Construction Industry Training Board: Funding
Steve Race Excerpts(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Since its establishment in 1964, the Construction Industry Training Board has been the industry-led and industry-funded training board for the UK construction industry. At present, it is an arm’s length body of the Department for Work and Pensions, so I thank the Minister for being here to respond.
The CITB was tasked, in its words, with ensuring a safe, professional, and fully qualified construction industry, and with addressing critical skills shortages. As Members will no doubt agree, some things do not change; indeed, we are grappling today with the very same challenges, as we commit to delivering new infrastructure and regeneration of our public realm, and as we face the need to build much-needed new homes right across the country.
The CITB has always been funded by the sector; legislation grants it the power to collect a levy from private construction firms. In return for this levy, the CITB’s role is to redistribute to sector firms the grants, funds and subsidies for training. This sector-wide approach has meant that skills are transferable, and that the cost of training is equitably shared between smaller and larger construction firms.
That is one of the ways in which the whole sector benefits. As all Members will know from having donned hard hats and visited construction sites, every project involves a huge range of large and small firms, including those that do bricklaying and carpentry, as well as electricians, plumbers and so on. Rarely, if ever, is any project completed solely by one large firm.
Just last Friday, I visited the St Michael’s Meadow housing development in my Exeter constituency to congratulate the site manager, Roy, and his trainee site manager, Sam, who have been awarded the seal of excellence in the NHBC Pride in the Job awards. While there, I also met Dylan and Reece, two carpentry apprentices, both of whom are reaching the end of their apprenticeship training with Barratt Redrow. One is heading directly into the specialist carpentry firm that Barratt Redrow works with on its projects. That is the way that the industry works, and the CITB has long reflected this in its engagement and, in particular, through its stewardship and funding for CITB local training groups.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is absolutely right on this. He has been an assiduous, committed and very industrious MP for his constituency, and I thank him for that. CITBNI is very similar to the organisation on the mainland to which he refers. It provides key support for some 6,500 apprentices over three years, and a 50% grant for net zero training. It is an absolute lifesaver for small contractors who can no longer afford the cost of apprenticeships, given that the cost of insurance alone for the apprentice is almost as much as their wage.
Steve Race
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I hope the Minister will cover these points at the end. We are grappling with rising costs for construction firms, and we need to support them, as I hope we will, with CITB, in the future.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Does the hon. Member agree that losing the skills and expertise of local training groups, such as the Plymouth Construction Training Group, which was formed in 1977 and has been funded by the CITB, and instead having centralised delivery from CITB in London, would be a retrograde step that risks us losing local construction skills?
Steve Race
I thank the Member for her intervention. I fear that she might be right, and I will come on to some of those issues and the feedback that I have received from local training groups across the country, and from small firms.
Local training groups have been vital in supporting micro and small employers to form local networks, and helping them to forge closer ties. They provide those businesses with local, low-cost training options, and with a paid officer who holds a wealth of local knowledge and experience.
However, the national CITB has chosen to de-fund all 55 training groups across the country, close the network down and re-allocate funding elsewhere. This was brought to my attention by Mr Peter Lucas, a constituent who runs a carpentry business, and who has been the chair of the national training group chairs committee. He impressed upon me the importance of the good localised work that training boards have been doing. He told me that training groups connect employers with a really broad spectrum of training for the sector—everything from training on how to use a dust mask properly to master’s degrees.
Training groups work with schools and colleges to promote construction, offer talks and information about the sector, and signpost people to the appropriate apprenticeships programmes. They also save the CITB vast amounts of money on training courses, as training groups source them more cheaply than is done at national level. They meet up and exchange ideas and best practice across the whole of Britain, with everyone gaining more knowledge. Each training group has, until this year, been given £35,000 from CITB to fund their group training officer—money that comes from the levy that members of the training group have paid to the CITB. Without the grant, the training groups will likely close, and with the loss of the groups, vital local networks and local knowledge will be lost. Certainly, the local training group for Devon has been a success and is well-liked. Indeed, I applied for this debate not just because of the compelling case put to me by Mr Lucas, but also because of the outcry from local firms when I posted about my meeting on social media.
Matthew Cousins, who runs Apex Scaffolding in my constituency, an active member of the local south-west CITB steering group, told me that the company faces ongoing challenges in recruiting and retaining scaffolders. With an ageing workforce, and given the increasing difficulty of attracting young people into this profession, it was very surprised that CITB has chosen to cease funding the training groups, especially considering the levy costs that the employers are required to pay.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate him on securing this important debate. I wish to draw the House’s attention to my chairship of the GMB parliamentary group and my membership of UNITE the Union, both of which organise workers in the construction sector. Quality of employment is extremely important. Historically, the two construction engineering training boards had union representation, but over the years that representation has been squeezed away. Does he agree that employee and employer representation is very important on these boards?
Steve Race
I absolutely agree. It is only by trade unions, employers and workers working closely together that we can meet many of the challenges across the country. My hon. Friend reminds me that I should also declare my interest as a member of the GMB trade union.
Mr Cousins told me that the company has consistently relied on the training grant, which has historically been paid up front. Under the changes, the pre-payment has been withdrawn, and construction industry scaffolders record scheme courses can no longer be booked through the new employer networks. Apex remains committed to investing in its employees and supporting career progression, but a CISRS course typically costs at least £1,500 up front. There is also the wages paid to employees for the two weeks that they are attending training, and the impact of downtime on the company’s operations. The up-front training grant has always played a critical role in supporting cash flow for smaller businesses during the training process.
In part 2 and advanced training, employees must complete a portfolio and a two-day skills assessment before finishing the qualification. If companies are now unable to claim any funding until the completion of these stages, it will significantly reduce the number of individuals that companies like Apex are able to train.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this very important topic to the Floor of the House. Does he agree that anything that can be done to support businesses and employers in training young people must be done? When I visited my local college, Rugby college, I was informed that it is increasingly difficult to encourage employers to provide work experience time, particularly for T-level students, who need 315 hours. I wonder whether the Minister might reflect on any additional support that the Government can give to employers to incentivise them to do that.
Steve Race
I agree; we need to do everything that we can to make our commitment to getting two thirds of young people into education, training, apprenticeships or work a reality. We all need to work together on that.
Combined with the broader pressures that businesses are facing, these changes will seriously detrimentally affect Apex’s training capacity as a company. Apex and other companies that are committed to developing skilled, competent staff in their industries hope that the CITB will reconsider, given the impact that the adjustments may have on employers, and will explore ways to ensure that training remains accessible and sustainable.
A member of the Somerset Construction Training Group got in touch with me to say that these groups provide invaluable practical support to construction businesses and apprentices alike. In their words, removing CITB funding risks not only the future of the groups but the loss of highly experienced people whose knowledge of training, funding and compliance in the construction sector is difficult to replace. Ultimately, they feel that this could reduce access to apprenticeships, increase pressure on employers and negatively impact jobs in the industry. The group finished by saying that it hopes that CITB will reconsider and recognise the long-term value that training groups deliver.
Another Somerset business owner said to me that they have been fortunate to be part of the Somerset Construction Training Group for over 16 years. They have been provided with an excellent service, including quality training and last-minute training if required, and they have built a solid working relationship over the last 16 years with their training group officer, who understands their company and their training needs. The group enables networking between group members, and supports many aspects of their business. In their opinion, training groups were the best thing that CITB supported, and they are sad to say that their relationship with CITB is nowhere near as solid.
At the national level, it is reported that the CEO of a roofing business and a member of the Construction Industry Training Board funding committee has resigned in protest at the decision to cut funding for training groups. He stated that he could not in good conscience remain a member of the committee, and that the decision to both defund the training groups and slash the number of courses that are to be grant funded will undoubtedly increase, rather than decrease, the skills gap. That surely cannot be right.
The CITB introduced employer networks in 2024, and intended them to be the route for employers to engage with the CITB. However, the feedback I have received is that small and medium-sized enterprises consider the groups to be remote and impersonal, and that they take longer to organise training. In general, some SMEs have expressed to me that they feel largely ignored and let down by the CITB. The withdrawal of funding for training groups has made them feel sidelined and disillusioned. Indeed, the CITB has run concurrently for some years both the employer networks, which seem best able to cater to larger businesses, and the local training groups, which seem better able to support SMEs. I would have thought there is some merit in continuing with both, especially given the small cost of the local training groups.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is my understanding that, in addition to employer networks, the CITB is also seeking to redirect funding to the new entrant support team. I declare an interest: my father worked as a new entrant training officer. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the new entrant support team is good value, and is perhaps a good place for this investment to be directed towards?
Steve Race
There is absolutely a case to be made here, but as I shall go on to say, the way in which this has come about is less than ideal, and it leaves lots of local training groups and local SMEs feeling pretty much left out to dry by the CITB.
Construction skills are critical to the success of Exeter’s economy and to our ambition to build the right homes in the right places for people to live in. I am proud that Exeter college is an outstanding tertiary college that offers a wide range of apprenticeships and vocational courses, and the University of Exeter offers a range of degree apprenticeships in partnership with business. As we work to meet this Government’s vital target of having two thirds of young people in university, college or an apprenticeship, we will need every organisation, business, sector and network pulling together.
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view of the changes that the CITB has brought in, and whether he and the Department believe that those changes are aligned with our goals of increasing access to and take-up of apprenticeships and closing the skills gap across the country. Further, has he or the Department had conversations with the CITB on the changes, and has there been an impact assessment, particularly on the ability of SMEs to properly participate in the work of the CITB in this space? Finally, does the Minister agree that the CITB could perhaps have worked with the training groups over a longer period to improve the outcomes of the training groups, should it have felt that necessary, or to provide a platform to help them to transition to new models of funding, rather than a decision being taken to simply pull the funding with a mere four months’ notice? I thank colleagues across the House for their interventions, and look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on this issue.
Sir Stephen Timms
Certainly, it is absolutely right that the construction sector has a lot of promising opportunities for exactly those young people, and we need to ensure that they have the support to take them up. We also need to provide a social security safety net—I do not think it is one or the other—but I agree that the work of the CITB is vital in this area.
The CITB provides a wide range of services and training initiatives. It sets occupational standards, funds strategic industry initiatives to support Government missions, and pays allowances and direct grants to employers, as we have heard, that carry out training to approved standards.
In the five years since 2021, employer demand for CITB services has increased by 36%. Levy rates have deliberately been held steady to support construction businesses, given the very sharp cost increases that we are all familiar with that have arisen from global challenges that the industry has had to grapple with. As a result, the costs of CITB services now exceed levy income. In response, the CITB has announced the changes to keep the funding as tightly focused as possible on the industry’s core priorities, in particular on bringing apprentices and new entrants into the workforce to address skills gaps. There has been no cut in CITB funding, but there has been a reprioritisation to ensure that the available funding is used where it has the greatest impact. The CITB board has understandably identified an urgent need for efficiency improvements, to spend less money on bureaucracy in order to be able to spend more on training.
For many years, CITB training groups have supported businesses by securing cost-effective training through collective bargaining, and by helping firms with grant applications, facilitating workforce planning and sharing best practice along the lines set out by my hon. Friend. I put on record the Government’s thanks to all group training chairs and officers—not least my hon. Friend’s constituent, Peter Lucas, the chair of the Devon construction training group and, since 2023, the national chair of training groups. He and his counterparts have undertaken a great deal of important and dedicated work to meet employers’ skills needs. There are currently 80 training groups across England, Wales and Scotland—there was one other but it closed last year. I think perhaps the figure my hon. Friend gave was just for England.
Sir Stephen Timms
The CITB has concluded that the training group model has significant limitations. It is quite expensive to run; each group receives an annual £35,000 support grant, as my hon. Friend said. Groups often operate on a closed-membership basis, and many groups charge employers annual fees. Groups do not have direct access to skills funding—employers must apply for grants. That limits scalability, diverts levy funding away from actual training into administration, and burdens employers, especially SMEs. My hon. Friend raised that important point.
The CITB has confirmed that funding for training groups will end on 31 March this year, so those £35,000 support grants will not be paid in the coming financial year. However, as my hon. Friend said, the CITB is replacing training groups with a newer model, with employer networks, which are designed to offer a more responsive, efficient and employer-led system. There are now 33 employer networks, which, between them, cover the whole of the UK—25 in England, five in Scotland and three in Wales. The decision to move in that direction has been made by the board of CITB, with its majority construction industry membership, following its consideration of how best to meet evolving industry needs and deliver best value for employers in return for their levy payments. It is not a decision for Government; it is a matter for the CITB board. It seems to me that the CITB has thought about this quite carefully, and I will set out the arguments that it makes.
The employer networks model was piloted in 2022, and the CITB board has concluded that it is effective. It argues that the model gives employers a simpler route to identify training needs and secure funding, avoiding the navigation of complex grant processes or funding applications. Networks are open to all levy-registered employers at no additional cost. They provide direct support from CITB advisers, significant funding contributions toward training and a dedicated training booking team. Instead of lengthy grant applications, employers work with a CITB adviser who helps to identify skill needs, arranges training and secures funding up front to cover a portion of the training costs. It is argued that that reduces the administration burden and makes training more accessible to employers. The idea is for networks to be designed around local need. Employers in each area collectively identify their priority skills needs—be they in traditional trades, digital skills, net zero capabilities or broader workforce development—and funding is directed accordingly.
The decision to replace training groups with employer networks is an operational decision for the CITB, which points out that its pilot has provided evidence that the employer network model is better. In 2025-26, networks have already supported 56,000 learners and 4,400 employers —up from 51,000 learners in the previous year. Training groups, by contrast, supported around 1,800 employers per year—less than half the number supported by networks—and growth was very limited. The average network supports 122 employers, while only five training groups supported more than 50 employers in 2024-25. Training groups cost £2.87 million in 2024-25, which is twice as much as the cost of networks, even though networks seem to support far more employers.
Steve Race
The figures quoted relate to networks and local training groups operating at the same time. Does the Minister accept there might be a risk that the people and organisations supported by the local groups are a different group from those supported by employer networks?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but CITB’s view is that most employers that are members of training groups now access support through employer networks. He raised an important point about SME participation, which CITB reports is improving under the network model, reflecting the easier access and more direct influence that businesses have over local training priorities. CITB thinks that helps to reduce regional disparities, and provides more agile support for smaller firms. Indeed, it recently surveyed employers that had accessed support via employer networks, 87% of which were micro, small, or medium-sized organisations. Of those, 81% said that they were satisfied, and 54% said that they were likely to do more training in future because of employer network support.
My hon. Friend will readily acknowledge that meeting the current and future skills needs of construction employers is extremely important for delivering the Government’s aims, and important for opening up opportunities for the large number of young people, and others, left economically inactive over the past few years. The CITB’s view is that the employer network model is simpler, faster, more cost effective, and more flexible. In its view, it better supports SMEs—those employers that need the most support—and it allows the industry to respond quickly to emerging skills challenges, including digital and net zero construction skills.
Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing this important matter to the attention of the House, and for his interest in it, and that of other Members. I understand that the chief executive of CITB, Tim Balcon, has written to my hon. Friend and invited him to make contact if he would like to discuss the matter further. I do not know whether he has taken up that opportunity yet, but if he does take up that offer and has further reflections in the wake of the subsequent discussions, I would be pleased to hear from him about that.
Question put and agreed to.
Youth Unemployment
Steve Race Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend has made his point very well indeed.
Let me return to the subject of the youth guarantee. There will be guaranteed jobs for about 55,000 people over the three years. Companies have already shown an interest in taking on such employees, including E.ON, JD Sports, Tesco and Tui, and we are grateful for the offers that they are making. We Labour Members have tackled these challenges before, under the last Labour Government, through the new deal for young people, and we will do it again now.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Along with the youth hubs and the youth guarantee, there is the £725 million investment in apprenticeships. With its new technical excellence college status, Exeter college in my constituency is becoming one of the biggest providers of apprenticeships in the country. Does the Minister agree that that stands in stark contrast to the 50% increase in youth unemployment under the last Government?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend has made his case very well. He referred to the £725 million for the growth and skills levy, which is part of the more than £1.5 billion that has been made available for employment and skills support in the Budget. That is very much needed after the dramatic decline in the number of young people starting apprenticeships under the last Government, which we will reverse. At the same time, we are strengthening our world-leading universities.
Oral Answers to Questions
Steve Race Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stephen Timms
Well, choosing the most misleading claim is a tough contest, but the hon. Gentleman is right. The shadow Secretary of State’s colleagues introduced PIP, with the current criteria, in 2013. They then had 11 years to change it if they thought doing so was necessary, but they did absolutely nothing. My review will look at the eligibility criteria for the mobility component of PIP.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)
At the autumn Budget we built on the substantial action that we have already taken to tackle child poverty and announced the removal of the two-child limit, which will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by 2029-30. That rises to 550,000 alongside other measures, such as the expansion of free school meals set out in our child poverty strategy, which was published on Friday. The Secretary of State for Education will be making an oral statement on the child poverty strategy this afternoon.
Steve Race
I recently held roundtables with Exeter residents to discuss child poverty, which in some of our neighbourhoods runs as high as 30%. All the evidence suggests that ingrained poverty cuts across a wide range of policy areas, so I was delighted by the publication of the child poverty strategy and the introduction of the new measure of deep material poverty. Could the Minister set out what this will mean for integrated policy development across Government, so that we can end child poverty for good?
Dame Diana Johnson
May I commend my hon. Friend for his interest in this area? Deep material poverty is where families lack basic essentials, such as a warm home and healthy food. Families who cannot afford four or more of the 13 essential items are judged to be in deep material poverty, and 2 million children are in deep material poverty today. Over the course of the 10-year strategy, the items and thresholds that have been identified will not change, but they will enable us to use a broader set of measures when assessing our success in tackling child poverty.
Budget Resolutions
Steve Race Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), and a great pleasure to speak in this Budget debate. I direct Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This is the second of what will be many Labour Budgets that will help this country to rebuild our public services, rebuild our public finances and bring down the monumental national debt. That is all at the heart of delivering long-term economic sustainability, growth and fairness, which is our great task after 14 years of Tory and Lib Dem mismanagement. I want to speak about the two issues closest to my heart as the MP for Exeter—the start-up and scale-up economy, and child poverty in Exeter.
Today, over 1,000 start-ups are active across the south-west region, and our start-ups are growing not just in volume, but in value. The average venture-backed start-up in the south-west is now worth £11 million. Moreover, five of the UK’s top 50 start-up constituencies by funds raised are in the south-west: Bristol Central, Filton and Bradley Stoke, Bristol East, Bath and, indeed, Exeter. That amounts to 10% of the national total in a region that is too often overlooked.
What is most exciting is what comes next. Half of our start-ups are at the seed stage, brimming with ideas and ambition. These are the major employers and major innovators of the future. These are the businesses that will supercharge Exeter’s economy and help deliver economic sustainability and prosperity. That is why I was really pleased to see changes in the Budget that will support new businesses in my constituency to start up and then to scale up, helping them to raise capital, attract talent and stay competitive here in the UK.
First, the significant expansion of the investment limits for both the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trusts means that from April 2026 companies will be able to raise much larger sums, with annual limits doubling to £10 million and lifetime limits rising to £24 million, and even higher thresholds for knowledge-intensive companies. That means that more ambitious ideas can be funded right here in Britain, particularly in sectors such as green engineering, AI, biotechnology and fintech—the sectors that will power the next decade of economic leadership in this country.
Secondly, the Budget strengthens one of the most powerful tools for fast-growing firms: the ability to attract and retain the skilled people who make innovation happen. By expanding the enterprise management incentive scheme—increasing the employee headcount eligibility to 500, and raising the asset and share option limits—we will ensure that starters can continue to offer meaningful equity to their teams as they grow. This gives scaling companies the firepower to compete with big employers to keep talent in the UK, and to ensure that workers share in the success they help create.
Together, the reforms send a strong signal that Britain backs bold entrepreneurs. We want the next global success stories to start, scale and stay right here in the UK and in Exeter. Indeed, just today one of my contacts in the start-up world said that entrepreneurship was at the heart of the Budget in a way that has never been seen before.
I want everyone in Exeter, no matter their upbringing, to know that they can achieve their potential by working in start-ups, scale-ups, or elsewhere in the economy and public services. That is why I was pleased that the Budget rightly put fairness at the heart of our national mission. Nowhere is that mission more urgent than in the fight against child poverty. Child poverty is not a statistic on a page. It is children in Exeter whose parents are going without meals so that they can eat. It is a family making impossible choices—heating or food, rent or clothes. As one of five children who grew up in a council house, I know what it is like when every penny counts. Nationally, more than 2.7 million children were living in poverty last year, which is 22% of all 0 to 15-year-olds. That is more than one in five children across the UK. We all recognise that that is not only unsustainable, but morally indefensible and a catastrophic consequence of 14 years of Tory and coalition government.
In Exeter today, around 3,000 children aged 0 to 15 live in relative poverty. That is 19.9% of all our children—one in five. Earlier this year, I convened a local roundtable in Exeter with charities, schools, housing providers and health leaders, and we asked the hard questions. Where are families slipping through the gaps? How do we redesign support so that children are not left paying the price of economic insecurity? The message was clear: child poverty is family poverty. It is not isolated to any one Department. It cuts across the housing system, the labour market, childcare and education. It affects health, mental wellbeing and lifetime opportunity.
I am proud that this Government are not looking away. We are tackling the barriers that families face head-on, right across the Government, through the expansion of free school meals, funded childcare and beyond. That is why I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to lift the two-child benefit cap—a long-overdue change that will raise 450,000 children out of poverty. But I know that we will go further, which is why I have been engaging with Ministers on the creation of the child poverty strategy, so that we take a whole-Government approach that tackles the causes and not just the symptoms, because simply raising benefits is not enough. I want every child in Exeter to break away from intergenerational poverty, and to succeed and fulfil their potential in life through their own work and achievements.
We have already started the process of rebuilding hope and opportunity for young people. I have spoken before in this Chamber about the gutting of Sure Start, which was one of the most transformational programmes of the previous Labour Government. I am delighted that we are restoring Sure Start-style services in communities across the country: evidence-led family-centred support that helps children keep thriving from the very beginning. For my city, these services are not an optional extra; they are foundational. If we want children to arrive at school ready to learn, healthy, safe and confident, this is how to do it.
The Budget recognises that fairness is not something that trickles down; it is something we build. Exeter children need us to build it now. They waited too long under the last Government, who simply failed a whole generation. We must ensure that the circumstances a child is born into never limit the life they are able to lead. I am therefore proud to support the Budget, and proud that the Government are choosing to put our children first.
Oral Answers to Questions
Steve Race Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
The apprenticeships and skills budget, like every other budget, demands choices. We are choosing to prioritise the level that we need in the economy, and the areas where the value is greatest. That does imply certain choices, and I am confident that the choices we have made will benefit the workforce as a whole, and future opportunities.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
We are determined to open up opportunities in work for people with health conditions. The Keep Britain Working review will be published soon. In Pathways to Work, we have 1,000 work advisers supporting this group, and we will devolve powers, so that areas can shape their own joined-up local work, health and skills offer.
Steve Race
I recently visited Pluss in Exeter, which supports people living with physical disabilities and mental health conditions back into employment. I met some of the fantastically committed mentors, who provide tailored training and support, helping hundreds of people who have been long-term unemployed into meaningful jobs, boosting their confidence and helping them rebuild their lives. Does the Minister agree that under the last Tory Government, disability employment was shockingly neglected? In contrast, this Government’s recent announcement about Connect to Work funding for Devon will help many more people back into the workplace.
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The disability employment gap has been stuck at around 30 percentage points ever since 2010. What he refers to in his constituency sounds like a great example of exactly the kind of resource we want to draw on in each area to make sure that disabled people have the opportunities in work that they were denied in the past.