Oral Answers to Questions
John Hayes Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
2. What steps he is taking to reduce the burden of administration on employers offering to take on apprentices.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
George Sand said:
“Simplicity is the most difficult thing to secure in this world”.
Nevertheless we are working with employers and their representatives to challenge the requirements and processes imposed on employers taking on apprentices. We have identified a number of areas where we will streamline or remove unnecessary bureaucratic processes, demonstrating that the Government are absolutely committed to beating bureaucracy and to breaking down barriers wherever we find them.
David T. C. Davies
I thank the Minister very much for that. Does he agree that, to many people, high-quality vocational courses will offer a far better route to gainful employment than a meaningless degree somewhere?
Mr Hayes
For too long we have assumed that the only route to accomplishment is through academic prowess. I believe that practical, technical and vocational competence not only serves economic need, but instils the purposeful pride that enriches lives, cements communities and builds a better Britain.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
A director of Sirus Automotive who lives in my constituency would like to take on apprentices, but he has had his grant of £129,000 from Advantage West Midlands cut. Will the Secretary of State look into that to see why, as this is committed spending, his grant cannot be paid to him so that he can take on more apprentices?
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
3. How many jobs in low-carbon industries he expects to be created by the actions of the green investment bank.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
16. What steps he plans to take to provide offenders with relevant skills and training in order to help them find work when they leave prison.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
On 18 May, to great acclaim, I launched “Making prisons work: skills for rehabilitation”, the report on offender learning that I commissioned last summer. It sets out a substantial programme of reform to increase the positive impact of offender learning on reoffending rates and on former prisoners’ capacity to reintegrate successfully into civil society.
Mr Burrowes
The Minister will be aware of the good work of National Grid in providing work opportunities to offenders upon release. Does he recognise the common complaint that too many offenders have not been trained with the right work skills to make them employable on release? What are the Government going to do about that?
Mr Hayes
Yes, I do recognise that, which was why, in the review that I published, we put the emphasis on employability skills. For someone to leave the life of crime, another life must pay for them, which means getting and keeping a job. I met National Grid this week, actually, to discuss skills issues, and I congratulate it on its work and my hon. Friend on championing the issue.
Mr Nuttall
Does my hon. Friend agree that the longer the period for which an offender is able to benefit from training programmes, the more likely it is that they can acquire the skills necessary to find work when they leave custody?
Mr Hayes
I learned early on never to stray outside my purview or pitch above my pay grade. Suffice it to say that progression is critical, so what people learn in prison must be progressive. They must be able to take up and complete their studies when they leave, so that they can get qualified, get a job and get on.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
In Strangeways, in my constituency, which I have no reason to think atypical, 80% of prisoners are illiterate. Would not the biggest impact that this or any other Government could make be to have an intensive literacy programme for prisoners? That is the best way to get them back into work.
Mr Hayes
Yes, I agree. If the hon. Gentleman studies my report, he will see that prior attainment tests, which ensure that what we do in prisons matches real need, and the concentration on core skills that he describes, are critical in ensuring value for money, but also in ensuring that people get value from what we spend. I agree that core skills are critical, and they will form an important part of what we do from now on.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Citizens advice bureaux have successfully piloted financial capability projects to aid the rehabilitation process. What plans does the Minister have to roll out that provision, because it could play a vital role in reducing reoffending rates?
Mr Hayes
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has studied that matter rather closely. If he would like to come and speak to me and my colleagues about that particular aspect of offender learning, I would be happy for him to do so. He is right that those life skills, as well as the core skills and the employability skills that we have described in this short discussion, enable people to reintegrate into civil society in a way that is good for them, but also good for all of us because we must tackle recidivism.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
7. What discussions he has had with representatives of banks on the performance of banks in lending to businesses (a) in Retford and (b) nationally.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
In the Budget, we announced a further 40,000 apprenticeship places targeted at young unemployed people. That will be the catalyst for sustained joint working by the National Apprenticeship Service and Jobcentre Plus to maximise apprenticeship opportunities through contact with employers and client referral.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
With business organisations and colleges in Great Yarmouth and Norwich doing their best for people in Norfolk and Great Yarmouth, what can the Minister do to ensure that the most disadvantaged people there continue to have good access to community learning?
Mr Hayes
I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend in the House that the National Apprenticeship Service will be delivering training on apprenticeships to Jobcentre Plus staff in Great Yarmouth on 22 June. I would like to invite him to be there on that occasion to see just how we can make available to people the kind of opportunities that he has championed with such vehemence.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
What is the Minister’s strategy for getting more girls into apprenticeships in science, engineering and technology, where they are woefully under-represented?
Mr Hayes
I share the hon. Lady’s concern about that, and I have met the National Apprenticeship Service specifically to discuss opportunities for girls in such subjects. She will know that the wage return on apprenticeships in those areas tends to be higher than in other areas, so there is an added disadvantage to the fact that young women tend not to go into STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths. I am working on that, and will report back to the House further on progress.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
15. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on economic growth of the provision of apprenticeship places; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
Our research suggests that completed intermediate and advanced apprenticeships both deliver net economic benefits in excess of £100,000 over the learner’s lifetime. The 170,000 apprentices who started in 2008-09 will therefore generate an additional £13 billion for the economy over their working lives.
Bill Esterson
The National Foundation for Educational Research has shown that the young apprenticeships scheme has been highly successful when it comes to GCSE results and progress into further education, training and, crucially, apprenticeships. If the Minister agrees that apprenticeships are such an important part of economic growth, will he reconsider the Government’s decision to scrap the highly successfully young apprenticeships scheme, which is good for young people and the economy?
Mr Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is a diligent member of the Select Committee on Education, and he will have heard me say to that Committee just yesterday that I am keen to ensure that the best of what we had in the young apprenticeships scheme is carried forward in ongoing work. There were cost-effectiveness issues, as I am sure he would acknowledge, but employers, learners and parents say that there was good value in some of what the scheme did. We will take note of that and move forward on that basis.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The issue of apprenticeships is important for the whole House, and for that reason the Backbench Business Committee has at short notice scheduled a debate on apprenticeships this afternoon. Does the Minister welcome the fact that the issue will be debated this afternoon?
Mr Speaker
We are all delighted to bring a bit of joy into the Minister’s life.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
17. What steps he plans to take to target adult learning provision on those who most need support.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
It is a joy to answer successive questions, Mr Speaker.
Support for those in greatest need is the key priority for this Government and our skills strategy. We have protected funding for basic skills and provision for the unemployed, we have targeted entitlements to help those in most need, and we are reforming adult and community learning to engage better with disadvantaged people.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. One of the most disadvantaged groups of people in society are those who were failed by the academic system in their youth. This Government have set their stall out to ensure greater social mobility. What will my hon. Friend do to ensure that those in that group fulfil their potential under his plans for the future?
Mr Hayes
This Government, against all expectations and in the most difficult financial circumstances, protected the budget for adult and community learning. It is no wonder that Alan Tuckett of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education said:
“The adult and community learning safeguard is a key platform on which the Big Society can be built.”
This Government, true to their word, defended adult learning—the people’s policy, the people’s Minister, and the people’s party.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Minister has said that it is a key priority for this Government to provide support to those most in need. Sadly, the changes to funding for ESOL—English for speakers of other languages—will take support away from those most in need. The Government have promised an equality impact assessment. When will we see it, and if it is as bad as many of us fear, will he delay the proposed changes?
Mr Hayes
The hon. Lady highlighted these matters in an Adjournment debate, as the whole House will know, and she has made a consistent case on the subject. I did indeed ask for a further impact assessment, because I want to be sure that what we are doing is fair as well as cost-effective. We will bring the results of that assessment to the House before the summer.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
19. By how much on average he expects fees for part-time university courses to change between 2011-12 and 2012-13.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
As the House knows, this was a contentious issue, but I was able to bring together all the parties involved and they acted with professionalism, goodwill and good faith. This week the Institute for Learning announced that, with the support of the trade unions and the employers—the colleges—a settlement has been reached. I know what you are thinking, Mr Speaker: “Blessed are the peacemakers.”
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
T7. Is the Minister aware that many thousands of jobs in Scotland depend on defence contracts? What steps is he taking to ensure that the present constitutional uncertainty in Scotland does not undermine the ability of Scottish firms to bid for Ministry of Defence work?
Apprenticeships (Small Businesses)
John Hayes Excerpts(14 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Richard Graham
I will give way in a moment, if I may. It is interesting that so many hon. Members from the coalition side of the House are here today. They are firmly focused on the importance of apprenticeships, are leading by example and have their own experience as small business men and women. It is disappointing to see the complete absence of any representation from the Opposition, apart from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden).
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The situation in his part of Warwickshire is not dissimilar to that in my own neighbouring county of Gloucestershire. The small businesses in the world of the bear and ragged staff have similar issues, which we will certainly come on to.
Mr Hayes
I would not normally interrupt my hon. Friend’s peroration, but he made a comment about the number of colleagues across the House who are taking on apprentices. Does he agree that it may be appropriate to hold some kind of reception when we feel that we have reached a critical number, so that we can celebrate that, use it as a way of advertising the apprenticeship brand and send out a message that we are leading, as he has described, by example?
Richard Graham
I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks. He has brilliantly anticipated the climax of my speech, which was to come a few minutes down the line. The part of my speech that he may not necessarily have anticipated, or will necessarily appreciate, is about the funding of the great celebration that I have in mind, which he has so kindly already agreed to host. He is quite right to mention our own involvement in apprenticeships. I will come round to that, because a number of hon. Members present will want to make their own points and contribute with their own work in the field.
Returning to the question of small businesses and their contribution to both our local economies and collectively the national economy, I mentioned earlier small businesses that employ fewer than five people and their contribution to the UK economy. Small and medium-sized enterprises account for, astonishingly, almost 99% of all enterprises and almost half the country’s private sector turnover. Therefore, the essential argument that I want to start with today is that we cannot underestimate the extent to which small businesses will be the drivers of growth—or of stagnation, should the economy falter, which we all fervently hope it will not, and believe it will not. The question that we have to debate is how we can stimulate, encourage and exhort small businesses to think that taking on an apprentice is the right way forward.
Richard Graham
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. She has direct experience of these things, as do so many Members here today. It is absolutely true that the smallest companies’ greatest fear on the administrative or bureaucratic side relates not necessarily to the paperwork involved in filling in an application form or designing an advert, but to the fact that a huge amount of time and effort may be required, hour by hour and day by day, to manage the apprentice. The worry is that the investment that will need to be made over a year or two before the apprentice can make a significant contribution to the business may not be rewarded at the end of that time because the apprentice might leave, might be recruited by somebody else or might not be able to deliver the return that the small business is looking for on its investment.
I want now to raise a few of the points that the FSB has raised with me, which it believes are relevant to the promotion of apprenticeships in the smallest businesses. On the promotion of ATAs to help small business, one advantage of such agencies is that they would employ the apprentice in the same way that the training company I mentioned in my constituency does. The ATA would deal with issues such as employer compulsory liability insurance, and help of that kind with modern administrative requirements would be useful.
On skill recognition, GTAs could provide an effective route for solving the problem I raised in answer to the point about tailoring the training of apprentices to companies’ requirements. GTAs might well be able to help design new training programmes for specific companies to meet their requirements. Component manufacturers in the engineering sector, for example, which are an important employer in my constituency, may have more concerns and requirements regarding training than we realise. There might be small businesses out there that need something like a GTA to help them design the appropriate training course.
Perhaps I can bring that point alive with an anecdote. In my constituency, we have two makers of high-quality shirts; in fact, when I made my maiden speech in the House last year, I was delighted to be wearing a shirt made in Gloucester. Their shirts are made from high-quality English cotton and sometimes cotton from abroad. They are made in England, but one of the firms is increasingly taking on workers from Poland, where there is a high-quality sewing qualification. People arriving here with that qualification can immediately be put on the factory floor to contribute to the making of high-quality English shirts. It appears that this country does not yet have a similar qualification, which could easily provide the basis for a new form of apprenticeship with shirt manufacturers in my constituency and elsewhere.
I have also touched base with the British Chambers of Commerce, and it is important to recognise its remarks on the take-up of apprentices among small businesses. It believes that there is a case for better marketing to businesses of the resources that are available to them and of the benefits of apprenticeships. If we follow the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), such issues could be covered in what would, effectively, be a marketing flyer. Indeed, it could be designed by the company that he used to run in Swindon. That could be done at very low cost—possibly even pro bono—and the Department could distribute the details with information on business rates.
The British Chambers of Commerce also wants to place greater emphasis on the relevant agency sifting through candidates to find the right ones, rather than simply box-ticking. It says that small businesses have
“a greater fear than larger companies of the wrong candidate”.
From my own experience, I know that finding the right candidate and spending time taking them through an induction programme before offering them a job, which is difficult for a small business, will be increasingly relevant.
Two weeks ago, I presented certificates to people on an apprenticeship course in a large distribution company in my constituency. I asked the gentleman in charge of recruiting apprentices how he did it. He explained that he took all the people who applied, and who had not been ruled out because of a criminal background, on a one-day induction course in his warehousing company. He made a point of having an escorted walk through the company, which was led by a manager who explained the business as the group went through the various parts of the company. A lot of candidates were ruled out early on because they simply were not paying attention or contributing. When the group sat down later for a PowerPoint presentation on the business and what it was trying to achieve, some of those at the back of the room were texting on their mobiles or BlackBerries—something, Mr Davies, I am sure would never happen in this Chamber. In effect, there was a series of soft hurdles, which, by the end of the day, had reduced the number of candidates from about 40 to 15.
The vast majority of our teenagers do not realise how important such things are and what an impact they will have on their job opportunities. There is therefore a duty on us all as constituency MPs, and possibly on the National Apprenticeship Service, to ask employers to lay out in schools, before teenagers leave after their GCSEs or A-levels, exactly what is involved in getting a job, because it is not just about writing a CV. The NAS and the Department for Education could do something on that. The Minister wears the hats of two Departments, and he might want to comment on the way in which the Department for Education could co-operate more with employers to promote apprenticeships for businesses and, indeed, for small businesses that decide to take them up, so that school leavers really understand the challenges ahead.
Mr Hayes
Given the interest in the subject, it might be helpful if I dealt with that point now. Yesterday, in the Select Committee on Education, I was able to advertise the fact that, given my responsibilities in the Department for Education, I want to work with Lord Hill and others to encourage much greater engagement between the world of work and the world of learning by bringing employers into schools and letting people know about the employment opportunities available to them. My hon. Friend can rest assured that we are on the case.
Richard Graham
I am grateful to the Minister; it is extremely helpful to be aware of that. He will have heard me say before—others may wish to comment on this in due course—that I ask every apprentice I meet in my constituency how much help they got from their schools in winning their apprenticeship, and nine and a half times out of 10, the answer is nil, so we have a long way to go on that front.
Let me bring together some of the threads in the debate. We have covered the Government’s welcome commitment to see a vastly increased number of apprenticeships, and the Minister will confirm the figure of 150,000 additional apprenticeships, with 450,000 overall during the lifetime of this Government. We also touched briefly on the greater take-up of apprentices, particularly by large and medium-sized companies across the land in a variety of sectors, and the welcome pick-up in manufacturing, which has certainly driven forward the number of apprenticeships, for example in the crucial engineering sector. I am delighted that the Gloucestershire Training Group, a specialist engineering organisation in my constituency, is now overbooked with new apprentices for next year. I am working with the group to try to achieve new and larger premises to cater for that demand.
We also covered the take-up of apprentices by small businesses. Both the statistical and anecdotal evidence is that it is a great challenge for this, or indeed any, Government. We have looked at some of the factors that could encourage and incentivise the smallest businesses to take on apprentices: administrative and bureaucratic questions, cash incentives, and cost reductions, possibly through wider training funding for older apprentices. We touched briefly on the role of GTAs and ATAs, and I am sure that the Minister will want to say more about that. We have looked at the role of local media and at the feelings of the FSB, the BCC and some Members’ constituents.
The last part of my speech is about what we as MPs can do. I talked about how we can be champions of apprenticeships, both in general and more specifically for smaller businesses. I mentioned the role of apprenticeship fairs and having a specific sectoral focus. I have organised a job fair, which will have a large apprenticeships element, for the black and minority ethnic community in Gloucester in 10 days’ time, and there will be something similar for those with disabilities in due course. There is a large amount we can do, but there is also one specific thing. There are 650 of us in Parliament, and if we each took on an apprentice, that would be 650 additional apprenticeships. Some of my hon. Friends here today have already done so or, like my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), are committed to doing so.
If 100 MPs took on apprentices, it should be celebrated in Parliament with a reception, perhaps generously funded by BIS, with a welcoming speech to all the apprentices by the Minister who champions their cause so doughtily in Parliament and elsewhere. That would send a message across the land that we are not only talking the talk, but walking the walk in finding our own apprentices and, as small business people with fewer than 12 employees, promoting apprenticeships. That is an exhortation to my colleagues, but it is also an advance call on the Minister’s funding, to which I hope he will respond warmly.
