Government Skills Strategy

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing the debate. I also congratulate him on his clear and evident pride in his local college and on the work that he is already doing in Parliament to promote issues relating to apprenticeships. We have had a thoughtful and inclusive debate, which has not been rabidly partisan. I want to continue in that way, but I nevertheless want to pick out some of the implications and unintended consequences of the Government’s skills strategy, which gives Labour Members real concern.

I want briefly to comment on what the hon. Gentleman has said. He has discussed skills deficits, particularly in construction, and the NEETs problem. It is fair to say that none of us in any party and, for that matter, none of the experts has a magic wand to deal with that problem. We can argue about the rights and wrongs and about the needs behind the Government’s current economic policies, and we will, but I merely say—I invite the Minister to touch on this—that it is inevitable that those policies will sharpen the challenge that we face and increase the number of people in the category that we are talking about, at least in the short term. For example, we have seen that with some of the rises in unemployment. We also need to be careful that changes in administration within skills policy, and related issues in the Minister’s portfolio, do not, however well-intentioned, unintentionally exacerbate the problems of NEETs, because of their speed and the lack of a proper transition period.

It is particularly interesting that the hon. Member for Harlow has discussed access to loans, which other hon. Members have also mentioned. I want to touch on how the process will pan out, and put one or two questions to the Minister. At this point, all I want to say is that some people who have been mentioned, such as older people and single mothers, are, because of their backgrounds, precisely the ones who will need most nurturing and support in entering the process. As I have said before and will continue to say, the Government, or certain people in the Government—not least Business, Innovation and Skills Ministers—are keen on the concept of nudging people. We all nudge people, sometimes inadvertently on the tube, but it is highly relevant to the debate on the Government’s skills strategy to point out that sometimes—again, I am not imputing malevolence of plan or thought—the net effect of policies is to nudge people away from things, as well as to nudge people towards them.

It is interesting that the hon. Members for Harlow and for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) have raised concerns about the EMA. I congratulate them on referring to practicalities such as transport and support equipment. Those issues have, of course, been taken up by individuals and colleges. The same concerns have been expressed to me at the colleges in my constituency, Blackpool sixth-form college and Blackpool and the Fylde college, and they also show up in surveys conducted by the Association of Colleges and the 157 Group. If the Minister and I were not here in delightful surroundings under your chairmanship, Mr Hood, we would undoubtedly be in the main Chamber listening to the arguments about the Government’s current position on the EMA. What I took from the remarks of the hon. Members for Harlow and for Newton Abbot, as well as from other interventions, were concerns not only about the change itself, but about the process of change and the transition period. The Minister will want to comment and reflect on those remarks.

The hon. Member for Harlow has discussed university technical colleges, a concept with which I, like him, am familiar. Lord Baker bent my ear on the subject in my previous incarnation as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on skills, as he has successfully bent the ears of many others. Lord Baker is, like me, a historian, and he feels strongly that it is a matter of completing unfulfilled business from the Education Act 1944. The only thing that I say—again, I invite the Minister to make observations on this point—is that it is laudable and entirely desirable that there is a renewed emphasis on how best to provide vocational education to the 14-to-19 range and on the mechanisms for doing so. However, the problem is that the field is now getting crowded. There are proposals for university technical colleges, and there are long-standing proposals for studio schools, which the Secretary of State for Education warmly endorsed at the recent launch of the first tranche. I declare an interest in the sense that the local authority in Blackpool is strongly bidding for a studio school. Of course, the Prime Minister also made observations only a few days ago about the concept of free schools for 16 to 19-year-olds.

I make no comment on some of the ideological conflicts that may arise in that context; I merely point out that if there is a market including UTCs, studio schools and free schools for 16 to 19-year-olds, there will have to be a lot of careful adjustment and thought about the implications for sixth-form and further education colleges. I hesitate to use the words “Maoist and chaotic” in that context, because they have, of course, already been used, rather tellingly, to describe the way in which the Government—sadly, this involves the Minister’s Department—are proceeding with local enterprise partnerships. However, I want to stress the importance of not getting into a mess over a plethora of options in the relevant area. The last thing that any of us wants is for the new-found enthusiasm in all parties for the strengthening of vocational education to be dissipated by arguments about structure.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

