Jesse Norman
MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“In view of the new Prime Minister’s spending priorities, it now seems highly unlikely that the ruinously expensive current plans will be put to the House before the end of this year. Seven months have already passed with no action.”
“10 North have real spending powers of its own? If the answer is yes, then this will be a new kind of cross-departmental Ministry—perhaps a territorial Ministry, like a regional Government but with no defined scope or mandate. We will need to see the legal instruments delegating Treasury authority and functions to it.”
“I rather fear that, given our longevity and at least the level of banter on the Government side of the Dispatch Box, we will be seen over time as the Morecambe and Wise, or perhaps the two Ronnies, of British politics.”
“The past few weeks have brought news of the deaths of Dolly Parton, Tim Curry and Wendell Berry. I am sure that many colleagues will share my sense of shock and sadness at the loss of those extraordinary figures, but also give great thanks for their lives. Truly, we live in a world of change.”
“10 North will not have spending power of its own, then ultimately the Treasury and the Chancellor will continue to sign off on its public spending and on any taxing matters. Decentralisation is really important, but No. 10 North will not be a means of decentralisation in this scenario; it will be just another layer of Government.”
“But we are not going to cast nasturtiums, in the words of a friend of mine, on any of this nonsense—not even on Baroness Lloyd and the hopeless Building Digital UK, who have entirely failed to address the issue of fibre broadband in neglected parts of my constituency and simply repeated the same language of incompetence and failure to me…”
The complete record
Every one of 5,414 lines we hold for Jesse Norman, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 59 of 109.
“That will certainly be of great interest to my constituents, both as consumers and producers. As my hon. Friend knows, there has been a tremendous reinvigoration of the brewing industry over the last nine years. The number of brewers has this year risen dramatically to more than 2,200. The rise of craft beer has seen breweries grow and flourish in every part of this country, including microbreweries, and exports have reached more than £500 million a year. Again, it would be wrong of me not to mention a personal interest in this context. Certainly, my county of Herefordshire is as amply endowed with fabulous breweries and pubs as any part of the country. It would be wrong not to mention Wye Valley Brewery, Golden Valley Brewery and Hereford Brewery—I have pulled a pint of its Hereford Best in the Strangers Bar.”
“Conversely, higher-strength beers over 7.5% ABV pay a higher duty rate of roughly 30% more, in part to send a fiscal signal about the importance of responsible drinking.”
“Members will know, the Treasury announced a review of that relief in the Budget. My officials are now working to take the results of the survey further to address the issues raised, and the Government hope to make further announcements in due course. Of course, as I have said, we also recognise the importance of responsible drinking. That is why there are already differential rates of duty on lower-strength and alcohol-free beers. On beers of less than 1.2% ABV, no duty is paid at all, and on beers between 1.2% and 2.8%, the reduced rate is less than half the standard beer duty rate. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton is absolutely right. It is hard to produce a beer of, I would say, less than 2.3% that maintains its taste, but at between 2.3% and 2.8%, one can have a delicious pint and benefit from the duty differential.”
“We can only introduce reliefs or different rates of duty for beer that are compatible with the EU directive on alcohol excise duty structures. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton made the point that, once the UK has left the EU, the Government and Parliament will no longer be bound by this directive, so there should be much greater opportunity to explore creative proposals to redress that balance. But until then, there are limits laid down in statute as to what can be introduced. However, even within that context—this point has been touched on—we have been able to make progress and exploit some existing differentials, which have benefited pubs and breweries. Those include the small brewers relief, which allows the smallest breweries to receive up to 50% off their duty bill in the start-up and growth phase. As hon.”
“Friend the Member for Clacton is absolutely right to emphasise the social importance of pubs, which are central places in the community. They are mixing places and meeting places for people from every walk of life. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton also made the point that pubs are a place of supervised, safe drinking, where publicans—male or female—know their customers, pulling pints and pulling people together in a social environment. That of course raises the stakes from a Government standpoint. When considering whether to introduce differential beer duty, we and Governments before us have had to acknowledge that the UK is currently bound by EU laws that harmonise excise duties applicable to alcohol products.”
“The Government will of course continue to look for ways to support the brewing industry, and I absolutely look forward to further engagement with my hon. Friends and Members from across the House. However, it is important to try to strike a responsible and sustainable balance with wider public spending commitments. It is worth noting that the Exchequer has forgone more than £5.2 billion in revenue due to cuts and freezes to all alcohol duties since 2013. That is £5 billion that has to be made up by taxpayers by other means if we are to be able to spend as we would wish on our public services. [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members who have recently arrived for the next debate will not be aware that we have a few more minutes, because of the kind courtesy of the Chair, and can run the debate until 4.45 pm. My hon.”
