Damian Hinds MP: speeches

Speeches

• 5 Dec 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  We all know that the country needs more homes, but the Government’s proposed algorithm throws up anomalies such as an 86% increase in the housing target for East Hampshire, while targets for London actually go down. May we have a debate in Government time on how we make housing balanced and sustainable?

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is quite right. This is not some trivial increase that is easy for an organisation to absorb. While 1.2 percentage points may not sound like much, with the serious decrease in the threshold at which it starts being paid, it is a lot of money. The cost of employing the average worker on medium earnings goes up by £900. For a 21-year-old on the legal minimum wage working full time, the cost goes up by £770. Moreover, it is regressive because it will fall more harshly on people at the lower end of the wage spectrum and on people who are part time. It cannot be seen in isolation; it must be seen alongside all the other things the Government are doing. Of course, the national living wage has risen. That increase is a good thing in itself, but the effect compounds with the other measures being taken. Two of the three volume employer sectors in this country—retail and hospitality—are also seeing a massive reduction in the business rates relief they are getting next year. When unemployment hits, young people are always hit first and most, and that will be true again. It will hit those furthest from the labour market, those who need most help, those coming back to work after a long period and those who were ex-offenders. I sometimes wonder if Ministers talk to each other about the contradiction and irony of one of them producing a document called, “Get Britain Working” while their colleague is hellbent on doing the opposite.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We are the Opposition. You are the Government.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On the £22.6 billion for the NHS, or the figure just mentioned for local government, have the Minister or his officials calculated what the numbers would be, net of the national insurance cost? Those bodies— the national health service and local government—carry on with exactly the same services as before, but now face extra bills for national insurance contributions. Have they done the maths?

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We have a mission-led Government. I am not sure whether anybody knows exactly what that means, but we do know what the mission is meant to be: delivering for working people. But I am afraid that the Government have forgotten how working people become working people. It is the people—the other people—who employ them. All of us in this House want excellent public services, but it is only the Conservatives who understand that to get excellent public services, business needs to generate the wealth. The Government have a bit of a “four legs good, two legs bad” mantra that sees business as a cash cow to be milked to pay for the public sector. They have forgotten that fundamental dependency. They have even messed up the “four legs good, two legs bad” theory, because they seem to have forgotten that a very large part of what delivers our public services is people—people who are not directly employed by the public sector. Let us take nurseries as an example. We have had another mission this week on early years education, which I welcome, but it will be hampered in its delivery by this national insurance contributions rise. Then there are the universities. They received a bonus of £390 million from a fee increase a couple of weeks ago, but they will be paying £400 million in extra national insurance contributions. I have also heard from many GPs across my constituency in East Hampshire, who see the Government giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The Minister says that the Government will take care of this in the settlement for GPs, which is fine, but it should have come on top of what they should have been doing for GPs anyway. Lord Darzi and the Secretary of State have been talking about increasing the focus on primary care. We know how the Treasury works when it is making its spending allocations to Departments; things will be tucked in under that settlement, so we need to see it rise. How do the Government think GP practices plan? Here we are in December, and the new financial year starts at the beginning of April. Do Ministers not think that, in the national health service, general practitioners need certainty now about what is going to happen? The wider point is this: the Treasury can reimburse GPs, but it cannot reimburse the private sector. Ultimately, there is no such thing as a tax on business. Taxes can only ever ultimately fall on people. They fall on the owners of that business, the customers of that business, or the employees of that business. The analogy for the Treasury reimbursing GP practices for their increased costs is the employees of a private company reimbursing their employer for that cost. It is they who will ultimately pay. Economists are united in saying that employer national insurance contributions are only ever, in the end, seen in lower wages or lower employment figures. The Government talk about difficult decisions, but difficult decisions are the ones that employers will be faced with: do I cut down my wage settlements or do I let people go?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The single most important factor in raising living standards, driving income equality and improving children’s life chances is having a job. Why is the Chancellor disregarding that fundamental truth, with tax policies that will actively harm employment, particularly youth employment?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I take it that means that he has not had those conversations. [Interruption.] I am happy to take an intervention from him. What contingency plans are in place for September if the displacement is greater than anticipated? We know that the money will follow the pupil if more pupils turn up in the state sector, but we have not heard whether that money is coming out of general Exchequer receipts—in other words, that the Department for Education will not be expected to find that money from elsewhere in its budget. Similarly, what are the contingency plans, and what capital has been set aside in case extra capital funding is needed? As well as the displacement of pupils, there is also potential displacement of teachers, as we have heard from the unions.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member know how many additional teachers were recruited in the last Parliament without putting VAT on private education? Does he know how many breakfast clubs are already in state schools in this country? There are thousands of them, thanks to the national school breakfast programme.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Well, we shall see. As a teacher, he will know that teachers move between the state and independent sectors all the time. They move in both directions, but that is not what the Association of School and College Leaders was talking about. It was talking about the fact that the change is being made mid-year, and said that it carried a risk of redundancies, and of the permanent loss of teachers to the profession. Labour Members—the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) is one of them—frequently like to say to Opposition Members that we have to choose. They say: “Are you on the side of the many or the few? Are you with 94% or the 6%?”. Well, we refuse to choose. It is not a question of whether we care about the 94% or the 6%. We care about the 100%—all the children. It is definitely true and right that at the Department for Education—this was true when I was a Minister there—Ministers spend way more than 94% of their time and effort on the state sector. In our time in government, between 2010 and 2024, that paid off with huge results. When we supported our brilliant teachers in their great work, our results went up. We went from 27th in the world to 11th for maths, and from 25th in the world to 13th for reading. We had the best primary school readers in the western world. Free school meal eligible children were 50% more likely to go on to university, and the number of schools rated less than good was down from one in three to fewer than one in 10. That was through supporting teachers, academy trusts, a broad knowledge-rich curriculum and the propagation and spread—from school to school and teacher to teacher—of proven methods, such as maths mastery and synthetic phonics. Yes, the system does also need money. Per-pupil funding under the last Government was higher than it was under previous Labour Governments. Among the G7 nations, it was middle of the range in cash per child, and the highest as a proportion of national income. Of course, we have to keep increasing the resourcing that we put into key services, none more so than education, but the Conservatives did that as a priority from general taxation, not by taking from another part of the wider education system. I repeat: the Government do not have to choose. These are all children.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On three counts, I am afraid that is incorrect. First, it does not cover everybody with special needs at a private school. Secondly, the IFS has not said that there is ample space in state schools, nor could it possibly know that. Thirdly, and most importantly, the point on which I was heckled, and on which I invited somebody to intervene, was a completely different one. My point was that unlike in quite a large number of countries, here there is no tax break for those using independent education providers. Everybody contributes towards state education through general taxation; if we take up a private school place, that contribution does not reduce. In the modelling that goes with the Finance Bill, the Government say that they expect a little over £1.5 billion to be raised from the measure in maturity. We do not know the detail of the modelling and how robust the analysis is. However, I agree, intuitively, with the Treasury that a small part of the effect will be felt immediately in January, but that the effect will really start from September 2025. It will be felt gradually, through some children leaving the independent sector; the bigger effect will probably be from those who do not start in the independent sector in the first place, or who do not start their next phase of education in the sector. I am not totally clear from what the Treasury has published whether it factors in all the effects of the change. It obviously factors in families who are directly priced out of the independent sector, but what about those who are indirectly displaced, because they were at a school where a number of other families were priced out and the school had to close? Does it factor in the higher number of education, health and care plan