Lady is right to draw the House’s attention to it.

The point I was really making is that, sadly, many people are driven down a pathway that is just not right for them. That is because of the underestimation of the significance of practical accomplishment, both at an intellectual level—the unwillingness to recognise that practical accomplishment is of a high order—and at a practical level in terms of the advice that people are often given and may later regret. It is not easy for a young person to know quite what path to take, and if the advice they get skews them towards one route or another, it is fairly likely that they will be ill equipped to make a considered judgment. I am simply making the argument for, at the very least, a degree of equality about the advice we give to people.

This Bill is questionable in a number of respects, and in particular, as has been highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and others, in the way that it presents the future management and control of apprenticeships and the standards associated with them. It is right that employers play a key role in that process, but the Bill is silent on the role of employers.

I am not an unbridled admirer of the Institute for Apprenticeships. I did not create it. In my time as Minister, and indeed as shadow Minister, the standards were guaranteed by sector skills councils. I would have gone for a sector-based approach myself. Had I stayed in office, I would probably have developed that further and emulated the German approach by establishing guilds. I began to lay some of the foundations for that as Minister, and I would have gone for such an approach rather than where we ended up. Having said that, what is critical about either that kind of sectoral approach or the apprenticeship institute being abolished by the Bill is the role of employers in ensuring that what is taught and tested meets a real economic need. We cannot detach that economic need from the structure by which we guarantee the quality of apprenticeships.

So, there is the issue of quality, and again the Bill is unconvincing in that respect. My right hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that if quality is lowered, the numbers can be increased. Indeed, the Labour Government prior to 2010 introduced programme-led apprenticeships, which were taught entirely outside of the workplace. They were still called apprenticeships but were unrelated to any particular employer or sector. That is not the way forward, and any diminution of standards will further undermine the status of practical learning. I simply say to the Minister that if the Secretary of State is going to take back control—to borrow a popular phrase—it is vital that simultaneously we hear more during the passage of the legislation about how standards will be maintained, because at the moment we have few assurances to that effect.

I will say a word on numbers, partly to advertise my own effectiveness in government. When I became the Minister of State for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, I was able, due to the promotion of apprenticeships, to drive their number to the highest level in modern times. I became the Minister in 2010. By 2011/12, we achieved 521,000 apprenticeships. That has never been equalled since, and we are now down to about 340,000. To say a word about previous Labour Governments, I inherited 280,000 apprenticeships, and the average number of apprenticeship completions from 2000 to 2009-10 was less than 100,000 a year.

As we debate these matters going forward, it is vital that the Government commit to the apprenticeship as a key determiner of their skills policy. The number of apprenticeships and their quality will allow the Government to drive up skills levels and, therefore, to meet economic need.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has been listening attentively to my speech so far.

[Andrew Pakes]

I am worried that I might damn the right hon. Gentleman with faint praise because when he cited the numbers from when he was the Minister, one of the determinants of his success was the involvement of trade unions in the sector skills council and the partnership. While we have talked lots about employers, he was an advocate in his party of involving trade unions. Unfortunately, Ministers after him excluded trade unions from that involvement. Is he advocating that trade unions should be involved in the new system?

[Sir John Hayes]

I am immensely flattered that the hon. Gentleman has followed my career with such assiduity. He is right: I defended Unionlearn and would continue to do so. Trade unions can play a vital part in ensuring the outcomes that the Government say that they seek and that I certainly believe in. Indeed, I went on a delegation to Germany—this is a minor digression, Madam Deputy Speaker—to look at their apprenticeship system with employers and trade unions, because I know that the combination of trade unions and employers was critical to driving the skills agenda. Again, it would be useful to hear from the Government what they think about that. How will they engage with the trade unions? Because trade unions are not mentioned in the Bill at all, we are left to wonder what will happen, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said in his excellent speech, when the Secretary of State seizes control of apprenticeships from the current structure.

There are a number of other questions to be put. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) made a very good point about SMEs. One challenge when I was a Minister, and for subsequent Ministers and this Government, was in engaging more SMEs. I am not sure that we were successful in that. I launched a review of how we might do that; it was typically by making the system regulatory and trying to review some of the paperwork. Again, as the Bill moves forward, what more will we hear about how to engage more SMEs? If we say to someone in my constituency that there are really good engineering apprenticeships in Derby, which I am told is in the same part of the country—or in the same region at least, whatever that means—we might as well be saying that there are apprenticeships on Mars, because they will not be able to get to Derby to study. We really need the spread of apprenticeship accessibility, which SME involvement provides. It is the only way of creating the reach that is necessary to engage more young people and adult learners in acquiring those skills.

I have one or two further questions, with which I hope the Minister can deal. I have already spoken about employers. On the status of the new body, is it the Government’s intention, as the Secretary of State implied— but no more than that—for it to become a non-departmental body in the end, or will it always be an in-house body? Anyone who has been close to government will know the significance of those two options. It needs at the very least to be a non-departmental body if it is to have the necessary freedom and independence to respond to employer need and changing economic circumstances. The Secretary of State hinted that that might be the direction of travel, but we do need to know more when the Minister sums up.

