House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Nov 1993

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe) : No, rejoicing

Mrs. Taylor : The hon. Lady is in a rejoicing mood, but rejoicing can lead to too much complacancy and it would be dangerous to be complacent about the problems that still exist.

The targets were launched with the laudable aim of creating a world-class work force. The CBI and the TUC and many other bodies involved in education and training agree that our work force needs a proper basis for education and training. That is essential if we are to be internationally competitive and have a flexible work force,

Column 715

which will be necessary in future. Such a proper basis is also essential to avoid the skills shortages that could undoubtedly arise if--or when, as we hope--the economic upturn finally comes. The Minister should recognise the urgency of the problem. In its briefing to hon. Members for the debate, the CBI states : "We have to sprint rather than run to catch up with our competitors' progress."

For that reason, it is right to stress future challenges. We have to look forward in considering the needs of our young people, rather than simply considering where we are at present.

We will not transform qualifications or the basis of education and training or attack future problems simply by concentrating on what happens to post- 16s and adults. We must look at the fundamentals of our education system so as to enable young people over 16 and adults to take advantage of new education and training opportunities. That is the main reason why we must move away from the Government's view of education. The Secretary of State moved away from the debate, but perhaps other hon. Members will take on board the necessity to move away from the Government's narrow view of what education is all about.

We have had several recent debates on education, but the Secretary of State has kept rather quiet about the report from the National Commission on Education, which clearly shows that how well people are educated depends on where they live, their social class, their gender and their ethnic origin. All too often, it is difficult to break through those barriers. All too often, children and young people do not get the opportunities that they need. Their horizons are limited and their opportunities restricted. It is the Government's responsibility to counter the disadvantages that block the way for so many young people.

The CBI--which, as the Secretary of State said, has a clear interest in this matter--says that a quantum leap is needed in Britain's education and training performance if we are to become a super-skills economy. That is the basis of the whole problem. What sort of economy do the Government envisage our being a part of in the future? It appears that they are quite happy with an education system that will equip too many people to participate only in a low-skill, low-tech, low-paid society.

The Government's 14 years in office--and the Secretary of State does not always mention this--have not resulted in even basic literacy for all and certainly not in high-skill training for the majority. We are now fewer than seven years away from the year 2000, yet Ministers hark back to the Victorian era when they should be preparing children and young people for the 21st century. The right hon. Gentleman speaks as though he still believes that the country needs an academic elite supplemented by a technological elite, which is why he concentrates on such items as super A- levels, elective schools, exorbitant amounts of money for city technology colleges and, more recently, bribes--small though they may be--to a few schools to become CTCs.

If the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely interested in preparing all our young people for the future, why have 15 CTCs received £150 million, while 24,000 schools throughout the country have struggled with neglect over many years? Ministers are happy to accept a position in

Column 716

which the majority of children receive a different and less well-resourced education. That is one of the fundamental difficulties that we are struggling to overcome.

We cannot continue with the outdated belief that there are children whose future employment and lives will not demand a great deal of them in terms of technological skills and enhanced levels of knowledge. The range of understanding and skills needed by young people is now very broad. Sound achievement in literacy and numeracy is fundamental and every child needs that before he can progress. However, today every child also needs familiarity with information technology, the ability to communicate and the ability to work in teams, as so many schools are encouraging them to do.

The Secretary of State must realise that currently there are unnecessarily wide differences in the basic educational attainments of our young people. That is a great cost both to the individuals concerned, who lose out, and to the country as a whole. Whether in the short or the long term, our youngsters need a higher level of basic education if they are to succeed and if the country is to make the progress that we all want.

The Government are not dealing with specific problems. In particular, they are not dealing with the cycle of under-achievement that occurs where parents did not receive very much from the education system and so are not able to motivate their children or join in the partnership at school that would be in the best interests of their children. The recent Ofsted report- -which I hope we shall have time to debate on another occasion--deals with some of the problems. If there is to be progress in the schools that fact those difficulties, we need an approach other than the threat of hit squads being sent in. Instead, local authorities should be allowed to offer the support and the guidance that has proved to be so successful in many areas.

Mr. Patten : The hon. Lady has raised an important point about what, in the old days, we might have called a cycle of educational deprivation whereby parents have had learning difficulties and great problems with literacy and numeracy and passed that on from generation to generation. I hope that the hon. Lady welcomes the fact that the Government are supporting the invaluable work done by the adult literacy and basic skills unit--also chaired, as it happens, by Mr. Peter Davis who chairs NACETT. He is a much-valued pluralist in these matters.

