Valedictory Debate

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and John Hayes

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), with whom I worked well when she was a Minister. She has a strong interest in Durham. Although he is not in his place, I wish to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who was a brilliant and dedicated Minister, and this House will really feel his loss. I wish at the beginning to put on record my congratulations to the new Speaker and to pay tribute to former Speaker Bercow for all he has done in recent years to uphold the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

Without doubt the greatest privilege of my life has been to serve as the MP for the beautiful City of Durham, and I want to thank all the House of Commons staff, including the Library staff, for the huge help they have given me over the years—they are definitely the unsung heroes of our democracy. My life here has also been hugely helped by my friends, those in the Chamber today, colleagues in the north-east and, in particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), for West Ham (Lyn Brown), for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). I have made long-lasting friendships that will endure beyond Parliament.

Of course, I also want to thank my fantastic staff over the years. I thank those in Westminster—Richard, Emma, Georgie, Rafi and Robyn. I also thank those in Durham—Paul, Nick and especially Christine, who has been with me since the beginning. I simply could not have done the job without them. In an age of increased automation, they are the kind, helpful voice on the end of the telephone, and they have done so much to sort out the problems for my constituents over the years.

I also want to thank my family—Tim, Maeve, Tom and Albie, and my many brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, and extended family—for their help and encouragement over the past 14 years. I intend to have more time to see them now, and I just hope they think that that is a good idea.

In Parliament, I have worked closely with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the all-party group on the United Nations to improve our development policies and ensure that the world, not just this country, is better governed. Again, I think that the work of the staff in the CPA and IPU often goes unrecognised, and we should thank them. In here, I have relentlessly raised a number of issues that emerge from my Durham constituency: the need for more money for education; the need for universal free school meals—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West for all the work she has done and will continue to do on that; the need for better licensing and planning policies; the need for prison reform and to look at how the penal system affects women; and the need for a greater recognition of the value that universities bring to our society and economy. I hope to continue that work beyond Parliament.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I just want to say how much I enjoyed working with the hon. Lady in that mission, both when I was a shadow Minister when her party was in government and then as a Minister. She has done outstanding work in that regard and I shall miss her contribution to the House, as well as our professional relationship.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those lovely comments. He, too, was a great Minister, especially in education, where I worked closely with him.

Most importantly, I want to thank my constituents. Those at my constituency Labour party, like the rest of Durham residents, are wonderful and have been hugely supportive over the years. I hope they all know that I have fought hard to try to improve and protect our public services, to improve access to education and employment and to enhance Durham’s amazing architectural and cultural heritage. I will of course continue to champion the incredible cathedral, our world-class Durham University and the Durham Miners Association. But I want to give a note of warning to my successor: Durham is a very busy constituency, with lots of issues emerging from the city centre as well as the surrounding ex-mining villages, and my successor will need plenty of stamina.

In 2005, in my maiden speech, I quoted the writer Bill Bryson, who wrote of Durham:

“Why, it’s wonderful—a perfect little city… If you have never been to Durham, go there at once. Take my car. It’s wonderful.”

The major issue of our time, which I hope the next Parliament will address—in addition to sorting out the small issue of Brexit—is that of climate change and the climate emergency we face, so in 2019 I say, “Go to Durham, go there at once, but please don’t take a car. Get the train.”

I will of course hugely miss being the elected representative of all the wonderful communities that make up Durham. It really is a special place and deserves to be extremely well advocated for and cherished.

In winding up, I wish to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir David Lidington), who gave an amazing speech. He was right that in this Chamber we need to celebrate the diversity of this country, and we also need to respect those who have a view different from ours and to treat each other with courtesy. My experience of parliamentarians, regardless of their party, is that they work really hard—relentlessly—on behalf of their constituents. It is a pity that that is not better known in the country and not better represented in the media, because our democracy would be stronger for it.

I am really pleased that I have been able to give this speech today, and I look forward to the new opportunities that lie ahead.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and John Hayes

Monday 8th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to hear what I will say about the range of provisions in the Bill.

More alarmingly, the Bill could make things worse by diverting expenditure from the road network used by 67% of traffic. These are the very roads that need urgent attention in terms of the £12 billion funding black hole for potholes, not to mention measures to reduce congestion. Most tellingly, all this means that 91% of the public are dissatisfied with the state of the roads, which the Government surely need to address.

I am going to come on to the planning measures—or rather, the lack of them—in a minute, but it is obvious to everyone except this Government that meeting our infrastructure needs requires joined-up planning between strategic and local networks. That is the sort of devolution of powers that Labour is proposing—giving powers to local authorities, either singly or in combination, so that they can plan for the needs of the area—but we see no joined-up thinking coming from this Government. All the Bill does is to propose minor changes to the national infrastructure planning regime to allow two inspectors to sit on the panel of an examining authority and to allow the Secretary of State to make changes to development consent orders once they are made.

A recent report by the London School of Economics—one of the many recent reports on this topic—argues for a new approach to infrastructure in this country. Labour has grasped that, which is why we set up the Armitt review to look at how we should approach the planning and delivery of national infrastructure projects. Armitt accepts much of the Planning Act 2008, but argues for an independent national infrastructure commission and cross-party agreement to prevent the start-stop regime that is often experienced by major infrastructure projects. To tackle that, we shall table amendments in Committee to try to persuade the Government of the sense of adopting the Armitt proposals.

[Mr Hayes]

Just to be absolutely clear, the feasibility studies that we carried out on the major road schemes that I outlined were on the basis of a dialogue with all the local agencies through a series of stakeholder events in which I was involved personally and the proper analysis of local needs and how they interface with the major schemes. I would not want the hon. Lady to have the misguided impression that we were not diligent in the process by which we devised our roads strategy.

Higher Education

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and John Hayes

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman was not the Minister when funding for Aimhigher was at its highest, but he was when the funding fell. We understand his point.

The quality of achievement at state schools and the prior attainment of students is critical. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the success of black students in getting into Russell group universities. That is a matter of profound concern and something that the Government should look at, particularly in light of the recent research that he and I discussed yesterday. I want to see what we can do to address that issue.

I also wish to speak a little about the point made about arts subjects. It is important to understand that we will continue to support the arts. It was suggested that arts subjects will no longer receive funding, but we will continue to focus the Government subsidy for teaching on that.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I cannot give way; I do not have time. I apologise. We will continue to support the arts through the subsidy for teaching in universities.

I have a couple of other points. First, the increase in support for part-time learning will do more to widen participation than any other single measure. As the right hon. Gentleman and others know, disadvantaged people are disproportionately represented among part-time learners. Raising the income threshold to £21,000 will have a profound effect—

Building a High-Skilled Economy

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and John Hayes

Thursday 17th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

That requires not so much an answer as a seminar, but I shall try to summarise in a sentence or two what I might say at such a seminar. The problem in Britain has been threefold. First, we have not promoted apprenticeships as effectively as we should. Although the brand is strong among potential learners, employers and the public, it is clear that the previous Government did not believe in apprenticeships as much as we do. [Interruption.] Opposition Members complain but many people thought that the right hon. Member for Tottenham’s ministerial predecessor—a valued colleague and a good Minister—did FA for FE and was sent to the FO. I do not know whether Fanny Adams is unparliamentary language, but it is certainly true that in debates with that Minister I made it absolutely clear that we wanted to grow the number of apprenticeships, yet the Labour Government insisted on retaining a strong emphasis on what they regarded as their flagship training and skills product—Train to Gain, about which I shall speak a little more in a moment.

The second point in answer to my hon. Friend’s intervention is that although part of the problem is about marketing, part of it is about resource. We have decided to transfer a significant portion of the Train to Gain budget to apprenticeships, because we know the skills apprenticeships can confer. We know how long they take to learn and we know that people want them. We know employers like them. We know what they cost. That cannot be said of the Train to Gain programme, in which the previous Government placed so much faith.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I give way to the hon. Lady, who always takes such an assiduous interest in education matters.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I am sure we are all enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s theatrics this afternoon, but will he look at some evidence? In 2008-09, 240,000 people started apprenticeships, compared to 75,000 in 1997-98, so I do not think it is for Labour to take lectures from the Conservatives about the importance of apprenticeships.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Lady must not deceive new Members—[Interruption.] I know she would not do so—except inadvertently, of course; I take that as read—because newer Members might come to believe her suggestion—I put it no more strongly than that.

What the previous Government actually did was to reclassify what counted as an apprenticeship. In France and Germany, about which we heard a moment ago, all apprenticeships are at level 3, and they once were in Britain. When the Labour Government came to power, they reclassified level 2 qualifications as apprenticeships and then trumpeted the fact that there were more of them. As both the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen know, the level 3 numbers remained stubbornly rather less than was required, than the Government wanted and than employers knew they needed. So we should focus on level 3 apprenticeships if we wish to get a true comparison both of our previous performance and of international data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) for his maiden speech. He had no need to be nervous; it was an extremely entertaining and informative maiden speech. I thank him for his kind comments about his predecessor, Kali Mountford. On the Labour Benches, we think of Kali with great affection, so we thank him.

I am pleased that mention has been made of the “Skills for Growth” White Paper, which has been important in defining our skills needs for the next few decades. As the Minister knows, the White Paper put particular emphasis on vocational skills and argued for a dramatic expansion of advanced apprenticeships, particularly for young adults. It also argued for the skilling of adults who are already in employment and those seeking work, and for improving the quality of provision in our FE and other institutions.

At the same time, “Higher Ambitions” set out equally challenging demands for our university sector. It asked universities to work with the Higher Education Funding Council for England to devise new funding incentives so that we could deliver higher education programmes that were more acutely related to the needs of the economy, and to work with the UK Commission for Employment and Skills to identify where new programmes were needed to meet areas of low demand. It set out the need to improve the relationship between universities and businesses and, crucially, to build better relationships between universities and regional development agencies. I noticed that the Minister was very quiet on that subject today, but as the Government are about to destroy the whole RDA framework, I should be interested to hear what he has to say about how universities and FE colleges will work with whatever structure is set up to ensure that regional development continues.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Lady will want to know that we are entirely committed to ensuring consistency—indeed synergy—between the economic development functions of local authorities and the work of colleges and other providers. If she is straightforward, I think she will acknowledge that according to the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office, RDAs were not terribly effective in some of the work they did.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I hear what the Minister says, but the new Government still have some way to go in setting out more generally how they propose to build on Labour’s progress in upskilling and reskilling our population, and particularly in outlining how some of the more strategic objectives on skills shortages will be met at regional level. That may not be easily deliverable at local authority level, so the Government have some more thinking to do about our regions.

The progress made under Labour was recognised by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills in its national skills audit, published earlier this year:

“Significant progress has been made in raising the qualifications levels of the workforce and stimulating supply over the last ten years, so that compared to other OECD nations our supply of highly skilled people is likely to place us 10th in the OECD by 2020.”

When Labour left office we were on track to move up the OECD league table in terms of the advances we had made in skilling our population. There is thus a considerable challenge to the Government to maintain that progress.

Similarly, recent publications from Universities UK and the Russell group comment on the strength of the university sector, while arguing that if current standards and quality are to be maintained investment must continue. We may hear something about that in the Budget next week, but it remains to be seen whether protection will be given for education not only pre-19, but post-19, so that we continue to be internationally competitive.

Not only did the Labour Government invest heavily in education generally, including further and higher education, but that investment was accompanied by a strategy to widen participation, to raise aspirations and to ensure that all young people who felt they could benefit from a university or a level 4 education had the chance to do so. I have not yet heard from the new Government whether they will continue to have that high level of aspiration for our young people. The Leitch review very much led us in that strategy. The Minister mentioned the review in his opening speech, but he did not mention whether this Government would keep the very demanding Leitch targets, which stated that 90% or more of the working-age population should have a level 2 qualification, 68% should have a level 3 qualification and over 40% should have a qualification at level 4 or higher. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks those targets should stay in place.

Good progress was being made towards reaching those targets when Labour left office. The Liberal Democrats have often said—I often heard this during my election campaign—that although Labour had made advances in reskilling the population, those had been confined largely to the better-off. Interestingly, data from HEFCE show clearly that that is not the case. A HEFCE publication earlier this year, which looked at trends in young participation in higher education among different groups in England, stated that to overcome gaps in the data on disadvantage at an individual level, the study that it used looked at levels of disadvantage in local areas, taking figures from 8,000 census wards across England. The authors of the study also selected a range of indicators, and they said that, looking across the indicators, they had to conclude that since the mid-2000s young people from disadvantaged areas are substantially more likely to enter HE, that most measures of the gap in participation between most and least disadvantaged areas had fallen, and that the majority of additional entrants to HE have come from more disadvantaged areas. That means that Labour was not only upskilling the population, but it was extending access to higher education to those who had not previously been able to benefit from it. That is another substantial challenge for the new Government: they must—and we will be watching whether they continue to do so—extend opportunities and widen participation in the way that Labour did.

The audit that I mentioned earlier also talked about the importance of increasing skill levels further and identified key areas where there are skill shortages: in management and leadership, in professional skills, at the technician and equivalent level, at intermediate vocational levels and care services, and in customer service and general employability skills. It is important that we continue to make good those skill shortages.

The audit also identified key sectors where we need to be improving the skills levels of our young people and work force in the future if we are to remain internationally competitive. It was interesting to see the areas that had been outlined, which I think are familiar to all of us in the Chamber. They have been identified as low carbon; advanced manufacturing; engineering and construction; financial and professional services; the digital economy; life sciences and pharmaceuticals; the creative sector; care services; and retail, hospitality, leisure and tourism.

Our university and FE sectors are in a sense already embracing this brave new world, because they have already started to think of new ways of delivering courses that give much greater flexibility. I pay tribute to New College Durham for pioneering professional apprenticeships, for leading the drive for good-quality HE in FE, and for developing partnerships between HE and FE. I would welcome a visit to the college from the Minister, because he could meet the staff and see some of the fantastic work that is going on.

The Minister talked about international competitiveness in his opening speech. If we are to remain internationally competitive, we must keep our levels of reskilling high, which means that we will need to know how many young people and individuals in the work force are being skilled and reskilled. If we are not skilling sufficient people, we will need to put additional measures in place. That will mean that we will have to retain some targets, so I would like to hear the Government’s thoughts about that.