Young People (Employment and Training)

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to set out what the Government are doing to tackle NEETs in the context of raising the participation age. I am particularly pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). He has experience and a long-held passion. He was Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills in the previous Parliament and clearly has a huge amount to say. It is important and valuable for young Ministers such as me to listen to what he has to say. I strongly agree that there is cross-party consensus on tackling youth unemployment, which rose too much in the good years and, although it is still far too high, is thankfully now falling.

The only point of partisan contention was the rather disappointing part about information, advice and guidance. The new duty on schools to provide independent and impartial advice, the age range for which has since been extended, came into force only in September and is now in place. It did not replace a system. The Connexions system was widely regarded as a failure. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that the information, advice and guidance duty on schools is in place. Misrepresenting it, as the hon. Gentleman did—for party political reasons, he said—is unhelpful, because this is an area with broad party political support.

I shall take the opportunity to answer the series of questions the hon. Gentleman raised. I will try to get through as many of them as possible, but I am happy to answer them all in more detail if I cannot get through them in the seven or eight minutes I have left. The debate about the future of 16-to-18 education takes place in the context of raising the participation age, which was set out in legislation in 2008 under the previous Government and which we are taking forward. Since 2009, participation in education and work-based learning has risen from 78.8% to 82.2%. It is going in the right direction, but we must ensure that the tools are in place to make it go further. I shall touch on six areas where we are taking action to achieve that aim.

The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned apprenticeships and their value and importance. Doug Richard’s recent review of apprenticeships puts employers in a central role, setting standards, overseeing testing and becoming more demanding purchasers of training. We can all sign up to and agree with that. He wants a shift from what he saw as a box-ticking assessment to having clear standards towards the end of an apprenticeship, accompanied by a more open and innovative training market, with greater freedoms in how people are trained and greater emphasis on the outcome. I am very attracted to that model, which builds on some of the principles being tested through the employer ownership pilot. We will respond formally to the Richard review in the spring, and we will consult employers, educators, providers and apprentices, but we welcome the review’s direction of travel.

We know that, as apprenticeships become more rigorous, many young people are highly motivated by the prospect of work, but need support to get into it. I strongly endorse the hon. Gentleman’s support for work experience. The statistic that four episodes of work experience lead to a 10 times greater chance of getting a job was new to me; I am interested in the analysis behind that and want to know more about it.

The idea behind having a high-quality apprenticeship programme is that, as employers often tell me, young people lack the right skills and attitudes to succeed in the application process. When they have to compete against adults for jobs, they risk being passed over because they do not have such skills. Traineeships will support a significant number of young people into apprenticeships. We are consulting very broadly on their design, but our aim is for them to be available for young people from September 2013. They will offer a combination of extended work placements, work skills and English and maths, together with other flexible training and support to suit individual needs.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I completely endorse everything that the Minister says about building links between business and students, which will give students much more experience of the real world. I wonder whether, like me, he was very impressed by the “We made it” school exhibition earlier today? It has encouraged young school kids—often from year 9 upwards—to get involved in innovation and invention to build the entrepreneurs, engineers and inventors of tomorrow. We should encourage more such projects.

[Matthew Hancock]

I am extremely excited by that project and many similar ones that are springing up. Part of the duty on schools to give information, advice and guidance to that age group is to encourage inspirational people to get into schools to show what they can do with their life, and to motivate pupils by bringing a plethora of opportunities and those from different industries face to face with them, so that they can understand what is available.

[Mr Sheerman]

The only point that the Minister and I have fundamentally disagreed about is that if a school has no independent voice with experience about careers information, guidance and advice, all the emphasis is on keeping children in school, because bums on seats means income and money: if they go off to an apprenticeship or anywhere else, the school loses money. There is a terrible agenda in schools and colleges to keep children on one track, which is often not the one that is good for them.

[Matthew Hancock]

There is a duty on schools to provide independent and impartial advice. Ofsted is conducting a thematic review of how that is being implemented, which will report in the summer, and I shall look closely at its outcomes.

In my remaining minute, I will touch on the strengthening of vocational education and further education through a new FE guild and through stronger intervention in failing colleges, which is an important step, and on the introduction of progression through vocational education by ensuring that the highest quality vocational qualifications are supported and recognised. Those will include a Tech Bacc to ensure that, for students at 18, there is a high-quality and well-recognised suite of qualifications. When vocational education rightly becomes as rigorous and demanding as academic education, it will be seen as on a par with academic education, and that is what we hope to achieve.

I welcome this debate and the insights of the hon. Member for Huddersfield. I am sure that there can be plenty of cross-party collaboration to improve the life chances of our pupils and young people in this country for many years to come.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I thank both the Minister and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) for their understanding. I am sad that the debate has had to be concluded in this way, but that is owing to the business of the House, and I am afraid that we all have to live by it.

Offshore Gambling Bill

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Friday 25th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

Obviously I abide by that very wise ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) referred to bet365. I had seen some promotional material for that company, but I was able to look on my iPad to find out a little more. The company should be very proud of the taxation it is paying rather than going offshore, and although I am not a heavy better, I will try to bet with bet365 and, thus, keep that money in the UK rather than send it offshore. I hope that that sends a message to other gambling firms that not only is doing the right thing moral, but individual consumers will change their behaviour and firms will benefit from that approach—Starbucks is starting to learn that lesson here in the United Kingdom.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the detail of the Bill and I add my congratulations to those given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock). He is now the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, but he first introduced this Bill last summer. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh). My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk refers to this as the McIntosh/Kinnock—sorry, not that.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

What did I do to deserve that?

[James Duddridge]

My hon. Friend has done many things to deserve that, as he well knows. However, I think it best that I move on swiftly.

My hon. Friends have been a great double act in preparing and explaining the Bill and, whatever happens today, legislation should be introduced. Regardless of whether that happens through this Bill or another, there will be a great improvement.

Gender Balance on Corporate Boards

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

I beg to move,

That this House considers that the draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures (European Union Document No. 16433/12 and Addenda 1 to 3) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity for the reasons set out in Chapter 1 of the Twenty-third Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 86-xxiii); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol No. 2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.

The motion is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. This debate gives the House a welcome opportunity to discuss gender balance among non-executive directors of listed companies, and to decide whether to send a reasoned opinion on the European Commission’s recently published proposal, improving the directive, to the Presidents of the EU institutions. In short, we are here to debate women on boards.