We are now making available substantial sums of money in an attempt to break into the cycle. We are concentrating on parents, through experimental schemes, in the hope that if they can be helped educationally they, in turn, can help their children.

Mrs. Taylor : I shall shortly deal with the problems of adult literacy, when I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise the other main priority in tackling the problem. If we are to break the cycle of under-achievement, the single most important factor must be the extension of the provision of nursery education. Without that, all other efforts might fail. I hope that he will respond positively to that approach.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the national curriculum and the need for it to provide the right basis. During the past year, Ministers have changed tack. They have recognised that throughout the country there has been total agreement that the Government have got it wrong. However, I and other people throughout the country still

Column 717

have serious reservations about the Government's intentions for the national curriculum. The most recent journal of the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations contains an article by Baroness Blatch on the national curriculum--she writes such articles in such magazines from time to time. Although she says that Sir Ron Dearing is carrying out his review, she refers to the national curriculum not as a framework, not as a curriculum in the way that most people would understand it, but as a programme of study. That will cause concern to many people who are involved in education, as would the letter that the Secretary of State wrote to me at the end of September, when he asked me whether I supported a national curriculum, but asked whether I supported a national curriculum consisting of a syllabus to be taught in every maintained school. While there is such difficulty in the minds of Ministers about the difference between a national curriculum and a national syllabus, we obviously shall not make the kind of progress that we want on the reform of the national curriculum generally.

I shall now mention an area where I think that a former Conservative Government got something right--GCSE.

Mr. Harry Greenway indicated assent.

Mrs. Taylor : That was, as I am glad to see the hon. Member agrees, a change for the better--a change which, along with the comprehensive movement, is probably responsible in part for the increased entry into higher education. The change to GCSE has been an important breakthrough for motivating many young people. One of the reasons why the GCSE has worked in that it has had a large element of course work and continuous assessment. That has helped young people to see the reason for concentrating on their studies on an on-going basis and I am sure that problems such as truancy would have been much worse had we not had that change of examination.

I will not go over old ground, with the Minister criticising the quality of GCSE, but I ask him to be careful when he is considering what should happen at key stage 4, so as not to destroy the beneficial impact of GCSE on our 14 to 16-year-olds. We should not be destroying or undermining GCSE but building on the success that it has brought. By that I mean changing our post-16 qualification system, and that involves changing our post-16 qualification system, and that involves changing A-levels.

The Secretary of State has mentioned A-levels only in passing today, but he ought to understand just how isolated he is when it comes to reform of A- levels. There is no body of education opinion behind him in his determination to preserve A-levels at the present time. [ Hon. Members : -- "We are right behind him."] Yet again the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) is right behind the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that one day that loyalty must be rewarded. We keep having Government reshuffles and I am sure that one day that loyalty will be rewarded, but I know that the hon. Gentleman has waited very patiently.

Mr. Pawsey : My loyalty is always rewarded by the fact that I am here, behind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That in itself is reward enough.

Column 718

Mrs. Taylor : I thought that the hon. Gentleman's loyalty could not be quite so total and amazing. I think that when--

Mr. Pawsey : The hon. Lady is almost speechless.

Mrs. Taylor : For once I can agree with the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth. I am almost speechless at his degree of loyalty, but I am also reminded of what the Secretary of State said about his European travels and the name given to the rectors. I cannot quite recall what it was.

Mr. Pawsey : I know the word that the hon. Lady is seeking. The Secretary of State said that the rectors of universities there were addressed to their face as "your magnificence". We would not dream of addressing the Secretary of State in quite such fulsome words, but we would be delighted to refer to his speech as magnificent.

Mrs. Taylor : As we near the season of goodwill, perhaps I should not say too much about the loyalty of the hon. Gentleman except to say that I am sure that the Secretary of State will be working on that title and that I am sure that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will probably be the first to call the Secretary of State "your magnificence". He has called him many other things of almost such devotion and praise. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has another suggestion, but perhaps he can leave that one for his own speech and come back with it later.

Mr. Pawsey : Wait until we get to the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Taylor : I hope that we can get to A-levels and the reasons behind the Government's intransigence. It is rather strange that Ministers should isolate themselves quite so completely on that point. After all, the CBI, which the Secretary of State has quoted today, the Institute of Directors, the Girls Schools Association which the Secretary of State visited yesterday, the vice-chancellors, the British Asse is right.

The Secretary of State has in the past accused me of wanting to lower standards because I want a reform of A-levels. I think that that is rather a strange accusation against someone who has two children in the school system, as if I do not care about their future. I have to tell the Secretary of State that it is precisely because I want something better for my children than A-levels that I want change.

Lady Olga Maitland : I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, but none the less her remarks about A-levels do give rise to the thought that she wants to water them down. The great advantage of A-levels today is that they are a benchmark of excellence which is recognised worldwide. That is why Conservative Members totally support and endorse the Secretary of State in his endeavours to back the A-levels.

Mrs. Taylor : I am interested in what the hon. Lady says. If she will not take my word for it, is she saying that the Royal Society--those Nobel prize winners and great scientists--do not believe in high standards? What does the hon. Lady think that they are about when they say that A- levels should go?

Column 719

There are real problems in the way in which A-levels are structured in this country. They are not delivering the breadth of education that universities want university entrants to have. Also, the narrowness of the post-16 academic curriculum is such that it leads to all sorts of problems even for those who are considered to be high flyers.

I have the figures of A-level entrants for sciences and mathematics for the past few years. Since 1990, there has been a 7.3 per cent. reduction in the number of young people taking mathematics and science A-levels. The Secretary of State, about this time last year, said that he wanted universities to offer more science places, yet we have that trend in A- levels. Many young people with very good A-levels results in arts subjects could not get into university because their post-16 education had been so narrow that they had no flexibility ; they could not transfer to science courses. That is why many departments of science in many universities lowered their entrance requirements and had vacant places. If we are really interested in quality, if we are really interested in being competitive on an international basis, we have to embrace changes in post-16 qualifications.

The Secretary of State was speaking yesterday at the Girls Schools Association about school sixth forms. His statement--let schools do A- levels and let further education colleges do job-related vocational qualifications--shows that he has not learned anything about the problems that this narrow and strict divide creates in our society and for our economic competitiveness.

The Secretary of State is clearly wrong, but he also seems to be ignorant about what is going on in our schools. He has admitted that the further education league tables are pretty nonsensical, because they give us only a tiny piece of the FE picture of achievements. He has not mentioned the very significant developments that have been going on apace in many schools, which are offering not merely A-levels post-16 or resits of GCSE examinations but BTEC and a whole range of qualifications. The Secretary of State has been left behind in understanding the changes.

If, as the Secretary of State says, the Government want a skills revolution and a breakthrough in educational achievements for all our children, and if he wants to break the cycle of under-achievement that he has acknowledged exists, I suggest that he thinks about nursery education and that he follows the apparent lead of the Prime Minister.

For Labour Members, nursery education has always been a priority. We are desperately worried that all our European neighbours and economic competitors provide much better nursery education. We are proud of the fact that so many Labour councils deliver good nursery provision for so many children.

Lady Olga Maitland : Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Taylor : I shall give way to the hon. Lady, but I wish that Ministers would speak on the topic and would acknowledge the problem.

Lady Olga Maitland : On the subject of comparisons with nursery education in other European countries, there is no parallel, because we start main school education at five whereas in other countries in Europe it starts at six or even seven.

Mrs. Taylor : In other countries, even when children start school at six, a higher proportion of children aged

Column 720

three and four are getting that best start. The hon. Lady cannot get away from the fact that 50 per cent. of a child's development takes place before the age of five. If other countries have the sense to give their three and four-year-olds the best start, we have a lot of catching up to do.

The evidence is so overwhelming that I do not understand why the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues always want to keep quiet. Children who have had the benefit of nursery education settle into school more quickly and successfully. They achieve more during, and are more likely to obtain jobs at the end of, their school lives. The girls are far less likely to have teenage pregnancies. Children who have had the benefit of nursery education are less likely to be involved in criminal activities.

Lady Olga Maitland : It is unrelated.

Mrs. Taylor : I am sure that when the Secretary of State was at the Home Office he saw the evidence that was presented by the House of Commons Select Committee on Education and from this country and abroad showing that Governments are making a significant investment in the future through spending on nursery education.