[Luke Murphy]

Conservative Members are making quite the noise about IfATE’s independence, but I remind the House that this is a precedented move. The Conservative Government established the Standards and Testing Agency, which is currently the Executive agency and was formerly a non-departmental body. That is exactly the same status as IfATE, which performed very similar functions for many other kinds of qualifications and tests. Why was it okay for the right hon. Gentleman’s Government to do that in 2011? It seems that the Conservatives are more focused on the process point—a process similar to that undertaken by their Government—and not on the outcomes that will deliver for working-class kids interested in learning a trade.

[Sir John Hayes]

As I say, I am not an unbridled advocate of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, which the Bill abolishes. I did not set it up during my stewardship. As I have already described, I would have preferred a different, guild-based model. Guilds would, by their nature, have been independent from Government. If we look at the German model, the guilds are sovereign, and they are closely tied, by the way, to the trade unions of the particular sectors for which they are responsible. I am simply saying to the Government, “Here is the chance to do something better.” One learns from experience and one learns from government experience, to be honest and straightforward about that.

Certainly, there is the issue of standards. How will standards be determined and delivered? Will that be done by an independent body or a series of independent bodies, perhaps in different parts of the business community, or will it be done directly by the Department? What about the figures in the impact assessment, which says that there would be a reduction in the number of apprenticeships? We are already at a pretty pitifully low level. As I described earlier, the number of apprenticeship starts in 2023-34 stood at 340,000. We can do much better than that, but the Government have certainly suggested in their impact assessment that they expect that number to fall, at least in the interim. By how much do we expect it to fall—5%, 10%, or 25%? We really need to know a little more about that.

The Secretary of State spoke about, as the Labour manifesto detailed, work with the Migration Advisory Committee and others. Can we hear a little more about the detail of that? Certainly, it will be required before we vote on Third Reading, because it is inconceivable that the Government would not want to be more straightforward about how those structural links will work and what role those other bodies will play in helping the Government to deliver their objectives.

Practical accomplishment is something dear to my heart. William Morris—rarely quoted in this House except by me, which is a sad indictment of the modern Labour party—said:

“a man at work, making something which he feels will exist because he is working at it and wills it, is exercising the energies of his mind and soul as well as of his body.”

Morris understood what I know many, from their contributions to this debate, understand too: that it is time to again elevate the practical. This is, of course, about our ambitions for the economy, but it is also about the people who acquire those skills—the way their lives are changed because their life chances are changed.

I started by speaking about John Ruskin and his view of these things. Ruskin said:

“The highest reward for a person’s toil is not what they get for it, but what they become by it.”

Yes, this is about the economy, but it is also about the difference we make to individuals who, through gaining new skills, grow and develop and become proud of what they can do for themselves, their family, their community and their nation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)]

It is a pleasure to close the debate. I am grateful for the contributions of Members on both sides of the House; we have heard some excellent speeches. I welcome the points and questions that have been raised, and I will go through as many as time allows.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in her opening speech, skills are essential to our missions to drive economic growth and create opportunity. To achieve that, we need a skills system that is fit for the future. In every region, it should provide training options that lead to skilled work and give businesses the skilled workers whom they need in order to grow. I was pleased to hear from Members about the apprenticeships and vocational courses in their constituencies which have led to jobs, but most Members have also referred to significant challenges in our skills system.

Acute skills shortages are a particular issue in some areas. Skills supply does not match demand, and there is not enough business investment in skills. That, however, is what this Government inherited from the previous Conservative Government. We urgently need larger volumes of higher-quality training that meets employer needs, particularly in key sectors. For example, as we have already heard, there is an urgent need to build more homes, but a third of construction employers report finding suitable skilled staff a key challenge.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) mentioned levels 4 and 5 qualifications. In the UK, about 10% of adults hold them as their highest qualifications, as opposed to—shockingly—20% in Germany and 34% in Canada. We must, and this Government will, do better. Skills England, which has been delivering in shadow form since last year, is our new national body for meeting skills needs. It will simplify the skills system now and in the future, combining new functions with improvements in existing ones, within one dynamic body. In its first report, “Driving growth, widening opportunities”, Skills England highlighted the critical skills gaps that currently face the country. Across the UK, more than 2.5 million roles—almost one in 10—are in critical demand. The last Conservative Government seemed content with this, but putting it simply, this Government are not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) stated so well, this is about what the Bill will achieve for everyone: it is about growth.

Skills England’s initial assessment of the skills challenges in the economy, together with the “Invest 2035” Green Paper published last year and ahead of the forthcoming industrial strategy, set out how the in-demand occupations of today are also expected to grow in the future. As noted by the Secretary of State, these growth-driving sectors include the life sciences, clean energy, digital and technology, and creative industries. By addressing our skills needs, the UK has a real chance of being a world leader in these fields, but we must do this now: we must not delay. We must build a skills system that looks ahead, and we must anticipate for the future. As was put so eloquently by my hon. Friends the Members for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), Skills England will enable employers to fill our current skills gaps and the likely ones of the future. Excellently, they recognise the need to anticipate our future skills needs.

To respond directly to the points raised by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), users of apprenticeships, employers, providers and assessment organisations regularly complain about the time it takes to update standards and assessment plans. It will remain the default position that a group of people will prepare standards and assessment plans, but removing the requirement to use a group to prepare standards in every instance will speed up the process and reduce administrative burdens. In line with IfATE’s current processes, all new standards and those that have undergone significant revision following review will, prior to being approved, be published online to give interested parties an opportunity to comment. It will only be in the minority of cases where simple and straightforward changes are proposed that these will not be published online for comment prior to approval. However, there will still be mechanisms for users of the system to challenge where a standard or assessment plan is not working in practice and needs revising.

[Sir John Hayes]

I appreciate what the hon. Lady is saying about that, but will she in quick order set out how that will be directed either by the Secretary of State or by Skills England? We need to know not just the detail at the point of publication, but the structural needs in advance of that, so how will that be set out? Will it be set out in guidance—statutory guidance perhaps?

[Janet Daby]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right that these things need to be set out, and they will be set out. This Bill is about transferring the role of IfATE to the Secretary of State and enabling the delivery of Skills England.

Skills England will work with key partners, including employers, training providers, mayoral strategic authorities and unions to form a national picture of where skills gaps exist and how they can be addressed. It will ensure employers have the skills they need to drive economic growth while creating opportunities across the country and building a highly skilled workforce.

During this debate, I have heard Members question the need to close IfATE and establish Skills England. This Government have committed to delivering for the skills sector, and we are listening to the needs of employers. This can be seen in our reformed growth and skills offer, but we must go further to address the fragmentation of our skills system so that we can close the most persistent skills gaps. The Bill paves the way for the full establishment of Skills England by enabling the new body to take on and build out from IfATE’s work to shape apprenticeships and technical qualifications to meet the needs of employers and the economy as a whole.

The scale and urgency of the skills challenge that we face means we are setting Skills England up to have a broader strategic purpose than IfATE, including but stretching beyond the work previously undertaken by IfATE. Skills England will, for instance, provide an ongoing authoritative assessment of local, regional and national skills needs, which is absolutely needed. It will combine the best statistical data with insights from employers and other key stakeholders, and will use these insights to ensure the design of technical education and apprenticeships reflects the skill needs that have been identified, so that we can truly build a workforce fit for the future.

Labour markets and the skills required to increase productivity and economic growth vary considerably by region, and we have already heard from many Members about the different skills that are needed in their regions. Skills England will therefore also have a strong regional footprint, working closely with local skills systems so that they can tap into the comprehensive suite of training offers that it will build across the country. Skills England will also ensure that skills sit at the heart of joined-up decision making across Government. It will work closely with the Industrial Strategy Council, so that we have the skilled workforce needed to deliver a clear, long-term plan for the future economy, and with the Migration Advisory Committee, because growing the domestic skills pipeline will reduce our reliance on overseas workers.

While Skills England will have a broad and ambitious strategic agreement, it will not be able to deliver the scale of change that we need without its taking on IfATE’s important work, so the transfer of functions through the Bill is vital. The Bill does not, however, simply aim to transfer functions. It also includes a number of targeted changes intended to allow the system for designing and approving technical qualifications and apprenticeships to become more agile and responsive; we have been listening to employers, who have told us this is crucial if we are to work together to plug the skills gaps at the pace required. The Bill will provide greater flexibility when designing standards and apprenticeships plans and make processes easier to engage with, allowing experts to invest their time and expertise at the right point.

There is so much I would like to say in response to the many points that Members have made, and I apologise now for not being able to respond to the many excellent points and comments. However, there are a few very pivotal points that I do need to mention.

The Bill was amended in the House of Lords to delay its commencement by a year. It is disappointing that peers voted for a delay to the full establishment of Skills England, despite many Members of the other place supporting its aims. This Government are clear that employers need a fully functional Skills England now—as I have said, they cannot wait. The skills gaps in our economy are holding back growth and opportunity, and we need this Bill to give Skills England the key tools to tackle those gaps without delay. I cannot say that enough.

Skills England is in shadow form, and has already engaged widely, with more than 700 different partners representing thousands of individual organisations through roundtables, cross-section webinars and network events, including the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors, as well as a range of employers and representative bodies from priority sectors, including digital, life sciences, green, construction and healthcare, and we will continue to listen to the voices of experts to shape what we do.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Girls’ Education

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but also for the very fine work he does in leading his International Development Committee. We have always had a very good relationship and I very much hope that that will continue.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to be doing even more in promoting not just the UK but others to corral in finance into this area. I talked in the statement about the amount of money that was corralled in last year at UNGA. As I have said, girls’ education will be a key focus of the work we will do at this year’s General Assembly.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

G. K. Chesterton said:

“Education is simply the soul of society as it passes from one generation to the next.”

The work we do in this country will both be exported and inspire others worldwide. So will the Secretary of State look at girls studying STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—and particularly going into engineering in this country? The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and I worked on this when I was in government. It will inspire others. It will nourish our society, as we nurture the taste and talents of young women with a practical, vocational and technical bent.

[Mr Speaker]

Have it framed and put it up in the loo.