Draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2022

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 General Committees

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question. He rightly points out that, during covid, we reduced the burden on construction companies to help them get through the pandemic, and the order is a return to normal. However, it is only one part of the interventions we are making to create the next generation of people working in construction. I am pleased to say that apprenticeship construction starts are doing well and are above their pre-pandemic level. We are introducing new T-levels in construction and we see a real appetite for the skills bootcamps that the Government have brought in. Those short, intensive courses, which help people skill up over 12 to 18 weeks, with a guaranteed job interview at the end, are popular with potential employees, employers and, I am pleased to say, the Treasury.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On the point the Minister just made, if this order is just bringing us back to pre-pandemic levels, it is not doing anything to fix the immigration situation we have because of Brexit. I know there is a major problem for bricklayers, for example. Will this just get us back to pre-pandemic levels, rather than making up for that shortfall that we see as a result of Brexit and this Government’s immigration policies?

[Alex Burghart]

As the hon. Lady will have heard me say to the hon. Member for Chesterfield, this is just one of the things we are doing. Our bootcamps are a new innovation that offer people of all ages a rapid route into employment. The construction route was very popular. It is important that the hon. Lady sees this in the round. She raises Brexit, but in my seven months in this job I have had the great pleasure of talking to further education colleges around England, and many principals have told me that there is new enthusiasm from employers to look at skills training in their areas, which did not exist before we left the EU. Lots of companies used to advertise internationally for skills as their first port of call, and people came in. They did not have to invest in training in their own areas. I am pleased to say that that is changing for the better for young people in England.

The work of the CITB will support strategic initiatives to help maintain vital skills in the industry and create a pipeline of skilled workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.

The Construction Industry Training Board has been instrumental in training the construction industry workforce since it was established in the wake of the Industrial Training Act 1964. The main reason for its creation was to address concerns about UK skills shortages at the time—an issue that seems more pressing than ever.

As Members may well be aware, since the CITB’s creation, the primary focus of the board has been to invest the money that it receives from the CITB levy in training and upskilling both the existing workforce and new entrants into the industry. It is essential, for both the construction industry and the wider UK economy, that Britain is able to attract the best new talent through the promotion of construction as an exciting and rewarding career.

I agree entirely with what the Minister said about the crucial importance of the construction industry; the fact that one of the biggest barriers to growth for the UK economy, and the construction industry in particular, is access to skilled labour; and the creation of an environment where young people feel that construction is a career that they can move into. Anyone who has sought to get any kind of building work done will know how difficult it is to attract a reliable, skilled workforce that is available, even for basic home improvements. That is even more the case within house building and other aspects of the construction sector, so this is a matter of supreme importance.

The CITB has been at the forefront of the implementation of T-levels for the construction sector, and of new frameworks for apprentices in the industry. I had the great privilege to visit both the HomeServe academy in Birmingham and the Steve Willis academy in Burgess Hill to see how apprentices in the sector are progressing and the wide range of opportunities open to those starting out in the industry. While there are a huge number of opportunities in the industry, there are still far too few people being giving opportunities to move into the sector, with HomeServe estimating that as many as 30,000 too few apprentices are coming through every year to keep pace with the growth opportunities and the retirements in what is an ageing workforce.

With the industry facing the twin challenges of an ageing workforce and the decline in migrant labour following Britain’s departure from the European Union, the role of the CITB—to make it easy for levy-paying firms to get funding for innovation and skills development —has never been more important. It has also never been more important for the Government to take a strategic view on supporting an industry that is largely based on subcontracted workers, and to recognise why we continue to have a huge skills shortage within the sector.

The Minister said a few moments ago that he has been speaking to further education colleges that have experienced many new employers getting involved in training, where previously they might have relied on migrant labour. That is great to hear. As he and the Committee will be aware, the Labour party was against the idea of Britain leaving the European Union, but is committed to making Brexit work in the best way that it can. One of the clear opportunities that exist as a result of the reduction in migrant labour—not only an opportunity, but an imperative for the UK economy—is to train up more of our own people to get into such sectors and to ensure that the route into developing a career in construction is as easy as possible. We are 100% behind that opportunity.

I have to say, however, that the Government are not strategic in developing those opportunities. There is much more that they can do. They have absolutely outsourced responsibility for skills policy to employers. Of course employers need to play a key role—they want to take these people on and need to be involved every step of the way on training—but the more the Government have put employers in the driving seat over the past 12 years, the more the skills shortages have grown. In a variety of sectors—the construction industry is no exception—we have seen a massive reduction in the number of people who are able to be trained up.

[Kirsty Blackman]

An awful lot of what we have talked about is focused on England, but CITB is national, over all these islands. The difference in Scotland is that we are doing some of the things that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting: we have Developing the Young Workforce, which is a partnership between the private sector and education, in an attempt to ensure that the skills that come through are those that are needed by business. DYW is now embedded in Scotland and is a good success story. I urge him and the Minister to look into what is happening with it, and to consider it as a basis for something that could go forward in England.

[Mr Perkins]

The hon. Lady is right that the devolved authorities in Wales and Scotland have innovated in some areas. I am conscious of some of those innovations, and am happy to learn more about them. I thank her for that invitation.

To turn to the draft order, we supported the levy rates being halved temporarily under the previous order to 0.175% on directly employed workers and 0.625% on taxable subcontractors, net of CIS—the construction industry scheme—to support businesses through the pandemic, at a time when workers were being furloughed and many works were being postponed and delayed, and when much less training was happening. It is encouraging that, as we return to some kind of normality, businesses across the sector are able to develop projects and developments, so we support the return to the previous level.

The Minister was right to say that the draft order is not the beginning and end of investment in construction skills, but a lot more needs to be done from a strategic perspective. The Government need to recognise that an industry that is largely focused on subcontracted work will often have everyone saying that training up the next generation is someone else’s responsibility. The idea that the sector will just do that itself if we get out of its way and give it the space to do so is optimistic at best, and arguably naive. That is what we have seen: not enough people are being attracted into the sector.

It is vital to ensure that the CITB is able to support such training needs over the next three years. That is why we support the return to the pre-pandemic levy rates. We need to ensure the right balance in the draft order between supporting businesses and the continued training and development of staff, while ensuring that smaller businesses are encouraged and not penalised, in particular when starting to get back on their feet post pandemic. Overall, the order largely does that, retaining the wage bill exemption threshold for the levy at £120,000. We think that that is sensible, given the challenges faced by business.

We need to ensure that there is a strong conversation between Government and the sector. The idea that it will simply take up the slack is not one that we agree with. It is important that the sector takes responsibility for ensuring that there is a strategic plan to attract the next generation, and that people at all levels and in all geographies are able to access it. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West made a powerful point in that regard: we need to make sure that in the smaller towns and areas without a big construction industry—perhaps those that have smaller amounts of new house building going on—people are able to access those opportunities, too.

As the Minister will be aware, there is still some resentment from larger employers that they are required to pay both the CITB and apprenticeship levies. It is therefore crucial that the CITB levy adds value to businesses and the wider construction workforce and, indeed, that it is seen to do so. Having diligently read through the CITB four-year strategic plan for 2021-2025—my speech says “scanned through”, but actually I read it diligently—I know that £66.9 million is allocated for other support.

With the need to ensure that the CITB levy is value for money, and in the interest of transparency, can the Minister tell us a bit more about what “other support” actually encompasses and ensure that the sector is aware of where exactly that money is going? There is also £2 million being spent on research. Can the Minister set out what sort of projects and research will be undertaken and how that will lead to more skilled workers in the future?

I note that although construction was one of the first three T-levels launched in September 2020, T-levels do not actually muster a mention in the four-year strategic plan. Can the Minister outline how T-levels fit into the CITB’s plans for the future of the workforce, particularly in terms of building pipelines for the next generation to enter the construction sector?

Since the introduction of the construction T-level, the Department for Education has added skills bootcamps and flexi-apprenticeships for construction. The Minister spoke about bootcamps a moment ago; I would be interested to hear how many people he anticipates going on those bootcamps over the four-year period and whether he believes that they are delivering on what Government expected.

The skills shortages are profound at the moment. On that basis, I question whether unpaid traineeships, in a sector that is already understaffed, are the most attractive way of attracting new people into the sector. Has the Minister given any thought to expanding the number of apprenticeships, rather than funding traineeship opportunities?

I welcome that the Government appear to have backtracked on their proposals to defund the majority of BTECs. Will the Minister update us on the future of BTEC routes into construction and provide us with a guarantee that businesses and those who want to work in the construction sector will be able to access those qualifications in the coming years?

As Committee members will be aware, the consequences of the fire at Grenfell are still deeply felt. It is important that lessons have been learned across the building industry. However, Grenfell and its aftermath are only briefly acknowledged in the strategic plan, with a reference to post-Hackitt and energy-efficient retrofits. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that future recruits and existing workers will be trained so that a mindset of ensuring safety and building sustainability is paramount in their thoughts?

As I stated earlier, the Opposition are content for the draft order to be passed, and we hope it will yield the results the Minister and the CITB hope for. However, we once again call on the Government to take a more strategic and hands-on role to ensure that there are more people to address the skills shortage. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to my questions.

Higher Education Reform

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful for the support for our proposals from my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee on Education. I will absolutely be listening—this is a real consultation—to his proposals and concerns about the maths and English GCSEs. I completely agree that the concept of someone having to pay back more than they have borrowed is unfair; addressing that is a manifesto commitment, so we are delivering it. I am proud that we are touching 20,000 students on degree apprenticeships. I want to go much further than that and have set a target of 10%.

On the international baccalaureate, my right hon. Friend will know, because he has known me for a very long time, that I am about delivery and outcomes. I have the Department focused on skills, schools and family. Sometimes if you try to hug the world, you don’t do anything well enough, but I hear what he says. Let me deliver what I can while I have the privilege of leading the Department and then go back and do some more afterwards.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement; I recognise that a lot is going on this morning and that not everything has happened on the normal timeline, so I appreciate it. I add my voice to those expressing solidarity with the Ukrainian people as the horrific events unfold.

The UK Government are presiding over a cost of living crisis, yet they are pursuing policy after policy such as the national insurance hike, the universal credit cut, the mandatory energy loan—even for students without a permanent address, who will have to pay it back despite not necessarily getting it this year—and now this. The UK Government’s decision to create a lifelong graduate tax by increasing the number of years in which graduates pay back will affect only those who are not well off enough to pay it back already. So the tax will hit hardest those who are already struggling to make ends meet.

If new students will on average pay £6,000 more back, where is the money going to come from? Has the Secretary of State done any assessment of the effect on those people’s pension pots as they approach retirement age, given that £6,000 less disposable income will be available to them? If half the students will be paying back the loan for almost their entire lifetime, it makes little difference to them what the total value of the loan is. The changes proposed benefit those who are already paying back, not those who have no hope of doing so.

In Scotland we believe in free education. We believe that it is important, and we will keep tuition free. I make no apologies for that position; it is the right thing to do. How can the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues who paid nothing to attend university justify burdening those who go to university now with lifelong debt?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s remarks and her solidarity on the situation in Ukraine.

I respectfully disagree with the hon. Lady because, when we look at the overall reforms, we should focus on the outcomes for students. That is what the reforms do. The lifelong learning entitlement, the work that we have done on skills, the ability to do a T-level as a fusion between an apprenticeship and an A-level—there are different paths to achieving a great career as an adult.

Non-graduates continue to pay—at the moment, all taxpayers fund higher education in England at 41p in the pound. We do not think that that is fair or equitable. As former students reach 50 or 51 years old at the 30-year repayment stage, they are coming to their peak ability to earn, so it is only fair that they be able to pay back the loan that they have taken out to give them the opportunity of a great job.

Kinship Care for Babies

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you very much for chairing this debate, Ms Fovargue. I give massive thanks to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who I know has worked in this area, particularly on improving the life chances for babies, for a significant time, and has done a massive power of work on it. I am glad that she has brought this debate today and given us the opportunity to speak about it.

I particularly recognise the speech given by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). It was a brave speech to give, but not an easy one. Nothing compares to lived experience in these debates. We are so often talking about things that an awful lot of us do not know enough about, so it is hugely important to have that experience. I thank him very much for bringing that to us.

