| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 Mar 2009 : Column 280WH—continued
We must ask how such a crisis has come about and what can be done to help. The catering industry as a whole is not a favoured career choice for young school
leavers. Despite its vast size and economic clout, the curry industry does not have a desirable career path to offer potential young would-be chefs.
Jim Armstrong, chief executive of the Professional Association for Catering Education, says that the hospitality and catering departments find it hard to fill their cooking courses in general and to recruit students of Asian origin. He says that the latter group is more likely to be found doing courses in information technology or business. The reluctance of second-generation Bangladeshis to follow their parents into the family restaurant is readily admitted by both the business and the catering trades.
Any young person who wants to study catering at college with an eye to working in a Bangladeshi or Indian restaurant would have little option but to do a national vocational qualification in general cooking. Mr. Armstrong, who used to run hospitality and food management at Thomas Danby college in Leeds says:
“The awarding bodies and the curriculum authority do not see any difference between cultures. If you are peeling a potato you’re peeling a potato. The fact that it’s for a different culture’s cuisine is by the by. The curriculum doesn’t necessarily meet the market’s needs.”
That is at the heart of the problem. Some colleges have tweaked the NVQ with a module slanted towards international cuisine, but an NVQ can only be adapted so far, according to Gordon Sibbald, Thomas Danby’s assistant director of vocational skills. Therefore, the catering industry recognises that training must be both tailored and specific. Current training programmes are just not doing the job.
In 2008, the Prime Minister said:
“We will make it possible for people who are in this country to be trained to be either chefs or restaurant workers in the industry... We are doing far more to train than ever before. We know there are people who, if trained, could make a contribution to the industry.”
That is patently not the case. Skills are not being delivered and there is not the degree of specialism that is needed for a highly skilled chef. The industry recognises that and has been pressing the Government on the matter. It does not want to keep importing talent. It recognises that doing so is unsustainable, but restaurants do not want someone with an NVQ in general catering skills; there is a mismatch. The industry wants to set up a London catering college for curry. It is prepared to offer training courses and work placements. It recognises that such courses have to be of a high standard, because they would then be attractive to young people who wish to gain qualifications.
Having listened for so long to such problems, the Minister must make a commitment today. We have unemployed people in this country who could fill a skills gap if there was somewhere for them to train to get the necessary skills. We also need a temporary solution, because such colleges cannot be set up overnight. I am asking the Minister to revisit the points-based allocation system to ensure that people can bring in staff and to work with restaurants and the industry to come up with a short-term solution. We have an industry in crisis and a skills set that has not been found for young people. At the moment, the Government and the Prime Minister are saying that they will make it possible for more people to be trained. I suggest that that is not the case.
I hope that the Minister will say today that he will work with the curry industry. He must not cause it more problems, by cracking down and raiding restaurants, but offer advice and concrete assistance to help the industry set up the training college. Moreover, he must help it to work out a temporary solution, so that it can bring in chefs to fill the gap. I am not talking about bringing them in permanently and getting round the immigration system. If he does not provide such help and make a commitment to act now, this industry will see many of its restaurants close over the next year or two.
11.14 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills (Mr. Siôn Simon): It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Walley. I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Albans (Anne Main) on securing this important debate. I hope that I can shed some more positive light on the rather gloomy picture that she has painted. The story is a rather more positive one, and I hope that she will bear with me so that I can explain why.
This year is the 200th anniversary of the opening of the first-ever Indian restaurant in London. In the intervening years, south Asian cooking has come to occupy a progressively bigger role in British culture and life. I myself have the privilege to represent a constituency in the city of Birmingham, in which I grew up. Birmingham is widely acknowledged as the curry capital of Christendom and the birthplace of balti. I have been well acquainted with such matters from an early age. Although the hon. Lady’s constituency may be better known for its Roman ruins than its rogan josh, I know that she is an advocate of such matters.
Anne Main: I have about 30 curry restaurants in St. Albans. Indeed, one was the runner-up in the Tiffin curry cup, so I ask the Minister to mind his words.
Mr. Simon: I was just going on to say that I know that she represents many Indian restaurants, including the famous Chez Mumtaj. I do not minimise the significance of this debate. Such matters are important both culturally and economically, and I do not underestimate our need or ability to assimilate in a multicultural society and turn such components into part of our national identity. Moreover, the industry is a growing economic and industrial phenomenon. As the hon. Lady said, the curry industry is worth £3.5 billion a year to our economy and offers jobs to some 80,000 people—although I put it closer to 100,000 people. Those are all good reasons why the health of the curry industry should, and does, matter to the Government. We take the issues seriously, and I will try to address some of the points that the hon. Lady has rightly raised. I can assure her that such a commitment has also been taken on by the Border and Immigration Agency.
