Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Hopkins and Matt Western

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

10. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the future of the steelmaking industry in Wales. [R]

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

11. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the future of the steelmaking industry in Wales.

Automotive Industry

Debate between Rachel Hopkins and Matt Western

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). As someone who is passionate about this industry, I would say that there is huge support for talking up the sector on the Opposition side of the Chamber, as we have heard in the contributions of colleagues over the last couple of hours.

When I think of the sector’s contribution to UK plc, I think about the alloy wheels being made in Fort William, the Ferodo brakes being made in Chapel-en-le-Frith and the panels being beaten out in various parts of the country. I think about the likes of the factory just around the corner from where I live that makes the gearbox for the Bugatti Veyron, no less. Up and down this country we have some of the finest companies and the finest engineers making products, contributing to the supply chain and to the original equipment manufacturers that produce vehicles of all sorts, from motorbikes to diggers.

I also pay tribute to a great old friend of mine who we all remember, Jack Dromey, who called this automotive industry the “jewel in the crown” of UK manufacturing. That is something I have always believed, and indeed I spent a great deal of my life working in it.

On the point about the few contributions made about the sector in this place, back in May 2018 I held a parliamentary debate on the subject, and I was disappointed by the number of contributions from certain quarters. Five years ago, I talked about the challenges that the industry faced, and the points I made then are hardly different from some of the points that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has highlighted in its five-point plan.

The real fear across the industry is that the Government are not acknowledging the importance of the sector, and certainly have not over recent years. Until a few years ago, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) had an industrial strategy, which was recognised by the industry, but that has, of course, fallen by the wayside. Indeed, I attended the SMMT international conference a year ago. A collection of industry heads from around the world, as well as UK bosses from right across the sector, were assembled for a full day’s conference. The keynote speech was given by the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor. Sadly, it lasted a minute and 40 seconds.

I will not put words into the mouths of others, but the reality is that, that day, the industry felt utterly disrespected by this place. The Government are the Government, but the industry thought, “Well, what does Parliament really think about the contribution we are making to the UK economy?” Such a short keynote speech was felt, by Japanese or European colleagues who came over here to listen to the UK Chancellor, to devalue the industry’s work, as well as its investment. Unfortunately, those signals are very badly read in boardrooms across the world because, of course, the UK industry is made up of companies that are headquartered in Japan, Paris, Munich or wherever, and they listen carefully to the messages coming out of this place. That is important.

To give credit where it is due, Margaret Thatcher actually recognised the importance of the UK industry by bailing out British Leyland back in the day, which saved brands such as Jaguar Land Rover and Mini, as well by attracting inward investment from the likes of Honda, Toyota and Nissan. Sadly, we have lost investment from Honda, Ford and others in the past few years. That is why we are at a challenging point for the industry’s future.

We are blessed to have some great companies here, including Jaguar Land Rover, Stellantis, as we have heard, and BMW Mini. Then, of course, we have luxury and performance manufacturers such as Rolls-Royce, Bentley, McLaren, Aston Martin—just down the road from me—and all the other myriad specialist companies, including Lotus, Caterham, Morgan and so on. The sector is even wider if we include the likes of Norton, Triumph—about which we have heard—JCB and Caterpillar, as well the bus and coach manufacturers that have a presence here and in Northern Ireland, such as Wrightbus, which are doing some superb product development and addressing the need to get to net zero.

The sector is so valuable. It can contribute £67 billion in turnover and £14 billion in added value to the UK economy, and it typically invests £3 billion a year in research and development. However, the industry has been so reliant on fossil fuels that the transition to net zero is a critical point in its history. I will outline some of the issues, one of which is the political stability—or the lack of it—to revive and attract the business investment that we need. Of course, I welcome this morning’s announcement by Renault-Geely, but we are really behind the curve. I will also pick up on a few challenges such as the ZEV mandate and the new trading relationship with Europe, including, of course, the rules of origin issue, which is so critical. I will then touch on energy and the other import costs that are a real drag on investment in the UK, as well as the need for an EV and hydrogen infrastructure mandate if we are to get the sector going.

The transition needs a clear industrial strategy; it needs to become a political priority. Sadly, the words “industrial strategy” have not really been part of the Government’s vernacular over the past few years, as we have heard. Make UK said that, under this Government, we have had a decade of “flip-flopping” on industrial strategy. Do they back business or not? Boris Johnson clearly did not, going by his immortal words. Of course, we had the kamikaze Budget of last autumn. That is all damaging to the way in which the global industry perceives the UK. This is not talking down the UK; it is the reality of the messages coming out of this place. Businesses want security and stability before they invest for, say, 30 or 40 years. Think about the Toyota plant at Burnaston, which has just celebrated its 30th year—that is a fantastic achievement. Nissan, of course, is that bit older, but those are really prized assets that we have.

Turning to net zero and the Government’s ambitions with electric vehicles, we need to press on that issue and ramp up battery manufacture. As we have heard, we are way behind compared with other countries, but we also need to support wider adoption of vehicles. The plans we have—offering interest-free loans and potentially trialling a national scrappage scheme—are important. However, as I said, the charging point network for EV is way behind schedule. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) made the point that more EV charging points are being installed in Westminster than in the north of the country. That is quite a sobering statistic, and where we do have those few chargers, they are all too often poorly maintained. There needs to be a mandate to ensure that that infrastructure is delivered, not just for EV but for hydrogen hubs. We have made something like a tenth of the investment in hydrogen hubs that Germany has, which of course will be aimed at future heavy goods vehicles and other mass transport systems. Until recently, we had 12 hubs; that number has now fallen to six, I think, so we are going backwards when it comes to hydrogen hubs.

We have talked about battery production, and heard the passionate speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). As someone who went to his constituency 40 years ago, I know how important that gigafactory would be for his constituents, and I would love to see that happen. The technologies are moving on rapidly: we can look at the work being done by Warwick Manufacturing Group, which is leading the development of battery technology, or by UKBIC, which is the industrialisation centre just outside Coventry. The UK absolutely could be at the forefront of that work, but we need the investments to make it happen, and as demonstrated by Britishvolt, that has just not been happening. There are some questions about what is happening with Recharge Industries as well.

I touched on hydrogen; Members have also made points about sustainable fuels, and there is something to be said about what could be done in that sector. The motorsport industry is doing a huge amount of work exploring those technologies, and again, we are very much at the forefront of what can be done in that space—how existing internal combustion engines could be used with that kind of fuel to bring them close to net zero. That innovation is so important, whether it be through motorsport or our higher education institutions. We heard about HORIBA MIRA from the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) and we have motorsport valley down the M40, but the Advanced Propulsion Centre at Warwick is also doing some fascinating work, supporting new companies with emerging technologies to make them commercially viable.

As the Government will know, there are some real concerns about the ZEV mandate, certainly about the tradeable element and what it will mean if manufacturers miss their targets, as well as what those targets will be after 2030. Then, of course, we have the rules of origin, which—as we have heard from colleagues, particularly “the Stellantis three”—are a real and critical hit to the sector. I am not sure whether I am a Stellantis fourth in disguise.

[Rachel Hopkins]

In spirit.

[Matt Western]

Maybe in spirit, yes—that is exactly what it is. Those tariffs will be real tariffs, going both ways, but they will particularly impact on battery electric vehicles. That is why Labour would prioritise an agreement with the EU, because we have to deliver a modern border and customs framework that will facilitate smooth and cost-effective trade.

I will make a couple of other points. We need the skills to make this all happen, both in the network of our dealers and in our factories and our manufacturing sector, but we also need clean energy. We have such a cost disadvantage in this country compared with France and a lot of Europe, but particularly when compared with Spain, where energy costs something like a tenth of what it does here. That is why Labour will launch an urgent mission for a fossil fuel-free electricity system by 2030, because we have to reduce the cost to businesses and to EV drivers as well. When we see the work that President Biden is doing through the IRA, we realise just how much can be done with a vision, and that is what I think is frustrating so many want-to-be investors in this country.