We still await answers from the Secretary of State. We have still not heard whether the Prime Minister's so-called plan for a million places is a reality. His office has not denied the story in the Daily Express, but it has not confirmed it either. I hope that the hon. Member who speaks for the Liberal party will tell us whether he has received a reply to the letter that he sent to the Prime Minister, which the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Don Foster : If it helps the hon. Lady, may I say that, sadly, the answer is no.

Mrs. Taylor : We live in hope of a positive response and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will report to the House as soon as he gets any response from the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman was also present at a reception in the House last week, hosted by the Association for Science Education, when the Secretary of State actually spoke.

Mr. Foster : Very well.

Mrs. Taylor : As the hon. Gentleman says, he spoke very well on that occasion.

Mr. Patten : I have NVQ 1 in joined-up speaking.

Mrs. Taylor : I am not sure that that is always the case, but we will give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt this morning. One thing that he said on that occasion which might surprise some people, given the Government's record during the past 14 years, was that

"Successful change in education can only come about slowly." That was something of a surprise, given the pace of change and the panic response that the Government often exhibit.

If that is the case, there is all the more need for urgency in tackling the under-provision of nursery places. It cannot be done overnight. If we do not invest in education for the under-fives, we will have more problems and we will not be able to get on top of some of the problems--for example, illiteracy and problems with numeracy among adults--to which the Secretary of State referred in an intervention. He is clearly aware of the research that has

Column 721

been done during the past few years by the adult literacy and basic skills unit. Its recent evidence is chilling and frightening and shows that 25 per cent. of young people between the ages of 16 and 20 find it difficult to understand and to fill in a job application form. That is a frightening statistic and state of affairs. Far too many adults have real literacy and numeracy problems.

Lady Olga Maitland : Does not the hon. Lady agree, therefore, that there is an argument for the regular testing of pupils throughout their school career ?

Mrs. Taylor : The most significant thing that we can do to improve literacy and numeracy is to get young children into nursery school so that they receive the right preparation and can be taught properly and will be more responsive when they enter infant school. Every piece of educational research shows that to be the case. The Government have accepted, in the targets that we have been discussing, that by 1997, only 20 per cent. of adults in this country will be at less than NVQ 2, which means that there will have to be some effort made to tackle those literacy and numeracy problems. We will do so only if we improve literacy in those leaving school, which means not merely concentrating on language within the national curriculum but ensuring that young people get the best start.

We must also tackle the backlog of illiteracy. The Secretary of State boasted about investing and about making some money available. I was at the launch of the National Literacy Association's "99 by 99" campaign. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was also there and he signed up to that aim. I am afraid that he went on to say that no extra Government action would be needed, because everything would come right now that we have a national curriculum. That was a staggering display of complacency. Even the resources to which the Secretary of State referred are not adequate to deal with the existing problems. For example, the Government have allocated £3 million to the reading recovery programme, which is welcome expenditure. It is right that the Government put money into programmes of that kind. However, I return to a point that I raised in an intervention during the Secretary of State's speech. If the Government insist on cutting section 11 money, the job of reading recovery will be a bigger job at a later stage. If we delay the learning of the English language of children for whom English is a second language, those children will need more help later. It is a false economy to cut section 11 money, because the Government will have to pay more later to tackle the problem of illiteracy. I do not want to delay the House much longer, as other hon. Members wish to speak. The Secretary of State needs to shift from such a complacent approach. There are some serious problems and whether there is agreement on the targets--as there is now--or not, we will not achieve those targets, let alone meet all the desired international comparisons, unless there is an overall improvement in opportunities for every child.

Earlier, the Secretary of State said that, despite some of the changes, overall performance had been disappointing. In October, at the Conservative party conference, for which

Column 722

the Secretary of State must have mixed memories in the light of some of his comments at the fringe meeting, he said :

"For too long, too many children left our schools without the basic skills they need."

Mr. Patten : What remarks at what fringe meeting?

Mrs. Taylor : Those matters may be sub judice, but I refer to when the right hon. Gentleman said that, when he spoke, writs were sometimes issued.

Mr. Patten : I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification, and I am happy to repeat the apology to the chief education officer of Birmingham, Tim Brighouse, for anything I said that may have offended him. There is no more public a place to apologise than the House of Commons.

Mrs. Taylor : Those matters are outside my hands, but I am sure that other people will take their own actions on that matter.

