Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Catherine McKinnell

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Clearly, large numbers of public sector workers, who have often given long service, might have to take redundancy—not surprisingly at a time of severe cuts in, for example, local government. The provisions in the local government pension fund require those strain payments to be made, and those will count towards the £95,000 exit payment.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

My intervention very much complements that of the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). One of the big concerns about the change, which I am sure my hon. Friend shares, is that the consultation was so inadequate. The Government have also failed to undertake any public sector equality duty review, as required under the Equality Act 2010. The changes could therefore have many unintended consequences, but the Government are not taking the time to explore them.

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes. I will briefly touch on the inadequacy of the consultation later.

Amendment 15 is about workers earning less than £27,000 a year. As I mentioned, it was the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), when she was at the Treasury, who said a year ago:

“those earning less than £27,000 will be exempted to protect the very small number of low earning, long-serving public servants.”

She was commenting on the Government’s plans to create the public sector exit payment cap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I recommend that the hon. Gentleman read more deeply into the report of the Committee stage. I commend to him the worked example I gave of somebody on a salary of £25,000 who had given long service in local government and who would be affected.

Obviously, the right hon. Member for Witham did not think at the time that these people were fat cats; she thought they should be protected, and we need to understand why that is not happening in the Bill. Why was a lower earnings floor not included, given that the Conservatives promised they would pursue only—again, I quote from their manifesto—the “best paid” workers? Of course, once the election was over, the Government ignored that.

Problems emerged because the consultation was so poorly conducted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said. Usually, a full consultation takes 12 weeks; the Government did this consultation over four weeks in the summer—it began on 31 July 2015 and concluded on 27 August. If the Government were serious in their rhetoric that the Bill would affect only the best paid, it would be very straightforward to include a provision to exclude those on £27,000 or less. In fact, what the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise said on Second Reading, which was alluded to earlier, was:

“What we do know is that there is a very small number of workers”—

that is the figure she gave—

“in the public sector on about £25,000 who could be caught by this…But those are extremely rare conditions.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2016; Vol. 605, c. 886.]

What we want to know, therefore—I think this is what the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) wanted to know—is how rare those conditions are. If they are that rare, why not exempt the lower paid?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend briefly mentioned the dates of the consultation—between July and August. Does it not occur to him that if the Government were genuinely keen to hear back from people potentially affected by, or interested in, this change, they would not have introduced the consultation for such a short time over the summer holidays?

[Kevin Brennan]

My only assumption is that they think fat cats should not have holidays. That is probably why they thought it did not matter that there was only a four-week consultation. That is what they think of the people they were supposed to be consulting. The rhetoric used by the Government is shameful; the contemptuous, short nature of the consultation is shameful; and the way in which the policy has been introduced overall can only be described as shameful.

We are concerned about the Government’s reluctance to make the necessary exemptions to ensure that the unfortunate few—that is what the Government tell us they are: a few—are not disproportionately affected. If the low paid and average paid are affected only in rare circumstances, excluding them from the cap will not result in the Government losing a great deal of money, so what is the problem in exempting them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I agree. My hon. Friend will have noticed that Sellafield Ltd is included in new schedule 1, for the very reason she has highlighted.

As I said, the workers in question are working towards making themselves redundant. They accept that their work is a task and finish activity of national importance. In order to get somebody with the necessary skills to commit to that kind of proposition in their early or mid-30s, we need to ensure that they know that they will be provided for if they successfully complete their task by the time they reach their mid to late 50s, when they might find it extremely difficult to find re-employment, given their very specific skills.

If the companies listed cannot afford the packages necessary to compensate someone for the loss of their role when their task has been completed, they will find it extremely difficult to prevent highly skilled workers, who are mobile in the earlier parts of their careers, from leaving. That in itself will drive up costs for the nuclear decommissioning industry and exacerbate an already difficult skills shortage in the sector.