“I will come on to a point my hon. Friend raised, and with great eloquence, on the vigorous role that the Government have taken in cutting beer duty and supporting the industry. However, I point out that this great change over the last few years has not been the result merely of enlightened tax policy but of an outbreak of entrepreneurialism and energy in the sector as a whole. It is important to realise that the Government cannot reverse the laws of economic gravity or changing tastes and habits, but they can help at the margin, and have tried to. As my hon. Friend will know, in 2013 the Government took the decision to end the beer duty escalator. Since then, they have cut or frozen beer duty several times, including at the last Budget, with the effect that a typical pint of beer is 14p cheaper than it would otherwise be.”
“And we may wish to remain aligned with the EU even post Brexit, from a competition or state aid perspective, in part to prevent mercantilism from breaking out between EU businesses and our own. Of course, there is an issue about enforcement. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs taxes beer at the point at which it moves into general distribution, rather than monitoring the wider beer supply chain. The concern is obviously about the potential to repackage beer that had the lower rate of duty paid on it and then to sell it and trouser the difference.”
“The closure of pubs potentially affects some of those, particularly in a world that has seen, in this country at least, something of an epidemic of loneliness, so my hon. Friend was absolutely right to pick up on that. He is also right to say that there is evidence that responsible drinking and better public health outcomes can be due to differential rates of duty. I understand that point. It is important, though, to remind ourselves of the practical difficulties that need to be overcome. It is not merely the EU law issue. It is also important that whatever the regimen may be, it is not subject to legal challenge for breaching state aid or competition rules.”
“I am grateful for that intervention. There may be scope to contemplate an uplift in relation to the higher level of lower-strength beer. It would be interesting to discuss that further. Let me turn to some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton raised. I intervened only to provide the point of information to him, because of course I did not see the correspondence that he had received and therefore could not respond to it in those terms. I apologise if he was disappointed by the response that was given. It is always the Treasury’s policy to try to give informative and full as well as, of course, accurate responses. Let me pick up a couple of the points that were raised in my hon. Friend’s speech and that reiterate some of the wider issues. Of course, there are public health outcomes that need to be met.”
“Resolved, That this House has considered differential rates of beer duty.”
“I am delighted to have taken that final point of information. It may be the case that when we come to reconsider it, the draught beer distinction that my hon. Friend draws gives us a workable legal and practical basis on which to proceed. My point is a much simpler one: it is important to bear in mind the potential grey market impacts, as well as the competition, state aid and legal points that I raised earlier. Having said that, I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton for initiating the debate and for making a case of great passion and urgency with his usual oratorical flourish. Even if I cannot join him in his own Kings Head where he was a publican, I very much hope to be able to join him in the future at some point. Question put and agreed to.”
“In 2015, the Court agreed with the Commission and found that the scope of the UK’s reduced rate for energy-saving materials was indeed too wide. Under EU rules, the UK is obliged to comply with the decision of the EU Court of Justice. If it does not, the European Commission will be required to issue infraction fines against the UK.”
“Under current UK VAT rules, a reduced rate of 5% applies to the installation of energy-saving materials such as insulation, solar panels and other technologies in residential properties. Under EU law, it is not possible to remove VAT from those materials, so the reduced rate of 5% applies. The VAT relief aims to lower the cost for consumers and families to install those energy-efficient products in their homes. In 2011, the European Commission launched an infraction proceeding against the UK, arguing that the scope of the UK’s reduced rate for the installation of energy-saving materials was too wide and needed to be changed. The Government did not agree with the European Commission’s infraction proceeding, so the matter was heard by the Court of Justice of the European Union.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the Value Added Tax (Reduced Rate) (Energy-Saving Materials) Order 2019. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The instrument amends the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to alter the scope of the reduced rate of VAT for the installation of energy-saving materials. That ensures consistency with the 2015 judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union. As the Committee will know, this Government are deeply committed to greening our economy and our society and bid fair to be the greenest Government ever. It is of huge regret to us that we have felt compelled to make this change because of EU regulation.”
“As the right hon. Gentleman will know, it is hardly rushing to respond to an infraction proceeding that began in 2011 and involved a European Union Court of Justice appeal in 2015. While we remain a member of the EU, we are required to obey its laws. When we leave the EU, we will of course be in a position to revisit the issue.”
