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

Debate between John Hayes and Luke Murphy

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

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

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

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

[Luke Murphy]

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

[Sir John Hayes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Electricity Grid Upgrades

Debate between John Hayes and Luke Murphy

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes]

With the insight for which he is known, my hon. Friend has anticipated two of the points that I was going to make. The problem with pylons being so close to SSSIs is that the birds do not know boundaries. Of course, the salt marsh in Lincolnshire matters because, exactly as my hon. Friend said, it is important as a site for geese and duck in particular. To run the pylons so close to that is at best highly contentious and at worse wholly destructive. The offshore grid that my hon. Friend describes can be run further out to sea, which is what we do with cables routinely. If we were able to see the ocean bed around our islands, we would see any number of trunked cables that run through them, which provide vital power and communications infrastructure.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

There is an interesting discussion about the balance of trade-offs. One of the other considerations is cost, and the cost of undergrounding is multiple times the amount of overhead pylons. The previous Government were not able to demonstrate that they could do it at the same cost, so how does the right hon. Gentleman balance that factor? Does he not think that his constituents, and constituents throughout the country, might consider the loading of those costs on to them unacceptable?

[Sir John Hayes]

There is a big argument to be had about costs because we are planning a project that will last decades—perhaps even longer. When I was the Energy Minister, I was very conscious of the fact that we might be making 100-year decisions. It is very hard to gauge costs over time because of two things. First, there are the ongoing maintenance costs associated with any line that runs above ground, and given the changing climate, it is likely that extreme weather events will become more frequent, and extreme weather events will have an effect on anything above ground. Secondly, the relative costs of underground and overhead cables vary according to the kind of cable laid, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said; and indeed some of the evidence from other places in Europe and elsewhere suggests that the cost of trunking cables underground is falling, whereas there is no similar reduction in the cost of overhead cables, which, on pylons, have been at the same cost for a very long time indeed.

The final point is about consent. The longer these things take, the more they cost. Certainly in Lincolnshire—and I imagine this is true in Essex, Suffolk and other places—there will be protracted legal challenges to the pylons, whereas, with local support and the support of local authorities like Lincolnshire county council, undergrounding would be a much more straightforward affair. Factoring in those costs is complex, but it needs to happen.