Legislating now to override the long-standing arrangements in the nuclear industry, as the Government are doing, when employers have kept their end of the bargain faithfully, is, to be frank, unconscionable. How can it be right that workers who have stayed with a company to deliver successfully the safe decommissioning of a site see the Government renege on their promised redundancy compensation when it is due to be paid?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend’s argument is powerful, and I am genuinely at a loss as to why the Government do not take heed of it. The proposal will not only cost individuals in the long term; it is also a betrayal of trust and will only benefit, to a small degree, the company involved. It will not actually benefit the Government, so I do not understand why they do not take action to right what is clearly a wrong.

[Kevin Brennan]

Exactly. The Treasury’s justification is that, even though the companies have been privatised, the workers are still deemed by the Office for National Statistics to be on the Treasury books, because of the nature of their work. It is understandable that their work needs to be underwritten by Government, because they are decommissioning nuclear sites and no one can get an insurance policy for that.

That technical, statistical designation, however, does not mean that applying the cap to those workers is fair or that it necessarily represents value for money for taxpayers in the long term. There is no proof that taxpayers will receive any benefit, as the private operators of the companies often receive higher incentive payments in their contracts as a result of this kind of change. Unless the Government decide to act, employees in the sector will note that the Treasury has excluded them from the public sector when it comes to pension provision and other issues, but considers them within the scope of the capped exit payments.

[Catherine McKinnell]

If the Government fail to take heed of this issue and that of the pensions of women who were born in the 1950s, I think that the mantra for the 2020 election will be, “You cannot trust the Tories on pensions.”

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that the Government will have a last-minute change of heart. Why is a privatised banker not given the fat cat treatment under these provisions?

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Catherine McKinnell

Thursday 25th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan]

I thought the Minister’s response was disappointing, given the weight of the evidence submitted to the Committee and the strength of feeling among hon. Members and their constituents. The workers have made their plans and taken decisions on the basis of guarantees and promises given by Government. As far as we can surmise from the limited information that the Minister is prepared to provide about the Government’s intentions, it now appears that the Government are going to take action that will affect them.

To listen to the Minister, one might think that the workers would not be affected at all. She seemed to be dealing with all sorts of shibboleths that were nothing to do with what is in the new schedule, rather than telling us directly whether the workers’ pensions and prospects would be affected by the exit payment cap. The Minister rehearsed arguments about all sorts of scares, which may have been put about by mythical people she was not prepared to name, but going by the evidence submitted to us, the workers in question will be affected—and to quite a large extent.

We represented those arguments and made the case on the workers’ behalf, and quoted, albeit selectively, from a heavy weight of evidence that they submitted to us about their circumstances. All we got from the Minister was a response to issues that had not been raised in the workers’ letters to us and a vague reference to secondary legislation at some later date that will name some as yet unknown entities that may be excluded from the cap.

I am sorry, but I was brought up not to buy a pig in a poke, and if I were the Magnox workers I would not fall for that for a second. It is the oldest trick in the book for Ministers to say “We might do something at a later date, but let something through in the meantime.” That is not why we are here. We are here to get on the record the Government’s position, and whether they accept the arguments about Magnox and other workers that we have set out in the new schedule. We want to know whether they are prepared to exclude those workers, through secondary legislation, from the exit payment cap. At the very least, will they give a strong indication that that is how they are minded to act?

All we got from the Minister was an empty sheet of paper, with nothing written on it. I am afraid that is not good enough for the constituents who have written to us and who are directly affected.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. I want to express my concerns about the issue. It speaks to what seems to be a wider Government issue on pensions. We had a debate yesterday about women born in the 1950s who have been significantly affected by the Government’s switching the goal posts. The Government are pulling the rug out from under people. People have paid into the system and saved all their lives for their pension, only to find that the Government have changed the rules at the last minute. That suggests a profound disrespect for those people, but also for the principle of saving and doing the right thing. The Government profess to support those people, but they are doing the opposite.