“They are designed to have the minimum possible impact so the Government can continue to support families with installing energy-efficient products in their homes. I commend the order to the Committee.”
“That represents less than 5% of the value of all installations currently eligible for the reduced rate. Overall, the changes are expected to have a negligible impact on Exchequer revenue. Overall, the Government continue to support investment in energy-saving technology. Her Majesty’s Treasury and HMRC will continue to work with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy at official and ministerial level to manage the impact of the changes. These changes are the result of a highly regrettable EU process of infraction and legal proceedings. They are necessary for the UK to maintain compliance with its international obligations. Speaking personally, I wish the previous arrangements had continued, as I am sure do many members of the Committee, but I am pleased that these changes have been agreed.”
“Although it was reasonable for industry groups to wish for the relief to be maintained in full, there was some acknowledgement that the Government are required to make the changes under EU law. I understand that there will be concern from industry about the loss due to EU law enforcement of a VAT relief for energy-efficient products at a time when we are encouraging use of those products through other schemes. That is why our agreement with the Commission to implement changes that affect relatively few installations is important. HMRC does not expect the changes to have a significant impact on the industry. Around 1,500 future installations of solar panels, energy-saving boilers and wind turbines, plus some other smaller-scale items, are expected to be affected annually.”
“The proposed changes will remove the reduced rate for the installation of wind and water turbines, which are not deemed to be improvements to residential accommodation, and maintain the reduced rate for all other installations of energy-saving materials in residential accommodation where the cost of the materials does not exceed 60% of the total cost of the installation. That is a significant improvement on the 50% originally consulted on in 2016. The proposed changes are expected to take effect from 1 October 2019. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs put the changes to public consultation in April 2019. I am grateful for the responses provided by industry groups and other interested stakeholders.”
“Since 2015, Treasury officials have held several sets of discussions with the European Commission. Following those discussions, the Government agreed with the Commission to maintain much of the reduced rate of VAT for solar panels, meaning that the changes will now affect far fewer installations. That is a highly successful negotiation outcome. We have done the right thing by complying with international obligations while maintaining as much of the VAT relief as possible for UK households. The proposed amendments will maintain the reduced rate on all installations of energy-saving materials for recipients who are aged 60 or over or on certain benefits, for relevant housing associations, and where the installations are in buildings used for relevant residential purposes, such as care homes and children’s homes.”
“The Government have taken appropriate time to ensure that as much as possible of the existing VAT relief is maintained. The problem would have been faced by any Government committed to green energy, but we have managed to set up mitigations that others might not have done. In 2015, a consultation on potential changes was published, which included proposals to remove entirely the VAT relief from the installation of solar panels. That could have affected 40,000 installations per year, and would have had a significant impact on those wishing to invest in sustainable energy solutions. Following a 2016 consultation on that proposed change, the Government recognised the concerns of industry, of colleagues across the House and of campaigners, and decided to go back to the European Commission to agree, if possible, scaled-back changes.”
“There is a natural pace of change to these things. The negotiations have taken place over the last three years, and the Government felt that, all things considered, it was appropriate not to delay further but to continue with the process of seeking to comply. We could be placed under infraction proceedings if we delayed on this matter, so it is important not to be delayed. As I have said, it will be perfectly possible and not difficult for a future Government to reverse the change by statutory instrument, in the usual way, after we leave the EU. Under EU rules, the UK is obliged to comply with the decision of the EU Court of Justice. If it does not, the European Commission will be required to issue infraction fines against the UK.”
“Member for Bootle accuses the Government, he needs to tell us whether he would accept the EU Court judgment if he were part of a Labour Government, or whether he would propose allowing the situation to drag on and endure significant infraction costs.”
“Gentleman contrasted our position with other aspects of Government policy over the past few years. Let me remind him that this is the only Government to announce that the country is exiting the coal industry entirely. There is the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation Order 2007, the Energy Act 2013 and the “Road to Zero” transport strategy—a vast array of measures have been taken to comply with our international obligations and electrify the economy. Wind power, particularly offshore wind—an area with which I was closely associated when I was a Minister at BEIS—has been a conspicuous success story precisely because we have taken the kind of energetic international action that characterised the forward position we have taken as a country, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury referred. Before the hon.”
“Some 95% of installations are projected to be unaffected by this change, and its overall effect on the Exchequer is negligible—less than £5 million. As we have spent £30 billion supporting renewable energy over the last few years, one can see the magnitude of the contrast. I come now to the comments of the hon. Member for Bootle. This is our first debate together, and I hope future debates are not characterised by the approach that he has taken today. There was a lot of bombast and windbaggery in his remarks, and I do not think it dignified him or the debate. Let me pick up some of his points. First, he tried to suggest there was great conflict in the position into which we have been forced not merely by EU regulation, but by a prolonged process of litigation and negotiation. The hon.”
“As I think she understands well, having read the explanatory memorandum and researched the matter, EU VAT law allows the reduced rate to apply to all installation costs except where the cost of the goods is significant. The question is: what does “significant” mean? The original suggestion was 50%; in negotiation, that was pushed up to 60%. That was a better outcome than was anticipated—certainly a better outcome than was anticipated by the other side. Our judgment has been that it strikes the right balance—certainly the right negotiable balance—between the twin concerns of complying with EU law and minimising any adverse impact on UK businesses. It is important to note—certainly, the comments of the hon. Member for Bootle show that it is easy to forget—that we are talking about a very small change in terms of impact.”
“Member for Aberdeen North raised a series of more technical questions. First, I will ask my officials to make sure that the link to the tax information impact notes has been corrected. She asked about the impact on industry; if she has specific impacts in mind, she is welcome to write to me about her constituency or Scotland more generally and I will be happy to discuss that. In this case, the Government consulted twice: once on the policy and once on the statutory instrument. I assure the hon. Lady that officials meet the industry regularly and have shared aspects of the negotiation as they have gone forward, to bring that consent with them. The hon. Lady closed by asking about the logic of the 60% figure, which is an improvement on the original EU suggestion.”
“We have a rule-of-law society, possibly more developed than anywhere else in the EU. That is why, as a general matter, we take it upon ourselves to be compliant with EU law and in good time. My right hon. Friend raised two interesting ideas. One was a grant scheme on the model of the churches scheme that he described; the other was whether batteries should somehow be accommodated by HMRC to create a new battery industry. Both are interesting ideas; they are tangential to the scope of this debate but I am happy to take them away and write to him with proper advice about whether we could do something in both areas. We will need to, and want to, comply with relevant EU law, but within that there would be some scope for discussion and I would be happy to take that up with him. The hon.”
“I thank all colleagues who have spoken in the debate. Let me start in reverse order, with the issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. He is absolutely right to highlight the extent to which this country has been in the vanguard of legislation and change to combat climate change and to improve our energy efficiency, often ahead of the EU—he is right to focus on that and I identify to a degree with his experiences. He is also right to suggest that it is quite wrong to imply that somehow our officials or lawyers are soft on these matters. When we send legal teams in to negotiate or fight battles, that is done at the highest level in the European Court of Justice and with the gloves off, as one might expect from any high-quality legal adviser or barrister. The same is true of policy officials.”
“We must treat what he says as essentially evidence free. The hon. Gentleman refers to paragraph 37 of the European Court judgment. From what he read out, it appears to concern zero rates of VAT, which does not bear on the matter at all. This issue has been taken to the highest level in the EU judicial framework: the European Court of Justice itself. A better outcome has been negotiated than was originally sought. The order will have a negligible impact because 95% of installations will not be affected. I therefore commend it to the Committee. Question put.”
“I am absolutely not proposing that. Members will recall that the original infraction case has dragged on for many years. It is a problem that any Government would have faced. The hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say whether a Labour Government would accept the EU judgment or incur the infraction costs, which illustrates the hollowness and bombast of his position. We are in this position despite a very prolonged process of litigation and negotiation, and it is fatuous to suggest that he would somehow work more closely with the EU than the Government have done to agree proposals. He was not in the Court when the judgment was made, and he was not present at the negotiations. He has absolutely no reason to second-guess the intelligence, wisdom, advice or good intentions of the officials and legal advisers who were involved.”
“The provisions include: an updated preamble that makes it clear the purpose of the DTA is not to create opportunities for tax evasion and avoidance; and a principle purpose test that denies treaty benefits in cases of abuse. Other anti-avoidance rules in the new treaty that go beyond the BEPS minimum standard include a tiebreaker provision for determining corporate residence based on competent authority agreement. Another provision preserves UK taxing rights on gains from shares which derive their value principally from immovable property in the UK. Finally, the new DTA brings the exchange of information article into line with contemporary international standards and provides for mutual assistance in the collection of debts.”
“That will be corrected in the final explanatory memorandum published with this instrument, if approved. The updated DTA also contains important exemptions for interest paid to pension schemes and relating to listed corporate debt. It provides the option for taxation of interest on a net basis in the territory from which it is paid. Withholding tax on royalties is reduced from 15% to 0%. That range of reductions in withholding tax is designed to encourage cross-border trade and investment between the two countries, to the benefit of both. The new DTA also contains a number of modern anti-avoidance provisions that meet the minimum standard agreed under the OECD and G20 base erosion and profit shifting, or BEPS, project.”
“The amended DTA also introduces a number of improvements for businesses, individuals and HMRC. It removes a provision that denied many UK residents access to reduced withholding tax on dividends paid by Israeli companies. In addition, the updated agreement reduces withholding tax on dividends in respect of direct investments from 10% to 5%. The rate of 15% applicable to portfolio investments remains unchanged, and that rate also applies to dividends paid by a real estate investment trust. The rate of withholding tax applicable to interest is reduced from 15% to 10% generally, with a 5% rate for interest paid to banks. A drafting error at paragraph 7.6 of the explanatory memorandum erroneously states that interest paid to UK-resident companies will not be taxed in Israel.”
“As requested by those affected, the new provision will allow individuals to elect to continue to be taxed only in Cyprus for a period of up to five years, and so is designed to give them adequate time to plan for the change after that period elapses. The current double taxation agreement with Israel dates from 1962, as amended by a protocol in 1970. Its age means that it is in need of updating to reflect changes to the OECD model tax convention and the domestic tax laws and treaty preferences of both states. We were therefore happy to accept Israel’s suggestion that the situation should be rectified. In line with the request of the hon. Member for Oxford East in an earlier Committee, the explanatory memorandum spells out in paragraph 7.8 and following where the amended DTA reflects the OECD model treaty.”
“Under the previous agreement with Cyprus, such pensions paid by the UK to residents of Cyprus were taxable only in Cyprus. The 2018 DTA gave the UK sole taxing rights if the pension is paid to a UK national who is resident in Cyprus. The treatment in the 2018 DTA is in accordance with international standards, but concerns were expressed in Committee and by members of the public that the changes would lead to hardship for pensioners due to the increased rates of tax that they would pay on their income. I am grateful to colleagues who raised this in the House. Having listened to the arguments, my predecessor asked officials of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to review the position with Cyprus. The protocol before us is the result of that review.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. The draft orders, as colleagues will be aware, are narrow and technical pieces of legislation. They give effect to amendments to the 2018 double taxation agreements, or DTAs, with Cyprus and Israel. Double taxation agreements remove barriers to international trade and investment, and provide what are widely regarded as a clear and fair framework for taxing businesses that trade across borders. By doing so, they benefit both business and the wider economies of the countries that sign them. I will say a few words about each agreement. The amending protocol that we agreed with Cyprus implements a transition period for changes made to the taxation of Government service pensions in the 2018 double taxation agreement.”
“The agreement with Israel is one the UK and Israel can be happy with. It protects UK revenue and provides a stable framework in which trade and investment between the UK and Israel can continue to flourish. I commend the orders to the Committee.”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment. He is right that dividends are an important stream of revenue. I hope he welcomes the changes made in this double taxation agreement. As I have said, the provisions include an exchange of information article, which brings that information exchange into line with contemporary international standards and provides for mutual assistance in the collection of tax debts. Together, we believe these features will strengthen both countries’ defences against tax avoidance and evasion. In summary, the orders implement important improvements to our DTAs with Cyprus and Israel. The Government have listened to the arguments presented by UK nationals living in Cyprus and agreed to delay the introduction of the change to the taxation of Government service pensions for up to five years.”
“Although it is true that, to some extent, all world leaders face the possibility of being under question and legal challenge, we believe that the measure is robust and will prove to be so. On the publication of priorities and negotiation schedules, the hon. Lady will be aware that we conducted a consultation on negotiating priorities at the end of 2018 and published conclusions. I would be happy to write to her on that topic if there is anything further. Question put and agreed to. Draft Double Taxation Relief (Cyprus) Order 2019 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief (Cyprus) Order 2019— (Jesse Norman . )”
“It is aimed at abusive structures where there has been no double taxation agreement. The point is to try to crack down on procedures whose purpose is only, or in many cases principally, to avoid tax. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady on the specific question of the treatment of intangibles in the Finance Act. There should be no ambiguity about the Government’s desire to crack down on abusive avoidance of the kind described here. On the purpose test, the hon. Lady will be aware that purposive readings of the tax code are not by any means limited to Government—they are adopted in different parts of the law. A historic case is the Rangers case in the Supreme Court and the loan charge. A new international standard agreed was agreed following the BEPS project. The UK is a world leader.”