I wanted to make a few comments, particularly from the Scottish point of view. I do not know very much about how the care system works in England, and may use terms that are Scottish-specific, and are not as relevant in England. I begin by apologising for that.

First, kinship care is absolutely not just about grandparents. It is important to recognise that. As the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire said about the family that she talked about, it was not the grandparents who were caring for the baby. Some of the people who have come to me in my constituency, who have been involved in kinship care, are concerned that everything that relates to it is set up expecting the kinship carers to be grandparents.

Sometimes it is some of those younger kinship carers, who are in work, who are struggling to get the understanding, rather than the people on pensions, for whom there are more systems in place. In one of the families that I spoke to, the adults looking after the children went along to a meeting and everybody was 30 years older than them. They felt, “Well, we’re not going to get very good help, assistance and support from our peers here, because these people don’t seem to be our peers.” There was a gap there; they felt that something was missing.

Throughout Scotland, kinship carers get the same allowance as foster carers. That is important, because we are recognising the importance of kinship care. Unfortunately, my understanding is that kinship carers are not entitled to the child element of universal credit if the child is a looked-after child. Clearly, that needs to change.

There needs to be a recognition that although the children—babies, in the case we are talking about—are looked-after children, in a lot of cases the kinship carers are going through a significant number of difficult legal processes, as well as financial expense. Those carers probably did not plan or arrange their lives for this to happen. I do not see why the child element of universal credit should be excluded just because the children have the title “looked-after children”. We have to remember that for some people involved in kinship care, the children are not classed as looked-after children, so they are in a different category.

In Scotland, people who are kinship carers of babies can get the baby box. Provided that the baby is under six months old, a family involved in a kinship-care relationship can ask their social worker to ensure that the baby box is delivered. They can get that box if the child is under six months old. That is important in levelling the playing field and ensuring that everyone gets the universal entitlement that there is in Scotland, whether or not the baby is with the birth parents or in a kinship-care arrangement.

In Scotland, children are also eligible for the best start grants, for the Scottish child payment and for the twos provision—the provision in nurseries for children under three years old. They are eligible if the young person is a looked-after child, subject to a kinship care order or something related to that.

In Scotland, we have given huge attention to ensuring that looked-after children get the best possible outcomes. The situation brought up by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) is an illustration of how much the system has absolutely failed if that is the outcome he has seen for the young people he worked with. In Scotland, we have made a promise to young people that we plan to keep: by 2030, all those young people involved in the care system will not be faced with a care system, but will be raised with love and compassion, which is what every young person should be raised with.

Whether children are raised with either or both of their birth parents, in foster care, in placements or in kinship care, or if they have a looked-after order in place, surely what we should want for all of them is that they should be raised with love and compassion. It is incredibly important to ensure that that is front and centre.

Previously, I was the looked-after children’s champion in my local authority, when I was a councillor. The issue is therefore pretty close to my heart. We need to do a significant amount more. In talking about the benefits of kinship care, there is the comparison with the other elements of the care system. It is important to have those other elements, but it is clear that some of them have comparatively very poor outcomes for children. For example, young people in out-of-authority placements have significant problems, which make it much more difficult for them to achieve their potential in life. Kinship care is one of the elements that results in the best outcomes for young people.

Why should kinship carers get paid? That was mentioned earlier. They should get paid because what has happened is not what they planned for. The system is difficult, which is necessary—I understand why: some sort of legal system needs to be in place around how kinship care works. But navigating that system, when people did not expect to have to navigate it, is expensive and difficult. We owe the people who choose to be kinship carers or foster carers looking after young people who are in corporate care. We owe them, and therefore we need to do better than we are currently doing.

Draft Immigration Skills Charge Regulations 2017

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 General Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you for calling me in this debate, Mr Streeter. I want to start by agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East. The measure is poorly thought out and it is ideological, which is the main reason for our opposition to it. I want to talk about various things that the Minister mentioned and agree with some of the things that the hon. Member for Blackpool South mentioned.

But first I want to briefly mention the hon. Member for Sleaford and—Hykeham?

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

North Hykeham.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Sorry. It is invaluable to have the hon. Lady’s experience in this place. She talks from a knowledgeable point of view about how long it takes to train doctors. I imagine it took her many years to train to become a consultant. The Government are missing the fact that it is not just the five years to become a junior doctor that we need to consider. Some people train for 15 or 20 years to get to the positions where we have the gaps. We cannot train such people overnight. The Government perhaps overlooked that issue when they introduced this measure.

The Minister mentioned the Migration Advisory Committee. I understand that that body was set up to make recommendations to Government, but the quality of the input is at issue here. The Government asked the Migration Advisory Committee to do a wide-ranging review of tier 2 with a view to recommending proposals that would substantially restrict inflows under that route. If it is asked to do that, it will give us things that restrict inflows under that route and not what is best for the economy and for the United Kingdom as a whole. It will give us what the Government asked it to do, so we cannot say that the proposal is impartial and has fully taken account of all the representations it received, because it was given a specific brief, which it has met. That was my first concern that needed to be made clear.

I have a few issues about the implementation and the document. As the hon. Member for Blackpool South mentioned, the Government did not undertake a full public consultation. They did not do an impact assessment. They have not been clear about how the money will be invested. We have had more clarity recently, with the Government predicting that it will be £100 million and saying that it will go to the Department for Education and that there will be Barnett consequentials, but that is not enough clarity. If employers are being asked to pay this tax, they need to be able to understand where the money is going and understand the benefits to the British economy of paying it. A tax is reasonable only if people can be convinced that they should pay it. The Government have failed to do that because of the lack of information they have provided.

I welcome that the explanatory memorandum states that there will be a review after one year of the amount of money that has been brought in, but there is no mention of a review of where the money is spent and the effects it has. Also not mentioned is the impact on employers and whether that will be taken into account in any review. Basically, the Government are committed to providing us with a headline, “This is the amount that we took in”, but no further information on the impact. If the Government are to justify this to the British public, it is important that they provide us with the information we need.

