| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): Is the hon. Gentleman trying seriously to advance the thesis that the Government's policy of putting top-up fees on students is more popular than the Opposition's policy of scrapping fees? Does he not believe that we have won the argument on that, and have we not also won the argument on the Labour Benches?
Mr. Lewis: I am coming to that.
In higher education, the Conservatives would significantly reduce the number of young people having access to higher education and consequently cap the aspirations of many working-class and lower-middle-class families. Their claim to financial savings implies that their alternative vision of vocational courses would cost little or nothing. High-quality vocational
education, the best universities in the world and the maximum possible number of young people learning post-16 would not be viable under their dishonest financial support package. They also conveniently ignore the fact that credible vocational education can and should, in many circumstances, lead to higher education when young people want that, and that a significant part of achieving our 50 per cent. target for 2010 will be via vocational routes.It is not a question of hearts and minds versus the strength of the argument. For 18 years, the Conservative party had a unique chance to prepare our country for the challenges of the 21st century. What was its legacy? It was millions of adults lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills; 37 per cent. of 11-year-olds being unable to read or write to the required standard; and antisocial behaviour and a lack of respect permeating much of our society. Thatcher's children are also the children of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe. Blair's children will benefit from sure start, universal nursery provision, infant class sizes of fewer than 30, the primary literacy and numeracy strategy, our focus on the early years of secondary schools, our national attendance and behaviour strategy, Connexions, secondary reform, a new 14 to 19 agenda, more adults in school and lifelong learning than ever before, modern apprenticeships and education maintenance allowances, and revitalised further education and world-class higher education—not to mention family support and financial help focused on eliminating child poverty and making work pay. That is the long-term change that we are making to the learning opportunities available to young people in our country.
Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire): I listened with interest and respect to the Minister until he went into slight ranting mode just now. Conservative Members would listen to him more closely if he were to acknowledge that under his watch not everything has been perfect: the proportion of GCSE vocational qualifications has fallen under his Government; and the proportion of people in learning and adult community enrolments has also fallen significantly. Perhaps he will come to those points shortly.
Mr. Lewis: I reject entirely the hon. Gentleman's assertions. If statistics are used out of context, they distort the argument. If it is being claimed that results for people taking GCSEs this year demonstrate that our educational reform agenda has not worked, I must point out that that takes no account of the fact that the young people taking GCSEs this year did not benefit from our literacy and numeracy strategy, our reduced infant class sizes, our early years of secondary school strategy and our 14 to 19 reforms. If we are to have an honest debate about the impact of cumulative educational reform, we must acknowledge that this Government's reforms for the long term are beginning to raise standards in our schools considerably, as is demonstrated by the improvement in literacy and numeracy at the age of 11.
Our ambitions for vocational education will not be realised easily. We are seeking not magic wands or quick-fix solutions but a long-term cultural revolution, which will tear down the barriers between the world of education and the world of work. That will create a climbing frame of opportunities for all our young
people, not a cul-de-sac or a one-way street for too many. It will ensure that lifelong learning is the powerhouse that truly extends opportunities to all, creating a nation that utilises the talents of all of our people so that we can be the best in the world.5.35 pm
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): Oh dear! The Minister started so well, but it all went horribly wrong towards the end. We were on the verge of having a sensible and serious debate, and it is rather sad that he went off message.
I am pleased to be here to open the debate for the Opposition, but I apologise for my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) who should be doing so. He could not get back to the House in time from an important engagement on similar matters in Manchester today. I know that he would wish to be here but, sadly, he cannot. However, I am grateful to have this opportunity, particularly as it could be—who knows?—my last appearance at the Dispatch Box. We can only wait and see.
Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
The Minister said that this was an important debate. It is important to employers, who need well qualified young people to come into the labour force, and to all our people, both young and old. At the beginning of his remarks, the Minister let out the guilty secret that he tried to conceal a little later. There is considerable consensus between the two sides of the House and among all parties on some of the objectives that we wish to achieve, even if we have differences of emphasis and view on how we wish to get there.
The debate is timely in the context of the national skills strategy that the Government have published, the Tomlinson inquiry and the lively and ongoing debate on the future of higher and further education and, in particular, the funding of it, to which the Minister alluded.
We have heard constructive contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and the hon. Members for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who commented on the dialogue that was developing. An interesting discussion started about the balance between providing vocational options in schools and doing that on other sites in colleges, and about how we can best move forward in a way that encourages the maximum number of young people to stay in education.
I should like the Minister to say a little more about that when he replies, particularly in the context of the flexibility pilots that have been proceeding. Those pilots are entirely welcome and have begun to show some positive outcomes. He will know, as I do, that people in the schools and colleges involved have real concerns about how the pilots can best be developed and what the appropriate funding streams will be, so that the vision of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North can be realised, with more facilities for over-14s and over-16s offered in schools. How can we enable people in schools
to experience a proper mixture of vocational and academic options? I hope that the Minister will return to that point and give the House the benefit of his thoughts on the matter.There is a broad consensus about the nature of the problem that we face in this country with regard to skills and vocational education. The Minister went through some of the details of the background but we remain today in a relatively poor position in comparison with our main competitors in developing non-academic skills. Some 28 per cent. of British people are qualified to apprentice, skilled-craft or technician level, as against 51 per cent. of the population in France or 65 per cent. in Germany. More than 13 million people of working age lack basic qualifications. As the Minister neglected to mention in his closing remarks, 80,000 children are, according to Ofsted, currently being failed and, very largely, by our education system.
Mr. Lansley: In the context of the important debate about productivity, does my hon. Friend agree that if one compares the UK with France and Germany, the deficiency is not the proportion of students in degree-level education but the proportion who are developing intermediate skills, which are essentially skills related to national vocational qualification level 2 or 3?
Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend is right, and his point is crucial to the debate about the balance between the need for higher and further education and how we should advance the cause of improving the population's skills for the benefit of the work force and employers. The Government have set an arbitrary 50 per cent. target for young people going into higher education, although during Education questions last week, I noted that the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education suggested that the figure was between 40 and 50 per cent, which sounded like backtracking or a slippage of the target.
There is a discrepancy between the estimate of the need for graduate skills made by the Department for Education and Skills and that garnered by the Department of Trade and Industry. I received a written answer from the DFES last week stating that 65 per cent. of graduates are engaged in jobs that require a graduate qualification after three years in their careers. However, the week before that, I heard that research undertaken on behalf of the DTI through the national graduate tracking survey suggested that when graduates themselves are questioned after three years in their careers, only 48 per cent. say that they are in a graduate job. There is a real imbalance between the two Departments, so perhaps there is a lack of joined-up government. Of course, the figures go to the heart of the validity of the Government's 50 per cent. target and the question of how we should best move higher and further education forward.
The Government's target of 50 per cent. participation in higher education is only one example of the British tendency to undervalue the vocational and practical. Similarly, we saw an increasing tendency for the fields of study in polytechnics to become more theoretical and academic. That was not only a British phenomenon. We often hear Germany's experience of vocational education held up as a beacon, but the education in German polytechnics became less technical and more
theoretical and academic. That was dealt with in Germany through the creation of universities of applied science, which is an interesting model that has borne some fruit—it is certainly popular with German employers.My hon. Friend referred to the productivity gap between this country and our competitors, which is inexorably linked to work-related skills. If we do not get our approach on such skills right, we cannot hope to reduce that gap. The UK's gross domestic product per head is below the European Union average and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. Our gap between France and Germany becomes wider if we use the measure of GDP per person hour worked, which shows that we are working harder and for longer hours to make up for difficulties faced by members of the work force who lack skills that could increase productivity.
The picture is not all bleak, because some excellent vocational education is offered in this country. The Minister will recall his recent visit to South Trafford college in my constituency during which we saw airline cabin crew learning their trade, and students learning catering skills to a superb standard—he and I were privileged to sample their work later in our visit.
There are, however, gaps and shortcomings in the provision of vocational education. The Minister acknowledged in a written answer on 16 September the need to do more if we are to revitalise and expand apprenticeship programmes. There are also problems with the delivery of guidance, which has been mentioned. The Connexions service is far from universal in providing the necessary guidance to young people. The problem will be compounded by the introduction of greater flexibility at key stage 4. If we are to offer a greater number of different routes to young people at the age of 14, the challenge is to get it right when we guide them through the options so that we ensure they do not take a wrong turn, which could cause difficulties for their career throughout their working lives.
Foundation degrees must be developed with the involvement of both employers and colleges. Ministers need to be clear that the degrees are of value. They are not a shortcut to achieving the Government's target of participation in higher education or a rebranded higher national diploma.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry has joined us. I am only sorry that he was not here an hour or so earlier.
Concern is always raised when Ministers spend large sums on advertising, as they have for foundation degrees. It has not been possible to open a magazine or newspaper in the past couple of weeks without seeing glossy full-page advertisements. As they do not impart much information about foundation degrees, one is tempted to wonder whether Ministers are worried about the content of what is on offer. Conservative Members are more interested in the substance of the policy than the advertising budget.
The Government's record on adult skills was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). It leaves something to be desired. The sinking of the flagship
individual learning accounts was strangely omitted from the Minister's list of Government initiatives. That resulted in the loss of a considerable sum—
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |