| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): I am sure that Weymouth college and other further education colleges that run sixth forms will welcome the hint that they might get some more money for A-level students, but the rest of industry will be very upset with what the Government are saying about doing away with TECs. I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that the governing bodies of colleges such as Weymouth had to sack business governors because they were not allowed to have as many governors as under the previous Government. The input from TECs has been the reason why our economy is working as well as it will--[Interruption.]--as it currently is and, indeed, for the reduction in unemployment.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider carefully what has happened with the new deal? One hundred thousand people have gone through the gateway without TECs being involved; 85,000 of them have found their own jobs without going into any sort of learning. People coming out of the learning options are not getting jobs. In the
12 months since the new deal has been in place, the number of people in the 18 to 24 age group who are unemployed or on a non-employment option has increased.
Mr. Blunkett:
Just to put the record straight, 284,000 young people have gone into the gateway and 105,000 have had a job. The programme engages for the first time with qualification and training for all young people who are on the new deal. That never happened on the make-weight schemes that the previous regime put in place. Those young people are contributing to the lowest level of youth unemployment since 1975. Just a few facts would shed a bit of light on this subject.
The central issue that the hon. Gentleman raised at the beginning of his submission--it was not so much a question as a submission--was that employers would be annoyed with the proposals. In March, I embarked on this final review because every agency that had come forward in previous reviews--the TEC national council, the Further Education Funding Council quinquennial review, the Moser commission on basic skills, the skills task force and the chambers of commerce--all said that the existing system was in need of review. That is why we embarked on a fundamental and radical review to get it right. We are rolling with the tide in this country that is in favour of a slimmed-down system in which money is spent on learners, not bureaucracy.
Mr. Gordon Marsden (Blackpool, South):
I am sure that the majority of Members agree with me that my right hon. Friend has made a statement this afternoon that shows the way forward from a system that was shambolic, inefficient and inequitable. I congratulate him on that. How does he expect the proposals to benefit and assist part-time as well as full-time students who sometimes fell through the cracks under the previous regime?
Mr. Blunkett:
We are pulling together vocational and non-vocational, part-time and full-time courses and young people who are in work and out of work so that the funding tariffs and the contracting system as it exists at the moment make it possible to assist and support part-timers wherever and whenever they need it. That fits in with the programme of linking our commitment to funding for higher education with enabling those in further education to have the same opportunities.
Sir David Madel (South-West Bedfordshire):
Do the changes mean that the Government expect a pattern to develop whereby young people will do one or two A-levels in the school sixth form and the other one or two at a college of FE? Will the changes have any effect on schools that are involved in intricate negotiations with his Department on obtaining special technology status or special modern language status?
Mr. Blunkett:
The changes will not affect those schools. We are committed to the substantial expansion of investment in specialist schools on the basis of their co-operation with other schools in the area and the wider community.
Young people can do one or two A-levels in a sixth form and undertake one of the new GNVQs at advanced level in a local college. It may be possible for college and sixth-form staff to work together using combined
resources. People could break down the antagonism between providers if they realised that they have a common goal, which is to meet the interests of those young people.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge):
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. May I commend to him the effective co-operation and partnership between Cambridge Regional college, Hills Road and Long Road sixth form colleges and some of the school sixth forms in my constituency? Will he assure the House that his statement will offer some relief to further education colleges, given the funding pressures that they have faced ever since the previous Government imposed swingeing cuts on that sector of the education system?
Mr. Blunkett:
I remember attending the Cambridge Regional college with my hon. Friend--I think it was in opposition, but it is all merged into one these days as the years pass by. Yes, we can give a commitment that, as I spelled out, students taking a course in a particular institution in the period ahead will have the same funding whichever college, institution or sixth form they attend. That seems to me to be equitable. The £400 per student for those taking three A-levels, which was announced by the Further Education Funding Council last week, is a step in that direction.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford):
In my constituency, Guildford college of further and higher education, which has just launched a new sixth-form unit, will welcome the extra money that the statement presaged. Most 16 to 18-year-old students in my constituency and in other parts of the country are in sixth forms, and for them the death knell for the sixth forms in schools up and down the country has been sounded in this statement. Will the Secretary of State confirm that his guarantee of an increase in real terms relates to an increase in prices, not wages? After all, costs increase year after year because of increased wages. Will he also confirm that he hemmed in his guarantee by saying that resources would be increased provided that numbers were maintained? Surely if extra money is given to FE colleges, their numbers will go up at the expense of sixth forms, which will have to close as a result.
Mr. Blunkett:
I despair. We are about to encourage tens of thousands more young people to stay on in further education of one sort or another. That is the endeavour of all of us. We are going to great lengths to persuade them that it is in their best interests to stay on. There is no threat to providers under this system--in fact, quite the opposite. We have gone out of our way to say that we will maintain funding for sixth forms in real terms--and real terms means real terms under anyone's guarantee. I said that increases will be dependent on numbers because if a sixth form dwindles to a handful of students and the school decides that it cannot cross-subsidise to keep it open, clearly that guarantee cannot stand. That is common sense.
I appeal to the Opposition, whatever differences they may have with us about the White Paper, not to go around scaring sixth-form teachers, parents and young people by suggesting that we are about to close sixth forms. We are
about to open many more places for post-16 youngsters, because that is the future they will need to compete in the new economy of the new century.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. It will be difficult for me to enable every hon. Member to make a contribution. However, brevity would help me to be more generous.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg (City of Durham):
I welcome the proposals that the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon. Does he agree that one of the most disgraceful aspects of further education since incorporation has been its lack of accountability? For example, the Further Education Funding Council and the Department have been unwilling to intervene in some absolute scandals--and many of them have come to light in the past few years. Will the Secretary of State explain how he intends to make further education more accountable and to whom it will be accountable?
Mr. Blunkett:
I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. In chapter 3, from paragraph 34 onwards--which myhon. Friend has obviously not had time to examine thoroughly--I spell out a new, accountable system. I also do that in the same chapter in the early paragraphs about learning partnerships. The development of a local learning forum and the accountability of both the providers and the local learning and skills council--which will have to present a report, detail what they have been doing and answer for the decisions that they have taken--will be very important. It will be linked to the changes that we are making to the governance of further education, the new audit arrangements and the new inspection scheme. Together, they will form a powerful package and will ensure that we root out corruption and lack of probity and lift standards.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde):
I have had some extremely difficult constituency cases involving post-16 children with severe learning difficulties who have had great problems finding appropriate training opportunities. How will the proposals that the Secretary of State announced today benefit those disabled young people? He puts proper emphasis on the role of technology colleges. Will he explain to the headmaster of Lytham St. Annes technology college in my constituency why, on the day the Secretary of State has made this announcement, that headmaster is facing a funding restriction on the second phase of the moneys that he needs to complete his technology status position? Could the Secretary of State also provide an explanation to Mr. Reg Chapman, the principal of Blackpool and Fylde college, who wrote to me recently to say that national pay agreements exceed in percentage terms the rate at which his resources are increasing? The Secretary of State has properly emphasised FE colleges; what is his message to Mr. Chapman today?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |