Further Education Estate (Further Investment)

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

On 8 September 2010, I informed the House that the Skills Funding Agency had written to 149 colleges notifying them that they will each receive a renewal grant of up to £225,000. There are also 21 who will receive an enhanced renewal grant taking their total grant up to £1 million. This will help enable colleges to modernise their facilities, giving them a much needed boost at a critical time.

On 8 September I also notified the House that the Skills Funding Agency was still working with a further five colleges to resolve affordability issues so that they can also benefit from the capital investment. I am pleased today to inform the House that these five colleges will all receive a £225,000 renewal grant.

One hundred and fifty-four colleges will now receive over £50 million in capital support this financial year, making a real difference to learners and communities.

The full list of the successful colleges are available on the following website:

http://skillsfundingagency.bis.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/

Oral Answers to Questions

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

The coalition agreement committed us to improving the quality of vocational education. Alongside Professor Alison Wolf’s review of such matters, we aim to open at least 12 university technical colleges offering high-quality vocational learning to 14 to 19-year-olds—schools that put vocational training at the core of their curriculum offer.

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank the Minister for that clear answer, which underlines the reason why he is so popular in the further education sector and elsewhere, and as regards providing apprenticeships—

[Neil Carmichael]

All right. What will be done to ensure that pupils are properly signposted towards and encouraged to take vocational training?

[Mr Hayes]

I think that my hon. Friend understated my popularity somewhat, but nevertheless he will know that we are entirely committed to ensuring that people get the right kind of advice about vocational options. Too often, people have lacked that advice and it is important that those with the aptitudes, tastes, talents and choices to take them down that road get proper advice and advice on progression, too.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that young people from poorer communities are often put into vocational GCSEs as an easy option, as a result of which academic subjects such as history are becoming the preserve of the elite? What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that “academic equivalence” GCSEs are not becoming the default option for poorer communities?

[Mr Hayes]

As a qualified history teacher, I share the hon. Gentleman’s passion for the teaching of history, but I think he underestimates and undervalues—as do so many from the bourgeois class that he personifies—the significance of technical skills, craft skills and practical skills. They matter too, and the Government know it.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

8. What percentage of schools have (a) applied for and (b) been granted academy status.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

Am I up? [Hon. Members: “More, more!”] I am intoxicated by the exuberance of the situation, one might say.

The Government are absolutely clear about their determination to deliver practical learning in the way that I have described, and—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman might be a tad confused—I hope not. We are on Question 8 from Mr James Gray.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

12. If he will reduce the volume of guidance and advice his Department issues to head teachers.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

You can’t keep a good man down.

The Government are committed to reducing the amount of guidance and advice issued to schools. Our intention is to streamline and reduce schools guidance so that it is provided only where there is evidence of demand from professionals. We want to free up head teachers so that they have more time to focus on the important task of raising standards in our schools.

[Mr Hollobone]

Head teachers in the Kettering constituency are absolutely fed up with the scale of guidance and advice that they receive from central Government. My hon. Friend has a deserved reputation as the enemy of red tape, so can he illustrate the scale and volume of the guidance and advice issued by the Department under the previous regime?

[Mr Hayes]

I can indeed. I have here the advice and guidance just on behaviour and attendance. It is roughly equivalent in length to the complete works of Shakespeare, which I also happen to have to hand. This Government are determined to reduce red tape and bureaucracy. We want teachers to be able to get on and teach, so that they do their best by our children.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

13. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of school achievement and attainment league tables in providing information on academic standards in schools; and if he will make a statement.

Investment in the Further Education Estate

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

On 24 May the Government announced that £50 million of re-prioritised Train to Gain funding would be invested in the further education infrastructure to support the development of new college facilities. On the 21 June, I informed the House that though the Government could not undo the previous mismanagement of the FE capital programme, they fully recognised the importance of ensuring that the teaching and learning facilities in our further education colleges be modern and fit for purpose.

That is why I made it clear that the Government would support those colleges who had not previously benefited significantly from public investment and so the £50 million would be targeted at those further education colleges that had received less than £5 million in total grant support since 2001 from the Learning and Skills Council.

I am pleased to inform Parliament that the Skills Funding Agency has today written to those colleges informing them that they will each receive up to a £225,000 renewal grant. The chief executive has informed 21 of these colleges that in addition to receiving a renewal grant they will also receive an additional enhanced renewal grant taking their total grant up to £1 million. This will help colleges modernise their facilities, giving them a much needed boost at a time when education could not be more important. Finally, the Skills Funding Agency is working with a further five colleges to resolve affordability issues so that they too can receive capital investment.

The Skills Funding Agency received 92 applications which were assessed in a robust and transparent process using three key criteria: the existing condition of the college estate and its facilities; proposed benefits to learners; and how the projects would contribute to the regeneration of their local communities.

This Government are committed to open and transparent decision making and accordingly the assessment exercise was scrutinised by representatives of the Association of Colleges who were satisfied that the selection process had been conducted properly and run smoothly.

All recipients of the enhanced renewal grant are expected to begin construction shortly with completion anticipated in September 2011, allowing learners to benefit from these new facilities in the 2011 academic year.

In addition I expect colleges to leverage additional private resources and I am pleased to inform the House that it is estimated that the £50 million allocated by the Government will produce a total investment in the further education estate of over £230 million. I am sure the House will agree that this investment will make a significant difference to learners across the country.



Please visit the Skills Funding Agency website (http://skillsfundingagency.bis.gov.uk) for a full list of successful colleges.

Academies Bill [Lords]

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker]

We discussed special schools and the number of special school places yesterday, but let me say this. I approve of the policy objective—which has been shared across the House for a number of years—that, when appropriate and given the proper safeguards in regard to such matters as parental choice, we should include as many young people as possible in mainstream education. It is clear that, if that objective is implemented, the number of special school places will fall. A more difficult question is whether we are all certain that, in every single case, a young person has been placed in mainstream education rather than being given the opportunity of going to a special school, and I think that the answer to that is probably no.

The hon. Lady is right to suggest that this raises questions about special schools and about inclusion. I think that the policy of inclusion is right, but that does not mean we should not ensure that the process by which it is decided where a child should be educated is a matter for discussion and agreement, involving the child’s parents, rather than diktat.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr John Hayes)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome. As he says, we go back a long way, and as he knows, I have a great deal of respect for him.

We will discuss inclusion when I have a chance to speak at greater length. As I know that, rightly, you will not allow me to do that now, Mr Caton, let me simply say that the statementing process is critical to all this. A statement must be clear about the detail of needs, because the specificity of its analysis bears a direct relationship to the extent to which we can quantify and deal with those needs. Historically the standard has not been good enough, but the Government will consider it carefully in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

[Vernon Coaker]

That is a fair comment, like the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) about the number of special schools, special school places and statements in process. All that needs to be kept under review.

The Minister should bear in mind—he may wish to discuss this when he winds up the debate—that new paragraph 8A and subparagraph (6) do not necessarily concern young people for whom a statement would be thought appropriate. They concern young people with low incidence special educational needs, which can involve a multiplicity of conditions and which will, I think, prove difficult to define. Certainly the criteria to be employed in the making of a judgment will be a matter for considerable debate. However, as I have said, I would rather have a debate about the meaning of the subsection than see it excluded from the Bill. It constitutes a good and brave step forward. However, as my amendment makes clear, it also raises questions about local authority co-ordination and funding.

[Mr Hayes]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. My own points are, first, that that should not be used as an excuse for not statementing children who would benefit from a statement for the reasons that I gave earlier, and secondly, that we should be as determined to help children with low incidence special educational needs as we are to help those facing more profound challenges. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, we need to be clear about the mechanisms that will be required, but I do not consider that to be incompatible with any of the provisions in the Bill.

[Vernon Coaker]

I do not disagree with the Minister, but I think we would all agree that statementing has not always taken place when it should have. It is always necessary to examine the process and see how it can be improved. Ultimately, irrespective of the severity of a child’s need, we must ensure that that need is met. For some that will require through statements, for some it will require special school education, and for some it will require inclusion in mainstream schools. The inclusion in mainstream education of as many young people as appropriate—which was supported by the last Government and the last Conservative Government and, I believe, by the present Government—is absolutely right, as long as it does not cause us to conclude that it must take place irrespective of the wishes of parents or the needs of the young people themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

I agree with my hon. Friend who re-emphasises my point. This is part of the tension within the Bill; independence is to be given to schools. Some may agree with that; we have difficulties with the haste with which it is being done. But what mechanism is there to ensure that local authorities provide for these young people in a way that gives them the support they need?

[Mr Hayes]

Following the Education Act 1993, we have had codes of practice for SEN whose provisions are important in ensuring good practice. In the halcyon days when I was shadow Schools Minister, I was able to debate those codes of practice and the Government listened to some of the Opposition’s arguments. That is one important aspect of protecting SEN students and their parents. But also if the Secretary of State were unhappy with the provision, he retains the powers to intervene.

[Vernon Coaker]

That is true, and it is stated in the Bill that where a local authority fails to secure satisfactory provision the Secretary of State may intervene and make “alternative arrangements”. The problem is what does “low incidence special educational needs or disabilities” mean? How will a local authority or a school—an academy or special school—know whether they are meeting the expectations of the Secretary of State without a definition of what that actually is? Without that, the response will just be subjective, with people saying, “That isn’t very good” or “That isn’t working,” which is clearly unacceptable.

The Minister might not be able to do this today, but it is extremely important that at some point—even late on Monday—something is read into the record that defines what that term means. Other Members may disagree, but it is my view that for that to be done otherwise through guidance or a letter will not be sufficient. The force of Parliament needs to be behind some definition and criteria for the term, over and above its mere mention in the Bill and, even with the best intentions, something in a code of practice. I cannot say how important that is to making this bit of the Bill work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

I totally agree, and the hon. Gentleman makes his point very well. However, I am unclear about the legislative mechanism that we will use to try to stop bad situations arising. I cannot be sure what it will be without there being something either in the Bill or, perhaps, in statutory guidance.

[Mr Hayes]

Such is the silky charm of the hon. Gentleman and the persuasiveness of his argument that even in these few minutes he has already extracted the following from me. He is right that that needs to be set out clearly on the record. He is absolutely right about the code of practice in respect of SEN reflecting the fact that we now have reference to low incidence special needs in the Bill, as he has acknowledged, and about the funding agreement that was put in place for an academy reflecting not only the obligations in the Education Act 1996 but that code of practice. I make that commitment today, and he can claim that in this useful debate he has encouraged me to that end—although it may be an end that would have been reached in any case in my discussions with my fellow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), who, of course, takes the lead in these matters. However, I would not want in any way to understate the hon. Gentleman’s contribution to that process.

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the Minister for that. Perhaps he could clarify in his winding up exactly what he meant. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I am not trying to be rude. Is he saying that an existing code of practice is to be amended? If he is saying that, I gently say, again, that that illustrates one of the problems with the Bill, because most of us would like to see what amendment he is proposing to the code of practice.

There is a huge debate—the Chair of the Select Committee mentioned this—about what the term means. Does it mean a rare condition? This debate is not only about low incidence SEN, because the Bill also refers to low incidence disabilities. All I am saying is that this is a difficult area.

[Mr Hayes]

I complimented the hon. Gentleman—it was not flattery—but I do not want him to get too insistent as a result. I will, however, give him the assurance that I will deal with this matter when I sum up and that we are absolutely clear that the code of practice is salient. I do not want to tease him too much, but he will know that when he was the Minister, and when his predecessors were Ministers, the codes of practice were always published separately and debated in this House separately—indeed he and I have both participated in such debates. Of course I will speak about this again when I sum up.

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the Minister for that. We will all wait to see what is said in the wind-up, because we are all motivated by a desire to see how we can make a brave amendment in the Lords a reality. We must not create something that is extremely difficult for ourselves. For too long, many of us, from across the country, have seen special educational needs not met, including those of people with profound difficulties. If we are making provision in respect of low incidence needs, we need to address how we ensure that we meet them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

I agree with that, and it goes to the heart of the debate. To be fair, that is the point that the Chair of the Education Committee made about where we draw the line. Where do we draw the line between a school innovating, and a school having the ability to use its budget to provide for children with SEN?

I know that this is not being suggested, but we would not want the Secretary of State to make thousands of individual decisions about the right mix of teachers and teaching assistants, the curriculum, and so on; that would be a matter for the individual school. However, my hon. Friend is quite right: alongside that consideration, where do we draw the line to ensure that there is money for the central provision of services—local authority provision—so that we can ensure that the support that is sometimes needed is available? That is a difficult balance. The point of this Committee is to try to test the Government’s thinking on where they draw the line, and on what the funding amounts are. At the moment, we have a ready reckoner, but nowhere in the impact assessment, or anywhere, do the Government lay out exactly what they think the cost will be.

[Mr Hayes]

It is absolutely right that the central provision that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) mentioned will continue, but the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) should not underestimate the capacity of academies to purchase that provision. He will know that that already occurs; I think that it happens in Walsall, for example. The peripatetic services that a school will require can be purchased, and I do not underestimate their calibre and their appeal to academies. I do not think that he does either, does he?

