---

Education and Skills Bill

I can confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has been in extensive contact with the department and with me. I am very sorry that he is not well enough to be here today, because he has put a lot of thought into the amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for her remarks and for moving the amendment, which has allowed us to have this debate. It is right to say that we are talking about the priority of where we feel that we can invest funding to have the biggest impact. I make no bones about that; that is what the focus on this age group is about. I understand the intention behind the amendment and the desire to engage as many adults as possible in level 3 qualifications. The provisions in the Bill are aimed at doing just that. We are focusing resources on ensuring that as many adults as possible have literacy and numeracy skills that allow them to function in life on a daily basis and, beyond that, that they have the basic platform for employability that a level 2 qualification provides. So why are we focused on helping young people aged 19 to 25? Compared to countries such as France and Germany—it is right that we look beyond our own shores—in the UK we have far fewer adults achieving level 3. Among 19 to 21 year-olds, the evidence shows that the number of people qualified to level 3 as a percentage of the population is on a par with our counterparts in Germany, the US and France. But by the age of 25 to 28, our competitors have caught up and overtaken us: 74 per cent of adults aged 25 to 28 in Germany and 62 per cent in France have level 3 qualifications or higher, compared to 54 per cent in the UK. Noble Lords are aware of the challenge that we face in terms of level 3. Learners in that age group are more likely to study full-time and are less likely to have an independent source of income. Evidence suggests that focusing resources on young adults during their transition into work is an effective use of government resources. The adult learning survey, last conducted in 2005, shows that the incentives that most appeal to younger adults who are not in learning are those aimed at removing practical obstacles to learning, such as help with learning costs, addressing childcare problems, providing learning in more convenient places and providing time off work to learn. As learners get older, the quality of advice becomes increasingly important. In addition, data on average wages suggests that adults under the age of 25 without a level 3 qualification are in greater need of a government subsidy. According to the labour force survey, mean average weekly wages for 19 to 24 year-olds without a level 3 qualification are £285, compared with £370 for those aged 25 to 29. I think noble Lords can see where I am going with this. There are also strong policy reasons for our position. Up to the age of 19, every young person who wants to participate in education and training is guaranteed free access. Beyond 19, there is a clear, well-understood pathway for young people who have achieved a level 3 qualification to progress into higher education. They are well supported to continue their initial education. Even when the other provisions in the Bill that raise the participation age are fully implemented, there will still be young people who, for various reasons, will benefit from being able to access free level 3 qualifications up to the age of 25. That provision will help those young people to finish their education and, I hope and believe, will move more young people on to higher education and careers. Finally, there are good, practical reasons why now is not the time to extend the entitlement to free first level 3 qualifications to a wider age group. The administrative entitlement—I understand that means what we are actually doing rather than what we are putting in law—the first full level 3 qualifications began to operate in September 2007. So it is still relatively new, and its practical operation and success need to be assessed and its affordability tested before we examine options for extending it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, suggested, we need to test it. Level 3 learning programmes are expensive, and our initial analysis is that extending the provision to include all adults would cost around £470 million over the next three years. We do not want to put pressure on the resources set aside for helping those with the lowest skill levels, which is crucial to our future economic success and for social justice. I reassure noble Lords that we are not closing off the possibility of extending the duty in the way in which the amendment proposes. The proposed power in proposed new subsection 4B(6) would give the Secretary of State the flexibility to change by order, subject to approval by Parliament, the age bracket to which the duty applies. In the future, it may be, for example, that our policies pre- and post-19 are so successful that the current skills gap closes. Then we may wish to refocus resources towards a different age group that had been identified as being in greater need of additional support. We are not, therefore, closing down the avenue that the amendment explores. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.