Student Maintenance Grants

Nick Boles Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

A middle-aged man like me needs to approach the subject of student finance with a degree of humility, for I was one of the lucky few who did not have to pay tuition fees and although I did not qualify for anything more than the minimum grant, many of my contemporaries did. The key fact about university when I was growing up was that it was just that: the exclusive preserve of the lucky few. Universities were bastions of privilege and the nation was poorer for it, as were millions of people whose lives would have been enriched in every sense by a university course.

It was Tony Blair, of course—remember him?—who first recognised that many more people could benefit from university education and started us down the road of reforming student finance so that we could widen participation. It was Gordon Brown—remember him?—who asked the noble Lord Browne to suggest further reforms of student finance. And it was Vince Cable and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) who bravely impaled themselves and their party on an irresponsible campaign pledge and introduced the system of tuition fees we have today.

At every stage in this journey towards a student finance system that allows anyone with the necessary grades to be offered a university place, we have heard the same howls of outrage and the same predictions of disaster from the same sources. “Participation will plummet,” they intone, “The poorest will be put off,” and just as predictably at each and every stage these shroud wavers and doom mongers have been proven wrong, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) reminded us. Why have they been proven wrong? Because, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) pointed out, individual students observe the benefits that flow to university graduates, look at the repayment terms for student loans and calculate, quite correctly, that they will have to repay their student loans only if they themselves are benefiting from higher wages.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said that the loans he took out were the best investment he has ever made, and my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) talked about the returns on higher education, which in terms of lifetime earnings, interestingly, are even higher for women than for men. The truth is that student loans are not like ordinary commercial loans and it is frankly a disgrace that Opposition Members are willing to mislead would-be students by pretending that they are.

A commercial loan is often secured against specific assets, which can be seized if the individual cannot make the repayments. With a student loan, no bailiff is going to knock on a door and take a television if a low income means people cannot afford to repay it. A commercial loan will charge a rate of interest from the very first day and the poorer the person is, the higher the interest rate is likely to be. With a student loan, the interest rate is held at a lower rate until the student starts earning over £25,000 a year, and the amount they have to repay in any year is limited to 9% of their income over £21,000. A commercial loan and all the accumulated interest will still be hanging around someone’s neck in 40 years’ time if they have not managed to pay it off. The balance of a student loan is written off after 30 years.

There are two ways to fund university students. We can limit access, undermine the quality of university teaching and get the general population, most of whom have not benefited from a university education, to foot the bill; we could call that the SNP approach. The alternative is to offer anyone who has the capacity to benefit from a university course the opportunity to do so, and to put in place a system of subsidised student finance which asks those who do go on to benefit to contribute while protecting those who do not from the need to repay the loans. That is the Conservative approach; it was also the approach of the Liberal Democrats when they were a party of government and of the Labour Government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

One thing is clear at the end of this debate: a party’s attitude towards student finance is a leading indicator of its fitness to govern. In opposition, a party will take the irresponsible route in an attempt to curry favour with the National Union of Shroud-wavers—sorry, I mean Students. In government, it will suddenly discover the merits of a sustainable system of student finance that is fair to students and taxpayers alike.

If we are ever to see another Labour Government—and on the basis of the party’s current performance, that may be a very long time in coming—I confidently predict that they will quietly drop their opposition to the system of student finance put in place by Governments of all parties over 20 years, and that is why—

[Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has called into disrepute a national organisation voted by, and elected for, the students of this country. Should he not withdraw his comments immediately? It is a disgrace to his position.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The Minister’s language was perhaps not exactly what I would have chosen myself as a matter of taste, but it is not for me to tell the Minister exactly which words to use. He was not strictly outwith the rules of the House, but I am sure he will now very positively return to more tasteful and moderate language.

[Nick Boles]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel that that reproof was perhaps a little more stinging than I deserved, but I will, of course, do exactly as you require.

If I may briefly reprise, a party’s attitude towards student finance is a leading indicator of its fitness to govern. If we are ever to see another Labour Government, I confidently predict that they will drop their opposition to the system of student finance put in place by Labour Governments, coalition Governments and this Conservative Government, and that is why I urge the House to reject the motion.

Question put.

Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2016

Nick Boles Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 General Committees

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2016.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. The proceedings of Delegated Legislation Committees are not always diverting or a cause for celebration on all sides, but I hope that for once we might all agree that this is a very good day and a very good set of measures, because the purpose of the draft regulations is to implement the new national living wage and to secure greater compliance by increasing the penalty for the underpayment of minimum rates of pay.

I am going to do a dangerous thing, which is to try and anticipate what will be said by my opponent in this discussion, the hon. Member for Cardiff West, who is a friend—

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Don’t ruin my career!

[Nick Boles]

If it needed any ruining.

I know that the hon. Gentleman will stand up and say, “Well, you opposed the minimum wage, which is a Labour invention, so this is a shockingly hypocritical act by the Government.” I have made it plain in a number of previous discussions that the Conservative party did indeed oppose the minimum wage, perhaps for reasons that were understandable at the time—if we look at the debate in Germany, which has only just concluded, there has been consistent opposition to the introduction of a minimum wage for similar reasons—but we were wrong. We were wrong to oppose it; we have said that we were wrong to oppose it; and, with the zeal of converts, we are now among its most passionate advocates. It is therefore entirely appropriate for a majority Conservative Government, the first for a long time, to be introducing not only an increase to the national minimum wage, but a whole new level through a national living wage to benefit people aged 25 and over.

Since the introduction in 1999 of the national minimum wage, it has been a clear and unqualified success in supporting the lowest-paid British workers. It has increased faster than both average wages and inflation without any adverse effect on employment, even during recession. The UK labour market and economy are now experiencing a number of unique highs: employment rates are at a record 73.9%, the highest since records began in 1971; real wages have grown by 2.4% over the past year, a rate not seen since before the most recent recession; we have the joint highest GDP growth among the G7 countries; more than 2 million jobs have been created since 2010; and 1.1 million more jobs are forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility to be created by 2020.

That is why the Government believe that now is exactly the right time to go further and to build on the achievement of the national minimum wage, to move to a higher-wage, lower-tax and lower-welfare society, and to introduce the new national living wage to ensure that low-wage workers receive a greater share of the gains from economic prosperity.

The Government intend to set the initial national living wage at £7.20 an hour, with the aspiration for the rate to reach over £9 by 2020. The Government are setting the first rate so that we may make progress towards that ambition. We are also undertaking an internal review to assess the case for aligning the national minimum wage cycle with the national living wage and tax year. The initial national living wage rate is an increase of 50p per hour—

[Kevin Brennan]

Will that review involve a public consultation or will it be entirely internal, with no opportunity for people to contribute to it?

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman asks a very good question to which I do not know the answer immediately. However, before we conclude, I am sure I will have time to give him the full answer that he properly demands.

The initial national living wage rate is an increase of 50p per hour on top of the current adult national minimum wage for all workers aged 25 and over. That is an increase of 7.5% on the current adult rate and 10.5% since the start of this Government. This means that a full-time worker will receive £910 more a year. Although ambitious, it is worth noting, for those who retain any concerns about economic impact, that that increase is not without precedent. In 2001, the national minimum wage increased by 10.8% in a single year and by more than 30% in the following four years without any significant adverse effects on employment.

Our ambition is for the national living wage to reach 60% of median earnings by 2020, subject to sustained economic growth. According to the forecast produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility, a full-time national minimum wage worker will earn more than £4,700 more from the national living wage in cash terms by 2020. Some 2.75 million low-wage workers are expected to benefit directly and up to 6 million in total could see their pay rise as a result.

The Government have asked the Low Pay Commission to recommend increases to the national living wage towards 60% of median earnings by 2020. However, we recognise that the national living wage needs to be affordable for businesses, which is why we have chosen a proportion of median earnings that is the same as leading experts recommend.

In making its recommendations for the national living and minimum wage rates, the Low Pay Commission will continue to provide independent advice. That will include consideration of the pace of increases and will account for potential blockages to higher rate increases or constraints to specific areas in relation to low pay. The Government’s stated ambition will not require a change to the Low Pay Commission’s terms of reference or to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.

The Government are absolutely clear that anyone entitled to be paid the minimum wage should receive it. To ensure that people receive the pay that they are entitled to, we are announcing a package of measures that will build on Government action to date and strengthen the enforcement of the national minimum and national living wages. That includes increasing the calculation of penalties from 100% to 200% of the arrears an employer owes, which these regulations will bring into force from 1 April. By increasing the penalties for underpayment, it is intended that employers who would otherwise be tempted to underpay comply with the law and that working people receive the money that they are legally due. As with the current penalty regime, it is our intention that the penalty would be reduced by half if employers pay within 14 days, but we are ensuring that non-compliant employers always face a penalty at least equivalent to the arrears that they owe.

We can only afford the national living wage because our long-term economic plan is working. We want everyone to benefit from the economic recovery that has been secured by long and hard work by the British people. That is why we believe that the national living wage is the appropriate step up for the hard-working people of this country. I recommend the regulations to the Committee.

[Kevin Brennan]

Thank you, Ms Vaz. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship for, I think, the first time, and I look forward to many more such occasions in future, hopefully.

The Minister started by saying it is a good day, but it is rather a sad day for some of us who are David Bowie fans, because of the announcement we heard today. Nevertheless, I understand the spirit in which the Minister made that comment, as he did so in relation to the measures that he is announcing. We welcome any attempt to enforce the national minimum wage more effectively, which is part of the purpose of the regulations, and any measures that result in better wages for some of the lowest paid in our economy. All those things are very welcome.

