A Brighter Future for the Next Generation

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Thursday 13th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, particularly given its focus on the next generation and looking to the future. I welcome much of the discussion so far on skills and education, particularly given how important it is for my part of the world and for the region of the east midlands. However, as so much has already been said about skills, I will focus my remarks on another key element of our future success, which is broader than just the acquisition of skills, knowledge or education, and extends into our confidence, both individually and collectively, to use those abilities.

When I talk about confidence, I mean the ability for us as a mature democracy, facing huge opportunities but also some challenge in coming decades, to identify, debate and determine our response to what without doubt will be massive change in the decades ahead. Bluntly, it is about our ability to have difficult conversations, the confidence to create space for robust debates about who we are as a country, where we want to go and who we want to be, and the willingness to engage in debate on—and subject our preconceived notions to—rigour, scrutiny and critique. That is why I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment in the Queen’s Speech to guaranteeing freedom of speech on campuses, not just from the perspective of fixing a growing issue in some parts of academia, but for making a clear statement about how this timeless notion should continue to be upheld across wider civic society as a whole.

That a Bill guaranteeing freedom of speech appears necessary should give us all pause in a free, enlightened and curious society. How has an element of higher education managed to get itself into a place where it argues precisely against notions it is supposed to uphold? Given that it seems to have slowly done exactly that in recent decades, it appears necessary to legislate. I say that as a Conservative who does not want to legislate against things unless it is absolutely necessary, yet one of the reasons I am a Conservative is because I seek to deal with the world as it is, not as I wish it would be. Whether I like it or not, it appears that some time-honoured enlightenment notions of rationality and free speech are being questioned. If that is the case, it appears that the Government will have to be clear and make an unambiguous statement that freedom of speech is a value that is non-negotiable and that, if it cannot be guaranteed by manners, tradition and convention, it will need to be guaranteed in law.

I remain astounded by the extraordinary—and extraordinarily deficient—vapid intellectual architecture that has grown within our universities in recent decades. I saw it starting off 20 years ago with the no platforming debates when I was at university myself; now it is a general lack of intellectual curiosity or an othering of inconvenient viewpoints, which results in the loss of swaths of perfectly reasonable debate, while rendering it almost impossible to draw conclusions across anything. It is the product of an obsession with a postmodern relativism that has created a toxic quagmire of up-ended logic and muddled thinking, where no one really knows what can acceptably be said, who can acceptably speak or what level of debate and discussion can actually be had.

The frames of the very concept of debate have been loosened to such an extent, through the fashions of Foucault, Derrida or their fellow travellers, that objectivity and rationality are discarded by some as if they were some kind of out-of-fashion, transient plaything. What follows is the dystopian reality that there is no real ability to draw any form of conclusion at all—“I have my truth, you have yours, this Bench has its own.” The whole discussion is narrowed and then disparaged to the extent that up becomes down and feelings become king. My, what has it come to when a law—a law!—is now required, not to set reasonable boundaries on freedom of speech, but to ensure that people can go to the extent of using those reasonable boundaries?

People have the right to be heard. Viewpoints have the right to be challenged. Comfort must, by necessity, be discomforted. Our world demands pluralism of thought, deed and action as the price of progress and improvement. I welcome the Government’s intent in this area.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman were to conduct himself in that manner in a breakfast club, he would be in danger of permanent exclusion. It would be a very unseemly state of affairs, and I would not wish it on him or, indeed, on his fellow attendees.

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the headteacher of Dronfield Henry Fanshawe school on the two lifetime achievement awards that she received last week, which demonstrate the esteem in which the school and Miss Roche are held in the Dronfield community?

[Damian Hinds]

I am disappointed, Mr Speaker, that you missed the opportunity to refer to the original 1984 breakfast club in relation to the behaviour of the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). Members of a certain age will know what I am talking about.

Of course I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Miss Roche on her long service, and on being commended and recognised in this way.

Apprenticeships and Skills Policy

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I am not quite sure how I follow that tour de force, not least because towards the end of his comments, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) expressed— and expanded on well—sentiments that I share, but also because I have very little to say about ornamental horticulture.

[John Howell]

To pick up on the horticulture point, Capability Brown made his name with his work at Stowe in Buckinghamshire, which is not a million miles from the Henley constituency that the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) so derided.

[Lee Rowley]

Excellent. I have none of the one-liners, wit or repartee of either my right hon. Friend or the hon. Gentleman, so I will move straight on to the debate as a whole.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on securing this valuable and necessary debate. We need to have more such discussions. It would be better to talk more about this issue than some of the other subjects we seem to obsess over in this place and elsewhere.

I want to talk about apprenticeships and skills. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for her time over the past few months when I have been to talk to her about apprenticeships. I am a strong supporter of what the Government are doing on apprenticeships, and the direction is very positive. A number of months ago, I had the opportunity to go to Rolls-Royce, which is a major employer in the south of my county, so I have seen what a good-quality apprenticeship programme does to raise the aspirations of people in the local area and equip them with the skills they need to succeed in the workforce for the next 50 or so years.