In closing, I come back to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), which I thought was a clinical dissection of the challenges facing the sector. This is a really important sector—from e-mobility to motorbikes and diggers—for the value it provides not just in the abstract to UK plc, but as I cited in my opening remarks, to communities and constituencies up and down the country. When I speak to businesses in the sector, which is virtually every week and certainly every fortnight, they impress upon me the desperate need for some clarity because they want to make long-term decisions. These are companies such as JLR, Stellantis, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Mini and others, and decisions have been made by boards elsewhere around the world. That is why, with colleagues, I will always talk up this industry. It is an industry that I think is so important to our future, and an industry at the point of transition. However, we will be honest about the challenges. We must champion the prospects and what this country can provide to them, because we want the investment, and the industry wants us to provide regulatory, political and economic stability.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Rachel Hopkins and Matt Western

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Rachel Hopkins]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. It is appropriate that I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a governor of the fantastic Luton Sixth Form College. I support the speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, the shadow Minister; I was also very disappointed.

The irony is not lost on me that a slightly less democratic place wanted to put more democracy into this Bill, which I was very pleased to see. The Government amendments take out democracy by removing the references to local authorities and mayoral combined authorities. I heard the Minister’s comments about expecting it to be collaborative and wanting good will between the different organisations. In order to ensure that all parts—the legs of the chair, so to speak—are in the Bill, the amendments made in the House of Lords should stay there.

I have a great passion for local authorities and the role they play in adult education. They have already been doing great work, understanding their own areas. In the general debate the point was raised about the role that locally elected leaders, local authorities and combined authorities play in place making, and the skills agenda is key to that. One of the points that has not been referred to specifically comes under amendment 7, which would take out the reference to the “long-term national skills” strategies. That is wholly important and not just secured through local businesses thinking about the skills they need roughly now. Retaining that reference to the long term and the statutory responsibilities of local authorities and combined authorities in the Bill would create a much firmer and stronger situation in our local areas. I speak as a former councillor on Luton Council. Great work is done at local grassroots levels.

[Matt Western]

It is generous of my hon. Friend to give way. She was in full flow and I did not want to interrupt her. In response to her point, it is fine to consult and get the views of businesses in developing a plan, but they do not necessarily know what is coming down the track: future opportunities, future business and future sectors that do not even exist yet. That is why it is important to keep as broad a base as possible. That was one of the points she was making well, but I wanted to amplify that.

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for that fantastic intervention. It leads on to a couple of other points about those who are not in employment, and particularly local authorities with responsibility for young people who are NEET—not in education, employment or training. It is absolutely vital that those are addressed and that they have a formal seat at the table in that area. Equally, on my hon. Friend’s point about looking to the future, local authorities do a great amount of work to understand their populations and trends so they can project how many young people are coming through or whether school or training places will be needed. Employers do not always have easy access to that, but local authorities need to have an equal seat at that table in developing the plans, rather than just being tucked away in some statutory guidance. We know what happens with guidance; it is just guidance and it is often ignored.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins]

My hon. Friend also must have eyes in the back of her head, because one of the other points I want to talk about is health and social care. Again, I will talk about my fantastic home town of Luton. Someone can study for a BTEC in health and social care at Luton Sixth Form College, or study at the University of Bedfordshire and get practical skills training as a nurse, paramedic or midwife, before going on to be a nurse, paramedic or midwife at Luton and Dunstable University Hospital. All of those bodies will not be included in developing a skills plan if they are not set out in the Bill. I want to see them included, so that everyone feels that there is equality of partnership work, to ensure that what is needed is recognised.

I will not prolong my remarks any longer, but I just want to reiterate the points made from the Opposition Front Bench and say that taking out these important clauses that were inserted by the Lords weakens the Bill.

[Matt Western]

What is concerning about these amendments is the direction of travel. What is it that the Government are trying to achieve by removing these Lords amendments, because they seem to be incredibly positive and constructive about getting the right and relevant organisations across the piece to be involved in the development of a plan? The idea of a LSIP is a very good thing, but it must draw on the skills, knowledge and expertise of these bodies from a region, so that they can bring them to bear on the design of a LSIP, to ensure that the present and future needs of a region can be met.

My fear, having listened to the debate over the last few minutes, is that there is a horrible parallel with what is going on with the integrated care systems, whereby we are seeing more involvement by the private sector and a diminution of the provision from the public sector. When we look at individual placement and support, or IPS, we see that there is an absolute withdrawal of the public sector. The public sector will also have little to no say on what will happen with the delivery of skills in a region. That runs counter to what the Local Government Association believes.

The LGA says in its written evidence that it believes

“the reforms need to be implemented as part of an integrated, place-based approach.”

We have also heard evidence from the Association of Colleges, which said it was

“disappointed the Government have tabled an amendment to remove”

the reference to post-16 education providers. It is quite rightly disappointed.

Warwickshire College Group, based in my town, is a huge college that covers Warwickshire—I think it is still the sixth largest in the country, so it is a college of some substance. It wrote to me to say that it wants to ensure that colleges are co-constructing LSIPs with employers and that it very much needs to be involved, because it is within the power of colleges to further think strategically—that comes back to the point I was making earlier—and innovate for the skills needs of their communities.

We have also heard from the Workers Education Association. Its submission said:

“We are pleased that the Bill…should “draw on the views of”…further education institutions, community learning providers”,

and others, and that:

“We hope to see this retained and strengthened in the…Act.”

Then we get to organisations such as Central YMCA, which said that, as an independent training provider, it believes it is vital that LSIPs should draw on the views of organisations such as themselves, as well as those of schools and FE colleges.

The LGA believes that the Lords amendment should be maintained, to ensure that all employer representative bodies across England should

“work with local democratic organisations to better coordinate provision and align pathways of progression for learners.”

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Rachel Hopkins and Matt Western

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Rachel Hopkins]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. It is appropriate that I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a governor of the fantastic Luton Sixth Form College. I support the speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, the shadow Minister; I was also very disappointed.

The irony is not lost on me that a slightly less democratic place wanted to put more democracy into this Bill, which I was very pleased to see. The Government amendments take out democracy by removing the references to local authorities and mayoral combined authorities. I heard the Minister’s comments about expecting it to be collaborative and wanting good will between the different organisations. In order to ensure that all parts—the legs of the chair, so to speak—are in the Bill, the amendments made in the House of Lords should stay there.

I have a great passion for local authorities and the role they play in adult education. They have already been doing great work, understanding their own areas. In the general debate the point was raised about the role that locally elected leaders, local authorities and combined authorities play in place making, and the skills agenda is key to that. One of the points that has not been referred to specifically comes under amendment 7, which would take out the reference to the “long-term national skills” strategies. That is wholly important and not just secured through local businesses thinking about the skills they need roughly now. Retaining that reference to the long term and the statutory responsibilities of local authorities and combined authorities in the Bill would create a much firmer and stronger situation in our local areas. I speak as a former councillor on Luton Council. Great work is done at local grassroots levels.

[Matt Western]

It is generous of my hon. Friend to give way. She was in full flow and I did not want to interrupt her. In response to her point, it is fine to consult and get the views of businesses in developing a plan, but they do not necessarily know what is coming down the track: future opportunities, future business and future sectors that do not even exist yet. That is why it is important to keep as broad a base as possible. That was one of the points she was making well, but I wanted to amplify that.

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for that fantastic intervention. It leads on to a couple of other points about those who are not in employment, and particularly local authorities with responsibility for young people who are NEET—not in education, employment or training. It is absolutely vital that those are addressed and that they have a formal seat at the table in that area. Equally, on my hon. Friend’s point about looking to the future, local authorities do a great amount of work to understand their populations and trends so they can project how many young people are coming through or whether school or training places will be needed. Employers do not always have easy access to that, but local authorities need to have an equal seat at that table in developing the plans, rather than just being tucked away in some statutory guidance. We know what happens with guidance; it is just guidance and it is often ignored.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins]

My hon. Friend also must have eyes in the back of her head, because one of the other points I want to talk about is health and social care. Again, I will talk about my fantastic home town of Luton. Someone can study for a BTEC in health and social care at Luton Sixth Form College, or study at the University of Bedfordshire and get practical skills training as a nurse, paramedic or midwife, before going on to be a nurse, paramedic or midwife at Luton and Dunstable University Hospital. All of those bodies will not be included in developing a skills plan if they are not set out in the Bill. I want to see them included, so that everyone feels that there is equality of partnership work, to ensure that what is needed is recognised.

I will not prolong my remarks any longer, but I just want to reiterate the points made from the Opposition Front Bench and say that taking out these important clauses that were inserted by the Lords weakens the Bill.