One thing that is not clear—I do not think it has been made clear to businesses—is whether there will be refunds. Let us say somebody is employed in the United Kingdom for one year and the company pays the upfront cost. What if they pitch up, they are here for a month and then they drop down dead or they toddle back off to the country that they came from because they decided it was too cold here? Will the Government give those companies a refund if they have not employed that person for a full year? That has not been clear in any of the information I have seen. I apologise if it has been made clear; I have not yet seen it. Certainly, a number of businesses do not understand the possible implications, so it has obviously not been discussed or publicised widely enough.

The points about the NHS have largely been covered by the hon. Member for Sleaford and—I will not attempt to say the second part of her constituency again—and by the hon. Member for Blackpool South. In saying that there has been plenty of time, the Minister does not recognise the fact that it takes a very long time to train people to fill some occupations. The hon. Member for Blackpool South mentioned the numbers that the BMA got in touch about and the particular cost of this measure to the NHS.

One thing that is not clear is how much of the money that is taken in will go towards infrastructure funding to support the training of doctors and nurses. For example, will the size of lecture theatres and the number of tutors who train doctors and nurses be increased? Why was that not done five or 10 years ago to ensure that we did not have the shortages we have today? Businesses and public service bodies that are asked to pay this money as of April will not have the opportunity to fill those gaps that they needed to fill five or 10 years ago, in terms of the teaching frameworks that we have.

There is a particular issue around very highly skilled occupations in which we have very few experts. We have had issues in my constituency with recruiting senior doctors who are experts in gender reassignment surgery, and gender reassignment generally, because there are so few of them across the world. Whatever we do today, we will still not have those people in post tomorrow or next week; it will take a long time to get those specialists. I do not think the Government have made enough allowances for the most specialised occupations.

If the Government had done this in a more sensible way, they would have looked at the shortage occupation list that is already in use and applied that, rather than coming up with a new list. That would have been a more sensible way to do this. We have previously argued against some of the things on the shortage occupation list, particularly because it does not take account of specific geographic issues and the lower salaries in Scotland.

The proposal poses a specific issue for the Scottish economy for a number of reasons. We have a high proportion of rural communities and communities that are relatively highly reliant on one industry or business that employs most of the people in a village, for example. Even though it employs most people in the village, there may only be 20 or 30 employees and it may still be a relatively small business that is not generating a huge amount of profit. Despite the lower costs for small businesses, they will still be expected to pay the charge.

It can be particularly hard to attract people in specialist occupations to the most remote areas of Scotland, where there is maybe not much access to services or a big supermarket. It is hard enough to attract those people anyway. If companies now have to pay extra money to attract them, that will be a real issue, particularly in the most rural areas where there is not a devolved settlement. I cannot imagine the Department for Education prioritising training in a small, rural community in the north of England in order to have one person filling one role. That would not be cost-effective for the Government, but this measure will cost such small businesses a huge amount of money.

I specifically raised those issues around rural communities. The other thing about Scotland is that our economy relies more heavily on small businesses than England’s, which is partly because of the rural nature of much of Scotland. From the information the Government have provided, I cannot tell the differential impact that the charge will have on small businesses; the Government have simply not provided that much information. They have provided information on how much money they think they will get in total, but there has been no breakdown of the impact on different sectors or communities. That highlights how poorly thought out this is.

The Scottish Government wrote to the UK Government and asked for information about the impact on Scotland but were not provided with it. If the UK Government intend to implement charges such as this across the whole of the United Kingdom, they need to be clear about the impact on Scotland and answer our request for information about that.

The last thing I want to touch on is something I have brought up in relation to immigration in a number of other settings, and I will continue to do so. The UK Government are setting out their stall—that it will be “global Britain”, trading across the world. I have previously raised the issue of trading with Commonwealth partners, given our massively high refusal rates of visitor visas for people coming from Nigeria or Pakistan, for example. If we want to have influence with those countries, have them look favourably upon us and sign free trade agreements with them, we need to be nicer to them than we currently are. There is a major issue with visitor visas.

This charge will be a major issue as well. If we are saying to people in other countries, “We would love you to sign a free trade deal that will allow us to export lots of stuff to your country—but by the way, we don’t want any of your people to come to our country,” that will be a real issue in the negotiation of free trade agreements. What I can see coming down the line is that once we have implemented the regulations, and once doctors being trained in India are less likely to be able to take up a post in the United Kingdom, that will affect our ability to strike decent, favourable deals for the UK.

I have spoken to Ministers before about soft power. Britain is not putting itself in a positive position on the world stage by the behaviour it is exhibiting on immigration. If we want to have better influence and the “global Britain” panacea being suggested to us by some of those who are most in favour of Brexit, we need to change the attitude of this Government.

[The Chair]

We have had four sparkling contributions, with lots of questions. I return to the Minister to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon]

First, the immigration skills charge is purely to do with those outside the European Economic Area and there are no plans to apply the charge to EU nationals. We would have to amend primary legislation. When we leave the EU, we will be able to take steps to control EU immigration, but the precise way that is to happen has not been determined. The immigration charge is purely to do with people from outside the European Economic Area and there are no plans to apply that to the EU. The Home Office Minister is in another debate today at the same time; otherwise, I am sure he would have been able to confirm that.

The hon. Gentleman referred to our sending a conflicting message about being open for business, a point that was also made by the other shadow spokeswomen. We remain open to attracting the brightest and best from overseas. As I set out in my opening remarks, the exemptions to the immigration skills charge show the commitment, supporting global knowledge and the exchange of skills. However, we must have the right skills domestically and we are way behind.

The vote to leave the EU demonstrated the importance of making the economy work for people of all backgrounds, in all areas of the country. The fact is that British individuals in our country are losing out because of the decisions of employers instead to recruit people, often from poorer countries. That is why we introduced the immigration skills charge.

The consultation was done by the Migration Advisory Committee. It undertook a thorough review and consulted widely. It issued a public call for evidence, receiving 251 written submissions and meeting representatives from 200-plus public and private sector employers. I will happily send a list of every single one to members of the Committee, if they would like—I do not have it on me today. Our job is to listen to the views of the Migration Advisory Committee and we followed its recommendations. There was a consultation, but it was done by that specific, respected body and the people on it.

In terms of the fee, the Department for Education is paying IT development costs of about £600,000 in 2016-17. That is not coming from the income raised from the charge. The small ongoing administration costs are approximately 1%. As I said in my opening remarks, the money is going into the Consolidated Fund, but it will be spent on skills. We are discussing with various people how that money should be spent. I would hope that it will sustain, for example, the institute of technology colleges and/or the lifelong learning and so on that we announced, but it will be spent on skills.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South asked about the stats and the closure of the UKCES. The reason I go on about the “Nightmare on Skills Street”, as I describe it, is because the Department and many other bodies collect a huge range of statistics about skills and apprenticeships and social disadvantage. The reason why we have the skills and apprenticeships priorities that we do—widespread, quality provision, social mobility and addressing our skills needs, particularly of women in STEM—is all the data and the analysis going on in the Department, with the Skills Funding Agency and many other organisations.

Let me turn to the public sector and the health service, which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and the Opposition spokesman. We need to put this into context. The number of doctors, nurses and teachers recruited through a tier 2 visa route—the thing we are talking about today—is low. The MAC’s report found that 3,600 certificates of sponsorship were used for doctors and 2,600 for nurses for the year ending August 2015. In terms of teachers, the same report showed that 164 certificates of sponsorship were used for science teachers and 10 for teachers of Mandarin in 2015. Let me put that in context. The use of tier 2 visas is relatively low in terms of the whole number.

[Kirsty Blackman]

If the numbers are relatively low, why do the Government not exempt the NHS and the teaching professions?

[Robert Halfon]

For two reasons. First, we are trying to change behaviours and develop—[Interruption.] If I am given a chance, I will set out all the things we are doing to invest in skills in the NHS. The second reason is to raise funds to invest in skills. We want to change behaviours and we want to raise funds. We want to share the burden of paying for the cost of skills across the United Kingdom and not put all of the burden on the hard-pressed taxpayer but share it fairly.

Free Childcare

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is really nice to speak on a petition in Westminster Hall; I have spoken in a number of other Westminster Hall debates, but never on a petition, so it is nice to have another first 18 months into the job. I thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for leading the debate. As Members would expect, I wish to talk about the situation in Scotland, and what we are doing there on early learning and childcare. I shall discuss the real-life importance of childcare provision. The hon. Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Warrington North both gave a lot of real-life examples; I, too, will discuss a few. I shall also talk about the importance of choice for parents.

I shall start by talking a little about the numbers and finances. Labour Members, particularly the hon. Member for Wirral South, have discussed the amount the Government will spend to increase the number of free hours. I understand that the UK Government are committed to spending an extra £1 billion by 2020. The Scottish Government are committed to spending £500 million by 2021; considering how much smaller Scotland is than England, that is a stark contrast.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Caroline Dinenage)]

May I correct the hon. Lady? Although there is an additional £1 billion, the figure is actually £6 billion by 2020.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Yes, the Scottish Government have committed to spending an additional half of the UK Government’s additional spend. Considering the differential in the respective populations, there is probably a differential in the spend. I took the figure for UK Government spending from the Library debate pack.

In Scotland, we will create 600 new early learning and childcare centres, with 20,000 additional qualified staff. Doubling the free early learning and childcare hours for all three and four-year-olds, as well as for the most disadvantaged two-year-olds, will benefit families by more than £4,500 per year, per child. That is a significant saving. I will come on to discuss the importance of that in the context of choice.

Our doubling of free childcare in Scotland will not be linked to employment status, unlike the changes down here, but changes will be made in both England and Scotland, and I do recognise that England is making positive changes to childcare provision. Our respective Governments are doing that in slightly different ways, with slightly different funding structures. I am not criticising the UK Government for increasing the number of free hours; quite the opposite. It is a very good thing. I have spoken before about how important it is.

I have a five-year-old and a three-year-old, and I have friends with similarly young children. A number of the women have had to go back to work for nothing. After the childcare costs are taken out, it turns out that they have gone back to work for pretty much no pay. The hon. Member for Warrington North mentioned £800 for three days’ childcare a week; for a while, we were paying £300 a month for one day a week. That is an incredible amount of money, and it is difficult to earn that much in a month when working only one day a week.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

The hon. Lady is making a compelling case. Does she agree that there is a compelling need for both partners in a household to work, and that sometimes inhibits childcare provision? If they do not work, they will not be able to pay for that provision.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Absolutely. There is a real problem with choice for families. In some cases, families cannot afford to go to work because of the cost of childcare. We should not be in that situation. All parents—men and women—should be able to choose whether they go into the workplace. For some parents, it is much healthier to go to work. I was a rubbish stay-at-home mum and did not enjoy it very much at all. I did not do it for particularly long, because it just was not for me—I was going mad. It was much better for me to be in the workplace, but in some cases it was costing me money to do that. I was having to spend more on childcare than I was earning, especially once commuting was taken into account. As has been mentioned, that is a real issue in rural areas, and there is a need for specific provision for such areas.

Choice is a real issue. There has been a little discussion about whether childcare is a women’s issue. In Aberdeen and my local area, it is probably more of a women’s issue than in some other areas of the country. We have so many people, mostly men, who go offshore for work. As they are offshore for two or three weeks at a time, there is a real issue with women going back to work. They certainly cannot work night shifts, because there is nobody there to care for the children overnight. Historically, a huge number of women have had to decide not to work on the basis of their partner’s working hours. The lack of flexibility in childcare is a real issue in that respect.

[Alison McGovern]

Does the hon. Lady agree that her argument is an absolutely cast-iron reason why this issue has to be addressed in a devolved way? It has to be devolved down to the best possible level, because local economies are different and not everything can be dictated from Whitehall.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is really important that we look at how this issue is addressed in terms of devolution, and in different areas, because there are specific challenges—around specific industries, such as the one I mentioned; around rurality and the kind of distances involved in some rural areas; and around staff numbers.