I want to reinforce my hon. Friend’s argument. Is it not crucial that the core mission and function of further education colleges, and their ability to deliver it, should be buttressed, supported and enhanced? That should include such issues as inequality in funding per student, as between FE and schools. The previous Government started to narrow that discrepancy, but it should be removed altogether.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marsden]

My right hon. Friend is right on that point. I shall spare the Minister’s blushes, but he has committed to continuing that process. Indeed, he emphasised that point from the floor when questions were raised about it at the conference of the Association of Colleges in Birmingham in November. The devil is in the detail, and the questions of how the aim is to be achieved within funding regimes through the Skills Funding Agency and how it relates to other possible views within the Government must be resolved. I have no doubt about the Minister’s personal commitment to proceeding with that aim, but my right hon. Friend has made a valid and important point.

The hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and for Upper Bann (David Simpson) have made valuable interventions. They both made the important point that we should view apprenticeships, training and outreach work not only as economic activity but as a vital activity for social cohesion. I am particularly interested and impressed by what the hon. Member for Newton Abbot has said about the activities of her college in going out on to the street and trying, in the words of the Good Book, to compel them to come in.

There is a broader underlying issue, with which all of us have fought in recent years. It concerns not only the fundamental mission of further education colleges or apprenticeships, but how and where that mission is carried out. Some of the most valuable work that has been done via the splendid Blackpool and the Fylde college in my constituency has been done not on the main campus sites but in a city learning centre adjacent to one of the main housing estates. In reality, particularly in areas where people may be juggling two or three different types of job or responsibility, which is particularly true of women, the siting of, and immediacy of access to, training and further education matter a great deal. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot has discussed her constituency, and I am sure that what I have described is as true in rural constituencies as some urban ones, if not more so. Even in my constituency, some people on the estate who benefited from outreach courses would not have found it easy to get on a bus and travel 2 or 3 miles to take standard college classes. I entirely agree with what the hon. Lady has said, and I hope that the Minister will take that on board in developing future policy with colleges.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) has made valid and crucial points about how the skills strategy will fit with local enterprise partnerships, and I will return to that issue later. He made other key points that the Minister needs to respond to. The first is the concern that he expressed about skills shortages. That concern might seem perverse at a time when—let me put it bluntly—the demand for skills in the current economic situation is certainly not uniformly high. However, the truth is that even with modest growth generally and in certain areas in particular, because of the reasons that he gave, demographic changes will affect particular skill groups. We know from the Leitch report and various other things that we face a significant demographic challenge in the next five to 10 years, because the cohort of younger people available for skills training will reduce sharply. Of course, that will put even more emphasis on some of the points to which my right hon. Friend has referred. The comments that we have heard about skills shortages are significant.

I turn, with some gravity, to the Government’s skills strategy, on which I want the Minister to comment. Picking up my previous point about my right hon. Friend’s speech, the introduction of tuition fee-style loans for all those taking level 3 qualifications and the part-funding for a first level 2 qualification will seriously hit the strategy for retraining and reskilling older workers, if they are not handled carefully.

Questions have been put to the Department for Education and Skills and to the Minister himself about how much, under the current circumstances, colleges can be expected to charge when they increase fees for courses. I accept that we do not live, pace one or two things that have been said about the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in a Stalinist “plan and provide” world. However, we need to have a little more assurance about the sums of money that people will have to borrow to fulfil a mainstream apprenticeship course. In an article in The Guardian at the end of last year, the Minister referred to a sum of about £9,000 over that period of study, but it would be helpful if he were to comment on the modelling by which the Government made that assessment.

Of course, if there is a potential impact of increasing fees, in terms of reducing enrolment, it will come at a time when colleges face a 25% reduction in the further education resource grant from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills during the spending review period. Ministers have said that that reduction is nowhere near the “grim reaper” that has descended on the higher education sector, which is perfectly true. Nevertheless, that reduction and the potential impact of axing the EMA—both the Association of Colleges and the 157 Group have said that axing the EMA will have a significant impact on the number of people applying to college—mean that FE colleges may find themselves under real pressure as a result of Government decisions.

The Government have said that they want to get people back into work—how could we not want to get people back into work? However, the issue of how the Government expect to do that if they are going to remove the support for course fees from anyone who is not on active benefits is a live one. Even those claiming active benefits over the age of 24 will have to take out tuition fee-style loans to take level 3 courses. I have an open question, not a rhetorical one, about that issue; what incentive will there be for those people to take out a sizeable loan when there is no guaranteed income stream to repay it?

