---

Education and Skills Bill

moved Amendment No. 74: 74: Clause 73, page 44, line 10, leave out ““25”” and insert ““30”” The noble Lord said: Lords, this is one of a group of three amendments, the first of which proposes that the financial support that the Bill proposes should be given to those between the ages of 19 and 25 to obtain a level 3 qualification should be extended to those up to the age of 30. I propose this amendment against the background of what our Select Committee on Economic Affairs in 2006-07 said about apprenticeships in this country. In its report for 2006-07, the committee said that whereas we had 43 per cent at level 3, France had 52 per cent and Germany had 78 per cent. That is indicative of how far behind we have fallen. The noble Lord, Lord Leitch, in his final report on world class skills, tells us, in section 3.50, that we need to deliver more than a doubling of adults at level 3. Bearing mind that the Germans and French will not stand still, that seems about right. It is an awesome challenge, born out of the necessity to be competitive; and it is the foundation from which we can aspire to move on from level 3 to meet the targets that the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, sets for us to be competitive at level 4. The Government and others have talked, in the light of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, of the need for 40 per cent of our adults to reach level 4 by 2020. The noble Lord, Lord Leitch, says in his report that we need to reach 45 per cent to be competitive. The United States and Germany were already at 40 per cent two or three years ago. To aim for 40 per cent by 2020, when major competitors are there already, hardly strikes me as aiming to be competitive. The figure of 45 per cent, which the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, says is necessary, is a modest target. The history of this country is one of report after report telling us that we are not competitive in our skills base. The first report that I know of was in 1867, at the time of the great Paris Exhibition, which awakened us to the fact that we were no longer out in front. Professor Alison Wolf, in a book a few years ago, recalled I think 23 reports in the following century repeating that message. Of course, there have been more since; the report of the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, is the latest. Looking at that evidence, are we doing enough? By raising the issue of level 3, are we confident that we will not be once again in the same position as all those illustrious persons and committees who have made their recommendations and said, ““We must wake up and do much better””, only to find themselves saying the same again a few years later? I welcome what the Government are doing, but they must do more. Originally, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and I were proposing, as with level 2, that we should cover all ages. We have brought that down to 30 because we know that money is scarce now. However, given the challenge of our imperative need to be competitive, it seems that the Government need to consider the means by which we will achieve what needs to be achieved—I refer to the call of the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, for a doubling of the number of those at level 3. I put forward the amendment on that basis. The following two amendments refer to those who left school with least to show for it; not even a level G pass in their GCSE. The Government have provided—and this corresponds with the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Leitch—that, for those who left school without the English or maths to make sense of life and be basically competent at a low level, there should be free educational opportunities throughout their working lives. This is excellent. However, I say to myself, this is good for starters, but they need vocational skills as well. What is proposed at level 2 is the equivalent of five GCSEs for free in vocational subjects. These people need vocational skills. They are our fellow citizens who have least to offer to employers. I have heard it said that employers are not interested in investing in vocational skills at these very low levels. That may be because they can meet their requirements through the highly skilled workers coming from eastern Europe, notably Poland which has first-rate vocational education. That is reflected in those coming across to this country. Are we going to say that we are not going to do as much for the people whose need is greatest as for other groups, to enable them to get a job and contribute to the economy? I fear that we are not doing what we need for both our own interests and theirs. The amendment is much more modest than that which we originally had in mind. We had proposed that such people should have the same deal as is offered to those who are aiming for level 2. We have watered that right down and limited it to the 19 to 25 year-olds, mirroring what the Government propose at level 3. We have referred specifically to information and communication technology as part of the area which should be under consideration. The government policy paper published on 17 October identifies information and communication technology as on a par with English and maths as the requirement for any pathway in the foundation framework that they are developing. We argue for other qualifications as well, but leave it to the Secretary of State to specify what they should be. In tidying up my inexpert drafting of these amendments, the Table Office has missed out what was, to me, a key word from Amendment No. 76. I wished to say of the Secretary of State’s power to determine what should happen, that it ““shall be”” as—the word ““as”” was missed out— "““specified by the Secretary of State from accredited units and qualifications within in the foundation learning tier””." That leaves the Secretary of State to decide when and what. In other words, this is a marker—an opportunity for and challenge to the Secretary of State to pick up what he thinks that the Government can afford, and what is more useful at a particular time. It could not be a more discretionary amendment to the Bill. It does not make immediate demands on the public purse. I move the amendment on level 3 out of concern for our competitiveness and have tabled Amendments No. 75 and 76 regarding those at the foundation stage out of concern for our fellow citizens who most need our help, for their own sakes and for ours. I beg to move.