The Minister knows the feedback I have received from a number of people and organisations in and around my constituency. Chesterfield College is a large training provider in my part of the world. Smaller training providers, such as Stubbing Court Training, say that there have been problems with the introduction of some of the measures. Some of that is understandable—changes are never easy—but she knows some of my underlying concerns. I have passed them on to her, and I ask her to continue working to resolve them.

The debate on skills is one of the most interesting that we need to have in this place, and it speaks to a much bigger point. I was pleased when the hon. Member for Bradford South discussed the challenge of automation within five minutes of talking about skills. I see automation as a challenge and an opportunity. I wanted to congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing North on his final comments because it was refreshing to hear a speech where automation was not seen just as a problem, but as something that is coming, is inevitable—there is no point arguing about that—and is an opportunity to grasp, because it brings many opportunities for people.

The challenge I see is that we have to start equipping those in the workforce and those coming into the workforce for the next 50 years. That is a truism—everyone knows that. I was with a member of my family yesterday. He is 11, and he had just gone to an interview to decide what secondary school he wants to go to from December. He came back and was telling me about all the things he wants to do. It struck me that he will probably still be in the workforce in 2060 or 2070, a long time from now.

I differ slightly from the hon. Member for Bradford South on one point in her introductory remarks. She talked about the Government having a knowledge of what skills are needed and the changes to come. I am not sure we can look that far ahead—I do not suggest the hon. Lady suggested otherwise. Ultimately, for 11 and 12-year-old children, who will still be in the workforce in 2060—hopefully, I will still be in the workforce in 30 years’ time—we must equip them with the skills to be able to still work and take advantage of what the workforce brings. The hon. Lady talked about automation, so I will throw in a few more statistics: the OECD estimates that 15% of jobs will be fully automated and another third partially automated; McKinsey talks about half of all tasks in the workforce being automated; the World Economic Forum talks about 7 million jobs going in our country, but potentially more than 7 million jobs being created. That is the fundamental challenge that we have to try to work through. We cannot plan for it in the traditional way. We cannot execute it from the centre. We have to equip people with the skills to be able to deal with it in the next 20, 30 or 40 years. Partly it is about core knowledge, and the Government have done an enormous amount in terms of reforms in schools over the past 10 years, but part of it is a different set of skills: flexibility, problem solving, persistence and agility. Those are the things I used to look for when I employed people in my old industry, and they are the most difficult things to work out in an interview process.

An interesting discussion needs to be had in Parliament and other forums, including in industry, about how we start codifying and understanding skills. I am not saying we will get to an NVQ level 3 in persistence or anything like that, but we have to have a better understanding of how we define and measure such things so that we can help to teach people or at least develop such skills.

[Stephen Pound]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me—I know this applies to you, Sir David—that anyone who has been in the scouts or guides who applies for a job, as is the case in any area that I have ever been employed in, will always get an interview? Does he not agree that that is an excellent thing to have on a CV?

[Lee Rowley]

As a former scout, I completely agree.

[Stephen Pound]

Once a scout, always a scout.

[Lee Rowley]

I am conscious of time, so I will make my other two points. The first has already been made by others, so I will not dwell on it, but it concerns the need for skills training to be as close to the workplace as possible, not because education is not an end in itself, which we must never forget, but because we need to ensure that we equip people with the right skills that are necessary in today’s and tomorrow’s workplace.

My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) talked about entrepreneurship. It is telling that when I left university in 2002, we all wanted to go and work for big companies and do well on the corporate ladder. When people come out of university now, they want to be their own boss, set up their own company and do their own thing. We have to recognise that what people want to do in the world of work is changing. When we debate skills, I hope we can consider equipping people to be able to have the skills that they will need for the next 60 years. They will need different skills—soft skills, particularly—and we need to train them in ways different from how we have trained them historically.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

In the Green Paper, we commit to working with the What Works centres to publish and promote guidance for local areas to encourage the evidence-based commissioning of interventions aimed at supporting parents and carers, including parenting programmes. We are supportive of councils that wish to roll out family hubs. Ultimately, it is up to local councils to decide the best solutions for their areas.

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

14. What steps the Government are taking to invest in apprenticeships.

[The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)]

We have put in place key reforms to drive investment in apprenticeships: employer-designed apprenticeship standards to meet their needs and drive up quality; and the apprenticeship levy to encourage sustained employer investment. By 2019-20, spending on apprenticeships in England will reach £2.4 billion, which is double what it was in 2010 in cash terms.

[Lee Rowley]

I recently visited Stubbing Court Training, a local training provider in my constituency that specialises in the equestrian area. Given the Government’s recent changes to apprenticeships, will the Minister meet me to talk about how we can ensure that we continue to provide the support that the Government are offering for smaller and more rural employers and training providers?

[Anne Milton]

I would be extremely happy to meet my hon. Friend. In fact, I recently met my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) to discuss this issue. We need to ensure that apprenticeships work for every community, wherever they are and in whatever sector.