applications that will be made, and the much higher than average per-place cost that the state will have to meet for those displaced? I am also unclear whether the Treasury’s analysis looks at all the effects on independent education cumulatively. Yes, there is the VAT, which is in the Finance Bill, but there are also a number of other measures being taken this year that materially affect the cost base of independent schools, and that is likely to be reflected in fees. They include the increased contribution to the teacher pension scheme; business rates changes, which affect about half of independent schools; and the massive hike in employer national insurance contributions, which will affect so many sectors. All those are transfers from the independent state sector to the Exchequer, so the real increase in the cost base for that sector will be considerably more than 20% over the course of the year. In the Minister’s summing up, I would love her to tell us what assumption was made about the total average price increase. Whatever it was, the Government calculate that, in the policy’s maturity, 37,000 children will be displaced from the independent sector, and of those, 35,000 will go to the state sector. Ministers say, “Don’t worry; there are loads of places available in the state sector.” In fact, the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) suggested that a third party had said that as well, and the Exchequer Secretary said it again in his remarks. He said that we are talking about 0.5% of the total population in state schools. It is useless to have places available in primary schools in inner London if that is not the age group of people leaving the independent sector. The effect will be uneven across the country, and need is concentrated largely in secondary schools and sixth forms. There are plenty of places where even a small number of children being displaced from one sector to the other could have a big effect on the state school system. What discussions have Ministers had with colleagues, and with councils in Salford, Stockport, Sale, Bury, Bedford, Bristol and so on? I could name considerably more. What contingency plans are in place?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a very long-standing principle, observed all but universally around the world, that we do not tax education, because it is a public good. Some families find that independent education caters to needs that the state simply does not; that is the case with schools in the music and dance scheme or in certain faith communities. In some cases, a family chooses an independent school because of their child’s special needs—or because, for whatever reason, that is the place where their child can be happy. Whatever the circumstances and whatever the reason, we believe in the sanctity of the principle of parental choice. Many places around the world recognise the value of that choice through the tax system. This country is not one of them. There is no tax break for using independent education providers. Everybody contributes— [ Interruption. ] Does someone want to make an intervention? I would love to hear it.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, they do not. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the OECD figures, they are for primary, secondary and college-based education in the state sector, but I am grateful to him for his intervention. When Government Members talk about “the 6%” in the same tone in which they sometimes talk about “the 1%”, I think they believe that they are about to topple the toffs and achieve some sort of great victory in the class war. They are not. Eton college will not miss a heartbeat over this measure. The pupils who will be hit will be those in smaller town schools—the ones that are significant employers locally and a big part of the local community. They do not have big endowments; they do have pretty thin margins. Schools that cater to children with special educational needs will be hit. Denominational schools will be hit. There have been some concessions from the Government. They are not the most massive concessions in the world, but they are not nothing either. We should acknowledge them, and I thank the Government for them. The first is on the music and dance scheme, with extra help for families with children at the schools in question, albeit that the concession will benefit only a little less than half the total number of families in what is a means-tested scheme anyway. There is also the confirmation that centres for advanced training will be exempt, and of what the Government plan to do on the continuity of education allowance. We need to ensure that those mitigations are more comprehensive than they are now, and that they become permanent. Of course, the Opposition would prefer the Government to drop this measure altogether and not be the international outlier by taxing education, but if they are determined to bulldoze on, we must have key changes in Committee. We must have an exemption for all children with an EHCP—not only if it specifies the individual school—children who have SEN support, and those who are currently applying for an EHCP. We must have exemptions for schools whose fees are lower than the average charge in the state sector, and for religious denominations where there is no faith school provision in the state sector. I do not accept the notion that, as Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box, members of religious faith communities are not discriminated against by this measure. It may