---

World Class Skills 2020

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reinforcing my point. This is where I share much of what the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was saying. Leitch is quite weak in that area. He relies on a pledge—a voluntary commitment—by employers to invest in their employees so that 90 per cent. of the work force are up to level 2 standard qualifications by 2020. The report says that if we do not see significant evidence that they are making that step change in just three years’ time, by 2010, more intervention might be needed. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what intervention he thinks might be needed in three years’ time. He might be confident that employers will make that step change in attitude. We should encourage a culture of minimum entitlement for employees of all firms—an expectation that as one progresses through one’s career one will receive at least a minimum investment in training each year. That could be expressed in hours or days. I suggest that five days of training is the sort of level that should be considered. Employers often say that they are afraid to invest in training because, if they invest, someone will poach their well trained staff, and those staff will go to a firm that perhaps has not invested in training. If we achieve the culture shift that I am describing, however—such that every small and medium enterprise in the country invests in training, along with larger enterprises too—the fear of poaching will disappear. If employers invest in their human resources, the fact that there is turnover between firms and that people move around in the natural order of things can be a good thing, because people can bring with them the practical experience that they have gained with other employers. The Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), has joined us. He will remember that when we in the Committee considered further education, one of the worrying issues that we identified was that there seemed to be, if not hostility, a lack of understanding between employers and further education colleges on what an FE college could offer to an employer, and on what an employer could reasonably expect of an FE college. That is a second area in which a change in attitude is needed, and there is much that can be done, by the Learning and Skills Council among others, to bridge that perception gap. It is for that reason that I am slightly wary of one of the strong recommendations in the Leitch report, which was that much of the power over skills budgets and course provision should lie in the hands of employers. We need a more positive attitude from employers before too much power is handed to them. There is a risk in certain localised economies that, if employers are the main arbiters of the training provided in a community, there will not be flexibility in relation to individual needs and local economic development. I think back to where I grew up. The body that is now the university of Glamorgan was originally the Glamorgan school of mines. It provided what was probably the only training that was available to my grandfathers in their day, and undoubtedly that training was what local employers wanted. It did not exactly facilitate labour mobility, however, and I am concerned that employers might sometimes have too much control over courses. Change is also needed in employers’ attitude to the sort of people who are employed. Earlier, I mentioned demographic change—there will be fewer teenagers in the next decade and we know, in any case, that we live in an ageing society. I can announce that I am now 40—my 40th birthday was recorded at a Select Committee meeting a few months ago—so I am fully aware that when one reaches 40 there is a change in the attitude that one can usually expect from people. When one is over 50 and still in the work force, even more age-related discrimination can be experienced. Some large providers actively invest in older workers—B&Q is perhaps the best known. That example should be followed. It is essential that we invest in the existing work force and in older employees if we are successfully to compete in the future. Much the same could be said in relation to the employability of disabled people. There is a stark gap if one studies the educational attainment statistics for disabled and able-bodied people and the employment chances of those groups. That is unacceptable, and attitudes need to change on that as well. In future, that kind of perception change will be an economic necessity for firms and for the economy in general, rather than just a matter of combating discrimination. I echo the words of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about cuts in adult and community learning. He was right that change will require rather more than Sir Digby Jones charging round the country demanding that employers meet the pledge. Sobriety has been mentioned, along with hope, but hope will not be enough to deliver what is needed—we need firm action. There will be a change of Prime Minister some time this year—we think so anyway. On the last occasion of a change of Labour Prime Minister between elections, in the mid-1970s, Mr. Callaghan took the opportunity of becoming Prime Minister to announce that education would be his main passion. I hope that whoever succeeds the current incumbent, be it the Chancellor or whoever, will say that skills will be the number one priority of his Government. Let me move from intermediate skills to higher-level skills. I was surprised that the 42-minute speech of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, despite capturing our attention, did not include any mention of such skills. They are just as important if we are to compete in the global economy during the time scale of the Leitch report. The report’s target is for 40 per cent. of the adult work force to be educated to degree level, instead of the current 29 per cent. That would be a significant change, and it is a challenging target. The current participation rate among 18 to 30-year-olds is approximately 42 per cent., but that rate has been stuck at the same level for some time, and we need urgent work to improve it, and to get more people involved in higher education. One way to do that is to deliver higher education in FE colleges. There has been mention of the fact that that is being done, but it was not the case previously. FE colleges might be very keen to get involved, but some of them have told me that they are not getting the necessary resources, particularly when those resources are compared with those available to universities. We should ensure that widening participation through further education does not mean delivering higher education on the cheap. Foundation degrees were also mentioned. There will shortly be debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee on the Further Education and Training Bill after it is received from another place, so I shall postpone most of my comments on that subject until then. However, my party’s mind is currently open on whether FE colleges should be allowed to award the degrees. Vocational degrees are already a great success in HE institutions. I do not know whether the Minister keeps it by his bedside, but I am sure that at some point he has read the Universities UK report entitled ““Higher level learning: Universities and employers working together””, which is excellent, and from which I shall draw a couple of examples. The report predicts that the games software and electronic publishing industry, which is worth £65 billion to the UK economy, will achieve 20 per cent. growth in graduate employment over the period addressed by the Leitch report. According to statistics from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, there are currently on offer 76 degree-level courses in games design, together with 52 in games technology, and 38 in games production. According to my maths, that makes 166 degree courses in higher education up and down the country, from Aberdeen to Plymouth. Those are courses that no one would have taken five or 10 years ago, so great change is happening. A few months ago I visited the university of Bedfordshire, in Luton. There was much excellent work, and I met the professor of virtual reality. That does not sound like something that one expects to hear, but he was very much a real person, with real students who are going on to do real jobs, and who will earn a substantial amount of money in the gaming industry after graduation. The UK is a world leader in the gaming industry—it is ahead of Japan. The Minister mentioned the Olympics, so I shall mention sport and leisure courses, which higher education also delivers. For example, there is a course in applied golf management studies, at which the popular press and some of our colleagues have often sneered unjustly. The course is offered by the university of Birmingham, a Russell group university. The course is heavily over-subscribed, and employment at the end is almost guaranteed. Such courses, sometimes sneered at as Mickey Mouse courses, are nothing of the sort; they are incredibly successful, and the employment outcomes are usually stronger than those of the more traditional degrees, such as history, which I studied more years ago than I care to mention. Higher education is flexible, and it has delivered successful skills-related courses. We live in a fast-changing economy; it is probably changing at a faster rate than in the 18th century, when this country was the first to industrialise. People were bewildered by change at that time, and they protested against it. People, unless they are of a certain age, are no longer bewildered by change. They understand that they need the skills if they are to benefit from it. I mentioned the gaming industry. I could mention aero-engineering. On my doorstep in Bristol, a huge amount of research and skills-related work is taking place at Airbus and at other firms to examine how we can use plastics rather than metals in aeroplanes not only to increase the efficiency of the airliners, but to combat climate change. If we invest more in renewable energy, we can take advantage of the skills and employment opportunities that it makes available. I have mentioned demographic change a couple of times. One of its ramifications is a change in the building industry. We know that many more houses and smaller properties must be built. At the City of Bristol college, and at Lewisham college, which I visited earlier this week, one sees huge growth in the popularity of courses in plastering, bricklaying, kitchen design and plumbing. As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned, upskilling has never been more vital. The comprehensive spending review is coming up, and we will be watching closely to see how high a priority education and skills is for the Chancellor—possibly the future Prime Minister. We will also be watching to see whether the pledge to match investment in schools with private sector investment has any prospect of delivery, and whether there will be growth in higher education investment, which does not compare to the extra money invested in schools—over the past 10 years, higher education investment in percentage growth terms has been nowhere near as generous. We will also be watching to ensure that there is no anticipated growth in fee income rather than Government investment, and to ensure in particular that there is continued Government commitment to further education and skills, so that it is not the unloved middle child of the educational world mentioned by Sir Andrew Foster in his report. Our work force definitely needs upskilling. It is good for economic prosperity and for the well-being of individuals. Depending on which report one reads, the United Kingdom is either the worst country in terms of social mobility, or it is just behind the worst country, the United States. The Leitch report mentions many challenges that this country faces. There is much for us to do, and this debate will become ever more vital over the next few years.