“Having read accounts of previous debates on double taxation agreements, it was clear to me that to broach this topic would be to encroach on an area of considerable expertise amounting to genius on the part of the hon. Lady. She has shown it today. You do not need to be at the cricket world cup to see bouncers on a sticky wicket. I am grateful to her. I could not understand why she was not sitting directly opposite me. I think it is because she is bowling over the wicket rather than round it. The hon. Lady raises three topics: the taxation of royalties, the purpose test and the schedule of negotiations. She will be aware that the taxation of royalties, particularly in the Finance Act 2019, is an area in which she is a great expert while I am a great novice.”
“I remind her that Scottish higher education policy has been regularly criticised for being regressive, that Scottish schools performed worse than ever in the Programme for International Student Assessment scores for 2016 and that it may be worth her while looking at the Scottish Government’s own record before raising these issues more widely.”
“I remind her that the Treasury is the product of cross-party evolution; whatever its weaknesses, they are the product of historical processes. It may require radical change—I will come to that question later—but the suggestion that it is not an institution with its own ethos that has developed over many years and generations is one that any Treasury Minister would contest. If the Scottish Government are unhappy with the fiscal arrangements that they have with the UK as a whole, it is up to them to raise taxes themselves, using the new tax powers they have, and to spend that money as they see fit. The hon. Lady was dismissive of the Government as regards inequality in different ways, including in education.”
“The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly stressed the importance of sexual equality across social mobility and highlighted the complexity of the benefits system as a potential impediment to change. He is absolutely right about both those points. He may have misread the proposals in the Augar review. It is an independent report the purpose of which is not to diminish social mobility but to enhance it; it needs to be read as a whole. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the members of the panel who commissioned the report, he will see that they are all deeply committed to improving social mobility, not just through this report but in their wider lives and work. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) gave a more combative speech.”
“There has been an increase in the take-up of degree apprenticeships, and we have been specifically encouraging bids to improve access to degree apprenticeships for disadvantaged and under-represented groups. Skills remain of vital importance later in life, particularly in a 21st century in which people will be regularly re-skilling and re-educating themselves. The Government fully fund all adults to take English and maths to level 2, and from 2020 they will be funding basic digital skills. They are also establishing a national retraining scheme to support those in work, including the self-employed, to develop the skills that they will need to thrive in the new economy. To that end, the Government have pledged £100 million in funding to get the scheme up and running. Let me pick up some of the questions raised by Members in the debate.”
“Education must ultimately equip young people to make a successful transition into employment and life as a whole. Employment is obviously important, and people should have choices as they reach adulthood. That is why technical education is so important. The transformation is now under way through T-levels, which will mean that young people have the knowledge to get the highly-skilled, well-paid jobs of the future, and through continuing work on the apprenticeship programme, which will try to create more diverse opportunities; over 1.7 million people have started apprenticeships since 2015. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, in higher education we have record rates of disadvantaged 18-year-olds getting into university.”
“Friend as she was Secretary of State when the Department for Education approved the New Model in Technology and Engineering in my constituency. That was the first new university in this country for 40 years, and it is a specialist tech and engineering institution that focuses specifically on a 50:50 gender balance, open access, and the kind of empowerment that is characteristic of social mobility around the country. It will make a huge difference not only in Herefordshire, where social mobility is much lower than it should be, but elsewhere around our nation. The Government have invested in 12 coastal, urban and rural opportunity areas, where young people face entrenched challenges, to bring together local and national partners to work with local communities and bring about lasting change.”
“The Department for Education provides roughly £25 million every year through the national funding formula to assist the smallest and most remote schools, and in the last Budget it was announced that rural primary schools would benefit from a £200 million programme for fast and reliable internet access across the country. The apprenticeship funding model is designed to support individuals from disadvantaged areas, by providing cash payments to providers for training apprentices who live in the top 27% of deprived areas. The Government have awarded the first 11 Institutes of Technology across England, so that even more students can access an excellent technical education. My county of Herefordshire is something of a social mobility cold spot, and I am particularly grateful to my right hon.”