We have a specific issue in Aberdeen with attracting qualified staff, because as we have historically had a lot of people working in the oil industry, where they have made lots of money, housing is more expensive than in other areas. Consequently, someone who works in childcare, or even teaching, will find it more difficult to live there. Although we have made local provision to deal with some aspects of this issue, we are not there yet, and it is necessary that local authorities, institutions and organisations can have input into how childcare provision is managed.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about Aberdeen, which is one of the areas taking part in a pilot scheme to examine the different models of childcare that might suit families in different areas of the country, as part of the Scottish Government’s aim to double childcare provision. Does she agree that it is very important that childcare matches the needs of not only the local area, but individual families, whose work lives may have very varied patterns?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree, and my hon. Friend has given me a nice opportunity to talk about the trials that we are undertaking. Nobody, certainly in the UK, has cracked this childcare thing. We have not all got it sorted; there is no way that we can look at the system and say, “It’s perfect. We’ve sussed it out.” We all need to learn from each other about what works in different areas, and ask whether those things would work in ours. The Scottish Government are undertaking three trials, on three different things that local authorities have specifically requested.

In Edinburgh, the trial is establishing outdoor nursery provision. Children who live in the centre of the city may not get out too often to the woods and forests around Edinburgh, so that local trial, in which the Scottish Government will invest £32,000, will provide access to outdoor learning for specific groups of children. We will see how that works, and will evaluate it.

In Aberdeen, in my constituency, we are having a stay-and-play session for parents of two-year-olds. A group of parents have been reluctant to leave their two-year-old in nursery provision; they are not quite sure how that would work, and perhaps think that it is a bit too far for a two-year-old. The parents will be able to stay with their two-year-old, who will still get the benefit of being in an educational setting. Also, the parents will benefit. As was said earlier, parenting small children is terrifying, and a new parent has no idea if they are doing the right thing, ever; they just have to try their best. This trial is a good opportunity for parents to learn, too.

In the Scottish Borders, the trial being undertaken by the Scottish Government is about wrap-around provision—provision outside of core hours, holiday provision and after-school provision, and provision that is more appropriate for most people with normal working lives. Hardly anybody I know can fit in a job in the three hours and 10 minutes of morning nursery care that my youngest child receives. In fact, a lot of people struggle to fit in a job between 9 am and 3.15 pm, which is when my eldest child is at school.

[Kirsten Oswald]

That is an incredibly important point. Nobody I know, or almost nobody, works from 9 am to 3 pm. If I had not been able to get childcare provision from 8 am to 6 pm, including for holidays, I would have had to stop my career progression when my children were little. It is really vital that we do not impede women, children or families in that way.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Absolutely. As the Scottish Government go forward with these pilots, and with possible changes, we will look to have much more flexibility, and much more access to nurseries and childminders, rather than just the kind of maintained provision discussed earlier; I am not sure that we use that phrase in Scotland, but I understand what it means. We look to have much more flexibility in the settings that children and young people can access with these free hours, which will allow more flexibility around hours and holidays.

I have already talked about choice and the benefits of choice. Heriot-Watt University has carried out a study for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that says that

“reinforcing and extending the improved provision for good quality, flexible, subsidised childcare across the working year”

would be one of the “most significant measures” to tackle poverty.

We have spoken about how childcare can have the benefit of tackling poverty by changing the system for parents who cannot afford to work. We have also spoken about the benefits of childcare as regards children’s attainment; actually, it has benefits for the attainment of all children, and not just those who are starting off with a disadvantage and are, if you like, at the bottom of the pile. However, we have spoken less about the benefits for the workplace and for productivity, although that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Warrington North.

If people can access the workplace without worrying about their children, and about whether they can get home for a 3.15 school pick-up, they will concentrate more on their job, and as a result they will be more productive. The more we can do to increase the choice for parents, the better. Whether they choose to work or not to work, we need to ensure that they can make that choice at all times; that would benefit everybody, including employers.

I produced a blog for Family Friendly Working Scotland, during its National Work Life Week, that encouraged employers to consider flexible working seriously. We are trying to make clear to employers the benefits of flexible working—for them, as well as for employees. The real benefit for the employer is in improved productivity, and in having access to a talent pool to which they currently do not have access. Sometimes employers hear the words “flexible working” and think, “Panic! We can’t do that!”, but some aspects of flexible working are really very reasonable. If, for example, an employer is able to give shift patterns a couple of weeks out, instead of a week out, that makes all the difference for employees when it comes to planning and childcare. Using grandparents and other family members for childcare was mentioned earlier. Some women, parents and families do not have choice; some of them are not able to access grandparents. For example, a parent may not have a partner and so they have to try to do everything themselves.

The benefits of increasing free childcare are so wide-ranging that it is almost impossible to talk about them all in a half-hour speech, or even in a three-hour debate such as today’s. However, I think everybody recognises that increasing free childcare has huge benefits, and both the UK and Scottish Governments have made positive moves in the direction of increasing the amount of free childcare, and increasing provision, particularly around the number of hours and the changes to allow two-year-olds free nursery care.

In the future, we can learn from each other—something I always seem to find myself stressing in Westminster Hall. The Scottish Government can learn from what the UK Government are doing, and the UK Government can learn from some of the pilots that we are running, and some of the changes that we are making in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Wirral South said, local authorities and devolved institutions can learn from what is happening in other areas. They can learn whether good things that are happening elsewhere can be transferred across.

On the whole, what we are doing is largely positive, but I would like to see more of that, and more choice for parents; I would also like more access to free, high-quality childcare, and the assurance that enough funding will be provided for these things to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

Absolutely. I am a great fan of maintained nursery schools. There is one in my own constituency, which has significant pockets of deprivation, that provides outstanding support for children. That is why the Government have committed, as part of the funding formula, to an extra £55 million a year for at least the next two years to support maintained nursery schools over and above the normal funding formula. Maintained nursery schools make up only 3% of childcare places. However, 98% of them are good or outstanding and 80% work in areas of disadvantage, which is why we want to consult them further about how we can support them in their very important work.

We know that good quality education at two can have a fantastic effect on a child’s development. We want children in care, children who have left care, adopted children and children with special educational needs and disabilities to benefit from that, as we have a duty to help them thrive and reach their potential. It is unacceptable that a child should have inferior life chances because of their background; this programme is key to tackling the problem. I am sure all hon. Members would agree that it is vital we help such children.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is still the case that a child’s long-term future exam results can be predicted by the highest level of their mother’s qualifications. Does the Minister agree that both our Governments are working hard to do something about this and that we should continue to keep this as a top priority?

