Clause
5
Young
people’s learning committee and adult learning
committee
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Boswell:
We talked earlier about the multiplication of
committees and these are two that are going. I am not sure that we need
them in the statutory form. I would simply like to reinforce to the
Minister my view, which I think he probably shares, that the importance
of the development of adult skills is particularly intense because we
know that we have a skills gap—it has been identified by the
Leitch report. We also know that most of the people who will be in the
work force by 2010 are
already in that work force now. It is impossible to upskill the country
simply on the basis of recruitment, particularly as the cohort of young
people is now beginning to turn down. We must address adult
skills.
On
reflection—indeed, to some extent I felt this at the
time—my main reservation about the Learning and Skills Act 2000
is that it gave emphasis to the 16 to 19-year-olds. As I said on Second
Reading, the Government have helpfully extended that group
to14 to 19-year-olds. I have no problem with that. However, I
think that it is extremely important that we now emphasise upskilling
in the adult community. That requires, for example, the active
involvement of the sector skills councils, and in educational and
pedagogical terms it often implies a more flexible approach than we
have traditionally delivered in the younger age group. So this is
simply a warning and a reinforcement to Ministers of something that I
think they know about, which is that we need to tackle this issue very
seriously.
I think
that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings also
has a contribution to make on this
subject.
Greg
Mulholland (Leeds, North-West) (LD): May I say,
Mr. Atkinson, what a pleasure it is to serve under your
chairmanship?
Very
briefly, I wish to reiterate the comments made by the hon. Member for
Daventry, to emphasise the Liberal Democrats’ concerns with
regard to adult education. As the Minister will be well aware, there
have been concerns expressed, particularly by the National Institute of
Adult Continuing Education. Regarding the clause, NIACE has said that
it is concerned that adult education and training is losing much of its
statutory underpinning. This is a very good opportunity for the
Minister to refute that view. Although we understand the need for
flexibility, which is the reason given for the clause, it is vital to
tackle that crucial area of concern at this stage, and I hope that the
Minister will do so in his brief
comments.
12
noon
Mr.
Hayes:
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry is
absolutely right that the critical need is to upskill and reskill the
existing adult population. Even if we got skills training absolutely
right from the perspective of young people, the demographics make it
clear that, unless we upskill and reskill the existing working
population, we will not be able to meet the targets necessary if we are
to remain economically competitive. That also means examining the
access to learning and the re-entry to learning. I am very concerned
about the decline of adult and community education. I make no apologies
for saying that the loss of a number of adult and community places has
been a disgrace, and I hope that the Minister might comment on that
issue.
The clause
abolishes the two statutory LSC committees—the young
people’s learning committee and the adult learning committee. I
draw attention to adult and community learning because, if we are going
to upskill and reskill the existing working population, it
is critically important that we are as lateral in our thinking as
possible about the routes to learning, including the re-entry to
learning for many people who have perhaps been failed by the system the
first time round. These two committees provide an
important voice for adult learners within the system and it would be
interesting to hear from the Minister as to why he feels that they
should go. They are low-cost and they provide valuable scrutiny of the
LSC’s work on age-related issues. In particular, with the
abolition of the adult learning committee and the end of an independent
adult learning inspectorate, it appears that the distinctive nature of
adult education and learning is losing much of its statutory
underpinning.
These
may seem like minor matters in relation to the Bill, but they speak
volumes for very significant issues about adult learning. Many of us
are strongly committed to the principle of adult learning. A few days
ago, I was at the City Lit college in Covent Garden, which I am sure
that both Ministers will know well. There are 52,000 enrolments and
3,000 courses there. The courses are overwhelmingly, perhaps
exclusively, non-accredited and are attracting learners of all kinds,
of all ages and from all backgrounds into education and back into
education. The work of organisations such as that college should be
celebrated. It deserves a voice in the system. I am concerned that in a
small way clause 5 will diminish or quieten their voice unacceptably. I
would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on
that.
Phil
Hope:
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Mr. Atkinson. May I thank hon. Members for their kind
remarks? It is good to be here in Committee. It is great to be with the
hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings whose articulate and
eloquent contributions in Committee I know of old. He never uses one
word when three or even more will do. That is always a real
pleasure.
The clause
means that schedule 3 paragraph 1(1) of the Learning and Skills Act
2000, which places the Learning and Skills Council under a duty to
establish both a young people’s learning committee and an adult
learning committee, shall cease to have effect. I will try to address
the points that hon. Members have made, but first I should like to pay
tribute to the work of both committees. They have played an important
role in advising the LSC over several years and have worked extremely
hard in promoting those interests. The evidence before us illustrates
the work that they have been doing. There are now more young people in
learning than ever before. We have more apprentices in learning and
more young people completing their apprenticeships than ever before.
More adults are improving their basic skills.
The hon. Member for Daventry is
absolutely right: it is important that we now look at the existing
adult work force. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings
made the point that 70 per cent. of the work force that will be there
in 2020 is already in place. As well as working to improve the skills
and employability of young people coming through the education system,
we need to upskill the existing the work force. That is common ground
between us on where we need to go.
Jeremy
Wright:
Does the Under-Secretary agree that one of the
reasons why the points made by both my hon. Friends are so important in
this context is that, whether or not we regard education as a lifelong
experience, our wish to encourage people to reskill and upskill is to
some degree informed by the way in which they see some of these
non-accredited adult education courses being treated? That is why it is
important, with or without the existence of the committee, that we
continue to ensure that adults have access to that kind of learning
too.
Phil
Hope:
There is agreement across the Committee about the
points that the hon. Gentleman makes. Adult funding has increased by 48
per cent. since 1997. That is a real terms increase of 48 per cent.
Indeed, over the next two years adult education funding will increase
by a further 7 per cent. So this is a track record of growth and
investment in adult education. Of course, we had to ensure that that
funding is focused on our priority, which is—this is the point
that the hon. Members for Daventry and for South Holland and The
Deepings are making—those adults, who, let us be honest about
it, were let down by education 10 or 20 years ago.
These people are in the work
force now and do not have basic literacy skills. They do not even have
a first full level 2 qualification, the basic platform for
employability. Through the train to gain initiative and the growth in
the demand-led approach, which meets the needs of employers, we will
both raise the skills of individuals in the work force and meet the
needs of employers to improve their productivity and their
profitability.
Mr.
Boswell:
Would the Under-Secretary concede—I do not
attach blame to him on this—that there has been considerable
concern at local level about cutbacks in the delivery of
community education, notwithstanding the fact that he has ring-fenced
some money towards that? That is an example of our concern, to which
the Minister is trying to respond.We need the non-threatening,
positive educational experiences that many such adults failed to
achieve during their
schooldays.
Phil
Hope:
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman
makes, but most of the reductions in courses that he describes were in
short, non-priority, non-accredited provisions that did not offer
opportunities for individuals to progress to further learning or to
gain skills for employment.
The hon.
Gentleman also raised an important point about wider adult community
learning. The Government are absolutely committed to adult learning in
the broadest sense. That is why, through our strategy for personal and
community development learning, we have this year ring-fenced
£210 million to ensure new partnerships at the local level. They
will be led by LSCs, and they will bring together all the partners,
including local authorities, the LSCs, the voluntary sector and
organisations such as the Workers Educational Association. Working in
partnership, they will be able to ask, for such courses and for this
kind of broader learning, what strategies can be put in place to
maximise the various contributions made by different organisations in
order to reduce
overlap and ensure that those who do not benefit from such opportunities
can benefit in
future.
Mr.
Hayes:
As ever, the Under-Secretary speaks with great
sincerity and commitment. The point that we want answered is what
proportion of the adult courses that have been lost relate to
employment? He is right to emphasise that those that do not are far
from valueless, and that education is more than equipping people to get
work. However, I am anxious about the number of courses that have been
or are being lost that could lead to further study or that might
directly relate to employment.
I do not expect the
Under-Secretary to answer that off the top of his head, but it might be
useful if he considered the matter and gave the Committee some
information about the proportion of courses that fall into that
category. Put simply, my worry is that we might be throwing the baby
out with the bathwater. By focusing on accredited level 2 courses, we
are narrowing the opportunity for people to return to education who
could then move on to further learning, which might aid or facilitate
employment. We need that information in order to get to the heart of
the matter.
Phil
Hope:
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. However, he
was earlier praising the role of the sector skills councils in
determining, through labour market information, the kind of
economically valuable skills and the qualifications that reflect those
skills; it is that which drives the system. I agree with him; it is in
exactly the direction that we wish to proceed.
The hon. Gentleman also argues
that there may be other courses and other developments, and we
recognise that. However, if we are serious about allocating public
money—the taxpayers’ money—to those areas where
there has been a market failure, whether in literacy or numeracy or in
the level 2 qualifications that meet the employers’ needs, it is
right to focus those resources on places where market failures have
occurred so that we can get people into learning for the first
time.
The hon.
Gentleman will know of learners, and I have certainly met many, for
whom the light bulb was switched on when they undertook their first
course, perhaps in literacy; they became switched on to learning in a
way that had never happened before, because of the education
system’s failure. From that moment, they started on a
progression, going on courses that they would never have taken up
previously.