As has already been said and as—I am afraid—is the case with so many things that this Government are doing, they are in danger of wielding several sticks before offering a number of carrots. The fees for some level 2 and level 3 courses will be introduced as early as 2011-12 and the fees for the majority of those courses will be introduced in 2012-13. However, the Government say in their own statistics, which accompany the skills strategy, that they do not envisage the new loan structure being in place in full until 2013-14. That is one of the points that the Association of Colleges has raised in its briefing note to Members for today’s debate. However, the Association of Colleges has also raised the separate issue of the impact of the restrictions relating to benefits entitlement, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East has also raised. The Minister will know, because it was the subject of a question and answer session that he participated in at the Association of Colleges conference in Birmingham in November, that that issue is of great concern to colleges.

We support the Government’s aim to help more people off welfare and into work, and we understand the desire to focus efforts on those receiving active benefits. However, I remind the Minister that on a number of occasions he and I have talked about the importance of enabling skills to the life chances of people. There are real concerns, particularly in relation to some of the impacts of the restrictions on employment and support allowance, that, as I said earlier, people might find themselves being “nudged” away from participation in education and training rather than being “nudged” towards it.

Like me, hon. Members may find it curious that the Government preach localism, but that their new skills strategy effectively gives the power to set these plans nationally to the Skills Funding Agency. When we were in government, we talked about the crucial role that regional development agencies can play in this field. I also note, having heard the favourable comments that the hon. Member for Harlow made about the college in his own constituency, that Harlow recently opened a new £9.3 million university centre for higher education. Of course, that project, like the project in my constituency at Blackpool and the Fylde college, was partially funded by grants from the RDA. I am not here to argue the case for RDAs, but now that they have gone there appears to many people, including myself, to be a black hole in the connectivity of support for the successor bodies to the RDAs, including local enterprise partnerships.

Many business groups, including the British Chambers of Commerce, have commented on that lack of co-ordination between those in charge of skills policy and local enterprise partnerships. I remind the Minister that his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government did not even put local enterprise partnerships in the Localism Bill when they introduced it, and they have resolutely refused, or at least been unwilling, to talk about establishing links in that respect.

[Robert Halfon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his measured and thoughtful remarks. Regarding RDAs, although it was welcome that part of the money for the college in my constituency came from the local RDA, at the end of the day that money is taxpayers’ money. That money does not necessarily have to pass through the RDA to reach Harlow college or Harlow; it could easily go through local councils or through the other mechanisms that he has mentioned. The support that Harlow college received is not necessarily a case for the RDA.

[Mr Marsden]

I was merely making an observation, and I was not saying that the RDA is the only mechanism by which this money can be redistributed. Of course, there were also other grants that contributed to the college. I was making the point that the RDA is a mechanism that supported that type of college development. Not only is the current level of economic activity across the country failing to replicate that support, but we do not even have secure promises about how local enterprise partnerships themselves will be supported and funded, so that they can provide similar support or access funding from the private sector. That is one of my concerns.

Finally and briefly, I turn to the issue of apprenticeships. The Government have been keen to trumpet the success of apprenticeships and their ambitions for them. I yield to no one in my delight that the Minister has made so many strong points about apprenticeships. However, we must remember that the pledge that there will be an extra 75,000 apprenticeship places applies only to adult apprenticeships. At a time when youth unemployment remains high and the Government have chosen to end schemes such as the future jobs fund and our September guarantee of a college place, training or a job for all those aged between 18 and 24, one must wonder what capacity there will be in business to provide these extra apprenticeship opportunities. Indeed, Members have touched on that issue in the debate today. Just as one can nudge people away from things as well as nudging them towards them, we need to take into account push and pull factors. It seems to me that no amount of ministerial criticism of Train to Gain can take away from the fact that axing the scheme leaves a serious gap in work-based training provision.

Finally, the Government are rightly putting an emphasis on level 3 money going in, but there is still a massive demand across the country for level 2 apprenticeships in leisure, tourism, catering and other applied service industries, and it is vitally important that they are not neglected. They need to ensure that they provide what employers want from apprenticeships, as opposed to what might fit their own agenda for the sector, however noble their intentions.