[Caroline Dinenage]

I did not know that interesting statistic. The hon. Lady is right. Providing better early education can only ever be a really good thing.

Some hon. Members have asked why all two-year-olds do not get a fully funded place. Such places are not offered to all two-year-old children because evidence tells us that the greatest proportion of parents return to work and need childcare when their children turn three. Some parents feel that two years is too young for their children to be in formal childcare and prefer to keep them at home. I was similar to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and did not stay in the childcare environment for as long as I could have done. That probably gives me an added respect for the amazing individuals who work in that incredible profession.

We wanted to focus resources where they would have the greatest impact for the largest number of families. That is why we prioritised the introduction of an additional 15 hours for the working parents of three and four-year-olds.

The main driver behind the two-year-old programme is to improve outcomes for the children who need the most help in getting the best start in life. For that reason, we do not impose conditions on parents who are eligible for a place, but we hope the programme will support parents from poorer backgrounds to move into employment and training. We have come an incredibly long way since 2013. As I have already mentioned, 70% of eligible two-year-olds now take up their entitlement to a funded learning place.

We also know that 84% of all two-year-olds who take up their entitlement do so in good or outstanding settings, which means that children are receiving their learning in high quality environments. That is fantastic progress and will ensure that thousands of disadvantaged children get the right start in life.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Joseph Johnson)]

Yes, indeed. The productivity challenge facing the country is grave, and our universities are a big part of the answer. New universities in higher education cold spots such as Somerset will be a big part of our solution to these challenges.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I understand that the UK Government have yet to confirm whether the allocation of the apprenticeship levy in Scotland will be based on the number of employers in Scotland, or the percentage of the levy paid in Scotland. Will the Minister provide that clarification today? If not, when will he?

[Nick Boles]

As I indicated to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), I have been in discussions with the Minister representing the Welsh Government in this conversation. These discussions are ongoing. This is a matter for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, not something for which I am directly responsible, but I know that there have been intensive negotiations and discussions. I do not want to pass the buck, but I fear that I will have to encourage the hon. Lady to direct her question to a Minister at Treasury questions, because the Treasury and HMRC are handling these discussions.

Onshore Oil and Gas

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[David Mowat]

All that is true—and it is much more tactical, quicker and goes on from one to another. It does not have the big up-front development costs of, for example, North sea platforms. That is true, but it is also true that the wells do not last as long. The fact is that in the US, the shale industry is a $50-a-barrel industry, and at $28 dollars, that industry is in trouble. That is the whole strategy that the Saudis are taking and is what they are trying to achieve. They are going to be successful unless other things make them stop.

The title of the debate, however, is “Onshore Oil and Gas”—not shale. I say that because it is worth remembering that we have an onshore oil and gas industry. We have drilling and have had it for the past 30 years in places such as the New Forest, without the level of controversy that appears to surround this industry.

Other Members have talked about this, but let us examine briefly what has happened in the US shale industry. The industry has reduced the cost of gas by two thirds and has been converting—unfortunately, this also might stop—liquefied natural gas import ports to become LNG export ports. Equally important, the US has met any climate change target that anyone has given it. It did not sign up to Kyoto, but it would have met it by miles because of the displacement of coal by gas in its carbon emissions.

I want the House fully to understand that if the world were capable of taking out all coal and replacing it with gas, which is a big ask, it would be equivalent to increasing the amount of renewables in the world by a factor of six. That would be real progress in emissions. When political parties talk about carbon emissions—we heard about that earlier—without giving cognisance to that fact, it is frankly disingenuous at best.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On emissions and greenhouse gas, it is relevant to think about methane emissions when natural gas is used instead of coal. We need to consider that, and not just the carbon emissions.

[David Mowat]

That is a strong point and I agree with it. It is extremely important that, as in the US, there are no methane emissions. We have seen over and again in places such as Pennsylvania that methane is not emitted and that some of the scare stories are not true. I am sure that when the Scottish Government conduct their pragmatic and responsible review of the industry they will find that out for themselves.

In the US—I will not repeat my points—there are two elements in what cheap energy can do in manufacturing. The US has created around 200,000 jobs in that industry but, more important, the estimate is 1 million jobs in the onshoring chemicals industry in the US eastern seaboard. The transformation is extraordinary. It is re-shoring industry from Asia, China, Europe and, frankly, the UK.

Organisations make marginal decisions—this is not about closing Teesside and moving it to the US. When it comes to the marginal decision of where to open the next production unit, it will not be in Grangemouth, Teesside or Runcorn, but in Pennsylvania or Cleveland because that is where energy prices and feedstock prices are so competitive that more money can be made. We need to be cognisant of that. We sometimes talk in this House as though it is a new industry, but it is not.

The question arises—it is a fair one—of whether that applies to the UK. I have heard it said many times that things are different in the UK. It is true that we have a smaller manufacturing base and a much smaller chemicals industry, so perhaps it will not be so dramatic. People sometimes say, “Well, US gas prices have reduced by 70%, but that can’t happen here because we are on a European grid.” Generally speaking, when there is more of a commodity, the price falls. It is true that we have a European gas price and a European hub, but we had a global market for oil and look at what shale eventually did to the oil price. We are still living with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for bringing this debate to the House; that is very much appreciated. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), because he picked up on a few points from the SNP and this is a good time to discuss those. I am also pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Blair Donaldson) said some of what I was planning to say, because that means that I can get through my speech a bit faster.

My hon. Friend laid out the SNP position. We are looking at a comprehensive programme of research, and the consultation is due to end in spring 2017. Mary Church, head of campaigns for Friends of the Earth Scotland, said:

“This framework for reviewing shale gas fracking and coalbed methane looks like a well designed process, over a sensible timescale…undertaking a thorough review of unconventional gas cannot be rushed.”

If we are to exercise leadership and take the public along with us on this issue, a comprehensive review and a moratorium in the meantime is a sensible approach.

[Graham Evans]

The hon. Lady quotes Friends of the Earth. Is that the same Friends of the Earth that distributes misleading information to the general public by direct mail?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I have never received any misleading information from Friends of the Earth, so I cannot answer that point.