I hope that today we send a message around the country that the Government are committed not only to increasing the number of apprenticeships, important though that is, and to highlighting their value in driving forward the future growth prospects for our businesses, vital though that is, but also to stimulating the smallest businesses in the land each to take on an apprentice, because that will both help their growth and serve their community by helping to reduce youth unemployment.
Mr Marsden
I absolutely agree. In my neck of the woods, Blackpool and The Fylde college has done sterling work in that area. There is sometimes an issue about colleges understanding the need to deliver some of their training closer to the workplace if possible and closer to the living space if possible of the people they are trying to reach.
Mr Marsden
I see the Minister nodding, and I suspect that as he represents a rural constituency he understands such issues.
The process is a two-way one, but the Government must consider the unintended consequences of their decisions elsewhere. In their hasty abolition of the regional development agencies, many of the bodies that oversaw local skills and employment policies were swept away. The new local enterprise partnerships have no powers in those areas, as skills policy remains under central control from Whitehall.
The Federation of Small Businesses and other business organisations have been critical of the Government’s failure to give local enterprise partnerships the tools to do the job. Included in that is the concern of the Federation of Small Businesses that there are not enough representatives from small and medium-sized businesses on local enterprise partnership boards. Allowing them to have a greater voice is important in terms of real input in tailoring and structuring skills policy locally, and that includes apprenticeships. Indeed, by their nature, small businesses understand the life-changing impact of apprenticeships, and how that must be balanced against day-to-day needs. We must remember that although much has been said, rightly, about the challenge of youth unemployment, we also face the challenges of demographic shift in the next 10 to 15 years, the projections in the Leitch report, and the particular needs of work-life trade-off if we are to attract older people to become involved with apprenticeships. That includes women in particular. There are impressive models from organisations such as B&Q and British Gas, but we need to see how those good practices can be replicated to their counterparts in small business.
Finally, I want to look at pre-apprenticeship preparation, which has been mentioned by one or two hon. Members, and in particular by the hon. Member for Bradford East in the context of the first job agreement—the FJA. Information, advice and guidance is crucial to inform people about the opportunities provided by apprenticeships, and if young people do not get such advice, SMEs may be deprived of many suitable candidates. It is vital that the Government have a framework that can deliver quality information, advice and guidance. In truth, however, there are still real problems with the new all-age careers service.
I know that the Minister has done his best to take forward such issues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Nevertheless, to echo earlier remarks, the Department for Education remains singularly unfocused on the need for financial support and for the necessary information, advice and guidance to be provided face to face. I urge the Minister to press his colleagues further on that.
What proposals does the Minister have to monitor completion rates more effectively? What conversations are his officials having with organisations responsible for qualifications about the balance between modular and more traditional structures for apprenticeships? Such things will be key in determining the attitudes of small businesses when taking on apprentices. We all agree that apprenticeships have a very real worth for businesses and apprentices, but the Government must recognise that one size does not fit all. If SMEs are to help lead sustainable economic growth and recovery, they must have the tools to achieve it. We must ensure that apprenticeship frameworks and mechanisms are accessible to all the small businesses that hon. Members have quite rightly praised today, and not only to the big companies that have the money and resources to take on apprentices.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
It is an immense pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and it is always a pleasure to speak opposite the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), who presents his case with typical flair and fairness.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing this debate. Over the past year, he and I have had a number of discussions about apprenticeships, and whenever we have done so, he has shown a commendable interest in and enthusiasm for the subject. He has also brought to my attention a series of ideas, reflected in his opening remarks today, about how we can further our policy to expand the number of apprenticeships available. I had the pleasure of visiting Gloucester rugby club with him and taking part in an apprenticeship fair that he had helped organise. It was a splendid occasion, and I know that he plans to take that forward with a number of similar events in his constituency that will be targeted at under-represented groups. Such work is highly commendable.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. As the hon. Member for Blackpool South said, many interesting points have been raised, and I shall try to address as many of them as I can in the time available—I have rather more time today than Ministers usually have when responding to such debates, which is welcome.
To place my remarks in context, let me stress to hon. Members that—make no mistake—apprenticeships are a flagship policy for the Government. It is true that the previous Government made progress on apprenticeships, and I shall say more about that in a moment. It is equally true, however, that apprenticeships have never been more central to public policy than they are today. The programme to build more apprenticeships in Britain than ever seen before in our history is supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and all Ministers with responsibility in the area. That is not merely rhetoric—though I have nothing against rhetoric—and it is illustrated by the fact that, despite financial constraints that were, it is fair to say, unusual in their severity, over the current spending period the Government have dramatically increased the funding available for apprenticeships.
The hon. Member for Blackpool South was kind enough to acknowledge that one of the first things that I did on entering the Government was to transfer £150 million of deadweight Train to Gain funding into apprenticeships to fund an additional 50,000 places.
Mr Hayes
I will come to that in a few moments. When I announce the details of the statistical first release to the House at the end of the month, I am confident that they will show substantial progress and achievement. As hon. Members will know, provisional data already in the public domain suggest that we have made remarkable progress, despite the difficult economic circumstances in which, as has been said, some firms might not usually be expected to consider training or employing new staff.
The commitment that I have articulated was confirmed in the Budget, when the Chancellor announced a further £180 million of funding for apprenticeships. That will enable us to create 40,000 places for young unemployed people, taking them from disengagement to re-engagement, and an additional 10,000 places for advanced and higher level apprenticeships that are focused on SMEs.
The work that I am doing with the Department for Work and Pensions has been mentioned. To an unprecedented degree, I am working with my colleagues to ensure that the welfare reforms being introduced, and particularly the Work programme, marry with the work we are doing on training, skills and apprenticeships. It is important that the 100,000 additional work placements that have been secured have a close relationship with subsequent training and that the system is progressive. The experiences that people gain as they move from disengagement to re-engagement should lead to further learning and training and ultimately to work.
Mr Marcus Jones
Under the previous Government, there was a shocking drop-out rate in the number of apprenticeships started and those completed. In 2009-10 alone, nearly 280,000 apprenticeships were started but only 171,500 were completed. That is shocking. Will the Minister assure me that the Government will pay far more attention to that issue? Although we cannot guarantee that every apprenticeship will be completed, we should ensure that we get a far better rate of completion than in the past.
Mr Hayes
Even a Minister as confident as I am would not wish to disagree with my hon. Friend, because he is so highly regarded both in his constituency and in the House. None the less, I must say in fairness that the previous Government made progress on completions—I do not like to say things in the House that I cannot say with candour. Although it is true that completions, both under the previous Government and this Government have posed a challenge—as described by the hon. Member for Blackpool South—considerable progress was made by the previous Government. Furthermore, to be ever more generous and even more self-deprecating, let me say that it will be a challenge for us to maintain completion levels as we expand the programme. One risk of a rapid expansion in apprenticeships is that we will need to be careful about starts and completions. As more people are drawn into the system by the energy that we invest and the resources we provide, unless we are careful, there is a risk that the number of completions will suffer. As has been suggested, I am working closely with my officials and we must monitor the situation through the NAS and look at what measures we can put into place to ensure completions.
I do not want to move too far from the main thrust of my argument, but one such measure might be to look at outcome payments for large apprenticeship providers—in other words, to work with those large providers and ensure that payment is made on completion. I am in discussion with a number of major national companies that are extremely interested in engaging in such a system, and we will pilot such a scheme with a number of significant apprenticeship providers. That is one of the things that we can do with regard to completions, but my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton was right to draw that issue to hon. Members’ attention, as was the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Blackpool South.
The difficulty for me in all this is that I have invested a considerable amount of my political reputation on the basis that we will indeed create such numbers of apprenticeships. That might be described as a bold move. The shadow Minister and possibly others would be disappointed if I was not poetic at some time in this speech—I was going to say “performance”, but I do not want to undersell myself—and it was Ezra Pound who said:
“If a man isn’t willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he’s no good.”
The risk that I have taken in respect of my opinions is indeed the risk about our endeavours to grow apprenticeship numbers dramatically, but we have to take such risks if we believe that something is right, as Pound suggested, and I do believe that this is right for reasons that I shall detail as I respond to the debate.
Mr Marsden
The Minister will be relieved, possibly, or disappointed to hear that I have no intention of swapping literary quotes with him. Before we lost the thread of the previous useful exchange with the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), I wanted to ask the Minister whether part of the consultations or part of the consideration of how we make progress on completions will cover whether certain structures of apprenticeship cause more problems between start and completion.
Mr Hayes
Yes, I think that there will be consideration not only of structures, but of whether there are sector-specific problems, whether there are problems with certain kinds of apprenticeship and frameworks and whether there is an issue about different ages of apprentices. The hon. Gentleman will know—indeed, the whole House knows—that we are focusing, as I described earlier, on apprenticeships as a means of re-engaging people who are disengaged. The hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) described the length—and I might say the difficulty—of the journey that some people make to re-engagement. It is a tough set of challenges for people who were failed by the system first time round. Sometimes, the path to the destination that they seek and we seek for them will be relatively stony. Small bite-sized chunks of learning, delivered in a way that is highly flexible and accessible, are often the way of dealing with that, and we may well need to consider structure in that context.
The hon. Member for Blackpool South will also know that I will announce in the autumn progress on our access to apprenticeships policy. We recognise that many young people in particular do not have the prior attainments necessary to begin even a level 2 apprenticeship. We need to create a ladder for those young people, so that they can acquire the core skills necessary for them to progress subsequently to further training and employment. He is right to say in that context that the form, character and pace of learning need to be appropriate to the circumstances of those learners.
The net effect of the commitments that have been given by the Government is, I believe, that we will create more apprenticeships than ever before in this country. To put that in firmer terms, as the Prime Minister himself has said, we expect to create 250,000 more apprenticeships during the lifetime of the spending period. That will constitute extraordinary growth in the number, compared with what Labour projected. We expect to exceed the previous Government’s target by 250,000. That is extraordinary, unprecedented growth in the number of apprenticeships.
There has never been that kind of growth in this country. However, there are precedents elsewhere. Meeting my French counterpart some time ago, I was interested to learn that the apprenticeship system in France has metamorphosed in the last 20 or so years. The French apprenticeship system was in the doldrums 25 years ago, but the concentration, investment and commitment of successive French Governments have meant that France, like Britain now, sees apprenticeships as critical to delivering the skills necessary to build a competitive economy. Therefore, we know that that can be done with political will and determination, backed by resource.
I have said on many occasions that practical skills and those who learn them remain scandalously undervalued in our society. It has been said in the debate that many people, including some employers, still view apprenticeships as somehow not quite good enough. That is partly about careers advice and guidance and the perception of the routes available, particularly to young people. The matter was raised by the shadow Minister and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys). By the way, I was delighted to join her in her constituency when I visited Thanet college. I will take this opportunity to say that the work that that college is doing with Canterbury Christ Church university is extraordinarily important in developing a practical route to higher learning for many of the constituents whom my hon. Friend so competently represents.
The advice and guidance that people receive will shape their choices about the learning and employment routes that they take. One should not underestimate the influence that that advice has, particularly on young people, as I said. The truth is that people such as us are particularly advantaged in those terms, or at least our children are. The familial networks and social contacts that my children enjoy will mean that they get pretty good advice about the options available to them at school, college and university and in work. That is not true of the very large number of people who do not enjoy those familial and social contacts. Professional advice and guidance are very important in rebalancing the quality of the advice that is available to those who are most under-represented in higher education—those who start with the most disadvantages.
On that basis, I am determined to develop an all-ages careers service, as hon. Members know. That service will bring together careers professionals to a degree that has not been known previously, with a common set of professional standards and training and consequent accreditation, to deliver high-quality, independent and empirical advice and guidance, including advice and guidance on vocational learning options and practical and technical jobs.
It has been said in the debate—I think that it was said by the hon. Member for Bradford East, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet and other hon. Members—that the advice given in schools is often inadequate. It is fair to say that it is patchy. Some schools do this rather well; many do it less well. However, what characterises the advice is that it is usually prejudiced by the academic experience of the person offering it. It is a big ask of teachers to be excellent pedagogues and also experts on every kind of career option. It seems to me to be much better for schools to secure independent advice. That is why the Government are putting a Bill through the House—it is progressing from the Commons to the Lords as we speak—that will put a statutory duty on schools to secure just such advice. There will also be unprecedented professional competence.
I am pleased to say, as I hinted teasingly at Question Time in the House earlier today—actually, it was the Secretary of State who revealed it—that we will be working with the Department for Work and Pensions to co-locate the national careers service in Jobcentre Plus from this autumn. We will pilot that process and then have a speedy roll-out. The national careers service, with separate branding, will be available to people in Jobcentre Plus, offering the very kind of empirical advice that I have described. In addition, I will hold discussions with representatives of colleges to consider co-location in our network of further education colleges.
As well as that, I am considering how funding can be provided in a way that incentivises professionals in the careers industry to be bolder and to reach out with a new commercial zeal—of course, the independent advisers are businesses, too—to provide quality advice. That will make so much difference, particularly for those who do not usually get good advice from elsewhere.
I shall say a little more about the perception of apprenticeships and practical learning. We too often undervalue vocational competence. Practical skills and craftsmanship remain objects of admiration for most Britons, but not so among the chi-chi class, the glitterati and the chatterati, who see practical skills as somehow beyond their scope or their understanding.
The Government’s will reflects the people’s will in this, and I am determined, not merely because it is essential for economic purpose but because it is right socially and culturally, to ignore the overtures and shrill complaints of what I might call the haute bourgeoisie liberal establishment—I do not mean the Liberal Democrats, of course; in this context it is liberal with a small l—and make the case for practical vocation and technical learning and practical vocational and technical competency. We must once again value craft. We must elevate the practical.
Part of this concerns the aesthetics of apprenticeships. During adult learners week, I was able to announce a range of measures designed to raise not only the status of apprentices but their self-esteem and the worth that apprenticeships confer. Those measures include the introduction of graduation ceremonies to give public recognition of apprentices’ successes and the creation of alumni networks to allow former apprentices to stay in contact and continue to exchange ideas and experiences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) made a convincing case for a society of apprentices, and we shall look closely at that. I very much welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester’s acknowledgement of the importance of celebrating apprentices and their achievements, and that was reflected in the comments of the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle). Hon. Members will be glad that, later this month, the national apprenticeship awards, which I shall attend, will celebrate the achievements of apprentices and employers from all over the country.
I turn now to some of the specific raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. He said that small and micro-businesses take on apprentices not only to drive up growth but to drive down youth unemployment. He is right. Apprenticeships are good not only for growth but for re-engagement in the economy and for social mobility, social cohesion and social justice. You know as well as any Member, Mr Davies, that social justice, in the spirit of Disraeli, lies at the very heart of Conservatism.
My hon. Friend asked for recognition of the fact that, for many reasons, including business confidence, recruiting apprentices is a challenge for small businesses. I recognise that, and I assure him that I am in no way complacent about the work that must be done to meet that challenge. That is why I have asked the NAS to report to me regularly on the progress that it is making, particularly in that field. We are constantly pushing to do more.
My hon. Friend sought a commitment that we would consider ways to increase small business take-up, possibly through group training associations and apprenticeships training agencies. The Growth and Innovation Fund will allow the development of more GTAs and ATAs. I cannot say too much about that, because the bids have not been considered yet and the results have not been announced. However, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that a large number of applications relate to the areas that he has mentioned. I am a keen supporter of the GTA model, and I am carefully considering how, and in what circumstances, we might see further role-outs of that model to reduce the burden on small employers of taking on an apprentice.
My hon. Friend spoke about providing some form of incentive to small employers to take on an apprentice that have not done so before. He will be aware that he echoes the observations that Alison Wolf made in her report to the Department for Education on vocational education. She recommended that targeted subsidies should be issued to some employers in some circumstances. Although I cannot confirm any details today, I am not unsympathetic to that view. That will not come as a surprise given that it was in the Conservative manifesto, which I wrote before the election—I must say that I wrote that part, not the whole of it.
Had economic circumstances been different, and given that the coalition partners share a view on the matter, we might well have put measures of that sort into place, but we live in tough times, and it is not possible to do all that we might have done or might have wanted to do. Nevertheless, Alison Wolf’s proposals shed fresh light, and we will be considering them in detail, mindful of the deadweight costs that are always associated with financial support for employers.
My hon. Friend mentioned bureaucracy, transparency and flexibility in the system, and he asked for my assurances on those matters. My officials are working on plans greatly to simplify the apprenticeships system, and to make it as easy as possible for employers of all shapes and sizes to take on an apprentice. Indeed, a taskforce led by major employers has just reported to my officials on the subject. It will use the recommendations of real employers with relevant experience to make such changes a reality. As I have said, we are piloting outcome payments for large employers and developing a toolkit for smaller employers to guide them through the process. Smaller employers often say, as my hon. Friend will acknowledge, that the process is confusing; they are not sure where to turn, or which steps they need to take and when. Bringing the information together in a highly accessible form will counter some of those doubts and answer some of those questions.
