---

Employment, Universities and Skills and Housing

It is always a joy to sit in on debates and hear so many speeches from hon. Members in all parts of the House who bring to bear what is happening in their constituencies. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson) did exactly that from his own perspective. I was struck earlier by the comments of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) when, as he always does in the House, he gave a staunch and steadfast defence of British science and argued strongly for continued investment in it. His comment about what we should not do during the recession was interesting. If one point that I make tonight should be taken on board it is that we must not cut back our investment in science, particularly in basic research. It is basic research that creates the bullets to fire at wealth creation, with the advantages that that brings. There was a suggestion in the hon. Gentleman's comments that there is a dichotomy between basic research, and translational research and wealth creation. We must not make that mistake. I said earlier in an intervention on the Secretary of State that last Monday I was at Honda Formula 1 at Brackley, not knowing that a week later it would be up for sale. Speaking to the great engineers operating at Honda Formula 1, it was interesting to learn that they are developing cutting-edge technologies, which must be changed from race to race in order to compete and to shave a fraction of a second off a race time. One of the most impressive elements that right hon. and hon. Members who visited the site were shown was a new composite gearbox. Nobody believed that a gearbox could ever be made from composite materials. The conventional technology is to make it out of some alloy or steel material, but that is extremely heavy. The composite gearbox was developed as a piece of technology purely in order to drive down the weight of a car so that it could go faster. The point of bringing this development to the attention of the House is that the technology could have the most profound effect by reducing costs in the motor industry and the transport industry, because as soon as the weight of the gearbox of a bus or a truck is reduced using composite materials, there are massive savings in energy use by those vehicles. Yet when we were speaking to Ross Brawn, the chief engineer at Honda Formula 1, it emerged that no member of the Government had ever been to see how those technologies could be transferred—although, to be fair, the technology strategy board had had a meeting at Brackley just a few months earlier. It is rather sad that the technology strategy board goes, Members of the House of Commons go, and then Honda Formula 1 closes. Technology transfer does not simply come out of universities into companies. It also comes from companies into other companies and into universities. It is a cyclical process, rather than a straightforward linear one. I am delighted that the debate this evening has concentrated on skills and that through the Bill in the Queen's Speech, the Government continue to argue that skills are at the heart of productivity and at the heart of the agenda, and that we must not take our eye off the ball. Every single inquiry that I have been involved in since becoming the Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, and now the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, comes back to a fundamental issue: we are not producing enough young people with science, technology, engineering and maths backgrounds to become the wealth creators of tomorrow. That point was made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), who is no longer in his place. Every business we speak to says exactly the same thing, and every university makes the same claim. According to the Royal Society's research, during the whole of the period between 1996 and 2007, less than 12 per cent. of all the children who left our schools took an A-level in biology or maths, less than 7 per cent. took one in chemistry and less than 6 per cent. took one in physics. As we have seen as the bubble has burst, we cannot rely on a service-led economy, a large proportion of which is dependent on financial services, and simply believe that in that way we can pay our way as a nation in the 21st century. We have got to start making and manufacturing things again, and to do that we have to have a stem base. There is nothing in this new Bill, other than structures, to deal with the underlying problems with our economy. The Leitch agenda underpins much of the Government's thinking, and Lord Leitch's report was an excellent analysis of where we were going, but it was a 2004 to 2006 analysis. To be fair, the Government's response was to accept Lord Leitch's recommendations, but his report is all about upskilling and qualifications. The idea that qualifications equal skills, equals productivity is in my view a flawed equation. We need to look again at Leitch. Yes, we should deal with his analysis, but the Government should have the courage to recognise that if, by this time next year, there are 3 million unemployed—God forbid that we ever get to that state—it is not the NEET group, those not in education, employment or training, who are of the greatest significance to our economy and nation; it is the 3 million who were in work but are no longer, and who need not simply upskilling but reskilling. That is at the heart of what the Government should be concentrating on in the Bill, when it is amended. I compliment the Government on the issue of apprenticeships, however, which is dealt with in the Bill. I do not want to argue about whether apprenticeships were better in the past or there is a greater vision now. The reality is that this is the first Government during my lifetime who have said on education and skills training, ““Let us have a target of 400,000 apprentices by 2020.”” I do not believe that they can possibly get to 400,000 quality apprenticeships by 2020, but it is an objective worth pursuing. We must not pursue it, however, simply as a quantity target. If we do not ensure that those apprenticeships are of a high standard—if we dumb down the brand—we will do far more to disadvantage people following apprenticeships than before. I ask the Minister please not to get hung up on the issue of making an offer. Simply saying to tens of thousands of young people, ““We will guarantee you under the law an offer of two apprenticeships, provided that you have the relevant qualifications””, is not achievable, in my view. It is a laudable objective, but translating it into law means that targets will have to be manipulated in order to be met, which would be wrong. We have to have more employers involved in apprenticeships. In the boom times, one in 10 employers has engaged with apprenticeships. Why on earth will they do so in the down times when, traditionally, training is one of the things to be cut? My plea to the Minister is to be realistic when he starts putting this proposal into operation. He will get the support of the House if he does not get hung up on false targets, and if he is realistic about his objectives. Members on both sides of the House want the Government to succeed in the skills agenda, where frankly, we have all failed in the past.