I want to make a few points about fracking. I do not understand what the hurry is. As the hon. Member for Warrington South mentioned, the gas price is pretty low at this point. The risks are not that well known yet. Fracking has been undertaken on an industrial scale really only since the very late 1990s and early 2000s. It does not have a body of evidence behind it. In terms of the rush to do this, the UK Government are trying to paint this as a gas versus coal debate—looking at our energy needs in terms of gas versus coal—but we have been shouting about other things. We have been making the case for things such as renewables and putting them front and centre. I do not think that this is a gas versus coal debate, no matter how much the UK Government try to paint it as such.

[Angela Smith]

For the record, the term “fracking” is not that helpful to the debate, but surely the key point of today’s debate is the importance to the future of UK manufacturing of giving this industry the support that it needs to get going. On that basis, there is surely a sense of urgency around all this. UK manufacturing needs new industries and new activity in order to grow.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate that point and I will come on to manufacturing; I just wanted to answer first a few of the points that had been brought up throughout the debate. “Fracking” is the term that my constituents use and the term that is recognised throughout the UK. That is why I was using it.

It has been mentioned a lot that we should ensure that controls are in place and there is proper regulation. The Scottish Government’s point of view and the direction that we are taking is that we want to prove the safety first and, if we do decide to do this, ensure that the controls are in place after that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

During the moratorium, what evidence has been collated about the safety or otherwise of shale gas?

[Kirsty Blackman]

We are still in the process of researching this. The research does not finish until later this year, and then in 2017 the public consultation will finish, so we are not at the point in time at which we will be publishing the evidence. I think that that is reasonable. It is reasonable to look at the research properly before we bring it all together—

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Not now. I want to make some progress because I do not have long.

I want to talk briefly about carbon capture and storage, which is very important for reducing carbon emissions; that is not just about moving from coal to gas. I have mentioned already the issue in relation to methane emissions. I understand that there is some evidence that methane emissions are relatively low, but I would like to see the body of evidence brought together in a report on unconventional oil and gas.

I also want to talk briefly about the supply chain and the benefits in that respect. I represent Aberdeen, where we have been feeling the effects of the oil crash for much longer than a few weeks or months. For the past year, contractors have been finding it very difficult to get jobs and redundancies have been being made. In terms of the supply chain and supporting jobs in the UK, particularly in manufacturing around the supply chain, renewables would be very helpful. Also helpful would be looking at supporting the oil industry as it is now. I understand that the unconventional onshore oil and gas industry would bring jobs, but we need to protect the jobs that people currently have and are currently losing.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being generous with her time. The argument that I have certainly tried to make is that to have the industry that provides the solutions for renewables, which we still need to keep pushing hard for, we need the cheaper energy in order to retain the industry—so that we onshore that industry. For a steelworks to go forward and development to become cheaper and more efficient, it needs cheaper energy; and it is only the steel industry that provides the slab that is then rolled into tubes for monopiles that go into wind turbines, for example. It is the only onshore solution and it needs that cheaper energy.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate that. I am not sure how much the onshore oil and gas industry will affect the price of energy. I did not know a huge amount about the chemicals industry and things like that; a point was made about feed. However, we do have the lowest oil price for a long time, and natural gas is at a 10-year low as well, so energy prices should be cheaper as things stand, without the need for fracking.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

rose—

[Angela Smith]

rose—

[Kirsty Blackman]

I do not want to give way again.

I am concerned about the rush to fracking. The UK Government will not get a major tax take from it, because of the current position with the prices. We should not be rushing to do it. In terms of my constituency and protecting jobs in the north-east of Scotland, we need to be looking at supporting the conventional, established offshore oil and gas industry, as well as supporting renewables. The Government need to rethink their renewables obligation changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me. No doubt if he secures a similar debate on that subject, I will have that opportunity. I am sure he is right that we can help to reinforce the competitive advantage of our existing chemical and steel industries, and others, through all sorts of innovative ways of securing energy supplies that are more environmentally sensitive than previous ones.

On the vital question of environmental protection, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South made the powerful point that, if all the world’s coal were replaced by gas, it would contribute the equivalent of a sixfold multiplication of the world’s renewables industries. Gas is a fossil fuel and, in the long run, we all hope not to be reliant on fossil fuels. Nevertheless, the transition from coal to gas is probably the most dramatic thing we can do to enable us to cut carbon emissions and prevent further climate change. That is why the Government are so keen to see the development of shale gas in the UK. There are substantial reserves, which will assist us in achieving our environmental objectives and providing economic security.

[Kirsty Blackman]

What about the possibility of supporting offshore oil and gas companies to extract gas from more difficult high-pressure, high-temperature wells, for instance, rather than putting the efforts into shale gas?

[Nick Boles]

In this constructive and responsible debate, I do not want to enter into partisan criticism. The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Blair Donaldson) represent seats in Aberdeenshire, which, of all places in the United Kingdom, has a great understanding of and reliance on the oil and gas industries. It was extraordinary that they did not mention the Scottish election that is coming up in the spring, as that was perhaps one consideration that informed the timetable of the SNP’s no doubt responsible and serious moratorium on the development of the industry.

It was extraordinary that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said that the industry has not been in existence for very long and therefore we do not know whether it is safe, when she also mentioned that it started in a serious way in the 1990s. I wish that the 1990s were not as long ago as they are, but they are 20-odd years ago. The failures of the previous Government mean that we have lost a huge opportunity by being slow. We do not want to continue that irresponsibility.

I thought the most interesting part of the debate was the discussion about the vital interplay between the potential of unconventional oil and gas and coal gasification, and the competitiveness of industries that are fundamental to the UK’s prosperity and employment in the north-east and elsewhere, which face a challenging time. We have heard, in interventions by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and in the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), about the dramatic effect that access to much cheaper and more local gas supplies has had on the chemical industry in the United States, and how vital it could be here. We have also heard about the opportunity that it would create for our hard-pressed steel industry if it were able to supply the dramatic needs estimated in the Ernst and Young report—£2.4 billion of steel tubing, and drilling rigs worth an estimated £1.65 billion. If the steel industry were able to take part in that and the chemical industry were able to benefit from the cheaper costs, we could benefit dramatically. Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, we have heard a powerful case for a responsible, regulated and measured approach, but not for a moratorium. I congratulate him on securing the debate.