Apprenticeships

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that more high-quality apprenticeships are essential to the future prospects of young people and future success of the economy; notes with concern that the number of 19 to 24-year-olds starting an apprenticeship has fallen by 6,270 in the last year, that 24 per cent of these apprentices are receiving no formal training, and around one in five are not receiving the appropriate minimum wage; calls on the Government to institute a ten-year national goal to grow the number of apprenticeships for young people and boost the standing and value of technical and vocational education so that the same number of young people that go to university undertake a high-quality apprenticeship; and further calls on the Government to use the money it already spends on procurement to require suppliers for large Government contracts to offer new apprenticeship opportunities, safeguard apprenticeship quality with new standards so that all apprenticeships are at at least level three and last a minimum of two years, ensure Government plays its part by creating thousands more apprenticeships in the civil service, give city and country regions a role by devolving money for adult skills and give a central role to business through sector bodies to drive up standards and increase apprenticeship places.

I note what you have said about time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try not to drone on for too long.

I want to put this debate in context. It is not simply a debate on apprenticeships. The issue of apprenticeships is central to a wider debate about our economy and whether it is fit for purpose. The changing nature of the world is full of opportunity for Britain. Technology is transforming the way we live. New emerging economies with ballooning middle classes are providing a mass of opportunity for our businesses, but these forces of change are also bringing challenges: how do we deliver the goods for our people when the uncertainty which follows from all this creates insecurity for many?

As I have said before, the answer is to shape these forces of change and do all we can to ensure that everyone can access the opportunities available—in short, to ensure that everyone is connected to the new global economy and has a stake in the future. That requires an economy producing good, decent jobs that are fulfilling, afford a level of dignity, respect and security, and, above all, pay a wage that people can live off. Sadly, that vision is but a dream for too many in Britain today. Under the current Government, average wages have fallen by £1,600 a year on average. They have fallen by more than £3,200 in my constituency. Almost 5 million people are not earning a wage that they can live off. We are seeing rising insecurity, with 1.4 million zero-hour contracts. There are 3.5 million people in work who say they want extra hours.

As a result of all this, our fiscal deficit remains stubbornly high at £91 billion. The Office for Budget Responsibility was clear in its autumn outlook published with the autumn statement that the Government have failed to meet their two fiscal mandates in this Parliament because stagnating wages have led to a fall in national insurance and income tax receipts. However, the living standards crisis that I refer to and the persistence of the deficit are symptoms of a bigger problem: the failure of Government to help raise productivity across our economy.

Sure, Britain leads in aerospace, the automotive industry, business services, chemicals, the creative and digital industries, food, green tech and pharmaceuticals, among other industries. We should celebrate the success in these sectors, but across the economy overall, the gap between UK productivity per hour worked and the rest of the G7 grew to 17% in 2013, the largest difference since 1992. So on average it now takes a British worker until the end of Friday to produce what a German or French worker has finished before they clock off on Thursday.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to remark on the success in my constituency under this Government, with apprenticeships doubling to 1,500 a year. It is not just a matter of problems; it is also a matter of dealing with success. In many parts of the country where there is high growth and unemployment is falling—in Huntingdon it has fallen to 1%— we need better training so that employers can invest in their staff to deal with the lack of skills that exists as our economy improves.

[Mr Umunna]

I agree that quality is important, but apprenticeships in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency have fallen by 11%. Many apprenticeships are not the high-quality apprenticeships that I think he refers to. Many of them are level 2.

There has been much debate in economic circles as to why we have gone backwards on productivity so fast under this Government. People have pointed to the lack of business investment, which is compounded by the problems that businesses have faced in getting access to finance, but skills shortages in our economy are also holding Britain back. Too many young people in particular do not have the skills our businesses require when they leave secondary education, and even among those who do have skills and qualifications, there is a mismatch between their skills and the demand for technician-level competency, particularly for jobs requiring people with science, technology, engineering and maths skills—the STEM skills.