[Vernon Coaker]

I am not trying to make the point that there are not perfectly reasonable people in academies, or in schools that may become academies, who would be able to purchase services. I do not disagree on that, but it does not answer the questions. Where do we draw the line between what we provide individually for schools, so that they have the freedom to innovate and take forward their provision for SEN, and what should be centrally provided? What is the estimated cost of all that? Is it all funded, particularly given that the Government have now included low incidence special needs and low incidence disabilities? Where is the extra money for that, and how much will it cost? How will it be co-ordinated? What does it actually mean? What are the criteria? How does that relate to the statementing process? The problem for the Government is that that has not been thought through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass]

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but his view is not mine. I am opposing the Bill not for the sake of it because I am a Labour Member—I have learned over the years that it is not what makes me noble that matters, it is what actually works for children. If evidence were presented that convinced me that academies will deliver for SEN children or that free schools would make outcomes better for them, I would support them, but with my years of experience, I have serious concerns.

[Mr Hayes]

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady, who I can tell is both experienced in, and passionate about, this matter, but it is important that she sets out her views on what the existing academies have done. If she is so concerned about the effect of academies on SEN, does she feel that there has been a deleterious affect on the interests of SEN children as a result of the previous Government’s academy programme?

[Pat Glass]

If the Minister had been here—was it yesterday or the day before?—he would have known that I gave a very detailed speech on my concerns about academies. Children with SEN only very rarely gain admission to academies and there is concern about monitoring the progress of those who do, and a much higher proportion of SEN children are excluded from academies. That was an issue when we had only 200 academies, but if there is a much larger number, we will make the problem that much bigger. In addition, we would effectively exclude SEN children from the most high-achieving and outstanding schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The experiences of those of us who have worked in the education system might be very different from the experiences of those who have used it.

[Mr Hayes]

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady, as I am anxious to achieve an Hegelian synthesis between our positions. There are two things, really. The first is that the Government will be issuing a Green Paper to look at the whole issue of SEN. She is right that we need to consider it in the round—it is an issue that the Government take seriously—and that is what we will be doing. Secondly, with your indulgence, Mr Evans, let me say that the amendments to the Bill that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) has suggested would mean that academies would have an unqualified duty to admit pupils with SEN statements. I just wanted to place that on the record so that we can make progress.

[Pat Glass]

I will wind up now. I welcome the amendment that has been made. It does help and it will give confidence to parents and teachers working in the sector. However, I have real concerns about the lack of clarity. The people who will gain will be lawyers, and there is a lot more work for the SEN tribunal to do. Parents and local authorities will yet again be left without clarification, and in many cases they will be left to find their salvation in their own way. There are good local authorities and there are not so good local authorities, and it is the children in those authorities who I am concerned about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mike Hancock]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on the way in which he presented his maiden speech. He made an offer that a dozen or so Members may find hard to refuse. An offer of hospitality at his house for a weekend, just as the recess is starting, is one that think many Members should be persuaded to take him up on. He will be able to show them round his wonderful constituency. Let me also say how right he was to pay tribute to his predecessors. Making a maiden speech is never easy, and it is a pleasure to be the first to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) spared a few moments in his speech to remember David Maclean. Those of us who knew him here will have respected him not only as a parliamentarian, but as a man of enormous courage who bore the injustice of the illness that beset him with great fortitude and—I genuinely believe—real courage. I saw the way in which he battled with his illness over a number of years. I had very little in common with him, but I always admired the formidable way in which he coped with it, up until his very last days in the House. It was a great pleasure to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say about David Maclean, and he was right to remind the House of his commitment to his constituency.

It is not often that we feel humbled both by a Member’s commitment to the issue being discussed and by the amount of knowledge that the Member brings to the discussion. It was a pleasure to witness the forthright and passionate way in which the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) presented her case. I was opposed to the idea of the Bill’s being dealt with by a Committee of the whole House, but if ever there was a reason for such an arrangement, it was the hon. Lady’s speech today. If it had been made in a Public Bill Committee, it would have been lost to the wider world. That is a tribute to her, and perhaps to the system that has allowed a larger audience to appreciate the words that she uttered, and has allowed her to bring her experience of these matters to bear. We should be grateful.

Nevertheless, I have a niggling anxiety that the Bill has not received the scrutiny that it ought to have received. The debate that we have had, splendid though it has been, is unlikely to prove helpful, because some members of the coalition will see it as a formula for future legislation. I hope that that will not come about, and that this will prove to be the exception rather than the rule. I do not think that allowing the whole House to deal with legislation is helpful to Back Benchers in particular, or to the substance of the debate. The issue of special educational needs, for instance, is fundamentally important.

The Minister told us, courteously and properly, that he would make helpful statements that would address some of the issues in the amendment. Nevertheless, the amendment poses significant questions. If a Committee had considered it over a number of weeks, and a number of days in each of those weeks, it could have been dealt with properly before being returned to the House on Report, and could have been agreed to. We could have had a much better Bill. Like everyone else, I am delighted that the Bill has improved enormously.

I spent 10 of the happiest years of my working life working with young people with extraordinary personal difficulties—children and adults with extreme special needs, ranging from those who had been institutionalised for their whole lives—some had spent 50 or more years in an institution—to babies whose parents had recently been told of the problems that they faced and the lifetime of care and devotion they would have to show to someone with severe disabilities of one form or another. When I was doing that job, people used to ask me what I did. I said, “I bully for people who cannot bully for themselves.”

The one thing I learned at the beginning of my work with children, and with parents in particular, was that they expected so little from society. They did not ask for the earth or for things that could not be obtained. They simply asked for a fair share of resources when they were needed, whether that was in nursery, primary or secondary education, or in proper health care. Every single part of that was a struggle and continues to be. That goes back to the Education Act 1944 and to the formulation of the national health service. People with learning disabilities and those with mental health problems were neglected. They were ignored. They were put aside. They were institutionalised and forgotten. It has taken us 70 years to draw that system towards reality.

The hon. Member for North West Durham was right; the striking anomaly is that parents have not been mentioned. The parents need to be consulted and will need to be convinced. I used to try to convince parents of young people aged between 20 and 30 that they had to let those young people go. They had cosseted them with all their love and care but they had to let them go. Those parents were starting to realise that their children would outlive them and would need to experience some risks. Young people, particularly those with acute needs, must experience such situations at the youngest possible age. I want to be convinced by the Bill that free schools will accept their part of the obligation. I am not convinced by the way in which the Bill is formulated that it will give the certainty of care that people want.

I am disturbed by the fact that there seems to be some ambiguity about the interpretation of some of the words. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said that there was clarity in terms of subsection (8)(a), which addressed the issue. It does not. Who will challenge the provision? Who will have the right to say whether the proper provision is being provided? Who will step in? Where will the Secretary of State put suitable alternative arrangements if those arrangements do not exist because resources have been siphoned off elsewhere? Will he put new money in?

[Mr Hayes]

As usual, the hon. Gentleman is speaking with insight and I want to be clear with him. The Bill and the Government have no intention of diminishing the status of special educational needs or of the people who endure that, including the parents. There will be no relaxation of the statutory responsibilities in respect of admissions and statementing. Pupils with SEN statements must be monitored by local authorities; that is a statutory responsibility and there is no diminution of that. The hon. Gentleman is right; we must be determined to redistribute advantage in society, and we will.

[Mr Hancock]

I am delighted, and it was remiss of me not to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his ministerial position. I apologise to him. It is not often that an MP makes a point here and not only gets a Minister to put him right but also hears the Minister state for the record what the Government will do. That is to be welcomed. I only hope the eating is as good as the preparation seems to have been. I have some doubts about that, however, because I know from experience, from my lifetime of 40-odd years in local government and a working career that involved spending a lot of time addressing this subject, that promises have been made but so many of them have failed to be kept.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hancock]

I am grateful for that intervention, and for your patience, Mr Evans, in allowing two interventions on the jump, so to speak. The hon. Lady makes a valid point. She is honest enough to say that she has made mistakes. There have been some big mistakes—I have made some very bad judgments in cases that I have fought. I remember a particularly harrowing case that we did not win because of cost: one child’s care would have cost more than £120,000 a year, which is a formidable sum of money in any circumstances. Everyone agreed that the placement was right, but the local authority simply could not contemplate spending more than £1 million over 10 years on one child. As we walked out, I asked the parents what they wanted to do and the father said, “Well, Mike, it’s about time you and I decided to rob banks to get the money for these kids to have the care they really need.” No parent should have to think that the help their child needs will not be there. I wish Ministers all the very best, because I believe that they are well intentioned, but this is a big issue.

I shall come back to amendment 71 for the benefit of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who could become a bit difficult if he pulls that trick too often in Committee; he will not be very popular if he starts asking about the relevance of comments to amendments. The importance of amendment 71 is that it poses questions that are not answered in the Bill. People want the reassurance of having those measures in the Bill because this is about laws and the way they are interpreted. The amendment would make it clear that parents have a right to be properly consulted and would make clear where the various aspects addressed in the amendment would be delivered.

[Mr Hayes]

I know that my hon. Friend is reaching the exciting peroration to his speech and I do not want to interrupt the seminar that he and the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) are offering us, but it is important to point out that we take autism seriously and that academies do not prevent appropriate planned provision, including for autism. He might know that Haberdashers’ Aske’s Hatcham College academy has an autism unit that provides not only for pupils there but for those in the wider community. I want to give an absolute assurance that the Government take autism seriously and that they will look at it in the context of the Green Paper I have mentioned.

[Mr Hancock]

I never doubted for a minute the Minister’s sincerity or his commitment to it. What I do doubt is the ability of any Government to deliver properly the provisions we want, and I do not want to be seen to be supporting something that I think falls short of what all the parents we have been talking about expect from us. They want to see clarity of thought, a clear direction of travel and a means by which academies and free schools can provide this education without detriment to other schools in their area or to other young people with similar difficulties. That is why amendment 71 should be pursued. I hope that it is not withdrawn; I hope that it is voted on and that the House gives it a fair wind, because it would substantially help the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pauline Latham]

Very memorable, yes. From time to time, he would entertain his school in assembly by taking up his guitar and singing some of the songs for which he used to be so famous. I suggest that my hon. Friend visit him. As that was one of the first grant-maintained schools to go, I am sure that it will become an academy school as soon as possible. However, it is in a poor area. My hon. Friend has not just got nice leafy areas in his constituency; it is quite a mixed area, so I wish him well.

There are to be guidance notes on SEN when the Bill becomes an Act. I have a few questions about SEN, because there are many children in schools who have not just SEN but health needs. I cannot see anywhere where that has been addressed; I guess that it will come in the guidance notes. I urge the Minister to clarify what legislation there will be that impacts on the health funding that currently supports special needs children, and how that funding will continue in academies. It is very important that health needs are met, particularly in residential special schools, because it is expensive to educate children in that way, and the health authorities have an obligation to fund the meeting of some of the needs. I am not quite sure how that dovetails with the funding for schools from the local education authority.

[Mr Hayes]

I will deal with that matter when I sum up—some time in the distant future, no doubt—but to be clear, the hon. Lady’s point is profound, because not only does it apply to children who have special needs from birth, but it deals with the important issue of acquired special needs. It emphasises the fact that special needs are dynamic, because the conditions that children and young people face are themselves dynamic. We will certainly consider those matters. I will say a little more on the subject when I sum up.

[Pauline Latham]

I thank the Minister for that assurance. I am sure that many parents will be interested to hear what he said, because the issue is important to them. There is also the issue of funding of residential special school places. I mentioned that there are residential schools that cost an enormous amount of money. Some of that money comes from health funding, and that is an issue that he will deal with, but I would like to know—again, this will probably be in the guidance—how we will fund residential special schools. There are quite small schools that are very important for the children who go to them, who often have complex special needs that it is difficult to meet in anything other than a residential school.

[Mr Hayes]

So that I do not have to say too much when I sum up, perhaps I ought to make it plain that the law is clear that when a child is statemented, and their needs are specified, there is a duty to ensure that those needs are met. That might include provision outside the local authority area. Indeed, I spent a great deal of time in the 1980s, when I was a councillor in Nottinghamshire, fighting for parents, families and children who wanted their needs met outside the county. That does not change as a result of this legislation.

[Pauline Latham]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance, as I am sure parents have concerns about security of funding for schools that wish to become academies. If one has a child in such a school, and one wants continuity, it is extremely difficult when there is any sort of worry about whether funding will continue.

I should also like to ask my right hon. Friend—

[Mr Hayes]

Hon. Friend.

[Mr Evennett]

It is only a matter of time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stuart]

There is always an opportunity cost and people always have to make judgment calls. We need to know who makes those calls, what the pressures on them and their incentives are, and their accountability. It all comes down to that, and understanding what the accountability mechanisms will be if there is a much-increased number of free academies.