[Kevin Brennan]

Indeed. Those people are the definition of strivers; they are hard-working—the beating heart of the working people of this country. It shows in their letters to us. Neither are they swivel-eyed lefty loonies or anything of that kind. Their letters reveal that they are ordinary working people. Often they live in the constituencies of Conservative Members. The one I quoted earlier lives in Maldon, the constituency of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and there are many others in constituencies represented by Members from both sides of the House and all parts of the United Kingdom.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Catherine McKinnell

Thursday 25th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Catherine McKinnell]

I appreciate what the hon. Lady says, but the Government have a role and a responsibility to balance the interests of communities, the business community, local authorities and local planning decisions, which is where the debate was had 22 years ago when a compromise was struck. That compromise has worked and is sensible, and she has pointed out that some retailers have decided to drop back their hours where there is not enough demand. The difficulty with fully liberalising the retail legislation in this way is that it removes all of the current compromise that allows for that flexibility. Indeed, she makes the point that the current laws are working, and the Government have not submitted any evidence to justify why they need to change the system.

The Federation of Small Businesses and the Association of Convenience Stores, both significant voices for small businesses, are opposed to the measures. Small businesses are the backbone of the UK’s economy, making up 99% of the 5.2 million businesses in the country and employing more than 14 million people. Their voice should be heard, and the restrictions on Sunday trading play a vital role in supporting and sustaining our small businesses. Frankly, I am shocked that the Government seem to dismiss the concerns of small businesses so out of hand when they claim to be champions of small business, but we know that is not the case, and this proves it.

My final point is on the tens of thousands of people who work in the retail sector on Sundays for large retailers and who take comfort from the current arrangements, which enable them to go out to earn a living while still getting some time off with their family on a Sunday and retaining a semblance of a work-life balance. Surely the Minister can recognise that the new clause merely risks heaping more pressure on low-paid retail workers, for whom the Sunday restrictions are considered a fundamental right and protection. It is telling that his contribution to the debate so far was entirely focused on those workers being able to enforce those rights. A measure proposed by the Government that is focused entirely on how individuals and workers can enforce those rights highlights the issue and the difficult situation in which the Government are deliberately putting those workers.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Would it be useful if the Minister clarified that point? We know the measure is controversial, and we will be returning to it on Report; lots of Government Members are also not happy with it. Even if the measures do not go ahead, will the enhanced workers’ rights be delivered by the Government because they think it is the right thing to do?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and it would be useful to hear from the Minister that, even if the Sunday trading laws do not go ahead—the Minister should take on board the deep concerns on both sides of the House about the Sunday trading restrictions—he will still commit to the additional rights for workers to enforce the Sunday trading restrictions in their workplace.

Does the Minister recognise the concerns raised about work-life balance? He should address that issue, because it is a well-known aspiration of the Prime Minister to make the UK the most family-friendly country in Europe. Indeed, in 2014 he announced, to much fanfare, his family test, which says that

“every single domestic policy that government comes up with will be examined for its impact on the family… The reality is that in the past the family just hasn’t been central to the way government thinks. So you get a whole load of policy decisions which take no account of the family and sometimes make…things worse.”

I could not agree more. This has just come into my head, and I cannot resist sharing it with the Committee: in the light of the exchange at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, does your mother know?

Given new clause 21, under which thousands of retail staff face working longer hours on Sunday—a day when their children are not at school and that is often reserved for family and friends—what will happen to the Prime Minister’s aspiration? Has the family test been carried out and, if so, why has the result not been published?

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Catherine McKinnell

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope the Minister is listening, because it is not just about the financial savings in these cases, but also the human cost involved where there may be a discrimination or whistleblowing claim, which is a very traumatic experience to have to take to tribunal. People should be able to get a fair settlement through the ACAS process if that is the most sensible course of action for them.

[Kevin Brennan]

I will come on to whistleblowing, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point.

Amendment 118 would exclude payments from the cap if they relate to claims of unlawful discrimination, harassment or victimisation under the Equality Act 2010. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is concerned that the provisions of clause 35 disincentivise the early settlement of disputes. The Government have given assurances that the cap will not apply to tribunal awards but, perversely, the cap will therefore encourage claimants to pursue their claim at tribunal, where awards in discrimination cases are uncapped, rather than settling at an early stage.

What assessment has the Minister made of the concern raised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission? Would a better approach not be to make it clear in the Bill that payments in respect of discrimination litigation, both tribunal awards and settlements, are excluded from the cap, while monitoring the existing, robust safeguards to ensure that the approval process continues to operate effectively? These safeguards will deter unmeritorious claims and encourage settlement where that is merited and offer value for taxpayers’ money. It is important that we hear the Government’s thinking on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Again, my hon. Friend makes an important point, which also highlights the Government’s glaring omission in not undertaking any form of equality impact assessment of these changes. Had they done so, it may well have highlighted the impact on these groups, who will obviously be disproportionately affected if the changes are not made by the Government.

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes, and that is exactly how bad law gets made, as we know. Therefore, I encourage the Minister to give some further thought to those points if she has not already decided how she will deal with them.

Amendments 111 and 125 would provide protections for whistleblowers—my hon. Friend mentioned this earlier—and remove them from the cap on exit payments. Capping payments could act as a deterrent to whistleblowers. There is concern across the House about the unintended consequences of an exit cap on whistleblowers’ willingness to come forward. Whistleblowers are public-spirited individuals who, when they spot an injustice or malpractice, make it public. We have seen their value not just in the public sector but in the private sector as well, but whistleblowing often leads to a backlash from the authority or business concerned. As a result, many whistleblowers do not continue to work in the same industry, understandably, and they often suffer financially as a result of their brave actions.

It is possible that such workers might think twice about whistleblowing if they are to be further punished financially by the proposed cap. Will the Minister update us on the latest view of the Treasury and her own Department on relaxing the cap for whistleblowers? The Government would do a grave disservice to openness and transparency in the public sector if they did not afford those brave individuals the protection they deserve.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Catherine McKinnell

Thursday 11th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan]

My apologies to the Committee for my voice and any coughing or spluttering as I am suffering from a heavy cold, and it sounds like other colleagues on the Committee are, too. We now move on to part 4 of the Bill, but may I first say what an intense and extraordinary pleasure is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck, in your first appearance on the Panel of Chairmen—or chairpersons? How fortunate we are to have you in the Chair.

Like the Minister, this topic does not normally fall within my current list of responsibilities, but having been the Minister for apprenticeships under the previous Labour Government between 2009-10 and having presided at that time over a large expansion in the number of apprenticeships started and completed, I hope that I can be a passable, if imperfect, substitute for my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), who leads on such matters in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Opposition team.

We support the expansion in quality apprenticeships, which was begun under the Labour Government at a time when apprenticeships had reached a low ebb following the rapid de-industrialisation of the economy in the 1980s and 1990s. We welcome the fact that the coalition Government wanted and this Government want to continue that trend, which is why these measures are in the Bill. Of course, such matters are largely devolved and the clauses and amendments that we are discussing relate principally to England, but they play into similar policy directions being pursued by the devolved Administrations, as we will discuss when considering later amendments.

This first group of amendments to the clause is intended to tease out further the Government’s thinking on apprenticeship targets for public bodies, particularly in relation to disabled people and people who have been looked-after children. As colleagues will know, looked-after children do less well at GCSE than their counterparts. They often miss out on parts of their education for a variety of reasons, which might include chaotic family circumstances or a history of abuse within the family. Barnardo’s has said:

“These young people often leave school with few or no qualifications and need alternative options outside of the school environment if they are to achieve their potential. Some need provision that allows them to catch up on what they have missed. These young people also often want the option of practical-based learning that clearly links to a real job.”

That is the issue we are discussing today in relation to apprenticeships.

Amendment 70 would ensure that looked-after children are fully included in the monitoring and take-up of apprenticeships in public bodies. That is particularly relevant for local authorities, although it affects other public bodies too. I praise local authorities for a lot of the work that they have done in that area. I saw some of their excellent work when I was Minister with responsibility for children in 2007-08 under the Labour Government. People who have been looked after by local authorities can often be forgotten when they get a bit older.

Local authorities have a particular responsibility, because when children are taken into care, the local authority becomes the corporate parent. What would any parent who ran a family business, large or small, as an employer want to do in relation to their own children? They would want to ensure that if their children wanted, they could have a role in the family business. I have always felt that because local authorities are the corporate parents, they have a responsibility to consider the employment prospects of children who have had a terrible start in life. In particular in relation to training, apprenticeships and other such opportunities that local authorities can offer, persons who have been looked after should be given primary consideration.

It is right that an apprenticeship target should incorporate what proportion of apprenticeships we should expect to be made up of people who have been looked after. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says about how the Government intend to deal with that issue in relation to their policy on apprenticeships and the amendments that we have tabled to try to draw the Government’s attention to it.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, and I think his points are meeting with agreement across the Committee. Any parent who ran a family business would like to give a child an opportunity to join it, but if the child wanted other opportunities, any parent would also go to any length to use their contacts and the people they know to try to find those opportunities. The corporate parent—the local authority—therefore has a responsibility not only to use its own means to give opportunities to the children it takes care of, but to use all means available to find other opportunities for them.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is right. The responsibility extends beyond the immediate employment offerings that might be available within a local authority, but given that it is a significant employer, it is a point worth making. Those broader responsibilities, beyond the age of 18 and up to the age of 25, have been extended in recent years for looked-after children as they become adults. It is an appropriate issue to raise when we are talking about apprenticeships, and as I have said, I look forward to the Minister’s response on the targets in this clause that we are discussing specifically.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I reiterate my full support for my hon. Friend’s suggestion that the least the Government can do at this stage is to monitor the situation, because the corporate parent could and should do so much more for looked-after children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

May I praise the hon. Lady for the work that she has done in that regard? It is extremely important that we get this right—she is quite right—and that is why I pose the question in tabling these amendments: why are the rates going down at the moment? That is what the figures are showing. We need to look at that carefully. This bit of the Bill is about targets for apprenticeships, but there is nothing envisaged to ensure that disabled people and those who have been looked after are specifically referred to in the targets. That is what I am trying to tease out.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, but it is also important to look at both national and regional statistics, to ensure there are no regional disparities. I know that, generally, the apprenticeship start figures are suffering quite significantly in my constituency compared with the national average, yet I do not have the statistics for disabled people, and I worry that that would be more marked because of the barriers that are currently in place. We should be careful not to take a blanket approach—we should look at geographical differentials as well.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we have a target and the statistics, we can do a deep-dive down into them to see whether there are any regional or local anomalies and try to get to the root cause of them. Earlier I was talking about looked-after children and people who have been looked after. We all know that in the past there have been deep disparities between the performance in different parts of the country on looked-after children. Often, that very much depended on the leadership given at a local level, often by elected members, who took a particular interest in the children under their care.

In 2012 there was a comprehensive review—the Little and Holland review—entitled “Creating an inclusive Apprenticeship Offer”. It was a report commissioned by the apprenticeships unit, which works across the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The aim was to give an informed and up-to-date description and analysis of the issues related to the inclusion of people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities in the apprenticeship programme. The report made 20 recommendations, including clarifying funding to support apprentices with a learning difficulty and/or disability; raising the awareness of providers and employers of funding sources, such as Access to Work and Access to Learning; the promotion of on-the-job support through job coaching and mentoring; the review and better monitoring of the self-declaration process, so that under-representation by specific groups can be addressed; and the removal of barriers to access and completion in the form of qualification requirements. The Government seem to have been slow in implementing those recommendations. What assurances can the Minister give us in relation to those 20 recommendations that were made by the Government’s own apprenticeships unit in its 2012 report?

The Government already have targets to increase the proportion of black, Asian and minority ethnic apprentices by 20%. The concept of targets in relation to under-represented groups is not novel. The Government are also aware of, and perhaps understand, the perennial problem of gender gaps in the number of boys and girls, or men and women, taking up apprenticeships, but also in the types of apprenticeships in different sectors that are taken up by men and women. So it makes sense to expect the Government to do the same for people with disabilities and for care leavers.