To address this we need a major expansion of high-quality vocational and technical education, in particular apprenticeships for young people, offering more and better work-and-train opportunities in all sectors of the economy, giving them those skills which employers say are lacking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Umunna]

I will give way to—

[Mr Djanogly]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that the number of apprenticeships in my constituency had fallen, but I am looking at the House of Commons published figures—

Gender Balance on Corporate Boards

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and Chuka Umunna

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the 25% figure, but that is an absolute figure. He should also point out that 27% of all board appointments in FTSE 100 companies are now being taken up by women.

[Mr Umunna]

I do not disagree. As I said, I do not think that the progress in this country towards achieving the goals since the report came out in February 2011 has been insubstantial. Whether we are on course to reach the aspirations set out in the Davies report will be clearer next year, when the recommendations have had three years to bed in. At that point, we will form a view on whether further measures are needed. Let me be clear: if we are to continue with a business-led approach, we expect to see much greater progress towards parity.

That is the case for action, but what of the EU? The draft directive produced by the Commission seeks to introduce a new procedural requirement for the recruitment of non-executive directors that would apply to all boards of public listed companies in the EU. The objective is to raise the proportion of non-executive positions held by the under-represented sex to 40% by January 2020 by introducing a new preference rule in the selection of non- executive directors. Under that rule, priority would be given to a candidate of the under-represented sex who was equally qualified in terms of suitability, competence and professional performance as a candidate of the other sex—a man in this case—unless an objective assessment, taking account of all the criteria, would tilt the balance in favour of the candidate of the other sex. That system would not amount to the introduction of a quota per se, as has wrongly been reported in some places, but it would introduce a degree of positive discrimination in favour of female candidates, in the scenario that I have outlined, for non-executive director positions on boards. The Commission decided not to take action in respect of executive directors because it says that it would constitute

“excessive interference in the day-to-day management of a company.”

The Commission argues that action at EU level is justified on a number of grounds, including that if there is not action at supranational level, insufficient progress will be made at national level towards more gender-balanced representation on company boards by 2020. The European Scrutiny Committee rejects that and objects to the draft directive on the grounds that it does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. The reasons the Committee cites for its view include that it does not feel it is fair to say that member states acting individually will not achieve sufficient progress, given that

“many national measures have been introduced within the last year or two”.

The Committee’s objections to the directive are set out in the draft reasoned opinion that it proposes be sent to the presidents of the European institutions. The Business Secretary, who is once again absent from the House for the debate on this important issue, asks us in the motion to endorse the draft reasoned opinion, with which the Government agree.

The principal problem we have with the motion is that although there may well be strong arguments against the action envisaged under the draft directive, for the reasons that the Committee cites in the draft reasoned opinion, we have heard very little from the Government about how they might work constructively in other ways to advance the cause of equality in company boardrooms along with our European partners.

The Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, who is also a Business Minister—[Interruption.] Yes, why is she not here? In her response to the report of the House of Lords European Union Committee on the issue, she said that the Government

“agrees that the EU has an important role to play in improving the representation of women on boards.”

If that is the case, surely the Government are obliged to say how that should happen, and to give more of a lead on what that role should be, if we want to lead the way in Europe on the issue.

Given that other European countries are also keen to see more women on boards, and given the extent to which many of our major companies operate across Europe, why have the Government not put forward proposals on what constructive moves European countries could make to work more positively together to promote having more women on boards? That would be good for tackling discrimination and promoting equality, and it would be good for business.

The situation is most unsatisfactory, because the Government have had a golden opportunity to make it clear that the UK wishes to be at the forefront of the debate on achieving greater equality across society both here and in the EU. Instead, without the Government having set out proposals on how member states could work together to improve matters, I fear that the motion will leave people with the impression that yet again, the Government are dragging their feet on issues of equality, diversity and representation. That is the problem. Although we do not propose to divide the House on this technical motion on a directive that is still at an early stage of development and negotiation, we urge the Government to reconsider their overall approach.