[Mr Hayes]

Rather than waiting till I sum up, may I deal with that point head-on now? My hon. Friend, as Chair of the Education Committee, clearly has an entitlement to ask such penetrating questions—indeed, we expect him to do so—so let me be clear. The Secretary of State would decide whether appropriate provision had been made. If not, he would either direct the local authority to make it, or in exceptional circumstances, ask an alternative body to do so. The funding for such provision in the latter case would come in the first instance from the Department for Education, which would then consider how to ensure that funding in the longer term prevails. That is an absolute assurance that the Government take my hon. Friend’s point seriously: those powers rest with the Secretary of State.

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I assume that in reality, the “Secretary of State” means the Young People’s Learning Agency. My understanding is that the systems, embryonic as they are, are probably not as good as they ought to be, and I assume that YPLA officers representing the Secretary of State will do that work. I understand and accept the Minister’s reassurance, and I think the Bill has been improved, but I am trying to work out how the pressures and incentives will work to ensure that the school admits fairly and looks after SEN children in the appropriate way when the decision gets all the way down to the school, the parent and the local authority officer, who is quite a long way away from the YPLA officer. I am struggling to imagine what will happen at that level and to think that all the way through.

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend underestimates himself: I have a very high regard for his imagination.

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful for the Minister’s compliment, which was not flattery—if I had said that it was, he would have corrected me.

One of the issues in this Bill, which the amendment seeks to draw out, is the system-wide implications of a growing number of schools—including free schools and existing schools—becoming independent and taking away money currently spent on their behalf by the local authority. Those of us of a supply-side revolution, 1980s, turning the sick man of Europe around disposition naturally think that things will regrow and they can be better directed by people closer to the front line. However, we need an explanation, because schools are not businesses and we need to understand how it will work.

I wish to chide the Minister gently, although he may not have been responsible, because the place that one would naturally look for that explanation—it may be a by-product of the last Government’s approach—is the equalities impact assessment. At the risk of upsetting my right hon. and hon. Friends, I would criticise the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)—I will pronounce his constituency correctly—because in many ways he has been too gentle about the equalities impact assessment in the last couple of days. I think it is less adequate than he has made it out to be.

The equalities impact assessment is rather thin. It provides fair information, but it tries to put the best gloss on that information. Given that this is an important document to accompany a flagship Bill, I would not expect paragraph 22 to be repeated, in its entirety, as paragraph 24. I would not expect paragraph 23, which is quite long, to be split and repeated in its entirety as paragraphs 25 and 26. It would suggest that someone has not even bothered to read this so-called important equalities impact assessment. At the end, I was waiting for an assessment of the system-wide impact and the long-term and profound implication of having lots of free schools. But when I got there I found paragraph 31, which states:

“We believe that the Academies programme is already working towards promoting inclusion and equality to the benefit of all pupils in the programme. An adverse impact is unlikely”.

Well, thank you very much. That is not an adequate explanation of the possible system-wide impacts of this Bill.

I know that we will have a master class and a tour de force explanation from the Minister on the system-wide impact and why the Bill will work, but the impact assessment is inadequate. I meant to be gentler about this than I have been—I have a tendency to overstatement —and I apologise to the Minister. But I wish that the impact assessment had been a better document and included more recognition of the potential system-wide impacts, especially on marginal areas—if I may call them that—such as SEN.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I hesitate to say that I agree absolutely, but I have great sympathy with the hon. Lady’s argument, because the local education authority will have all the educational psychologists and other areas of expertise that are required in these processes. I would question whether the alternative provision exists; indeed, I would go further than that. Everyone who has done a SENDIST case, running it through the myriad reports, will know the tremendous difficulty that exists in obtaining the right level of reports and presentation to push the thing forward. I would suggest that if people have to go to the Secretary of State, things will take much longer and be much more complicated. I return to the point that this is not me rebelling; I am just saying that the assertions of the founder of all these kinds of reforms—Lord Baker of Dorking—was clear at the outset of this process that we should keep it very simple and put the matter to the LEA, because it will be best capable of dealing with it.

I accept what the Minister said when clarifying the point approximately 15 minutes ago. He said that there is always a duty to ensure that the needs are met. That is entirely true, but anybody who does SENDIST work will know that there is a parallel duty to perform with the financial resources available. The complication is that there are genuine concerns that the financial resources will not necessarily be available in the processes that are being proposed. That particularly applies where there are special educational needs in more rural areas such as mine, where we have 1,200 square miles to cover, catchment areas the size of the M25 and an ability to provide for those needs, along with the necessary rural transport. However, I have not heard sufficient clarification that those rural transport needs will be accommodated as part of the Bill.

Briefly, let me finish by saying that I do not support the amendment, but I hope that we will receive a great deal of further explanation.

[Mr Hayes]

We have had a long and interesting debate on this subject, have we not, Mr Evans? It has been a good-natured debate too, with high-quality contributions by hon. Members from across the Committee, who have drawn on their extensive experience and expertise. I defer to those hon. Members who have that professional expertise—expertise that they have been able to articulate today in a way that has shown the House and this Committee at its best, as was made clear in his generous contribution by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who I can confirm is a stallion, by the way. [Hon. Members: “How do you know?”] Because I have known him for a very long time, and I know that his reputation precedes him.

On the subject of my friends on the Opposition Benches, I count the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) as a friend, and I have not yet had the chance to congratulate his daughter, Hattie, on her eighth birthday yesterday. I shall do so now, because I want to get it into Hansard. In addition, I want to mention that he has a number of other children and I hope that they enjoy “Toy Story 3” when they go to see it on Sunday. Moving on! Time is short.

The amendment would have the effect that, before making any payments under an academy agreement, the Secretary of State would have to assess the impact on local authority-funded SEN services of a new academy or an academy conversion before deciding funding levels for such academies. I had thought that I would have to speak for longer on this subject in order to cover it in considerable detail. I have before me the Balfour Act and the Education Act 1944, along with every other significant education Act at my disposal. It is a sad fact that I will not be able to draw on them, but in the few remarks that I will make, I shall try to answer the salient questions posed by hon. Members.

The hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) said that there was no definition of special educational needs. They are, however, defined in some detail in section 312 of the Education Act 1996. I will not go into those details now, but the Bill will not change them at all; that definition will remain in place and it is important.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) spoke about autism, and—I say this from the heart—gave a rather moving account of his experience of parents dealing with the challenges of special educational needs. Academies will be under the same obligations as other schools in respect of special educational needs. As I said to him earlier, academies are already providing evidence that they are looking at these matters with appropriate diligence. The Haberdashers’ Aske’s Hatcham College academy has an autism unit, for example, of which other schools are taking advantage. However, I heard what the hon. Gentleman said today, and we will ensure in our study of special educational needs in the Green Paper that autism receives the particular attention it deserves. I have worked closely with the Lincolnshire Autistic Society, and I know of the good work done by that society and others. The hon. Gentleman has done a service to the House by raising that matter today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) asked two specific questions. Yes, although we intend to convert special schools into academies, we understand that that will need to be done on a considered and measured basis. We need to do work on the issue of funding in particular, and we will do so before the conversions take place. She also asked about the role of the health service in respect of children and young people with SEN. Primary care trusts contribute to the costs of individual placements as well as supporting pupils. Their responsibility is to the whole population, however, so that funding should be unaffected. The costs of non-maintained special schools remain with the local authority, and none of that budget will be transferred to the academies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Select Committee, asked a number of questions. I have dealt with the question of the Secretary of State’s responsibilities. I can confirm that, as he suggested, the YPLA will be instrumental in ensuring that those responsibilities are carried out. A number of hon. Members asked how a parent could complain if an academy did not meet a child’s special educational needs. That was a theme that emerged implicitly throughout the debate.

Let me make it clear. An academy must have a clear complaints process, and a parent who wished to complain would have to be dealt with in line with that process. If that complaint were not satisfied, the YPLA would enforce the obligations in the funding agreement. If that does not prove satisfactory, a complaint about the YPLA can be directed to the Secretary of State, who will enforce those obligations in the courts if necessary.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) made a number of points about parents who, he said, would not have the wherewithal required. He said that these things were all very well in theory. I spoke earlier about redistributing advantage in society. I am very conscious of the need for us to get the statementing process right, given how often it disadvantages parents in that position.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), the Minister of State, Department for Education—with whom I have worked hand in glove in the House for many years—will be looking closely at the whole issue of statementing. We understand some of the concern that has been expressed. It is crucial for parents of the kind described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham to be dealt with appropriately, fairly and reasonably, rather than being bemused and bewildered by a process that is bureaucratic and insensitive to their circumstances.

The amendment raises issues similar to those that were raised in another place. As Members have pointed out, the main issue is the fear that an increasing number of academy conversions will render local education authorities unable to maintain the level of centrally funded services that they currently offer. That fear is not without grounds, and I entirely agree that we must consider it. I am also convinced, however, that we will have time in which to do so. The number of schools that will convert in September will not be large enough to have a significant impact on local authority services.

I see the hon. Member for Gedling egging me on, stallion-like, but I have a number of other things to say which I hope will satisfy him.

Of course some local authorities already have a majority of secondary schools as academies. Those academies were approved by the last Government, who funded academies in the same way as the current Government intend to fund them. However, we also intend to review funding from 2011 onwards. We will be working closely with local authorities and other partners, and I can confirm that we will give specific consideration to the funding of SEN services. That consideration will be in addition to the Green Paper that I mentioned earlier. The work will take place over the autumn, and as my noble Friend Lord Hill, the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, said yesterday, we have instructed officials to ensure that the Special Educational Consortium is involved in the work.

We are committed to ensuring that children with special needs in both the maintained and the academy sectors receive the services that they require and, indeed, deserve. My commitment to children with special educational needs stretches a long way back. As a member of the Government, I will do nothing that would act to their detriment, and we as a Government will do nothing in respect of the academies programme that would disadvantage them or the people who care for them in any way. I am pleased to be able to put that on the record.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I am sure that the whole Committee will welcome the Minister’s assurance, but he also mentioned a review of funding in 2011. Can he tell us what impact that might have on the commitment in the Bill that the funding agreement will last for at least seven years? How will the two interact?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind what I said a moment ago. We would not expect special schools to be in the first tranche of academies, and we will review the funding before those schools become academies. That is entirely consistent with the Bill. We hope that when the schools have become academies the arrangements will be in place, and the seven-year period will kick in after that.

We have also set up an advisory group to help us to work through, in particular, issues relating to SEN and special schools. It is because we want to use the practical expertise in the sector that the group includes heads and governors from special schools—including the non-maintained sector—and mainstream schools with specialist units, as well as local authority representation at officer and political level. As Lord Hill said in another place, the Government undertake to monitor the impact of the increasing number of academies on local authority SEN services and will continue to work with local authorities to ensure that adjustments to their funding with respect to the academies properly reflect their changing responsibilities. Make no mistake: local authorities will continue to have key responsibilities in respect of SEN, including their responsibility to statement children. We intend to ensure that that is properly funded.

Skills for Sustainable Growth

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr John Hayes)]

Balanced and sustainable economic growth can only be driven by business and enterprise. Business in the UK cannot prosper while the risk of a debt crisis hangs over the economy. This Government have therefore put decisive action on the fiscal deficit at the centre of their agenda. Equally though, it is vital we recognise strong and continuing growth as a key route to getting this country back on track, including reducing our debts. Skills and training are a central component of this, contributing to employment, productivity and economic growth.



Today I am publishing “Skills for Sustainable Growth”—a consultation document which sets out our emerging vision for skills and explores some key areas where we would like to seek further views. This is complemented by a technical consultation document which seeks views on a simplified funding system.

I am inviting employers, individuals, colleges and training organisations to share their ideas on how they would like skills policy to be set out in future.

We will publish a full strategy for skills after the spending review in October, informed by these views, which will set out in more detail how we intend to support our learning and skills priorities.

We have developed some key principles to guide our work as we develop our strategy for skills in England. These principles are designed to underpin a strategy that will:

Provide a respected, credible vocational training offer that will provide people with a route into employment, help them progress in their careers or support them in starting their own business.

Tackle the needs of those who have poor work prospects or a high chance of spending long periods out of work.

Give learners and employers access to high quality, impartial information so they will be able to choose the learning that best suits their needs.

Realise the best returns on both Government investment and the increasing amount of learner and employer investment in the skills system.

Give greater freedom to colleges and training organisations to respond flexibly to employer and learner demand.

Empower communities to develop the informal life-long learning opportunities in which they want to participate.

Recognise that in the current fiscal environment, it is even more important that public funding is used where it is most needed and where it gives most value.

The spending review will provide an opportunity to transform the skills system so that informed and empowered learners are placed at the heart of provision. We want to ensure that our strategy for skills supports economic growth, encourages progression and promotes learning for wider cultural and community benefit.