I hope the Minister will give us a clear indication of the Government’s thinking in this area so that we can make a judgment on how seriously they intend to ensure that apprenticeships will be accessible to and taken up by disabled people and those who have been looked-after children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank the Minister for her response and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for his contribution. My concern is that although we have these debates from time to time and there is rightly a degree of cross-party agreement, my experience, and I think that of many hon. Members, is that it is not enough to hope that things will happen just by having these debates. We have to ensure that there is enough grit in the system to make this issue a priority and make sure that action is taken.

I accept the Minister’s pledge that she will take the debate away to cogitate and reflect on what has been said, and perhaps to look into it in a bit more depth. I understand completely that Governments are reluctant to have too many targets, because we do not want to lose the focus on the essence of a policy, but dealing with disabled people and looked-after children, and ensuring that they have the opportunity to play a full part in society, are some of the wicked areas of politics. They deserve extra attention and extra effort by Opposition spokespersons, Ministers and—dare I say it?—civil servants to look into whether some sort of harder target would be of genuine public policy benefit in trying to make a difference.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I, too, warmly receive the Minister’s assurance that she will look into the matter. She set out a whole range of very positive developments and activities that the Government are focused on to improve outcomes. I would have thought it would be in the Government’s interest to monitor some of the figures, particularly under clause 70, to show the benefits and trends of the changes and to enable them to assess whether those changes are working or others might be necessary.

[Anna Soubry]

Good point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I sense that that is the feeling, judging from the nod by the Minister.

I accept the Minister’s point about supply chains; it would be quite wrong if local authorities were somehow able to transfer their responsibility to meet their apprenticeship targets to the private sector. The valid point might be that local authorities could have a significant part to play in promoting apprenticeships in the private sector, via their supply chains and particularly via their procurement policies. Of course, local authorities these days procure a great deal of services, often from the private sector, and this is an opportunity that should not be missed.

I will not press that point further at this stage, but I hope that the Minister will consider my observation about the provision of apprenticeships in local authorities’ supply chains. It would be a positive move that could encourage the creation of apprenticeships in the private sector and encourage local authorities to use procurement and their use of private sector contracts to help to create more apprenticeships.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I advise the Government to give proper consideration to the potential unintended consequences of placing upon local authorities a target that is perhaps difficult to meet. It might encourage local authorities to keep services in-house when they could find better cost value in outsourcing. I do not think the Government would want to encourage that, so they should probably bear that in mind when they draw up the regulations and as part of the consultation.

[Kevin Brennan]

It is extremely helpful that my hon. Friend has put that point on the record. Given the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes, I do think that, but I am not sure the Government do. That is why we have phrased new clause 20 on the institute for apprenticeships as we have. I will be interested to hear the Government’s view on the issue that my hon. Friend laid out.

[Catherine McKinnell]

To reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, it is very important that there is a partnership model between the FE sector and the employers who will be employing the apprentices, particularly because of the levy that the Government are talking about imposing and how that will work practically. From talking both to employers and the FE sector, I understand that there is a lot of uncertainty about how the proposal will work, but that they will have to work in partnership, so it would make sense to have a partnership at every level of that relationship.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that uncertainty. Nevertheless, everybody wants to try and make it work, if this is going to be the approach towards the funding of apprenticeships in future. I am sure that will only happen if the kind of partnership that she has outlined forms part of the Government’s thinking, which is, again, why we are pursuing this issue in Committee. The reason for concern is that in seeking to defend their decision on the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, Ministers have started to reveal how they envisage the institute for apprenticeships working, even though they have not yet tabled amendments to the Bill on that—I understand that they may do on Report—and in doing so, they have started to reveal how relatively narrow a base they envisage there being in drawing up the board.

On 4 February 2016, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) asked the Minister for Skills, who has responsibility for apprenticeships

“for what reasons the responsibilities planned for the proposed Institute for Apprenticeships could not have been undertaken by the existing UK Commission for Employment and Skills.”

The Minister answered on 9 February:

“The role of the Institute for Apprenticeships…will be very different to the current role and remit of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills...The IFA must be able to make decisions independently of Ministers and hold direct operational responsibility rather than act in an advisory capacity. This will require different governance arrangements, with a small Board led primarily by employers and business leaders to steer the processes and decisions that are made. The IFA will assume functions that Government has so far undertaken in relation to apprenticeship standards and assessment plans and will operate in the context of achieving three million starts by 2020.”