My hon. Friend knows that I wrote to all Members during national apprenticeship week in February, urging as many as possible to take on apprentice in their offices. An apprentice works alongside me in my ministerial office—I was with him today—and my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), has just taken on an apprentice—he is a model of all that is best about the 2010 intake of Members, and I urge all hon. Members to do the same. I would, of course, be delighted to host a reception for Members from across the House with their apprentices not only to celebrate their commitment to the programme but, more importantly, to advertise the apprenticeship brand. If we take steps forward in that regard, we can reasonably ask others to do the same.
As for funding, I will refer that matter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who will no doubt respond to my hon. Friend personally. [Laughter.] I jest, Mr Davies. I will of course look at whether my Department can fund such a reception, but the hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to give a detailed commitment at this stage. Certainly, in November, we will be hosting a parliamentary reception in partnership with the NAS for exemplar apprentices, apprenticeship employers, a number of other key partners and a selection of employers who wish to recruit apprentices.
An important factor in raising the status of and demand for apprenticeships is the perception among prospective apprentices and their employers of where an apprenticeship can lead and what an apprentice can become by engaging in an apprenticeship. That is about not only advice, guidance and the aesthetics around apprenticeships, but the promotion of apprenticeships. The kind of fair that my hon. Friend ran in Gloucester and that other hon. Members are now running in their constituencies are immensely important in raising the profile of the brand and in countering some of the mis-assumptions about apprenticeships that might prevail among employers or learners.
I warmly support the 100 apprenticeships in 100 days initiatives that have been run across the country. We will look at other ways in which to promote apprenticeships. We are always keen to be innovative, creative and imaginative, and I assure hon. Members that the NAS is considering a range of ways in which to advertise the virtues of apprenticeships in every way.
Last year, we published in the national press the names of all those people who had achieved higher apprenticeships in the same way in which we publish the names of people who achieve degrees and postgraduate qualifications. That is the kind of thing that I mean when I discuss new ways in which we can celebrate success. Such ambitions have been broadly welcomed by employers as steps in the right direction. In the final analysis, the impact of an expanded and improved apprenticeships system on learners’ lives and on our collective prospects for economic growth depend most of all on employers’ willingness to take on apprentices. Government can only do so much. We celebrate the 85,000 employers who currently take on apprentices, and we should recognise their commitment to those people—their willingness to invest in individual futures.
Many larger employers appreciate just what a boost apprentices can give to a company. During the course of this year, we have seen a welcome number of larger businesses pledging to create or expand apprenticeship programmes. My hon. Friend is right to point out that smaller employers can face particular problems in that regard. It has been said by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton, that small businesses are critical to the success of this project, and that is because they are critical to the success of our economy more generally. They are the very backbone of the British economy. Working with very small businesses to help them to deal with some of the burdens and hurdles associated with apprenticeships is a priority for the Government.
Research has shown that SMEs tend to be less aware of apprenticeships and their benefits than larger firms. I pay tribute to those SMEs that take on apprentices, which form the majority of apprenticeships. None the less, we must go further. The remedy for some of the difficulties lies with my Department and the NAS, and we are working determinedly together to reduce to a minimum, consistent with quality assurance, the bureaucratic pressures associated with training an apprentice. We have already acted to provide special help for the increasing number of SMEs, such as those in advanced manufacturing and digital industries, which require high-level skills. The 10,000 additional high-level apprenticeships will be focused largely in SMEs. We are also offering new grant funding and will support businesses coming together as consortia to build advanced and higher-level apprenticeship schemes to address skills gaps. That could include setting up new training frameworks and delivering joint apprenticeship training.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) made a bold bid on behalf of the Kidderminster business enterprise zone. Although I cannot comment on the detail of that, I acknowledge his well-known commitment to his constituency.
The shadow Minister spoke about the structure of schemes. There is an argument for a modular approach. We will consider that, because it is particularly relevant to micro-businesses, the virtues of which have been advertised by many Members.
It is important to recognise that employing an apprentice might not always be possible for every small business. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester has pointed out, that is one good reason to look seriously at GTAs and ATAs. Such measures will help to ensure not only that we provide more apprenticeships, but that apprenticeships are available in a wider range of companies and a larger number of specialisms than ever before. That is important for rural communities. My constituents simply cannot travel long distances to large companies to do apprenticeships, which they might be able to do more easily in an urban area. Therefore, the roll-out to more companies, especially small companies, has disproportionate significance in those kinds of constituencies.
The commitment that the Government have made to apprenticeships is unequivocal and unabated. That is good news for the people and businesses of Gloucester and for people up and down the country. Apprenticeships embody everything that this Government and I personally stand for. Politics is about ideas, but ideas stripped of feeling and heartfelt sentiment are cold, arid and sorry things. My heart-felt commitment to apprenticeships is not something for which I apologise. Benjamin Disraeli said:
“Never apologise for showing feeling. When you do so, you apologise for the truth.”
The truth is that apprenticeships deliver both for our economy and for a wider social purpose. By extending apprenticeship opportunities, we will feed social mobility. This ladder of opportunity will enable the most disadvantaged to climb to highly skilled, highly paid and respected employment.
However, in the end, what we earn is less significant than what we do and what we are. The worth and purposeful pride that people gain from an apprenticeship and from acquiring a competence that has economic value are immensely important in building a society that works. Every business can play a vital part in fulfilling this vision, and I will work to ensure that the barriers in their way are pulled down. Together we can create a society where all feel valued because each is valued. I am talking about a bolder, better and bigger nation—a British future as glorious as Britain’s past.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Hayes Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
11. Whether the guidelines he plans to produce for the discretionary learner support fund will have a statutory basis.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
As with the education maintenance allowance, guidance on the 16-to-19 bursary fund, whose establishment is provided by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 14 of the Education Act 2002, will be issued by the Young People’s Learning Agency pursuant to its statutory powers under section 72 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.
Lisa Nandy
Surely the Minister accepts that there is an urgent need for young people to have certainty as they make decisions about whether to go to college this year. Given that his own Department’s equality impact assessment said that the shift to a discretionary system could leave the door open to unintended discrimination, how will he ensure that decisions about allocation of funds are fair to students and do not leave colleges to prosecution under the equalities law?
Mr Hayes
By her own description, the hon. Lady is a champion of fairness, and she has been consistent in her critique of these matters. We expect schools and colleges to have regard to the guidance. They will also have to comply with equalities legislation, which means that they must not discriminate against their students on the basis of their protected characteristics, and they are subject to the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
12. How many schools had converted, or applied to convert, to academy status in (a) Lancaster and Fleetwood constituency and (b) England on the most recent date for which figures are available.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
14. What steps he is taking to improve the standard of careers guidance available in schools.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
Subject to the passage of the Education Bill, schools will be under a new duty to secure access to independent and impartial careers guidance for their pupils from September 2012. Also, an unprecedented degree of co-operation with the careers industry means that we will have new professional standards, training and accreditation.
Alok Sharma
I thank the Minister for his work in this area. Does he agree that more businesses also need to work in partnership with schools to provide careers advice? Will he join me in applauding the companies that are backing the futures fair that I and others in my constituency are putting together for secondary schools in Reading?
Mr Hayes
I am well aware, as you, Mr Speaker, and the whole House will be, of my hon. Friend’s commitment in that regard. Indeed, on 29 September, under his leadership, Reading West schools and others will be holding a futures fair. It is critical that that becomes the norm, not the exception, with businesses, schools, careers guidance bodies and Government working together to turn people’s ambitions into reality.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Why did the Minister not have a transition plan in place for his changes to careers guidance, and what estimates has he made of the number of young people who will be affected this year by the absence of such a plan?
Mr Hayes
The hon. Gentleman knows that the Education Bill is going through the House—I have a copy for him here, just in case he has forgotten its contents. He also knows that on the subject of transition I have written to every local authority in the country—again, I have a copy of the details here—and to schools, letting them know what provision they need to put in place in anticipation of their new duty this September.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
15. How many people he expects to be made redundant as a result of the closure of Connexions services; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
The move from Connexions to more effective arrangements for careers guidance will present challenges as new opportunities emerge. Those challenges will, of course, be resolved at local level. It is for local authorities themselves to decide what provision they should make for young people, taking into account their statutory duties and the advice that they have received from me.
Karl Turner
The good people of Hull have just kicked out the Liberal Democrat council, and with it the Tory-led policy of pulling funding for Connexions. Will the Minister congratulate the new council leader, Steve Brady, on overturning that vicious Tory policy and looking after young people in the city?
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
How will the Minister consult young people about the changes to the careers and Connexions service, as he has a statutory duty to do?
Mr Hayes
The hon. Lady will know that I have agreed to, and indeed already conducted, a meeting with young people to consider exactly what they want out of the system. I intend to spread those summits to other locations across the country so that we can shape the service to meet young people’s needs, for as John Ruskin said:
“The highest reward for a man’s toil is not what he gets for it, but what he becomes by it.”
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
17. How much funding will be available through the 16-to-19 bursary fund in the 2011-12 academic year for students starting their courses in September 2011 after allocation of the amount guaranteed for vulnerable groups.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
We expect the cost of providing a £1,200 bursary to the most vulnerable young people to be just under £15 million in 2011-12. In addition, just over £101 million in 2011-12 will be allocated to schools, colleges and training providers for them to make discretionary awards to students. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are also putting in place transitional funding.
Nic Dakin
In evidence to the Select Committee on Education last week, the chief executive of the Association of Colleges made it clear that to support young people properly, schools and colleges ought to have known six months ago how much money they would get. They still do not know how much money they will get. When will they know?
Mr Hayes
What colleges do know is that the Government are providing just over £194 million in 2011-12 in the transitional support that I have described. Of course, the change that we are describing is a change towards greater discretion. I was with the gentleman to whom the hon. Gentleman refers, and I know how much he welcomes that additional discretion, so that the system can become more responsive, dynamic and suited to need.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
We have heard that under the new arrangements, schools and colleges will have flexibility on who qualifies for support, but will my hon. Friend confirm that disadvantaged students in my constituency will get the help that they need to enter further education?
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Barnsley college is an outstanding college, as judged by Ofsted, and it would like to support young people from low-income families by giving them free school meals, free transport and help with books and equipment. Will the Government guarantee that they will give Barnsley the funding to deliver that to its young people, to enable them to fulfil their potential?
Mr Hayes
I will tell the hon. Lady what I will guarantee. I will guarantee that colleges can make those kind of discretionary decisions. She is right: different colleges in different areas, serving different cohorts, need funds to support different kinds of activities to deal with different challenges. That is exactly the kind of flexibility that we intend to help her college and her learners.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
18. What steps he is taking to improve the standard of arts and culture education in schools.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
T3. Following the abolition of education maintenance allowance, further education colleges are finding it difficult to plan ahead for pupils on low incomes, those who may have been on free school meals and those from low-income households. How on earth will colleges be able to plan ahead if they are not receiving information about the people trying to enrol? Can the Minister say what he is going to do about that?
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
That is a perfectly fair question. It is important that colleges have information as soon as possible to make the kind of provision that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I will ensure that further discussions take place between my officials and colleges to guarantee that they have that information.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
T8. Does the Secretary of State agree with Ofqual that the OCR—Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations—GCSE history pilot should end? Shaun Connelly, the head of humanities at Colne Primet high school in my constituency, has contacted me, as he believes that the course has allowed students of all abilities to achieve their potential in history.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
T9. A survey for the Prince’s Trust shows that one in five children from deprived homes believes that they will end up in “dead-end jobs”. Does the Minister agree that this highlights the importance of implementing the Wolf review, and in particular recommendation 7, which says that the lowest-attaining learners should focus on English and maths, backed up by practical work experience?
Mr Hayes
I am familiar with the Prince’s Trust report to which my hon. Friend refers. It does indeed describe the under-achievement that he highlights, but it also says that often people do not get adequate advice and guidance—the wherewithal that they need—to achieve their ambitions. That is precisely why we are so committed to filling that gap.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
T10. Head teachers of eight secondary schools serving children in my constituency have taken what they describe as the unprecedented step of writing to the parents and carers of years 11 and 12 students about the impact of Government cuts on sixth-form funding. They are considering cutting the range of courses, increasing class sizes, ending the teaching of some subjects, and reducing guidance and enrichment sessions. They say in their letter:“we have never been subject to cuts of this magnitude,”which—
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Good careers advice is absolutely vital to those at risk of falling into neither earning nor learning. Following the demise of Connexions, will the Secretary of State say who will own the administrative data, counting in real time the numbers of young people who are not in education, employment or training?
Mr Hayes
The hon. Lady is right about good careers guidance, but she will know that a survey conducted by Edge found that 51% of young people regarded the advice from Connexions as inadequate. In moving to the new service, we will of course take on board those data, but we are also putting into place for the first time an all-age database to give people the advice they need in order to fulfil their potential.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
We all agree with education for life, but will the Secretary of State find time to provide education for saving life as part of the school curriculum?
Review of Offender Learning
John Hayes Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
I am publishing today “Making Prisons Work: Skills for Rehabilitation”, the report on the review of offender learning that I commissioned last summer. The document sets out our reform programme for offender learning. Our plans mark a departure from existing practice. The means of managing the system and measurement of outcomes will change dramatically and, consequently, so will the allocation of resources.
“Making Prisons Work: Skills for Rehabilitation”, which has been developed jointly with the Ministry of Justice, takes careful account of the Government’s plans for reform of adult learning and skills over the remainder of this Parliament, plans for reform in the criminal justice system and the 98 responses to our call for evidence. I thank all those who took the time to submit their views.
The plans also reinforce our public service reforms, shifting power away from the centre of Government into the hands of front-line staff and the partnerships that operate at a local level to deliver services.
The link between recidivism and the failure of ex-offenders to find work is clear. If those in prison acquire the skills needed to gain employment on release from prison there is a good chance that they will turn their lives around.
We are determined to make prisons places where people learn skills to build lives beyond crime. And the authenticity of what is taught and tested will be assured by its relationship with further learning and employment. Plainly, skills acquired through prison education must make ex-offenders more employable. In these terms prison must be made to work. Those closest to the effects of their decisions on the funding and management of learning provision should be responsible and accountable.
Some of the previous reforms to the skills system inside prisons have brought about improvements: certainly, we have increased prisoner participation in learning and skills. However, we are still failing to ensure prisoners continue their progress on release in terms of further learning or employment. To address this, we will place a much greater focus on developing the vocational skills demanded by employers in the areas to which prisoners are to be released, making offender learning an authentic part of the wider skills system. That sharpened focus will also enable us to support the drive towards prisons increasingly becoming places of meaningful work. As responsibility is devolved to those closest to the effects of their decisions, accountability will be assured through measurement of outcomes.
We will reflect the Government’s focus on payment by results by introducing outcome incentive payments: providers’ payments will be based, in part, on their success in helping get people into jobs. Our new emphasis on decentralised control and accountability means we will change the distribution of resources between prisons, supporting our determination to put in place the right skills offer for the offender while they are within the justice system. That will be framed by a significant change from the current system, introducing a focus on clusters of prisons between which prisoners tend to move and with wide implications for the way people work together.
To put these changes in place, we shall re-procure the offender learning contracts for delivery in adult prisons in England.
For offenders in the community, supervised by the probation service, we will place a new collaborative emphasis on the skills system in helping offenders gain the competences that will help them into work.
My Department will not be able to do all of this alone. The interaction between the Department for Work and Pensions, especially the Work programme and Jobcentre Plus’s other employment support, and the skills system will be critical to our success in making sure that offenders use their newly acquired skills to secure work. Just as important is the need to engage sectors, social enterprises, charities and voluntary organisations whose dedication and expertise makes such a positive difference to so many lives.
“Making Prisons Work: Skills for Rehabilitation” is available on the BIS website at http://www.bis.gov.uk/ and copies will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
Regulatory Authorities (Level of Charges) Bill
John Hayes Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short Bill but an important one because it raises an issue that affects everyone in the country: the level of regulatory charges imposed on them. I think it was the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General who coined the phrase “stealth taxes”. He did so more than 10 years ago, but it is still a highly relevant term, because when public sector organisations increase their fees and charges, they are essentially imposing additional taxes on the populace.
While I was looking into possible subjects on which to introduce Bills during this Session, I had some very unsatisfactory correspondence with the Care Quality Commission about the price it was charging for the registration of a children’s hospice in Dorset called Julia’s House. At that stage, Julia’s House had three residents rooms but it wanted to add a further room, and the CQC said it would have to pay a substantial additional fee of thousands of pounds. The hospice chairman wrote to me saying he thought that was unsatisfactory as the hospice is, after all, a charity and all its costs are covered by charitable donations, which in this instance were, effectively, going into the proxy coffers of the Government by way of a regulatory burden.
Following that, the CQC conducted a consultation on its level of charges in general. I will refer later to some of the conclusions to be drawn from that, but it is clear that the CQC is intent on increasing the burden of charges well above the rate of inflation from year to year, partly to meet the Treasury requirement that it should cover its costs by raising charges. We know, however, that it is possible for organisations to reduce their costs, although that option is very often not taken by regulatory authorities. Fortunately, the BBC is now being forced to reduce its costs because the Government have said the licence fee cannot be increased.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
I wonder whether my hon. Friend might dwell a little further on this point and give us a little more detail because, contrary to what he has said, there are cases in which the introduction of a moderate and measured regulation may allow for other regulations to be lifted. That balance lies at the heart of the Bill and our consideration of it.
Mr Hayes
Yes I will, as I want to inform my hon. Friend’s contribution as well as I possibly can. There is a strong argument that the introduction of professional standards, and therefore some measure of quality, into certain parts of the economy may allow for the reduction of other regulations that are currently in place precisely because those professional standards are absent.
Mr Chope
That is a rather general example, if I may say so. Perhaps when my hon. Friend comes to respond to the debate he will address a specific profession, such as dentistry. Dentists are already regulated by their professional body. They are also regulated under health and safety legislation and so forth, but the CQC is now insisting that it too should regulate them. It is going to cost dentists a minimum of £800 a year, I think, to register with the CQC. I hope that the Minister will in due course explain what added value will come from that, as there is an enormous amount of scepticism about whether it will lead to any improvement in the quality of dentistry in this country. When one looks at the CQC report, one finds that the income from the regulatory fees for dentists will far exceed the amount that will be spent on regulating dentists. That is a good example of what I am describing as a “stealth tax” or an “additional regulatory burden”.
Mr Chope
I think that that would be a danger were the increase in fees to go ahead. A similar danger arises in the case of 17-year-olds seeking their first provisional driving licence. Is it reasonable that they should have to pay a very large fee for that? That fee might be a deterrent to their getting a licence and they might choose—unlawfully, obviously—to drive without a licence. That was a challenge I faced when I was the Minister for Roads and Traffic because in order to keep down the cost of entry into driving for someone obtaining a provisional licence and in order to make ends meet, it was necessary to introduce a modest charge for people who wanted to renew their licence at the age of 70.
There was a big debate in the Government at the time, egged on by a false leader in The Sunday Telegraph, and the proposal to charge a modest fee for 70-year-olds when they renewed their licences was regarded as a tax on pensioners. Nobody really understood the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) is making, which is that to increase the costs for the person seeking to get his first provisional licence would be a potential deterrent for that person. I have raised a similar issue in the context of the very high rates of insurance costs and the Government’s policy of having increases in insurance premium tax that bear directly and disproportionately on the costs for young drivers who want insurance. My hon. Friend therefore makes some very good points.
A constant problem is: if we have regulators, who will regulate them? That is essentially what the Bill is about. It challenges the Government in a time when money is tight and when we are told that family incomes will fall over the next two or three years. The Government are imposing quite tight targets on many Government Departments, but would it be fair if those Departments responded by increasing the fees and charges they impose on the tax-paying public by more than the rate of inflation? I do not think it would.
Mr Hayes
I am interested in that assertion. Of course my hon. Friend will know that the Government are sympathetic to the thrust of what he is saying. We understand that regulation is a significant issue for businesses of all types, but I wonder whether the debate about regulation is too often seen in quantitative rather than qualitative terms. My hon. Friend has made a case about the volume of legislation in respect of regulation and I wonder whether he could expand on the quality issue. When regulation is justified, how should it be devised and implemented?
Mr Chope
My Bill deals with the cost of regulation rather than the wider issues of regulation that have been raised in, for example, Lord Young’s report. I have a number of other Bills before the House that cover various aspects of Lord Young’s recommendations.
My concern is that it is too easy for the regulatory authorities to say that they have to increase their charges because they have to carry out more activities. That is what they do. My hon. Friend will know this better than anybody, because he probably has the coalition’s programme for government on his bedside table, but that document talks about reducing the burden of regulation:
“We will cut red tape by introducing a ‘one-in, one-out’ rule whereby no new regulation is brought in without other regulation being cut by a greater amount”
and:
“We will end the culture of ‘tick-box’ regulation, and instead target inspections on high-risk organisations through co-regulation and improving professional standards.”
I am unsure how what the Care Quality Commission has done to dentists fits in with the second paragraph on business in “The Coalition: our programme for government”. Perhaps all will be revealed when my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the debate.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am grateful. No debate would be complete without the legendary literary references of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), but I know that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) will not be tempted away from the path of virtue, whatever the enticements of the Minister.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
It is a pleasure to speak about the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who spoke with his usual clarity and consistency about the burden on business. He takes the view, which the Government broadly share, that it is crucial that business is free from all regulation but that which is necessary for it to go about its purpose. In a free economy, businesses must be allowed to do what is in their commercial interest and the wider public interest without unnecessary interference from Government. That is a fundamental aspect of what my hon. Friend advocated. It is at the heart of the Bill, and he will be pleased and perhaps even relieved to know that it is also at the heart of the Government’s thinking.
The Bill highlights some important ways in which regulation is enforced in this country. I made the point when I intervened on my hon. Friend that our attitude and approach to regulation need to be qualified by considerations of both quantity and quality. It is true that the Bill deals with cost, but cost has a direct relationship with both of those. It is certainly true that we should measure the volume of regulation quantitatively, and I shall speak at length—but not at undue length—about some of the ways in which that is already done by Government and others. However, it is also true that we should assess regulation qualitatively, because the quality of regulation has a direct bearing on its cost to Government and to the organisations that it affects. The Bill is both a quantitative and a qualitative assessment of regulation measured by cost.
For reasons that will become clearer later in my speech, I cannot support the specific approach that the Bill takes to regulatory change, notwithstanding the warm welcome that I have given to my hon. Friend’s commitment and the opportunity that the Bill gives to consider these matters in greater detail. I shall speak about the matters that it raises in considerable detail as we engage in this interesting debate.
The Bill provides an important reminder of the many ways in which regulation can impact on business and the best means of ensuring that adverse consequences are minimised. It would be helpful to consider some of the principal aims of the Bill. In a rather abbreviated contribution by his usual standards, my hon. Friend took us through the Bill, but I shall do so in more detail. First, the Bill seeks to limit the ability of regulators to recover the costs of the regulatory services they provide. Specifically, the Bill seeks to limit increases in charges to no more than the rate of inflation as measured against the consumer prices index.
My hon. Friend may feel that this is a rather technical point, but these are, after all, technical matters: many examples given in his speech would probably not be covered by the Bill as drafted. He said with typical humility when he was coming to the end of his peroration that he understood that, if the Government supported the broad thrust of the measure, it might be necessary to perfect its drafting, so I acknowledge that he anticipated that some of these technical problems might arise, as they often do when Bills are introduced through the method of a private Member elevating a matter for the consideration of the House and asking for the Government to respond.
I make that technical point because in existing regulatory law the definition is largely restricted to business regulation. Therefore, some of the matters with which my hon. Friend dealt—passports, for example, drivers licences and vehicle licensing—would not necessarily be covered, because those are matters affecting the private citizen. They are subject to the usual rules on public expenditure, managing public money and the normal oversight of spending. That is probably the most appropriate set of frameworks by which they should be assessed. On a purely technical note, therefore, it would be inappropriate to relate the detail of the Bill to the advocacy of my hon. Friend in the areas that I highlighted.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend suggests that the Bill applies only to regulatory authorities that regulate the carrying on of any business. As he knows, it also covers regulatory authorities regulating the carrying on of any activity. Why does he think the Identity and Passport Service, which is responsible for the carrying on of activities, is not covered by the Bill?
Mr Hayes
Activities of the kind that I mentioned and about which my hon. Friend spoke in his contribution are covered by other legislation and a different set of regulatory protocols, which the Bill would contradict. It would require considerable work to achieve a happy marriage between the two. It is impossible to pass the Bill in its current form without its having an impact on other legislation which itself sets up a series of regulatory mechanisms to deal with some of the matters that he described. I do not want him to assume that this is a criticism of the essence of his argument or of the principles upon which it is based; it is purely an observation that technically it would not necessarily be possible for the Government to adopt the Bill in its current form.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend seems to be saying that regulatory legislation is so complex that it is impossible to simplify it in the way that the Bill would simplify it. If the regulatory legislative framework is so complex, why do not the Government get to grips with making it simpler?
Mr Hayes
Later in my contribution I shall describe some of the ways in which the Government have done just that. They have taken a firm grip on these matters. Even in these early days of the long regime to which we can look forward and in which I hope to play a small part, we are making significant progress in the way that my hon. Friend wishes us to do.
It is not a question of the Government not intending to grasp the nettle—to take a grip on the subject, to use his terms—but of doing so in a way that is consistent, coherent and deliverable.
Lest I dwell too much on the first part of the Bill, let me deal with the second part. The Bill would stop a regulator, subject to specific conditions, introducing a charge for a previously free service. A regulator would be able to introduce new charges where previously there had been none on the condition that a report setting out the benefits of the new arrangements was laid before and agreed by the House. Were I a rather more sarcastic person than I am, and if I wished to tease my hon. Friend, which I would not do, as you know, Mr Speaker, I might say to him that he is himself in the Bill establishing a rather elaborate system, to put it mildly, for dealing with the test that he describes: a report to the House, which presumably will be debated, with no real clarity about the length or nature of that debate, and perhaps even referred to a Committee of the House. Who knows how long that process might take? It is absolutely right that these matters should be scrutinised, but the implication of my hon. Friend’s proposals is that we might lengthen, both in terms of time and substance, the mechanisms by which we assess, implement, gauge, and judge necessary regulation.
Mr Hayes
It is that part of the Bill that I am addressing, Mr Speaker, in very specific terms, and, yes, it could be argued that it makes the system more accountable, in the sense that it brings the matters before the House, but the spirit that lies behind the Bill and the powerful advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, not just now but for all time, of the need to place fewer burdens on business, is that rather than extending and elaborating the process by which we implement, consider and, indeed, devise regulation, we should simplify it.
That brings me to the final provision of the Bill, which focuses on the duties of responsible Ministers and sets out plans to prevent them from increasing funding for their regulatory bodies. That would mean not only that the charging framework within which regulations operate was restricted, but that regulators should not have any additional funding from central Government as a result. I can understand why my hon. Friend argues that, and why the Bill seeks to put that argument into practice, but a better measure of the quantity and nature of regulation is required to consider these matters as fully as they might be considered.
Let me find common cause with my hon. Friend. It is absolutely right that the House, and indeed the Government, should consider the impact of regulation. The CBI has argued that regulation is one of the key elements inhibiting growth. Its April 2011 survey described a Nigeria-style regulatory regime—its words, not mine, I hasten to add. It said that only that country had a similar regulatory burden to that of Great Britain. Apparently, according to the CBI, we rank 89th out of 139 countries for having the biggest regulatory burden. Its concern was that that regulatory burden had a powerful influence on growth, and unless we deregulated, as my hon. Friend’s Bill would, we would inhibit growth. This is not the first time that the CBI has argued this case, nor is it the only organisation that does so.
My hon. Friend and others will be familiar with the Institute of Directors’ regulation reckoner, which it produces regularly, and I have here the 2011 issue. The IOD estimates that the total administrative costs of regulation for business for 2011 are growing and have a considerable impact on business both large and small. It argues that directors spend 17 hours a month on regulation administration and that the annual cost of regulation administration is £7,664 for each director. It says that work forces spend 106 hours a month on regulation. To put that in crystal clear terms, the IOD argues that the burden on work forces is equivalent to one member of staff working continuously on regulation from 1 January until 26 August, which is 34 weeks, to complete a business’s annual regulation administration. That is the kind of evidence that stimulates my hon. Friend’s concerns and motivates him in his mission to address these matters and to encourage the Government to do so too. This is why it is important that we debate these matters, and it is absolutely why the Government also take them seriously. The CBI argues that in order to avoid a double-dip recession the Government must deal with regulation. My hon. Friend suggests that his Bill, which is essentially about the nature and cost of regulation, would help us to do that.
The arguments of others suggest that regulation does not emanate only from this place. It is the view of the Bruges group, with which my hon. Friend is familiar, that the cost of regulation to businesses that we in this country enjoy—or perhaps I should say endure—is about £100 billion, with EU regulation accounting for about half of the total. I know that you will be as shocked as I am, Madam Deputy Speaker, to hear that, and as determined as I am that we adopt such regulation only where absolutely necessary, and that we certainly do not gold-plate it. Yet the IOD tells us that that is precisely what the previous Government did. That is the risk we face.
Not only must this House be diligent in ensuring that the additional regulatory burden I have described is not piled on to businesses large and small, but we must be even more mindful of the need to ensure that that which comes from other lands does not make the circumstances even worse. To that end, the Bill includes a definition of a regulatory agency in order to try to deal precisely with the matters I have described. However, I am advised by officials that the task of defining a regulatory agency, as the Bill does, is always a very complex one.
It might be helpful to build on that advice and start by reflecting on the range of agencies and organisations already involved in our system of regulation, because for the proposed agency to have effect it would need to sit comfortably with the existing framework of regulators and be consistent with the forms in which that regulation is constituted. The large number of organisations and individuals that play a part in securing compliance form a complex landscape. Businesses have the primary responsibility for meeting their obligations under the law, but a number of agencies in the public and private sectors, as well as civil society organisations, also play a role.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will know that national regulators secure adherence to the rules in many areas of modern life, including nuclear safety, pensions and health. He spoke earlier about some of the others, and I criticised him for using examples that would perhaps not be covered by the scope of the Bill, but none the less he made a powerful point about the range of areas of life and the range of activities and business on which regulation has an impact, and I understand his point.
Local authorities also have a role in enforcing the law in areas such as food safety, under-age sales and consumer protection. Were the Bill to proceed, the regulatory agency my hon. Friend seeks to establish would need an appropriate legal interface with those authorities.
Mr Knight
I wish my hon. Friend would use some of this cold water to wash his car, rather than to pour over the Bill. Why does he not see himself as a reforming Minister and grasp the issues so that he can take this matter forward, rather than using them as an excuse for doing nothing?
Mr Hayes
I am disappointed in my right hon. Friend, as a fellow owner of a Jensen Interceptor Mark III and member of the owners club, because what I have said is merely my preliminary remarks on why the Government cannot accept the Bill in its current form. I will move on to why we feel that aspects of the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch are worthy and compatible with the Government’s determination to reform these matters in a way that reduces the burden of regulation. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) should not be so hasty in assuming that I do not share the reforming zeal that motivates him and others to make life more straightforward for our businesses so that they can add to the prosperity we all seek.
On the specifics of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch advocates a regulatory agency. However, unless that agency were to interface with the existing mechanisms for dealing with regulation, it would be impossible for the Government to accept its establishment as framed in the Bill, because there are many agencies that play an important role in the regulatory system, in both national and local government, and also agencies that play a role beyond the framework of the law. Trade associations, in particular, provide a service to businesses in the form of regulatory advice and guidance. Lord Young’s review of health and safety law, which has been referred to, highlighted the extent to which other agencies, such as the media and private consultancies, can create their own regulatory burdens. We are therefore dealing with diverse responsibilities.
In some areas regulation is effectively free to business, which is why, as the Bill deals with costs, it is important that we assess which types of regulation impose costs and which do not. The costs of the regulator and regulation are often met by the Government. My hon. Friend, in his speech and in the Bill, makes no detailed assessment of the balance between the costs absorbed by Government and the costs imposed on businesses. The Government’s view is that in many cases it is in the interests of fairness that the costs of regulation are met by those who are regulated. Where such fees are charged, they can take a variety of forms, from licences to levies and charges for specific services.
In those terms, the Bill, as I have said, starts from the commendable idea that businesses should be given as much certainty and transparency as possible on how they are charged by regulators and that appropriate controls should be in place to govern the way in which they are imposed. In that respect, I find common cause with both my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, who call for a zealous approach to assessing those costs and measuring how Government activity might add to them. It is right that the system, with regard to the imposition of costs, how they are gauged and how they grow, is properly assessed.
Before I address the Bill’s specific points, I think that the House would expect me to put in context the scale and ambition of the Government’s approach to regulatory reform. Just yesterday I was looking at those matters with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to apprenticeships. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is the Government’s intention to build more apprenticeships than Britain has ever had before, and we were looking at how some of the costs of putting in place the necessary regulation on apprenticeships could be lightened. For example, for large companies that are providing apprenticeships, we have announced that those costs—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am very grateful to the Minister for supplying the House with so much information, but I am struggling to ensure that he remains in order. I understand his point about burdens, but the Bill relates to fees already charged for services, not to increasing those fees. I would be grateful if he returned to that specific point.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It might be helpful, but I have said very specifically to the Minister that this one-clause Bill, as Mr Speaker previously pointed out, is about fees charged, rather than burdens. The Minister must stay in order. If he does not, I will intervene on him again, so perhaps he will reflect on what might be helpful in those circumstances.
Mr Hayes
Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am guided, as ever, by your advice in these matters.
The Bill suggests that the fees charged for services that are determined by law and part of the regulatory agenda should be gauged in a way that allows this House to make a judgment about their impact. The Bill, in those terms, needs to be assessed against its likely impact and effectiveness, but we are right to argue that it also should be gauged against the existing provisions, both in law and beyond, that affect costs and fees in respect of regulation, and the Government’s absolute determination to reduce that burden.
So, my hon. Friend will want to know that the moratorium on new domestic regulations for smaller companies, which the Government have put in place, certainly affect the provisions of this Bill. The determination of the Government to publish all regulations sector by sector will to some extent do what the Bill intends, because it will give us a clearer indication of the character and nature of costs, and how they rise.
Mr Chope
Surely the effect of the Bill will be to ensure that regulators are not able to increase their fees and charges beyond the rate of inflation, and they will therefore have to reduce their costs and probably their regulatory activity, which in itself will be beneficial to business, will it not?
Mr Hayes
We are back—are we not?—to the point that was made earlier in this brief debate, about quantity and quality, because it is true that the Bill will necessitate the reconsideration of quality and effectiveness because of the link to charge. In other words, regulation will have to be legitimised around price, but it would be dangerous to assume that the effect of introducing that new provision—unless seen in the context of what is already there; the point made is existing charges and costs—might be as profound as my hon. Friend describes.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend will realise that HM Treasury’s guidance on fees and charges requires all regulators to cover their costs where they have fee-setting functions. Therefore, the Bill, by forcing regulators to reduce their costs, which they can pass on in the form of fees, will reduce their activities and, thereby, the burden of regulation.
Mr Hayes
That—ipso facto—is certainly the case, but the qualitative judgment about regulation that I have advocated would need to be applied, too. My hon. Friend says that the Bill needs to be set in the context of what the Government have already agreed. The Government have agreed, as he knows, that they will regulate only
“having demonstrated that satisfactory outcomes by alternative self-regulatory or non-regulatory approaches; and where analysis of the costs and benefits demonstrates that the regulatory approach is superior by a clear margin to alternative self-regulatory or non-regulatory approaches; and where the regulation and the enforcement framework can be implemented in a fashion which is demonstrably proportionate; accountable; consistent; transparent and targeted.”
If one applied those principles to my hon. Friend’s argument, one would find, I assert, that his Bill is not necessary. Furthermore, I assert that his Bill, rather than applying those broad principles—I say “broad”, but they are clear in intent—would put in place a series of mechanisms that, as I argued earlier, might lengthen and make more complex the process.
The Bill sets up a mechanism by which Parliament must scrutinise those matters, and my strong assertion and, indeed, recommendation to my hon. Friend is that the adoption of the regime I have just described, already articulated by the Government, is a more effective means of achieving his ambition than the Bill, which might have perverse consequences, albeit unintended, in making the system rather more costly and difficult than it need be.
Mr Chope
May I invite my hon. Friend to move away from the rhetoric to the reality, in the context in particular of the Care Quality Commission’s decision to start regulating dentists, who are already adequately regulated, and then to impose on them charges of £800 a year each to fund the regulation? The provisions of the Bill will catch that activity.
Mr Hayes
I am going to come on to dentists and the rationale for dentistry regulation, because there has been some debate about it already this morning in consideration of this Bill, but before I do so perhaps I may be very specific, as you have invited me to be, Madam Deputy Speaker, about fees, charges and levies, which lie at the heart of the Bill.
The fundamental policy of government is to charge for public-provided goods and services, where that approach helps to allocate the use of goods and services in a rational way, because it prevents waste through excessive or badly targeted consumption. The Government argue that that makes for easier comparisons with the private sector, promotes competition and helps to develop markets. When a fee is charged for access to public goods or services, there are specific rules on how the charge should be determined, and it is important to protect Parliament’s rights to decide which services should be charged for and how public resources are allocated.
That is much like what my hon. Friend wants to achieve, but my argument is that there are mechanisms already in place to do what we wants. I accept that it is necessary for those mechanisms—how can I put it?—to be enlivened and accelerated by a commitment by Government to be absolutely scrupulous about where regulation applies, what is charged for and how those charges, those fees, should be gauged. I am giving my hon. Friend an assurance—not gold-plated but copper-bottomed, one might say—that the Government will indeed be determined, as he asks us to be, that the extent and character of that regulation, and the fees and charges associated with it, should be legitimised, should be moderate and should not increase in an unjustifiable way.
A word about the specifics. My hon. Friend asks me to be less rhetorical. Most people enjoy—I will not put it more extravagantly than that—the rhetoric with which I embellish what I do, but I am prepared to take the slings and arrows as well as the praise, so I will for a moment or so move from rhetoric to detail.
The rationale for dentistry regulations, which my hon. Friend draws attention to as an illustration of the purpose of this Bill, is clear. The Care Quality Commission is the responsible regulator, and the registration of dentists is a new requirement, as he says, reflecting the commission’s new regulatory responsibilities. The purpose of registration is to bring a single, consistent approach to monitoring dental practice, including private dental care practice, for the first time. This is regarded as an essential basis for encouraging swift action to protect the public, and it will give the public an accessible single source of information on quality. Fees are variable, according to practice, size and type.
That is a perfect example, if I may say so, of two points that I have made: first, the regulation that is put in place should be coherent, clear and as simple as possible; and secondly, the fees and charging regime associated with that regulation should be established against a set of criteria that can be justified and supported by the profession concerned.
I do not want to delay the House unduly, so I shall move swiftly on to the matter of the principles that underpin charging regimes. As we know, Madam Deputy Speaker—your advice has guided me accordingly—this Bill is principally about charges and pricing. The principles that apply to pricing and charging by regulators are those that apply to publicly provided goods and services in general, and they have at their core the central doctrine of setting charges to allow full cost recovery. We need to remember that in many cases regulators give consumers and others confidence that regulated sectors are meeting their legal responsibility. Regulators can also create the conditions that provide businesses with a level competitive playing field by taking effective action against criminals operating in their respective markets. We need to remember that in many cases it is appropriate for those whose activities need to be regulated to bear the cost of regulation, not the taxpayer.
Mr Chope
Perhaps my hon. Friend would apply the principle that he has enunciated to the regulator on access to higher education. Most people would think that that is a totally unnecessary additional burden. Is he saying that the cost will have to be borne by the universities?
Mr Hayes
My hon. Friend is displaying the mischievous quality for which he is known and which the House enjoys, but I will not be tempted, Madam Deputy Speaker, for fear of your benevolent but strict rule, to get into a debate about higher education access or anything related to it, except where it is absolutely pertinent to the Bill before us. I rather suspect that you might come to the same conclusion that I have, which is that it is not completely pertinent to the Bill, so I will continue on the very strict and controlled theme that I was developing.
We will consult shortly on the extent to which some of the functions currently carried out by the statutory regulators might be performed either by businesses themselves, through better recognition of internal quality controls, or by other agencies through services such as the use of accreditation and certification, which can provide some of the safeguards traditionally put in place by state regulators. This would have a direct impact on costs, fees and charges, because in those circumstances the decisions about those matters would be dealt with within the sectors or businesses themselves.
There will be cases where we can lighten the burden of regulation and the character of some of the costs that my hon. Friend has highlighted by taking a more radical approach to where regulation should apply, who should regulate, how decisions should be made about its extent, and, most saliently, what should be charged for what service. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that decision is better taken at the sharp end, if I might put it in those terms, rather than distantly in Westminster and Whitehall. However, there will inevitably be cases where the intervention of a state regulator is required, particularly to protect consumers or to provide a level playing field for businesses. I take the view that professional standards in these terms should be looked at more closely by Government. In some cases, as I suggested earlier, the adoption of professional standards may allow us to reduce the overall burden of regulation, and the costs associated with it, in the way that my hon. Friend recommends.
The Treasury’s publication, “Managing Public Money”, sets out the main principles for dealing with resources used by public sector organisations. It makes it clear that:
“Where a fee is charged for access to public goods or services, there are some specific rules about how the charge should be determined. It is important to protect Parliament’s right to decide which services should be charged for, and how public resources are to be allocated.”
This principle is as valid in the case of regulation as with any other public service. Setting a fee or charge for a public service usually requires powers in primary legislation, with the charge structure and each charge set out in secondary legislation. Therefore, a parliamentary approval procedure of the kind that my hon. Friend advocates in his Bill already exists, and, as I said earlier, it is one that is less likely to lead to delay and complexity than the albeit well-meaning provisions in his short Bill. The guidance on calculating fees is also clear, stating that the full cost of each category of service should be measured realistically and objectively.
As I mentioned earlier, local authorities are regulators, and they sometimes provide purely discretionary services. In this regard, they operate within an additional framework of control set by the Local Government Act 2003. I know that my hon. Friend will be familiar with section 93 of that Act, because he researches these matters with diligence and care before he comes to the House to speak about them. He will know that that section, which is headed,
“Power to charge for discretionary services”,
contains the power that I have described. This power is subject to a duty to secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from charges under the section does not exceed the costs of provision—precisely the point that he made in an intervention a few moments ago.
Mr Hayes
The purpose of the Act that I mentioned is to ensure that organisations—in this case, local authorities—do not make a profit out of the service, so that the cost, as I said, is related to the fee. My hon. Friend is arguing, is he not, that even where the cost of provision—it may be a perfectly justifiable cost, by the way—grows or changes for some reason, the fee associated with that cost could not be raised. If taken to its logical conclusion, this would place local authorities—or, if we apply the principle more widely, Government—in the impossible circumstance of not being able to recover costs of provision from businesses or individuals even where those businesses or individuals were gaining from the application of that provision. That would be a perverse effect of his Bill.
Mr Chope
Let my try another one on my hon. Friend. It relates not to local authorities but to the Forestry Commission, which is a regulator. The Forestry Commission is having its grant cut by central Government, but it still needs to carry on its regulatory functions. In the New Forest, it is thinking of funding quite a lot of those costs by raising car parking charges, which do not currently exist there. Where does any public accountability come into that?
Mr Hayes
Again, I am not going to speak about the specifics of that because it is a matter that I would want to look at in more detail before I said anything definitive. The principle remains that we should address the relationship between the scale of provision, the cost and the fees charged. That should, quite properly, be set out by this House in regulation, if not in legislation, and—I take my hon. Friend’s point—it should be proportionate.
Let me repeat, for the benefit of my hon. Friend and the House, that the Government share his determination to scrutinise these matters with new zeal and with diligence. He is right that we need to have a basis on which we consider and legitimise regulation of this kind and the costs and fees associated with it. I agree with him that it is important that agencies, whether in local government or elsewhere, can justify what they charge. I simply do not think that this Bill is the best way to do that. I welcome the fact that its introduction has given us an opportunity to consider these matters. I may say a little more about that in my final remarks.
The primary authority partnership scheme between businesses and regulators constitutes the kind of discretionary service that I was describing prior to my hon. Friend’s intervention. It was established under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 to provide more consistent regulatory enforcement for businesses, charities and other organisations operating in more than one local authority area. It entails an advisory partnership between a specific business and a given local authority. Having assessed the resource requirements of the primary authority partnership scheme, the local authority and the business have to agree how the costs will be met.
The local authority is entitled to charge the business for services applied through the partnership. In deciding whether or to what extent to charge the business, the local authority should consider all relevant matters, including the local authority’s policy in respect of supporting local economic prosperity and the existing resources provided to the business by the regulatory service and other services of the local authority. When advice and guidance have been developed for use with more than one business, an individual business should pay no more than a reasonable proportion of the costs. Where a local authority decides to charge for some or all of the services provided to a business, it can recover only the costs reasonably incurred in providing those services. In calculating the costs, the local authority should, like a national regulator, have regard to the guidance issued by the Treasury in “Managing Public Money”, to which I referred earlier.
A further statutory provision that affects the way in which regulators charge is the Regulators’ Compliance Code. I am surprised that we have not heard more about the code in our considerations, because its existence mitigates some of the arguments of the advocates of the proposed legislation. It is a statutory code of practice to which regulators must have regard in their work. It puts forward the general principle that
“Advice services should generally be provided free of charge, but it may be appropriate for regulators to charge a reasonable fee for services beyond basic advice and guidance necessary to help ensure compliance. Regulators should, however, take account of the needs and circumstances of smaller regulated entities and others in need of help and support.”
I draw the House’s attention, in those terms, to the effect of regulation on small business. Smaller businesses often find it more difficult to deal with these matters, purely because of scale. Excessive regulation can have an extremely damaging effect on small business growth. As a Government, we will certainly look again at the effect of regulation on business as a direct result of the overtures of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.
Mr Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that he will look again at these issues. Will he address his remarks to the issue of small charities, such as Julia’s House, which are even more deserving of help? Despite the guidance to which he referred, the Care Quality Commission imposes the same standard charges on a children’s hospice with three or four beds as it imposes on much larger, and even commercial, organisations. How is that consistent with the guidance?
Mr Hayes
My hon. Friend is right that small organisations in the voluntary and charitable sector are also affected by the burden of regulation. I will, as a result of his overtures, look at that matter too. I know that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), who has responsibility for regulation, takes these matters very seriously. He has been a great champion of small organisations in this respect. However, it is important that the Government are informed by the House. It is clear that Members from both sides of the House understand that if we are to build the big society that we seek, small organisations, charities and community organisations will play a critical part. It is right that we should look specifically at how regulation affects those organisations, and we will do so as a result of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and other Members.
I will move on to explain why we feel that legislation is unnecessary in this case. This Bill, although it makes an immensely important point about the effects of regulation in practice, is not one that the Government can support. That is not just because there are existing controls that address the issues that the Bill seeks to address. It is also because regulators have a responsibility to ensure that they provide value for money and that the costs are as low as possible, while the quality of regulation remains appropriate. There needs to be flexibility in practice. Although we agree absolutely that we need to ensure that the burdens on business as a whole, and on the other organisations that we have just spoken about, are taken into account when we introduce or review regulations, the flexibility that I have described needs to reflect a wide range of regulatory circumstances. That would be inhibited, at least to some degree, by my hon. Friend’s Bill.
There are circumstances in which a modest uniform charge is appropriate. Many licensing regimes, where individuals must apply for a licence to trade, have that character. I spoke earlier about my view that the adoption of professional standards through licences to practise can be helpful in reducing regulation. It can provide a simpler series of mechanisms to guarantee quality, protect public health and ensure public safety.
Mr Chope
I am sorry to go back to this point, but my hon. Friend keeps referring to the issue of professional standards and duplication. How does what has happened to dentists fit in with that philosophy? They were already regulated by their own professional standards body, and now have to pay a fee to be regulated by the Care Quality Commission.
Mr Hayes
We have spoken of dentists already. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to pay tribute to my own dentist, Lisa Jamieson of the Fen House dental practice in Spalding, who looks after my teeth and those of my wife and children. I will discuss this matter with her, because I believe that it is important as legislators that we are in touch with those whom legislation affects. Nevertheless, the case that I made on dentists is that the adoption of the new regulatory regime will simplify how we ensure that dentists are doing what they should. There are circumstances in which a new approach, framed by the desire to reduce regulation, can assist us not only in the matter of regulation, but in its cost.
There are circumstances in which a substantial charge is appropriate. Some regulatory regimes require the inspection of hazardous, highly technical processes, and would otherwise present a substantial cost to the public. There are also circumstances in which a tiered approach is appropriate, for instance to reflect the costs to the regulator of regulating different sizes of business.
The proposal that my hon. Friend articulated with such style and charm would limit regulators’ flexibility to innovate and incentivise in ways that work to the benefit of good, compliant businesses. The existing system, by contrast, supports that flexibility. Regulators might seek to reduce fees for some regulated organisations —we have spoken of small businesses, small charities, community organisations and so on—to reflect the intrinsically lower costs of the services provided to them. Yet they might simultaneously increase charges to organisations when the service in question is palpably more costly. That would surely be the case in respect of larger businesses, in the case of which checking compliance requires significantly more time and resources.
My hon. Friend’s ambition is to allow small organisations, be they businesses, community organisations or charitable organisations, to thrive because of the lighter hand of Government that both he and I wish to see applied. He will note that I take that ambition so seriously that I have said the Government will examine it once again with a critical eye. It is entirely possible to achieve it within the flexible regime that exists in respect of fees and charges, and it might, ironically, be inhibited by the proposals in his Bill.
Meanwhile, the Health and Safety Executive has recently announced a proposal that would impose charges on businesses that were found to be in material breach of health and safety laws. It would not seek to recover costs for purely technical breaches, of course, and compliant businesses would not pay a penny. That is another example of the flexibility that I am advertising as a virtue of the existing regime.
It is fair to say that a range of approaches are appropriate, including ones that create strong incentives for better practice in businesses. In practice, the relevant legislative framework allows for all those approaches, and it is not appropriate to impose a single framework on all regulators. It is for them to determine the relevant approach, within the powers confirmed by Parliament and the public spending rules overseen by the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General. The existing arrangements provide meaningful parliamentary oversight, combined with a pragmatic foundation for regulators and Government to adjust their approach according to dynamic circumstances. If we were to adopt an entirely different approach founded on the consumer prices index, as my hon. Friend suggests, rather than on a cost recovery basis, the incentives would be very different.
Finally, increases in fees limited to the CPI are unlikely to reflect changes in a given regulator’s costs. My hon. Friend argues that the cost to regulators is not the issue, and that the charge to organisations, whether they be businesses, individuals or otherwise, is always of paramount importance. However, it is equally important that there is some relationship between provision and fee, between cost and charge. It would be a very blunt instrument to apply the mechanism at the heart of the Bill in the way that he suggests.
If the increase in the full cost of a service exceeds CPI, capping fees would either leave the taxpayer to pick up the bill or leave the regulator to do the job within its official resources. It would not necessarily save taxpayers money, and it could arguably let businesses and individuals off the hook, because they would not have to pay the price necessary to cover the regulator’s costs. That might be my hon. Friend’s intention, but I have never heard him suggest before that the taxpayer’s burden should be increased in such a blunt way. Indeed, I know for a fact that he has long been an advocate of cutting taxes where we can.
Mr Chope
I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend was going to traduce me. I made it quite clear at the beginning that the Bill would not add to the burden of taxation or public expenditure, and that is set out clearly in clause 1(3). I am surprised that he is not praising that subsection. Can he give some examples of where he thinks it is reasonable for regulators to increase their costs beyond the rate of inflation?
Mr Hayes
If the cost of provision to a regulator rises for technical reasons, and that regulator has a perfectly sensible set of regulations with the protection of public good or public safety at their heart, it would be entirely appropriate to relate the cost of that provision to its price. That should be legitimised and justified, and it is absolutely right that we put in place criteria that ensure that any such price increase is a true reflection of a change in cost, but to do the opposite and prohibit any change in charge regardless of a change in the cost or character of provision, as my hon. Friend suggests, would be a very blunt instrument. I am arguing for flexibility; he, rather untypically, is arguing for a rigidity in the application of public policy, insensitive to circumstances. With a bitter irony from his perspective, that might increase costs to the taxpayer, contrary to the part of the Bill that makes it clear that that is not his intention.
I do not wish in any way to be excessively critical of my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished Member, but I argue that the Bill has at its heart a contradiction. I know that that is unintended, but none the less, it would have potentially dire consequences for the Government and for him. His reputation as a tax saver, as a guardian of the public interest and as a man who stands in the way of excessive state interference in the affairs of individuals and in the freedom that he cherishes, is at stake. I stand here as his guardian, and as the protector of his interests.
I know that this will disappoint Members, but I wish to begin to move to my conclusion. It would be bad for both the public, whom we are seeking to protect, and conscientious businesses that are doing their best to comply with the law, if we left regulations unenforced because the Government did not have the capacity or power to supplement any shortfall. The Bill would limit the Government’s ability to intervene, which would create just such a circumstance.
Our view is that the existing flexible framework provides the best means of controlling and keeping an appropriate limit on the fees and charges imposed by regulators. However, for the avoidance of doubt and to reassure my hon. Friend, let me be crystal clear that there is a certain determination on the part of this Government to ensure not only that the quantity of regulation is reduced but that its quality is re-examined with a vehemence that has not been typical of recent Governments, and that the costs associated with any such regulation are tested empirically in a way that protects individual, business, consumer and taxpayer interests. The existing regime, which provides for charging at full-cost recovery, enables regulators to recover costs from those who are regulated.
It is right that regulators have a responsibility to ensure that regulation is efficient, effective and provides value for money in the way the Bill intends. My hon. Friend is in tune with C. S. Lewis, is he not? The latter said:
“Aim at Heaven and you will get Earth thrown in. Aim at Earth and you get neither.”
My hon. Friend aims at a heavenly circumstance in which regulation is only ever applied out of absolute necessity and at minimum cost. We are sympathetic with that spirit, but perhaps the more important point to take from this debate is the extent to which any regulation necessarily brings with it some expense. We need to get to grips with that problem at source. I have spoken repeatedly in this speech about the measures the Government have put in place to constrain the flow of regulation. I believe that that is the right way forward. We have listened to his overtures, however. This debate has given us the opportunity to reconsider these matters, and has been an additional spur, a goad or perhaps just an encouragement to be still more determined to reduce the regulation on individuals, businesses, charitable organisations and others that might inhibit growth and, worst of all, inhibit virtue.
Mr Chope
I would like to reply briefly to this debate. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out, in just over an hour, all the reasons why his Department does not think that this Bill is the right solution, although at least he acknowledges that there is a problem. In the absence of any other possible solutions, however, I am not sure that one can say this Bill is not worthwhile. Although the Minister talks a lot about sympathy and says he wants to reduce the quantity and increase the quality of regulation, it is apparent from the figures that he gave, as well as the quotes from the CBI and the Institute of Directors, that things are probably getting worse rather than better. The shadow Minister made that point in relation to the number of regulations being introduced and removed from the statute book. I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Minister: he is not the Minister responsible for deregulation; that is not his main brief and he is here today as the departmental Friday duty Minister. However, I was disappointed that he did not respond to what the hon. Lady had to say.
In essence, this is whether we are going to try to control the stealth taxes reflected in the increased charges that regulators impose on consumers, individuals, businesses and charities. Nothing I have heard from the Minister gives me any encouragement in that regard. He was unable to explain—to my satisfaction anyway—why the Care Quality Commission is now trying to regulate dentists. He was unable, or did not wish, to engage in an argument about how we were going to pay for OFFA, the higher education access regulator, and whether it was justified or whether it was going to be a new financial burden on the universities. He was unable to answer my question about the Forestry Commission now seeking, because of a cut in Government grants, to fund its regulatory activities by imposing new charges that will force people to pay for their car parking in the New forest and elsewhere.
Treasury guidance states that regulators must increase their charges to reflect their costs, but there is no guidance saying that those costs must not increase by more than the rate of inflation. That is the key to it. If the regulators were not allowed to increase their charges beyond the rate of inflation, they would have to keep their costs to within the rate of inflation. They would have to reduce their costs and become more efficient. I cited Ofcom as an example of a regulator that has reduced its costs by 20% in the past year. The BBC, too, is now having to concentrate its mind on reducing its costs significantly because of the pressure put on it.
Mr Hayes
I plead guilty to two things—to not being the Minister for regulation, and to what my hon. Friend described earlier as elegant and flowing rhetoric. However, I will not plead guilty to not dealing with dentists. We did dentists to death! My argument was that the new regime would simplify the regulatory system and its associated costs and fees. That is in contrast to the current regime, which is more costly and confusing. Surely that is in the spirit of his Bill.
Mr Chope
I forgive my hon. Friend because I do not think he is an expert on dentistry. However, I do not think that he or his officials have addressed the fact that dentists are already properly controlled by the professional dentistry bodies. The CQC is now adding to that regulatory burden, rather than substituting for or simplifying it. However, we can have a separate debate about that on another occasion perhaps. That example alone shows that all the lofty rhetoric about the Government’s intentions —even those in the coalition agreement—to reduce the burden of regulation is not being reflected in practice.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for his support for the Bill, to the shadow Minister for her observations and to the Minister for what he has said. In essence, he has criticised the two parts of clause 1 designed to introduce flexibility. I could have just said that no regulatory authority should introduce a charge in respect of a service currently provided free of charge. Perhaps on reflection that might have been better because it would have been clear. I thought that we needed some flexibility, which is why I used the wording I did, yet now I have been criticised by the Minister for doing so.
The Minister said—this is the most worrying aspect of today’s debate—that the panoply of the legislative framework covering regulation is so complex and impenetrable that it is impossible to simplify and cut across it in the way I am trying to do with the Bill. I hope that his Department, instead of producing these long, wordy briefs, will start getting to grips with rationalising the legislative framework around regulation and regulatory burdens. I hope then that we will be able to deal with the issues in a simpler way.
Mr Hayes
I will give this guarantee to my hon. Friend for the benefit of the whole House. In the matters for which I have responsibility within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, I will stand tested by the criteria that he in broad terms has established. We will create a system that is freer, less burdensome and less regulatory and that allows those associated with further education, skills and lifelong learning to go about their business properly, in the way they see fit and in response to need, rather than be dictated to by the micro-management that typified the last Government.
Mr Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that commitment. In due course perhaps I will table a parliamentary question so that he can explain what has happened under his leadership over the past year on those matters. It is important that the Government do not just talk about what they are going to do in future; they must show that they are reducing the burden of regulation. I am very depressed that they are not prepared to support the Bill, although I wish to test the will of the House on the matter.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
St George’s Day and St David’s Day Bill
John Hayes Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
Would that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, had been in Long Sutton in my constituency when St George’s day was celebrated. You would have been able to enjoy, as I did, adorned by the rose of England, the people and personalities of that splendid town. Many people, like me, enjoyed vanilla ice cream made and served by Laddies of Holbeach at an event organised by Jack Tyrrell, whose triumphant election to Long Sutton parish council I know the whole House will wish to celebrate. I can think of no one better than you, Mr Deputy Speaker—I am not in the habit of flattering the Chair, as you know—to have added their celebrity to that occasion. Perhaps I can take this opportunity to invite you to join me in my constituency when the event is next held.
Last Sunday, I marched, as I do every year, at the head of scouts and guides, cubs and brownies, and beavers and rainbows from Spalding marketplace to the church of St Mary and St Nicholas to celebrate St George’s day —rather late, the House will note, because of the royal wedding and all the events we enjoyed as a nation that obliged those organisations to delay their usual celebrations. It is an annual joy to be part of that and to see young people experiencing the benefits described by so many Members today of national identity, including the purposeful pride instilled in our hearts by our understanding of what we are and where we have come from.
It has been the habit of those in the bourgeois liberal class—by that, of course, I do not mean the Liberal Democrats; I am using “liberal” with a small L—who are doubt-filled and guilt-ridden to understate the significance of that sense of identity. Let that passing phase in our history be now put to one side. Let us all, as a nation, understand that this sense of belonging feeds our sense of worth and value.
To that end, I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s Bill and the chance it has given us to debate these matters. At its heart, it is a celebration not only of St George’s day and St David’s day, but of St George and St David themselves. In anticipation of this day, preparing with the diligence that I hope I usually display, I took the trouble to wander into Central Lobby and look at the fine mosaics of St George and St David—and also of St Andrew and St Patrick—that adorn that place. You will be familiar with them, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have purchased two small postcards for you, which I will give you at the end of today’s proceedings. The mosaics, which were added to Central Lobby a considerable time after the Houses’ rebuilding after 1834, are a wonderful display of the very symbols of identity to which the Bill draws the House’s attention.
St George, you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, stands between virtue and purity—other elements in the national identity, described by many Members, and exemplified in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), that make England what it is. Virtue is holding a lion’s skin, illustrating the triumph over brute force, whereas purity holds a bunch of white lilies. I do not want to disappoint my hon. Friend, but St George is clearly a rather pale-skinned youth in the illustration, by the way, but of course that might be poetic licence. The figure of St George says so much about what we are as Englishmen.
It is appropriate to take this opportunity to celebrate St George and St David. Lest I be accused of any prejudice, I will say a word about St David too, for there is a fine mosaic of him, too. He stands between two angels. I cannot help but notice my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) at the end of the Treasury Bench, and I want to point out for his benefit alone that St David was originally the saint of Pembrokeshire, and only later became the saint of the whole of Wales. The two angelic figures standing either side of St David in that mosaic, which we pass every day, represent the harp of harmony and the lamp of light. May harmony and light be brought to all our proceedings today and every day.
I would like to put a couple of other things on the record before I move to the specifics of the Bill—mindful, of course, of your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. No party in this House has a monopoly on patriotism. It would ill serve us to pretend so. Patriotism, the belief in something greater than that which divides us, is an essential component in building a society that works. The things that drive and unite us must be greater than the differences that we enjoy. Indeed, the fact that we can tolerantly enjoy differences is emblematic of what is best about being British.
In those terms, the Bill is topical. I am sure that everyone enjoyed the recent celebrations of national identity, best shown by the royal wedding, to which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) referred. It was a truly happy day for those directly involved, and it is marvellous how that happiness reverberated across the whole nation. Indeed, my young son Edward played the part of the groom in a royal wedding celebration at John Harrox primary school in my village. He was proud to do so, borrowing my top hat for the occasion.
We would all love another holiday—I would love many more holidays—but there are costs to be paid. I hope that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon will not think I am a killjoy for pointing that out. I do so with some reluctance, because I think we are often excessively utilitarian in public policy. I do go with Wilde:
“A cynic is the man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.”
We weigh and measure public policy solely by utility at great cost. None the less, we must be mindful of cost, in particular because of the times in which we live. It would be less than responsible not to take into account the points made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central about the possible cost of an additional public holiday, to which I will return in a few moments.
I will now read from the script that was prepared for me, although I will do so fleetingly and will not let that constrain my rhetoric unduly.
The Government regularly receive requests for additional bank holidays to celebrate a variety of occasions. The current pattern of permanent bank holidays is well established, and in recent years leave entitlements for many workers have increased. It might therefore seem, in the eyes of some, unnecessary to announce a further bank holiday, but there will be a holiday next year to celebrate the Queen’s diamond jubilee, as there was to celebrate her golden jubilee. We should celebrate that with exuberance: no understatement and lots of celebration in Westminster and across the country, for my disdain of the bourgeois liberal class extends to its claim that to be exuberant is to be vulgar.
Ian Austin
No one has ever suggested that I am a member of any sort of bourgeois liberal group. Thirty years ago next year, British forces liberated the Falkland Islands. They did not just free the Falklands, but fought for democracy and freedom more broadly. Would it not be right for the nation to celebrate that anniversary next year, and every year, on 14 June, as an example of Britain’s commitment to democracy, equality, freedom, fairness and tolerance?
Mr Hayes
In response to that, I should say that a nation that forgets its past is likely to neglect its future. As a conservative—with every kind of “C”—I fully understand that we are part of a continuum, and unless we learn from what we have done, we are unlikely to do well now or as we move forward, so it is right that we mark the occasion that the hon. Gentleman describes. It is important that we celebrate that victory and also pay proper respect to those who were part of it. I do not know what the official plans are, but given the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, the least I can do is ask the Ministers responsible to drop him a line. I think it would be wrong if that passed without any comment or note. Such occasions are worth marking in an appropriate and measured way.
Nadhim Zahawi
I stand in awe of my hon. Friend’s powers of oratory and sound and clear thinking. On the cost and the point that he has just made about a similar event next year—an extra bank holiday to celebrate, quite rightly, the Queen’s diamond jubilee—could we not in the intervening time assess the cost of an additional bank holiday? We would therefore be able to make a sound decision about whether my Bill’s proposal for a permanent bank holiday could be supported in future.
Mr Hayes
My hon. Friend is certainly right. Although we cost such proposals in a clear and empirical way—and notwithstanding my comments about utility—it is right that we should consider the matter in the round. We should assess the effects, both good and bad, on business, because clearly many businesses will benefit from an additional holiday. The tourist business, many of our resorts and parts of our leisure industry would benefit. However, there would be other costs to business, and it is right to listen to what business organisations say. Indeed, I will describe what they have said as we progress through this short but important debate.
The history of bank holidays will help us to draw some conclusions. Bank holidays are a relatively new phenomenon, of course. Before 1834, the Bank observed about 33 saints’ days and religious festivals as holidays, but in 1834 the number was reduced to just four: 1 May, 1 November or All Saints day, Good Friday and Christmas day. Frankly, in my view, that was rather a meagre ration. In 1871, the first legislation relating to bank holidays was passed when the banker and politician, Sir John Lubbock, introduced the Bank Holidays Act 1871, which specified the days as holidays.
I understand that Sir John Lubbock was an enthusiastic supporter of national and local cricket, and was firmly of the belief that bank employees should have the opportunity to participate in and attend matches when they were scheduled. Dates of bank holidays are therefore dates when cricket games were traditionally played between villages in the area where Sir John was raised. It is that rather partisan approach to bank holidays, built around Sir John’s personal tastes, which forms the basis, or at least the origins, of the matters we are speaking of today. Nevertheless, people were so glad to be given time off, whether it was to watch cricket or not, they called the first bank holidays St Lubbock’s days for a while. That did not perpetuate, but I hope that politicians of note might consider that, at least in popular if not official terms, special days could be named after them; one never knows, but if my hon. Friend’s Bill were to be successful, his name might, at least colloquially, be attached to the day’s holiday that people enjoyed. However, that rather self-interested motive of course has nothing to do with his bringing the Bill to our attention.