Information on how to respond to the consultation document is available on the BIS website and copies of “Skills for Sustainable Growth” have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

National Apprenticeship Scheme

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr John Hayes)]

Thank you very much, Mr Caton, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. It is a pleasure, too, to participate in the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who cares about such matters deeply. I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who is not in his normal territory but standing in for the shadow apprenticeships Minister, who cannot be here. I know how keen the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) says he is to debate apprenticeships and I hope that he will find the time to do so with me in due course.

The debate is timely. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester spoke at some length about why he, like me and the Government, is so committed to the apprenticeship programme. In his maiden speech on 9 June, he treated the House to a striking description of his constituency past and present, as well as announcing his intention to convene an all-party group on urban regeneration. Many of the issues that he and other hon. Members raised this morning spring logically from such commitment, because they are closely connected with the economic future of all our constituencies.

Like many other places up and down the country, Gloucester remains a city whose prospects depend in large measure on the skill of its people and the success of its businesses, in particular the small and medium-sized enterprises. I shall speak a little about the challenge made by the hon. Member for Wrexham in a minute. Before I do so, however, I will answer one other point made by him. I shall also try to respond to all the points made, although they are numerous. If I cannot do so, I will happily engage with hon. Members one to one and take up the matters not covered today.

The shadow Minister mentioned the White Paper and a strategy for skills. The Government are absolutely determined to build on the best of what the previous Government did. No Government are all bad or all good; they each have good policies, people and ideas. We will take the best of those ideas and build them into our strategy. I look forward to putting that strategy together over the coming months, on a highly consultative basis, but of course it will be coloured by the comprehensive spending review. The hon. Gentleman knows that Ministers are in discussion with the Treasury about spending constraints. The Government are determined that we should spend only what we earn as a nation, but he can be assured, as can this Chamber, that in that context I will make a vigorous case not only for skills in general but for apprenticeships in particular. Our strategy will have apprenticeships at its heart, so I am not by any means ignoring the important principles laid out in the previous Government’s strategy; we will absorb the best of them into a plan for the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and others who have spoken understand, as I do, that apprenticeships must play a vital part in securing our economic future. In the latest year for which figures are available, more than 500 people started an apprenticeship in the city of Gloucester, in sectors as diverse as health and social care, retail and hospitality, catering, hairdressing, construction and engineering. I expect the National Apprenticeship Service and its local partners to increase still further the number and range of apprenticeships in my hon. Friend’s city.

The belief that apprenticeships can play a major role in building the future of Gloucester and our nation as a whole is not founded on transient political fashion or a preoccupation with the zeitgeist, but on the evidence of centuries. To paraphrase Chesterton, education is simply the soul of a nation as it passes from one generation to another, and apprenticeships are indeed time honoured, as hon. Members have described this morning.

I take the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester and for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and others that the aesthetic of apprenticeships is critical. I have already made that point to my departmental officials. I am determined to ensure that the role of practical learning is elevated, in terms of its “prestige”—the word used by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow—and we will look closely at the issue of local apprenticeship days.

We already have annual apprenticeship awards. I was at the ceremony last week and spoke with some eloquence—

[Ian Lucas]

Even though the hon. Gentleman says so himself.

[Mr Hayes]

Even though I say so myself. I was greeted with warmth and appreciation, because of the commitment that the coalition, of which I am a humble member, has made to skills and to apprenticeships in particular.

The important thing to emphasise when considering that aesthetic is that apprenticeships involve not only the crafts we think of when considering the craftsmen who built the great cathedral church of St Peter and the Holy and Undivided Trinity, but those in the modern economy. Growth industries mentioned by various hon. Members include the green economy, the IT industry and high-tech engineering. The whole range of advanced apprenticeships in advanced subjects in the modern economy will do so much to fuel our nation’s recovery and future prosperity.

I have already had meetings with sector skills councils about such high-tech, high-growth areas, and with individual employers, missioning them to develop new apprenticeship frameworks and to make the best of existing ones. In that way, we will make apprenticeships, as described by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), relevant to businesses and current economic need, and exciting and seductive from the perspective of learners. That those sectors matter is absolutely right, as the hon. Member for Wrexham said. We will focus on those high-growth sectors because that is what we must do to feed national economic growth. We see our skills strategy as very much tied to our growth strategy. My Department, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, is after all the Department for growth.

Let me pick up some of the other points made by hon. Members this morning. There has been a welcome for the Government’s conviction of the value of apprenticeships and the view that they should be an indispensable component of any effective and responsible further education system. There has also been an appreciation of the fact that we have put our money where our mouth is, and I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Wrexham said in that regard. One of the first things we did in government was transfer £150 million from Train to Gain to the apprenticeship budget. We did that because we know what competencies apprenticeships deliver, how long they take, how much they cost, and that they are valued by employers and supported by learners. Nevertheless, there are important questions to ask about them.

Our plan involves transferring resources from Train to Gain to the apprenticeship programme. That is a challenge for providers, which they have discussed with me and are willing to take up with relish. None the less, it is a challenge. It is important that the apprenticeships that evolve from that are meaningful and are the right product for employers, and it is absolutely right that employers buy into them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) said that such things cannot be managed from the top down but have to be built from the bottom up. We need to look at some of the supply-side reforms mentioned by various hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), and how small businesses in particular are disincentivised from taking on apprentices.

We must ensure that the framework matches current economic need. The economy is dynamic. Perhaps, Mr Caton, I might be allowed, at a tangent, to give a short lecture in economics, as I believe that it will be relevant to the debate. As economies advance, they not only require greater skills but also become more dynamic. Skills needs become more dynamic, too, so it is critical that the skills system is as responsive and flexible as possible.

The best way to deal with that kind of economic change is to ensure that money and competence are devolved to the sharp end—to businesses and those who serve them in terms of training. That is why we are so determined to free up provision and to give further education colleges and independent training providers more flexibility and freedom to respond to employer need. Apprenticeships are at the heart of that, and I have had discussions with the FE sector, which welcomes the changes that I have recently introduced to free up colleges, and with independent training providers, who relish the opportunity in a more freed-up market to be more responsive to an increasingly dynamic economy. But let me move on from that short tributary on the subject of macro-economics that we have travelled up together back to the questions that have been put properly by hon. Members in the course of the few minutes that we have had to discuss apprenticeships.

It is important that we are absolutely certain about where apprenticeships are to be delivered and how. The hon. Member for Wrexham knows very well that we are talking about an average when we talk about £50,000. Some apprenticeship frameworks cost much more than others. An apprenticeship in hair and beauty, for example, will cost the Government less than an apprenticeship in aeronautical engineering, so we are discussing an average. In the end, such things must be demand-led. I cannot dictate exactly how many apprenticeships there will be in a particular sector at a particular time. The dynamism that I described earlier will dictate exact requirements for skills in particular parts of the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said that the programme is too target-driven. I have done some research on the basis of earlier discussions that he and I have had on the subject. I know that he is extremely concerned that there should be flexibility for the National Apprenticeship Service to respond to changing local demand. I assure him that we will not be rigid about setting unalterable targets, and in a meeting that I had earlier today, just after my extremely luxurious breakfast in the Tea Room upstairs, I asked officials to look at those issues.

The truth of the matter is that the success of our plan will depend on our motivating—indeed, galvanising—businesses, and I will look at how we can help small and medium-sized enterprises. There is an argument for giving them particular support, both on supply-side reform and through a series of incentives. We spoke in opposition about an apprenticeship bonus to support SMEs in that way, but hon. Members will understand that we live in difficult economic times. We have inherited circumstances that no incoming Government would have wanted, and we have to see how we can deliver more for less. Nevertheless, I remain committed to the idea that, in particular sectors and for particular kinds of business, we need to have carefully tailored policies that help to make our ambitions for apprenticeships a reality. We must walk the walk and not just talk the talk, although I am immensely grateful for the complimentary comments of the hon. Member for Wrexham about my rhetoric.

I do not want to be too hard on the previous Government and, particularly as the hon. Gentleman is performing outside his natural brief—he is a full back performing as a striker today—I do not want to be too hard on him, either. Nevertheless, it has to be said that the culture of aspiration that apprenticeships should embody—the culture that they feed aspiration and satisfy economic need, which unites people across this House—was previously, unfortunately, swallowed up by a series of meaningless targets and inflated figures. The previous Government forgot Einstein’s dictum:

“Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count”,

And we had the curious business of confusion between level 2 and 3 qualifications. The hon. Gentleman asked me particularly about that.

Let me be clear: it is vital that we identify levels in a meaningful way. I am looking at building a progressive ladder of training, beginning with re-engagement for those who are outside the work force altogether—that might involve small, bite-size, modular chunks of learning as described by various hon. Members—running through to level 2. Of course, much level 2 training is useful and purposeful, but we would move to full apprenticeships at level 3. The idea that we are exploring is for foundation apprenticeships at level 2, full apprenticeships at level 3, and advanced apprenticeships at levels 4 and 5. We are working on and consulting on that kind of clarity, which I feel the previous Government did not deliver.

In addition, we need to look at the costs of what we deliver through the apprenticeship programme and the effects of how it is delivered. In these times in particular, we need to look closely at whether more money can be delivered directly to employers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge suggested, whether we can be less bureaucratic about how we manage the apprenticeship programme, and whether that too can be made more cost-effective.

Yes, we are committed to the idea of apprenticeships as a route into further learning, whether that further learning is at levels 4 and 5 in a college or in an institution of higher education. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science and I have worked together, hand in glove, for many years on these matters and share a view that the division between FE and HE should be more permeable, that the university sector can play an important part in assisting us with the elevation of practical learning, and that we do not need to see this as an either/or, as it is sometimes seen. He is the personification of how one can be both a practical achiever and an academic.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I will, but then I must move to my exciting peroration.

[Esther McVey]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we will increase the status of apprenticeships by introducing the apprenticeship rate tied in with the minimum wage from October 2010?

[Mr Hayes]

That is a complex question which I would rather deal with offline, but my hon. Friend is right to say that we need to look at the rewards for businesses and the rules for individuals. People who do apprenticeships accept that they will not earn money while they are doing so at the rate that they might have if they were not training. However, the evidence from cost-benefit analyses carried out in 2007, as she will know, is that a person with an advanced apprenticeship is likely to earn £105,000 more over their working life than someone with a lower qualification. There is a sense that people get trained because they know that they will do better later.

I shall now move to my conclusion. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester for drawing these matters to the attention of the House. As a distinguished historian, he will know that there was another Richard Graham, also a Tory, who was elected successively to represent Cockermouth and then Cumberland. He rose to become Lord President of the Council but, unfortunately, fell when he became involved in Jacobite plots. I hope that my hon. Friend does not fall, and that he continues to advocate the case for apprenticeships. He will certainly have my support. His position is in line with the Government’s policy, as I can assure him and others in this Chamber—

[Martin Caton (in the Chair)]

Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

5. What the eligibility criteria will be for further education colleges for funding from the recently announced renewal and enhanced renewal grant schemes.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr John Hayes)]

The additional investment in further education college infrastructure that we announced on 24 May will be used to support further education institutions to develop the best facilities possible and will be prioritised to support colleges that have yet to benefit significantly from the college building programme. As I announced on 21 June, the Skills Funding Agency has identified institutions that are eligible to apply for the additional funding and has issued guidance to those colleges on how they can apply for funding from both the renewal and enhanced renewal grants.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I warmly welcome the introduction of the funding, which will help colleges affected by the previous Government’s moratorium on Learning and Skills Council funding. However, independent specialist colleges, such as the National Star college in my constituency, which train some of the most affected disabled people in the country, were transferred before the election from my hon. Friend’s Department to the Department for Education. Such colleges look set, therefore, to lose out on the opportunity to apply for capital funding for the second time in a row. Is there anything my hon. Friend can do to deal with that unfair situation?

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend has been a champion of National Star college, which does outstanding work for the learners he describes. I share his concerns. He is right about the transfer of responsibility. Nevertheless, because of the overtures and the strong case made by others, and my own commitment to learners with those difficulties, I have today initiated discussions with the Department for Education to see how we can move with coherence to a position where all colleges benefit in the way my hon. Friend describes.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

In fact, is the scheme not typical of the way the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has been rolled over by the Treasury since the election? Can the Minister confirm that we invested more than £2 billion in our FE colleges and that the £50 million fund has been pilfered from his skills revenue budget and, therefore, represents a cut in future years, not an investment? He will want to be straight with the House about that after yesterday’s debacle.

[Mr Hayes]

Speaking of debacles, FE capital funding under the hon. Gentleman’s Administration was indeed a debacle, obliging Sir Andrew Foster to conclude that it was due to mismanagement. The hon. Gentleman knows that the FE capital that we have announced is in addition to the spend we will make in 2010-11 on capital in FE. It is time FE was given a new future, and it will be under this Government.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

6. What plans he has to ensure the financial viability of the Post Office network.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

10. How many further education colleges will receive capital funding from his Department in 2010-11.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr John Hayes)]

One hundred and sixty colleges, including 28 sixth-form colleges, will receive further education capital support totalling £407 million in 2010. In addition, a further £50 million will be invested to support those colleges that have yet to benefit significantly from the capital programme. We expect that extra resource to increase significantly the number of colleges that receive capital grant support, with potentially 293 colleges receiving capital support in 2010-11.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will funding be available for Hadlow college’s plans for Betteshanger business park, near Deal? The business park was created by the regional development agency, £18 million was spent, and it has been left empty. It would be great to bring it into use.

[Mr Hayes]

It is essential that my hon. Friend and the House understand that that resource is on top of the existing investment programme, which is supporting a large number of current projects. That resource will enable real investment, bringing genuine benefits to learners and enabling colleges to plan for the future. I do not want to be unkind to Opposition Members, but it is important to recognise the disappointment that colleges felt under the previous Government. The Foster report said that that was due to inadequate management information, poor monitoring, a poor long-term financial strategy, meetings that led nowhere and monitoring that was focused on the wrong things. Now, I do not want to be unkind, but that is not good enough.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Given that we are where we are in respect of capital funding for colleges, will the Minister look very carefully at the urgent need for increased capital expenditure in Stoke-on-Trent and at whether we can apply for the £5 million to get investment in the Burslem and Shelton campuses? Our college has no reserves, and I need the Minister to address that urgently.

[Mr Hayes]

I cannot make promises about individual colleges, but I hear what the hon. Lady says—she makes a powerful case—and I will be happy to meet her with my officials to discuss that matter further.

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

May I welcome the Minister’s response and his plans to give further education colleges more freedom? Will the new freedoms that he is offering extend to capital projects, to make it easier for colleges to get alternative sources of finance?

[Mr Hayes]

Indeed, and it is perhaps also important to let the House know that the Government money that is available will leverage in other moneys. We want to look at all kinds of ways in which colleges, enjoying the new freedoms that this Government are determined to give them, can invest in their future. By the way, I know that my hon. Friend is a great champion of further education. I add that because he deserves that plaudit.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister accept my invitation to come and visit the College of North West London in Brent so that he can spread some of his largesse there?

[Mr Hayes]

My largesse is legendary, and I can hardly wait to visit. I would make one request—that there are tea and cakes when I arrive.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

11. What recent steps he has taken to increase access to finance for small businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

T2. Following the excellent plans for apprenticeships, is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that the local apprenticeship scheme run by Essex county council and Harlow college has agreed to place an Essex apprentice in my office from October? Will he also look into boosting apprentices in Whitehall and Westminster, and through Government contracts?

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr John Hayes)]

My hon. Friend has been a champion of apprenticeships since he arrived in the House and before. I congratulate him on his initiative in that respect. He will know that this Government have already transferred £150 million into the apprenticeship budget to create 50,000 more apprenticeships. I can announce today that one of them will be joining my office in Whitehall, and I invite other Ministers to do the same.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State clear up the confusion on the future of regional development agencies that has arisen out of conflicting statements? On the one hand, there is an apparent open-mindedness on the part of the Secretary of State; on the other, his counterpart in the Department for Communities and Local Government has taken a more hard-line and ideological approach. If there is a desire in any region, including the west midlands, for the retention of a strong regional structure—albeit with sub-regional arrangements, including local employment partnerships—will the Secretary of State be open to the retention of a strong regional development agency there?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

T6. Learners at colleges across England such as Great Yarmouth college have contributed something like £28 billion to our economy over the past 15 years. Does the Minister agree that those colleges need the support of our Government? What freedoms can we give them to ensure that they develop even further in the future?

[Mr Hayes]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to raise that issue in those terms, because it is through freedom that colleges will be able to innovate and excel. It is vital that colleges become more responsive to learner demand and to employers. That is why I have already announced certain important freedoms that they want and that were denied to them by the Labour Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

May I say that the announced 50,000 new apprenticeships are hugely welcome in my constituency, as Rossendale and Darwen has many young people working in the manufacturing sector? Given that an apprenticeship should be only the start of a journey of lifelong learning, what steps have been taken to encourage those who have completed an apprenticeship to go on to university?

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about progression. It is important to have a ladder of training opportunity, going from re-engagement of those who have been disengaged from education, training and employment through to apprenticeships, and then to higher level skills, too. We will certainly do that.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he will go ahead with previous plans to introduce financial incentives of about £5,000 for people buying new electric vehicles?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

The Minister may be aware that the selections for the UK WorldSkills squad are due to take place in anticipation of the 60th WorldSkills competition, held in London next year. One of the selection events is taking place in my constituency at the excellent North Warwickshire and Hinckley college during November. Will the Minister consider accompanying me on a visit to the college during that week, to see the excellent work that the students are doing?

[Mr Hayes]

I can see that I will be busy travelling the whole country. Of course I will—WorldSkills matters and celebrates success; there was cross-party agreement about that. I will support the event in his constituency and WorldSkills more generally.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Points of Order

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that quite enough has been said. [Interruption.] Order. Members are getting ahead of me—or they think they are—but I know what I was thinking and they do not. They will now see what I was thinking, which is that it would be helpful for the House to hear from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who is in his place. I know that he will be happy to comment.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr John Hayes)]

That was literally irresistible. Of course, I should have been in my place as well. I arrived as the sitting was suspended by the relevant member of the Panel of Chairs. I apologised to him then, and I have also dropped a note to you, Mr Speaker, as you know.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Minister.

Further Education Investment

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr John Hayes)]

On 24 May it was announced that a further £50 million would be invested in further education infrastructure to support the development of new college facilities. This is in keeping with the Government’s determination to make further education a key priority.

In that spirit, I am pleased to inform Parliament that the Government are today launching the College Investment Fund, and that the Skills Funding Agency will from today begin the process by which this extra resource is to be invested.

Many colleges up and down the country are still reeling from the effects of the crisis last year in the capital investment programme, which forced a review by Sir Andrew Foster that criticised

“failures in the general management and financial management of the Learning and Skills Council”.

While this Government are unable to undo the previous mismanagement of the FE capital programme, I fully recognise the crucial significance of ensuring the teaching and learning facilities in our further education colleges are up to date and fit for purpose.

Indeed, I am determined to ensure that colleges across Britain are the best they can be.

That is why the Government are so keen to support those colleges that did not previously benefit from large-scale public investment. For that reason, the £50 million additional capital will be available to all those further education colleges that have received less than £5 million in total grant support from the Learning and Skills Council since 2001.

Today, the Skills Funding Agency will write to all eligible further education colleges and confirm that they will each receive a share of a £30 million renewal grant. This will support 153 colleges across the country that have yet to benefit from significant capital funds. Each will receive approximately £225,000. I am advised that such investment is expected to facilitate considerable additional private finance.

The remaining £20 million will be made available to colleges through an enhanced renewal grant. Approximately 20 colleges will have the opportunity to add to their renewal grant, by bidding to build their total allocation to £1 million. Again it is anticipated that these grants will leverage substantial additional private finance, providing final projects of significant value.

Applications for the enhanced renewal grant will be assessed using key criteria, including the existing condition of bidding colleges’ estates and facilities; resulting benefits to learners; and the contribution which each applicant’s proposals make to the regeneration of their local community. Projects will be expected to meet exacting design standards, ensuring a built legacy of which all concerned can be proud.

The Skills Funding Agency and an expert panel will assess and prioritise all applications, with a view to announcing successful bids by the end of this summer. Crucially, all projects will have to be completed in time for learners to benefit from the new facilities by the start of the 2011-12 academic year.

I will be writing today to all Members of Parliament regarding this important announcement, and asking them to encourage eligible local colleges to apply for this new fund.

Building a High-Skilled Economy

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr John Hayes)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of building a high- skilled economy.

It is a delight, having spent so many years in the shadows, to come into the light and be able to speak in this House as the new Minister. Some hon. Members will have read today in the press of my endorsement for floristry and dance. I am wearing this perfectly coloured co-ordinated buttonhole to illustrate the first, but the House, and you in particular, Mr Deputy Speaker, will be relieved to know that I shall not be illustrating the second, at least not by example.

The performance in office of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), once the man who called the tune, was rather more of a conga than a quickstep. You know the conga, I have no doubt, Mr Deputy Speaker. It comprises a group of hapless individuals linked by routine, hopelessly following one another on a journey to nowhere.

Adult learning is a subject that inspires in those hon. Members present—I know this is true of hon. Members across the Chamber—emotional attachment and personal commitment. At the same time, it is not a subject in which anyone or any party can claim a monopoly of wisdom, which is why I am interested to hear views from across the Chamber. However, a new Government offer a new chance of a fresh start, the opportunity to bring change and hope to adult learners. However, not everyone realises that there has been a change. Sitting in my office the other day in my new Department, I was surprised to receive an out-of-the-blue phone call from someone asking for Mandy. I had to break the news to him that Mandy had moved on. To paraphrase Barry Manilow, “Oh Mandy, well you came and you took without giving…but I sent you away.”

Lord Mandelson was right in at least one important respect. He made the economic case for skills. The economic case for skills was by far the strongest case made by the previous Government. It is significant, of course—indeed it is vital—but it is not the only case for skills. The economic case, which I shall deal with first, has been thrown into sharp relief by the economic turbulence, by the rising levels of unemployment and falling levels of hope, especially among young people, and by the growing numbers of employers finding it difficult to stay in business. It will continue to occupy a prominent place in public discourse as we move out of recession and towards the renewed growth about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke recently at the Cass business school.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I happily give way to my hon. Friend, who has been such a resolute champion of the Open university in his constituency, which does so much to foster learning.

[Mark Lancaster]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should like to invite him to join me in paying tribute to the Open university. The one thing that has not changed in recent times is the contribution that that institution has made to lifelong learning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

The fact that I anticipated my hon. Friend’s intervention merely gives it more force. He is right to say that the Open university plays a critical role in that regard. I will happily visit that place once again to cement the relationships that I have already formed there.

The economic case for skills will continue to be important because of the link between skills and competitiveness. It is well established, and it was made clear five years ago in the Leitch and Sainsbury reviews. Already their analysis has become orthodox in the debate about skills and the economy. The essence of their case was, and it remains salient, that driven by new technologies, the pace of economic and industrial change is growing, not just here in the west but in Asia and increasingly in Africa and South America. Once, those countries either did not compete in the same markets as this country or could offer only technologically inferior products. That is no longer the case. The unequal competition between high quality and low cost has been replaced by what Lord Sainsbury called a “race to the top”.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

In the context of international competition, how worried is the Minister by the letter in today’s The Daily Telegraph from senior executives of leading British companies, who warn against the dangers of cuts to university funding and the risk that we will be left behind in the international competitive league as a result?

[Mr Hayes]

There is no doubt that the relationship between research and development and the kind of dynamism that I have described is a profound one. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science will take that very seriously indeed in the process of framing our policy in respect of higher education.

I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) is sympathetic to the argument, so I may be pushing at at least a half-open door when I say that further education matters too. Building skills from the bottom up, re-engaging young people who are not in employment, education or training, up a ladder of skills to the levels that he is describing—levels 3, 4 and 5—is critical. The hon. Gentleman will understand why today I want to speak particularly about further education, as that is my responsibility.

We need to provide workers with the skills they want and businesses with the skills they need to compete in this increasingly challenging world. The Leitch analysis pointed towards an intensive effort to raise skills in this country, and indeed the House more than once debated these matters when the Labour party was in government. It is easier perhaps to say on the Opposition Benches, but I will repeat it from the Government Bench, that I do not accuse the hon. Member for Cardiff West of anything worse than a mistake. I do not think that Labour Members are malevolent; I think their intentions are broadly the same as ours. I just think they are misjudged. This is not about malice; it is about error. I know that they will want to acknowledge that when they speak in the debate. They are big men, and I want to give them this chance, because I am a generous Minister, to rush to the Dispatch Box to say that they got it wrong. Wouldn’t we welcome that? Wouldn’t the whole country welcome it, too?

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Are you sure you didn’t teach drama?

[Mr Hayes]

Well, I said I was interested in dance. I am interested in sufficient drama to add to the theatricality of this place, without which it would be poorer.

During the years of the Labour Government, Labour Members often alleged that the largesse for further education would end if we came to power. If the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), my opponent and friend, were to wish to repeat his unfortunate appearance on “Celebrity Mastermind”—I do not want to remind him of that too much—he could do worse than choose the Thatcher Government as his specialist subject. We came to realise during our time in opposition that the Labour party spent more time speaking about 1979 than about the present. They were preoccupied with that in their dark years, and perhaps that is not surprising for a party that usually looks backwards rather than forwards, whereas the Conservative party is committed to progress and taking our country to where it needs to be now.

As a consequence of that preoccupation with the past, we were left with another Labour Government who spent until they broke the bank. As a result, even before they lost office, they were already cutting adult skills. Last year’s pre-Budget report said—I have it here for those hon. Members who have not had the opportunity to go to the Library to collect it—that £300 million would be cut from the adult skills budget if Labour returned to Government. When Members hear complaints about the new Government’s performance, they should set them in that context. Mandy was first to the table to say he would cut his Department, and encouraged his colleagues to do the same. People are still making phone calls to my office to try to find him, to ask exactly where the cuts would have fallen.