The hon. Lady talked at some length about the points-based immigration system. I understand that the introduction of the system last year caused a lot of concern in the industry. I do not propose to mount a detailed justification or explanation of the changes to the immigration rules this morning, as that is properly an issue for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. None the less, I remind the hon. Lady that these are
sensitive matters. Even the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), in his capacity as the Conservative spokesman for home affairs, recently called for
“an explicit annual limit on the number of people coming here.”
One cannot have this argument both ways. It is true that British business must have access to the skills it needs to trade profitably and to build for the future, and that some of those skills will come from abroad. However, in my view, the Government’s view and, indeed, the view of the hon. Member for St. Albans, as expressed this morning, too many skills and talents of our own people who are already here lie undeveloped.
There are 500,000 vacancies in the UK economy. It is our responsibility to do everything that we can to give British people, which includes Bangladeshi British people and every other kind of British people, the chance to fill them. I am not alone in that belief. Last November, the hon. Lady herself tabled early-day motion 268, in which she said that the curry industry
“needs assistance to ensure that young people and skilled chefs are encouraged to enter the industry.”
As she said this morning, that means young British Bangladeshi people and skilled chefs of any kind, as well as those from abroad. I can assure her and the hon. Member for Ashford that that assistance is precisely what my Department and I are committed to try to give the industry. I am talking not only about sending people to go to college or university, but about helping them to gain practical skills in the workplace. We are already putting in £1 billion a year in employers’ hands to support skills development through the Train to Gain programme.
Anne Main: The Minister said that it is not necessarily just about going to college or university. Does that mean that he is not actively considering supporting the setting up of a London curry college?
Mr. Simon: No, I do not mean that at all. I simply meant that, as well as all the work that we are doing to send people to college and universities to train, including people in the catering industry, we are putting £1 billion a year into training in the workplace through Train to Gain.
Anne Main: The college is the crux of the matter. Does the Minister accept the evaluation of the existing courses that they are not suited as they stand, and that they cannot be tweaked to deliver what the curry industry needs? People are being trained, but they do not deliver the skills that the industry needs.
Mr. Simon: I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I do not accept it entirely. I shall come on to discuss the matter in more detail if she will bear with me.
The extra money that we put into Train to Gain and the extra flexibilities that we introduced which were announced just before Christmas—the £350 million—were all focused on providing practical, flexible training support to small and medium-sized businesses. Level 2 and 3 qualifications will help companies with between five and 250 employees and, obviously, most of the businesses that we are talking about today fall into that category. In principle, they stand to benefit from the changes. The restaurant industry—not just the Bangladeshi restaurant industry but the industry as a whole—remains male-dominated. The hon. Lady will be aware, as I am, that many women in the British Bangladeshi community
would welcome the opportunity to take up a job, and that many are very skilled cooks. Sometimes, they are held back by a lack of basic language skills. I hope that she will join me in welcoming the fact that women of Bangladeshi origin are one group that has benefited from the recently introduced reform of provision of English training for speakers of other languages. I hope that she will join me, too, in calling on the Bangladeshi restaurant industry not to overlook the potential of those women as a source of recruits, nor the help with training from the Government that would be available to them.
Anne Main: I am a little disappointed with that. The fact someone is a good cook does not make them a top chef. Very few London restaurants would employ my mother, who is a very good cook. I do not think that that is the way forward. I encourage Bangladeshi women to train, but—and I keep going back to this—where are they going to train? They cannot just turn up at a restaurant to get a job and say, “I make a wonderful taka dhal.” It does not work like that.
Mr. Simon: The hon. Lady’s position is noted. My position is that it would be nice to see more women, including Bangladeshi women, in employment in the restaurant industry. The fact that she is not convinced about that is on the record.
What I said so far does not imply that there are not specific problems facing the restaurant industry and ethnic restaurants in particular. That is why, for example, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, and People First—the sector skills council for the leisure and hospitality industry—signed a compact last June which, among other things, is specifically directed to help supply ethnic restaurants with highly trained chefs. Through the compact with the industry, we will support the preparation and training of more than 1,000 new chefs for ethnic restaurants. Specifically, we will help employers by funding the development and training of members of ethnic communities to get to level 3—the equivalent of A-level standard—in courses run through a virtual strand of the new national skills academy for hospitality. We will also support the expansion of the number of apprentices in ethnic catering, building on the group training association approach now under way in London.
