Building a High-Skilled Economy Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Education
John Hayes
Main Page: John Hayes (Conservative - South Holland and The Deepings)Department Debates - View all John Hayes's debates with the Department for Education
Building a High-Skilled Economy
John Hayes Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr John Hayes)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of building a high- skilled economy.
It is a delight, having spent so many years in the shadows, to come into the light and be able to speak in this House as the new Minister. Some hon. Members will have read today in the press of my endorsement for floristry and dance. I am wearing this perfectly coloured co-ordinated buttonhole to illustrate the first, but the House, and you in particular, Mr Deputy Speaker, will be relieved to know that I shall not be illustrating the second, at least not by example.
The performance in office of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), once the man who called the tune, was rather more of a conga than a quickstep. You know the conga, I have no doubt, Mr Deputy Speaker. It comprises a group of hapless individuals linked by routine, hopelessly following one another on a journey to nowhere.
Adult learning is a subject that inspires in those hon. Members present—I know this is true of hon. Members across the Chamber—emotional attachment and personal commitment. At the same time, it is not a subject in which anyone or any party can claim a monopoly of wisdom, which is why I am interested to hear views from across the Chamber. However, a new Government offer a new chance of a fresh start, the opportunity to bring change and hope to adult learners. However, not everyone realises that there has been a change. Sitting in my office the other day in my new Department, I was surprised to receive an out-of-the-blue phone call from someone asking for Mandy. I had to break the news to him that Mandy had moved on. To paraphrase Barry Manilow, “Oh Mandy, well you came and you took without giving…but I sent you away.”
Lord Mandelson was right in at least one important respect. He made the economic case for skills. The economic case for skills was by far the strongest case made by the previous Government. It is significant, of course—indeed it is vital—but it is not the only case for skills. The economic case, which I shall deal with first, has been thrown into sharp relief by the economic turbulence, by the rising levels of unemployment and falling levels of hope, especially among young people, and by the growing numbers of employers finding it difficult to stay in business. It will continue to occupy a prominent place in public discourse as we move out of recession and towards the renewed growth about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke recently at the Cass business school.
Mark Lancaster
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should like to invite him to join me in paying tribute to the Open university. The one thing that has not changed in recent times is the contribution that that institution has made to lifelong learning.
Mr Hayes
The fact that I anticipated my hon. Friend’s intervention merely gives it more force. He is right to say that the Open university plays a critical role in that regard. I will happily visit that place once again to cement the relationships that I have already formed there.
The economic case for skills will continue to be important because of the link between skills and competitiveness. It is well established, and it was made clear five years ago in the Leitch and Sainsbury reviews. Already their analysis has become orthodox in the debate about skills and the economy. The essence of their case was, and it remains salient, that driven by new technologies, the pace of economic and industrial change is growing, not just here in the west but in Asia and increasingly in Africa and South America. Once, those countries either did not compete in the same markets as this country or could offer only technologically inferior products. That is no longer the case. The unequal competition between high quality and low cost has been replaced by what Lord Sainsbury called a “race to the top”.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
In the context of international competition, how worried is the Minister by the letter in today’s The Daily Telegraph from senior executives of leading British companies, who warn against the dangers of cuts to university funding and the risk that we will be left behind in the international competitive league as a result?
Mr Hayes
There is no doubt that the relationship between research and development and the kind of dynamism that I have described is a profound one. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science will take that very seriously indeed in the process of framing our policy in respect of higher education.
I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) is sympathetic to the argument, so I may be pushing at at least a half-open door when I say that further education matters too. Building skills from the bottom up, re-engaging young people who are not in employment, education or training, up a ladder of skills to the levels that he is describing—levels 3, 4 and 5—is critical. The hon. Gentleman will understand why today I want to speak particularly about further education, as that is my responsibility.
We need to provide workers with the skills they want and businesses with the skills they need to compete in this increasingly challenging world. The Leitch analysis pointed towards an intensive effort to raise skills in this country, and indeed the House more than once debated these matters when the Labour party was in government. It is easier perhaps to say on the Opposition Benches, but I will repeat it from the Government Bench, that I do not accuse the hon. Member for Cardiff West of anything worse than a mistake. I do not think that Labour Members are malevolent; I think their intentions are broadly the same as ours. I just think they are misjudged. This is not about malice; it is about error. I know that they will want to acknowledge that when they speak in the debate. They are big men, and I want to give them this chance, because I am a generous Minister, to rush to the Dispatch Box to say that they got it wrong. Wouldn’t we welcome that? Wouldn’t the whole country welcome it, too?
Mr Hayes
Well, I said I was interested in dance. I am interested in sufficient drama to add to the theatricality of this place, without which it would be poorer.
During the years of the Labour Government, Labour Members often alleged that the largesse for further education would end if we came to power. If the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), my opponent and friend, were to wish to repeat his unfortunate appearance on “Celebrity Mastermind”—I do not want to remind him of that too much—he could do worse than choose the Thatcher Government as his specialist subject. We came to realise during our time in opposition that the Labour party spent more time speaking about 1979 than about the present. They were preoccupied with that in their dark years, and perhaps that is not surprising for a party that usually looks backwards rather than forwards, whereas the Conservative party is committed to progress and taking our country to where it needs to be now.
As a consequence of that preoccupation with the past, we were left with another Labour Government who spent until they broke the bank. As a result, even before they lost office, they were already cutting adult skills. Last year’s pre-Budget report said—I have it here for those hon. Members who have not had the opportunity to go to the Library to collect it—that £300 million would be cut from the adult skills budget if Labour returned to Government. When Members hear complaints about the new Government’s performance, they should set them in that context. Mandy was first to the table to say he would cut his Department, and encouraged his colleagues to do the same. People are still making phone calls to my office to try to find him, to ask exactly where the cuts would have fallen.