As is often the case, Scotland was treated separately because of its separate traditions, and so, for example, new year’s day was a holiday there whereas Boxing day was not. The 1871 Act did not specify Good Friday and Christmas day as bank holidays in England, Wales and Ireland because they were already recognised as common law holidays, and common observance had meant that they had become customary holidays since before records began.
Exactly a century after the 1871 Act, the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971, which currently regulates bank holidays in the UK, was passed. The majority of the current bank holidays were specified in the 1971 Act, but holidays for new year’s day in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and for May day were introduced later. From 1965, the date of the August bank holiday was changed to the end of the month. Curiously, there were a few years—for example, 1968—when the holiday fell in September, but this no longer occurs, presumably reflecting a change in the way of defining the relevant date. The Whitsun bank holiday, Whit Monday, was replaced by the late spring bank holiday, which was fixed as the last Monday in May in 1971.
Under the 1971 Act, certain holidays are written into legislation. Those which are not are proclaimed each year by the legal device of a royal proclamation. A royal proclamation is also used to move bank holidays that would otherwise fall on a weekend, so adding an additional one-off holiday, as was the case this year. In that way, holidays are not lost in years when they coincide with weekends. These deferred bank holidays are termed bank holidays in lieu of the typical anniversary date and in the legislation are known as “substitute days”. Although we have fewer public or bank holidays than many other European Union member states, they do not always have substitute days and so, in some sense, the comparison is misleading. That point has been made by a variety of speakers today, including the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central.
To give those north of border a chance to have a longer celebration at new year, 2 January was made an additional bank holiday in Scotland by the 1971 Act—the rest of the country was given the chance to celebrate, less enthusiastically perhaps, by having new year’s day off instead. May day is the most recent of the eight bank holidays and is thought by some to be a controversial choice. It was introduced by the then Employment Secretary, Michael Foot, in 1978, just before he went on to lead the Labour party. At the time many opposed the move, saying that the May day holiday was essentially a communist idea because most countries behind the iron curtain enjoyed it, but it is now in the calendar and a fixture in bastions of communism such as the United States. I think we can assume that those charges did not bear as much weight as their advocates suggested.
The first bank holiday Act was a welcome innovation—
Mr Nuttall
On the point of the May day bank holiday. Does the Minister agree that one solution to the problem of finding an extra bank holiday for St George’s day would be simply to move the May day bank holiday to 23 April? That would resolve the problem of a loss to the economy, which has been discussed, and it would create a day around which we could all unite for St George’s day.
Mr Hayes
I wondered whether a bright Member of this House rather like my hon. Friend—who certainly is that—might make just such an intervention. It is arguable that one might transpose those dates. It is not the spirit of the Bill, which suggests an extra day, but none the less it is an argument that could be made and that has been made very succinctly by my hon. Friend in his brief intervention.
In conclusion, let me say two things. I want to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon—I know how pleased he will be that I am able to make this announcement today—that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport tourism strategy allows for a consultation on moving the May day bank holiday and one suggestion is that it might be moved to St George’s day or St David’s day. That consultation will give everyone an opportunity to have a proper debate about such arguments to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend the Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). Of course, that is not to prejudge the outcome of the DCMS process.
One can do no better on such occasions than to quote our great poet, who was born on St George’s day and died on St George’s day. Anyone in this place who has doubts about the existence of the divine and would attribute that to coincidence is surely rather less wise than that great man himself. He said:
“I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game’s afoot:
Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge
Cry ‘God for Harry! England and Saint George!’”
Business Support (Lancaster and Fleetwood)
John Hayes Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
I am extremely grateful for the chance to respond to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) on securing it. My last dealings with Fleetwood directly were around a decade ago, when, as shadow fisheries Minister, I visited that splendid town and stayed at the North Euston hotel, which is, of course, part of the Mount, which is perhaps the jewel in the crown—if I might put it that way—of Fleetwood.
How appropriate that we should today have this Adjournment debate following a debate on fishing, which forms such an important part of Fleetwood’s history. As I recall from my time as shadow fisheries Minister and from information I have gained somewhat later, 1,000 people are still employed in that industry, mostly in fish processing. As my hon. Friend said in his excellent speech, many more people are, I suspect, employed producing Fishermen’s Friends, which I understand are particularly popular in Japan.
John Ruskin said that the first test of a truly great man is his humility. I do not aspire to be a truly great man, but I do aspire to humility, and I should say at the outset that I could never know as much as my hon. Friend about his constituency, nor speak with the passion about it that he has demonstrated today. He comes to the House with a long and proud history in local government, and already, he has brought an energy, enthusiasm, commitment and, if I may say, an expertise to his dealings in this place as the representative of his splendid constituency.
I shall try to respond to as many of the points that my hon. Friend raised as I can, although he will appreciate that time is short. He knows how deeply the Government are committed to encouraging renewed economic growth and the new jobs and businesses that will spring from that, and I draw his attention to the work done leading up to today and the announcement on youth employment made this afternoon by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, with which I was pleased to be involved. They announced new policies for encouraging more apprenticeships, which is a subject dear to my heart, and for work placements and experience as a means of moving people from economic disengagement to engagement.
That will resonate in Fleetwood, as my hon. Friend suggests, but ensuring that we take advantage of the capital that lies, sometimes unused, among those who are currently disengaged, is a challenge for the whole country. The investment infrastructure to which he drew attention also means investing in human infrastructure. That is a central pillar of the Government’s macro-economic plans. It would be impossible to recalibrate the economy to make it more sustainable if we did not make that kind of investment, as he properly said.
Just as the Government have been honest with the British people about the scale of the deficit and its implications, we must now accept that the struggle for growth will not be without its setbacks. For example, I was particularly saddened to hear from my hon. Friend of Stena Line’s recent decision to close its service between Fleetwood and Larne, although I understand that the service operated at a loss for some time.
Having said that, just as we accept bad news, we should celebrate good news—better tidings, if I can put it that way. Only the other day, I was heartened to read in the Blackpool Gazette, which is always on my bedside table, as one might imagine, that my hon. Friend had formally opened the delightfully named Strawberry Gardens pub in Fleetwood. I gather that that is the first pub to be opened by the new and even more inventively titled Fuzzy Duck brewery, which has been set up in his constituency. I can assure him of my best wishes for their success.
The creation of a small business such as that one illustrates a fundamentally important point, as my hon. Friend said, for small businesses are the bedrock of our economy. Businesses in Lancaster and Fleetwood are primarily small and medium-sized enterprises, and the issues they face are typical of those experienced by companies across the country over the past few years. SMEs account for more than 99% of private businesses, and about half of all jobs. I do not need to tell you that, Mr Deputy Speaker, given your background and your commitment to that sector based on personal and family experience.
As my hon. Friend suggested, I, too, have a background in business, having been a businessman in the IT industry before coming to this place. I fully appreciate his points about regulation and tax, and in particular about the need to invest in small businesses—and, for that reason, the importance of banks getting behind those businesses, to allow them to form and to grow.
What, he might ask, are we doing to help with all that? Well, we will enable better access to both debt and equity finance. We will ensure that we have a predictable tax system that rewards endeavour. We will also reduce red tape and ensure that the support that we provide SMEs is delivered in the most effective and efficient way possible. I hope to return to one or two of those points in more detail, but I want to emphasise access to finance in particular, as that was a central part of my hon. Friend’s speech. As he said, the flow of credit to viable SMEs is essential for supporting growth; and indeed, that is the core priority for this Government. We recognise the problems faced by small firms that do not have adequate security to obtain finance. That is why we have decided to continue the enterprise finance guarantee until 2015, to unlock up to £2 billion of additional lending to SMEs. The latest figures show that 18 businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency have so far been offered and have drawn down EFG-backed loans worth over £2 million.
The EFG scheme is of course intended to complement rather than replace mainstream bank lending. This Government have made considerable efforts to get the banks to meet the demand for credit from viable SMEs. Under the Project Merlin agreement, the banks have committed to make available £190 billion of new credit in 2011, of which £76 billion will be for SMEs—a 15% increase on the £66 billion lent in 2010. Clearly Banks still need to make commercial decisions, and it is not for the Government to intervene in these. In view of that, I would encourage any businesses having difficulties with their bank to continue to engage with the bank to try to resolve the issue.
My hon. Friend also made the important point that we need an independent review of such matters when things do not go right; and indeed, an independent reviewer has been appointed to monitor the banks’ appeal processes. He will publish an annual report on the effectiveness of those processes. The appeal process that we have set up is sensitive to the very sound points that my hon. Friend made. He can feel absolutely assured that this Minister, in this Department, along with my hon. Friends, will ensure that small businesses get the backing that they need and deserve.
My hon. Friend also talked about business mentors and advice. It is critical that we establish a network of experienced business mentors offering practical advice to existing businesses and people who want to start a business. We are setting up a new business coaching for growth programme to enable new small businesses with high growth potential to realise that potential. We are also refocusing the Solutions for Business range of products, so that they are better focused on helping firms grow.
We are also establishing local enterprise partnerships. We expect the new LEPs to be able to provide help to small firms, both with advice and by bringing together useful partnerships that will allow the sharing of good practice across the private and public sectors. That increased coherence will help my hon. Friend’s constituency, as it will others, in the ways that he requested. As set out in the White Paper, local enterprise partnerships will play diverse roles, reflecting the differing local priorities in different areas. These will include ensuring that both planning and infrastructure investment support business needs, and working with Government to support enterprise, innovation, global trade and inward investment. He will also know that we announced 11 enterprise zones in the Budget. They will be hosted by LEPs and will bring together a wide range of tools and incentives in an unashamedly pro-growth way, giving power back to local communities and businesses.
My hon. Friend has done a service to this House in highlighting the important issues facing his constituency. They reflect those facing constituencies up and down this country. He can be assured that this is a Government who are pro-business, pro-enterprise, pro-growth, pro his constituency and pro-him.
Question put and agreed to.
Education Bill
John Hayes Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
How does the shadow Secretary of State reconcile his rather jaundiced view of the Government’s commitment to vocational education with our stated and funded commitment to boost the number of apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-olds?
Andy Burnham
That is not the full answer. If schools are being judged by the gold standard of specific GCSEs, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that he is creating a real disincentive for schools to focus on the kids who are not taking those subjects? I know that he cares about vocational education, and I look to him to give us some more convincing answers that show that the Government are committed to those young people.
Mr Iain Wright
I shall be brief, given the time constraints, and speak specifically to new clause 9. I agree with every word that was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) as well as by the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey). Their amendments are eminently sensible and would go a long way toward repairing the damage that in 12 short months the Government have inflicted on young people through their policies on the education maintenance allowance, enrichment activities and post-16 funding.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning and the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) will recall that we had considerable debate in Committee about clauses 26 and 27 and the changes to the careers service that was provided to young people. It became very apparent when the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning was questioned in Committee that no real work or thought had been given to the transition plan between the ending of Connexions and the establishment of the all-age careers service. The Minister conceded the possibility of having a careers summit to discuss the matter, which might be imminent, but it is probably about nine months too late and should have been designed into a clear transition plan. I know that he is genuinely and passionately committed to this issue, but his eye has been worryingly off the ball regarding the transition. This is inept.
Although some services may be available in September, others will not be operational until April 2012. There is confusion about commitment to funding and there is a real risk that vital professional expertise will be lost; indeed, that is borne out by what is happening. A Unison survey of local authorities has shown that 97.5% of councils that responded were cutting the careers service in their area. In central Bedfordshire, personal advisers were being withdrawn at the end of the last autumn term and there is a lack of staff to cover statutory duties. In Essex, no one-to-one advice is being provided at all. Unison concludes that the survey confirms that
“the level of cuts and the lack of clear transition guidance from central government are leading to the decimation of the careers service”.
As the hon. Member for Wirral West and my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan have pointed out, expertise is being lost precisely when the country’s young people need it most. Students leaving school in a matter of weeks after doing their exams will be going out into a world in which conditions are the harshest they have been for a generation, with youth unemployment running at record levels and educational options for over-16s narrowed with the scrapping of EMA. It is becoming clearer by the day that Government policy seems to be moving us towards a higher education system that benefits the well-off rather than the more vulnerable.
In those circumstances and in that economic context, it is vital that before young people leave school they receive the best possible information, advice and guidance about their prospects and options. The manner in which they receive such advice will vary according to their personal preferences. In this modern age, they might wish to view things online or to interact with others in an electronic version of social networking. We can and should use technology in innovative ways to raise aspiration, to show young people what is available and to demonstrate how they can achieve their ambitions.
Mr Hayes
I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want anything to remain on the record that might, however unintentionally, appear as a calumny. On his last point, he will know that we have rolled out the Next Steps IT project, a sophisticated IT interface on precisely this subject, and that the careers taskforce has been working under Dame Ruth Silver, followed by the Careers Profession Alliance under Ruth Spellman, to develop for the first time a coherent set of professional standards, accreditations and training for careers advisers. That did not happen under Labour, but it is happening under our Government.
Mr Wright
The Minister will recall the information, advice and guidance strategy that I published, “Quality, Choice and Aspiration”, which put in place precisely those measures—Next Steps and the careers taskforce—so he has basically implemented what I personally put in place when I was at the Department.
Mr Hayes
That was ungallant of me, so let me qualify what I said. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Some progress was made and he was a very diligent Minister, but in the same spirit I think he would want to acknowledge that we have carried that through in the two respects I have mentioned.
Mr Wright
Let me concede that the Minister has been the best Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning that I have ever seen in this Government. He has been exceptional in that regard.
The Minister talked about online and electronic information, advice and guidance about careers. That has its place, but this is my point and the point of new clause 9: a central part of any successful careers advice system is the face-to-face personalised and tailored interaction between a young person and a careers professional, preferably not on a one-off basis on a wet Wednesday afternoon, as we discussed in Committee, but repeated time and again so that trust can be established between the student and the careers professional, and a relationship built up where the professional can know about the student’s wishes, skills, ambitions, potential and limitations, and accordingly challenge, motivate and provide good tailored advice about their prospects.
In Committee, the Schools Minister did not provide huge reassurance on the matter. He seemed to believe that face-to-face information, advice and guidance was not appropriate for all students. I asked him whether he thought such face-to-face access should be the cream of careers advice, available only to a select few students, and he said in Committee that it would depend on the school, which might think it was appropriate for some students, but then again, might not. That is worrying.
Steve Higginbotham, the president of the Institute of Career Guidance, said that as a result of the Government’s plans and the incompetence regarding the transition scheme and because face-to-face advice has not been prioritised,
“The likely reality is that hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, of young people will never get access to personalised impartial career guidance, having to rely on the national telephone helpline or website and school staff”.
Young people deserve better than that. I believe very much in allowing the professional judgment of teachers and head teachers to flower, but more than anything else I want the potential of the young person to be nurtured. For a Department that states that it trusts the judgments of professionals, Ministers seem remarkably reluctant to allow careers professionals to meet pupils at the school.
The purpose of new clause 9 is to ensure that that would occur. The clause would help to ensure that relevant and personalised advice could be provided for every single student, rather than just a select few in a school. The school governing body—the Minister will recall that I have always believed that school governors have a positive and largely untapped role to play in the provision of first-class careers advice—would have the responsibility to ensure that careers professionals had face-to-face meetings with pupils. It would make sure that, as my hon. Friends the Members for Scunthorpe and for Wigan mentioned and as the hon. Member for Wirral West alluded to, there was not a postcode lottery or even a school lottery for careers advice, with pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds being disadvantaged still further by a lack of resources to fund face-to-face services. If the Minister and the Front-Bench team are serious about wishing to help every child fulfil their potential—and I think they are—I cannot see how they would have a problem with new clause 9. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept it. I give notice that I wish to test the opinion of the House by pressing it to a vote.
Finally, I hope that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) did not take offence earlier when I commented from a sedentary position about flabby liberalism. I was speaking about his policy position, rather than any personal appearance. On careers advice, I think the Liberals are like Joe Bugner rather than Muhammad Ali or the late, great Sir Henry Cooper, whom we lost earlier this month. I wish they were more like Ali and Cooper, and it is disappointing that they have not been so in debate in Committee and in the House today.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend makes the case very well for the success of the existing careers service and the importance of a professional careers service. The Government need to take account of that evidence base, but so far they have been in such a rush to push through these proposals, I fear that in their planning they have missed such evidence.
We are short of time, so I will make some brief comments about the education maintenance allowance. There have been some well-made points, but I want to mention Hugh Baird college and Southport college, which students from my constituency attend. Up to 90% of the learners at those colleges receive the EMA, and listening to Government Members, who now seem to recognise the importance of linking attendance and attainment to the payment of its replacement, I wonder why we are getting rid of it. As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, if only 12,000 people receive the replacement, the number really will be a drop in the ocean. We have already seen one step in the right direction, with the U-turn on providing an allowance to existing learners, but I hope that the Government will go much further on the subject of EMA’s replacement.