How do we balance the need to ensure that south Asian and other ethnic restaurants can develop the skills of staff already resident here against the importance of not allowing, say, Bangladeshi cuisine in this country to be cut off from the culture in which it originated? As the hon. Lady is aware, chefs and cooks were included on the list of skilled occupations that the Government published last November, as undertaking an occupation in which we consider there to be shortages in the labour market that could sensibly be filled by people from outside the European economic area. We took that decision based on advice from the Migration Advisory Committee, which is reviewing the evidence on skilled chefs.
Before that review concludes, the Government and key industry partners will attend a summit called by People First—the sector skills council for the industry, run by the industry—to discuss how to manage the
transition from imported to indigenous skills. Our aim is to develop a partnership plan to ensure that we have the required skills and qualifications to meet the industry’s needs. The Guild of Bangladeshi Restaurateurs will be invited to the ethnic chef summit. Specific ethnic chef training is available. Employers can work with Train to Gain brokers to develop accredited qualifications, and the summit will look at developing further the work that is already being done. I accept that it will always be beneficial for ethnic cuisine in this country to refresh itself through the skills of people from the countries where it has its roots. Likewise, there will always be benefits in home-grown ethnic chefs gaining opportunities to hone their skills abroad. The state of the curry industry matters deeply to the Government and to the vast majority of people. I can assure the hon. Lady and the House that, in our efforts to safeguard British businesses and jobs—
Anne Main: Is the Minister going to support the curry industry’s desire to set up a specialised catering college in London?
Mr. Simon: I am happy to use my offices to ensure that the question of a London catering college is on the agenda of the Government-sponsored, but industry-led, ethnic chef summit, which is planned later this year.
On that note, may I conclude by restating how important the issue is, and that the Government are committed to getting it right? We are committed to supporting and developing the ethnic restaurant industry in this country, and I again congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing the matter to our attention.
11.28 am
Pensioners
2.40 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones (in the Chair): We have started 10 minutes late because of a Division, so 10 minutes will be added to the debate, which will finish at 4.10 pm.
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): I thank Mr. Speaker for allowing us to press the case for pensioners today, and I am delighted that you are in the Chair, Mr. Jones. I hope that we have a constructive debate. I am grateful to the excellent Members who have turned out today to bat for their constituents, and I thank them for that.
Pensioners should not and do not need to hold out a begging bowl. They do not owe us a scrap; indeed, we are indebted to them. They have given everything for a safer and more stable world and country. They fought for our freedoms and democracy, as well as working hard to build the economy of the City of London, and financial institutions and industry. They have given their blood, sweat and tears for us, and have created the wealth of this country, and I believe that they deserve a greater share of that wealth. Their share of gross domestic product has fallen year on year in the past decade. That is a shame, and it is not something that the Government should be presiding over. Their share has been falling while bankers, stockbrokers, footballers and the Jonathan Rosses of this world have selfishly been taking an obscene and far too great a share of the wealth of this country. That injustice needs to be put right. Pensioners deserve more respect from all sections of society and deserve a better deal, and that is what this debate is all about.
To move forward, we must understand a little of the history of this issue. I have said openly for many years, and several times in this Chamber, that pensioners have been let down by Governments of both flavours over several decades. Both parties have done good things, but both have also made major errors. There have been two glaring errors. First, the Conservatives cut the link with earnings, causing Britain to have one of the lowest state pensions in the developed world. Then, Labour did to personal and private pensions what the Tories had done to the state pension with changes to corporation tax in 1997, which were known in the vernacular as the great £5 billion pensions robbery.
Of course, the problem has not resulted only from Government actions. In the baby-boomer heyday of the ’50s and ’60s, which you would not know about, Mr. Jones, but I certainly do, masses of workers came on stream, there was a stable pensioner population and the economy went up and up. Things were looking very good, but then the demographic disaster began to emerge, and there were massive increases in both private and public sector debt. As economist Ros Altmann has said, we were
“effectively ‘borrowing’ growth from the future.”
If I may, I shall borrow liberally from Ros Altmann’s wise analysis, which has been reported by the Economic and Social Research Council in its “Winter 2009” pamphlet, although I imagine that it meant spring 2009. She points out that even the demographics are now against us. We are blessed with wonderful, far greater longevity, but that presents us with tough social and economic issues. There are not enough people in employment to
support the rapidly growing number of pensioners, and we must pay back the debt that has built up in the past two decades, which amounts to tens of thousands of pounds for every man, woman and child in the UK. Pensions guru Dr. Altmann put it very succinctly when she said:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |