---

World Class Skills 2020

Well, people who work in the skills area and the further education area will need a great deal of convincing on the issue, given the track record of the Conservative party when it was in power. It cut funding to further education colleges and skills providers significantly in real terms, which is a huge contrast with what has happened in the past 10 years. The hon. Gentleman talked in some detail about the proposals regarding intervention by the Learning and Skills Council where colleges are performing poorly. Those provisions are before Parliament at the moment in the Further Education and Training Bill. First, it needs to be made clear that because of improved success rates and improved quality in further education, we are talking about a very small number of providers but, where all else has failed and learners at local level are not being adequately provided for, there is a need to intervene to put in place a better framework. The hon. Gentleman referred to Sandy Leitch’s proposal to get employers to sign the pledge to commit to level 2 training. He seemed to suggest that he very much opposed that, but did not give a great deal of detail about what he would put in its place. He did argue in favour of voluntary levies and voluntary licences to practise, and certainly nothing in the Leitch report argues against that. Indeed, there is already provision for a voluntary levy, and a clause in the Further Education and Training Bill strengthens that provision where a majority of employers are in favour. The hon. Gentleman talked about over-regulation by the Learning and Skills Council. Let me be clear. Just as I would not with any other funding body or regulator, I do not claim that the LSC is perfect, but there has been significant change on the part of that organisation. There have been significant improvements. The latest change has been a significant change to the way in which it delivers on behalf of the Government. The move to a regional tier and a much more sensitive and in-touch system of local teams will help to improve delivery by the LSC further. The hon. Gentleman implied—he will correct me if I am wrong—that there ought to be a radical restructuring. I have to say that, in government, I am not a huge fan of massive, ongoing, permanent revolution within the structures, because when that takes place the people who are charged with doing the job of delivering on the ground are focusing not on delivery but on whether they will retain their job and where their next job is coming from, and there is a dip in performance. The hon. Gentleman talked about apprenticeship completion rates. In the 1990s and the early part of this decade, there was significant concern about completion rates for apprenticeships, but since then there has been a substantial improvement, from 24 per cent. in 2001-02 to 53 per cent. today. I am confident that we can continue to improve and move towards the completion rates found elsewhere in Europe. The hon. Gentleman also talked about—I think that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, used this terminology as well—about vocational diplomas in relation to the 14-to-19 agenda. When we talk about specialised diplomas, it is important that we do not pigeonhole them as exclusively vocational. If we do that, we risk ending up with some of the mistakes that have taken place in the past. Those diplomas will provide a blend of practical and theoretical learning, and we need to take them forward robustly, engaging with employers and—I think that this was said as well—with higher education institutions. If the process is ultimately to succeed, we need every university in the country, including research-intensive universities, to work with us so that they can recognise and value those qualifications as an entry criterion for university. If that does not take place, there are dangers that the system will not succeed. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings talked about the train to gain initiative. He expressed some concern about the dead-weight issue. That concern was highlighted during the pilot phase. It has been addressed and is being addressed in the national roll-out. It is important to underline the degree to which that initiative is succeeding. Since the roll-out last August, train to gain has engaged about 8,000 new employers and enrolled about 50,000 new learners. Fifty-six per cent of employers engaged—this is a very important finding—have been from the hard-to-reach category, which is a target group. Let us consider the research and the evaluation of what employers are saying about the initiative: 89 per cent. engaged have been satisfied with the service provided and 75 per cent. have been extremely satisfied. That shows that that very radical initiative—under which, for the first time in this country, adults in the workplace have been told that if they do not have their first full level 2 qualification, the state will step in to guarantee that—is very much moving in the right direction. I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said about wanting and seeking a debate on the Floor of the House. It would be good to debate skills on the Floor of the House. We will obviously do that when we consider the Further Education and Training Bill. Clearly, there is an option for the hon. Gentleman in terms of Opposition day debates. That will involve a debate on priorities that he will have to undertake with his Front-Bench colleagues. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Bristol, West started by recognising that educational provision has improved and is quite different from what it was in 1997. Sometimes in education debates—this chimes with the comments made by the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—I wish that we could have a more balanced, rational discussion about the genuine progress that is being made. I do not claim that everything that we have done in the past 10 years in education, skills and training has been perfect, but some articles in national newspapers are a travesty of what is happening on the ground up and down the country. There have been significant improvements, although I would be the first to admit that we face further challenges. The hon. Member for Bristol, West said—I noted this carefully—that he had an open mind on the issue currently before Parliament in the Further Education and Training Bill, which is further education colleges gaining degree-awarding powers. I have to say that that is not the tone of the comments that I have heard from his noble Friends during the passage of the Bill thus far. If that is his view, I hope that it will come through strongly. I take the firm view that if we are to address the significant skills challenge that we face, particularly at the higher levels, we need as much flexibility and innovation in the system as possible. The contribution that FE colleges can make on that front is to be welcomed. Of course, we need to get the quality criteria right, but we are doing that, and that will become clear as the Bill proceeds through the House. The hon. Gentleman then discussed the funding of universities. I say this gently, but when we debate the need to improve the financing of our universities, the Liberal Democrat position is wholly lacking in credibility. I have said this several times: where they have power and influence, as they do in Scotland, they support a system of post-graduate repayment that is no different in principle to our system in England. The Lib Dem think-tank recently came out in support of what the Government are doing.