Mr. Patten : I am just off to see my solicitors !

Mrs. Taylor : In that case, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to report his apology to them.

I was concentrating on the Secretary of State's comments at the party conference when he said that too many children left school without basic skills, unable to read fluently, unable to express themselves clearly and grammatically, unable to do basic arithmetic and unable to read our great classics. That is a catalogue of failure, yet the Government have been in office for 14 years. If we are to set targets, they should improve the education of every child in the country. The Government have still not found themselves able to take that on board as a target and they do not accept that the education of every child matters. The Government are developing a two-tier system and for that reason their approach and policies are inadequate.

11.43 am

Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth) : The speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) was rather like her hair style--modest, elegant and extremely revealing. It revealed a lack of constructive thought from the Labour party after 14 years in opposition. Labour Members have not a single constructive thought. I found it remarkable and disappointing that the hon. lady did not attempt to answer the debate in any way. My hon. Friends may also note the empty Benches opposite. There is not one Labour Back Bencher present--only the hon. Lady, sitting in splendid isolation, lonely in her place on the Front Bench.

The national targets produced for education and training are one of the Government's best kept secrets. At a time when leaks are sadly commonplace, this document has remained under wraps. It may serve as a good example of how to maintain Government security.

I shall now quote from a letter that I received from the chairman of the National Advisory Council for Education and Training Targets because one of the paragraphs in the letter summarises today's admirable debate. It says :

"The National Targets are rooted in the need to maintain and, where possible, improve our competitiveness in the international economy. It is now widely recognised that competitiveness both for the individual business and the economy as a whole, depends crucially on the capacity of the workforce at all levels."

Column 723

That is absolutely right, and I am delighted to have the assent of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), who, as a business man, is well aware of those matters. We shall listen with great interest to what my hon. Friend has to say. The targets present a genuinely challenging and ambitious attempt to lift the standard of training and education for a substantial part of the nation's work force. It is an entirely laudable objective. British industry, employers and trade unions have long been calling for a real improvement in the quality of education and skills of British people.

The excellent document, "National Targets for Education and Training", goes a substantial way to meeting those demands. The targets are detailed and cover two distinct areas : foundation learning and lifetime learning. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has a memory aid in his possession. I have a similar one, but the difference between us is that I do not need mine.

I return to the two distinct subjects--foundation learning and lifetime learning. By 1997, the target is that 80 per cent. of young people should reach national vocational qualification level 2. That is a fairly bald statement, but it represents a great leap forward, for it starts from a 51 per cent. level in 1991. To achieve the 80 per cent. target by 1997, it will be necessary to produce an increase of 5 per cent. per annum. That is a massive undertaking.

My right hon. and hon. Friends will try to ensure that training and education to NVQ level 3 will be made available to all those young people who might benefit from that specific and important qualification. It is intended that, by the year 2000, 50 per cent. of all young people should be at NVQ level 3. That is another ambitious challenge, for the starting point in 1991 was only 30 per cent. and the progress required is therefore an increase of 2 per cent. per year.

Mr. Don Foster : If that target is to be reached, will it not be necessary to make additional resources available in education? Will the hon. Gentleman be pressing the Secretary of State for such additional resources?

Mr. Pawsey : Substantial added resources have been made available to education over the whole period that the Government have been in office. I have no doubt that what we have seen in the past we shall continue to see in the future.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the increase in the numbers of students. I draw comfort from that. We have been able to exceed the original targets set for admissions to universities, and that augurs well for the targets that we are discussing today.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). I am delighted to see her sitting in her accustomed place on the Front Bench. I am aware that she has launched an important programme entitled "Getting On". It is designed to encourage employers to train those who are aged 55 or over and it sets out a five-point plan for employers in recruiting, training and retraining programmes. I hope that guidelines will shortly be issued. I am also happy to acknowledge the fact that this is my hon. Friend's initiative. I am not surprised, as she has a well-deserved reputation for having an original mind--something that Labour Members clearly know nothing about.