well be that, as a whole, people of faith are not discriminated against more than others because the vast majority of people of religious faith are in the state sector anyway, where there are plenty of Catholic schools, Anglican schools and other denominational schools, but it is not credible in the slightest to claim that there is no discrimination, and that the effect will not be felt much more strongly by members of certain traditions within Judaism, Christianity and Islam. We also need key postponements. Children who are already in public exam years, or the year before public exams, cannot have their education disrupted in this way. The school that they move to may not even offer the same GCSEs or A-levels, the same exam board or the same syllabus. Most significantly of all, the Government must for good reasons, including simple practical reasons, at least postpone the introduction of the measure in areas where state schools are already full, or almost full, at that stage of education, because the biggest effect of this divisive, destructive tax attack will be on state schools. It will be felt in class sizes, and ultimately in all parents’ ability to get the preferred choice of school for their child.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Project Gigabit · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 26 Nov 2024 · Project Gigabit · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to identify the progress made in constituencies like his, Farnham and Bordon, or mine, East Hampshire. Does he agree, however, that improvement is all the more urgent and important in the most rural areas, where there is already very poor or no mobile signal and very poor broadband speed? They are not on the list for the commercial gigabit roll-out and some are not on the list for the second tier of gigabit roll-out. On top of all that, they hear the announcement that the PSTN—the public switched telephone network—is going to be switched off. In the event of an emergency, in the event of a power cut, they are in danger of being marooned.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Project Gigabit · Hansard source

  More

  I was, but not any more.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In my time as a junior Treasury Minister, one important thing I learned was that there is a really good argument against every tax: VAT is inflationary, corporation tax reduces investment, income tax disincentivises work, excise duties typically fall more heavily on lower-income groups and so on. As a result, the policy tends to be, “We will do a little bit of a large number of taxes.” That is not a bad policy, but business rates are particularly troublesome because of their fixed-cost nature—they do not flex to businesses’ sales or profitability or to the business cycle, so they can exacerbate the effect of downturns in the economy or in individual sectors. Business rates discourage start-ups and scale-ups. Rates fall disproportionately on property-heavy sectors. With the development of e-commerce and delivery businesses, the hurt to those with costlier premises is relatively greater. Due to the accumulation of those factors, UKHospitality and the British Retail Consortium estimate that hospitality, retail and leisure account for more than a third of business rates while accounting for under a tenth of the economy as a whole. That matters to us as parliamentarians because of the role that such businesses play in our town centres, village centres, city centres and high streets. There is both the direct effect that an individual shop, café, restaurant or pub has on footfall into the town, and the indirect impact due to the interdependence of businesses and the network effect. We often lump hospitality and retail together due to the commonality of pressures that affect both, but there are also differences between them. Hospitality has taken on more of the burden of supporting our town centres over time relative to retail, because there are different levels of opportunity in e-commerce—there is some with retail businesses, but there tends to be little with hospitality businesses, because by definition if someone takes something from a vending machine, that is not hospitality. I support the concept of fundamentally reforming business rates. The world has changed, with the growth of e-commerce and, thankfully, the growth of wages at the lower end of the wage distribution. We need to make a sharper distinction between shops and distribution sheds, but this Bill does not do that. The distinction that the Bill makes in its reform is between large premises with large rateable values and smaller premises. A quick read of the wording of the “transforming business rates” document, which explains the policy, would almost make one think that the changes are designed to distinguish online businesses from traditional retail, but they are not. The document mentions “properties with rateable value £500,000 or more,” which captures “the majority of large distribution warehouses including those used by online giants”. That is true, but that will also capture lots of other businesses, such as department stores and hotels, which are clearly part of the retail and hospitality sectors. Conversely, some parts of the distribution network of online businesses will not be captured. One very large, well-known online retailer has already moved to a more distributed hub and spoke network with its regional fulfilment approach. I dare say that those one-hour delivery grocery people have even smaller