The aim of the draft directive is to increase substantially the number of women on corporate boards throughout Europe. The directive sets an objective of ensuring that, at a minimum, 40% of non-executives on the boards of listed companies are female by 2020. It aims to do that by ensuring that companies have transparent, gender-neutral appointment processes in place for their boards. Member states would be required to have a range of sanctions in place for companies that failed to do that. For companies that are listed, over which public authorities have a dominant influence, the proposed objective is to reach a minimum 40% representation by 2018.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that there is confusion here between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome? If we are not careful, we could have the same few women on different sorts of boards, rather than genuinely offering opportunities for many women to apply.

[Matthew Hancock]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. A number of objections have been raised, and that adds to them.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. Has he received any document from the European Union about the wider diversity of our industry and business—for example, ethnic diversity? I fully support the proposals for gender diversity, but it is important to understand that this country and Europe have changed. The ethnic minority communities are not represented on the boards of FTSE companies, but we would like them to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

So would I. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point that is not in today’s document. The importance of diversity on boards is not just about sex, race or background. It is that good boards bring a range of experience, a range of different people, together. Good boards tend to have members with different points of view and with all sorts of different characteristics. All the hard research shows that that is what promotes a good board both for economic and business purposes and for social reasons, as the right hon. Gentleman highlights.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I recognise this as an important issue and I recognise also that the number of women on boards has increased, which is welcome. Is not the question: why is the European Union dealing with this? Is this not a matter for the Financial Reporting Council, the UK Listing Authority and the Department? Why are we discussing it in the context of the European Union?

[Matthew Hancock]

We are discussing it because the EU has put forward a proposal. Whether we think it is right that it should do so is exactly what we are debating. I have an awful lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. In fact, I think I agree with all of it, although I am always cautious about saying that I agree with all of anything in case I missed something or misunderstood.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Matthew Hancock]

May I make a little progress? I shall come to some of these points in detail.

The Government are committed to increasing the number of women on boards. In the coalition agreement we pledged to promote gender equality on the boards of listed companies, and we did so for a good reason. Historically, the proportion of women on boards has been too low. In 1999 women made up just 6.2% of the boards of FTSE 100 companies. By 2004, that was 9.4% and in 2010 it was 12.5%. In 2010 there were only five female chief executive officers of FTSE 100 companies.

As the House will know, we published the review by Lord Davies of Abersoch in 2011 and have been working to implement the recommendations. The Davies review identified several barriers preventing women from reaching senior roles in business. The research shows that people have an unconscious bias to reward and promote people who are like themselves. Davies found that informal networks are highly influential in determining board selections and that a lack of transparency over selection criteria continues to be an obstacle to progress. Davies also suggests that differences in the way men and women are mentored could be giving men the edge over their female peers, for the clear reason that there are fewer women in senior roles to act as mentors and role models for female colleagues.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I very much welcome what the Minister is saying and the issues he is describing. Will he say something about the differences between non-executive, as opposed to executive, women board members? We know that significant progress has been made in respect of non-executive roles, but executive positions are enormously important because they are about the day-to-day running of businesses and what is happening within businesses.

[Matthew Hancock]

It is true that progress has been slower in executive appointments, but it is also true that where legislation has been passed to increase the number of women on boards—for example, in Norway—the increase has come almost entirely in non-executive roles, which shows that legislation is not a panacea. The Davies review recommended a business-led strategy to bring about the necessary change, and we have been working with business to implement the strategy.

I pay tribute to the 30% Club and Helena Morrissey. They are both pragmatic and passionate about reaching their target of 30% representation on boards. Their approach is one of persuasion and moral suasion to change the culture of business from business, and so far it has been highly effective. The figures clearly show that we are moving in the right direction.

Since Lord Davies’s work was started, we have had a near 50% increase in the number of female non-executives in the FTSE 350. Now, 17.3% of FTSE 100 board directors are female and, importantly, 38% of newly appointed FTSE 100 directors and 36% of newly appointed FTSE 250 directors since March last year have been women. Research by Cranfield School of Management shows that should the current pace of change be maintained, we are on a trajectory to reach 37% of women on FTSE 100 boards by 2020, just shy of the 40% proposed by the commission. We think that that business-led voluntary approach is the right one for the UK and that it is making progress. Central to it is a change in culture at the heart of business, and that is the only way in which progress will be sustainable and long term.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Has my hon. Friend come to any conclusion about why the Labour party failed so dismally to achieve better results on this issue in its 13 years in government?

[Matthew Hancock]

I have not specifically done any research into that, but it is certainly true that since 2010 there has been a big increase in the numbers. However, I do not think that this is a particularly partisan issue because there is cross-government and cross-party work on trying to make it happen. Crucially, we are following a voluntary business-led approach, because the research shows that diverse boards are better boards.

That brings me to the broader point that was made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). The best boards have a diversity of human behaviour and experience and there is no bigger determinant of an individual’s behaviour than their sex. On average, companies with the most balanced boards out-perform companies with no female board members by an average of 56%, and companies with three or more women on their boards have achieved a return on equity about 45% higher than the average company. Research suggests that just one female director on a board cuts a company’s risk of insolvency by around 20%.

[Keith Vaz]

I hope the Minister will agree that the message needs to come from the Government themselves. I had many discussions with previous Prime Ministers about the diversity of their trade delegations to countries such as India. I understand why the Minister wants to go down the voluntary approach route, but will he give the House an undertaking that the Government will also send out a very clear message in the appointments they make to non-government departments and in the delegations that he and other Ministers lead by ensuring that they are representative of our country: more ethnic minority people, more women?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, I do agree, but these things have to be done on merit. As it happens, later this month I am leading a trade delegation to India, and the business side of that trade delegation will be led by a woman. I hope that I have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Leigh]

We all agree that this should be business led, but can the Government block this or will it go through on qualified majority voting?

[Matthew Hancock]

I will come to the point that, under the principles of subsidiarity in the Lisbon treaty, should there be enough motions in national Parliaments across the Union, that is enough to ensure that the Commission cannot introduce the current draft proposals.

We want a business environment in which woman can and do take their seats at the boardroom table on merit and in which businesses can respond to the varying needs of their sector, size and type of business. We need to tackle those problems without unduly burdening business. That is the substance of the challenge of getting more women on boards. It is clear that the Government have taken a lead on that and things are moving in the right direction, and the current strategy is leading us towards the target that the EU has proposed.

