Higher and Further Education

George Freeman Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Willetts]

We are talking about future graduate debt, and the House is noticing that the hon. Lady is wriggling on the issue. We are saying that the extra funding helps to pay out cash for students at university through higher bursaries that are paid for out of revenues from higher fees. Students will have observed the failure of the Labour party to commit to maintaining that money.

Let us look at the next item that will supposedly meet those losses. We have established that the cost is not £1.1 billion but £2 billion, and that £330 million of that already comes from a set of measures that students will dislike. The shadow Secretary of State went on:

“£300 million comes from cancelling the Government’s planned cut to the corporation tax on the banks”.

That is the next extraordinary device that he thinks will help him save that money. Let us be clear: this Government have introduced a bank levy to raise at least £2.5 billion a year. That was set out by the Chancellor in the 2012 Budget, to take account of the benefit to the banking system from additional reductions in corporation tax on banks. In other words, we are already raising this money; we are already collecting extra money from the banks through the banking levy which is to offset the effect of lower corporation tax. There is no reduction in the taxation on banks that the Labour party could use to pay for this policy; the banking levy is extracting that funding.

If any Member of this House were remorseless in ensuring that every pound of revenue was extracted from our banks to contribute to education and other purposes, it would be my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are already extracting a large amount of money from the banks, and it is evidence of the bankruptcy of the Labour party’s thinking that when faced with any problem or public expenditure challenge it keeps claiming that it can meet the cost by taxing the banks. The evidence shows that the funding is simply not available to pay for it.

Reversing the VAT increase—£13.5 billion—is supposed to be met by taxing the banks. The Opposition have called for more capital spending—£5.9 billion—which will supposedly be met by taxing the banks. Reversing the child benefit savings of £2.5 billion will apparently be met by taxing the banks. Reversing tax credit savings—£5.5 billion—will be met by taxing the banks. They want more regional growth funding, and now we learn their plans for universities as well. There is simply no way in which taxing the banks will solve the gaping black hole in the Opposition’s financial proposals, and we will not let them get away with it.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Willetts]

Let me continue to make progress.

The final item, and the biggest on the shadow Secretary of State’s list, is in some ways the most curious. Some £500 million is to come from the top 10% of graduates. I quote the shadow Secretary of State, who wishes to ask

“graduates earning over £65,000 in each year of their working life—to pay more through a combination of a higher interest rate…and to continue to pay for an additional two years.”

That is £65,000 in each year of their working life. The shadow Secretary of State is possibly the only person in the Chamber who could have imagined earning £60,000 a year in each year of his working life. The idea that a levy on people earning £60,000 in each year of their working life could raise £500 million is absolutely incomprehensible. Does the Labour party perhaps mean that when someone’s earnings eventually reach £65,000, they will be charged a higher rate or be charged retrospectively? Again, however, there is no way in which such a measure could raise anything like £500 million, not least because in a free and voluntary system in which we have—quite correctly—protected the right of people to make early repayments of their loan, people whose earnings are heading that way will simply repay their loans. The idea that they will find themselves trapped in penal repayment terms when they are earning over £65,000 a year is complete fantasy. There is no £500 million.

I am, incidentally, offering the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood a free briefing on her policy, and I hope she appreciates how helpful it is. I am trying to explain it to her. In addition, if she were to move to anything like the commercial terms envisaged by the Opposition, consumer credit legislation would come into force and she would find a whole host of new regulatory requirements placed on her scheme that it would not be able to meet because of the design of the scheme that we inherited from the previous Government. It would simply become unworkable. There is no £500 million to finance the Opposition’s proposal, and they have no way of financing fees of £6,000.

[Mr Willetts]

It has come to a pretty pass when a loyal Opposition Back Bencher has to help those on the Front Bench by diverting attention from his party’s own policies, but that is what it has come to. The fact is that there is a black hole in the Opposition’s accounts, and we need to know whether they will cut £2 billion from resources that are now going to our universities. How are they are going to provide an extra £2 billion that is financed properly and honestly, and not by the slick accounting tricks used in the only attempt that they have so far made to explain their policy?

[George Freeman]

The Minister is famously well read, and I wonder whether he saw the comments made by Lord Mandelson in his paperback autobiography. He said that when he launched the Browne review in November 2009, he

“assumed, as the Treasury did, that the outcome would have to include a significant increase in tuition fees. I felt that they would certainly have to double.”

Is not the truth that dare not speak its name on the Opposition Front Bench that the Labour party would have doubled fees had it stayed in power?

[Mr Willetts]

I do recall that vivid and frank admission from the former Secretary of State.

The final irony of the Labour party’s proposals is that it is not at all clear what purpose they achieve. Let us be clear: there is nothing in those proposals for students who are currently at university; there are only risks. There are risks of having less money to pay for the student’s higher education, and, as we have seen, of less money for their bursaries. There seems to be no proposal to change the repayment terms of the scheme—9% on earnings above £21,000—and there is no reduction in the monthly repayments that graduates pay. There is, therefore, nothing in those proposals for people in their 20s or 30s; it will simply mean that they end their repayment period a bit earlier than they would otherwise have done. There is absolutely nothing for recent graduates.

Therefore, there is nothing for students, nothing for recent graduates because monthly repayments are not reduced, and there is no help for the poorest graduates, the one third who are better off under our scheme because we fully accept that they will not be able to repay the full amount under the current scheme. The Opposition managed to spend £2 billion that they do not have, with no help for students, no help for recent graduates, and no help for the poorest graduates. That is an extraordinary achievement.

I do not know which bit of the policy-making process produced this proposal, but the Opposition really need to do better. Just possibly, the Leader of the Opposition recognises that problem. In September last year he was asked on the “Andrew Marr show” about his policy, and about the status of the commitment to £6,000 and whether it was a policy that the Labour party would take into the next election. He said:

“The status is that it’s something that we would do now, that it’s something we’re committed to. But the manifesto’s three and a half years away. We'll announce the manifesto”.

It does not even look as if the Leader of the Opposition believes that that policy will ever make it into the Labour manifesto, and after what we have understood about it in today’s debate, I am not at all surprised.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Freeman Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently remind the House that we have a lot of questions to get through, so some pithiness would be appreciated.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that what the small business sector in this country needs is confidence, not carping from those on the Opposition Benches? The fact that the Government have created over 900,000 jobs since the election suggests they are doing a lot of good. Does he also agree that the World Economic Forum report of this week showing that Britain’s competitiveness has risen from 10th to eighth in the world league, because, it says, of our more efficient labour market reforms, suggests we are doing exactly the right thing?

[Vince Cable]

I thank my colleague for reminding me of that. It is a very positive report, and it is striking that it puts such emphasis on the fact that we have very flexible labour markets, which is one of the reasons why the private sector has been able to take on so many more people. That is publicly appreciated by many of the large manufacturing companies as well as by SMEs.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Freeman Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

My Department has a key role in supporting the rebalancing of the economy and businesses to deliver growth while increasing skills and learning. May I repeat, Mr Speaker, that the Secretary of State has a long-standing commitment to be in Berlin and Düsseldorf and therefore regrets not being able to be with us today?

[George Freeman]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK’s life sciences in areas such as biomedicine, clean energy and agriculture offer a huge potential opportunity for us to drive a sustainable recovery here in the UK by supporting sustainable development in the developing world, and that our science base, not least in Norwich research park in my county of Norfolk, has a key part to play in that revolution?

[Mr Willetts]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I will be visiting Norwich research park later today and will be able to announce £250 million of research funding going into life sciences across the country. Alongside the commitment to human health that we have already made, this will be a commitment to research in animal health, plant breeding and the agricultural industries of the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Freeman Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s support for the English baccalaureate. We are talking to schools about how we can best recognise those students who succeed in the baccalaureate and generally.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Given the importance of the UK science base to our innovation economy, does the Minister agree that we need to do all we can to support basic science learning in the curriculum and to inspire our young scientists through industry? Will he join me in welcoming the Sir Isaac Newton maths and science free school in Norfolk and my campaign for a Norfolk science day to bring industrial researchers together with our teachers?

[Michael Gove]

Yes, I have to say that Miss Rachel de Souza, the head teacher of the Ormiston Victory academy, who I understand is behind this initiative, is a visionary school leader. I absolutely agree that we need to do more to recognise how we can encourage mathematical and scientific learning among young people. The model of the 16-to-18 maths free schools, with which Ormiston Victory academy is engaging, is one of many ways of encouraging that helpful trend.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Freeman Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as we all share an ambition to put the employee’s voice on the board, the best way to do that is to encourage employee share ownership?

[Vince Cable]

It is indeed. Employee ownership is an expanding movement, and a popular one. It allows employees to become involved in the companies in which they have a share, and we wish to see it encouraged. We also wish to see workers properly consulted; there are powers to achieve that under existing legislation, but they are not being sufficiently used.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Willetts]

That is, of course, a matter for the Treasury. The Department is on the side of small businesses. I have visited that business in Tech City and was very impressed with what it does. Tech City, which had about 100 small businesses when the coalition came to office, now has more than 600 small businesses because of our commitment to the area.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

T8. May I, on the eve of national apprenticeship week, congratulate the Minister and the Government on the steps they are taking to increase the number of apprenticeships? I invite him to support the Norfolk Way project, which is giving youngsters work experience and entrepreneurial mentoring. I also invite him to agree with the wonderful words of Galileo Galilei, “We cannot teach people things; we can only help them discover it within themselves.”

[Mr Hayes]

John Clare, who is greatly admired by my hon. Friend, said:

“The best way to avoid doing a bad action is by doing a good one”.

Of course, he ended his life near Norfolk. My hon. Friend understated his own involvement in the project that he mentioned; he launched it, but he was too modest to say so. It says here that the project is “determined to nurture the ambition of enterprising young people and to encourage a can-do attitude.” I cannot do better than that.

Self-Employment

George Freeman Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Richard Harrington]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. The problem is that teachers by definition have chosen teaching as a career, so it is very hard for them to communicate on that. I do not want to take much more of this Chamber’s time, but I will come on to a proposal that I think answers my hon. Friend’s question.

I am not being critical of what the Government are doing. Yesterday, the Prime Minister and other Ministers made an announcement about this year being the year of the business and said that a minibus will go around different institutions, helping to give people the idea to set up businesses. All that is very good, but the cream of young people who are thinking, “I’m going to go to Goldman Sachs,” or, “I’m going to become a top man or woman at the Bar,” or, “I’m going to be a partner at Deloitte,” need to think, “Actually, the status of my setting up my own business and employing people will launch me to a higher level in society. I will be applauded and not thought of as a person who tries to avoid taxes and should hide the fact they have bought a decent car.”

The last vestige of the class system in this country is contained in the attitude that business is a bit grubby, something to be looked down and not something that proper chaps do. Until we change that attitude, we will not have enough people setting up businesses, employing people and providing the growth that we need in the future.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

rose—

[Richard Harrington]

I will give way, after which hon. Members will be relieved to know that I shall be brief with my comments.

[George Freeman]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on raising this important debate. I also congratulate Virgin on the support and work that it is doing in this field. Like many hon. Members here, I am sure that he agrees—he has touched on this—that part of what we must do is to help those youngsters who do not have the experience of entrepreneurship and self-employment through their family, so that they can experience it through schools. Many of us in our constituencies can help and, indeed, are helping with schemes. In my constituency, we have set up a programme called the Norfolk Way enterprise bursary and we are linking school leavers with local businesses, which can be very empowering. Lastly, does my hon. Friend agree that it is very striking that some of our best entrepreneurs, for example, Richard Branson and Bill Gates, are not graduates? They started their businesses pre-university, which sends a very powerful message to youngsters who are feeling disillusioned and disengaged by the mainstream curriculum. Some of our most deprived communities could benefit hugely from such initiatives.

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend makes very valid points. I hope that I speak for all hon. Members involved in this debate when I point out that Richard Branson and Bill Gates are examples of people whom we would regard as being very successful and would look up to. Both Richard Branson and Bill Gates were rejects from the mainstream academic system. Obviously, when I say “rejects”, I do not mean that they were not up to it, but that they were, through whatever personality they had or whatever came about, not part of it. My hon. Friend’s helpful intervention supports my argument, rather than the other way round.

In my constituency of Watford, there are some excellent initiatives. For example, Wenta, which is run by Chris Pichon and Sharon Gaffney, has many schemes to help schools give young children the opportunity to become entrepreneurs and to create an incubator for people who are without a job to help them set up their own business. Lots of good efforts are happening, but the fundamental point is to ask people to think culturally, socially and educationally. There is still a feeling against the acceptability of business in this country that is not present in Germany or the United States. As I have said, such an attitude is a result of hundreds of years of looking down on business.

School Transport

George Freeman Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Nicky Morgan]

I entirely agree. I am sure that the Minister has heard and will hear representations about the particular case that my hon. Friend has mentioned. She is right about the need to return to a common-sense approach and consider the needs of individual families, whether it is the parents or pupils who are affected. There are parents with disabilities who cannot accompany their children to school, because they just do not have the physical ability to do so, yet somehow they are deemed to be able to accompany their children. This is a huge issue for many hon. Members, across the House, and I am glad to have the opportunity to allow them to express their frustrations and views today.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that at the heart of the question is the issue of one size not fitting all, and legislation not working in rural areas in the same way that it does in urban ones? In cities, many of us will have seen happy gangs of schoolchildren walking and cycling safely to school in a morning. In rural areas, increasingly both members of couples are working, and at rush hour families who commute are affected by the cost of fuel and the higher speed of traffic. There is much more traffic on rural roads, and many people in mid-Norfolk live more than two or three miles from a local school. School rush hour in rural areas is a real problem. Norfolk now provides 24,000 free journeys a day, which has been described as the tip of the iceberg. That is a problem across rural areas, and I urge the Minister to see whether the criteria can be reviewed to take account of the important change that has taken place in the past 40 years.

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is right. He is concerned for parents, I am sure, across the country, but rural areas are particularly badly hit. My constituency example involves two villages and the route between them, which is rural and unlit. I shall discuss working hours as well, and I am sure that the Minister has taken my hon. Friend’s comments on board.

As I mentioned at the start of the debate, the Leicestershire county council test is that

“a route is available if it is a route which a child, accompanied as necessary, can walk with reasonable safety to school.”

We have talked about the reasonable safety point, and I will not labour it, in view of the time, but I want to deal with the question of the child being accompanied. To assume that children will be accompanied is surely to ignore the reality of much of family life—many parents now work—and the way in which the school day interacts with the working day. To walk three or more miles to a school will take an adult at least 45 minutes. When I walked the Sileby to Barrow route with the head teacher, the local PCSO, a parent, the leader of the county council and local councillors, it took us more than an hour, and we had no children with us. The policy therefore assumes that the relevant adult has between three and four hours spare walking time a day to accompany the child. Clearly that is totally unachievable.

My example in Leicestershire is not an isolated one. The Campaign for Better Transport has revealed that 38% of councils are reviewing or cutting transport to faith schools, and 46% are reviewing or cutting transport to schools other than faith schools. I fully understand the need to make savings in light of the appalling economic legacy left by the previous Government and the tough choices that that means for our local authorities, but there are some changes in services that have potentially devastating consequences.

I want to ask the Minister to address the following points: first, will he update the Chamber on the progress made on his Department’s review of efficiency and practice in the procurement, planning and provision of school transport across England? Depending on the stage that has been reached, will the review team consider how the safety of travelling children is being assessed by councils?

Secondly, will the Minister, perhaps in conjunction with the Department for Communities and Local Government, consider whether there is scope for issuing advice or guidance on how local authorities should handle decision making around the withdrawal of transport services? In particular, I think there should be advance consultation requirements, minimum notice periods and an obligation on local authorities to work with schools and colleges in relation to the provision of alternative services before services are withdrawn or fundamentally changed.

Thirdly, what is the position of those schools that become academies? Does conversion mean that an LEA is relieved of all its obligations in relation to home-to-school transport?

Finally, will the Minister, perhaps as part of his consideration of the responses to the review, consider whether the time has come for a clearer statutory test on whether a route is or is not available? In particular, is it time to drop the assumption that children will be accompanied, and should not child safety be considered above all other factors when considering whether a walking route is now available?

I am grateful to all the hon. Members who have attended today for their attention and for their support.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Freeman Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I would certainly be happy to look into the background of that particular case. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have an impartial process. Applications come to Ministers and then go through Sir Ian Wrigglesworth and Lord Heseltine, who sift and assess them properly. There is a new round for the regional growth fund, and if the project that the hon. Gentleman mentions can be reworked, we would certainly be very happy to look at it.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

9. How he proposes that his Department’s investment in graphene will be spent. [R]

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

Graphene is the thinnest, lightest, strongest and most conductive material known to man. Its discovery in Manchester in 2001 is testament to our strong science base and opens up a wide range of possibilities. That is why we have committed £50 million to create a new UK graphene hub to focus on its commercialisation. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Technology Strategy Board are now developing a detailed business case, which will be submitted to the Government shortly. We expect funding to start next year.

[George Freeman]

I welcome that announcement. Does the Minister agree that the investment of £50 million in a world-class hub is testament to the Government’s serious commitment to a rebalanced economy and a regional growth strategy? Will he agree to place a sample of graphene—like this—in the Library for the edification of us all?

[Mr Speaker]

The use of such props is on the whole discouraged, but we will let the hon. Gentleman off on this occasion.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Freeman Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Willetts]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this research is very important in tackling fundamental human illnesses such as Parkinson’s, and that is why we will continue to support it. We are assessing the implications of the ECJ ruling. It is important that stem cells can be derived in a variety of ways, and embryonic stem cells are only one source of stem cells. That is why we need more time to assess the implications of this judgment.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I am sure the Minister agrees that stem cell science is one of Britain’s great strengths. The feeling within the industry is that this Government are putting their money where their mouth is. In contrast to the accusations and nonsense coming from Opposition Members that we are not investing in science, the recent £195 million investment in graphene and supercomputing and the protection of the science budget amounts to a real growth strategy.

[Mr Willetts]

We are totally committed to investing in life sciences in Britain, and let me give a practical example of how we can cut the burden of regulation to bring this industry forward: we have committed to reducing the time it takes to start a clinical trial from over 600 days—the period we inherited from the previous Government—to 70 days in future under us.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Freeman Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

I am, for the purposes of this conversation at least, the Department for Education, and I can assure the hon. Lady that the Secretary of State for Education is wholly committed to this route. Indeed, his oral statement to the House earlier this week cemented and reinforced his commitment to apprenticeships and vocational learning.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to support the commercial development of life sciences through industry partnerships.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

The Budget included a plan for growth for life sciences, including the development of a new technology innovation centre, the speeding up and reforming of clinical trials and the establishment of research partnerships to support the new model of open innovation and collaboration in the industry.

[George Freeman]

I thank the Minister for his reply and congratulate him on his commitment to business. Last week’s Budget set out a clear strategy for growth based on science, innovation and enterprise, particularly in my area, the biotech corridor between Cambridge and Norwich. Does he agree that the challenge is to ensure that our leading research institutes link up with industry so that our science is driven around the world in the three biggest markets: food, energy and medicine?

[Mr Prisk]

My hon. Friend is an outstanding champion in this field, and I was pleased that we were able to support Norwich research park in that context, for which he has fought and argued for many months. Our plan is about accelerating innovation, investing in the way collaboration takes place and ensuring that we retain this country’s world-class role in life sciences and biotechnology.