My evidence from the colleges that I have mentioned is that students who receive EMA have considerably higher attendance and attainment than those who do not. They are also unable to work out which students will continue to attend without receiving EMA or to determine which students are young carers and from other vulnerable groups and therefore very dependent on EMA. These issues have not been sufficiently taken on board, and that is why the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe are so important.
Mr Hayes
I will speak to Government amendments 36 and 37 and deal with the remarks made by hon. Members on the other amendments in the group.
Let me first say a few words about EMA. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) always speaks in a reasoned way. I appreciate that he brings expertise to this House because of his prior experience. I share his commitment, and that of the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), to fairness. It is important that we deliver a fair outcome. It is also right that we set out clearly our expectations of how the new bursary fund will operate, and we mean to do so.
As the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said, we are engaged in a consultation. I can give the commitment today that following the consultation we will publish short, focused guidance on the new system for schools, colleges and training providers. We certainly do not want a system that is not coherent, consistent or fair. As has been done previously in respect of EMA, we will publish details of the arrangements that we intend to make for provision of financial assistance under the new scheme. On 28 March, we announced additional transitional arrangements to help those who are part way through their studies. The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) paid tribute to that. On whether conditions should be attached to receipt of the 16-to-19 version, we expect, subject to consultation, to set out in guidance that schools, colleges and training providers should consider doing just that.
I hope that those comments will go some way towards assuring those who have had understandable doubts about this that we intend to do this in a proper, measured and considered way. In the past few months, they have told us that conditionality, which was a feature of EMA, was an important factor in encouraging positive attitudes to learning. I believe it is right that these conditions should be set locally, as they are now for EMA. As we discussed throughout the Committee proceedings, we are seeking to reduce, not increase, the regulatory burdens on schools and colleges. The administration of 16-to-19 bursaries should be at the discretion of individual schools and colleges, supported by guidance from the centre, giving head teachers and principals the power to make decisions that are in the best interests of students.
Let me give some examples of that. Members of the House will know that in rural areas there are different pressures surrounding transport from those, typically, in urban areas. In other circumstances, depending on what people are studying, there may be particular pressures to do with the equipment that is required for people to fulfil their studies. There needs to be sufficient flexibility to take account of, and address, different needs, but that does not mean that coherence should not be established in what we say from the centre. I hope that that goes a considerable way down the road towards the destination of widespread agreement that is at the heart of all we do as a Government and I do as a Minister.
The hon. Member for Scunthorpe spoke about enrichment activities. I thank him for the opportunity to discuss this important and valuable aspect of young people’s education. I know that he was a distinguished principal of John Leggott sixth-form college before coming to this House and brings that understanding here. I also know, however, that he does not support the reductions that we have had to make to the funding for enrichment activities. This does not mean that we do not understand their significance or value. The context in which we debate these matters today, as we debate all our considerations on the funding and management of education, is one of financial pressure. The Government are in the business now of having to make tough decisions about value for money and priorities, and of ensuring that the money that is spent delivers the fairness that the hon. Member for Wigan articulated.
Because we agree that such activities can be valuable for young people, we have protected funding for tutorials for all 16 to 18-year-olds. Our commitment to vulnerable groups is demonstrated by our increasing by £150 million to £750 million the amount of funding to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds and those who need additional support. We expect that additional funding to be used to provide the additional support that disadvantaged students need, including enrichment activities if they are appropriate.
I would like to have spoken about the apprenticeship entitlement, but it is sufficient to say that in the evidence sessions, it was clear from the witnesses that the arrangements that prevailed under the previous Government were not widely agreed to be effective. I think it was Martin Doel of the Association of Colleges who said he never felt that those arrangements were really operable. I think that our changes will mean that we can deliver on our commitment.
I will say no more about that, because I want to say a word about careers guidance, which has been spoken about a lot. It is a subject dear to my heart as it is vital. Let me make it clear that I fully appreciate the relationship between good advice and guidance and subsequent progress. Furthermore, it is fundamentally important for social mobility and social justice that that advice and guidance is available to people who would not get it by other means. As the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark suggested, such advice and guidance is usually available to more advantaged people through social networks or familial understanding. That is not always the case for people with less wherewithal who are trying to navigate their way through the system. This is not about aspiration. Let us once and for all kill off the bourgeois, left assumption that working-class people do not aspire to the same things as their middle-class contemporaries. Their ambitions are the same; what they lack is the wherewithal. My mission is to provide that wherewithal, so let us discuss some of the detail.
Mr Hayes
I will not, because I do not have time. I am terribly sorry.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) is right to say that he initiated the idea of the IT system. We implemented what he initiated. He is right that he set up the taskforce. We have considered those recommendations and taken them seriously. We will put in place a state-of-the-art, comprehensive, all-age IT system, which will be available to young people and to other people who want to upskill or reskill. To support that, we will have a telephone service, as he intended.
We will deliver, for the first time, a coherent set of professional standards, training and accreditation for careers professionals. The work that has been done on that over the past six to nine months is of profound importance. It has been led by Ruth Spellman and was inspired by Dame Ruth Silver—there are many Ruths in this business. They have been involved in a series of activities to bring together the disparate elements of the careers profession around a common set of objectives.
Furthermore, it is right that we exemplify best practice. That is bound to involve face-to-face connections—that word was not used advisedly—with the people seeking advice. We want people to have the maximum possible opportunity to gather the advice that is available from the professionals whom I have described in a way that is appropriate for them. I find it inconceivable, or at least unlikely, that best practice will not include face-to-face provision.
Furthermore, new clause 9 suggests that the Government would not be able to issue guidance, but it is clear that that provision is superfluous; I have checked the facts, and the Education and Skills Act 2008, which is unaltered by the Bill, means that the Government can issue guidance on the subject if and when necessary. We are determined that schools, colleges and other bodies should be able to provide the best possible advice. I have written to local authorities, as I promised I would, to remind them of their continuing duty to promote participation. I have instructed schools that they need to put in place the transitional steps in September, ready for the full steps later, and—
English for Speakers of Other Languages
John Hayes Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
I am delighted to speak in this debate secured by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who represents her constituency, which I know extremely well, with a passion and commitment. I thank other hon. Members for contributing to this debate. Both the tone and the spirit of their contributions have been helpful. I put it on record that in opposition and, more especially, in government, I have always informed what I have said and done by listening to the views of others, and I am happy to do so again today. In the short time available to me, I hope to be able to give some illustration of that willingness to listen.
Let us be clear about the context in which the decisions are being made. I have two points to make about that. One was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field). We are debating in difficult times for Government finances and public spending. The strategy that we published last November, which has been mentioned, set out changes that, although positive in my view, occur in the context of spending reductions, not just in the area of English for speakers of other languages but in many other areas. We have had to consider closely how to get maximum cost-effectiveness. I do not think that anyone in this Chamber expects ESOL to be exempt from such scrutiny. It was absolutely right to consider it alongside other spending commitments to decide how we could ensure value for money.
The second contextual point is that the changes are part of a strategy. I will not plead guilty to the charge that they were not thought through. We planned our skills strategy during five years in opposition, and the document that I published was the result of a careful rethink of how we fund and manage skills in this country. At the heart of that rethink is the question of who pays for what. What contribution should individuals make, what contribution should the state make and what contribution should business make? That question has been ducked for too long. It has informed the debate on skills for as long as I have been involved in it, but it has been posed and never previously answered. We are moving towards giving some clear answer.
The context is one of difficulty and the need for a fresh range of ideas and fresh thinking. However, it is also absolutely right that changes should be made on the basis of fairness. I am strongly committed to some of the principles articulated in this debate, such as social justice, social cohesion and social mobility. They are the cornerstone of my political views and should inform what we do in respect of policy. [Interruption.] I will not give way. I am terribly sorry. There have been a lot of contributions, and I want to make as much progress as I can. I apologise because I normally would.
I have five points to make in the time available to me, and in making them I will try to reflect the comments made during this debate and our consideration of these matters in correspondence and meetings. The first, which is a point of disagreement with some of the comments made, is that I take Trevor Phillips’s view of multiculturalism, to be blunt. I think that there is a choice to be made in framing a society with people who started in many different places. Either we build a society around integration or we allow the co-existence of subcultures, with the potential risk, as Phillips said, of ghettoisation. In that spirit, it is important that we develop strong bonds that unite us so that the things that unite us are more important than those that divide us. Language seems central to that. Indeed, I agree that language is an absolutely crucial element in creating such social cohesion. The issue is how to fund the acquisition of those necessary language skills.
That brings me to the second point. If English language skills are critical to the kind of integration that I seek and that the Prime Minister has advocated so powerfully, how do we go about funding the acquisition of those skills? When I first considered ESOL, it was clear to me that, for example, many people who came here temporarily as migrant workers were being trained in English free of charge. As Alan Tuckett mentioned in his Guardian article on the subject last week, some firms have advertised abroad, saying, “Come to England to work and you will be taught English free by the Government.” That seemed entirely unsustainable to me. It is absolutely wrong for the Government to subsidise highly profitable companies that recruit abroad to train their staff in English. It is not acceptable, and it must end.
Other people who came here used ESOL as a way to acquire language skills that helped them socially or culturally, or because they wanted to travel further. I remember going to a college and meeting someone from another European country, whom I asked, “Why are you learning ESOL here?” He said, “So I can travel around the world. You can’t travel around the world if you don’t have English.” That also seemed to me fundamentally unacceptable.
My third point is a point of absolute agreement with the arguments made by the hon. Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Lewisham East. It is important, where women and families are fundamentally affected by the absence of good English skills, that we consider how to help and support them. The fourth point is that it is also vital, where the absence of English is an impediment to employment and the economic activity that is central to people’s social and civic engagement, that we should also help. That is why I have decided to support people on active benefits.
The fifth point is that it was I who decided that a further impact assessment should be done. An impact assessment done at the time of the skills strategy determined that there would be no disproportionate effect on particular groups, but I felt that we should go further and consider the particular effect of this policy. That assessment will inform how the policy develops.
Mr Hayes
I will ensure that it is published in good time—certainly before the summer recess—so that we have a chance to consider it in detail, informed by debates such as this one. The assessment will, of course, consider issues such as family learning and the effect of the changes on children, mothers and women. In addition, we will consider closely how our support for adult community learning can assist the wider cultural agenda. I have defended adult community learning clearly and strongly—people will know that the £210 million budget remains intact, even following the comprehensive spending review. We will also consider how colleges can use their flexibility to address the kinds of particular concern in their neighbourhood that have been raised today.
In summary, yes, we needed to re-consider ESOL, as we have needed to consider all spending priorities; yes, we needed to eliminate some of the waste; yes, I will ensure that the review is completed properly and informs policy. We will then determine how we move forward, inspired by some of the comments made today.
Mr Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I congratulate all hon. Members who have participated in this debate on their exemplary conduct. It has been most helpful.
Higher Education Policy
John Hayes Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
The Labour Government’s unhappy, unwelcome bequest was an immense financial black hole. Then, as now, Labour was characterised by chaos. Better-informed Members will know that, according to some advocates of chaos theory, black holes are a portal to a parallel universe—an alternative reality, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) described it. Perhaps there is a parallel universe in which Labour won the election. Does anyone here truly believe that if it had done so, it would be prosecuting the case it has been making today? After all, Labour was the party that introduced variable tuition fees, established the Browne review and laid down the criteria by which Browne considered these matters.
This is not science fiction; it is hard fact. When Labour was in office, it defended the very principles it has attacked today. As the Minister for Universities and Science, my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Willetts) pointed out, Lord Mandelson hinted at a tuition fee rise five months before the Browne review was launched, telling vice-chancellors that excellence in higher education was “not cheap” and that the country had to
“face up to the challenge of paying for excellence”.
Andrew Bridgen
What are the Minister’s views on the viability or otherwise of a graduate tax as a solution to higher education funding, as proposed by the Opposition?
Mr Hayes
My hon. Friend the Member for Havant referred to an interesting document that Labour has produced, “Why not a Pure Graduate Tax?”, which concludes:
“We have been unable to identify any other country with a graduate tax system along the lines described that could serve as an exemplar for how a pure graduate tax might work.”
I have good news! Experts in Labour central office have now found one. Ethiopia has a graduate tax, but it is thinking of ditching it, just as Labour has decided to take the idea on board.
As for the charge that variable fees will deter working-class students, we heard the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) speak with authority on the subject. I know that he is a close student of working-class culture—[Laughter.] I said merely that he was a student; he does study it. He and the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) told us that fees would deter working-class students. When the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) was a Minister, he introduced variable fees, saying:
“I reject the notion that working-class kids are more debt averse than youngsters from other backgrounds. I just reject it completely, absolutely completely.”
That was his view of the effect that variable fees would have on the participation of working-class students.
Luciana Berger
Has the Minister seen the research published today by High Fliers, which shows that 51% of existing final-year undergraduates said that they would not have gone to university if their tuition fees had been three times as high as they are now?
Mr Hayes
I would be the first to acknowledge that I have not seen that research, but I would be more than happy to look at it. I am a straightforward politician, as the hon. Lady knows, and I have to say to her that when fees were first introduced, I was one of the doubters. I wondered whether they would have the effect that has been articulated again today. However, the evidence is that they have not done so. They have not affected applications in the way that was predicted by some people, and she is on dangerous ground if she thinks that they will have that effect this time round.
It does not seem credible for the Opposition to prosecute the argument that students will be deterred from applying to university and that there will therefore not be enough of them, and simultaneously to argue that there will be too many applications and that the universities will be unable to fund sufficient places to meet the demand. The Opposition seem to be running two horses, neither of which is likely to reach the winning post.
Nic Dakin
The Minister says he was a doubter in the past. Is he surprised that so many universities are now setting fees of £8,500 and £9,000? If such fees create a gap, how will the problem be solved? Will it be solved by cutting student numbers or by cutting university income?
Mr Hayes
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that the headline fees that are being published are not the same as the amount that students will pay in all cases; neither are they the same as the amount that the Government will fund. We know that fee waivers and bursaries, for example, have a real impact on the figures. The figures that are being published are maximum figures, not average figures. That point has been made by Members on this side of the House, although it does not seem to have been grasped, for the most part, by Opposition Members.
Mr Hayes
I will not give way again, as time is short.
The previous Government defended both the extra independence variable fees gives institutions and the principle that universities should justify the fees they charge. That is why this debate on the future of higher education is, above all, about three things. First, it is about securing a settlement to fund higher education that is sustainable. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is right: the deficit was not the context when Browne began, but it certainly was the context when Browne reported. The previous Government recognised that we had strategically to rethink university funding to give them sufficient funds to compete with the best. That was acknowledged by the right hon. Gentleman when was the Minister and it is acknowledged by Conservative Members.
I think it would serve the Labour party if that was acknowledged once again. It was hesitatingly and falteringly acknowledged by the shadow Secretary of State, but he has to answer this question: if the reduction in BIS spending on higher education had been of the order he suggested—around 8% to 10%—where would the cuts have fallen? Would basic skills have taken the hit; would it have been adult and community learning; would it have been apprenticeships; or would it have been further education? Let us face it, we cannot have it all ways—yet too often the shadow Secretary of State tries to do just that.
Mr Denham
The answer is, of course, that the BIS team, including the hon. Gentleman, conceded this huge cut in higher education and offered it up to the Treasury. It is not a matter of choosing one cut or another. A BIS team of any credibility or influence would simply have said that an 80% cut in higher education teaching is unsustainable, unnecessary and unfair. It is the failure of the ministerial team to deliver that is at the centre of this debate.
Mr Hayes
The hon. Gentleman’s predecessor, the noble Lord Mandelson, was first to the table when it came to volunteering to cut in his Departments. He took more hits when he was in BIS than any other Secretary of State. It is not credible for the right hon. Gentleman to claim that, had Labour been elected, it would not have faced exactly the same challenges or, indeed, not have employed exactly the same approach to deal with them.
The second big issue is whether this system is progressive. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) made the point very clearly: there are no up-front fees; no repayments until someone is earning £21,000; and debts are written off after 30 years. This is a more progressive, fairer system than the one we inherited. Frankly, no one can honestly deny that. Indeed, it has not been denied, even by Labour Members. A graduate on a starting salary of £25,000 will repay around £30 a month under the new system and we know that graduates typically earn about £100,000 more than non-graduates over an earning lifetime.
The third key point is access. No one is a greater champion of widening access to higher education than I am—with the possible exceptions of my right hon. Friends the Minister for Universities and Science and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Widening access, however, is not just about fees. It is about the patterns and rhythms of higher education study matching the patterns and rhythms of more kinds of lives. That is why the changes to part-time provision are so important and why the White Paper—for the record, it was published in June—explains how we will look to provide more higher education in further education colleges, look at more modular courses, more distance learning and more part-time provision. That is exactly the way to get more under-represented groups into higher education.
Today, we have heard from the Opposition a critique of a policy that is very close to what they might well have had to adopt in similar circumstances had they been in government. What we have not heard, however, is their alternative. I believe it ill befits an Opposition to table a motion when they have no real alternatives—
Mr Alan Campbell
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.