Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th July 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham]

76: After Clause 21, insert the following new Clause—
“Provision of opportunities for education and skills development
(1) Any person of any age has the right to free education on an approved course up to Level 3 supplied by an approved provider of further or technical education, if he or she has not already studied at that level.(2) Any approved provider must receive automatic in-year funding for any student covered by subsection (1), and supported by the Adult Education Budget, at a tariff rate set by the Secretary of State. (3) Any employer receiving apprenticeship funding shall spend at least two thirds of that funding on people who begin apprenticeships at Levels 2 and 3 before the age of 25.”

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, I tabled Amendment 76 in collaboration with the noble Lord, Lord Layard, and I am glad to see that my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has added his name in support.

In moving this amendment, I hope to get a reasonably sympathetic response from the Government—I am sure the Minister will endeavour to provide one—because it is very much in the spirit of the Government’s policy of trying to address the skills gap in this country and enable individuals to develop skills relevant to today’s labour market in their area. I therefore hope I can get a sympathetic and even positive response to what I propose for the category of people covered.

The Government’s policy so far, based on their excellent White Paper—to which they are slowly adding some substance as they develop it—is to concentrate particularly on the higher levels of skill to make sure we have an alternative to the traditional route through school and university for the academically able that gives equal status and value to technical and engineering skills. I very much welcome that. This amendment is tabled for a slightly different target, which does not have adequate attention: people who unfortunately did not take advantage of opportunities when they were young and should have devoted at least some of their time to their education and training, who realise that they need to improve their skills to get better career prospects and move to a more sensible job pattern in future.

Teenage angst takes a whole variety of forms, but it leads to some people completely failing to take advantage of the opportunities they had at school or wherever. There are people who have intrinsic intelligence and ability but drop out of school or the labour market because of whatever phase of the world they are going through. They even join the category given the dreadful jargon name of NEETs—people not in education, employment or training. By the time they get to the age of 25, as people begin to mature and face up to the realities of life, quite a lot of them wish to address it. I think society as a whole wishes to give them an opportunity to make themselves better opportunities in the labour market.

For that reason, we are concerned with those seeking skills at level 2, which is the equivalent of GCSE, and level 3, which is the equivalent of A-levels. Anybody who failed to take their opportunities when they had them should have a lifelong opportunity to do so in order to improve the contribution they can make to the local economy and their life prospects.

As I said, the Government are producing quite substantial proposals in the Bill, but so far there is much more support for levels 4, 5 and 6 up to degree level. This is not in any way challenging that—I support all that—but there is a gap that we seek to address in this amendment. The first component of the amendment says:

“Any person of any age has the right”


to free tuition if they wish to make up for what they have omitted so far and to take a level 2 or 3 qualification of some kind. The Government have not covered that. A statutory right would be extremely valuable.

Some financial support will be required. The Government are developing a lifelong loans entitlement for people who at any stage wish to improve their skills, but that is confined to those seeking skills at levels 4, 5 and 6. I hope I have made the case for making available some equivalent to those at levels 2 and 3. The form can be settled, but the legal entitlement would give substance to the Government’s policies. In due course, the Government could provide the sort of funding that should be made available to persons who make the sensible decision to gain qualifications at that level.

It is no good offering people government funding for courses of any kind if the providers are not supplying such courses and if the budgets of the relevant institutions do not allow them to make those courses available. This is all part of a much wider problem in the further education college and sixth-form college sector, which has been the Cinderella of our education and training system for several decades but will have to play a vital part in supplying a response to the skills gap at every level, and will certainly be very important at this level.

The problem at the moment is that, while further education colleges do try to provide relevant courses—I welcome the fact that they will be working much more closely with local employers for relevant local skills and I am not remotely hostile to the broad brush of policy—they are, of course, funded on a quite different basis from other parts of our education system. Every school gets a guaranteed sum of money for every pupil it persuades to stay on in the sixth form. Every university gets a very generous sum of money guaranteed for everybody it can entice into any sort of course. Colleges of further education, however, work to cash-limited budgets, which have not been treated generously in recent years; there is a finite limit to what they can offer and they have to make a choice.

This is why the second component of our amendment suggests:

“Any approved provider must receive automatic in-year funding for any student”


who, as we have already said, is seeking a level 2 or level 3-type qualification at a tariff rate to be

“set by the Secretary of State”.

I hope that there will be much wider moves than that to get further education funding, further education college status, and the attractiveness of employment and careers in the further education service made more attractive by the Government—but this proposal would provide automatic funding for all those courses that are taken up by an adequate number of people seeking level 2 and 3 qualifications.

Finally, on a slightly broader point, the amendment addresses the uses to which the apprenticeship levy is being put at the moment. Again, I am not just trying to persuade the Minister to be forthcoming; I very much welcome the apprenticeship levy system, the development of apprentices and the way the Bill addresses very important things, such as the quality and variety of qualifications, trying to sort out the maze of them, and so on—and the levy system has had some extremely beneficial effects. However, in its current form, it has had some unintended side-effects. In recent years, there has been a steady drift in the use of levy money towards higher-level qualifications, and towards existing employees of companies seeking to refresh or modify their skills, go through management training and so on, and a decline in the number of young people getting apprenticeships and in the number of people getting more ordinary-level training in skills.

Management trainees, middle-ranking managers and quite senior managers can be described by large employers as apprentices—most of them are utterly unaware of the fact that they are apprentices—for the purpose of claiming levy money to cover the costs. Public sector bodies do this—as, I suspect, do government departments when they are training civil servants; some high-flying civil servant is probably being described somewhere as an apprentice, in order to recover the levy. In answer to questions from the Select Committee on Youth Unemployment, another Minister told us the other day that they have stopped funding MBA courses out of the apprenticeship levy. However, the whole thing has drifted away from its essential point.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

I believe I have no further requests to speak after the Minister. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Baker; I am afraid the message arrived rather tardily, but I am sure that that was the technology. I now call the mover, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply, and I realise the constraints a Minister has in replying to a debate of this kind in the Lords. She was obviously trying to be helpful. I was very grateful for the wide level of authoritative support that the amendment received. I hope that, before we return to this subject on Report, she will try to come back with a little more substance in response to the points that were made.

Very briefly, on the first point in the amendment, that we should put the Government’s lifelong learning guarantee on a statutory basis, my noble friend’s only reply was that she saw no need to put it in the Bill. Well, given the problems that often arise between Governments announcing noble intentions and the actual delivery of things on the ground, I beg leave to doubt that. Of course, one can ask the opposite question: what exactly is the reason for resisting putting it in the Bill if the Government are all in favour of it? Given that I so welcome the lifelong learning guarantee, perhaps the Government would consider signing up to it—not in blood exactly, but at least putting themselves under a legal obligation to those who should be entitled to it.

On the questions of expenditure that we have been asking, it is certainly the case that noble Lords kept referring to my being a former Chancellor. I am also a former Minister of Employment and Secretary of State for Education. As a former Chancellor, I am quite traditional; I am fiscally responsible—a bit of a fiscal hawk, sometimes—but I do think there are two subjects on which it is unavoidable for the present Government to spend more money. That means I would probably be at least as hawkish as the present Chancellor in resisting all the other lobbies which are inevitably piling in as the atmosphere of free money prevails. Social care and skills training—filling the skills gap—are irresistible things to which we must devote more resources.

EU Trade Agreements: Replication

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman gives us a rich menu of the things on which he is wrong. First, if we want to ensure that all our agreements are rolled over, the best way to do that is by reaching a deal with the European Union so that they will apply one minute after midnight. I voted for that continuity. Did the hon. Gentleman? Did his party? Secondly, he asks about the reasons why countries may not want to continue these things. I have had discussions with a number of Opposition politicians about this. Some countries have said that they did not like some of the human rights elements that were incorporated by the EU and they would like us to drop those in order to roll the agreements over. I am not inclined to do so, because the value we attach to human rights is an important part of who we are as a country. The hon. Gentleman was wrong in that, rather than diverting resources in my Department from roll-over agreements to future free trade agreements, I have done exactly the opposite, reducing the number working on potential future FTAs in order to give maximum resource for this. Finally, he was wrong as I did not advocate unilateral liberalisation of tariffs—that was something mentioned in a newspaper—and the Government will determine what their day one tariffs will be as a collective decision in the event of no deal.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is right to stress that if we were to leave on 29 March with no deal, it would have a disastrous effect for many industries, because we would suddenly lose very important trading agreements across the world that we have enjoyed for many years. I agree with him on that, but does he not accept that when we get into the transition period he is still going to face enormous difficulties and will need a very long transition period to start negotiating so many trade deals with so many important markets for our economy? Does he not accept that his principal problem is the lack of bargaining power that the UK has on its own compared with what the EU has as a bloc in carrying out bargaining arrangements? He mentions human rights and other things, but very important countries such as Japan and South Korea, and others, are going to expect better terms from the UK, at the expense of the UK, than they have had to give to the EU. He says that they will take it to the wire. He accepts that he is having tough negotiations. Would he contemplate urging on his colleagues, even at this stage, moving to some sort of customs arrangement and regulatory alignment with the rest of the EU which will rescue us from these chaotic negotiations and allow us to enjoy the benefits of trade agreements which, for the most part, were ones that previous Conservative British Governments urged upon our EU partners and took a leading role in getting put in place in the first place?

[Dr Fox]

As ever, my right hon. and learned Friend raises interesting points. Although there would undoubtedly be a greater risk in the case of no deal, I do not agree that this would be disastrous, because we are likely to maintain a high proportion of the continuity of these agreements. Let me just remind him that five of those 40 agreements represent 76% of the trade, by value, that falls into this category. My Department has developed a great degree of expertise and knowledge in the process of transitioning to new agreements. There are those who say, “If we end up getting a deal, much of this work that has been done will be wasted.” I completely disagree with that, as it has created a body of knowledge, experience and expertise in the Department that will stand us in good stead. As for our ability to negotiate with other countries, we remain the world’s fifth biggest economy and many countries have said to us that it would be much easier to do an agreement with the UK as a single country which would then negotiate and ratify than to have to do it with 28 countries, as they do at the moment. On Japan, we have of course made clear our position and finished our public consultation on potential membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—CPTPP—a subject on which we are likely to have a debate in this House next week. Finally, he asks whether we should not stay in a customs union. That would preclude us from having negotiations on new agreements, such as with the United States, or even with China, with which the EU has no agreement at the present time.

Trade Bill

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I shall speak briefly on new clause 11 in my name and the names of 20 of my Co-operative party colleagues—the Co-operative party being the third largest party in this House, despite what some in here say.

New clause 11 simply asks the Secretary of State to make an assessment of slavery and servitude as part of any new trade deals. Modern slavery is a stain on society and we in this country are making great headway in tackling it through the Modern Slavery Act 2015, particularly sections 1 and 54, but, sadly, slavery is all too apparent in some parts of the world. Most people in this room will be wearing an item of clothing that has been made by a slave, and we should be using our international prowess and purchasing power to try to deliver a reduction in slavery and servitude.

Amendment 22, which was very kindly tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), supported by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), relates to trade remedies. The British Ceramic Confederation has worked very hard on this. I shall also be supporting amendment 80, because that will also help to protect our manufacturing base.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I shall be voting for new clauses 9, 17 and 18. I will not repeat the very eloquent arguments that have already been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who have put the case perfectly. I do not see any answer to it. The only question I wish to pose relates to my understanding that the Government are resisting these new clauses, which I find completely incomprehensible, particularly since yesterday. I personally cannot see why we are leaving the single market and the customs union, because that does not follow on from the referendum at all. However, I accept that staying in them has been ruled out and, in the spirit of getting a reasonably broad compromise, I am prepared to give the Government a chance to produce some other version that will preserve totally frictionless trade and no barriers to trade and investment with Europe, if they think that there is one. Therefore, I would not press new clauses 1 and 5 to a vote, and I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) would do so. Let us give the White Paper a chance, which is what new clause 18 does. What I do not understand, given that the White Paper also supports keeping our present arrangements, if we can, by remaining within the European Medicines Agency, is why on earth these proposals are being resisted.

Yesterday, I was astonished that the Government used a three-line Whip to secure a majority for my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and his European Research Group faction, which they only just managed to do, by chance. The Government actually whipped my party to defeat their own policy, as set out in the White Paper. Today, we have amendments that are entirely consistent with the White Paper, but the Government are so terrified of the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and the European Research Group that they are now applying the whip to try to defeat these measures. I really hope that they will go away for the summer and have a good rest—perhaps they should lie in a quiet, dark room at some stage—then come back and tell us exactly how they intend to negotiate these serious matters relating to the future of our country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Trade Policy

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I rather share the suspicion of the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) that the only reason this non-urgent statement was made today was to reduce the already inadequate time that we will have in which to debate the highly important Bill that follows, which is likely to be squeezed into four hours for speeches and Divisions—although the hon. Gentleman then filibustered. I shall try to avoid contributing to that filibuster.

As you have given your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not ask the full question that I was going to ask about the rumours that the Government will adopt, this afternoon, amendments that are directly inconsistent with the White Paper of a week ago, including amendments tabled by my hon. Friends. For instance, new clause 36 contradicts paragraph 17(a) of the White Paper, on page 17. Are any statements by the Government on its trade policy in future to be relied on for more than a week or two at the moment, and is it not rather premature for the Secretary of State to come here and explain exactly how we may eventually be contemplating new trade agreements of our own, which will take many, many years to achieve?

[Dr Fox]

I will not take any more of the House’s time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is entirely untrue that that was the reason for the statement.

European Affairs

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

We have been absolutely clear that we will of course abide by the December agreement in full. Let me remind the hon. Lady that the three priorities we laid out include a strong commitment to avoid a hard border, but also to preserve the integrity of the UK market—I remind her that having access to the UK market is very important for the people of Northern Ireland. No UK Prime Minister could accept a new border down the Irish sea.

We are also making strong progress on our trading relationships outside the EU, which is my primary responsibility as Minister for Trade Policy.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

To follow on from that point, my right hon. Friend has repeated two points from December, and at Prime Minister’s questions the Prime Minister repeated her full commitment to the December agreement on Ireland. When he says there will be no hard border, I assume that means there will be no physical infrastructure. I of course recognise that we will not have a border down the Irish sea, but does he accept that, if there is no other way of achieving it, we are going to have the full regulatory convergence to which the Government signed up in the December agreement?

[Greg Hands]

I reiterate that what the Prime Minister said at Mansion House and at Prime Minister’s questions this week still stands. I refer my right hon. and learned Friend to the papers published last summer by the Department for Exiting the European Union on how a proper border between the two parts of Ireland can be effectuated through the two possible types of customs agreements between the UK and the European Union.