Whether we are going to see anything more than the very narrow base we have seen in relation to the Apprenticeship Delivery Board, which I referred to earlier, depends on how the word “primarily” in that answer is interpreted. If the institute for apprenticeships board is drawn from a narrow pool without regard to those who provide apprenticeships and who represent the workforce, it is less likely to succeed. It does not have to be unwieldy or bureaucratic—that is not what is needed—but it must be sufficiently broadly based in order for it to work effectively.

New clause 20(5) refers to equality provisions and the institute. We have debated that area to some extent on earlier amendments. The Government have to find a way to prioritise disadvantaged groups and their access to apprenticeships. Black, Asian and minority ethnic and disabled groups have recently been disproportionately affected by policies such as the withdrawal of maintenance grant funding, which the Government’s own impact assessment stated would put those groups at a disadvantage. The Government have also conceded that disabled people would be disproportionately affected by the decision not to protect in real terms the value of disabled students’ allowances. However, Government have at the same time committed to increasing the proportion of BAME apprentices by 2015 and to reducing barriers, and they should be looking to do that for other under-represented groups, which is why we have included that in new clause 20. We also need assurances that the appropriate resources and capacity are going to be available to the new institute for apprenticeships, hence the provisions in subsection (6)(b).

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

My understanding is that the Government intend that trading standards will enforce the new frameworks for apprenticeships, and perhaps the Minister in her response can outline how exactly that will work.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I have a query. The way in which the Bill has been presented has prevented a huge amount of scrutiny from taking place prior to this Committee starting. Is it correct that the trading standards inspections would take place only in training providers and not where apprenticeships are supplied in-house by employers? I would be grateful for some clarification either from my hon. Friend or the Minister on that point.

[Kevin Brennan]

I think that is for the Minister to clarify, but it is an extremely valid point.

Turning to amendment 75, as I alluded to earlier we need to ensure that the changed apprenticeship landscape is simple to understand and clear to cross-border employers and providers, particularly as there is the potential for confusion in relation to the devolved Administrations’ apprenticeship policies. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be affected by the changes in clause 21, but they will not be able to have their say. That is clearly pertinent to the apprenticeship levy, which plays into the Bill.

The comments of the devolved Ministers in The Times Educational Supplement on 4 February have resonances for the Committee. With the Committee’s indulgence, I will quote some of those comments. Julie James, the Welsh Deputy Minister for Skills and Technology said:

“We have been very clear from the outset that the Welsh government has serious concerns about the apprenticeship levy and the impact it will have on the apprenticeship system here in Wales…I welcome the opportunity to discuss our shared concerns with the UK’s other skills ministers.”

Roseanna Cunningham, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training, said:

“It encroaches on our devolved responsibilities and is causing concern for employers. The UK government has no control over how our administrations provide apprenticeships and to imply otherwise by collecting what amounts to an employment tax is misleading for any employer with operations outside England.”

Stephen Farry, the Minister for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland, said:

“Along with my ministerial colleagues from Scotland and Wales, I am concerned that the imposition of the apprenticeship levy could have unintended consequences for the devolved administrations.”

That underlines why we believe that there needs to be a regular process, so that the devolved nations of the United Kingdom can feel that the Government discuss things with them, rather than do things that impact upon them without considering the consequences in advance or taking reasonable steps to consult. I would very much welcome the Minister’s response on that point. That is the purpose of amendment 75.

Catholic Schools (Admissions)

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Catherine McKinnell

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan]

I understand that school could squeeze the pupils into very small spaces.

We also had contributions from the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), who referred to free schools, and the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who thought that some critics of Catholic admissions and education were sneering. I congratulate all hon. Members on their contributions and interventions.