While Labour Members were drifting further and further out of touch into a world populated by fictional numbers rather than real people, Conservatives were talking to adult educators and adult learners about their experiences. We were talking to employers about their skills needs and to union learning representatives about the obstacles they face in creating a learning culture among their members. So that it is unequivocal, so that there is no question and no doubt, let me say that I and the Government are committed to unionlearn; we celebrate all it does and all that it will continue to do with our support and encouragement.

As a result of the conversations we had and dialogues we enjoyed, we learned important lessons about the indispensability of further education as an engine of social and economic change. History teaches us that the better educated a nation’s people are, the more economically prosperous they are likely to be—their general levels of health will be better, too, their communities will be more united and their family and social bonds will be stronger—and the more they will appreciate the things that money cannot buy, but without which life is colourless. All deserve their chance to see, hear, taste and touch beauty.

The conviction that education is the key to so much more than a wage packet drove pioneers, such as the founders of the Workers Educational Association, who sought to take learning, until then the preserve of the privileged few, out to the many. The impulse that promoted better manual skills also created the penny classics that did so much to spread the love of English literature throughout society, and the growth of choral and instrumental societies that brought great music virtually to the factory floor. The fire that drove adult education’s pioneers still burns, and it drives the coalition Government’s programme for further education and skills. The challenge we face in rebuilding a system fit for purpose is scarcely less imposing than was theirs in building a system from scratch.

In recent years, the link between skills and craftsmanship—I am not afraid to call it craftsmanship—the ideal of self-betterment and the pleasures of learning as a means of gaining wider and richer perspectives on the world have been allowed to wither. But not any longer: we in this Government will make a bold case for that relationship—a firm case for the cohesive power of learning, how it changes lives by changing life chances and increases prospects both to gain and prosper in a job, and in all the other ways that I have described.

No one denies that one of the key functions of Government is to create, as far as possible, the right conditions for economic success, and none would deny, I hope, that adult skills policy is one of the most powerful economic levers at any Government’s disposal. But the time has come finally to acknowledge that a socialist model of centralised planning has failed, even in terms of its own narrow criteria for success. We really cannot continue the micro-managed, target-driven, bureaucratic regime that for years has dogged further education and damaged our prospects of raising skills levels.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you and the House will not underestimate the scale of the challenge. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills reported in “Ambition 2020”, published last year, that on recent trends we are likely to slip from 18th to 21st in the OECD rankings for intermediate level skills by 2020. Shadow Ministers will be familiar with the report.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I happily give way to the new Chairman of the Select Committee, whom I welcome in that role.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the Minister for his kind words. I welcome him to his position and look forward to seeing him in our Committee in due course. I congratulate him on his bravura performance—indeed, it has been quite theatrical at times. He commented on the top-down approach. I note that his colleague the Minister for Universities and Science has written to higher and further education organisations inviting them to publish employability statements. Today the hon. Gentleman placed a statement in the Library saying that the Government would be introducing measures to give

“learners the information they need to drive the system, through the publication of clear and consistent information.”

If that is not an example of a top-down and potentially bureaucratic approach, what is it? Could he enlighten us?

[Mr Hayes]

I want to be generous; as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that is in my character. I know that the hon. Gentleman is new to the task, but he has been an assiduous member of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, and a frequent contributor to debates in the Chamber. As such, I hoped he would have known that the key plank of my party’s perspective on this subject—indeed, the coalition’s perspective—is the need to inform and empower learners. It is critically important that people get the right advice and guidance, and part of that process is explaining to them the likely employment outcomes of pursuing courses of study and training. We are encouraging universities and colleges, and the reformed careers service that we will bring in, to give people a very clear understanding of what will happen if they embark on particular routes. What are their chances of getting a job? What sort of job will it be? What are the wage implications? How might they progress thereafter?

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I give way to my hon. Friend, who in his maiden speech has already made his commitment to skills, and apprenticeships in particular, very clear.

[Robert Halfon]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on doing so much to push forward our policy for 100,000 apprenticeships. Why do only just 28% of British workers qualify to become apprentices or gain technical skills compared to France, where the figure is 51%, or Germany where it is 65%—the percentage we should reach in this country? What has gone so badly wrong in the UK that our skills level is so low?

[Mr Hayes]

That requires not so much an answer as a seminar, but I shall try to summarise in a sentence or two what I might say at such a seminar. The problem in Britain has been threefold. First, we have not promoted apprenticeships as effectively as we should. Although the brand is strong among potential learners, employers and the public, it is clear that the previous Government did not believe in apprenticeships as much as we do. [Interruption.] Opposition Members complain but many people thought that the right hon. Member for Tottenham’s ministerial predecessor—a valued colleague and a good Minister—did FA for FE and was sent to the FO. I do not know whether Fanny Adams is unparliamentary language, but it is certainly true that in debates with that Minister I made it absolutely clear that we wanted to grow the number of apprenticeships, yet the Labour Government insisted on retaining a strong emphasis on what they regarded as their flagship training and skills product—Train to Gain, about which I shall speak a little more in a moment.

The second point in answer to my hon. Friend’s intervention is that although part of the problem is about marketing, part of it is about resource. We have decided to transfer a significant portion of the Train to Gain budget to apprenticeships, because we know the skills apprenticeships can confer. We know how long they take to learn and we know that people want them. We know employers like them. We know what they cost. That cannot be said of the Train to Gain programme, in which the previous Government placed so much faith.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I give way to the hon. Lady, who always takes such an assiduous interest in education matters.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I am sure we are all enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s theatrics this afternoon, but will he look at some evidence? In 2008-09, 240,000 people started apprenticeships, compared to 75,000 in 1997-98, so I do not think it is for Labour to take lectures from the Conservatives about the importance of apprenticeships.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Lady must not deceive new Members—[Interruption.] I know she would not do so—except inadvertently, of course; I take that as read—because newer Members might come to believe her suggestion—I put it no more strongly than that.

What the previous Government actually did was to reclassify what counted as an apprenticeship. In France and Germany, about which we heard a moment ago, all apprenticeships are at level 3, and they once were in Britain. When the Labour Government came to power, they reclassified level 2 qualifications as apprenticeships and then trumpeted the fact that there were more of them. As both the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen know, the level 3 numbers remained stubbornly rather less than was required, than the Government wanted and than employers knew they needed. So we should focus on level 3 apprenticeships if we wish to get a true comparison both of our previous performance and of international data.

[Kevin Brennan]

How many of the 50,000 new places that the hon. Gentleman is announcing can he guarantee to the House will be level 3 apprenticeships?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is far too experienced a Member to expect me to give on-the-hoof guarantees of that kind, but what I will say is that I have asked my officials—my officials—to look closely at the definition and, indeed, the stratification of apprenticeships. I want to build the ladder of qualifications that takes people from re-engagement right up to level 4 and 5.

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman and the House about three things that we will do on apprenticeships. As well as putting the extra resource in, we will grow the number of frameworks at level 3 and 4 and we will explore frameworks at level 5, where there is a demand, I am told, in meetings with the high-tech industries such as advanced engineering. The hon. Gentleman will know some of the sectors to which I refer. We will look closely at those level 2 apprenticeships which, with redefinition, can be built to level 3—in other words, some of the high-end level 2 qualifications that with further work may become level 3—and we will think again about those level 2 qualifications that cannot. It is entirely appropriate that they might be regarded as a foundation to an apprenticeship, but I am not sure that it is right that they should be called full apprenticeships. This makes comparisons with our international competitors difficult, and I am not sure that it does not short-change employers and learners. Yes, of course, there is a place for level 2, but the emphasis will be on level 3, and that is what the hon. Gentleman needs to know.

[Kevin Brennan]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that some of the new apprenticeships that he is announcing that he will create may not be classified as apprenticeships in future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

No; I am saying that some of the existing apprenticeships may not be classified so, and that the new money and the new emphasis will be on level 3. I want to return to the main text of my speech.

[Steve McCabe]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I want to make progress; I will give way later. The hon. Gentleman has had one turn, and although I am generous, my generosity is not without limit.

I want now to focus on the highly centralised and bureaucratic system that developed under the previous Government, whereby funds that could have been used for teaching and training were actually used detailing plans, complying with targets and formulating schemes. Instead of enabling colleges and other providers to respond to the needs of businesses and learners, Ministers thought they knew what was best. Excessive bureaucracy sapped precious energy from our education system. If I might, as a primer, offer advice again, particularly to newer Members, that if proof were needed of that assertion, it is to be found in the report commissioned as early as 2005 by the last Government under the auspices of Sir Andrew Foster. That report concluded that there was a “galaxy” of oversight, inspection and administration in the FE sector, and called for precisely the kind of streamlined and more responsive structure that we in this Government will now put in place.

Even worse, though, that centralised, target-driven micro-management led to a systemic failure in the form of an FE capital funding crisis from which the sector is still reeling. Members will know that the Learning and Skills Council encouraged bids that would have cost 10 times more than the available funds. Across the country, 144 capital bids were frozen. Members across the Chamber came to the House to complain about the circumstances in their localities and the effects on their local colleges, and rightly so. Seventy-nine of those projects had already received agreement in principle. Many colleges incurred considerable cost.

Andrew Foster was once again brought out of mothballs by the Government to produce another report, and he made it very clear that a top-heavy, bureaucratic system had failed. He concluded that the LSC was too slow to respond—

“there were straws in the wind, early storm warnings, but the problem was not crystallised fast enough.”

So we will look closely at FE capital. Next week, I shall make it clear how we will spend on a bid basis with colleges the extra £50 million that the Chancellor has agreed to devote to FE capital projects.

[Kevin Brennan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I will give way once more, and then I really must make some progress, because a number of hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.

[Kevin Brennan]

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the extra £50 million that he describes as capital has been taken from the Department’s revenue spending for skills, and that it will only be for this year, and that therefore in the long term, in perpetuity, it is a £50 million cut?

[Mr Hayes]

I have already celebrated the hon. Gentleman’s assiduity, and his numeracy skills are obvious, too. He is right: the money is being taken from the Train to Gain budget, and it is being allocated to capital. The justification for that is the urgency of the problem. Had the Labour party organised the capital funding in FE in anything like a reasonable way, we would not have to take these emergency measures. That will bring some light to those colleges who were for so long, as I was, in the shadows—in the darkness.

The hon. Gentleman will also know that this is therefore a one-off programme, but we will now look at a longer-term set of proposals for FE capital, and in my estimation even this short-term measure will deliver benefit to 150 colleges across the country. There will be more details next week. I know that the hon. Gentleman cannot wait—the whole House is excited—but he must, because I cannot give all the presents out on the same day; some have to be saved for Boxing day.

There has to be a better way to take advantage of the immense human capital in the college system, to build a high-skilled, high-tech economy. We really must offer a new beginning. That is why I want to move to the four points that lay at the heart of the letter that I wrote today, and then to my exciting conclusion.

The letter that I have written today to the principals of all colleges sets out ways in which we will set FE free. First, I am removing the requirement to complete summary statements of activity, with a resulting reduction in performance monitoring of employer responsiveness. Secondly, the Government have already announced the removal of Ofsted inspections for schools with outstanding performance. I will work with ministerial colleagues to introduce the same way of working in the FE sector, removing inspections for colleges with outstanding performance.

Thirdly, I will remove the regulatory requirement for college principals to undertake the principals qualifying programme, not because I do not want appropriately qualified principals—I know that there are a range of development opportunities and qualifications that can enhance managers’, leaders’ and principals’ skills to run colleges in the 21st century—but because individuals in our institutions should be free to decide what package of development is appropriate to support their individual circumstances.

Fourthly and most importantly, I will enable all colleges except those that are performing poorly to move money between adult learner and employer budgets, because they, rather than Ministers, know how best to meet the needs of local learners and employers. All those measures are intended to increase the power of colleges to determine how best to manage their affairs in the light of local training needs. I want not just to encourage them to listen to what local people and local businesses have to say, but to be free to act, to respond and to use that information with a minimum of fuss, delay and administrative cost.

This is only the beginning—a first indication of the Government’s determination to deliver on the promises we made to providers when we were in opposition. We are drawing a line under the mistakes of the past and reaching for a better future.

It is true that our debate takes place in difficult circumstances and that the public sector will be obliged to make efficiency savings. It is also true, as I said earlier—I want to be honest about this—that no guarantees can be offered about future funding. With freedom comes a fresh challenge, so as unnecessary compliance costs are reduced, I will be looking to colleges to find efficiencies. They would expect that, as would the House. That will include encouraging colleges to find more cost-efficient ways of conducting their affairs, such as by merging back-office functions and streamlining their procurement processes. If the Government had done that earlier—when Labour Members controlled the purse strings—we could have made more progress to match and beat the performance of the competitor countries to which I referred that have outpaced us on apprenticeships and driven up the skills of their work forces to an extent that we have not. The Train to Gain programme was part of the problem. I know that former Ministers are obliged to defend it, but they know what the National Audit Office said about its dead-weight cost. They know that assessment was too often dressed up as training and that the brokerage service at the programme’s heart was, at best, only a partial success.