The
philosophy of taking people who have been let down in the past and
focusing resources on them, putting them on the first rungs of that
ladder to learning, is important for them, their families and
communities; but it also benefits the employers who provide the job
opportunities, promotion, productivity and so on. It is not either/or;
it is both. As for public money, we must clearly focus our resources on
those who need it
most.
Mr.
Hayes:
This is a critical debate. The Minister will know
that one of the biggest growth areas in the labour force is among the
non-employed. Over the past15 years, a large number of
formerly non-employed people has joined the work force. I am not
speaking of
NEETS; I speak more of the mature women who return to work after
bringing up the family. They often find their way back to work, through
re-entry to education, after some time out of employment, and I want to
tease out how many of them come in through adult and community
learning, perhaps initially in non-accredited courses. I hope that he
might look at that and bring back further information, as I am not
clear about the numbers. I think that the Committee would benefit from
having a feel for those numbers. He is right that it is not either/or,
but we need some specificity about the significance of adult community
learning as a route back into employment for the kind of people whom I
have
described.
Phil
Hope:
Without wishing to prolong this debate too far, and
to stay with the point of the clause, the issue here is progression.
What opportunities at alocal level, whether via employment or
through community—doing a 10-year college course or perhaps
doing something in the local library or through LearnDirect; there are
many other routes to learning—allow people to progress? Not just
to take a course, and then another, and another, and go round and round
in circles, not getting further forward: what can we do to ensure that
the vision at a local level generally offers progression for
individuals?
The hon.
Gentleman is right to say that that is not a decision that can be made
in Whitehall; it has to be made at a local level by local providers
where, through our rigorous emphasis on quality, we are able to make a
judgment at a local level that that is a course that helps individuals
to start learning and to make progress, as opposed to a circular,
revolving door of course after course that does not give them the needs
to move into a job or to improve their lives or skills as parents as
members of the community.
That quality issue is what the
hon. Gentleman is really getting at. Are we making sure that, as we
drive forward our priorities, as we deliver literacy, numeracy courses,
level 2 qualifications, and courses in the community to engage people
for the first time, we are doing so by funding those course providers
who are providing the best in terms of quality to allow people to
progress? That is the point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier about
the decline. We do not want to put Government and public resources into
courses that are short, that do not give people progression, that do
not give people qualifications, and do not provide what the hon.
Gentleman asks
for.
12.15
pm
Gordon
Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab): Does my hon.
Friend agree that even within the private sector a great deal of
provision is provided by distance learning? It is a vital role that
fits neatly into the jigsaw that Ministers have presented to the
Committee today.
Phil
Hope:
Yes—I was distracted and diverted away from
the key point—my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are many
providers in the private sector, the public sector and the third sector
that have the ability to reach out and contact individuals in
communities who would otherwise not see themselves as returning to
learning by going to a college or school. That is the one thing that
such people will not do—it is anathema to them.
There are innovations and new
approaches that private providers in the third sector can take,
particularly at a local level. There are partnerships through personal
community development learning, which I have mentioned, andI hope to
see that strengthened at a local level to engage people in learning.
Those people may not necessarily be learning to get a qualification, as
the learning may be for their own personal development or
leisure.
I shall
return to the clause. I want to confirm to the hon. Member for Daventry
that the proposals are about removing a statutory requirement to
establish an adult learning committee and a young persons’
learning committee. By removing that requirement, the clause will give
the LSC much greater flexibility to respond to the complex, changing
needs of learners, employers and
communities.
Mr.
Rob Wilson (Reading, East) (Con): Can I confirm that the
abolition of those two committees means that there will be no financial
saving?
Phil
Hope:
I cannot confirm that there will be no financial
saving, because there will be a reduction in that statutory structure.
If the LSC does not have two statutory committees, we expect it to
consider replacing them with a single committee. There may be a minor
financial saving to the sub-committee of the LSC national council
itself. That single committee may look in the round at all the
interrelated issues to do with the needs of young people, adults and
the FE sector work force. We are taking other measures, which may
involve expenditure, to strengthen the voice of learners generally in
learning and
skills.
Clause 7, to
which we shall come later, makes new provision for the LSC to consult
learners. We will also recruit and appoint a learner to the national
council in due course—possibly this autumn—and we expect
each of the regional committees, which we debated earlier, to include a
learner. In addition, we will use the national learner panel and other
learner networks to ensure that the learner voice is heard. We also
expect the LSC to convene regular stakeholder forums and advise the
council. It may even establish time-limited groups to look at specific
concerns and make recommendations on the way forward. To take one
example, in November 2006, the non-statutory working together strategy
committee focused on the council’s work with the voluntary and
community sector—the third sector.
I cannot guarantee that there
will be savings or costs either way. However, in removing the statutory
requirement for the two committees, we expect that the LSC will provide
a range of new measures to consult learners and hear their voice during
its deliberations.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 5
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