The Minister is wrong; I am not going to go over the fact that the Conservative party kept us up all night back in the days when we were trying to get the national minimum wage put into legislation. I will not mention at all that we were kept up night after night, because we all welcome conversion to a righteous cause, and the Government have now accepted that the national minimum wage is a good thing. The Minister gave a mea culpa with regard to the decisions taken and the fears expressed back then about the national minimum wage, which resulted in the bitter and difficult parliamentary battle to get the legislation through that I will not mention today.

We welcome any such attempt, and it is not our intention to divide the Committee on the regulations, so the Government Whip can safely send away all the troops he has assembled without any fear—I give him my word—that we will spring a surprise vote on Government Members at the end. They are, however, welcome to stay if they want to.

I have a number of questions, as the Minister might have anticipated, one of which I have already asked and on which he might have received some in-flight refuelling. I will allow him to come back on that after I have finished my remarks, although he is free to intervene if he wants to.

The point I raised in my intervention is that there is some concern that the review will simply be an internal one, setting a single date for increasing all the rates; the word is that it might be April 2017. It would be better to have a short public consultation, rather than the Government simply changing the rules by fiat and having an internal—I will not use the word “secret”, because I do not think it is meant to be—and private review. Will the Minister reflect on that, if he has had advice from his officials to the contrary?

[Nick Boles]

It might be more efficient to answer that question directly. We are not proposing a formal public consultation. We are currently consulting both trade unions and employer associations on the changes to the cycle, and we are obviously talking with the Low Pay Commission about its view of the proposed alignment.

[Kevin Brennan]

On the surface, that sounds welcome, but others may want to ask further questions and we reserve the right to pursue that in future. If dates are to be tidied up, proper care needs to be taken in order to ensure that no group of workers has its minimum wage increase delayed by any process of realignment. There are real issues that need consultation, and I hope the Minister has taken that observation on board.

I have a number of other questions. As the Minister rightly said, the penalty for employers that fail to pay the national minimum wage will increase under the regulations from 100% of the total underpayment to 200%, while a reduction if there is prompt payment by the errant employer will be maintained. I note that the maximum penalty of £20,000 per worker is not being changed. The reason given in the Government’s impact assessment is that the maximum penalty can only be changed through legislation—presumably primary legislation, rather than secondary legislation such as the regulations before us. Will the Minister clarify whether that £20,000 maximum penalty remains adequate, given that the legislation is now nearly 18 years old? In that time, the national minimum wage has been uprated, as the Minister rightly pointed out, on a significant number of occasions. Do the Government have any plans to uprate the maximum penalty in future through legislation or some other legislative vehicle that might become available along the way? I would be grateful for any thoughts he has on that.

Will the Minister clarify whether the reduction for prompt payment within the 14 days, which he proposes to retain under the regulations, is proving effective? How many employers actually pay up quickly as a result of that provision? Any information on that would be helpful for the Committee. Will he also clarify whether particular sectors of the economy are serial offenders in failing to pay the national minimum wage? It would obviously be useful to the Committee, if we are doubling the rate from 100% to 200%, to know which sectors are most likely to be affected. If it proves to be the deterrent the Minister hopes, it may bring those sectors more into line in paying the national minimum wage properly in the first place. Clearly, it would be useful to the Committee to know which sectors are the most likely offenders and, therefore, most likely to be impacted by the Government’s proposed change.

On the impact of the national living wage, which also forms part of the regulations, the Government’s impact assessment suggests that the cost to employers of introducing the national living wage will be in excess of £1 billion—perhaps the Minister can confirm that. It also suggests that there will be benefits of £137.5 million, split between employees, who will receive greater pension contributions as a result of their minimum wage payments being increased, and the Exchequer, which will receive higher national insurance contributions as a result of the increase in the minimum wage through the Government’s national living wage proposal. There is a similar split in the impact assessment of a £46.2 million benefit estimated to accrue to employees and the Exchequer as a result of the so-called ripple effect.

I am at a loss as to why the Government put those two together. There is no breakdown of the £137.5 million benefit to workers and the Exchequer that the Government say that there will be and no breakdown of the £46.2 million benefit to employees and the Exchequer that they say there will be from the ripple effect. Surely that is something we need to know. Is it the case that of the £137.5 million, £135 million will be a benefit to the workers and £2.5 million a benefit to the Exchequer? Is it the other way round, or half and half, or 60:40, or 70:30? Why have the Government chosen to put together in the impact assessment the £137.5 million benefit to employees and the Exchequer without telling us how much will go to the workers and, perhaps significantly, how much will go to the Chancellor?

I think we are entitled to know that figure and I hope the Minister will be able to provide the breakdown. If it is not readily available, I hope he will give a commitment to provide it as soon as possible after our deliberations to every member of the Committee. Perhaps he could also tell us why the figures were presented in such a way instead of being broken down between workers and the Chancellor.

Will the Minister tell us the Government’s assessment of the possible impact of the introduction of the national living wage on migrant labour entering the United Kingdom from Europe, as I could not find it in the impact assessment? Obviously, the debate about the free movement of labour across the European Union is a significant and live issue in the House of Commons, in Parliament and across the country at the moment. The Government propose to increase the minimum wage in a significant way, calling it the national living wage for over-25s. Surely they have made an impact assessment of the likely draw factor for workers from the European Union who want to exercise their right to free movement of labour and to work in the United Kingdom.

Some commentators believe that the impact of the increase in the national living wage will be far greater than any impact of restricting the availability of non-contributory benefits to European Union workers seeking to come to work in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell us his estimate, or whether the Government have attempted an estimate—I will find it rather shocking if they have not—of the impact of the national living wage on the movement of labour from European Union countries into the United Kingdom?

Of course, the national living wage is a confusing term, because it is not a living wage at all. The Chancellor stole the term for a piece of political theatre in the House of Commons, but of course the living wage was a pre-existing construct, determined independently and based on what it actually costs to live—whether in London, where it is currently set at £9.15 per hour, or in other parts of the country, where it is set at £7.85 per hour.

It is welcome that the national minimum wage for the over-25s will rise to £7.20 in April as a result of the regulations before the Committee, but that is well short of the estimated living wage for places outside London, leaving aside the living wage for London. However, I appreciate that the national minimum wage is set for the whole country and that there is no separate rate for London. We might note in passing that as the term “living wage” has been adopted by the Chancellor, it might, some might say deliberately—I would not say so, but it is possible—cause significant confusion when it is introduced, as people confuse the national living wage and the living wage. I wonder whether Ministers have any plans to try to help the public to understand the difference between the two ideas and the two things.

The age limit for the national living wage has been set at 25, and it is understandable that the Government have chosen that age. It is specified in the original legislation, but it is a relatively high figure in comparison with other countries. In fact, many countries with minimum wages have youth rates, but it is almost unprecedented to wait until workers reach the age of 25 before paying them the full rate. It is, I believe, only Greece in the European Union that makes people wait so long before getting access to the maximum minimum wage, to coin a phrase, so the only available comparator in this context for our treatment of younger workers is, apparently, Greece.

It is important that the messages about the new national living wage do not leave younger workers behind. I would like the Minister to explain the Government’s position, in the light of the creation of the so-called national living wage, on the growth of the minimum wage for under-25s. Do they intend, through the creation of the so-called national living wage, to create a larger differential between the minimum wage paid to under-25s and that paid to over-25s, in the longer term? If that is part of the policy intention of the change, there will be a significant impact on younger workers—and on older workers—and it would only be fair for the Minister to explain that to us.

[Nick Boles]

I shall try to answer as many of the questions as I can with the information available to me.

First, the hon. Gentleman asked about the maximum penalty per worker of £20,000. It is important to point out that that was increased in May 2015 through the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, so it is not the same as it always has been. There are very few cases that would go over £20,000 per worker but that is something that will be kept under review. If it becomes completely outdated, it can be further amended in future legislation.

The hon. Gentleman asked which sectors would most likely be affected by the enhanced enforcement measures being introduced in the regulations. Without singling out any sector absolutely, we know that low-paid work is most prevalent and that, in certain instances, there have been problems with a failure to implement minimum wage legislation in the care sector, retail and some other service sectors. I do not want to suggest or imply that there is not a majority in all those sectors of responsible employers who always abide by minimum wage legislation.

The hon. Gentleman will have seen that we do a regular naming and shaming exercise of employers who have failed to abide by minimum wage legislation. We intend to continue that. Sometimes we single out particular sectors for a spotlight and for investigation by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ resources because we know that they have a greater tendency of being close to the minimum wage for many of their workers. Care, retail and other service sectors would be first in that.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the estimate of some of the benefits from the national living wage and identified a figure. I think the total figure for the two elements is £183.7 million, by which the employees and the Exchequer will benefit from employer pension and national insurance contributions. Those are not stripped out because, in a sense, employees ultimately benefit from increased employer pension contributions as they then receive the pension, and from national insurance contributions because that is how we support employees’ rights to state pensions.

The benefits that employees receive directly through the wage impact are captured elsewhere. That figure—the total increase of wages of £932 million—and the other payments do not immediately go to employees. They go to private pensions or to national insurance contributions, but they ultimately benefit employees. It does not make sense to try to strip out how much the Exchequer benefits and how much employees benefit because, ultimately, employees benefit from all of it through the pensions that national insurance contributions support.

[Kevin Brennan]

I accept that that is the Minister’s answer for now but I will probably want to press him further on another occasion because I am interested—and it is in the public interest—to know what is coming into the Exchequer as a result of the changes so that we can scrutinise them effectively. Obviously, I could pursue that through written parliamentary questions but if the Minister wants to reflect further on it, I am happy to let him do so.

[Nick Boles]

If there is any information about the breakdown, or if that can be arrived at, I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman. I will copy other members of the Committee into any letter I write.

The hon. Gentleman made the point about 25 being a relatively high age for the transition to the maximum rate for a minimum wage. He is right about that but he will be aware that, as well as not wanting to leave younger workers behind on wages, we do not want to leave them behind in employment. Unemployment rates are significantly higher for people under 25 than for those who are over 25. Given that this is a relatively substantial jump in the minimum wage payable, we thought it was right to set the transition age at 25. By that age, most people who will have been affected by minimum wage legislation will have amassed a sufficient level of experience to start commanding that level of wage. As we introduced the national living wage, we absolutely did not want to see employers refusing to employ young people because they have relatively less experience, and favouring older workers.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the differential between the national living wage and the national minimum wage, and whether there was any intention for the differential to grow. First, there is no intention that the differential should not be relatively stable. Ultimately, on all these questions, as indeed on the rate of increase for the national living wage, we will take advice from the Low Pay Commission. It is important, although we have set a level for the starting point of the national living wage, that the level for the point at the end of this Parliament should be a very clear aspiration to move on to 60% of median wages, but the path by which we get there is one on which we want the Low Pay Commission’s advice to be critical. The same is true for the commission’s judgments on the national minimum wage.

Ultimately, it is not inconceivable that the Low Pay Commission might at some point make different recommendations for increases in the national living wage and the national minimum wage that would apply to under 25-year-olds. Obviously, if the commission ever did that, we would want to understand why it thought it appropriate. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, on occasion, we disagree with the commission’s recommendations, as we did on the apprentice minimum wage. Such disagreements are quite rare, and we would rather not disagree—we think that the commission does excellent work, and we generally want to be guided by it—but if it were to recommend an increase in differentials, we would want to test why it thought that was necessary and appropriate to ensure that the minimum wages supported the economy as well as the low pay of working people.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the effect on the incentives for migrant workers to come from other European Union countries. He will want to take into account the Prime Minister’s ongoing negotiation with the European Union on access to working benefits, particularly tax credits. Obviously, in isolation, the national living wage may be a pull factor in one direction but, when combined with a reduction in access to tax credits, which is a core objective in the Prime Minister’s negotiation, it might play in the other direction. Given that there is not long to wait, we should probably wait to see the outcome of that negotiation before estimating any relative effects on migrant flows from other European Union countries.

[Kevin Brennan]

I do not want to labour the point, but the Government should have some sort of view on what they expect the net impact of those two changes to be and on whether the pull and push factors will be equal or whether one will be greater than the other. The Government should be doing some work on that and should have something public to say. I will press further on that when I have an appropriate opportunity.

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman is anticipating the conclusion of the negotiation. Although I am confident that the negotiation will be an absolute triumph, I would not want to put a figure on it, let alone start commissioning research on the impact. He will have to wait a little longer. His general point is that an increase in wages for all workers in a certain age group will, needless to say, increase the attractiveness of employment in this country, but the improvement in the state of the economies of many continental European countries relative to two, three or four years ago also has an extremely positive impact on people’s desire to get into secure employment in their own country. It is a complex picture, and it would be a mistake to think that any one factor is determinative in an individual’s decision to come and work in the UK.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2016.

Higher-level Skills

Nick Boles Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Ministerial Corrections

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

7. What steps he plans to take to make the efficiencies and savings in adult skills set out in the “Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015”.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

We are protecting funding for adult education at £1.5 billion per year in cash terms. We are extending advanced learner loans to more adult learners and increasing spending on adult apprenticeships to £1.5 billion by 2019-20. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says, this means that total funding for adult skills training will be 36% higher in the last year of this Parliament than in the first.

[Official Report, 15 December 2015, Vol. 603, c. 1390.]

Letter of correction from Nick Boles:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) during Questions to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

The correct response should have been:

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

We are protecting funding for adult education at £1.5 billion per year in cash terms. We are extending advanced learner loans to more adult learners and increasing spending on adult apprenticeships to £1.5 billion by 2019-20. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says, this means that total funding for adult skills training will be 30% higher in the last year of this Parliament than in the first.

Industry Training Boards Triennial Review

Nick Boles Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

The commencement of the combined triennial review of the three Industry Training Boards (Construction ITB, Engineering Construction ITB and Film ITB) was announced in Parliament on 1 July 2013. The purpose of this statement is to update the House on the completion and outcome of the review.

Although each ITB operates in a different industry, a combined review of all three bodies was undertaken owing to the similarity of responsibilities and their common objective to raise skills in the sector via a training levy.

The triennial review took place under the coalition Government but it was not possible to publish the report prior to the 2015 general election.

Following the election, on 8 July 2015 the new Government announced the introduction of a new levy on large UK employers to fund post-16 apprenticeships. The CITB and ECITB will consult employers in their respective industries before the introduction of the apprenticeship levy on whether or not they should continue to pay the sector skills levies in their current form. The review concluded that given these skills funding policy changes, it would be premature for the review to make recommendations on the future of the CITB and ECITB; the right time for this will be once the future levy arrangements for the sectors are clearer.

There is currently no statutory training levy on the film production sector; instead the Film Industry Training Board (FITB) oversees the delivery of a voluntary training levy, the “skills investment fund”, which is administered by creative skillset. The FITB also provides a valuable advisory function to creative skillset on the skills and training needs of the sector. The triennial review concluded that as the FITB does not operate a statutory training levy it is not necessary for it to be a non-departmental public body (NDPB) in relation to the levy powers and functions detailed in the Industry Training Act. It therefore recommends that unless there is a clear policy commitment and timetable from Government to implement a statutory film sector levy, the FITB need not remain as a NDPB. In this case, the valuable advisory function and the voluntary training levy could continue without NDPB status.

The review also examined the governance arrangements for the CITB, ECITB and FITB, in line with guidance on good corporate governance set out by the Cabinet Office. The review made specific recommendations that will improve the performance of the ITBs against their existing missions, and the ITBs have already started to act on these recommendations.

The full report of the triennial review can be found on the gov.uk website and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS407]

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Boles Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to improve standards in apprenticeships.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

We have given employers control over apprenticeship standards and require all apprenticeships to last at least 12 months and involve substantial off-the-job training. We will be setting up an independent, employer-led institute for apprenticeships to approve standards and assure quality in future.

[Craig Tracey]

I thank the Minister for that response, and I welcome the fact that there have been nearly 1,100 apprenticeship starts in north Warwickshire and Bedworth over the last 12 months. However, I know that local businesses are concerned that the focus might be on quantity rather than quality. What assurances can the Minister give to my constituents, especially those in highly skilled engineering, that that will not be the case?

[Nick Boles]

There is, in fact, no innate tension between quantity and quality. We want better quality, because that will mean more employers wanting to offer apprenticeships, such as BMW in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I strongly welcome the very high-quality apprenticeships that it is creating.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

As the Minister will know, Ofsted has said that apprenticeships are not good enough at present, and many people in industry believe that the only way to hit the 3 million target is to water down quality further. What reassurance can the Minister provide?

[Nick Boles]

I welcome that question, because while it is true that Ofsted has highlighted some bad practice, that bad practice has been familiar to us all for a long time, and has inspired the reforms that we are introducing. All apprenticeship frameworks will be replaced by standards developed by employers. Training must last for more than 12 months, and at least 20% of it must be off-the-job training. We will also ensure that quality improves at all levels. I disagree slightly with the chief inspector’s implication that a level 2 apprenticeship is somehow not of high quality. Apprenticeships should be of high quality at all levels, and the existing level 2 apprenticeships increase people’s incomes by an average of 11% three to five years later.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

23. There were 970 new starts in my constituency last year, many of them in engineering and technology. That was an increase of 24% on the number of starts in the previous year. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the new apprentices, and does he agree that those figures show that the Government are committed to high-quality apprenticeship places, such as those that are provided at Prospects college of advanced technology?

[Nick Boles]

That was a stunning achievement in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I know that it was largely due to PROCAT, which is an excellent institution, and one of the first institutions to become a college for a long time. My visit to PROCAT was my first visit to a college in my current job, and if my hon. Friend invites me to return, I shall be happy to do so.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

I commend the Minister for establishing an institute for apprenticeships which will put employers at its heart, but may I suggest that he should consult trade unions and find ways of harnessing their insight and experience in this valuable area?

[Nick Boles]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I greatly value the work that trade unions do in encouraging employees to take up training opportunities, which is why we continue to fund the important work of Unionlearn. I will certainly reflect on his suggestion, and will make some announcements shortly.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Snap-on is a major United States manufacturer, developer and marketer of tools, and its UK headquarters are in Kettering. Given that it is seeking to increase its investment in apprenticeships throughout the country, will my hon. Friend accept an invitation to open its new £2 million facility in Kettering on 15 February?

[Nick Boles]

I am glad to say that Kettering is very close to my own constituency. If the Whips allow me, I will be there.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

5. What steps his Department is taking to support businesses which export.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential cost to businesses of implementation of the apprenticeships levy.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

Employers with a payroll bill of more than £3 million a year will be required to pay the new apprenticeship levy. It will raise £3 billion in 2019-20 to support apprenticeship training throughout the UK, including in Scotland.

[Tommy Sheppard]

We do, of course, hope that the apprenticeship levy will provide the same opportunities for young people south of the border as the 25,000 who started a modern apprenticeship in Scotland this year have. Is the Minister aware of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers’ concerns that the number of small and medium-sized enterprises affected by the levy is likely to be much greater than originally thought? Will he give an undertaking to provide clear and early guidance to those, well in advance of implementation?

[Nick Boles]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is proud of the 25,000 modern apprenticeship starts in Scotland, just as we are proud of the half a million starts we have had in the past year in England. This would suggest to me that we can both take pride in our commitment to apprenticeships. I hope he will welcome the fact that the apprenticeship levy will be generating resources, some of which will pass to Scotland to enable it to fund what I hope will be a dramatic expansion in the number of its apprenticeships.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

As the Minister will appreciate, the oil and gas industry faces distinct challenges at the moment. I know from my engagement with companies in the sector that there is significant concern that this levy may represent a second charge, with many oil and gas companies already paying levies to industry trading bodies. It also represents an additional cost to these companies at a time when controlling business costs is of paramount importance. Will he commit to meet me, along with my colleagues and a delegation from the industry, to hear their concerns and discuss how the apprenticeship levy scheme can be designed to take account of these circumstances?

[Nick Boles]

Of course I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady and that delegation, but I will be asking them what they thought of her party’s plans for Scotland’s economy, which rested on oil prices at $100 a barrel and would now see an independent Scotland entirely bankrupt and probably scuttling to the International Monetary Fund.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

7. What steps he plans to take to make the efficiencies and savings in adult skills set out in the “Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015”.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

We are protecting funding for adult education at £1.5 billion per year in cash terms. We are extending advanced learner loans to more adult learners and increasing spending on adult apprenticeships to £1.5 billion by 2019-20. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says, this means that total funding for adult skills training will be 36% higher in the last year of this Parliament than in the first.[Official Report, 5 January 2016, Vol. 604, c. 2MC.]

[Barbara Keeley]

Salford city college was one of more than 100 further education colleges that wrote to the Prime Minister to protest at repeated year-on-year real-terms funding cuts to adult skills since 2010 amounting to 40%. Despite the promise not to cut adult skills funding for FE colleges, Treasury documents say that there will be £360 million of savings and efficiencies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned. After years of savage cuts, how can that be achieved?

[Nick Boles]

Like many other colleges, the hon. Lady’s college wrote to the Prime Minister before the spending review in response to the shroud waving by the Opposition, who predicted a 25% to 40% cut in the adult skills budget. If the hon. Lady had taken the trouble to attend my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s spending review statement, she would have heard that he was protecting it in cash terms while increasing the funding for apprenticeships, which her college and others could bid for. If she spoke to her college, she would discover that, like all other colleges, it is pleasantly surprised by the funding settlement.

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

Any credible long-term economic plan would recognise the critical importance of adult reskilling, but the Government have systematically cut adult skills by 40% since 2010, including a 24% cut in February this year in non-apprenticeship funding. That is probably why the Chancellor ducked out of making any reference to the further cuts in his autumn statement, leaving it to his Blue Book to talk about £360 million of efficiencies. Will the Minister say precisely what the £1.5 billion of core funding that he talks of is made up of? Does it include loans to over 25-year-olds, 50% of which we know will not be taken up?

[Nick Boles]

No.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

8. What steps his Department is taking to establish a further education college in Sittingbourne.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

The House is making me earn my salary today.

We have launched a process of locally-led area reviews to consider each area’s skills needs and plan how further education colleges and sixth form colleges can best organise themselves to meet them. The Kent review is due to start in November 2016.

[Gordon Henderson]

I welcome the review. Sittingbourne is the largest town in Kent without its own FE college. However, we have a unique opportunity to change that. May I invite the Minister to visit the Swale skills centre in my constituency to learn about how, with the right help, it could easily and cheaply be extended into a small college?

[Nick Boles]

I have had a message from the Whips saying that they would be only too delighted for me to do further visits to hon. Members’ constituencies, so I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. We do not hear the Opposition celebrating when new institutions open, including the Swale skills centre, which was set up by a very successful academies trust that is already doing a great job of running three local schools.

[Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)]

9. What discussions he has had on the effect of freezing the threshold at which graduates repay their student loans.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

We are not dodging any questions. If the hon. Gentleman had attended Prime Minister’s questions last week, he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Chancellor say that he was looking at the possibility of introducing a levy to continue to fund this action against loan sharks. That is the Treasury’s policy to take forward and the hon. Gentleman will have to ask the Treasury if he wants further details about it.

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

T5. A few days ago in North Devon, I met the new cohort from the Petroc College Care Academy, which has a unique programme providing part-time apprenticeships at the local healthcare trust. Will the Minister join me in congratulating them, and does he agree that it is an important programme for training the next generation of our healthcare professionals locally?

National Minimum Wage: Sports Direct

Nick Boles Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the relevant Minister, Mr Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern that working people are paid the full amount that the law requires for every hour that they work, and I welcome his urgent question. We take the enforcement of minimum wage laws very seriously. That is why we have increased the enforcement budget from £8.1 million in 2010 to £13.2 million in 2015-16. While I am not able to comment on enforcement action in relation to individual employers, I can assure the House that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs follows up every complaint it receives in relation to breaches of the national minimum wage. I encourage any employer or worker who is concerned that these laws are not being complied with in their workplace to contact HMRC or ACAS, through its confidential hotline. HMRC undertakes targeted enforcement activity in the most high-risk sectors of the economy.

As the Prime Minister announced in September, the Government are taking a number of further steps to crack down on employers who are not paying workers the minimum wage. We have already increased the penalty for breaches of minimum wage legislation to 100% of arrears, up to £20,000 per worker, and from April 2016 the Government will double the maximum penalty from 100% to 200% of arrears so that employers comply with the law and working people receive the money they are due. Furthermore, a new team of compliance officers will be established within HMRC to investigate the most serious cases of employers not paying the relevant minimum wage. The team will have the power to use all available sanctions, including penalties and criminal investigation. We will also continue to name and shame employers who do not pay their workers what they are entitled to.

As a Government, our message to employers is straightforward. We will work to reduce burdens on business by cutting regulation and corporation tax. In return, we expect employers to pay working people at least a decent legal minimum—the national minimum wage and, from next April, the national living wage for workers aged 25 and over. I can assure the House that we will not hesitate to crack down hard on employers, large and small, who break this social contract by failing to pay the wage that the law requires.

[Mr Umunna]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am proud that the last Labour Government, in the face of the then Conservative Opposition, introduced the national minimum wage in the first place, when people in our country were earning as little as £1 an hour. I am also proud —the Minister mentioned this—that the overwhelming majority of British businesses, notwithstanding any legal requirements, seek to treat their workers with dignity and respect.

We know enough about the practices at Sports Direct plc, which has a branch in my constituency, to conclude that this company is a bad advert for British business and one with a culture of fear in the workplace, which we would not wish to see repeated elsewhere. As the Institute of Directors has said, it is

“a scar on British business.”

I appreciate what the Minister said about not necessarily being able to respond in specific instances, but may I ask him this question? HMRC enforces the national minimum wage. A complaint has been made by Unite the union, of which I am a member, against Sports Direct, accusing it of being in breach of the legislation. HMRC says it cannot act without evidence being provided by workers in that workplace, but, of course, all of them are refusing to come forward in the warehouses concerned, for fear of the repercussions that will follow. Why cannot HMRC go ahead and carry out an investigation in this case, which surely will render other evidence without workers being required to put their necks on the line?

Secondly, may I ask the Minister a generic question? An issue has come up whereby employees are required to go through body searches to check for potential theft. The time they spend going through body searches is not time for which they are paid. The law is unclear in this area. Can the Minister give industry an indication of whether, in the Government’s view, time spent going through body searches would count as working time for the purposes of the legislation?

Thirdly, employees face having 15 minutes of working time deducted if they clock-in just one minute late. The law is not entirely clear about that situation, either. Do the Government believe that if an employer is engaged in those kinds of practices, they are not in keeping with the spirit of the legislation?

Fourthly, the enforcement of national minimum wage legislation is carried out not by the Minister’s Department, but by HMRC. How can we expect HMRC to do the work that we require of it if the Government are pushing through an 18% real-terms cut in HMRC’s funding over the course of the spending review period?

Finally, I have no doubt that the reaction of the employer concerned will be to say, “We comply with the law,” but surely what it needs to understand is that the British public expect a lot more from it. We often do not do things that the law allows us to do, because we do not think that that is the right way to treat our fellow citizens. Surely that should apply to the company in this case.

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman asked a series of very important and good questions. The first point I would like to make is that, if any employee of any company has any fear of repercussions, I can reassure them that the ACAS hotline is genuinely confidential. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be willing to endorse the fact that ACAS is an absolutely, resolutely independent organisation, so people should have no fear of calling that hotline out of hours and reporting a practice.

I did say in my brief response that HMRC enforcement is entitled to conduct targeted enforcement activity in sectors of concern, so it is entirely open to HMRC to investigate proactively in sectors where it feels that breaches may be in evidence. In that sense, it does not necessarily need to wait for a specific complaint to be able to investigate breaches.

I have read the article that revealed some of the allegations being made about Sports Direct. The hon. Gentleman asked about the search and whether the time it takes is working time or not. This is an intensely vexed legal question and he will know, as a former employment law practitioner, how much of his former colleagues’ time it is taking up. I cannot give an absolute pronouncement, but what I can say is that anything that counts as work as part of somebody’s employment contract must be compensated at least at the level of minimum wage. The question is whether such a search counts as work under their employment contract, and that question can be explored legally.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the second claim that was made—about employees being docked 15 minutes for being one minute late. Although it is legally permissible for time to be docked for late arrival, it is important for every hon. Member to understand that the minimum wage legislation will apply to the 14 minutes as well as to the rest of the time that people work, so employees cannot not be compensated for those 14 minutes if that would bring their overall wage rate down below the national minimum wage. I hope that that goes some way to reassure him.

The hon. Gentleman made a general point about the cut in funding for HMRC of 18% over the spending review period. I will have to take his word for it because I do not have the global figures to hand. I pointed out to him the very significant and dedicated increase in funding for the minimum wage enforcement team. It has gone up by more than 50% since 2010 and will go up £3 million this year alone. I can therefore reassure him that, whatever else is going on in HMRC, this is a priority in which we are investing and on which we will beef up activity.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make the general point that obeying the law is the minimum we expect of employers. We expect employers to behave responsibly and to be good citizens. We hope they would not be satisfied with just obeying the law, but would want to go a great deal further, and in a sense, our expectations about the behaviour of large and profitable employers are even greater than those for others.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

Mr Speaker, you know that it would be a career-limiting move for me to depart in any way from the script laid down by my colleagues at the Treasury, but may I just repeat that I welcome the urgent question and was glad to have the opportunity to answer it?

I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. I am not going to pretend that we had given thought to that, but he has now triggered such a thought. I would be happy to discuss with him how it might work.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

The allegations against Sports Direct are extremely concerning, and we echo the calls of Unite the union for an HMRC investigation into the reported breaches of the national minimum wage legislation at the Shirebrook warehouse. We stand in unity with the employees, because such practices do nothing to engage them and make them feel positive about the place in which they work.

Allegations of such a serious nature must be taken very seriously by the UK Government, and they must do much more to support the accreditation of living wage employers. The Scottish Government have led the way in encouraging more than 400 living wage employers in Scotland. We have the second highest proportion of employees paid the living wage—80.5%—across the countries and regions of the UK.

Scottish National party Members want the Government to commit wholeheartedly to supporting an HMRC investigation into these business practices. What lessons can be learned from this case, especially when the UK Government are gearing up to implement the new minimum wage premium, which is not a living wage? If they cannot enforce the current minimum wage, how on earth will they manage to enforce such increases?

[Nick Boles]

I welcome the contribution from the hon. Lady who represents the Scottish National party. Of course it is the job of the enforcement team in HMRC to follow up any concerns that they have in relation to specific complaints or sectors where they feel that abuse of the minimum wage legislation and other employment legislation is rife. However, I am sure she will understand that I cannot comment on a particular case.

In general, I do not often welcome investigations by The Guardian newspaper, but it is vital that media organisations investigate these matters. The Government will never be able proactively to investigate every employer in the country. If the media can uncover things, I promise that the Government will review their findings and enforce the law, where necessary.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I echo the Minister’s comments on the ACAS hotline. I called the hotline with a constituent who came to my surgery believing that he had been paid below the minimum wage. I found ACAS extremely professional during that phone call and would recommend the service to any hon. Member who had a case in their constituency.

May I question the Minister on the upcoming change to the minimum wage, with the introduction of the living wage? I read that in a recent Department for Business, Innovation and Skills survey of 1,000 employers, nine out of 10 employers strongly welcomed the introduction of the living wage and said that it would boost productivity and the morale of their employees. However, it was concerning that four out of 10 employers said that they had not communicated with their staff regarding the upcoming potential rises in pay, and that eight out of 10 still had not updated their payroll or created new procedures to implement the living wage. Will the Minister comment on that, so we can be sure that legitimate businesses are ready and do not get into a similar situation?

[Mr Speaker]

I was going to recommend that the hon. Gentleman conducted an Adjournment debate on the subject until I realised that he had just done so.

[Nick Boles]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out, from direct experience, how good the ACAS hotline is. On the national living wage, which is coming in next April, a substantial Government communication campaign will start in the new year. We feel that it is in the months leading up to its introduction that communication will be most effective in making sure that employees and employers know that it is coming in, know what is required and begin to work out how to implement it in their systems.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Sports Direct scandal has occurred even though the national minimum wage has become a national treasure. Everyone supports it now, but, like all great social reforms, it had to be fought for in the teeth of bitter, all-night opposition in this House. Even when great social reforms become part of the political consensus, they still have to be fought for. The battle to sustain and enforce the minimum wage must be continuous and, frankly, requires more than just warm words from Ministers.

The TUC estimates that at least 250,000 workers are not being paid the minimum wage. What is the Minister’s estimate? Have the Government even made one? In the last Parliament, it was revealed that just nine firms had been charged for non-compliance with the minimum wage. Will he update the House on how many legal proceedings are under way against firms for non-compliance? Can he even tell us how many workers have received the money that they are owed after a notice of underpayment has been issued by HMRC, because up to now the Government have failed to provide those data? Will he order an urgent investigation into Sports Direct concerning the alleged abuses, which have led the Institute of Directors to label it

“a scar on British business”?

The Minister says that he is acting, but where are the results? How will he get results with the closure of so many HMRC offices? It is easy to talk the talk on low pay, but it means nothing to millions of low-paid workers, whose labour employers feel they can turn on and off like a tap, unless Ministers walk the walk on the minimum wage. When will we see real action to enforce it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I am happy to acknowledge that the national minimum wage was one of the great achievements of the Government led by Tony Blair. I note simply that there are more supporters of that Government’s achievements on this side of the House than on the hon. Gentleman’s side. I look forward to receiving the same acknowledgement from Opposition Members when, next April, we introduce the national living wage, which is significantly higher than any increase in the national minimum wage he and his colleagues proposed during the last election campaign.

The hon. Gentleman asked some good and proper questions about enforcement, but he glided over the fact that the budget for enforcement has gone up by more than 50% since his party was in government and that we have increased the arrears penalties, increased the powers and stepped up the programme of naming and shaming companies, large and small.

In 2014-15, 705 employers received penalties, totalling more than £934,000. We are setting up a new dedicated team to focus on tackling the most serious breaches, and to consider whether directors of employers that persistently breach legislation should be disqualified. In 2014-15 we identified £3.29 million arrears for 26,318 workers, we conducted 735 successful investigations, and we charged 705 penalties, worth £934,000. We successfully defended 17 of the 23 appeals against enforcement notices. If, from the luxury of opposition, the hon. Member for Cardiff West wants to suggest further activity that we could carry out, I am always happy to hear about it. Fortunately, we are doing a lot more than the Government he was part of to defend one of the only achievements that Labour Members are still willing to talk about.

[Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

There are reports that some large retail businesses have already increased their hourly salary for employees to a level above the national living wage, following the Government’s announcement. Will the Minister update the House on his understanding of that?

[Nick Boles]

I have heard such reports, and while I do not have the list of major retailers that have announced that measure on the tip of my tongue, that extremely welcome news underlines the point made earlier: we expect more than just obedience to the law; we expect social responsibility and for employers to see benefits from the improved morale and retention that come from paying people better wages.

[Mr Skinner]

The Minister should not expect social responsibility from the man who controls Sports Direct in my constituency, at the warehouse at Shirebrook on a pit site. That man has not made £6 billion because he is a considerate employer; he is a monster of a man who does not even reply to MPs’ letters—I have sent him many. He has £6 billion and is on The Sunday Times rich list, because he is the type of man that will not take any notice of HMRC unless the Government really mean business. This man, Mike Ashley, would fit very nicely on millionaires’ row, along with his pals. This will be a test of the Minister’s mettle—get stuck in.

[Nick Boles]

I have never had the pleasure of being encouraged to get stuck in by the hon. Gentleman before, but I promise to follow up on that. Let me be clear: I do not care how famous or well connected employers are, and I frankly do not care how much money they have made. They must obey the law, and if they do not, we will enforce it. We will fine them and disqualify directors if necessary.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

As well as strong enforcement by the Government, it should be possible for those who are employed by bad businesses to vote with their feet and move to better employers. What is being done to help to create more and better jobs for those employed by Sports Direct, and to communicate the availability of those jobs?

[Nick Boles]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us back to the important and constant theme of this Government, which is an economy that is creating new jobs at an unprecedented rate. Most of those jobs are now full time, and most not only pay more than the minimum wage, but pay more than the national living wage that will be introduced in April. It is ultimately through a dynamic economy that we will create opportunity for anyone who does not feel that they are getting a square deal from their current employer.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

When Sports Direct announced that it would build its factory at Shirebrook, people in north Derbyshire were delighted. It is a tragedy that an organisation that employs nearly 3,000 people should have such a terrible reputation. What steps can the Minister take to communicate with that company and try to ensure that its future success does not come at the expense of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner)?

[Nick Boles]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has pointed out how important that organisation is as an employer in his constituency. It is important we acknowledge that Sports Direct employs a great many people, and I am sure a great many people are very happy to work there. I reinforce the point, however, that no company director and no company owner will want the House of Commons to be discussing, in the terms we are discussing, the kind of breach that was alleged in the newspaper article. I am absolutely certain that, when faced with the kind of enforcement action I have set out, any employers, including those in his constituency, will want to sort themselves out.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

What message of Christmas cheer does my hon. Friend have for all those people who are self-employed and earning far less than the minimum wage, but are faced with having to submit quarterly returns to HMRC instead of annual ones?

[Nick Boles]

I am full of admiration for anyone who is self-employed. It brings many rewards, but money is not always one of them. I am absolutely clear that the Government must do everything they possibly can to reduce the burden of regulation on those who are self-employed.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister recognise that what is so disturbing about the newspaper report is the fear among many people working there? In some instances, women are apparently not willing to stay away from work, even if their child is sick for a day, simply because they may lose their job. Is it not totally unacceptable to have such fear and exploitation in a company? Does it not remind one of the early years of the last century when workers were treated in such a contemptible way? Finally, why was the advice given to Mr Speaker that this was not an urgent question? If the Minister is so keen on coming to the House and welcoming The Guardian investigation, why did he try to stop the question being asked in the first place?

[Nick Boles]

Mr Speaker, it is always for you to judge whether a question is urgent. I simply acknowledge that this question is important, which is why I am so delighted to answer it. On the hon. Gentleman’s broader points, while the Government believe in deregulation and reducing the burden on business, we have made it clear that certain laws are absolute and must be adhered to: minimum wage legislation is one, along with health and safety legislation and a whole slew of other employee protections. We intend to enforce those protections robustly.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

According to the Office for National Statistics, a quarter of million people are not paid the minimum wage. According to the Minister, HMRC has found 26,000 of them. What is the Minister going to do to bridge the gap? If the Minister does not have any ideas—it does not look as though he has a plan—may I suggest something? To not pay the minimum wage is a criminal offence. Why have there not been any prosecutions taken out against directors who are not paying the minimum wage? The department in the Attorney General’s office responsible for taking out prosecutions has been cut for the past three years and there has not been a single prosecution during that time.

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Lady always comes to this House knowing the complete answer to every question, but it might help her sometimes if she would actually listen to the list of measures we have introduced that go significantly further than any enforcement activity the Government she supported ever brought forward to defend their minimum wage. When the set of enforcement measures is working as well as it currently is, I see no reason to take any instruction, however helpfully phrased, from the hon. Lady.

[Mr Speaker]

This is an extremely important matter but we have other important business to follow, so I am looking for pithy questions and answers.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

On the facts, the case in The Guardian is disturbing. Does the Minister agree that one good piece of news is that, whatever else happens, in April next year Sports Direct will have to pay these people 11% more than they are getting now?

[Nick Boles]

That is absolutely right. That has happened because the majority Conservative Government have run the economy sufficiently well that we can expect employers to do that and still prosper.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Minister has pointed out that HMRC conducts risk-based enforcement in sectors where there is a high risk of workers not getting paid the legal minimum wage. Is the sector in which Sports Direct operates a high-risk sector? If so, how many proactive initiatives has HMRC launched in it?

[Nick Boles]

The targeted sectors are those where low pay is prevalent and where many employers are therefore close to the minimum wage boundary and those where there have been significant breaches in the past and where there is therefore good reason to expect other such breaches in the future. I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman how many such investigations there have been, but I am happy to write to him and place a copy in the Library.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister wrote to me on 14 October about the care sector—one of the sectors he just referred to—saying that HMRC was investigating several companies in the sector, but he could not confirm which companies or comment on the progress of the investigations. Given what he said about being strident with the owners, managers and directors of these companies, will he be strident with MiHomecare and Mitie—previously run by the new Tory Baroness McGregor-Smith—about whose conduct significant concerns have been raised?

[Nick Boles]

It is not the job of a Minister of the Crown to lay down the law on individual cases and companies that have not been found definitely to have breached the law. I have been as clear as possible about any employer, large or small, that does breach the law, and I hope the hon. Gentleman can apply that to any particular case.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

In our area, everyone knows that English native speakers cannot get a job at the Sports Direct warehouse, despite 3,000 people working there, and there was a baby born in the toilets there. Why were there 80 ambulance visits to Sports Direct in two years? Is it because employees are too scared and not allowed time off to see the doctor, and there is therefore a misdirection of NHS resources? Might there also be tied housing, meaning that people are too scared to speak because they are provided with a house to live in, the rent and the transport they have to pay for to get to work? We need a full investigation not just into Sports Direct but into the plethora of agencies it used to employ.

[Nick Boles]

If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member has allegations and evidence of bad practice in relation to minimum wage, or any other, legislation they would like to bring to my attention, I would welcome it. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) mentioned that a trade union had raised concerns about this particular employer. If employees do not trust the Government phone line, despite the ACAS hotline being genuinely confidential and independent, and if they would like to submit their evidence through the union, they can, but I am sure hon. Members will understand that they need to be willing to engage with enforcement officers to provide evidence. The Government have to act on the basis of evidence; however well researched the Guardian article was, it is not enough on its own.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Is it not time the Government considered introducing a specific criminal offence of exploitation, which they refused to do in the Modern Slavery Bill in the last Parliament?

[Nick Boles]

We have enough criminal offences; what we need is effective enforcement, and that is exactly what the 50% increase in the enforcement budget and the new powers we are giving to the HMRC enforcement team will achieve.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

My understanding is that the trade unions have made representations on behalf of staff who, for good reasons, want to remain anonymous. Should HMRC continue to ignore representations on behalf of legitimate trade unions, or should it act now and search the offices of Sports Direct?

[Nick Boles]

I have made it clear that if any individual complaint is to be assessed for its validity, HMRC needs to be able to follow it up. I have also made it clear that in sectors of concern, HMRC undertakes targeted enforcement activity that does not wait for a complaint. It will be listening to this debate.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister said that it is ultimately a growing, dynamic economy that should give people confidence about being able to find well paid jobs, but good employment practices and legislation also give them confidence. One issue that is greatly worrying a number of residents in my constituency is the use of tips and service charges to top up wages and the murky world of requirements used by employers such as Turtle Bay, a local restaurant. Will the Minister meet me and some of the campaigners from the GMB union to look into these practices further? I know he has recently conducted an investigation, but it would be incredibly beneficial to those on low wages in my local community to look at how these practices are used to top up wages or otherwise, especially ahead of the new higher minimum wage that he has talked about.

[Nick Boles]

In my experience the hon. Lady is often on to things before the rest of us, so I would be delighted to meet her.

[Mr Speaker]

What a perceptive fellow the Minister is. We are most grateful to him, and I thank him for engaging with the urgent question so comprehensively.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Boles Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

5. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the VAT treatment of sixth form colleges.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

Following a sustained and effective campaign by my hon. Friend and others, in last week’s autumn statement the Government announced that we will give sixth form colleges the opportunity to establish themselves as 16-to-19 academies as part of the area reviews of post-16 education and training. A sixth form college that becomes an academy will be eligible to recover its non-business VAT costs.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for all his efforts to lobby the Chancellor to ensure that that sensible decision was made. Will he update the House on the timescale for 16-to-19 colleges to transfer to the new regime? Most importantly, will those that are involved in mid-term reviews or area reviews at the moment or have not chosen to take this route be eligible for this new opportunity?

[Nick Boles]

Proposals for individual sixth form colleges to become academies will be considered alongside other recommendations from the relevant area reviews, which are taking place between now and March 2017. When a college’s application is approved, it will be eligible for VAT reimbursement as soon as it has been re-established with 16-to-19 academy status. Once all the area reviews have been completed, we will of course review which sixth form colleges have not yet taken up the option and what course they want to take.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

What justification is there for treating sixth form colleges differently from other schools for tax purposes?

[Nick Boles]

I assume that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell me, not least because a Labour Government put up with it for 13 years.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that a great advantage of this change will be that it will enable sixth form colleges to become academies and therefore part of multi-academy trusts, which will stimulate them to even greater things?

[Nick Boles]

I entirely agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education. One of the great opportunities that this proposal offers is for sixth form colleges to become part of academy groups, to become the sixth form for those academy groups and to thrive.

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

Does the Minister recognise that, although the Government finally allowed sixth form colleges welcome VAT relief through their becoming academies, it will not alter the cuts so far, which mean that three quarters of sixth form colleges have had to slash language and STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—provision? Of course, they still face a real-term funding cut until 2020. Is it not critical that their excellence and innovation should not now be curbed by DFE micromanagement of them as academies?

[Nick Boles]

Last week—perhaps it was the week before—the hon. Gentleman was shroud waving, suggesting that there would be cuts of somewhere between 25% and 40% to the per pupil funding for 16-to-19 education. I did not hear him welcome the Chancellor’s confirmation that it will remain flat cash throughout this Parliament. It is, of course, important that sixth form colleges can prosper, which is why we introduced this proposal.

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)]

6. What recent assessment she has made of the effect of the abolition of the education maintenance allowance on educational participation and attainment inequality.

Royal Agricultural University (Funding)

Nick Boles Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

It is a pleasure to answer this debate on behalf of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) cares passionately about the subject, and rightly so, because the Royal Agricultural University is a fine, ancient and distinguished institution. It is an adornment to his constituency and he is one of its former pupils, so he is right to represent it as passionately as he does.

I know that my hon. Friend will agree that the United Kingdom’s university sector is one of the glories of our education system. It is respected and admired around the world. It has within it ancient and modern institutions, very large universities and very small specialist universities. It is not the size of an institution that determines its repute, but its quality, and the quality of the RAU is undisputed. It is admired and known around the world. There are farmers in Africa and estate managers in south America who will share stories of what they learned when they were at the Royal Agricultural University. My hon. Friend is therefore absolutely right to say that this is an institution that deserves the full support of everyone in Government who is involved in supporting higher education.

My hon. Friend also knows, however, that one of the key ingredients in the creation of a university sector that is as admired as ours is its independence, by which I mean not just the independence of the individual institutions, but that of the funding council that grants them public money. He was right to recognise that it is, therefore, a very important principle that Ministers do not intervene in the individual decisions that HEFCE makes about specific grants to specific institutions. Nevertheless, he is also right to say that Ministers do have a role in setting the policies and giving guidance and advice to HEFCE, through grant letters, on how it should make those decisions about funding for individual institutions.

My hon. Friend was right to quote what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to HEFCE in July 2015, but I will repeat it. He asked it to protect as far as possible the funding for a range of things, including “small and specialist institutions”. Whether or not it meets the criteria of the new formula, the Royal Agricultural University is unquestionably both small and specialist, and it is very important that it is treated fairly.

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for pointing out that although the proposed withdrawal of the grant would represent a very significant drop—he cited a figure of 56%—in the funding of the Royal Agricultural University, it is important for the House to understand and for the record to show that, as a percentage of its overall income, the fall will be 8%. That is significant, and no institution wants to lose 8% of its income—it certainly does not want to lose it if it does not believe that it is being treated fairly—but, to put that into context, it is important that the House understands that it is losing not 56% of its total income under the proposal, but 56% of its grant funding.

Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to argue that it is important that there is a level playing field and that HEFCE does everything it can to ensure that similar institutions offering similar courses are treated—shall I say?—similarly, and that no institution is singled out. Although, as I am not the Minister with responsibility for this subject, I am certainly not sufficiently expert to judge on the question of the coding of particular courses, I think it is very important for HEFCE—and HEFCE will itself want everybody to believe this—to be scrupulously fair in its decision and that no perversities arising from historical decisions about coding and the like have led to its decision. He is right to point to natural justice as an important set of principles that any institution doling out the public’s money on behalf of the public should very much take to heart.

I wanted to quarrel with just one thing that my hon. Friend said. He seemed to think that the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus would have a view. I have to say that Clapham is not perhaps a place in which people have a close and intense understanding of the important work done by the Royal Agricultural University. I can assure him, however, that in the Grantham omnibus or the Stamford omnibus—or, indeed, in those in the constituency of my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), in Devon—there is a great deal of familiarity with its work and a great deal of sympathy for his arguments.

I will conclude by taking this opportunity at the Dispatch Box—not as the responsible Minister, but on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science—simply to ask HEFCE to do all it can to ensure that no institution faces a disproportionate funding reduction and to avoid any threats in the short term to institutional viability. In asking it to do so, we do not seek to interfere in its independence or require it to make a different decision from the one it has set out, but simply to ensure that the principles of natural justice are indeed adhered to.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for what he is saying. He is being very helpful. May I take it from what he is saying that, as a result of this debate, he would expect HEFCE to enter into further discussions with the RAU authorities to see how the coding of the courses works and whether the 60% figure on which it made this arbitrary decision can be reviewed?

[Nick Boles]

I understand that HEFCE is already having discussions with the university about the consequences and implications of the funding cut. I am sure that those will continue and provide an opportunity for all parties to review whether the decision was taken on the basis of a fair assessment of the respective institutions’ activities. Those discussions will also allow the parties to reflect on whether removing 56% of anything is proportionate, when compared with other examples.

I do not want to go further than that because it is ultimately for HEFCE to make these determinations. However, I know that, as a fine institution at the heart of one of the world’s greatest university sectors, it will want everyone always to see that it is fair and impartial and that it does everything it can to support quality institutions.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

It seems to me and to the RAU, my constituent institution, that ruling it out of the bidding process altogether is completely unfair. Nobody would object if it could make a bid and put forward a case comparable to those of its rival institutions, but not to allow it even to make the case is pretty unreasonable and contrary to all the rules of natural justice.

[Nick Boles]

My hon. Friend has made that point eloquently. I would not want to comment on the processes that led up to the decision, but it is important that justice is done and that it is seen to be done. I know that he will go on fighting vigorously for this institution until he is satisfied that that is the case.

Question put and agreed to.

Women and Low Pay

Nick Boles Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing this important debate on an issue that concerns us all. I come from a family where the only thing controversial about gender equality was the suggestion that us men were anything other than inferior, so it has always been a mystery to me why the prejudices and discrimination against women, and indeed any other groups in society, persist, but sadly persist they do.

I suspect that the hon. Lady was not in the hall, but I am sure that she was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in one of the most effective and powerful passages in his party conference speech in October, say:

“I’m a dad of two daughters—opportunity won’t mean anything to them if they grow up in a country where they get paid less because of their gender rather than how good they are at their work.

The point is this: you can’t have true opportunity without real equality.”

As well as paying tribute to the Prime Minister’s leadership on this issue, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who, throughout her career in Parliament, in government and on repeated occasions as acting leader of the Labour party, has led the way on equality, including on women’s pay. All of us should salute her persistence and leadership on this issue.

The fact is that the pay gap, although smaller than it was, is too big, is unacceptable and must not be allowed to survive into the next generation. We can acknowledge that some progress has been made without in any way undermining the assertion that the gap as it remains is unacceptable. There has been some progress. The pay gap has decreased for full-time earners, but it is still too high at, I think, 6 and a bit per cent for full-time earners, and much less progress is being made for part-time workers and those in low-paid jobs. We can all agree that that position is not one that we should tolerate, so the question is what we can do to ensure not only that progress continues to be made, but that it is made more rapidly and made across the board, for part-time as well as full-time work.

I shall explain what the Government have long believed to be one of the most powerful tools in this respect. The laws were passed, as many hon. Members pointed out, by previous Labour Governments a long time ago, but once the necessary laws are passed, progress is often most rapidly achieved as a result of transparency—as a result of making it absolutely clear to everyone, not just the people who work for an employer but customers, partners or neighbours of the employer, what their record is on paying people equally. That is why we have decided to require employers of more than 250 people to publish information about the pay of men and women in their employ, so that they can demonstrate whether they are properly paying people equally. Driving through that transparency and adding to it, as we do with the enforcement of the national minimum wage, and a certain element of naming and shaming, whether formal or informal, both as MPs in respect of employers in our constituencies and as a Government in respect of larger employers nationally, will have a powerful impact on progress.

The second most powerful way to achieve change is to ensure a change in leadership. The Government’s focus on the representation of women on boards is not so much a result or a reflection of our interest in equality being greater in relation to high earnings than low earnings, although equality should be in place across the spectrum. It is more the fact that we are convinced that the more women there are on boards, the more voices there will be insisting that equality be achieved and not putting up with any persistence of inequality, however well disguised.

That is why we are delighted that we have more than met the original target set by Lord Davies of Abersoch to achieve 25% female representation on the boards of FTSE 100 companies. The figure is now at 26%. We now have more women on FTSE boards than ever before. I believe that there is not a single FTSE 100 company left that has no women on its board, but again, although that is welcome progress, it is not nearly enough, because many of the women who have been brought on to FTSE 100 and 250 boards are in non-executive roles. Our next challenge is to ensure that there is an equal increase in the representation of women in senior executive positions, because it is through the leadership roles in every employer that we will drive the change in employment practices down through all the employers in the country.

After leadership, the third most important step is to make it easier for women to get work, to stay in work and to return to work as soon as they choose to do so—it should always be their choice—after having children. That is why, at a time of very difficult decisions on the public finances, we have nevertheless made it a priority to invest in the provision of 30 hours of free childcare for three and four-year-olds for all families who work, because only when there is that significant number of hours of free childcare will we make it possible for more mothers of young children to go to work as soon as it is right for them to do so.

The final and most important measure is more broadly to increase the rate of pay, particularly in low-paid jobs. We have heard from many hon. Members that women unfortunately occupy more low-paid positions than men do. If we can increase pay in low-paid jobs, we will disproportionately help women. I understand the unwillingness of Opposition Members to acknowledge the substantial and significant step that the Government have taken by introducing the national living wage for people over the age of 25, and I accept that the Opposition want to continue to preserve the concept of a living wage as something distinct from our new national living wage. Leaving aside the nomenclature for a moment, the minimum wage that will be paid to every 25-year-old in the country, including in the great kingdom of Scotland, will go up by an amount far greater than any Opposition party suggested in the general election campaign.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I will not give way right now, but I will do so in a second. We have plenty of time, so the hon. Lady need not worry. The minimum wage will go up by an amount far greater than was recommended by the Low Pay Commission. We have strong evidence not only from internal Government estimates but from the Resolution Foundation that women over the age of 25 will disproportionately benefit from the increase in the minimum wage. For all that Opposition Members want to retain some scepticism about the brand that we are putting on the new, higher minimum wage, I hope that they will welcome that significant step in improving the pay of many women in this country.

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not think that the Minister needs to lecture the Opposition on the national minimum wage. Labour Members brought in the national minimum wage in the teeth of a fight from the Conservative party. I know that he was not in the House at the time, but he must know that. None of us needs to be lectured on that. Will he say whether he will address the issue that several Opposition Members have raised about transitional arrangements for the state pension age inequality for women born in the 1950s?

[Nick Boles]

I say gently to the hon. Lady that I was not lecturing her at all. I was resisting the suggestion that the national living wage—I accept that Opposition Members do not like its brand—is anything other than a dramatically positive step for low-paid workers, especially women, in this country. I did not hear a single member of any Opposition party welcome the increase that will happen in April for every worker over the age of 25 who is in a national minimum wage job. If the Opposition want the Government—for better or for worse, we are likely to be in government for the next four and a half years—to take on board some of their excellent suggestions for further progress, they should give us a little acknowledgement for that real achievement. It absolutely builds on the national minimum wage, which the Labour party introduced, and I am always happy to acknowledge, as I did earlier, the Labour party’s role in the Equal Pay Act 1970, but acknowledgement of each other’s achievements is a two-way street. It would be good for Opposition Members to acknowledge our achievement.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

I will answer the other point made by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) before I give way again. She asked an important question on a subject that was also raised by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). As I have said, I come from a family that is entirely dominated by women, and two of my sisters are in the age bracket that the hon. Ladies referred to. I have also had some pretty difficult conversations in my constituency surgery with many women who are affected.