Before my appointment as Minister, I was fortunate enough to enjoy a long apprenticeship as shadow Minister. Over those years, I held countless meetings with college principals and visited innumerable colleges throughout the country. Everything that I said in opposition, and everything that I say now in government, has been informed by the views and opinions of the sector. We will continue that dialogue about shaping further education in this country—alongside the needs of business and industry, and combined with the Government’s priorities—in a way that delivers opportunities to a new generation of learners.

The stakes are high. The ability of our economy to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances depends in no small measure on the capacity of workers to adapt. They need to be sure of the promise that new skills and knowledge will lead inexorably to new and better chances in life. My aim—and my commitment—is to make good on that promise for the next generation.

Today, a start has been made, but there is much more to do to build a country with the skills that we need to compete, a country ready to elevate the practical, and a country where learning is valued for its own sake and for its economic, social and cultural benefits: proud, confident learners, colleges free to respond and a dynamic, highly skilled economy—Britain being the best that it can be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

It would be remiss of me if I did not welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. I also pay tribute to his predecessor—a former skills Minister. I shall talk about the priorities for skills spending later. However, I note that although the current Minister has tried to cut the Train to Gain budget and to trash the programme comprehensively, he has not yet completely abolished it.

I am especially proud of the work that we did in government with the trade unions. Despite Conservative hostility, as even the Minister might admit, we introduced the union learning fund, which is now worth £21.5 million a year. As a result, there are now more than 23,000 union learning reps. They get to the parts of the workplace that other trainers and providers sometimes do not reach, and they helped nearly 250,000 workers into learning last year. Latterly—I give this Minister and the Minister for Universities and Science credit for this—that even won praise from the Minister for Universities and Science for its effectiveness and efficiency. One day, the skills Minister might be able to mention the union learning fund and the trade unions in a speech and get the odd “Hear, hear!” from the Back Benchers behind him, rather than the blank looks that he got when he talked about them today.

The highly successful transformation fund for informal adult learning has also brought about a sea change in people’s perceptions of themselves, and has helped to generate a marked increase in participation, particularly among those in the lower D and E socio-economic groups, and that is a legacy of the previous Government’s of which I am proud.

There was huge investment of over £2 billion in building the colleges of the future, although the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the problems with the programme. That programme transformed the places in which people learn. He will have the pleasure, as Minister, of visiting many of those colleges and seeing the transformational impact of the capital investment in our further education colleges that took place under the Labour Government. He may also remind himself that not a single penny was spent on further education capital for colleges in the final year of his party’s last term in office. So there is a substantial platform on which to build, and a clear strategy for the future was set out in the skills White Paper last November.

[Mr Hayes]

Given the spirit that has permeated our exchanges thus far, and indeed today, I know that the shadow Minister will want to welcome the extra £50 million. He was slightly critical when he said that it was to be taken from revenue and was a one-off, but he knows that that was needed and will be welcomed across the sector. Will he just say a word of welcome for that?

[Kevin Brennan]

I am always happy to argue for more investment and capital for our FE colleges, but later I may return to the issue of the £50 million and whether, overall, the Department should be welcoming the way in which it has been pick-pocketed by the Treasury over that measure.

As I say, there is a substantial platform on which to build. The skills White Paper, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, was published last November, set out pretty clearly the skills challenges for the next decade and a clear set of proposals to meet that challenge, including an ambition to ensure that three quarters of people participate in higher education or complete an advanced apprenticeship by the age of 30. Included in those proposals were: the expansion of the apprenticeship system to build a new technical class by doubling apprenticeship places for young adults; apprenticeship scholarships; and the focus of the skills budget on the areas from which future jobs will come. I make no apology for that, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about skills being wider than simply an economic matter. I make no apology for focusing on the areas from which future jobs will come.

The proposals also include: a joint investment scheme with sector skills councils; more national skills academies; skills accounts, to which I think the hon. Gentleman referred; user-friendly public ratings for colleges and providers, to which I think he referred in his written statement today; better skills provision for those on out-of-work benefits; promotion of apprenticeships as a priority in public procurement; reducing the number of publicly funded skills agencies by over 30; and focusing resources on key economic strategic priorities. A strong record of achievement and a clear and widely welcomed strategy for the future—that is the strong legacy bequeathed to the hon. Gentleman as Minister with responsibility for skills in the new Government.

[Mr Hayes]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman rises to acknowledge that.

[Mr Hayes]

I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman too often, and I will give him some poetry, if I get a chance, in a later intervention, but he talks about the legacy that his party left. I just want him to be clear with the House about where the £300 million reductions in

“funding not directly supporting learner participation and lower priority adult skills budgets”

would actually have fallen; that is in the pre-Budget report that his Government published.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am slightly surprised by that comment, because the hon. Gentleman seemed at first in his speech to be criticising us for making those necessary savings, but later to be saying that we should have made them earlier. I am not quite sure why that suddenly became the point on which he wanted to intervene. However, he can intervene as often as he likes; I am happy to give way to him on any number of occasions, as he knows.

What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do with the strong, powerful and compelling legacy that I have just outlined to the House? First, his Department is cutting by 10,000 the number of university places that would have been on offer this autumn. That is despite him and his colleagues persistently claiming—and actually bringing my colleagues and me to the House, when we were the Ministers, to boast about the fact—that they were committed to, creating an extra 10,000 university places over and above what the Government were committed to through a sort of “buy now, pay later” student loan early payback scheme, which we argued was entirely bogus, and which appears to have been wiped from the collective memories of Government Front Benchers during their coalition reprogramming course.

Perhaps when the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) winds up, he can tell us what happened to the pet scheme to conjure up more student places for free. The Minister for Universities and Science explained in the House on many occasions how it would work, despite our scepticism. Has the Treasury finally explained to him and his colleagues what we told him all along—that it was Mickey Mouse maths and would not work? I think that the Under-Secretary agrees that it is Mickey Mouse maths; he did when he was in opposition.

What else have the Administration done on skills apart from announcing cuts to university places and budgets? They have tried to soften the Department’s pain of being the Chancellor’s whipping boy so far in the £6 billion in-year cuts package by recycling £200 million from the skills budget—from the Train to Gain programme—into additional apprenticeship places costing £150 million, and, as the Minister outlined, into capital for further education colleges of £50 million. The Secretary of State bragged about that yesterday in the Chamber. He tried to give the impression that it was year zero and that he was the first Minister ever to come to the Dispatch Box to announce anything about spending on further education capital and apprenticeships.

On capital, the Secretary of State has been done over by the oldest Treasury trick in the book—converting revenue into capital. He claimed that he kept back £200 million from the package when he is doing no such thing. The £50 million on capital, as the Minister generously admitted in his remarks, is for this year only. The Chancellor has picked the Secretary of State’s skills budget pocket for future years to the tune of £50 million per annum and that should be acknowledged.

The Secretary of State should have made the case for capital separately, if he wanted to make such a case to the Treasury in the spending review. Instead, he has allowed the Treasury to deny the skills budget £50 million a year from next year onwards—in perpetuity—even before the Budget and the spending review. That is a little naive. He has been had and he ought to have known better.

Let us consider the apprenticeships proposal. There are no stronger supporters of apprenticeships than me, Labour Members and the previous Labour Government. No Government did more than the previous Government to rescue apprenticeships from the almost criminal indifference of the previous Tory Government, who allowed apprenticeships to fall to only 65,000, with a completion rate of only a third.

The Secretary of State should be more candid about the proposals. He is not trying to do the difficult, but most important, things on apprenticeships. He is after the low-hanging fruit—and I hope he will think carefully about that—because he hopes to claim a quick victory on apprenticeship numbers. For the benefit of the House and all concerned, let us be clear about what he is doing. Although he tried to give an impression to the contrary yesterday, he is not creating new training opportunities apprenticeships for the youngest and most difficult to place. He is not—as we pledged to do and he must still deliver, unless he wants to tell us that he will abandon the policy; I do not think that he will—trying to create more advanced apprenticeships for young adults. He is not aiming to support a particular number of new jobs. He is transferring funding in the training and skills budget from one form of funding for those who are in work into another—good, but more expensive—form of training, which he knows is overwhelmingly likely to be taken up not by employers looking to take on new young workers who are currently out of work, but by those who will train a smaller number of older workers currently in work than they would have done under Train to Gain.

Now that is fine—it is a legitimate decision for the Government to make—but the Secretary of State should not try to give the impression that the announcement and the programme is likely to result in 50,000 new job opportunities for young people, or even new jobs for older workers.

[Mr Hayes]

We cannot allow this to stand, can we? I hope that I wear the weight

“Of learning lightly like a flower”,

in the words of Tennyson. I also hope that that learning might inform the thinking of the House on apprenticeships. Of course some of the new apprenticeships will be adult apprenticeships and some will be for young people, and of course some will be about upskilling and some about reskilling, but to suggest that the people involved will simply be those currently taught under Train to Gain is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman knows what the National Audit Office said about that scheme: 25% dead-weight cost.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say to the Minister that the erudition of his intervention was equalled only by its length? Although it is a joy to listen to his mellifluous tones, I hope that not all such interventions will be of equal length.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on an entertaining and well-informed maiden speech. I am sure that she will make a great addition to the House and will serve her constituents well. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram). I must tell my hon. Friend that I am another Scot who hopes that the England side does well—but I look forward to hours of arguments about football in the years ahead.

I welcome the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), to his post and wish him well, although I see that he has just left the Chamber. I thought that his speech was a wonderful performance. I have concluded that if the pressures of government grow too great for him, as they inevitably will at some point, he will have a great future in amateur dramatics.

I was pleased to hear the Minister’s plans, some of which I think deserve consideration. For instance, I was glad to learn that he plans to look at the careers service with a view to possibly revamping it. I was surprised and worried to read in a briefing that I received from Edge—the independent foundation that promotes vocational qualifications—that in response to a survey conducted last year, more than 50% of secondary schoolteachers admitted that their knowledge of apprenticeships was remarkably poor.

[Mr Hayes]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute and for the information that he has just provided. The same survey revealed that teachers knew less about apprenticeships than about any other qualification apart from the Welsh baccalaureate. I have nothing against the Welsh baccalaureate, but the hon. Gentleman will understand the point.

[Steve McCabe]

I am glad to learn that the Minister has taken that information on board. As I have said, it worried me to read it, and also to read that many apprentices who were surveyed said that very little information had been given to them about apprenticeships either by secondary schoolteachers or, more importantly, by careers specialists. It seems pretty obvious to me that, if we are interested in promoting apprenticeships, we shall have to convey some basic good information to young people. Both the careers service and the information available to secondary schoolteachers must therefore improve.

I am not quite sure what the Minister was attacking in his comments on level 2—I am not sure whether that was code for a cut in numbers down the line. It seems to me that £50 million could buy an awful lot of opportunities for young people, and if that sum is taken out of the budget in the years ahead, perhaps the Minister has to prepare the way by telling us that he will downgrade certain qualifications and opportunities.

I welcome, however, the Minister’s acknowledgement that level 2 can provide a very useful foundation. I was struck by the statistic in the CBI report, “Ready to grow” that 32% of employers found it remarkably difficult to recruit people with the necessary intermediate skills. It seems to me that those people will never be available unless we can provide them with a basic foundation to start with, and the general definition of level 2 is that it provides people with a solid grounding and a basic set of skills from which they can begin to build and develop their chosen careers.

I do not particularly want to quibble with the Minister about the definition of apprenticeships, but level 2 is very important in getting some young people on the path. Whatever the Minister’s comments today about level 3 were intended to mean, I hope he will bear in mind that it is essential that youngsters have a route in, and that the only way that we will be able to provide employers with people with the requisite skills is by giving young people that starting point.

I also welcome the Minister’s plans to set further education colleges free, although I am not sure how free they will be if they are starved of funding, as it strikes me that that can be a fairly empty form of freedom, and I noticed that there was very little detail about exactly what this freedom will amount to. I would like FE colleges to be encouraged to develop programme apprenticeships—they already have a great deal of skill in that respect—and those apprenticeships are a way of enabling young people in particular to begin their apprenticeship at a time when it may be quite difficult for them to find an employer to take them on. Employers, particularly small businesses, are struggling to develop apprenticeships at present because of their fears about the economic future.

[Mr Hayes]

rose—

[Steve McCabe]

I will happily give way to the Minister again.

[Mr Hayes]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way for a second time.

For the sake of clarity, let me repeat something that I have already said: I am writing to every Member to describe these freedoms to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and they are all things that have been specifically requested by further education representatives in numerous conversations that we have had with them over a period of years.

[Steve McCabe]

Well, the detail is obviously in the letter then, and I look forward to reading it.

I was slightly disappointed that the Minister did not make any specific reference to small businesses. If we want to grow meaningful apprenticeships, small businesses are the obvious sector that we need to target, but we all know that they have difficulties in dealing with apprenticeships. I was glad to hear that the Minister is enthusiastic to cut through the red tape, but when I talk to small employers, they tell me that they need help in developing apprenticeships; they need help with the basic training and assessment. That is the other side of what needs to be done. One side is to encourage youngsters by ensuring they have the necessary information and by promoting apprenticeships, and the other side is to make it possible for small employers in particular to take on young people.

I wonder whether the Minister has considered the idea of group apprenticeship schemes, which I understand have been particularly successful in Australia. I believe that there are some pilot schemes in this country. The essential idea is that the apprentice is employed by a group and is sent out on placement to various employers. It then becomes possible for a group of small employers to get together and to save on the administrative costs and overheads. A number of youngsters can therefore be placed on an apprenticeship scheme and get real practical experience with employers.

Has the Minister any plans to consider university technical colleges? There is one in the Birmingham area, at Aston, and I think there are about four around the country. That model seems to bring universities together with employers. In the engineering and manufacturing sectors in particular, it encourages the development of a steady skill development path. It builds on vocational levels through to level 5, and the previous Government sought to encourage it. I would like to know whether the Minister has plans to pursue it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) for his maiden speech. He had no need to be nervous; it was an extremely entertaining and informative maiden speech. I thank him for his kind comments about his predecessor, Kali Mountford. On the Labour Benches, we think of Kali with great affection, so we thank him.

I am pleased that mention has been made of the “Skills for Growth” White Paper, which has been important in defining our skills needs for the next few decades. As the Minister knows, the White Paper put particular emphasis on vocational skills and argued for a dramatic expansion of advanced apprenticeships, particularly for young adults. It also argued for the skilling of adults who are already in employment and those seeking work, and for improving the quality of provision in our FE and other institutions.

At the same time, “Higher Ambitions” set out equally challenging demands for our university sector. It asked universities to work with the Higher Education Funding Council for England to devise new funding incentives so that we could deliver higher education programmes that were more acutely related to the needs of the economy, and to work with the UK Commission for Employment and Skills to identify where new programmes were needed to meet areas of low demand. It set out the need to improve the relationship between universities and businesses and, crucially, to build better relationships between universities and regional development agencies. I noticed that the Minister was very quiet on that subject today, but as the Government are about to destroy the whole RDA framework, I should be interested to hear what he has to say about how universities and FE colleges will work with whatever structure is set up to ensure that regional development continues.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Lady will want to know that we are entirely committed to ensuring consistency—indeed synergy—between the economic development functions of local authorities and the work of colleges and other providers. If she is straightforward, I think she will acknowledge that according to the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office, RDAs were not terribly effective in some of the work they did.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I hear what the Minister says, but the new Government still have some way to go in setting out more generally how they propose to build on Labour’s progress in upskilling and reskilling our population, and particularly in outlining how some of the more strategic objectives on skills shortages will be met at regional level. That may not be easily deliverable at local authority level, so the Government have some more thinking to do about our regions.

The progress made under Labour was recognised by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills in its national skills audit, published earlier this year:

“Significant progress has been made in raising the qualifications levels of the workforce and stimulating supply over the last ten years, so that compared to other OECD nations our supply of highly skilled people is likely to place us 10th in the OECD by 2020.”

When Labour left office we were on track to move up the OECD league table in terms of the advances we had made in skilling our population. There is thus a considerable challenge to the Government to maintain that progress.

Similarly, recent publications from Universities UK and the Russell group comment on the strength of the university sector, while arguing that if current standards and quality are to be maintained investment must continue. We may hear something about that in the Budget next week, but it remains to be seen whether protection will be given for education not only pre-19, but post-19, so that we continue to be internationally competitive.

Not only did the Labour Government invest heavily in education generally, including further and higher education, but that investment was accompanied by a strategy to widen participation, to raise aspirations and to ensure that all young people who felt they could benefit from a university or a level 4 education had the chance to do so. I have not yet heard from the new Government whether they will continue to have that high level of aspiration for our young people. The Leitch review very much led us in that strategy. The Minister mentioned the review in his opening speech, but he did not mention whether this Government would keep the very demanding Leitch targets, which stated that 90% or more of the working-age population should have a level 2 qualification, 68% should have a level 3 qualification and over 40% should have a qualification at level 4 or higher. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks those targets should stay in place.

Good progress was being made towards reaching those targets when Labour left office. The Liberal Democrats have often said—I often heard this during my election campaign—that although Labour had made advances in reskilling the population, those had been confined largely to the better-off. Interestingly, data from HEFCE show clearly that that is not the case. A HEFCE publication earlier this year, which looked at trends in young participation in higher education among different groups in England, stated that to overcome gaps in the data on disadvantage at an individual level, the study that it used looked at levels of disadvantage in local areas, taking figures from 8,000 census wards across England. The authors of the study also selected a range of indicators, and they said that, looking across the indicators, they had to conclude that since the mid-2000s young people from disadvantaged areas are substantially more likely to enter HE, that most measures of the gap in participation between most and least disadvantaged areas had fallen, and that the majority of additional entrants to HE have come from more disadvantaged areas. That means that Labour was not only upskilling the population, but it was extending access to higher education to those who had not previously been able to benefit from it. That is another substantial challenge for the new Government: they must—and we will be watching whether they continue to do so—extend opportunities and widen participation in the way that Labour did.

The audit that I mentioned earlier also talked about the importance of increasing skill levels further and identified key areas where there are skill shortages: in management and leadership, in professional skills, at the technician and equivalent level, at intermediate vocational levels and care services, and in customer service and general employability skills. It is important that we continue to make good those skill shortages.

The audit also identified key sectors where we need to be improving the skills levels of our young people and work force in the future if we are to remain internationally competitive. It was interesting to see the areas that had been outlined, which I think are familiar to all of us in the Chamber. They have been identified as low carbon; advanced manufacturing; engineering and construction; financial and professional services; the digital economy; life sciences and pharmaceuticals; the creative sector; care services; and retail, hospitality, leisure and tourism.

Our university and FE sectors are in a sense already embracing this brave new world, because they have already started to think of new ways of delivering courses that give much greater flexibility. I pay tribute to New College Durham for pioneering professional apprenticeships, for leading the drive for good-quality HE in FE, and for developing partnerships between HE and FE. I would welcome a visit to the college from the Minister, because he could meet the staff and see some of the fantastic work that is going on.

The Minister talked about international competitiveness in his opening speech. If we are to remain internationally competitive, we must keep our levels of reskilling high, which means that we will need to know how many young people and individuals in the work force are being skilled and reskilled. If we are not skilling sufficient people, we will need to put additional measures in place. That will mean that we will have to retain some targets, so I would like to hear the Government’s thoughts about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I welcome you to the Chair and wish you very well in your new role in the House? The House has been at its very best this afternoon, and I have enjoyed all the contributions, particularly the maiden speeches. The subject of education and skills always brings out the very best in Members. Indeed, for many of us, from whatever party represented in the House, it is the reason why we came into public life, and we have seen that today.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) on his contribution. He spoke warmly of his predecessor, Dr Starkey, who is remembered fondly on the Labour Benches, and of Milton Keynes’ great heritage in higher education. I was pleased to visit the new university centre in Milton Keynes, and I hope that he continues to support it in its work to extend access and widen participation in that area. Of course, Labour Members are particularly fond of, and are keen to remember, the great Open university and the heritage of Jenny Lee and the Wilson era Labour Government.

We heard a fantastic and wonderful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who I know was a very effective mayor of Liverpool during its year as capital of culture. He included many of the football references that we hear in the House. He obviously has big shoes to fill—many of us remember Peter Kilfoyle fondly—and I particularly enjoyed his reference to growing up on an estate. Those of us who grew up in very humble circumstances wish him well in his endeavours to remind the House that there are many people a long, long way from this Chamber.

We also heard an eloquent and articulate speech from the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). I hope that she will not be overwhelmed by liberalism, as she referenced in her speech. I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber to hear the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), who made many football references, so I will look at them in Hansard tomorrow. He spoke warmly of his predecessor, who was well respected on the Labour Benches.

I know the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) because she stood against me in Tottenham in 2000. She will remember that back then I looked a little more like Denzel Washington, but 10 years later I look a lot more like Forest Whitaker. She has championed the Conservative cause in London. I wish her well in her seat, and it is good that she mentioned Battersea Dogs Home—an institution of which we in London are very fond.

The hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) made me want to rush up to north-east Lancashire. I do not claim it is an area of the country I know well enough, but I thought he gave a very eloquent speech in which he reminded us of that city’s manufacturing heritage.

The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) also gave an eloquent speech. He was very kind about his predecessor and reminded us that we must continue to rediscover the importance of our industrial heritage—the Humber clearly played an important role in our history.

The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) could have got a job with a tourism agency in speaking about his constituency. His effective speech reminded us not just of the industrial nature of so many of the areas that we represent, but of the importance of agriculture and the skills that we need to support agriculture in our economy.

Let me pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who made a warm and passionate speech. She placed a great emphasis on role models—an issue that I have also championed in the House—and again, the beauty of the area that she represents came across.

The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) also paid an eloquent tribute, not just to his constituency but, importantly, to our armed forces. Historically, they have always played an important role in this country, by providing so many men and women with skills who have not just served our armed forces, but gone on to serve the wider community once they left the armed services.

Like the hon. Member for Central Devon, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) reminded us of the importance of seaside areas and the work that we must continue doing, particularly in the south-east, where there remain acute pockets of deprivation.

The hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) is a tribute to the north. He is keen to keep Stockton on the map, as his predecessor was, despite the boundary issues affecting his constituency.

I was not surprised that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), being a barrister, managed to cram a lot into her speech in the time available. I look forward to her contributions in the Chamber over the years ahead.

Let me turn to the returning parliamentarians. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for reminding us of the role of group training associations in extending apprenticeships and helping small businesses in particular to take part in our wider apprenticeship schemes.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) has tremendous expertise in higher education issues, but she also reminded us of the importance of the Leitch targets. I hope that when the Minister winds up we might hear something about whether the Government remain committed to those targets.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) was right to remind the House that Derby remains an exemplar city, owing to its unique combination of both skills and manufacturing. There is much that we can learn from the success of that part of the country over the most recent period. We all want to replicate that success in different parts of the country.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) on his election as Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, and on his thoughtful speech. We all look forward to hearing more from him in these debates over the coming years.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) on his advancement of the cause of UCLan university in his constituency and on reminding us of the industrial heritage of his area and the importance of companies such as Rolls-Royce.

We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), in an intervention. Importantly, she reminded us not just of the role of universities—she spoke about Cardiff—but of the many spin-out companies that emerge from universities, taking skills back into the community, as people graduate and create companies. They are illustrations of the huge success of “Science made simple”.

Let me come to the contribution of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). I have had exchanges with him across the Chamber for about four years—first in my role as the Minister for skills and then as the Minister for higher education. I look forward to the debates that we will have over the coming months. He has always described himself as a high Tory. As a consequence, he has an elevated—some might say levitated—status in the Chamber. I know his constituency well; I remember it fondly from my days as a Peterborough cathedral chorister. I suspect that he can be found on a Sunday engaging in amateur dramatics in the village halls around Spalding, playing Hercule Poirot or even Miss Marple.

[Mr Hayes]

Or a mix of the two.

[Mr Lammy]

Indeed.

I was disappointed not to see a reference to higher education in the motion and not to hear much from the hon. Gentleman about its importance. It is my view—I hope that it is his—that a world-class university system is central to a high-skilled economy. I grew up in Tottenham during a very difficult time in our history—and as an ethnic minority in troubled and difficult times—and I am very proud of all that we have done to widen access and extend opportunities for poorer and non-traditional families and for ethnic minorities across the country. It was a huge achievement for the Labour Government to widen participation to 44% and to enable more young people and more black and ethnic minorities to go to university than ever before.

When we look at constituencies in inner-city Liverpool, Birmingham and Manchester and at the pockets of deprivation in the cities, towns and villages that we have heard about today, and we see young people—whose parents would never have dreamed of going to university—going into higher education, we realise the major contribution that the Labour Government made to our high-skilled economy. It is important that that should continue.

It is a great shame that the Minister for Universities and Science, the right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), recently referred to students and young people as a “burden on the taxpayer”. Students are never a burden on the taxpayer. Underlying his statement is a certain view of the state and a suspicion of the contribution that the state makes to advancing the cause of a high-skilled economy. We will take every opportunity to challenge such assumptions over the coming months.

The Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, has announced the creation of 50,000 apprenticeships, but he is not in opposition now, and he must remember that he does not have those 50,000 apprenticeships until he has delivered them. The people who will actually deliver them, however, are in business and industry. Achieving that will take a lot of hard effort over the coming months, because I do not think that he is suggesting that the money that he has set aside will pay the salaries of those young apprentices. He is still expecting business to do that. So, at the moment, he has delivered only one apprentice: the public apprentice, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I wish the Minister of State well, but we will be looking hard at the detail over the coming months, and he will expect me to penetrate fiercely some of the hyperbole in his comments.