individual premises. In reforming business rates, I hope that the Minister will consider that they cannot do all the work. I strongly welcomed the previous Government’s introduction of the digital services tax, which was always put forward as an interim measure pending wider reform of international taxation through the OECD. I do not believe a broader online sales tax is likely to be helpful—definitions would become difficult, and the development of some of the small businesses in our town centres that we value could be impeded—but I welcome the Government talking about more frequent valuations. Any reform of business rates must address the cliff edges that the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) talked about, as well as another problem that we as MPs worry a great deal about, which is vacant premises. Right now, I am most concerned about right now. The Government promised that they would raise “the same revenue but in a fairer way”. That is not what is about to happen. Let us be very clear: the amount of money to be raised from business rates is about to go up, and it is about to go up on the back of retail and hospitality businesses. The Government will say—the Minister has already said—“But we are extending a relief that was going to come to an end.” Believe it or not, ladies and gentlemen, there is even a line in the “transforming business rates” document that says the Government will save the average pub £3,300 a year. They may say that, but that is not how it will feel to that pub or to the typical retail, leisure or hospitality business in any of our constituencies when they discover that the relief on business rates is coming down from 75% to 40%. For many businesses, in real terms, that means a doubling or more of the business rates they pay, and we cannot see that in isolation—it comes on top of many other pressures. The increase in the national living wage is a good thing. The national living wage has been a very successful policy that, since 2015, has reduced the number of people in work on low pay from one in five to less than one in 10. However, I am afraid that the further increase in the national living wage—which I welcome—comes with things that I do not welcome, particularly the great extra cost pressure on employer’s national insurance contributions. A lot of nonsense has been talked about whether that counts as a tax on working people. Everybody knows that in the end, employer taxes on labour only ever show through in lower employment figures or wages lower than they otherwise would have been. On top of that, there are the French-style labour laws. While higher employer’s national insurance contributions may result in lower employment at any individual institution, the effect of the business rates hike will be that some establishments will close altogether. Before I sit down, I want to say a word about schools, a topic on which impassioned speeches have been made by Members across the House. Most of what colleagues have said will probably be discussed again on Wednesday, when the Finance Bill has its Second Reading—I can assure the Minister that we will be back for that debate, too. Relatively speaking, the measures in this Bill are small compared with the VAT changes. This Bill is projected to eventually raise £70 million for the Treasury and another £70 million for local authorities, compared with £1.6 billion through the VAT hike. These measures also have a relatively small effect on displacement into state schools, but let us be clear: there is still displacement into state schools. That is a cost to the state, but more importantly, when it comes to individual places, it will be a strain on some of our local school systems, on class sizes and, ultimately, on parents’ prospects of getting the first choice for their child—the school they want to go to. Although colleagues on both sides of the House have said that we cannot talk about the rates alone, but have to put them together with VAT, there are four things happening this year that will increase the amount of money going out of independent schools into the Exchequer. Business rates is one of them; VAT is the second; the third is the rise in employer’s national insurance contributions, which will have a big effect on this sector; and the fourth is the five-percentage-point increase in employer contributions through the teachers’ pension scheme. I estimate that for most schools, that measure on its own accounts for about 3.5% of total costs. All this matters because of the uneven effect it will have on displacements into state schools. Whether a person is in Salford or in Surrey, in Bristol or in Bury, they may find that great and unexpected strains are put on the schools in their area. This measure, as well as the VAT measure, will also have a disproportionate effect on low-cost faith schools, many of which rely partly on donations to keep going. Those are not businesses that are in some way well endowed; they are doing something because they believe it serves the needs of their faith, something that they cannot find in the state sector. Some of those schools are charging less than the cost of the average state school place in our country, and it seems bizarre that this Government wish to hammer them. It will also create a two-tier charity system in which some charities can be disfavoured fiscally even while complying with their charitable obligations and serving their communities. It is a new and most unwelcome example of state overreach, and I will be voting against the Bill this evening.

• 21 Nov 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May we have a debate in Government time on water recycling projects? The project at Havant Thicket is of great significance to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), but it is also of national significance. The technology is novel to the UK and it is important that this House has the opportunity to debate aspects around safety, the environment and public confidence.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Apprenticeships and T-Levels · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered apprenticeships and T Levels. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. UK productivity is well below that of the United States, Germany and France. That is not a new thing; it has been true in every year I have been alive. If we were able to fix that productivity gap, we could have higher living standards, lower tax and more tax revenue. There are multiple reasons for the gap and much academic literature has been written on it, but the level of skills in an economy is fundamental to productivity and therefore to growth. How we run our skills system is also important, because there is a cadre of young people who are less orientated towards pure academic study but have talent and flair in technical pursuits, and they deserve just the same opportunities and life chances as those who take the academic route. In this country, although we are famous for aspects of our education system, including for our higher education—our universities—and increasingly for aspects of our school system, we are not, I am afraid, famous for technical and vocational education and training. When foreign Ministers come to Europe to look at vocational education, they tend to go to Germany, and if there is one thing we do not like in England, it is losing out to Germany. It is right that successive Governments have been troubled by this situation and sought to fix it, but perhaps sometimes they have been a bit too quick to look for a fix. The story of our organisational infrastructure for technical and vocational provision is not one of stability. We have had industrial training boards, the Manpower Services Commission, the Training Commission, and training and enterprise councils—TECs. But those TECs were different from another TEC—the Technician Education Council, which existed alongside the Business Education Council, BEC. The two would eventually merge, of course, to give us BTECs. There were national training organisations; the Learning and Skills Council; sector skills councils; the UK Commission for Employment and Skills; the Skills Funding Agency, or SFA, which would later be the ESFA—the Education and Skills Funding Agency—and, most recently, local skills improvement plans and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. The infrastructure has been mirrored by a panoply of qualifications and awards. We have had traditional apprenticeships and then modern apprenticeships; the youth training scheme; the City & Guilds system; the technical and vocational education initiative; the National Council for Vocational Qualifications; NVQs, which are still in use; and GNVQs, which evolved into BTECs and diplomas. There were the 14 to 19 diplomas, which were not quite the same thing as the Tomlinson diplomas; the skills for life programme; and traineeships. Altogether, today, there are somewhere between 100 and 200 recognised awarding organisations, excluding those that only do apprenticeship end-point assessments. Now, just at level 3—the equivalent to A-levels—we have the following qualifications: tech levels as well as T-levels; applied generals; level 3 ESOL; level 3 NVQ, and access to higher education diplomas. There is a level 3 award, a level 3 certificate and a level 3 diploma—or someone might prefer a level 3 national certificate or a level 3 national diploma. There is also an extended diploma, a subsidiary diploma, and a technical introductory diploma. There is no official count, but by the mid-2010s someone had counted up what they could find and said that, together with other, non-level 3 courses available to 16 to 18-year-olds, there were at least 13,000 possible qualifications that someone in that age group could do. It is not surprising that when the Independent Panel on Technical Education was created in 2015-16, it found that vocational education and training had become “over-complex”.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Apprenticeships and T-Levels · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed—the hon. Member is absolutely right. Part of the point of careers advice is knowing which course to take and which qualification to pursue. The panel that I mentioned found that if someone was considering a career in plumbing, for example, there were 33 different qualifications that they might seek to take. It also found that in general the various qualifications were not providing the skills needed; they had become divorced from the occupations they were meant to serve, with no requirement, or only a weak requirement, to meet employers’ needs in those occupations. The panel’s report, which came out in April 2016, became a blueprint for a major upgrade of technical and vocational education in this country. The panel was determined to address both the productivity gap and very clearly also the social justice gap, whereby some young people were being left behind. I stress that although the report was a blueprint, it was also a “redprint”: the panel was chaired by the noble Lord Sainsbury, the distinguished Labour peer. The report called for “a fundamental shift”, with “a coherent technical education option…from levels 2…to…5”. There would be 15 clearly defined sector routes, covering 35 different career pathways. Three of those routes would be available only through an apprenticeship; the other 12 would be available either through an apprenticeship or a college track, and there would be common standards for both. Both the apprenticeship and college-based routes would result in “the same or equivalent technical knowledge, skills and behaviours” to take into the workplace. The report said that this path “needs to be clearly delineated from the academic option, as they are designed for different purposes. But, at the same time, movement between the two must be possible…in either direction”. The report also recommended expanding the then Institute for Apprenticeships into an Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, so as to cover both apprenticeship and college tracks. It added: “Specifying the standards…is not a role for officials in central government but for professionals working in…occupations, supported by…education professionals.” It recommended that there should be improvements to apprenticeships and a new, largely college-based qualification, which would become known as the T-level. With T-levels, the knowledge, skills content and required behaviours are set not by somebody at the Department of Education but by employers. There is the core technical qualification, but there is also content in English, maths and digital. Crucially, there is a 45-day industrial placement. There are also more college hours than with traditional vocational qualifications and indeed more taught hours per week than for A-levels. For the upgrade that we needed in our country, in both productivity and opportunities available to all young people, T-levels had to become the principal college-based option—not the only option, but the principal or main college-based vocational qualification. And the T-level could not be grafted on to a market that already had thousands of qualifications; there was an incumbency advantage and even commercial interests attached to some of those. It had to replace a number—a lot—of qualifications. Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, has been speaking about this quite recently. The other thing that was always going to be difficult about T-levels was finding enough industry placements. Lord Sainsbury found that we might need up to 250,000 industry placements for 17-year-olds, and that, of course, is hard to achieve. We could say that it is too hard and give up, but if we did that we would be giving up on advancing our competitiveness. The alternative is that we change culture in our country and say to companies that if they want to be a great success in their sector, and their sector to be a great success in our country, and our whole country to be a success in the world, we all have to invest both the resource and the time in the next generation.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Apprenticeships and T-Levels · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure it is. I will come to apprenticeships in a moment, but I was just talking about industry placements in T-levels. From speaking to young people who are doing T-levels, colleagues will know that their most popular feature is probably the fact that young people get to do a real role in a real workplace. The placements are also popular with the employers that provide T-levels: first, the employers are investing in the next generation and helping develop all the things the lack of which they sometimes complain about—soft skills and workplace skills—and secondly, the placements are the most fantastic, longest-ever job interview, when employers get to see the people who may come and work in their company over an extended period. I appeal to Ministers to carry on the great work of shouting about T-levels and talking about these great opportunities and the upgrade they represent. There were two big changes to apprenticeships. The first ensured that there were minimum standards. Previously, as colleagues will recall, some apprenticeships were so thin and flimsy that the apprentices did not know they were on one. After minimum standards came in, apprenticeships would last at least one year and involve at least 20% of time off the job. As with T-levels, there would be an end-point assessment, which would feature standards set by employers. The second big change was the introduction of the apprenticeship levy. That has always been controversial with some employers, but it was there to do two things. First, it raises the funds needed to pay for a big upgrade in apprenticeship provision. Secondly, it deals with the free rider problem, with which we will all be familiar: some companies in a sector have always strongly invested in young people, but three years later those young people leave to work for another employer that can offer to pay more but has not made the investment in the first place. The apprenticeship levy deals directly with that free rider problem, as economists call it, so that every sizeable company contributes properly. The new Government plan to change the scope of the levy and to introduce two new types of apprenticeship, which it is fair to say we do not know a huge amount about: foundation apprenticeships and shorter apprenticeships. There is an argument that we already make the word “apprenticeship” do a lot of work—it covers a wide spectrum. Arguably, there are three types of development of self and training, which have different needs: someone may be a career starter, career developer or career changer, and the specifications of the courses and qualifications are different. For example, a 50-year-old who is changing career does not need to learn as many things about what it is like to enter a workplace for the first time as an 18-year-old does. In truth, only one of those types of training is what a normal member of the public associates with the word “apprentice”: we think typically of people who are young and starting out on their working journey. It is totally legitimate to look at changing what the levy covers, and it is good to refocus on young people—career starters. It is also reasonable to say that the levy could cover some things that are not apprenticeships, such as management development or traineeships, but there is huge value in maintaining integrity around what we mean by the word “apprenticeship”, and keeping a minimum length and quantity of college or off-work content. Whatever the Government do with the levy, they need to find a way to deal with the free rider problem. The Government will always be lobbied by companies saying, “We should be able to use the levy for this, that and the other”, but if “this, that and the other” means training that they would have paid for anyway, then the levy will not have achieved its goal. It has to be something that creates a net increase in the amount of training and development available. That brings me to Skills England. Now, Ministers like shiny new things, and some people will always lobby for things to change. A sweet spot is found in public policy when the two coincide: Ministers get lobbied to do something, and they think they have come up with a shiny new thing that sounds like it will achieve those ends. Skills England is one of those things; I am afraid that, without major design change, it is doomed to failure. I have no doubt that plenty of people who lobbied the Government when they were in opposition said, “We need a different approach to skills. We need to think about them across Government, take the long view, listen to employers, listen to young people and have an integrated approach.” The Government have come up with this thing called Skills England, which they think will do that. Skills England will be the 13th new skills agency in five decades. If all it took to solve our skills and productivity problem was a change in the machinery of government, do the Government not think that one of the previous 12 might already have managed it? The instinct in difficult circumstances is to break glass and reach for a quango, but Skills England is not even a quango; it is nada—not quasi-autonomous, but a non-accountable departmental agency—and there is no reason to think it will be any better at working across Government, let alone across the economy, in solving these issues. If the Government were serious about creating something new to join together the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade, the DFE and everybody else, they would put it in the Treasury or perhaps the Cabinet Office. They would not just make it part of the DFE management structure. Worse than that is the loss of independence compared with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. There is legislation currently going through the other place that ostensibly creates Skills England, but it does no such thing. All it does is abolish the independent institute and move all of its powers into the Department for Education. The Secretary of State will now have responsibility for standards for T-levels. Imagine if that were the case for A-levels. If it is not all right for A-levels, why should it be all right for T-levels?

• 20 Nov 2024 · Apprenticeships and T-Levels · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Member will forgive me, I will continue. There is also no guarantee that business will continue to be involved in setting those standards. I am afraid that public and business confidence is set to be eroded—rightly, because everybody knows that the easiest way for the Government to increase the numbers of people doing anything in education is to erode standards to get more people through. I believe the Sainsbury report was—and still is—a good blueprint. Of course, the Government are entitled to evolve it, but they should recognise that the principles remain sound. With T-levels, it was always going to be hard to get sufficient industry placements and to overcome powerful objections that we need to change the system rather than just add to it. With apprenticeships, there will always be, as there always have been, firms that try to game the system. We can argue about what the levy should or should not cover, but it is a good thing and it needs to be designed and maintained to encourage a net increase in investment in this area and to deal with the free rider problem. There will always be some cost and downside when the bar of minimum standards is raised, as we did. We need to remember where we started, with the need to increase productivity and have higher expectations for all in the interests of social justice. We need to maintain those minimum standards to keep apprenticeships and T-levels equivalent, with the same levels of knowledge, skills and behaviours. Finally, the independence of the body that sets the standards, working with and for business, is key. The Government will obviously keep Skills England, but I ask the Minister to build into its design proper, full independence from her Department, and a proper, full guiding role for the businesses these occupations need to serve. I want Ministers not just to say that, but to write it into the legislation.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Apprenticeships and T-Levels · Hansard source

  More

  It has been a good debate. I thank everyone who took part for bringing their own perspectives. There is just one thing I want to say. We cannot legislate for parity of esteem; we can only earn it. High-quality apprenticeships and T-levels can do that, because young people know that the standards have been set by employers, and they are right for the levels necessary for success in those sectors. Crucially, to have confidence in the integrity of qualifications, they need to be set independently and, in the case of these qualifications, they need to be set with business. The Minister has an opportunity with a Bill going through Parliament at the moment. When the IfATE transfer of powers Bill comes to Committee stage in the Commons, please will the Government table an amendment to write that independence and the involvement of business into law? Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered apprenticeships and T Levels.