[Matt Western]

What is concerning about these amendments is the direction of travel. What is it that the Government are trying to achieve by removing these Lords amendments, because they seem to be incredibly positive and constructive about getting the right and relevant organisations across the piece to be involved in the development of a plan? The idea of a LSIP is a very good thing, but it must draw on the skills, knowledge and expertise of these bodies from a region, so that they can bring them to bear on the design of a LSIP, to ensure that the present and future needs of a region can be met.

My fear, having listened to the debate over the last few minutes, is that there is a horrible parallel with what is going on with the integrated care systems, whereby we are seeing more involvement by the private sector and a diminution of the provision from the public sector. When we look at individual placement and support, or IPS, we see that there is an absolute withdrawal of the public sector. The public sector will also have little to no say on what will happen with the delivery of skills in a region. That runs counter to what the Local Government Association believes.

The LGA says in its written evidence that it believes

“the reforms need to be implemented as part of an integrated, place-based approach.”

We have also heard evidence from the Association of Colleges, which said it was

“disappointed the Government have tabled an amendment to remove”

the reference to post-16 education providers. It is quite rightly disappointed.

Warwickshire College Group, based in my town, is a huge college that covers Warwickshire—I think it is still the sixth largest in the country, so it is a college of some substance. It wrote to me to say that it wants to ensure that colleges are co-constructing LSIPs with employers and that it very much needs to be involved, because it is within the power of colleges to further think strategically—that comes back to the point I was making earlier—and innovate for the skills needs of their communities.

We have also heard from the Workers Education Association. Its submission said:

“We are pleased that the Bill…should “draw on the views of”…further education institutions, community learning providers”,

and others, and that:

“We hope to see this retained and strengthened in the…Act.”

Then we get to organisations such as Central YMCA, which said that, as an independent training provider, it believes it is vital that LSIPs should draw on the views of organisations such as themselves, as well as those of schools and FE colleges.

The LGA believes that the Lords amendment should be maintained, to ensure that all employer representative bodies across England should

“work with local democratic organisations to better coordinate provision and align pathways of progression for learners.”

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Rachel Hopkins and Matt Western

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Rachel Hopkins]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Exactly that—this is an employer representative body. The Bill must be open and explicit about ensuring that the public and voluntary sectors, and others—small businesses, the self-employed—have a seat at the table, through whatever mechanism. It is for them to outline how they wish to do that, but perhaps through something like the Federation of Small Businesses. I think that is vital, because otherwise it just gets lost in the grain. If the measure is to be a success in pushing forward on the skills agenda, we need to be explicit about who is at the table, who is shaping the plans and which areas. I hope that the Minister addresses my comments in his response.

[Matt Western]

Briefly, the amendments seek to reflect the reality on the ground, as we have heard. Let us think about HS2 and what has been happening. We have had years—decades—of plans for HS2, but we have seen skills sucked out of the regions so that we cannot get normal construction projects completed. That is because there has not been the co-ordination that there should have been. How was that allowed to happen? The result has been a huge impact on our regional economies.

Amendment 35 looks at the inclusion of public and private sectors as employers on the ERB. How can we not include the national health service, for example, and yet are able to include Virgin Care or Circle and others? It is bizarre that the public sector is not included.

On linking to the public sector, amendment 46 also seeks to include other employers, such as SMEs, the self-employed—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said—and public and third-sector employers. Right2Learn, in a written submission, stated:

“We believe it is critical that local skills and training strategies need to look far more widely at including third sector organisations, as well as HE and FE providers. There must be far more opportunities for the direct involvement of SME clusters and organisations and the so-called gig economy which the Taylor Commission highlighted, including co-operatives and self-employed.”

I have said before, we must include charity-heavy provision and I gave the example of the Workers’ Educational Association.

Amendment 46 states that we need to include the third sector and the local health boards. As I said, we have seen how good that can be through the pandemic. Local primary care networks and public health in our localities really stepped up and showed that what they do is what they know, which is their regions, their populations and their geographies, to deliver good services. The same would apply to the provision of skills across our regions.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Rachel Hopkins and Matt Western

Committee Debates: 2nd Sitting & Committee stage
Tuesday 30th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Rachel Hopkins]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Exactly that—this is an employer representative body. The Bill must be open and explicit about ensuring that the public and voluntary sectors, and others—small businesses, the self-employed—have a seat at the table, through whatever mechanism. It is for them to outline how they wish to do that, but perhaps through something like the Federation of Small Businesses. I think that is vital, because otherwise it just gets lost in the grain. If the measure is to be a success in pushing forward on the skills agenda, we need to be explicit about who is at the table, who is shaping the plans and which areas. I hope that the Minister addresses my comments in his response.

[Matt Western]

Briefly, the amendments seek to reflect the reality on the ground, as we have heard. Let us think about HS2 and what has been happening. We have had years—decades—of plans for HS2, but we have seen skills sucked out of the regions so that we cannot get normal construction projects completed. That is because there has not been the co-ordination that there should have been. How was that allowed to happen? The result has been a huge impact on our regional economies.

Amendment 35 looks at the inclusion of public and private sectors as employers on the ERB. How can we not include the national health service, for example, and yet are able to include Virgin Care or Circle and others? It is bizarre that the public sector is not included.

On linking to the public sector, amendment 46 also seeks to include other employers, such as SMEs, the self-employed—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said—and public and third-sector employers. Right2Learn, in a written submission, stated:

“We believe it is critical that local skills and training strategies need to look far more widely at including third sector organisations, as well as HE and FE providers. There must be far more opportunities for the direct involvement of SME clusters and organisations and the so-called gig economy which the Taylor Commission highlighted, including co-operatives and self-employed.”

I have said before, we must include charity-heavy provision and I gave the example of the Workers’ Educational Association.

Amendment 46 states that we need to include the third sector and the local health boards. As I said, we have seen how good that can be through the pandemic. Local primary care networks and public health in our localities really stepped up and showed that what they do is what they know, which is their regions, their populations and their geographies, to deliver good services. The same would apply to the provision of skills across our regions.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Rachel Hopkins and Matt Western

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

Rachel Hopkins

-

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. It is appropriate that I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a governor of the fantastic Luton Sixth Form College. I support the speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, the shadow Minister; I was also very disappointed.

The irony is not lost on me that a slightly less democratic place wanted to put more democracy into this Bill, which I was very pleased to see. The Government amendments take out democracy by removing the references to local authorities and mayoral combined authorities. I heard the Minister’s comments about expecting it to be collaborative and wanting good will between the different organisations. In order to ensure that all parts—the legs of the chair, so to speak—are in the Bill, the amendments made in the House of Lords should stay there.

I have a great passion for local authorities and the role they play in adult education. They have already been doing great work, understanding their own areas. In the general debate the point was raised about the role that locally elected leaders, local authorities and combined authorities play in place making, and the skills agenda is key to that. One of the points that has not been referred to specifically comes under amendment 7, which would take out the reference to the “long-term national skills” strategies. That is wholly important and not just secured through local businesses thinking about the skills they need roughly now. Retaining that reference to the long term and the statutory responsibilities of local authorities and combined authorities in the Bill would create a much firmer and stronger situation in our local areas. I speak as a former councillor on Luton Council. Great work is done at local grassroots levels.

Matt Western

- - Excerpts

It is generous of my hon. Friend to give way. She was in full flow and I did not want to interrupt her. In response to her point, it is fine to consult and get the views of businesses in developing a plan, but they do not necessarily know what is coming down the track: future opportunities, future business and future sectors that do not even exist yet. That is why it is important to keep as broad a base as possible. That was one of the points she was making well, but I wanted to amplify that.

Rachel Hopkins

-

I thank my hon. Friend for that fantastic intervention. It leads on to a couple of other points about those who are not in employment, and particularly local authorities with responsibility for young people who are NEET—not in education, employment or training. It is absolutely vital that those are addressed and that they have a formal seat at the table in that area. Equally, on my hon. Friend’s point about looking to the future, local authorities do a great amount of work to understand their populations and trends so they can project how many young people are coming through or whether school or training places will be needed. Employers do not always have easy access to that, but local authorities need to have an equal seat at that table in developing the plans, rather than just being tucked away in some statutory guidance. We know what happens with guidance; it is just guidance and it is often ignored.

--- Later in debate ---

Rachel Hopkins

-

My hon. Friend also must have eyes in the back of her head, because one of the other points I want to talk about is health and social care. Again, I will talk about my fantastic home town of Luton. Someone can study for a BTEC in health and social care at Luton Sixth Form College, or study at the University of Bedfordshire and get practical skills training as a nurse, paramedic or midwife, before going on to be a nurse, paramedic or midwife at Luton and Dunstable University Hospital. All of those bodies will not be included in developing a skills plan if they are not set out in the Bill. I want to see them included, so that everyone feels that there is equality of partnership work, to ensure that what is needed is recognised.

I will not prolong my remarks any longer, but I just want to reiterate the points made from the Opposition Front Bench and say that taking out these important clauses that were inserted by the Lords weakens the Bill.

Matt Western

- - Excerpts

What is concerning about these amendments is the direction of travel. What is it that the Government are trying to achieve by removing these Lords amendments, because they seem to be incredibly positive and constructive about getting the right and relevant organisations across the piece to be involved in the development of a plan? The idea of a LSIP is a very good thing, but it must draw on the skills, knowledge and expertise of these bodies from a region, so that they can bring them to bear on the design of a LSIP, to ensure that the present and future needs of a region can be met.

My fear, having listened to the debate over the last few minutes, is that there is a horrible parallel with what is going on with the integrated care systems, whereby we are seeing more involvement by the private sector and a diminution of the provision from the public sector. When we look at individual placement and support, or IPS, we see that there is an absolute withdrawal of the public sector. The public sector will also have little to no say on what will happen with the delivery of skills in a region. That runs counter to what the Local Government Association believes.

The LGA says in its written evidence that it believes

“the reforms need to be implemented as part of an integrated, place-based approach.”

We have also heard evidence from the Association of Colleges, which said it was

“disappointed the Government have tabled an amendment to remove”

the reference to post-16 education providers. It is quite rightly disappointed.

Warwickshire College Group, based in my town, is a huge college that covers Warwickshire—I think it is still the sixth largest in the country, so it is a college of some substance. It wrote to me to say that it wants to ensure that colleges are co-constructing LSIPs with employers and that it very much needs to be involved, because it is within the power of colleges to further think strategically—that comes back to the point I was making earlier—and innovate for the skills needs of their communities.

We have also heard from the Workers Education Association. Its submission said:

“We are pleased that the Bill…should “draw on the views of”…further education institutions, community learning providers”,

and others, and that:

“We hope to see this retained and strengthened in the…Act.”

Then we get to organisations such as Central YMCA, which said that, as an independent training provider, it believes it is vital that LSIPs should draw on the views of organisations such as themselves, as well as those of schools and FE colleges.

The LGA believes that the Lords amendment should be maintained, to ensure that all employer representative bodies across England should

“work with local democratic organisations to better coordinate provision and align pathways of progression for learners.”

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between Rachel Hopkins and Matt Western

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). I send my good wishes to the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith).

I listened with great interest and, dare I say it, increasing incredulity to the speech by the Leader of the House, particularly his comments on the appointment of the Boundary Commission, given the context of the vote that we are to have tonight on the Committee on Standards, but also events surrounding the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the appointment of the Chair of the Liaison Committee, the appointment of the chief executive of Track and Trace and the role of Kate Bingham; the list is endless. I appreciate, however, that there is a long-overdue need for us to review the boundaries. The 2011 proposals were made by a coalition Government under the leadership of David Cameron, but I never understood the desire to reduce the number of Members of Parliament from 650 to 600 while increasing the number of unelected Members in the other place to around 800 to 850—I do not quite get that, in terms of the argument around democracy.

Given the time, I want to focus on Lords amendments 7 and 8. Amendment 7 is about the deviation from quota from 5% to 7%. I would stress—as has been done widely around the House, certainly by Members on the Opposition side of the Chamber—the importance of community and identity, and relations between those communities.

Warwick and Leamington is a very good example. When the previous review was undertaken, there were moves to divide the constituency, so that Warwick would become part of a constituency with Stratford, and Leamington would become part of a constituency with Kenilworth. If you knew the geography, you would say that Warwick and Leamington were twinned; they are close relations. There is a symbiosis between those two towns that makes them mutually dependent. That desire to change the boundaries would have driven those closely linked towns apart.

The Council of Europe, through the Venice Commission, said that the standard permissible tolerance should be plus or minus 10%. I believe that is crucial in understanding the communities that we represent, because that is what it is about—the people, and how they have formed communities. The 5% rule creates too small a tolerance to take account of that. Written evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s inquiry noted that the 5% rule caused huge disruption. It noted that the reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600 was not a cause of substantial disruption, but it was mostly

“caused by the introduction of the uniform national quota and the 5% tolerance.”

In the study of the 2013 review, the Committee found that the easing of the tolerance to 7% to 9% gave the commissioners much more flexibility.

Looking at Wales, which has perhaps the most constituencies to lose, the topography and the geography are critical. They shape our communities. They shape our economies. It is impossible to understand that when you are looking, perhaps, at the levels of Somerset or at cities such as London—the way in which those community ties are formed. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) cited Rhondda at 50,000, but we really do have to revisit how the communities, say in the valleys, are formed. They face one way. They are discrete, distinct communities. We must not mess with the arbitrary and artificial association. You only have to look at the US congressional districts to see exactly what that means.

Finally, I commend Lords amendment 8, which perhaps we might refer to as the Lord Shutt amendment, and the work that went into it. We must connect with young people. They are so disillusioned by democracy. We must use this opportunity to drive young people’s engagement with the political process, That is why that amendment is fundamentally important, and why I shall vote for it.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

I will make a few final comments, because many have been made in the Chamber today. The effectiveness and legitimacy of the democratic process is contingent on the public’s confidence in the processes and the commitment of elected representatives to upholding its principles. So I agree that a boundary review must go ahead, as the current constituency boundaries are two decades old, but it is crucial that the review strengthens the functioning of democracy. Lords amendments 7 and 8 are important steps forward in defending and advancing the key principles of representation and voting rights in our democratic process.

I reiterate the important point that I and many others made on Second and Third Reading of the Bill, and here today, that the Government could still change course on amendment 7, which would widen the variance from quota from 5% to 7.5%. As a boundary geek, having worked for the Local Government Commission on ward boundaries, I have done the work of trying to make good boundaries. A strict 5% inhibits the ability of the Boundary Commission to invoke common sense when devising constituencies that protect local ties, reflect local authority boundaries and recognise natural topography, as has been said. Whether it is hills, valleys and rivers, or motorways, main roads and green space, it is really important that we take all of this into account when creating good constituencies to represent our communities.

From my work experience, I understand how the public respond to well-made and to poor boundaries, but it is not just the boundaries: as I understand it, it is also sensible and coherent constituencies that recognise local ties, as against those that look strange, that are strange and that do not reflect community ties. Giving that little extra leeway will give the Boundary Commission greater scope accurately to group community identities, connections and geographical areas. It is not just to do with the fairness of the vote. We also need to talk about the fairness of the representation when we are elected, recognising, for example, how much more difficult it is for Members in the valleys of Wales to get around their constituencies compared with those in a condensed urban constituency such as my own.

The Government have recognised the principle of flexibility in the arrangements that have been made for Isle of Wight and Ynys Môn. I hope that that could be recognised further in creating good constituencies, so we could adopt that slightly higher flexibility to avoid the ratcheting effect, as I call it—or, as it was nicely put earlier today, “the butterfly effect”—where just one constituency could have that extra tolerance. It is important to avoid a number of constituencies not accurately reflecting their constituents.

I also wish to speak in favour of Lords amendment 8. Much has been said about the fact that turnout is healthy for our democracy, which I agree with, and that the ability to vote is a right, not a privilege. Improving the completeness of electoral registers by enabling the Government to ask local authority registration officers to add 16-year-olds to the electoral register when they get their NI number, or ensuring that they are provided with information on how to apply to join the electoral register would be a significant step forward in expanding voter registration and would enable greater participation among young voters. Although the Government are not willing to do the right thing and introduce votes at 16, which I am in favour of, improving voter registration for young voters is a basic, non-controversial change, which could see a vital increase in the number of young people voting. I hasten to add that, when others tell me not to do something, I often think there must be something in it. So, young people, think about why they do not want to encourage you to be on the electoral register.