Like other hon. Members here, I attended a Catholic school and I am a Roman Catholic. I attended St David’s Roman Catholic school in Cwmbran and St Alban’s Roman Catholic comprehensive school in Pontypool, which, as was said earlier, drew from a wide catchment area in that part of what was first Monmouthshire and then Gwent. It included my home town, Cwmbran, and Pontypool, Blaenavon, Abertillery, Ebbw Vale and other areas of the Gwent valleys.

Given my name, which is Irish, hon. Members may not be surprised that I had a Catholic education, and the names on the school register were diverse. I shared classes with people such as Michael Sczymanski, Endonio Cordero, Maria Bracchi and the usual mixture of people with names such as Mario Evans and so on. There were many Italians, Irish and Poles mingling with the Welsh, and they were a diverse and interesting group of colleagues.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I should put on the record the fact that although I have not yet had the opportunity of contributing to the debate, I am here as someone who also attended Catholic schools: St Mary’s in Hexham and Sacred Heart in Newcastle. I agree with much of what has been said today and will be interested to hear my hon. Friend’s response to some of the concerns that seem to arise from the complexities of the free schools policy.

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank my hon. Friend. I will say a little about that and about the Labour party’s policy on Catholic education and faith schools more generally.

Labour strongly supports faith schools in our state education system. I quote from a recent speech made in the midlands by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), the shadow Secretary of State:

“Across the country, we can all point to many successful, collaborative, pluralist faith schools working with children of particular denominations and of no faith at all.”

However, he also said:

“But we also need to be clear about the duties which a state-funded school is expected to fulfil.”

In that context, he was obviously talking about some of the current issues in the city of Birmingham, which the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal mentioned. It is right that there are also duties on faith schools when they are funded by taxpayers: they are to participate positively in the family of schools in their area and to ensure that they have a fair admissions policy.

I recognise and commend the work by the Catholic Education Service to look into the whole issue of admissions, in response to some of the criticisms aired in the press about admissions to Catholic schools, which hon. Members have highlighted. I commend that work because it has gone to trouble to look into why it seems that Catholic schools admit a lower proportion of pupils claiming free school meals than there are in the general school population.

The service is as baffled as some of us that that seems to be the case despite the fact that the areas that many pupils come from are deprived and despite the great diversity of children attending Catholic schools. It has made a great effort to look into the issue and I commend it; it is important not to be complacent. Whether we are Catholics, Anglicans or have no faith, we should not be unwilling to shine a light on admissions to taxpayer-funded schools. There is a duty for those admissions to be fair. The Catholic Education Service has done us all a great service by undertaking the work and by taking the issue seriously, rather than simply trying to fend off any criticism. It has met it head on, demonstrating—as it has done very well in its research—that Catholic schools are extremely diverse and take pupils from all sorts of backgrounds and areas.

As the Catholic Education Service pointed out in some documents—in its briefing papers on the issue and in its cultural diversity and free schools document, which I have read, explaining the low take-up of free school meals in Catholic schools—Catholic schools are extremely diverse, often with large numbers of people from immigrant backgrounds. In a sense, that is the history of Catholic schools in the United Kingdom. I am conscious of the fact that in my own case, my father came from the west of Ireland. He married a Welsh girl and was an immigrant into the UK.

As I said, I commend the Catholic Education Service for its work, for taking the criticism seriously and for being prepared to put the work in to explain its case. That is important because if the values and ethos of a faith school are to mean anything, it should be that they take very seriously the need to engage with, educate, and have a mission to the poorest in our society. That should be at the heart of any faith school based on a Christian and Catholic ethos.

I shall quote from Pope Francis’s Twitter feed. He said this week—rather controversially for some, although I do not know why:

“Inequality is the root of social evil.”

That was Pope Francis on his Twitter page—“@Pontifex”. Of course, he is absolutely right. The Pontiff’s statement should be at the heart of the ethos of all faith schools, and particularly Catholic schools. I believe that it is at the heart of those schools, but it is important to point out the limited examples of schools that are not following admissions procedures that meet the test of being fair. Those institutions should be held to account, whatever kind of school they are. However, it seems particularly important that a mission to educate the poorest in our society should be at the heart of a faith school’s ethos.