While Labour Members were drifting further and further out of touch into a world populated by fictional numbers rather than real people, Conservatives were talking to adult educators and adult learners about their experiences. We were talking to employers about their skills needs and to union learning representatives about the obstacles they face in creating a learning culture among their members. So that it is unequivocal, so that there is no question and no doubt, let me say that I and the Government are committed to unionlearn; we celebrate all it does and all that it will continue to do with our support and encouragement.
As a result of the conversations we had and dialogues we enjoyed, we learned important lessons about the indispensability of further education as an engine of social and economic change. History teaches us that the better educated a nation’s people are, the more economically prosperous they are likely to be—their general levels of health will be better, too, their communities will be more united and their family and social bonds will be stronger—and the more they will appreciate the things that money cannot buy, but without which life is colourless. All deserve their chance to see, hear, taste and touch beauty.
The conviction that education is the key to so much more than a wage packet drove pioneers, such as the founders of the Workers Educational Association, who sought to take learning, until then the preserve of the privileged few, out to the many. The impulse that promoted better manual skills also created the penny classics that did so much to spread the love of English literature throughout society, and the growth of choral and instrumental societies that brought great music virtually to the factory floor. The fire that drove adult education’s pioneers still burns, and it drives the coalition Government’s programme for further education and skills. The challenge we face in rebuilding a system fit for purpose is scarcely less imposing than was theirs in building a system from scratch.
In recent years, the link between skills and craftsmanship—I am not afraid to call it craftsmanship—the ideal of self-betterment and the pleasures of learning as a means of gaining wider and richer perspectives on the world have been allowed to wither. But not any longer: we in this Government will make a bold case for that relationship—a firm case for the cohesive power of learning, how it changes lives by changing life chances and increases prospects both to gain and prosper in a job, and in all the other ways that I have described.
No one denies that one of the key functions of Government is to create, as far as possible, the right conditions for economic success, and none would deny, I hope, that adult skills policy is one of the most powerful economic levers at any Government’s disposal. But the time has come finally to acknowledge that a socialist model of centralised planning has failed, even in terms of its own narrow criteria for success. We really cannot continue the micro-managed, target-driven, bureaucratic regime that for years has dogged further education and damaged our prospects of raising skills levels.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you and the House will not underestimate the scale of the challenge. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills reported in “Ambition 2020”, published last year, that on recent trends we are likely to slip from 18th to 21st in the OECD rankings for intermediate level skills by 2020. Shadow Ministers will be familiar with the report.
Mr Bailey
I thank the Minister for his kind words. I welcome him to his position and look forward to seeing him in our Committee in due course. I congratulate him on his bravura performance—indeed, it has been quite theatrical at times. He commented on the top-down approach. I note that his colleague the Minister for Universities and Science has written to higher and further education organisations inviting them to publish employability statements. Today the hon. Gentleman placed a statement in the Library saying that the Government would be introducing measures to give
“learners the information they need to drive the system, through the publication of clear and consistent information.”
If that is not an example of a top-down and potentially bureaucratic approach, what is it? Could he enlighten us?
Mr Hayes
I want to be generous; as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that is in my character. I know that the hon. Gentleman is new to the task, but he has been an assiduous member of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, and a frequent contributor to debates in the Chamber. As such, I hoped he would have known that the key plank of my party’s perspective on this subject—indeed, the coalition’s perspective—is the need to inform and empower learners. It is critically important that people get the right advice and guidance, and part of that process is explaining to them the likely employment outcomes of pursuing courses of study and training. We are encouraging universities and colleges, and the reformed careers service that we will bring in, to give people a very clear understanding of what will happen if they embark on particular routes. What are their chances of getting a job? What sort of job will it be? What are the wage implications? How might they progress thereafter?
Robert Halfon
I congratulate my hon. Friend on doing so much to push forward our policy for 100,000 apprenticeships. Why do only just 28% of British workers qualify to become apprentices or gain technical skills compared to France, where the figure is 51%, or Germany where it is 65%—the percentage we should reach in this country? What has gone so badly wrong in the UK that our skills level is so low?
Mr Hayes
That requires not so much an answer as a seminar, but I shall try to summarise in a sentence or two what I might say at such a seminar. The problem in Britain has been threefold. First, we have not promoted apprenticeships as effectively as we should. Although the brand is strong among potential learners, employers and the public, it is clear that the previous Government did not believe in apprenticeships as much as we do. [Interruption.] Opposition Members complain but many people thought that the right hon. Member for Tottenham’s ministerial predecessor—a valued colleague and a good Minister—did FA for FE and was sent to the FO. I do not know whether Fanny Adams is unparliamentary language, but it is certainly true that in debates with that Minister I made it absolutely clear that we wanted to grow the number of apprenticeships, yet the Labour Government insisted on retaining a strong emphasis on what they regarded as their flagship training and skills product—Train to Gain, about which I shall speak a little more in a moment.
The second point in answer to my hon. Friend’s intervention is that although part of the problem is about marketing, part of it is about resource. We have decided to transfer a significant portion of the Train to Gain budget to apprenticeships, because we know the skills apprenticeships can confer. We know how long they take to learn and we know that people want them. We know employers like them. We know what they cost. That cannot be said of the Train to Gain programme, in which the previous Government placed so much faith.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I am sure we are all enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s theatrics this afternoon, but will he look at some evidence? In 2008-09, 240,000 people started apprenticeships, compared to 75,000 in 1997-98, so I do not think it is for Labour to take lectures from the Conservatives about the importance of apprenticeships.
Mr Hayes
The hon. Lady must not deceive new Members—[Interruption.] I know she would not do so—except inadvertently, of course; I take that as read—because newer Members might come to believe her suggestion—I put it no more strongly than that.
What the previous Government actually did was to reclassify what counted as an apprenticeship. In France and Germany, about which we heard a moment ago, all apprenticeships are at level 3, and they once were in Britain. When the Labour Government came to power, they reclassified level 2 qualifications as apprenticeships and then trumpeted the fact that there were more of them. As both the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen know, the level 3 numbers remained stubbornly rather less than was required, than the Government wanted and than employers knew they needed. So we should focus on level 3 apprenticeships if we wish to get a true comparison both of our previous performance and of international data.
Kevin Brennan
How many of the 50,000 new places that the hon. Gentleman is announcing can he guarantee to the House will be level 3 apprenticeships?
Mr Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is far too experienced a Member to expect me to give on-the-hoof guarantees of that kind, but what I will say is that I have asked my officials—my officials—to look closely at the definition and, indeed, the stratification of apprenticeships. I want to build the ladder of qualifications that takes people from re-engagement right up to level 4 and 5.
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman and the House about three things that we will do on apprenticeships. As well as putting the extra resource in, we will grow the number of frameworks at level 3 and 4 and we will explore frameworks at level 5, where there is a demand, I am told, in meetings with the high-tech industries such as advanced engineering. The hon. Gentleman will know some of the sectors to which I refer. We will look closely at those level 2 apprenticeships which, with redefinition, can be built to level 3—in other words, some of the high-end level 2 qualifications that with further work may become level 3—and we will think again about those level 2 qualifications that cannot. It is entirely appropriate that they might be regarded as a foundation to an apprenticeship, but I am not sure that it is right that they should be called full apprenticeships. This makes comparisons with our international competitors difficult, and I am not sure that it does not short-change employers and learners. Yes, of course, there is a place for level 2, but the emphasis will be on level 3, and that is what the hon. Gentleman needs to know.
Kevin Brennan
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that some of the new apprenticeships that he is announcing that he will create may not be classified as apprenticeships in future?
Mr Hayes
I want to make progress; I will give way later. The hon. Gentleman has had one turn, and although I am generous, my generosity is not without limit.
I want now to focus on the highly centralised and bureaucratic system that developed under the previous Government, whereby funds that could have been used for teaching and training were actually used detailing plans, complying with targets and formulating schemes. Instead of enabling colleges and other providers to respond to the needs of businesses and learners, Ministers thought they knew what was best. Excessive bureaucracy sapped precious energy from our education system. If I might, as a primer, offer advice again, particularly to newer Members, that if proof were needed of that assertion, it is to be found in the report commissioned as early as 2005 by the last Government under the auspices of Sir Andrew Foster. That report concluded that there was a “galaxy” of oversight, inspection and administration in the FE sector, and called for precisely the kind of streamlined and more responsive structure that we in this Government will now put in place.
Even worse, though, that centralised, target-driven micro-management led to a systemic failure in the form of an FE capital funding crisis from which the sector is still reeling. Members will know that the Learning and Skills Council encouraged bids that would have cost 10 times more than the available funds. Across the country, 144 capital bids were frozen. Members across the Chamber came to the House to complain about the circumstances in their localities and the effects on their local colleges, and rightly so. Seventy-nine of those projects had already received agreement in principle. Many colleges incurred considerable cost.
Andrew Foster was once again brought out of mothballs by the Government to produce another report, and he made it very clear that a top-heavy, bureaucratic system had failed. He concluded that the LSC was too slow to respond—
“there were straws in the wind, early storm warnings, but the problem was not crystallised fast enough.”
So we will look closely at FE capital. Next week, I shall make it clear how we will spend on a bid basis with colleges the extra £50 million that the Chancellor has agreed to devote to FE capital projects.
Kevin Brennan
Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the extra £50 million that he describes as capital has been taken from the Department’s revenue spending for skills, and that it will only be for this year, and that therefore in the long term, in perpetuity, it is a £50 million cut?
Mr Hayes
I have already celebrated the hon. Gentleman’s assiduity, and his numeracy skills are obvious, too. He is right: the money is being taken from the Train to Gain budget, and it is being allocated to capital. The justification for that is the urgency of the problem. Had the Labour party organised the capital funding in FE in anything like a reasonable way, we would not have to take these emergency measures. That will bring some light to those colleges who were for so long, as I was, in the shadows—in the darkness.
The hon. Gentleman will also know that this is therefore a one-off programme, but we will now look at a longer-term set of proposals for FE capital, and in my estimation even this short-term measure will deliver benefit to 150 colleges across the country. There will be more details next week. I know that the hon. Gentleman cannot wait—the whole House is excited—but he must, because I cannot give all the presents out on the same day; some have to be saved for Boxing day.
There has to be a better way to take advantage of the immense human capital in the college system, to build a high-skilled, high-tech economy. We really must offer a new beginning. That is why I want to move to the four points that lay at the heart of the letter that I wrote today, and then to my exciting conclusion.
The letter that I have written today to the principals of all colleges sets out ways in which we will set FE free. First, I am removing the requirement to complete summary statements of activity, with a resulting reduction in performance monitoring of employer responsiveness. Secondly, the Government have already announced the removal of Ofsted inspections for schools with outstanding performance. I will work with ministerial colleagues to introduce the same way of working in the FE sector, removing inspections for colleges with outstanding performance.
Thirdly, I will remove the regulatory requirement for college principals to undertake the principals qualifying programme, not because I do not want appropriately qualified principals—I know that there are a range of development opportunities and qualifications that can enhance managers’, leaders’ and principals’ skills to run colleges in the 21st century—but because individuals in our institutions should be free to decide what package of development is appropriate to support their individual circumstances.
Fourthly and most importantly, I will enable all colleges except those that are performing poorly to move money between adult learner and employer budgets, because they, rather than Ministers, know how best to meet the needs of local learners and employers. All those measures are intended to increase the power of colleges to determine how best to manage their affairs in the light of local training needs. I want not just to encourage them to listen to what local people and local businesses have to say, but to be free to act, to respond and to use that information with a minimum of fuss, delay and administrative cost.
This is only the beginning—a first indication of the Government’s determination to deliver on the promises we made to providers when we were in opposition. We are drawing a line under the mistakes of the past and reaching for a better future.
It is true that our debate takes place in difficult circumstances and that the public sector will be obliged to make efficiency savings. It is also true, as I said earlier—I want to be honest about this—that no guarantees can be offered about future funding. With freedom comes a fresh challenge, so as unnecessary compliance costs are reduced, I will be looking to colleges to find efficiencies. They would expect that, as would the House. That will include encouraging colleges to find more cost-efficient ways of conducting their affairs, such as by merging back-office functions and streamlining their procurement processes. If the Government had done that earlier—when Labour Members controlled the purse strings—we could have made more progress to match and beat the performance of the competitor countries to which I referred that have outpaced us on apprenticeships and driven up the skills of their work forces to an extent that we have not. The Train to Gain programme was part of the problem. I know that former Ministers are obliged to defend it, but they know what the National Audit Office said about its dead-weight cost. They know that assessment was too often dressed up as training and that the brokerage service at the programme’s heart was, at best, only a partial success.
Before my appointment as Minister, I was fortunate enough to enjoy a long apprenticeship as shadow Minister. Over those years, I held countless meetings with college principals and visited innumerable colleges throughout the country. Everything that I said in opposition, and everything that I say now in government, has been informed by the views and opinions of the sector. We will continue that dialogue about shaping further education in this country—alongside the needs of business and industry, and combined with the Government’s priorities—in a way that delivers opportunities to a new generation of learners.
The stakes are high. The ability of our economy to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances depends in no small measure on the capacity of workers to adapt. They need to be sure of the promise that new skills and knowledge will lead inexorably to new and better chances in life. My aim—and my commitment—is to make good on that promise for the next generation.
Today, a start has been made, but there is much more to do to build a country with the skills that we need to compete, a country ready to elevate the practical, and a country where learning is valued for its own sake and for its economic, social and cultural benefits: proud, confident learners, colleges free to respond and a dynamic, highly skilled economy—Britain being the best that it can be.
Kevin Brennan
It would be remiss of me if I did not welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. I also pay tribute to his predecessor—a former skills Minister. I shall talk about the priorities for skills spending later. However, I note that although the current Minister has tried to cut the Train to Gain budget and to trash the programme comprehensively, he has not yet completely abolished it.
I am especially proud of the work that we did in government with the trade unions. Despite Conservative hostility, as even the Minister might admit, we introduced the union learning fund, which is now worth £21.5 million a year. As a result, there are now more than 23,000 union learning reps. They get to the parts of the workplace that other trainers and providers sometimes do not reach, and they helped nearly 250,000 workers into learning last year. Latterly—I give this Minister and the Minister for Universities and Science credit for this—that even won praise from the Minister for Universities and Science for its effectiveness and efficiency. One day, the skills Minister might be able to mention the union learning fund and the trade unions in a speech and get the odd “Hear, hear!” from the Back Benchers behind him, rather than the blank looks that he got when he talked about them today.
The highly successful transformation fund for informal adult learning has also brought about a sea change in people’s perceptions of themselves, and has helped to generate a marked increase in participation, particularly among those in the lower D and E socio-economic groups, and that is a legacy of the previous Government’s of which I am proud.
There was huge investment of over £2 billion in building the colleges of the future, although the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the problems with the programme. That programme transformed the places in which people learn. He will have the pleasure, as Minister, of visiting many of those colleges and seeing the transformational impact of the capital investment in our further education colleges that took place under the Labour Government. He may also remind himself that not a single penny was spent on further education capital for colleges in the final year of his party’s last term in office. So there is a substantial platform on which to build, and a clear strategy for the future was set out in the skills White Paper last November.
Mr Hayes
Given the spirit that has permeated our exchanges thus far, and indeed today, I know that the shadow Minister will want to welcome the extra £50 million. He was slightly critical when he said that it was to be taken from revenue and was a one-off, but he knows that that was needed and will be welcomed across the sector. Will he just say a word of welcome for that?
Kevin Brennan
I am always happy to argue for more investment and capital for our FE colleges, but later I may return to the issue of the £50 million and whether, overall, the Department should be welcoming the way in which it has been pick-pocketed by the Treasury over that measure.
As I say, there is a substantial platform on which to build. The skills White Paper, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, was published last November, set out pretty clearly the skills challenges for the next decade and a clear set of proposals to meet that challenge, including an ambition to ensure that three quarters of people participate in higher education or complete an advanced apprenticeship by the age of 30. Included in those proposals were: the expansion of the apprenticeship system to build a new technical class by doubling apprenticeship places for young adults; apprenticeship scholarships; and the focus of the skills budget on the areas from which future jobs will come. I make no apology for that, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about skills being wider than simply an economic matter. I make no apology for focusing on the areas from which future jobs will come.
The proposals also include: a joint investment scheme with sector skills councils; more national skills academies; skills accounts, to which I think the hon. Gentleman referred; user-friendly public ratings for colleges and providers, to which I think he referred in his written statement today; better skills provision for those on out-of-work benefits; promotion of apprenticeships as a priority in public procurement; reducing the number of publicly funded skills agencies by over 30; and focusing resources on key economic strategic priorities. A strong record of achievement and a clear and widely welcomed strategy for the future—that is the strong legacy bequeathed to the hon. Gentleman as Minister with responsibility for skills in the new Government.
Mr Hayes
I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman too often, and I will give him some poetry, if I get a chance, in a later intervention, but he talks about the legacy that his party left. I just want him to be clear with the House about where the £300 million reductions in
“funding not directly supporting learner participation and lower priority adult skills budgets”
would actually have fallen; that is in the pre-Budget report that his Government published.
Kevin Brennan
I am slightly surprised by that comment, because the hon. Gentleman seemed at first in his speech to be criticising us for making those necessary savings, but later to be saying that we should have made them earlier. I am not quite sure why that suddenly became the point on which he wanted to intervene. However, he can intervene as often as he likes; I am happy to give way to him on any number of occasions, as he knows.
What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do with the strong, powerful and compelling legacy that I have just outlined to the House? First, his Department is cutting by 10,000 the number of university places that would have been on offer this autumn. That is despite him and his colleagues persistently claiming—and actually bringing my colleagues and me to the House, when we were the Ministers, to boast about the fact—that they were committed to, creating an extra 10,000 university places over and above what the Government were committed to through a sort of “buy now, pay later” student loan early payback scheme, which we argued was entirely bogus, and which appears to have been wiped from the collective memories of Government Front Benchers during their coalition reprogramming course.
Perhaps when the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) winds up, he can tell us what happened to the pet scheme to conjure up more student places for free. The Minister for Universities and Science explained in the House on many occasions how it would work, despite our scepticism. Has the Treasury finally explained to him and his colleagues what we told him all along—that it was Mickey Mouse maths and would not work? I think that the Under-Secretary agrees that it is Mickey Mouse maths; he did when he was in opposition.
What else have the Administration done on skills apart from announcing cuts to university places and budgets? They have tried to soften the Department’s pain of being the Chancellor’s whipping boy so far in the £6 billion in-year cuts package by recycling £200 million from the skills budget—from the Train to Gain programme—into additional apprenticeship places costing £150 million, and, as the Minister outlined, into capital for further education colleges of £50 million. The Secretary of State bragged about that yesterday in the Chamber. He tried to give the impression that it was year zero and that he was the first Minister ever to come to the Dispatch Box to announce anything about spending on further education capital and apprenticeships.
On capital, the Secretary of State has been done over by the oldest Treasury trick in the book—converting revenue into capital. He claimed that he kept back £200 million from the package when he is doing no such thing. The £50 million on capital, as the Minister generously admitted in his remarks, is for this year only. The Chancellor has picked the Secretary of State’s skills budget pocket for future years to the tune of £50 million per annum and that should be acknowledged.
The Secretary of State should have made the case for capital separately, if he wanted to make such a case to the Treasury in the spending review. Instead, he has allowed the Treasury to deny the skills budget £50 million a year from next year onwards—in perpetuity—even before the Budget and the spending review. That is a little naive. He has been had and he ought to have known better.
Let us consider the apprenticeships proposal. There are no stronger supporters of apprenticeships than me, Labour Members and the previous Labour Government. No Government did more than the previous Government to rescue apprenticeships from the almost criminal indifference of the previous Tory Government, who allowed apprenticeships to fall to only 65,000, with a completion rate of only a third.
The Secretary of State should be more candid about the proposals. He is not trying to do the difficult, but most important, things on apprenticeships. He is after the low-hanging fruit—and I hope he will think carefully about that—because he hopes to claim a quick victory on apprenticeship numbers. For the benefit of the House and all concerned, let us be clear about what he is doing. Although he tried to give an impression to the contrary yesterday, he is not creating new training opportunities apprenticeships for the youngest and most difficult to place. He is not—as we pledged to do and he must still deliver, unless he wants to tell us that he will abandon the policy; I do not think that he will—trying to create more advanced apprenticeships for young adults. He is not aiming to support a particular number of new jobs. He is transferring funding in the training and skills budget from one form of funding for those who are in work into another—good, but more expensive—form of training, which he knows is overwhelmingly likely to be taken up not by employers looking to take on new young workers who are currently out of work, but by those who will train a smaller number of older workers currently in work than they would have done under Train to Gain.
Now that is fine—it is a legitimate decision for the Government to make—but the Secretary of State should not try to give the impression that the announcement and the programme is likely to result in 50,000 new job opportunities for young people, or even new jobs for older workers.
Mr Hayes
We cannot allow this to stand, can we? I hope that I wear the weight
“Of learning lightly like a flower”,
in the words of Tennyson. I also hope that that learning might inform the thinking of the House on apprenticeships. Of course some of the new apprenticeships will be adult apprenticeships and some will be for young people, and of course some will be about upskilling and some about reskilling, but to suggest that the people involved will simply be those currently taught under Train to Gain is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman knows what the National Audit Office said about that scheme: 25% dead-weight cost.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I say to the Minister that the erudition of his intervention was equalled only by its length? Although it is a joy to listen to his mellifluous tones, I hope that not all such interventions will be of equal length.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on an entertaining and well-informed maiden speech. I am sure that she will make a great addition to the House and will serve her constituents well. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram). I must tell my hon. Friend that I am another Scot who hopes that the England side does well—but I look forward to hours of arguments about football in the years ahead.
I welcome the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), to his post and wish him well, although I see that he has just left the Chamber. I thought that his speech was a wonderful performance. I have concluded that if the pressures of government grow too great for him, as they inevitably will at some point, he will have a great future in amateur dramatics.
I was pleased to hear the Minister’s plans, some of which I think deserve consideration. For instance, I was glad to learn that he plans to look at the careers service with a view to possibly revamping it. I was surprised and worried to read in a briefing that I received from Edge—the independent foundation that promotes vocational qualifications—that in response to a survey conducted last year, more than 50% of secondary schoolteachers admitted that their knowledge of apprenticeships was remarkably poor.
Mr Hayes
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute and for the information that he has just provided. The same survey revealed that teachers knew less about apprenticeships than about any other qualification apart from the Welsh baccalaureate. I have nothing against the Welsh baccalaureate, but the hon. Gentleman will understand the point.
Steve McCabe
I am glad to learn that the Minister has taken that information on board. As I have said, it worried me to read it, and also to read that many apprentices who were surveyed said that very little information had been given to them about apprenticeships either by secondary schoolteachers or, more importantly, by careers specialists. It seems pretty obvious to me that, if we are interested in promoting apprenticeships, we shall have to convey some basic good information to young people. Both the careers service and the information available to secondary schoolteachers must therefore improve.
I am not quite sure what the Minister was attacking in his comments on level 2—I am not sure whether that was code for a cut in numbers down the line. It seems to me that £50 million could buy an awful lot of opportunities for young people, and if that sum is taken out of the budget in the years ahead, perhaps the Minister has to prepare the way by telling us that he will downgrade certain qualifications and opportunities.
I welcome, however, the Minister’s acknowledgement that level 2 can provide a very useful foundation. I was struck by the statistic in the CBI report, “Ready to grow” that 32% of employers found it remarkably difficult to recruit people with the necessary intermediate skills. It seems to me that those people will never be available unless we can provide them with a basic foundation to start with, and the general definition of level 2 is that it provides people with a solid grounding and a basic set of skills from which they can begin to build and develop their chosen careers.
I do not particularly want to quibble with the Minister about the definition of apprenticeships, but level 2 is very important in getting some young people on the path. Whatever the Minister’s comments today about level 3 were intended to mean, I hope he will bear in mind that it is essential that youngsters have a route in, and that the only way that we will be able to provide employers with people with the requisite skills is by giving young people that starting point.
I also welcome the Minister’s plans to set further education colleges free, although I am not sure how free they will be if they are starved of funding, as it strikes me that that can be a fairly empty form of freedom, and I noticed that there was very little detail about exactly what this freedom will amount to. I would like FE colleges to be encouraged to develop programme apprenticeships—they already have a great deal of skill in that respect—and those apprenticeships are a way of enabling young people in particular to begin their apprenticeship at a time when it may be quite difficult for them to find an employer to take them on. Employers, particularly small businesses, are struggling to develop apprenticeships at present because of their fears about the economic future.
Mr Hayes
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way for a second time.
For the sake of clarity, let me repeat something that I have already said: I am writing to every Member to describe these freedoms to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and they are all things that have been specifically requested by further education representatives in numerous conversations that we have had with them over a period of years.
Steve McCabe
Well, the detail is obviously in the letter then, and I look forward to reading it.
I was slightly disappointed that the Minister did not make any specific reference to small businesses. If we want to grow meaningful apprenticeships, small businesses are the obvious sector that we need to target, but we all know that they have difficulties in dealing with apprenticeships. I was glad to hear that the Minister is enthusiastic to cut through the red tape, but when I talk to small employers, they tell me that they need help in developing apprenticeships; they need help with the basic training and assessment. That is the other side of what needs to be done. One side is to encourage youngsters by ensuring they have the necessary information and by promoting apprenticeships, and the other side is to make it possible for small employers in particular to take on young people.
I wonder whether the Minister has considered the idea of group apprenticeship schemes, which I understand have been particularly successful in Australia. I believe that there are some pilot schemes in this country. The essential idea is that the apprentice is employed by a group and is sent out on placement to various employers. It then becomes possible for a group of small employers to get together and to save on the administrative costs and overheads. A number of youngsters can therefore be placed on an apprenticeship scheme and get real practical experience with employers.
Has the Minister any plans to consider university technical colleges? There is one in the Birmingham area, at Aston, and I think there are about four around the country. That model seems to bring universities together with employers. In the engineering and manufacturing sectors in particular, it encourages the development of a steady skill development path. It builds on vocational levels through to level 5, and the previous Government sought to encourage it. I would like to know whether the Minister has plans to pursue it.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) for his maiden speech. He had no need to be nervous; it was an extremely entertaining and informative maiden speech. I thank him for his kind comments about his predecessor, Kali Mountford. On the Labour Benches, we think of Kali with great affection, so we thank him.
I am pleased that mention has been made of the “Skills for Growth” White Paper, which has been important in defining our skills needs for the next few decades. As the Minister knows, the White Paper put particular emphasis on vocational skills and argued for a dramatic expansion of advanced apprenticeships, particularly for young adults. It also argued for the skilling of adults who are already in employment and those seeking work, and for improving the quality of provision in our FE and other institutions.
At the same time, “Higher Ambitions” set out equally challenging demands for our university sector. It asked universities to work with the Higher Education Funding Council for England to devise new funding incentives so that we could deliver higher education programmes that were more acutely related to the needs of the economy, and to work with the UK Commission for Employment and Skills to identify where new programmes were needed to meet areas of low demand. It set out the need to improve the relationship between universities and businesses and, crucially, to build better relationships between universities and regional development agencies. I noticed that the Minister was very quiet on that subject today, but as the Government are about to destroy the whole RDA framework, I should be interested to hear what he has to say about how universities and FE colleges will work with whatever structure is set up to ensure that regional development continues.
Mr Hayes
The hon. Lady will want to know that we are entirely committed to ensuring consistency—indeed synergy—between the economic development functions of local authorities and the work of colleges and other providers. If she is straightforward, I think she will acknowledge that according to the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office, RDAs were not terribly effective in some of the work they did.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I hear what the Minister says, but the new Government still have some way to go in setting out more generally how they propose to build on Labour’s progress in upskilling and reskilling our population, and particularly in outlining how some of the more strategic objectives on skills shortages will be met at regional level. That may not be easily deliverable at local authority level, so the Government have some more thinking to do about our regions.
The progress made under Labour was recognised by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills in its national skills audit, published earlier this year:
“Significant progress has been made in raising the qualifications levels of the workforce and stimulating supply over the last ten years, so that compared to other OECD nations our supply of highly skilled people is likely to place us 10th in the OECD by 2020.”
When Labour left office we were on track to move up the OECD league table in terms of the advances we had made in skilling our population. There is thus a considerable challenge to the Government to maintain that progress.
Similarly, recent publications from Universities UK and the Russell group comment on the strength of the university sector, while arguing that if current standards and quality are to be maintained investment must continue. We may hear something about that in the Budget next week, but it remains to be seen whether protection will be given for education not only pre-19, but post-19, so that we continue to be internationally competitive.
Not only did the Labour Government invest heavily in education generally, including further and higher education, but that investment was accompanied by a strategy to widen participation, to raise aspirations and to ensure that all young people who felt they could benefit from a university or a level 4 education had the chance to do so. I have not yet heard from the new Government whether they will continue to have that high level of aspiration for our young people. The Leitch review very much led us in that strategy. The Minister mentioned the review in his opening speech, but he did not mention whether this Government would keep the very demanding Leitch targets, which stated that 90% or more of the working-age population should have a level 2 qualification, 68% should have a level 3 qualification and over 40% should have a qualification at level 4 or higher. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks those targets should stay in place.
Good progress was being made towards reaching those targets when Labour left office. The Liberal Democrats have often said—I often heard this during my election campaign—that although Labour had made advances in reskilling the population, those had been confined largely to the better-off. Interestingly, data from HEFCE show clearly that that is not the case. A HEFCE publication earlier this year, which looked at trends in young participation in higher education among different groups in England, stated that to overcome gaps in the data on disadvantage at an individual level, the study that it used looked at levels of disadvantage in local areas, taking figures from 8,000 census wards across England. The authors of the study also selected a range of indicators, and they said that, looking across the indicators, they had to conclude that since the mid-2000s young people from disadvantaged areas are substantially more likely to enter HE, that most measures of the gap in participation between most and least disadvantaged areas had fallen, and that the majority of additional entrants to HE have come from more disadvantaged areas. That means that Labour was not only upskilling the population, but it was extending access to higher education to those who had not previously been able to benefit from it. That is another substantial challenge for the new Government: they must—and we will be watching whether they continue to do so—extend opportunities and widen participation in the way that Labour did.
The audit that I mentioned earlier also talked about the importance of increasing skill levels further and identified key areas where there are skill shortages: in management and leadership, in professional skills, at the technician and equivalent level, at intermediate vocational levels and care services, and in customer service and general employability skills. It is important that we continue to make good those skill shortages.
The audit also identified key sectors where we need to be improving the skills levels of our young people and work force in the future if we are to remain internationally competitive. It was interesting to see the areas that had been outlined, which I think are familiar to all of us in the Chamber. They have been identified as low carbon; advanced manufacturing; engineering and construction; financial and professional services; the digital economy; life sciences and pharmaceuticals; the creative sector; care services; and retail, hospitality, leisure and tourism.
Our university and FE sectors are in a sense already embracing this brave new world, because they have already started to think of new ways of delivering courses that give much greater flexibility. I pay tribute to New College Durham for pioneering professional apprenticeships, for leading the drive for good-quality HE in FE, and for developing partnerships between HE and FE. I would welcome a visit to the college from the Minister, because he could meet the staff and see some of the fantastic work that is going on.
The Minister talked about international competitiveness in his opening speech. If we are to remain internationally competitive, we must keep our levels of reskilling high, which means that we will need to know how many young people and individuals in the work force are being skilled and reskilled. If we are not skilling sufficient people, we will need to put additional measures in place. That will mean that we will have to retain some targets, so I would like to hear the Government’s thoughts about that.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I welcome you to the Chair and wish you very well in your new role in the House? The House has been at its very best this afternoon, and I have enjoyed all the contributions, particularly the maiden speeches. The subject of education and skills always brings out the very best in Members. Indeed, for many of us, from whatever party represented in the House, it is the reason why we came into public life, and we have seen that today.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) on his contribution. He spoke warmly of his predecessor, Dr Starkey, who is remembered fondly on the Labour Benches, and of Milton Keynes’ great heritage in higher education. I was pleased to visit the new university centre in Milton Keynes, and I hope that he continues to support it in its work to extend access and widen participation in that area. Of course, Labour Members are particularly fond of, and are keen to remember, the great Open university and the heritage of Jenny Lee and the Wilson era Labour Government.
We heard a fantastic and wonderful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who I know was a very effective mayor of Liverpool during its year as capital of culture. He included many of the football references that we hear in the House. He obviously has big shoes to fill—many of us remember Peter Kilfoyle fondly—and I particularly enjoyed his reference to growing up on an estate. Those of us who grew up in very humble circumstances wish him well in his endeavours to remind the House that there are many people a long, long way from this Chamber.
We also heard an eloquent and articulate speech from the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). I hope that she will not be overwhelmed by liberalism, as she referenced in her speech. I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber to hear the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), who made many football references, so I will look at them in Hansard tomorrow. He spoke warmly of his predecessor, who was well respected on the Labour Benches.
I know the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) because she stood against me in Tottenham in 2000. She will remember that back then I looked a little more like Denzel Washington, but 10 years later I look a lot more like Forest Whitaker. She has championed the Conservative cause in London. I wish her well in her seat, and it is good that she mentioned Battersea Dogs Home—an institution of which we in London are very fond.
The hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) made me want to rush up to north-east Lancashire. I do not claim it is an area of the country I know well enough, but I thought he gave a very eloquent speech in which he reminded us of that city’s manufacturing heritage.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) also gave an eloquent speech. He was very kind about his predecessor and reminded us that we must continue to rediscover the importance of our industrial heritage—the Humber clearly played an important role in our history.
The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) could have got a job with a tourism agency in speaking about his constituency. His effective speech reminded us not just of the industrial nature of so many of the areas that we represent, but of the importance of agriculture and the skills that we need to support agriculture in our economy.
Let me pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who made a warm and passionate speech. She placed a great emphasis on role models—an issue that I have also championed in the House—and again, the beauty of the area that she represents came across.
The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) also paid an eloquent tribute, not just to his constituency but, importantly, to our armed forces. Historically, they have always played an important role in this country, by providing so many men and women with skills who have not just served our armed forces, but gone on to serve the wider community once they left the armed services.
Like the hon. Member for Central Devon, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) reminded us of the importance of seaside areas and the work that we must continue doing, particularly in the south-east, where there remain acute pockets of deprivation.
The hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) is a tribute to the north. He is keen to keep Stockton on the map, as his predecessor was, despite the boundary issues affecting his constituency.
I was not surprised that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), being a barrister, managed to cram a lot into her speech in the time available. I look forward to her contributions in the Chamber over the years ahead.
Let me turn to the returning parliamentarians. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for reminding us of the role of group training associations in extending apprenticeships and helping small businesses in particular to take part in our wider apprenticeship schemes.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) has tremendous expertise in higher education issues, but she also reminded us of the importance of the Leitch targets. I hope that when the Minister winds up we might hear something about whether the Government remain committed to those targets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) was right to remind the House that Derby remains an exemplar city, owing to its unique combination of both skills and manufacturing. There is much that we can learn from the success of that part of the country over the most recent period. We all want to replicate that success in different parts of the country.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) on his election as Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, and on his thoughtful speech. We all look forward to hearing more from him in these debates over the coming years.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) on his advancement of the cause of UCLan university in his constituency and on reminding us of the industrial heritage of his area and the importance of companies such as Rolls-Royce.
We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), in an intervention. Importantly, she reminded us not just of the role of universities—she spoke about Cardiff—but of the many spin-out companies that emerge from universities, taking skills back into the community, as people graduate and create companies. They are illustrations of the huge success of “Science made simple”.
Let me come to the contribution of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). I have had exchanges with him across the Chamber for about four years—first in my role as the Minister for skills and then as the Minister for higher education. I look forward to the debates that we will have over the coming months. He has always described himself as a high Tory. As a consequence, he has an elevated—some might say levitated—status in the Chamber. I know his constituency well; I remember it fondly from my days as a Peterborough cathedral chorister. I suspect that he can be found on a Sunday engaging in amateur dramatics in the village halls around Spalding, playing Hercule Poirot or even Miss Marple.
Mr Lammy
Indeed.
I was disappointed not to see a reference to higher education in the motion and not to hear much from the hon. Gentleman about its importance. It is my view—I hope that it is his—that a world-class university system is central to a high-skilled economy. I grew up in Tottenham during a very difficult time in our history—and as an ethnic minority in troubled and difficult times—and I am very proud of all that we have done to widen access and extend opportunities for poorer and non-traditional families and for ethnic minorities across the country. It was a huge achievement for the Labour Government to widen participation to 44% and to enable more young people and more black and ethnic minorities to go to university than ever before.
When we look at constituencies in inner-city Liverpool, Birmingham and Manchester and at the pockets of deprivation in the cities, towns and villages that we have heard about today, and we see young people—whose parents would never have dreamed of going to university—going into higher education, we realise the major contribution that the Labour Government made to our high-skilled economy. It is important that that should continue.
It is a great shame that the Minister for Universities and Science, the right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), recently referred to students and young people as a “burden on the taxpayer”. Students are never a burden on the taxpayer. Underlying his statement is a certain view of the state and a suspicion of the contribution that the state makes to advancing the cause of a high-skilled economy. We will take every opportunity to challenge such assumptions over the coming months.
The Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, has announced the creation of 50,000 apprenticeships, but he is not in opposition now, and he must remember that he does not have those 50,000 apprenticeships until he has delivered them. The people who will actually deliver them, however, are in business and industry. Achieving that will take a lot of hard effort over the coming months, because I do not think that he is suggesting that the money that he has set aside will pay the salaries of those young apprentices. He is still expecting business to do that. So, at the moment, he has delivered only one apprentice: the public apprentice, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I wish the Minister of State well, but we will be looking hard at the detail over the coming months, and he will expect me to penetrate fiercely some of the hyperbole in his comments.