The equal pension age is being introduced at the same time as the new state pension, which, compared with the current two-tier state pension, improves the amount of state pension for many women whose national insurance records are incomplete as a result of career breaks or a great deal of part-time work. I am not implying that it makes up all the loss, but there is a countervailing improvement. I am advised by the Department for Work and Pensions that there will be a review of the state pension age. The Pensions Act 2014 provides for a six-yearly review to take into account up-to-date life expectancy data and the findings of an independently led review. The first review will conclude by May 2017 and will consider, among a number of other factors, the impact of the state pension age change on women. That will be an opportunity to consider the issues that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South raises.

[Barbara Keeley]

I would like to repeat what the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said in 2011 on Second Reading of the Pensions Bill:

“Let me simply repeat what I said earlier…we have no plans to change equalisation in 2018, or the age of 66 for both men and women in 2020, but we will consider transitional arrangements.”—[Official Report, 20 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 52.]

There were no transitional arrangements. Women who now do not get their pensions until 66 get nothing—no pensioner benefits or bus passes—and, as I have said, many of them are on jobseeker’s allowance or employment and support allowance. Some are even being forced, at the age of 62, on to the Work programme. That injustice will keep coming back. The Secretary of State in that debate promised transitional arrangements.

[Nick Boles]

I do not want to get into a discussion about what another Minister said in a debate that I was not part of, but the quote that the hon. Lady read out indicated that the Secretary of State would consider transitional arrangements. It did not sound to me like a clear pledge to bring in any particular transitional arrangement. I have described the position and the fact that there will be a further review in 2017, which will allow those issues to be revisited.

[Margaret Greenwood]

What analysis has the Minister made of the impact of the cuts to local authorities that the Government are considering on low-paid women working in councils up and down the country?

[Nick Boles]

As the hon. Lady is aware, all decisions, legislation and regulations are subject to equality impact assessments, in which all those things are considered. Her intervention leads me neatly to my conclusion. For all that the steps that I described—transparency, leadership, childcare provision and increasing the national minimum wage through the introduction of the national living wage—are powerful, the most important source of opportunity to improve the pay of women and close the pay gap is a strong economy that creates lots of new jobs. Those new jobs and employment opportunities give women the opportunity to go out and command better wages.

Although I understand that the hon. Lady opposes public spending cuts, it is nevertheless the case that as a result of the consistent policy of slow but steady deficit reduction, this economy has created more jobs than any other country in Europe, and more women are in work than ever before. It might have been possible for Opposition Members, while properly opposing the Government on specifics, to give some acknowledgement of the fundamental achievement of creating jobs, which create opportunities, including the opportunity for women to improve the wages that they earn.

[Cat Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I have concluded.

Further Education

Nick Boles Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

What I would say to the hon. Lady is that we helpfully had the support of Professor Alison Wolf in the last Parliament in getting rid of 3,000 qualifications that did not prepare our young people for the world of work at all. The EBacc subjects that I have been talking about—the core subjects of science, technology, engineering and maths: just what we need for the future of our country—are exactly what our education system is rightly focusing on.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

She is on our panel that we announced last week.

[Nicky Morgan]

As my hon. Friend says, Professor Alison Wolf is also on our panel looking at technical and professional education.

I want to remind the House that the reason we spend almost the same amount on servicing our debt as we do on the entire schools budget is the financial mismanagement of the Labour party. Its recklessness means that we have been forced to make difficult decisions to balance the books and live within our means, because if we had not, our education system would have fallen into the chaos that we have seen in countries that have failed to balance the books—thousands of schools closed in Greece; teacher and lecturer pay slashed in Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain; an exodus of talent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

I am not going to give way just now. [Interruption.]

I have told all those people the same thing: colleges in Scotland are about providing access, pathways and employment.

[Nick Boles]

rose—

[Carol Monaghan]

Finally the Minister decides to stand; it seemed as though he wanted to intervene from a sedentary position.

[Nick Boles]

Does the hon. Lady not accept, first, that this whole area of policy is entirely devolved and therefore what the Scottish Government decide is entirely for them; and secondly, that her Government, whom she claims to represent, have closed colleges, which we have not done?

[Carol Monaghan]

First, education is devolved—[Interruption.] I think this House could possibly pay attention. Members from the Minister’s own party have come to ask me what Scotland is doing—they are looking for advice and a new way of doing things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

Absolutely. Since 2006, we have seen an increase in the number of full-time students under 25.

[Nick Boles]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your advice about the debate on a matter that is entirely devolved? SNP Members are welcome to contribute to that debate, but they need to talk about the subject of that debate, which is further education—16-to-19 education—in England.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying. So far, my interpretation of what she is saying is that she hopes to inform the House about matters in Scotland that might be helpful when considering similar matters in England. However, I am quite certain that she will bear in mind the fact that the motion is specifically about further education in England, and that she will appreciate that a lot of Members whose constituents are affected by the subject of the motion are waiting to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to debate in this House education for 16 to 19-year-olds, and particularly further education and sixth-form colleges. It is a subject on which I can bore for Britain. Unfortunately, the debate got off to a bad start, because the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) detained the House for 13 minutes on a question that does not affect her constituents in any way.

[Carol Monaghan]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

I will not give way to the hon. Lady. We heard quite enough from her earlier on. She strangely failed to mention that her party’s Government in Edinburgh have slashed funding for further education and closed colleges in order to subsidise free university education for students who will go on to earn far more than many who graduate from further education colleges. She should be ashamed and keep quiet in our debate.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I will not give way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) knows that he cannot just remain standing. If the Minister wishes to give way, I am sure he will; if he does not, that is his choice.

[Nick Boles]

I might well have given way to the right hon. Gentleman if he had attended any of the debate apart from his own intervention.

[Alex Salmond]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the Minister—if he is that—did not mean to mislead the House, but if he checks the record, I think he will find that funding for further education in Scotland is immeasurably superior to funding for further education in England.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman has been here over many years. He is back, and I know that he will never ever forget what is, and what is not, a point of order. That was not.

[Nick Boles]

When any question is asked in this House, from the Government side we hear about reforms—reforms of institutions, standards, leadership and incentives. In this debate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), Chair of the Education Committee, made an extremely interesting proposal for sixth-form colleges to be allowed to convert to academy status, and I know that Ministers will have listened to that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) spoke about the economies of scale that large college groups can enjoy, and which enable them to support enrichment programmes. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) spoke passionately about apprenticeships and applauded Jack’s ambition to set up his own business. I have no doubt that that ambition will be fulfilled. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), and I enjoyed visiting a college with her before she was elected. She made a good argument that we must encourage students to opt for courses that will help them to get good jobs, and that is exactly what the introduction of destination measures will achieve.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) spoke of Cambridge regional college, which educates more than 5,000 apprentices. I point out to her and the House that colleges currently win only 37% of the funding for apprenticeship training, and there is no reason why they should not win more of that growing funding stream. Yesterday, I suggested to the Association of Colleges annual conference that we should work together with colleges to help them to achieve two thirds of the much larger budget for apprenticeship funding that will be in place once the apprenticeship levy has been introduced.

In what was without doubt the best speech of this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) rightly said that Opposition Members should be careful before they sneer at apprenticeships in hairdressing and retail. We know that level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships increase people’s incomes by, on average, 11% and 16%, and Conservative Members will not sneer at those people and their hard work.

From the Opposition side of the House, we hear about money. It is their stock answer to everything. Indeed, it is their only answer to anything. The shadow Secretary of State waved a bloody shroud based on nothing more than her wild speculation about the spending review. The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) made a reasonable point about the need for some funding to support the implementation of the conclusions of area reviews, and she will be aware that we already provide interim funding for colleges in financial difficulties. We are absolutely aware of the need to provide funding to support the implementation of area reviews.

[Melanie Onn]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I am not going to give way to the hon. Lady.

The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) seemed to regret the fact that colleges can borrow money to invest in new facilities, whereas that is a key freedom that I know colleges enjoy and make use of. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) decried cuts in adult learning budgets, but then criticised the inclusion of 35-year-olds in apprenticeships. I have to admit that I was confused by his argument. If apprenticeships are not right for adults, why is adult learning so much better?

The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) said that Coventry City college, which is indeed a fine college, wants to bid for more apprenticeship funding this year. I can tell him that fortunately we will be able to meet some bids for growth funding for apprenticeships in the remainder of this financial year. I hope that the college has made such a bid. I cannot promise that it will be successful, but if the college is as good as he says it is, it has a very good chance. We heard further contributions from the hon. Members for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and others.

This debate has distilled the essential difference between the Government and the Opposition. The Government stand for, and propose, reform—reform of institutions to make them stronger, and reform of technical and professional courses to make them more valuable. That is why I am so delighted that an excellent former Labour Minister, Lord Sainsbury, will chair our independent panel, along with Professor Alison Wolf and Bev Robinson, the principal from the local college of the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), to ensure that we improve technical and professional courses. We propose reform of apprenticeships to increase their number, quality and impact on the future earnings of our constituents.

What the Opposition stand for, and propose, is money—from higher taxes, from higher borrowing and from higher debts that the next generation will have to pay. I will ask the House to reject the motion tonight because there is a clear choice. We will invest in the future generation and their capacity to earn money for themselves by investing in apprenticeships and making apprenticeships better, longer and more rigorous. The Opposition will load more debt on the next generation’s backs. The Opposition will ask future generations, the people who will attend these colleges that the Opposition want to support, to pay for their decisions now, and for their failure to get borrowing under control. We will not go down that path: we will invest in reform and improvement, and I therefore reject the motion.

Question put.