I will now move on to the argument about whether this should be an EU competence at all. The Government’s position is clear: we believe that member states must retain the flexibility to respond to their own individual circumstances. Today’s debate is about allowing Parliament, as distinct from the Government, to express its view on whether this should be an EU competence. The Government are strongly of the view that the principle of subsidiarity should be respected and adhered to. The principle of subsidiarity rests on two tests that a Commission proposal must pass: the necessity test, which is that the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by member states acting alone; and the EU added value test, which is that the objectives can be better achieved by action at EU level. Under protocol 2 of the Lisbon treaty, national Parliaments may raise an objection, referred to as a “reasoned opinion”, if they do not believe that a draft proposal is compliant with the principle of subsidiarity.

The Government’s explanatory memorandum, which was sent to the European Scrutiny Committee by the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, sets out the Government’s assessment of whether the Commission’s proposals meet the principle of subsidiarity. We find that they do not. There is no reason why member states cannot achieve the objectives by acting alone and there is no evidence that value would be added through EU involvement. Indeed, the Commission’s own impact assessment found that the evidence base for demonstrating the need for, and proportionality of, binding EU action was “very weak”, stating that members states had a

“proven ability to act in this area”

and that

“a number of Member States had taken measures which appeared to have achieved significant progress”.

I hope that list includes us.

[Meg Munn]

One way of making progress on this is through the voluntary approach, but Lord Davies has made it clear in speeches I have heard him make that he feels that there must be progress and that, if progress is not made, we should look at a non-voluntary approach. Is the Minister arguing that the Government would be willing to look at that as something the UK would do, rather than something the EU would do?

[Matthew Hancock]

For the purposes of today’s debate, the Government are arguing that this does not pass the EU’s subsidiarity test. For those purposes, the Government’s position is clear: we think that the voluntary approach is best. Before becoming a Minister, I wrote a book in which I stated that that needs to happen and that we should hold open the possibility of having legislation, but the Government’s position is clear: we should approach this on a voluntary basis.

[Mr Djanogly]

I thank the Minister for being so generous in giving way. I wholly support what he has said and the Government’s position. However, he might wish to look at the Financial Reporting Council’s most recent annual report, which basically says, “Over to you, Europe. We’ll see what you have to say and then we’ll deal with it.” I think that the FRC needs to be told that it must look at this, because it is an important issue and we want to deal with it.

[Matthew Hancock]

It might be that this debate and the decision of Parliament that will follow will be brought to the FRC’s attention. I wonder who might do that.

Of course, we share the Commission’s view that fair opportunities for women in executive and non-executive posts should be promoted and we are happy for the EU to disseminate good practice across member states, but it is up to member states to find their own national approaches. Many member states are considering, or have implemented, various and differing national measures on a voluntary basis to facilitate raising the proportion of women on boards. Some have decided on domestic legislation and some, like us, think that we can get there without it. That multitude of approaches is likely to help us find which one works best and has the most benefits and the fewest unintended consequences. The reasoned opinion is intended to set out the views of Parliament separately from the views of the Government, so I am very much looking forward to contributions on that front from Members in all parts of the House.

Let me turn to a couple of the specific questions from the European Scrutiny Committee. The Committee asked for the Government’s view of the Commission’s projection that only 17% of UK listed companies would have 40% women directors by 2020. It is safe to say that the Commission’s projections are rather out of date, because we already have 17% women directors in the FTSE 100. The Commission’s analysis is based on extrapolating the increase in the number of women on boards in the period 2003 to 2011 and using a linear progression, but, as we have already discussed, the rate of change increased markedly at the back end of the last decade, and we will be within a whisker of reaching the target that the Commission has set by 2020.

The Committee asked whether the Government consider that the measures proposed by the EU would be counter-productive. It is true that legislation can have unintended consequences, and if an objective can be reached without legislation it is usually better to do so.

Finally, the Committee asked about the outcome of the Government’s consultations on the proposed directive and the progress on negotiations. We are discussing the proposals broadly, but negotiations in Brussels have yet to start.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Minister said—I have some sympathy with this view—that if we can succeed without legislation, that is preferable because there are downsides to legislation. Will he undertake to ensure that we will have an annual report on progress and some suggestions about action that could be taken if the rate of success that he predicts is less than he hopes for?

[Matthew Hancock]

We have had a report on this. There are constant reports—for instance, I commend to the hon. Lady the 30% Club website, which has a quarterly update of the numbers—and there are many opportunities to debate this in the House. The most important thing is that we should try to get there without legislation, and certainly there does not need to be EU-level legislation, as it is something that this House can perfectly well do on its own. Having more women on boards is right, and it is good business, but it should be the responsibility of this House.

I am grateful for the European Scrutiny Committee’s work. We would argue that legislation is not necessary now. Yes, there is more work to do to promote women on boards, and we and British business are doing it. I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond briefly to all the points raised. First, I shall deal with the last one by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith). I do so not least because this morning my wife and I attended the three-month scan of our new baby—we did so together, of course. I can understand why the Whips are looking worried about need for paternity leave coming down the track.

I will make three quick points. I think that the whole House has recognised the first of these, but I wish to put it in stark terms. The UK has had the fastest rise in the number of women on boards in the EU, bar three countries. Our rise has been faster than that of Germany, the Netherlands and Spain; we have been faster than all but three of the 27 member states.

On the point about whether it is good business to have women on boards, the evidence is very clear. The Bundesbank evidence was cited and I have read it in detail. It was analysis of the impact on risk, but it omitted the banks that had been rescued because they had been too risky—that is a bit like looking into the risk of the British banking system but omitting RBS. So it is a partial report, but the evidence is incontrovertible.

Finally, I come to the point raised by the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. The rules are clear: if a third of member Parliaments cite a reasoned amendment and reject the proposal, the Commission must consider again. As far as we know, eight member Governments and Parliaments are against, which is just under a third, as there are 27 members, and about a third of member states are yet to be clear in their position. If this motion goes through tonight, that eight will rise to nine. So I have some confidence that he will be happy with the outcome of the process and that we can ask the Commission to look again at this proposal. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House considers that the draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures (European Union Document No. 16433/12 and Addenda 1 to 3) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity for the reasons set out in Chapter 1 of the Twenty-third Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 86-xxiii); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol No. 2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that further education colleges provide a modern learning environment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

The autumn statement released £270 million more in funding to upgrade further education colleges, and I can today announce that details of the college capital fund are being published by the Skills Funding Agency. These new funds take to over £1 billion investment in college capital in this Parliament, because the Government believe in helping everybody to reach their potential.

[Simon Hughes]

The Government’s commitment to further education is very clear and very welcome. Ministers’ commitment to making sure that the merged Southwark and Lewisham college in my constituency is a success is particularly welcome. Given that we have now heard that the college intends to keep a major presence on the Bermondsey and Waterloo sites, may I encourage Ministers to continue to support the progress of developing a major educational campus, ideally including the university technical college and the secondary school, on the Bermondsey site?

[Matthew Hancock]

The right hon. Gentleman and I had an extremely productive meeting with stakeholders on the future of Lewisham college, which is soon, as he says, to change its name, and I hope that a resolution can be brought that satisfies all parties.

[Duncan Hames]

Wiltshire college’s Chippenham campus missed out on a £36 million rebuild during the fiasco that was the Learning and Skills Council’s capital programme under the previous Government. The college now has more focused plans to build an engineering facility at the Chippenham campus. Will the Minister ensure that college campuses that missed out while the sun shone get more than their roofs fixed this winter?

[Matthew Hancock]

Wiltshire college has already undertaken building works up to the value of £6 million, including through the third stage of the capital grants that were released this September. However, I hear very clearly the hon. Gentleman’s call for work at the Chippenham campus, and I look forward to receiving his submission. As I say, the details of the investment fund have been published today, so work can proceed apace.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that as a result of the current plans for further education loans, his Department forecasts 100,000 fewer learners in the sector? What is he going to do to make sure that does not happen?

[Matthew Hancock]

We are working very hard to ensure that those over the age of 24 in advanced learning have the opportunity to take out a loan if required. We are ensuring as best we possibly can that the process goes through smoothly and, most importantly, that everybody knows of the opportunities that are available due to the loans.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

What steps is the Minister taking to work closely with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that obstacles do not come in the way of people trying to enter further education while they are in periods of unemployment? I have a constituent who had to give up a course because the DWP failed to inform the college on time that she was on the relevant benefit to get fee exemption.

[Matthew Hancock]

For far too long the skills system and employment system have not interacted well and have not spoken to each other. I probably spend more time with the employment Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), than with any other Minister outside my Department. I had two meetings with him on Tuesday and will have three meetings with him today, so we are working extremely hard to try to bring to an end the inconsistencies that the hon. Lady rightly highlights and that have been there for far too long.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Central Bedfordshire college also lost out in all its attempts to get capital funding under the previous Government. Does the Minister have any words of encouragement for the college? Its buildings are old and need to be renewed.

[Matthew Hancock]

My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for Central Bedfordshire college. I am glad to say that the increased funding provided in the autumn statement means that those bids that narrowly missed out, such as that of Central Bedfordshire college, have a very good chance of proceeding at the next stage, not least because that college’s bid was very good value for money, though it fell down on some technical aspects. We are looking very closely at how we can proceed with the new funds available.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

As well as needing bricks and mortar, a modern learning environment in further education colleges means expanding qualifications and courses, particularly in science, engineering and technology. The Gatsby Foundation, backed by Lord Sainsbury, told Doug Richard’s apprenticeship review that we would need more than 400,000 technicians at levels 3 and 4 over the next eight years and that we could guarantee quality apprenticeships in that regard by linking them to professional registration. Does the Minister agree that that offers an excellent opportunity for FE colleges and others to take a lead, but that they need extra resources for those subjects now, not later, if older learners are not to be put off from becoming technicians, as we have argued, and his predecessor, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), agreed when making concessions on FE loans?

[Matthew Hancock]

There was rather a lot in that question. I certainly agree with Lord Sainsbury. The Gatsby Foundation does excellent work in producing more occupational qualifications that have the standing of the industries they support. More occupational qualifications in this country would be a very good thing, because we have serious skills shortages, not least, as the hon. Gentleman has said, in the STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—particularly engineering. We are doing everything we can, including working with Lord Sainsbury, to turn that situation around.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the latest construction output figures; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

17. What support he is providing for new business start-ups.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

There were 450,000 start-ups last year—54,000 more than in 2010, and the highest number on record.

[Seema Malhotra]

If women started businesses at the same rate as men start businesses, 150,000 extra businesses would start up in the UK each year, yet just 28% of those benefiting from the Government’s new enterprise allowance scheme are female. What Christmas present could the Minister give to women wanting to start businesses next year?

[Matthew Hancock]

We are extremely proud of the sharp rise in the number of start-ups under this Government, but we want to do more and to go further. If, as the hon. Lady says, women started businesses at the same rate as men, the number would rise still more. We are helping through the new enterprise allowance. We have extended start-up loans, and some of the brilliant schemes—such as the Peter Jones academy—that help young entrepreneurs to know what it takes to start a business are already having an effect. We are making rapid progress, but I want to do much more.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

19. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the use of satellite broadband for delivering internet access in rural areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

T7. The Under- Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), is due to visit Lowestoft college in the new year. I would be grateful if he confirmed that the additional funding for capital investment in further education colleges, further details of which he announced this morning, is available for refurbishment projects such as the one that the college has worked up and which will enable it to build on its excellent work in providing people with the skills needed in the energy sector?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

Yes, I am looking forward to visiting Lowestoft college on 8 March. It narrowly missed out on a bid in the last round of funding, but, as we have discussed, more funding is available. I want the new funding to be targeted at colleges that have estate in either a poor or inoperable condition. One third of the college estate is in such a condition, having been left in that state by the completely shambolic FE policy of the Government that left office—thankfully—in 2010.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Bolton university is making up to 90 people redundant because of the fall in student numbers, while 60,000 of the young people awarded places at university last year did not turn up. Will the Minister admit that the tripling of fees has created chaos and will harm the British economy?

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

In my constituency, we have a thriving manufacturing sector, but one area of concern I have is the availability of skills, especially in engineering. Does the Minister agree that we need to redouble our efforts on science, technology, engineering and maths—the STEM subjects—at school to ensure that we have a good pool of skills in that sector?

[Matthew Hancock]

It is critical that we turn around engineering to ensure that we have the engineering skills necessary to compete in the future. In Stroud and across the country, there are shortages of engineering skills, and this Government are addressing it.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister join me in welcoming the acquisition by Steelite International of Royal Crown Derby as a sign that we need to show leadership and increase regional growth funding? Will he meet me and other Stoke-on-Trent MPs to discuss the Government’s continued opposition to the anti-dumping measures against ceramic tableware from China? It is important that we invest in UK manufacturing on a level playing field. That is an issue that the Government need to address.

EU Education and Youth Council

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

I represented the UK at the 26 November Education Council. The Council adopted two sets of non-binding political conclusions, on literacy, and the role of education in Europe 2020; and a recommendation on the validation of non-formal learning. Ministers also discussed how the quality of teachers can be improved at a time of scarce financial resources.

Literacy

Non-binding conclusions on action to improve literacy were adopted. I intervened to acknowledge the importance of literacy but expressed doubt about the added value of EU-level action. Specifically, I questioned whether a proposed “Europe loves reading week” would be a good use of scarce resources, and whether Ministers really knew enough about the costs and benefits of such an initiative.

Education and training in Europe 2020

Non- binding conclusions on the role of education and training in Europe 2020 were also agreed. While accepting that education has an important role in promoting growth, I intervened to urge the Commission to move away from a prescriptive approach in the education field that is characterised by target-setting. As an alternative, I cited the OECD’s approach to putting high quality analysis and data into the public domain, challenging policymakers with evidence from around the world, but leaving it to individual countries to draw their own conclusions for policy design.

Validation of non-formal and informal learning

The Council adopted a non-binding recommendation calling upon member states to commit to the recognition of non-formal and informal learning within national qualification systems. The UK already has such systems in place at present.

None of these items will have any direct impact on the UK, and there are no follow up actions.

Improving teacher quality and status

Ministers had a useful discussion on how the quality of teachers can be improved at a time of scarce financial resources.

The Irish Minister opened the debate, highlighting the “inconvenient fact” that Europe is no longer the best place to get a good education and that we are now in a period of technological change which demands better, more effective training and support for teachers. I cited key UK reforms to improve teacher quality, including our ambitious “Teach First” programme, and initiatives aimed at making it easier for head teachers to tackle underperformance.

Business, Innovation and Skills

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Ministerial Corrections

The full answer given was as follows:

[Matthew Hancock]

As the requested tables are large, I am making data available in the Libraries of the House. Table 1 shows the number of apprenticeship programme starts by local education authority in the East of England. Table 2 shows the number of apprenticeship programme starts by sector subject area and age group in Bury St Edmunds parliamentary constituency, Suffolk local education authority and England. Final data are shown for the 2009/10 and 2010/11 academic years and provisional data are shown for the 2011/12 academic year.

The correct answer should have been:

[Matthew Hancock]

As the requested tables are large, I am making data available in the Libraries of the House. Table 1 shows the number of apprenticeship programme starts by local education authority in the East of England. Table 2 shows the number of apprenticeship programme starts by sector subject area and age group in Bury St Edmunds parliamentary constituency, Suffolk local education authority and England. Final data are shown for the 2009/10 and 2010/11 academic years and provisional data are shown for the 2011/12 academic year.

Provisional data for the 2011/12 academic year provide an early view of performance and will change as further data returns are received from further education colleges and providers. They should not be directly compared with final year data from previous years. Figures for 2011/12 will be finalised in January 2013.

The Department does not collect further education information relating to the devolved Administrations.

Information on the number of apprenticeship starts by geography is published in a supplementary table to a quarterly Statistical First Release (SFR). The latest SFR was published on 11 October 2012:

http://www.thedataservice.org.uk/statistics/statisticalfirstrelease/sfr_current

http://www.thedataservice.org.uk/statistics/statisticalfirstrelease/sfr_supplementary_tables/Apprenticeship_sfr_supplementary_tables/

Further Education Reforms

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

The Government are today publishing the skills funding statement 2012-15 and the FE college capital investment strategy. I will e-mail all hon. Members and a copy of each will be placed in the Library of the House.

Since May 2010, the Government have made available over £330 million of new FE capital investment enabling college projects totalling over £1 billion. We have now allocated a total of £550 million for additional capital investment in the FE college estate in 2013-14 and 2014-15. £270 million of this represents new money announced in the autumn statement, over and above the spending review settlement for FE.

The FE college capital investment strategy sets out the Government’s priorities for capital funding over the remainder of this Parliament and sets the direction of travel for future years. The strategy also includes an outline delivery plan and new capital programmes which the Skills Funding Agency will develop with input from sector representatives and launch on its website before Christmas.

This year’s skills funding statement reaffirms our commitment to creating an FE system which secures the skills we need for everyone in Britain to succeed. We have delivered significantly increased flexibilities for colleges and FE providers; removed planning controls, enabling providers to be more responsive to their communities, achieved better value for money and delivered more with less. With tight budgets across the FE sector, these freedoms and flexibilities are now more important than ever.

This funding statement sets out how we will enable the sector to build upon these achievements in the years ahead:

Overall funding for adult FE and skills will be £4.1 billion in the 2013-14 financial year with £3.6 billion of this being routed through the Skills Funding Agency to support capacity for over three million learners.

We are prioritising Government funding on English and maths which are essential to enable people to function in society, progress into vocational learning and employment and to contribute more effectively at work. Funding will also be focused on young adults and the unemployed where skills training will help them to enter sustainable employment.

We welcome the Richard review and its emphasis on quality, high standards and rigour in apprenticeships in order to raise their status, value and impact. A consultation on the review will take place in the spring but any initial views or comments on the review are welcomed.

We are giving local enterprise partnerships a new strategic role over skills policy in line with the recommendations of the Heseltine review, to work closely with colleges and providers.

Employers play a crucial role in identifying and supporting the skills that we need for growth. Across the country, colleges are innovating and collaborating to build skills for growth. We want to encourage employer-led bodies to take the lead in designing the qualifications employers need, and ensuring that vocational qualifications are rigorous and valuable.

The skills funding statement and FE capital investment strategy set out in more detail how these priorities will be delivered.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

2. What plans he has for vocational education; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

World-class vocational education is vital for a world-class economy, so we are bringing rigour to vocational education by recognising the best qualifications, strengthening apprenticeships and introducing a Tech Bac to reward and celebrate stretching occupational education.

[Mr Wright]

EngineeringUK has today published a report showing that this country needs to double the number of engineering recruits and triple the number of engineering apprenticeships. It calls for face-to-face careers advice in schools and additional assistance to help schools appreciate 21st century engineering. The Government have had to U-turn over their engineering diploma, so will the Minister U-turn again and implement EngineeringUK’s recommendations in full?

[Matthew Hancock]

I met EngineeringUK last week at the launch of its report, so I am well versed on its recommendations and very supportive of the need to increase the number of engineers in our country, something that has been sadly lacking for far too long. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are introducing, along with the Royal Academy, new qualifications that fit the accountability system. We will do what it takes to ensure that this country has enough engineers.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

What assessment has the Minister made of the Richard report, which recommends that apprenticeships should last at least a year?

[Matthew Hancock]

I warmly welcome the Richard report, which stresses the need for rigour in apprenticeships and for apprenticeships to be more employer focused. I am studying it in great detail. The hon. Gentleman says that apprenticeships need to be for a minimum of a year, and in almost all cases that is already happening, thanks to changes introduced by my predecessor, but we want to look at all the recommendations and see which we can implement.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I welcome some of the things the Minister said to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) about engineering, but is he not concerned that Sir James Dyson—Dyson engineering is based in my constituency—said last week that he needs 200 new designers and engineers in Malmesbury alone but cannot find them and that across the nation we are desperately short of them. What will we do to improve science, engineering and design in our schools and universities?

[Matthew Hancock]

Not only is the number of engineering apprenticeships up, but a higher proportion of young people are now starting STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—degrees at university. That is going up, rather than down, as it was before. This is an area of huge concern to me and I am working extremely hard to try to put it right.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the university technical colleges, one of which will open in Harlow in 2014, will transform vocational education and provide young people with a conveyor belt to pre-apprenticeships?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, I do. I was almost expecting an invitation to visit the UTC in Harlow, which I would love to see. UTCs across the country are about trying to fill the gap that has been left for far too long, and this Government are dealing with it.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister confirmed in The Times on Saturday the report that the Government

“is stealing the idea for a Technical Baccalaureate proposed by Ed Miliband”.

Does he agree that, in addition to high-quality apprenticeships, English and maths until age 18 and quality technical education before 16 will be crucial to the success of such a baccalaureate?

[Matthew Hancock]

I am absolutely delighted by the positive tone coming from the Opposition Front Bench. The Tech Bac, as suggested by Lord Adonis, a man for whom the Government have huge respect, is one of the things we will do to ensure higher quality occupational and vocational qualifications and more respect for them. I look forward to consulting widely and will set out more details in due course.

[Stephen Twigg]

But does the Minister agree that there is a real risk that this is out of kilter with the pre-16 reforms that the Government are proposing? Last week’s excellent report on schools by the CBI stated that the

“mistakes of the past… may be repeated in the”

English baccalaureate. It is urging a pause. Both head teachers and business leaders are now united against the Government’s EBacc reforms, so will they think again?

[Matthew Hancock]

The CBI will be very surprised to be quoted in that fashion. The crucial point is that a common core of strong English and maths is vital for underpinning technical, occupational, vocational and academic qualifications. The single most important pair of qualifications that anybody can get for their employability is GCSE-level English and maths, and so making sure that there is a strong common core at the age of 16 is a vital part of stronger occupational and vocational education after that.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I am delighted that on 14 December I will officially open the new university presence in Crawley. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Central Sussex college on introducing STEM vocational courses, working with some of the first-class companies in my constituency, as well as extending apprenticeships?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes. I have not been able to visit the college that my hon. Friend talks about, but from what I have seen of it, it is exactly the sort of thing that we need to do in extending upwards the quality chain in vocational education and engaging with employers—businesses and public sector employers—to make sure that we provide the skills that they need in future.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. What steps he is taking to encourage the use of laptops and tablets in the school learning process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

7. How he plans to deliver more rigorous vocational education in schools.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

School performance tables are being used to incentivise the teaching of the highest-value vocational qualifications. From September 2012, the vocational qualifications taught to 14 to 16-year-olds have had to meet rigorous new standards. From next year, we will identify the highest-value vocational qualifications for 16 to 18-year-olds, thereby removing thousands of weak and poor quality qualifications.

[Iain Stewart]

Will my hon. Friend ensure that employers have a greater role in designing the vocational qualifications that are taught in schools?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, I absolutely will. I believe passionately that it is only when all vocational qualifications are high quality that all vocational qualifications are seen to be high quality. Employers have a critical role in making that happen.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

The shadow Secretary of State and I recently visited Tresham college in my constituency of Corby and east Northamptonshire, where we met many apprentices who were not able to find work experience placements and, sadly, had little hope of local employment. What message of hope does the Minister have for those young people in my constituency?

[Matthew Hancock]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to questions, having welcomed his eloquent maiden speech on a similar subject. We are looking to introduce traineeships, which will include English and maths for those who do not have level 2 qualifications, work experience and work preparation. That will ensure that as many people as possible are ready for work and know how to get and hold down a job. That will be another step in our important efforts to tackle youth unemployment.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

8. What progress he has made on introducing education, health and care plans for children with special educational needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

T8. It is 20 years ago today that the very first SMS was sent by an engineer. Today also sees the publication of EngineeringUK’s report, setting out the need to double the number of students studying GCSE physics if we are to meet the engineering needs of the future. What is the Secretary of State doing to make sure that a doubling of the numbers studying physics will happen, particularly in academies, which as he knows are responsible only to him?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

It is vital that we increase the number of engineers, and indeed, provide more physics, which leads on to engineering. The number of schools offering three sciences at 16 is now back up to 80% after falling precipitously in the past decade. The number and proportion of pupils studying physics is going up, too. We need to do much more, but we are on the right track.

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

T5. Will my right hon. Friend outline what plans he has to improve alternative provision, and will he recognise the role that sports, particularly boxing, can play in raising the educational achievements of our most disadvantaged and underperforming young people?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

T6. Salisbury has submitted an application for a science university, a university technical college and a free school sixth-form; we also have two outstanding grammar schools and a recent encouraging report from Sarum academy. Does the Minister agree that that diversity of provision allows opportunities for all children from all backgrounds?

[Matthew Hancock]

I do agree, and I urge others to take the same view as my hon. Friend. We should ensure that there is a diversity of provision, including university technical colleges, free schools and academies, and also a diversity of high-quality qualifications on offer—both academic qualifications and occupational qualifications that will form part of the Tech Bac—so that we can provide the best education, highly regarded and held in high esteem, for every single student who wants it.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

Last weekend the Secretary of State condemned a foster care decision made by social workers in Rotherham, who he said had made

“the wrong decision in the wrong way for the wrong reasons”.

He knew nothing about that complex case and had done nothing to check the facts, which was completely wrong for a Minister in his position. Will he now apologise?

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Sales skills are crucial to British businesses, but although nearly 10% of people are employed in sales, fewer than 1% of apprenticeships are in sales. Having escaped the opportunity to become Alan Sugar’s apprentice, Kate Walsh is now heading the Labour party’s policy review body, which is looking into how we can ensure that more young people get into sales and recognise the value of such work. Will the Minister congratulate Kate Walsh on having engaged in the political process, and acknowledge the importance of sales in our schools and colleges?

[Matthew Hancock]

I would commend any work intended to enhance the quality of apprenticeships, which are no longer restricted to one part of the economy but now extend to the whole economy. They are increasing in quantity, and we need to ensure that they increase in quality as well. I should welcome the contributions of anyone who can bring about an increase in the number of rigorous and employer-focused apprenticeships.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

Many small schools in Cornwall are concerned about changes in the dedicated schools grant and the implications for their future. What reassurance can the Minister give that when the current minimum funding guarantee runs out in 2014, the Government will recognise the importance of funding stability to such schools?

Central Bedfordshire College

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this debate, which is so important for Central Bedfordshire college—for everybody who works at it and, most importantly, everybody who studies at it. I know that he raised this issue with my predecessor, and he has also raised it with me a number of times. He is a powerful advocate of the need for improvements.

I also congratulate the college on its success in opening the new university technical college. UTCs are a crucial part of ensuring we have the skills we need in the years and decades ahead. I also commend the college on the work it is doing with local businesses to provide the skills employers need, and to ensure we make good any skills shortages. Colleges across the country are increasingly working with local employers and businesses to ensure we provide the skills they need. The driving mission behind the work we are doing and behind my job is to ensure that local people have the skills they need for the jobs that are available, such as in the construction industry, as my hon. Friend mentioned.

For decades, colleges were starved of the funding for capital renewal that both schools and universities enjoyed. I know that from personal experience because I studied at a further education college—West Cheshire college—in the mid-1990s. Therefore, when the Learning and Skills Council offered significant capital grants, the colleges jumped at the opportunity. My hon. Friend set out the history of what happened. Bids were encouraged, and were encouraged to grow, and then promises were made without the funding to match them. Hugely expensive projects with poor cost control delivered very poor value for money in some of the projects that were completed. They ran out of money, and building projects were stopped, sometimes after huge expense on plans and with diggers in the ground. In that context, and in the context of the wider catastrophe that was the public finances, we are now trying to rebuild. I say that to give the background before getting on to the specifics of the case.

We have been working hard to ensure that lessons are learned from that period. One of those lessons, inevitably, is that we should have a firm and unbending eye on value for money, the physical infrastructure needs of colleges and the benefits to students that capital spending can bring. The approach is coupled with the urgency for affordability. That is the background to how the criteria for making decisions are structured.

We consult the sector on the criteria for deciding allocations. We then provide colleges with advice on the criteria, assess and moderate—and fund when an application is successful. We are happy to work with the college to develop a fundable case. I will certainly look at my hon. Friend’s point about due diligence and moderation executed on successful projects to see whether those can be applied in this case.

Since May 2010, total Government investment across the country in new colleges amounts to more than £330 million. That has enabled more than £1 billion-worth of projects. Across the whole programme, £2 of private cash have been put in for every £1 of Government cash. My hon. Friend said that that was the case with Central Bedfordshire college’s bids, too.

Let me go through some of the specifics of what has happened in the three rounds of renewal grant that have been set out so far. The first is that we have had 117 bids for college funding, which would have cost in excess of £200 million if all had been approved. I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s argument about the quality of the buildings at the college—60% of its buildings are in poor or inoperable condition. I am sad to report to him that, of the 240 general further education colleges across the country, 59 are in a worse state on this measure than Central Bedfordshire college. Although the college has a high level of need, such need, unfortunately, is replicated in some colleges across the country.

The first criterion relates to the condition of the existing estate; Central Bedfordshire college has a case, but there are other colleges with a worse rating. The second criterion is value for money, and my hon. Friend reported the concerns raised about that issue. I entirely understand his point that, having done work to ensure good value for money in respect of running costs, the college feels penalised. He will understand that value for money has to be a critical part of our assessment. I give my hon. Friend this commitment: we will work with the college to see what can be done to improve the value for money in the bid. The third criterion is the benefits that would flow from the work as planned. In that area, as he stated, Central Bedfordshire college did relatively well.

On my hon. Friend’s specific questions, 10 colleges got funds without match funding, but they offered much stronger value for money and benefits in the rest of their bids. Of course, the amount of match funding is a critical part of the question, but it is not the only element of value for money. Only one college in the third round of the enhanced renewal grant had received serious amounts of money since 2001. A very strong emphasis was placed in these bids on those colleges that have received less than £5 million since 2001, and in the third round only one college, Barnsley college, had received more than that since then. By contrast, Central Bedfordshire college had received £450,000 since 2010, including £225,000 in the first round, £100,000 in the second round and £120,000 to help work up the bid for the third round. We are going to have to work with the college in future to see what further we can do to try to get it over the line.

My hon. Friend asked about written feedback, which will, of course, be provided. Earlier this month, the college, including the principal, met civil servants for oral feedback, but we will also provide written feedback.

On my hon. Friend’s point about rebuild, I am tempted not to recommend that we again go down the route of suggesting yet more expensive propositions for the college, but we should keep all options on the table. On the point about the education case being the best in the east of England, I am glad to say that these things are no longer done on a regional basis and are instead done on a national basis. The college scored well in that area.

As my hon. Friend said, the college scored 21 out of a possible 39 points in the process and was just one point short of the score deemed necessary to secure funding. There is broad agreement that the process was carried out on a fair, open and competitive basis; the process was agreed in consultation with the sector. Even so, an appeals process is available for colleges that feel they have been hard done by. I entirely understand his disappointment and I commend the pressure he is applying.

[Andrew Selous]

The Minister may not be able to do this now, but will he respond, perhaps in writing later, on the issue of the car park? It seems that the bid was marked down severely on that basis, and I want to check that he has understood the point I was making about the car park being essential for the release of a significant sum of the college’s own money in order to match-fund.

[Matthew Hancock]

I understand the point about the car park, and I will look into it and get back to my hon. Friend on the specifics. I am sorry to say that I cannot give him a clear and specific answer today, but of course I will be happy to work with him to see what we can do in the months ahead. As and when details of any future capital funding are made available, we will work with the college. I understand, not least as a result of his lobbying, the important role the college plays in the community, what it is doing to support young people and the needs that it has. We will look carefully at, and work with him on, future propositions. I hope he will accept that and that we can move forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Industrial Policy and Manufacturing

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

Debates in this House are often described by those who speak in them as important, but there is something important about today’s debate: on this subject, cross-party unity matters. There has been clear unity across all three parties that have been represented in this debate. Almost everybody stuck to that tone, until a brief period at the end. I will not push the point about who got us into this mess and I will not ask under which Government the number of private sector jobs in the west midlands fell, because it is important, for substantive reasons, that there is a cross-party approach to industrial strategy. This debate has shown the passion of Members and of the Associate Parliamentary Manufacturing Group.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree with the Minister that there should be cross-party consensus, provided that that consensus is on the right side. If everybody is wrong, we will drive ourselves further into difficulty.

[Matthew Hancock]

That is a profound point about the need to avoid groupthink, with which I profoundly agree.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) argued that we need to identify the best. He was passionate about enterprise and I heard his message. He will know that I am a huge supporter of enterprise zones.

I enjoyed listening to the historical debate between the hon. Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), who are continuing their debate as I speak.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) asked a series of questions and brought his huge experience to bear, especially in relation to defence. The defence growth partnership is a BIS-led cross-Government partnership, which the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), leads. On the specific point about R and D tax credits moving to above the line, the Treasury has consulted on that and is deciding on the detail. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me with the answer on the joint strike fighter, which I will come to in a moment.

Everybody in the House was struck by the fluent and impressive speech by the new hon. Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford). He described passionately his membership of the Co-operative party as well as the Labour party. My grandfather was part of the co-operative movement. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt want to contact my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who takes a lead on such issues among Government Members.

The hon. Member for Corby advanced the argument for the living wage powerfully. He spoke of the need to ensure that domestic British people have the skills to take the jobs that are available. Although more than 1 million private sector jobs have been created under this Government, we still have a huge amount of work to do. As Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my prime motivation is to ensure that British people have the skills and ability to do whatever it takes to get the growing number of jobs available. The hon. Member for Corby spoke with great passion, and all those present in the debate will have clocked that—well, let me put it like this: the attitude he showed to the Chief Whip on the Opposition Front Bench, and his ability to ingratiate himself with her, shows that he may not be on the Back Benches for long.

An industrial policy is central to achieving the goal of growth and enterprise, and there is broad consensus on that from the CBI to the TUC, as well as across the House. The reason for that is simple. Any Government in a mature economy has an industrial policy—as the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) argued, a Government cannot choose not to have one. We have an industrial strategy but the question is whether we have it by default or design.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford praised the Dutch system, from which we have much to learn. In my few weeks in this job I have recognised and warmly welcomed the constructive approach taken by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West to chairing the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. He argued for a cross-departmental approach, and the growth committee on which I sit is an important part of that. He also argued for a cross-party approach, and not only do I agree with that, but I think hon. Members have demonstrated such an approach today. In particular, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s realism and ability to accept failures on the part of all past Governments. As he said, manufacturing halved as a percentage of GDP, and the passionate argument about that and the history around it was also put forward by the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher).

Crucially, an industrial strategy looks both at and across sectors, and we must ensure that we allow for the challenge of sectors that are yet to be dreamed of. Let me touch on four cross-cutting themes, as well as on sectors such as the automotive industry, life sciences and aerospace, in which we are pushing rapidly ahead with the publication of individual papers.

[George Freeman]

On the point about convergence, does the Minister agree that one of the most exciting things in life sciences is the way that medical, food and clean environmental technologies are beginning to merge? I recently visited a plant in Norfolk that converts agricultural waste into fuel for powering Lotuses made in Norfolk. That is a powerful illustration of convergence.

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes indeed, and across supply chains too. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) powerfully said, it is vital that we bring whole supply chains together when thinking about the sectoral approach. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Some sectors will do well on their own; others need a long-term strategic partnership. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) called for a document that brings things together in each sector, and that is happening.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Briefly, and on a genuinely cross-party consensual basis, will the Minister update the House on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) about energy-intensive industries such as Tata Steel? Those vital employers and big economic generators have a massive impact on the supply chain, but they consistently say that they do not have a strategy that deals with their energy costs as well as everything else.

[Matthew Hancock]

The Government have an energy-intensive industries approach, and an energy Bill will soon be published that I hope will provide some long-term certainty.

Let me return to the four cross-cutting areas. The first is finance, and my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) spoke fluently about the funding for lending scheme that lowers the cost of funding. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) called for a business investment bank, which is happening, and the green investment bank is already operating and making loans.

Secondly, and close to my heart in the industrial strategy, are skills. The call went out for more employer focus on skills, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) made a passionate case for apprenticeships. I strongly agree, and I urge all Members to engage with the employer ownership pilot that was published on Monday which is about looking ahead. For example, we know that with Crossrail, High Speed 2 and broadband, more tunnelling skills will be required in the future. We now have a pipeline for those tunnelling skills—a pipeline for pipelines.

As the hon. Member for Coventry North West discussed, the third thing we need is more intelligent procurement. This Government have a more intelligent approach to procurement, and I hope it will become more intelligent still. Crucially, our national infrastructure plan identifies 500 projects. Some £70 billion of future contracts have been planned and published across 13 different sectors. We are also trying to speed up procurement.

On technology, we have protected the science budget and are focusing on eight key technologies. Links to universities are vital. Catapult centres will accelerate that. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot spoke about Surrey satellites. That example should go out throughout the country. Turning links with universities into business reality is critical to our future success.

I commend the cross-party approach. I urge people to look at the fact that all three parties are coming together to promote the long-term industrial strategy we need, which I commend to the House.