| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lady Olga Maitland: I am sorry, but I must make some progress as many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
It is interesting to study a breakdown of student performance. Some 75 per cent. of 16 to 18-year-olds are in structured education and training. That is an increase on 1985, when the figure was only 56 per cent. In 1995, 69 per cent. of students gained qualifications at level 2 of GNVQ by age 19, compared with 46 per cent. in 1985. There have been record passes at GCSE and A-level. Last year, 44 per cent. of 15-year-olds achieved five or more good GCSE passes, compared with 23 per cent. who did not achieve any grades in 1979. Some 29 per cent. of students achieved two or more A-levels, compared with just 14 per cent. in 1979. Those figures tell us that further education is alive and well.
Mr. Spearing:
Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), whatever the correctness of the hon. Lady's figures and her general view, does she agree that the conditions of funding for further education--as distinct from higher education--have changed in the past few days and have thrown the education funding pattern into organisational and financial chaos? That is what we are worried about. Will the hon. Lady admit that that is true?
Lady Olga Maitland:
No, I will not. The truth is that further education funding is secure, and we are going great guns. We must judge the success of further education by the pupils' results. We must consider not
In an increasingly educated and competitive world, we must have a highly skilled and educated work force. It would be a cheap and mean trick to let students down and dash their great hopes and expectations by systematically ruining their chances of staying on at school. The Labour party's proposals would do just that. For a start, Labour would make it increasingly difficult for young people to stay on at school. The right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has announced plans to withdraw child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds. That £560 per year, or £1,120 over two years of essential learning, assists the poorest parents in particular. The proposal would crucify young people's chances of staying on in education, and they would be forced to work in menial or unskilled fields. It would be a tax on learning.
Mr. Sheerman:
I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady, and much of her argument is extremely interesting. However, she has had no experience of publicly funded education. Many young people seek further and higher education opportunities. The Government have denied them those opportunities in the past few days, and have said, "We've got enough university graduates." What sort of opportunity growth is that?
Lady Olga Maitland:
The biggest threat to children's educational opportunities is the imposition of a teenage tax, which would prevent them from staying on at school and taking advantage of further education. The row within the Labour party about the teenage tax has created a split between the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, who believes that it is a good idea to tax the teenagers, and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who says the opposite. The Child Poverty Action Group is totally opposed to the measure.
The proposed windfall tax on utilities would do nothing to assist young people: first, it is likely to be illegal; and, secondly, if it were introduced, it is doubtful that it would raise the anticipated £3 billion. For example, the decision by British Gas to reduce prices in order to benefit the consumer would wipe out the alleged "excess profits". There would be no honeypot. On 15 May last year, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East admitted that the windfall tax would raise only "hundreds of millions of pounds", and not the multi-billion figure that would be needed to fund Labour's spending plans.
In any case, that is a one-off measure that would not create new, real jobs for young people. It would be a stop-gap measure, designed to induce employers to take on new staff at a reduced rate for one year--and then what? People would be forced on to the dole. It is an example of Labour short-termism. I doubt that young people would see a penny of the proceeds of the windfall tax, as the Labour party has a list of IOUs and spending pledges totalling about £30 billion. The windfall tax would be rather like a rubber band: stretching three times around the world in order to support alleged Labour causes.
What about jobs, which are crucial when we consider further education? Centrally run, Government-sponsored schemes do not create work, as jobs cannot be sustained
when the schemes have ended. Young people would be back where they started. Labour's Target 2000 is a sham: it would impose an extra tax on businesses, which they can ill afford to pay, with compulsory contributions to training. We should focus on creating a vibrant economy that provides the means and the wealth for employers to take on new staff, especially educated and highly skilled young people. Young people's employment chances would be destroyed by Labour's plans to sign up to the social chapter and the minimum wage.
Ms Walley:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many Labour Members wish to speak about the issue of further education, and I wonder whether the hon. Lady's remarks are in order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
It is a wide subject and, if I thought that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) was out of order, I would rule accordingly. However, I take the point that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
Lady Olga Maitland:
As I was saying, in a sober moment many Labour Members recognise that signing the social chapter would be a disaster for young people. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has admitted that such measures would cause a
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Lady is ranging rather wide of the subject. Let us return to further education.
Lady Olga Maitland:
With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am speaking about further education.
First, we must ensure that young people are able to take advantage of further education; and, secondly, graduates must be able to secure jobs. This country's economy must be structured in such a way as to ensure that their education is not wasted. The two points are related, and we cannot examine them in isolation. I think that the experiences of other European countries are very applicable when we talk about young people. For instance, youth unemployment in Spain is 42 per cent.--those young people are in despair.
Dr. John Marek (Wrexham):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady is reading from a central office brief. I can see it: it is typed out, and the hon. Lady is simply reading it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) knows full well that it is quite in order to refer to speaking notes. However, I remind the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that she is getting rather wide of the subject.
Lady Olga Maitland:
I want to emphasise how important it is that young people's further education is not dashed by what happens to them afterwards. We do not
Job creation comes not from artificially induced, centrally created Government schemes, but from healthy, innovative economies free to operate in a climate that actively encourages development. It is hardly surprising that we are known as the enterprise centre of Europe.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle):
The speech that we have just heard scores one out of 10 for content. It was pathetic and ill informed. I shall address the subject on the Order Paper: the crisis in further education.
In my constituency, Nelson and Colne college is consulting on making 37 lecturers redundant and not filling 10 vacancies. There is a deep crisis in my local college, which is not some hick institution--it has a marvellous reputation. It achieved Investors in People status, and was the first in Lancashire to do so. In 1993, it was one of only three further education colleges to achieve the charter mark; the Prime Minister recognised that Nelson and Colne college was a fine institution.
The college was inspected by the Further Education Funding Council five months ago, in August 1996. The inspectors stated:
That is the background--a successful college whose board decided on 20 January to plunge it and the wider community into turmoil by announcing all those redundancies. I immediately contacted the college principal, Kath Belton, and had a meeting with her and her senior management. I asked why the decision had been taken. She replied that the college had to save £400,000. It had been operating a deficit, but that is no different from other colleges.
I consulted the annual report of the Further Education Funding Council, which was published only last month. It stated:
I suggested to Kath Belton and her senior managers, from a layperson's perspective, that getting rid of 37 lecturers and not filling 10 vacancies would have a devastating impact on the scope and quality of the education on offer. I could have been knocked down with a feather when she said that she did not think that the quality and scope of education provision would suffer.
I do not believe that, and people in my constituency and further afield do not believe it. The principal is making the best of a bad job. She has been put in an impossible position by the board's decision of 20 January, but it is incredible that a college could lose so many talented staff and continue to provide a high-quality education for the young people of my area. I do not believe it.
I raised the matter with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who told me at the beginning of this month, in typical Pontius Pilate fashion:
I have read all the relevant documents from cover to cover--the National Audit Office report and the purple report from the FEFC. On page 94 of its annual report, the FEFC states that, as a priority, it monitors
I shall be brief, as I know that many of my colleagues want to speak in this important debate. I asked the Minister what steps the Department would take
"shakeout of jobs. Any fool can see that".
If we have any doubts, we should cast an eye on the countries of mainland Europe. Punitive taxation and burdens on employers mean that they cannot afford to employ young people.
"Nelson and Colne College is a successful tertiary college in East Lancashire. . . Governance and management are strong. Staff are well qualified. . . Standards of teaching are generally high. Students work hard and make sound progress. Examination results are good."
In governance and management, the college rated grade 2, which is defined as
"provision in which the strengths clearly outweigh the weaknesses".
"The annual deficit incurred by the sector rose from £10m in 1993/4 to £101m in 1994/5 and stood at an estimated £119m in 1995/6."
The FEFC went on to say:
"A deficit of this order cannot be sustained for more than a few years."
19 Feb 1997 : Column 849
I want the Minister to comment on that when he winds up.
When I saw the principal at the end of January, I asked whether the FEFC had been consulted about the redundancies. To my astonishment, she said that it had not, and that the decision had been taken by the board. I am not entirely sure whether all members of the board knew the reasons behind the decision that they were invited to take on 20 January.
"It is for colleges in the further education sector such as Nelson and Colne college to manage their resources, including staff, as they see fit in the light of changing needs and circumstances."
I wrote to Professor Melville, the chief executive of the FEFC, expecting that he would have something to say about the matter. He replied:
"Individual college corporations must consider how they will best meet required efficiency gains. . . The Council--
the FEFC--
"does not have a specific role in advising colleges on their management processes."
The Minister has no responsibility, the FEFC has no responsibility, so my college is left twisting in the wind.
"the financial health of the sector and of individual colleges"
and advises
"colleges on their financial planning and financial control systems".
It did not advise Nelson and Colne college. There has been no contact at all.
"to assist further education colleges running operating deficits"--
there are well over 200 such colleges around the country--
"to restore their financial health without jeopardising the quality and scope of the education offered".
19 Feb 1997 : Column 850
Only yesterday the Minister replied:
That is what the Minister told me yesterday; it is moonshine.
"Colleges are independent, autonomous bodies and are responsible for managing their own financial affairs. The Further Education Funding Council has effective arrangements in place for identifying colleges in financial difficulty and for working with them to recover their financial health."--[Official Report, 18 February 1997; Vol. 290, c. 455.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |