---

World Class Skills 2020

The Minister shows his characteristically incisive and sure touch, but let me explain the point. It would be better if he had also read the document that I have here, which sets my speech in a broader context. I am happy to let him have a copy of it, Mr. Hancock; I know that you keep a copy of it by your bedside. It is called ““Towards a Virtuous Circle of Learning””. In that paper and the policy paper, I conclude that too much of business’s investment in skills is spent on remedial training to compensate for failures elsewhere in the system. One in three employers tells us that they spend money on teaching their new staff how to read, write and count; on soft skills, which are a principal concern for employers; or on high-level skills that are a commercial necessity—the training of airline pilots is an example that might spring to mind if one is going on holiday soon. As a result, intermediate learning falls between the cracks, as do the resultant intermediate skills. Adult education is usually conducted at further education colleges and is funded by the Government through the Learning and Skills Council. That has historically been an important route to the kind of intermediate skills that I argue we lack. It is people’s first step back into learning and acquiring intermediate skills. The Minister gets around colleges just as much as I do, if not more. As he will know, colleges that try to attract students to become craftsmen such as plumbers—I do not know why we always use the example of plumbers, but they have become an iconic profession—sometimes sign people up to a non-accredited course before signing them up to an accredited course, particularly if those people are uncertain about their core skills. The Government have focused heavily on accredited courses, but I have some doubt about the effectiveness of such an approach, because it narrows the funnel through which people can come back into learning. The two things are not incompatible, but perhaps we can talk the issue through later in the debate, because I do not want to get bogged down in it now. For my money, there are three big omissions in the Leitch report. I take the report as our text because this is the first opportunity that the House has had really to explore it. The Minister rightly focused heavily on its analysis and recommendations, and it is, indeed, the most recent comprehensive assessment of skills with which we have to work. None the less, there are three gaps, the first of which relates to the role of further education colleges. When I put that point to the Secretary of State, he said, ““Well, that wasn’t Leitch’s remit.”” However, given that Andrew Foster’s report made it absolutely clear that FE colleges’ move towards self-regulation was a critical means of delivering the skills agenda, it is surprising that Lord Leitch did not take up that baton and run with it and that he did not talk about how such an approach might work in terms of his analysis and recommendations. I should therefore like the Minister to refocus on the issue. He talked about the Further Education and Training Bill with some pride, which is understandable, given that it does some important things. However, it is pretty ironic that at the same time that we are considering giving FE colleges foundation degree-awarding powers, we are also giving the Learning and Skills Council new, draconian powers to sack professionals such as college governors, managers and principals. It is ironic that, on the one hand, we want to trust FE to do more, but that, on the other, we trust it so little that we must make it accountable to the LSC, rather than to its own governors and to learners. I am not sure, therefore, that the Bill is all that it might have been. I would have hoped that it would give more scope to the proposals set out in the Leitch report and certainly to those set out in the Foster report, given the time between the publication of that report and the Bill. It is not good enough to say, ““We didn’t have long enough.”” The second big gap in the Leitch report concerns business engagement. It is pretty weak to say, ““Sign this pledge. If you don’t, the sword of Damocles hanging over your head will strike at a future date.”” It is pretty weak to send Digby Jones around the country, like some mad advocate of temperance, expecting people to sign the pledge. Leitch might more usefully and helpfully have looked at all the other means by which one might engage employers. He rightly talks about the need to move to a more demand-led system and away from the largely supply-led system that we have now. I know that the Minister shares that sentiment, by the way, because I have heard him express it. However, we must define what that system means and certainly how we will engage employers. I have no definitive view on that issue, but the Minister will know as well as I do that various things have been talked about. One might have thought that Leitch would consider the issue of a licence to practice, which might be voluntary, and which might be based on the model used by Investors in People, the British Standards Institution, the International Standards Organisation, the Association of British Travel Agents, estate agents and Corgi gas-fitters—there is any number of examples. I am not yet in a position to announce such a scheme as my party’s policy, but I would certainly have wanted Leitch to investigate it further. Leitch might also have looked at a levy system—perhaps a voluntary one—which would surely have a bit more weight and force than a pledge. One business man told me, ““We are quite happy to have ‘hail fellow well met’ meetings with the LSC once a month over coffee, but it doesn’t matter a lot until we have to stump up.”” There is a sense in which there is a relationship between commitment, money and funding, and a voluntary levy system could have been explored, although I would not favour a return to compulsory levies, for reasons with which you will be familiar, Mr. Hancock. Equally, Leitch might have looked at the range of fiscal options available to engage employers. Again, I do not take a definitive view on that, but we need to have a debate about it as a House and as a nation, and it is a pity that Leitch did not look at the issue a little more closely. The final gap in the Leitch report is, frankly, pretty big: he did not really explore the bureaucracy, regulation and micro-management of the skills agenda, which dog so much of the good work that is done. FE colleges tell me, as I am sure that they tell you, Mr. Hancock, and other hon. Members, that they are constantly dogged by micro-management. Seventeen bodies have oversight or a regulatory role in the FE sector, according to Foster, and that is repeated in the Leitch report. Surely, we need to treat FE as grown up and to give FE colleges much more capacity to innovate and much more opportunity to self-regulate. Of course there must be lines of accountability, because public money is involved, and Ofsted must continue to play a key role. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, too, can play a role, as it will in relation to foundation degrees, for example. There will be the necessary protections if we move to self-regulation, and there must, of course, be some long-stop accountability back to the Government. However, as we know from Ofsted’s current inspections of FE colleges, very few colleges are in desperate measures or unsatisfactory; the vast majority are satisfactory or better, and some are very much better. By undervaluing the expertise, professionalism, imagination and creativity of FE professionals, we will sell them short and, perhaps worse, we will sell learners short. We therefore need to look at the issues of bureaucracy, over-regulation, control and micro-management and at the way in which the system is managed and funded. Bluntly, that means that we will again have to look closely at the role of the LSC, which is a very large body. Again, I have not taken a definitive view on the issue, and I have simply said that we must think again about the ways in which we might manage the skills agenda. Like Leitch, I would like to see an enhanced role for sector skills councils, which are employer-orientated bodies. There are problems with that, and the Minister knows them. They include the issue of cross-sectorial skills and the fact that some councils are not yet fully up to speed. In addition, we need to ensure that they take sufficient account of the industry bodies that already exist in certain sectors and make the most use of them. There are, therefore, issues with that model, but it is a good way of managing the system more effectively. It would be odd to give sector skills councils strategic responsibility without also giving them funding responsibility, because such a mismatch does not bear any kind of logical analysis. The essence of Leitch’s report—his analysis of the problem, his emphasis on why skills matter, his definition of the scale of the mountain that we must climb and his strong emphasis on building a demand-led system—make his report an extremely welcome addition to the wider debate and critical to our debate this afternoon. I want to deal with only a few other matters, briefly, because I can see that many other hon. Members want to contribute to this three-hour debate. They are matters that concern the whole House. First, the Secretary of State was—I do not say it lightly—a little blasé this morning when challenged by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State on apprenticeships. Yes, he is right to say that things have improved in relation to the number of drop-outs. I acknowledge that, but, my goodness, it is from a very low base. The idea that we could have, according to the sector, anything from 20 to 60 or 70 per cent. of people dropping out—the Minister raises an eyebrow, but there are one or two in that range, and if he checks I am sure he will find that that is right—is not acceptable, is it? A certain number of people have always left apprenticeships, as they have moved into full-time work earlier than expected. That has always been the case, historically. However, we have a big problem with apprenticeships and the number of people who do not complete them. It is no use just starting the race: what matters is winning it, and we want all our young apprentices to be winners. The second problem with apprenticeships is that too many lack employer engagement. When I say that to people, they throw their hands up in horror. They say, ““What is an apprenticeship if it is not linked to an employer?”” I should guess that everyone’s image of an apprenticeship is much the same: going to a firm, learning a craft and working with experienced people who know the job. However, it came to my attention only in the past week that in one region of Britain half the apprenticeships had no direct employer engagement. Not only that, but a significant number of apprenticeships are not mentored. There is no skilled, grey-bearded craftsman looking after and encouraging, teaching and inspiring the young apprentice. Apprenticeships have become rather different from the apprenticeships that were once valued and highly esteemed, which taught real competencies that lasted for life. The second issue on which I want to say a brief word is Train to Gain. The Government place immense faith in Train to Gain, and they are right that it is critically important to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises to take training seriously. It has always been a problem historically: the chances are that for someone who works for a big firm training options will be available, but small businesses sometimes struggle to think about and invest in training as much as they need to. I was a director of what was originally a small, and later a medium-sized, IT company. When a company is very small people are too busy dealing with the weekly and monthly imperatives to worry much about what might happen three, six or 12 months down the line. I am sure you know that, Mr. Hancock. That is the sort of problem that faces small businesses when they deal with issues such as training; the payback from training is obviously, usually, longer term. However, I am still to be convinced that Train to Gain is the right way forward. There are three problems: the dead-weight cost, which was recognised by those who closely studied the pilot scheme; there was 85 per cent. dead-weight then. Hon. Members will remember what was said about that at the time, by independent commentators with no political axe to grind. Secondly, there is some evidence of a problem with training people in things that they already know. Someone who is already doing something perfectly satisfactorily goes on a course, to be trained to do it satisfactorily. That is not helpful, or a good use of public money. Thirdly, there is a need to ensure that the brokers are a useful bridge between educators and business, and not an unnecessary one. There is a slight risk, in that regard, in cases where further education has formed or could form direct relationships with local industry, of clogging up the system a bit by putting into place a network of brokers. I do not have a dogmatic view about it, but there are questions that need to be asked about Train to Gain. The third and final matter that I want to touch on is vocational diplomas, which are so critical to world class skills. Vocational diplomas mark an important opportunity to get vocational education from 14 to 19 right. I have welcomed them in the House, as the Minister knows. However, it is a very ambitious plan to set up 13 diplomas covering a very wide range of skills, and to expect them to be of the necessary rigour. It is a big ask of education—of schools and colleges. It will necessitate new relationships, of a kind not seen before, between schools and schools, and schools and colleges. Those collaborations should include higher education, where appropriate, and employers. We cannot see the matter as an agenda only for secondary schools. They will not be able to do it; it is as simple as that. They need to draw on the resources and expertise of all the organisations I have mentioned, to provide the quality that young people deserve. There are worries about the fit between the diplomas and other vocational qualifications, in some cases. I hope that the Minister will say a word now or later about that. It has been raised with me several times. There is a need for a tight fit so that people can move from one vocational qualification to another. There are doubts, also, about the coherence of the system, if consistency across the diplomas cannot be guaranteed. I hear that some of the diplomas are indeed rigorous and devised around what employers say is necessary, but that some are rather less so. The reputation of diplomas will depend on their all fitting the bill and meeting the standard. If one or two are not up to standard I fear that the esteem in which they are held will suffer; they will not be recognised by employers and the opportunity may be wasted. I have spoken at some length but the subject is important, and it is the first chance that we have had to explore some of the issues arising from the Leitch review. I wonder, Mr. Hancock, whether I may at this juncture ask the Minister to facilitate a debate on Leitch on the Floor of the House. We have not had one, and it is a major report. It is highly significant for education and the economy, and hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome the opportunity to contribute to such a debate on a day other than a very cold Thursday afternoon in Westminster Hall. We agree that skills matter and that they are a matter of economic performance. However, I end where I began: they are also about social cohesion, social mobility and social justice. I want to elevate practical learning because I want a new generation of craftsmen, who are proud of what they do, and who inspire pride in others. That is an ambition that I know Rab Butler had when he introduced the Education Act 1944 and spoke of education for democratic citizenship. If it was good enough then, surely it is good enough now. Let us see skills as we see education as a whole, in that noble context, and let the debate be a beginning of a cross-party commitment to that elevated view of vocational learning and skills.