Column 724

I shall deal now with lifetime learning. By 1996, all employees should have taken part in their training or development activities. That is a harder target to measure because there are no current figures which, in itself, may be something of a comment on the situation. Surveys suggest that 60 per cent. of employers have some form of training activity, albeit of somewhat variable quality. The target is that, by 1996, 50 per cent. of the nation's work force should be aiming at NVQs. The figure in 1991--I give it merely for comparison purposes--was under 10 per cent., so the progress required to reach that target is a fivefold increase in 10 years. When that happens, that will be both a memorable and a notable achievement. The Government are probably determined to increase levels of attainment and participation in education. To do so, they are building on substantial achievements. They have introduced a wide range of innovations, including the national curriculum and testing, city technology colleges, grant-maintained schools, local management of schools, Ofsted and league tables. They have given the nation's parents and employers a far greater say in children's education than ever before.

Mr. Anthony Coombs : My hon. Friend mentioned local management of schools and the grant-maintained movement, which give schools greater flexibility and allow them to achieve the closer links with industry on which high-quality training depends. However, is not the most important measure, particularly in further education, allowing further education colleges to be independent of local authorities so that they can act as self-justifying and activating businesses, thereby improving links with the community? I know from my local college that that is happening apace.

Mr. Pawsey : My hon. Friend has referred, most eloquently, to a point that I was going to bring to the attention of the House. He has done it so well that I probably need not refer to it myself, or perhaps I shall do so only in passing.

Mr. Coombs : I am sorry.

Mr. Pawsey : My hon. Friend need not be sorry ; he was right to draw attention to it. I believe that the freeing up of further education colleges will become one of the great educational achievements of the Government. As a direct result of the initiatives that I have detailed, the Government have presided over the greatest expansion in advanced education ever. When we came into office, only one in eight of our young people were in advanced education. Today, the proportion is one in three, and last year the total number of young people in education was almost 100,000. That is equivalent to about 10 new universities, a point which was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his admirable speech.

There is a continuing and vital role for schools to play. Foundation target 1 seeks to stretch young people, particularly those at GCSE level. I acknowledge freely that the point was made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury. The national curriculum is already helping to set higher standards in schools and is seeking to raise the expectations of the pupils and the teachers.

Teachers have a major part to play in the attainment of national education and training targets. I have long argued in the House that the overwhelming majority of teachers

Column 725

are dedicated both to the profession and to the children in their charge. I have no doubt that they will rise to the challenge of targets.

I wish to refer to another admirable document that I have received. It is produced by Industry in Education--a partnership for the achievement of excellence in education--and some of the comments are well worth quoting in the House. I was particularly impressed by the statement welcoming the implementation of the general national vocational qualifications to provide a wide range of skills in vocational subjects to suit a broad cross-section of students : "Industry in Education applauds the Government's initiative in recognising the GNVQ as a Vocational A level thereby making the A level qualification available to a significant number of students." I mention that particularly because the point was made by the hon. Lady and was enhanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). My hon. Friend raised the specific question of A-levels and made a considerable point about their importance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest made the point that further education colleges have a major part to play, especially as they are now free of local authority control. The colleges are able to pursue their own aims, ambitions and programmes.

Colleges hold a significant share of the market, in both training and education. I believe that that share will continue to grow as more young people require--and, more importantly, receive--further education courses. I also believe that more adults will be engaged in lifetime learning, to their own and the nation's benefit. The targets properly enjoy the support of a wide range of major organisations--for example, the Confederation of British Industry, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Government, training and enterprise councils, and even the trade unions. All those bodies properly understand the importance of a value-added work force.

My final quote comes from the CBI, which should be congratulated on its initiative :

"The CBI was the instigator for the establishment of National Education and Training Targets (NETTs). It first lobbied for challenging world-class targets to be set in the CBI Task Force Report Towards a Skills Revolution' (1989). Then, after extensive consultation with all the key players in the education and training field, the national targets were launched in July 1991. The NETTs were launched with the support of the Government, the TUC, most of the TECs and LECs, educationalists, public authorities and other bodies involved in education or training."

The only name missing from that catalogue seems to be the Opposition. I am not sure what they were doing or whether they were thought worthy of consultation by the CBI, but it seems that, sadly, no reference was made to the Opposition.

It is, indeed, a truism that a nation's people are its most important asset. If that asset can be improved, sharpened and enhanced, the nation's prosperity will increase. No one out there owes Great Britain a living. If our industries and our businesses are to succeed, they will require a better trained and better educated work force in the future--a work force able to take on our competitors and produce better products more competitively.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the Pacific rim countries--the Tigers. There is no doubt that those countries have expanded their programmes and

Next Section

Home Page