|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee to consider the future arrangements for the Speakership of the House in the light of the Government's announcement that it is intended to reform the office of Lord Chancellor, and to make recommendations:
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I speak purely as a Back-Bencher. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is greatly to be welcomed as the chairman of the committee. I hope very much that his deliberations will result in a report that all of us will feel able to take forward. Is it not marginally surprising that, with two
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, the noble Lords named on the list will be very good, I am sure. The job of the Committee of Selection was fairly easy because only 11 names were put forward for the 11 vacancies.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland : My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The Statement is as follows:
"We are today publishing a White Paper that sets out the Government's long-term strategy for improving and sustaining the development of skills in this country. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. I believe that there is a consensus in this House, and more widely, about the need for this country to raise its skill levels. We must do that in order to become more competitive, to raise living standards, to increase productivity, and to offer better opportunities for all.
"It is widely recognised that, if we are to achieve the economic success we all want, our most pressing educational challenge is to raise skills at all levels. It is in this area, rather than primary, secondary or higher education, that this country lags behind our international competitors. For example, the proportion of our workforce qualified to the crucial intermediate level of technical and craft skills is low at 28 per cent compared with 51 per cent in France and 65 per cent in Germany.
"Despite these advances, there remain major shortfalls: workforce skills are lower in Britain than in many other countries; there are persistent skills deficits in such important areas as technical and craft skills, maths, and management and leadership; too many adults lack the skills and qualifications needed for sustainable employability; too many young people are leaving education without the skills that employers need.
"We have consulted widely. The overwhelming view, which I heartily share, is that the need now is not for piecemeal initiatives or clever tactical gimmicks. It is to make much better use of what is already there and to put in place a strategic approach. We need a coherent, long-term, national strategy which provides easy access to high quality training, across the full range of skills from basic to advanced. It must be based upon a framework which offers flexibility, relevance and choice. It must deliver the skills which are needed by both employees and employers, both jobseekers and the retired.
"The main elements of this framework can be easily set out. They are, first, at national level, a network of 23 sector skills councils, to be fully in place by next summer. They will cover the major sectors of the economy. The councils are a major new voice for employers and employees in their sector. They are charged with identifying the sector's present and future skill needs, ensuring that qualifications and training meet those needs, and getting employers to act together to invest in skills to raise productivity. They place employers and the workplace centre stage.
"Secondly, at regional level, a powerful new partnership between regional development agencies and the learning and skills councils will link regional economic development goals with the skills to achieve them, focused on the needs of learners and employers. This will tie in business support services, so that businesses can get better access to the advice and help that they need.
"Thirdly, at local level, training programmeswhether delivered in colleges or the workplacewill be sharply focused upon meeting those skill priorities, in a truly demand-led and so responsive system.
"This simple framework will help people gain skills at all levels. It will create a regime in which the education and training services genuinely have to respond to the demands of both potential studentsoften employeesand employers.
"To build this ladder of opportunity, we will introduce major reforms. We will develop a framework of qualifications for adults based on units and credits which give learners and employers more flexibility to put together the package of training they want. In addition, we will guarantee protection for leisure learning, particularly for pensioners and people on low incomes. We will ensure greater employer involvement in the design and delivery of modern apprenticeships. We will provide better, clearer information for employers and potential students about the opportunities which exist and the support which is available, including an employees guide to good training. We will expand the network of union learning representatives, focused upon encouraging the low-skilled to engage in training. We will give a new guarantee of free tuition for any adult without a good foundation of skills for employability, to get the training they need to gain a first level 2 qualification. We will introduce a new adult learning grant to support full-time adult learners in these priority groups to meet the costs of learning. We will use our employer training pilots to inform and guide our future national employers' training programme.
"Better skills are needed for Britain to flourish. Those skills are the key to our economic success in an increasingly competitive world. They are also critical to our future in the European Union. The economic reform agenda agreed in Lisbon in 2000 reflects the importance of skills across Europe. Many of the topics addressed in this White Paper reflect the concerns shared by our European partners. They reflect our determination to tackle the challenges of skills and mobility across the Union.
"labour market flexibility and structural economic reform [is] at the heart of the new . . . policy guidelines for Europe";
"The changes which I set out today represent the most ambitious agenda yet seen to tackle some very deep-seated and long-standing weaknesses in our national skills base. They have been developed through a strong partnership between my department and my colleagues in the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Work and Pensions. The Government will lead by example by ensuring that each central government department addresses its own skills needs and gaps in the way that I have described.
"Even more important, this strategy represents not simply a government initiative, but a commitment by all the main social partnersthe Government, the CBI, the TUC and the Small Business Council. All will be represented in the Skills Alliance which we are establishing to carry through the implementation of these proposals, in a sustained, determined campaign finally to tackle those skills weaknesses which have dogged us for so long.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, but, sadly, as before, I must start by referring to yet another example of contempt for Parliament. We have read endless newspaper and media-leaked reports in recent days. There were meetings last night with representatives of public bodies, as part of the launch of the strategy. Only this morning, the Secretary of State talked in some detail about the proposals. Once again, as a last resort, there was information for Parliament.
I am sure that, as with each of the previous education Statements repeated by the noble Baroness in this place, the noble Baroness will offer to report our disdain for such contempt of Parliament to the Secretary of State. We know, however, that, so far, that has had no effect, and the practice continues. That is no personal criticism of the Minister, whom I know and respect. She is diligent in her work in this House. The contempt for Parliament lies with her ministerial colleagues in another place.
As the noble Baroness suggested, there is consensus on the need for a skills strategy. There is a real challenge for skills and training, but the Statement represents a missed opportunity. It lacks clarity and focus. The paper has been long awaited. Where is the vision? Where is the radical edge? We have the same old predictable centralised and complex bureaucracy. There is a plethora of national, regional and local cross-cutting structures. Yet more funding will be dissipated in a system in which people spend more time in liaising and co-ordinating than in training. At the end of that costly waste of time, the funding left to train plumbers and construction workers will be extremely limited.
The big visionary idea would appear to be the payment of £30 a week to entice people into education. My first question to the noble Baroness is: what sort of numbers is it envisaged will find that a great attraction? What system will be in place to avoid fraudulent recipients and/or providers, as with individual learning accounts?
What of the replacement for individual learning accounts? Only weeks ago, we were told that it was a high priority for government. Ministers insisted that a similar wide-ranging scheme would replace individual learning accounts, but, in the Statement, we see only a fraction of the scope of the original scheme. The report has dismayed consultants, who say that many adult learners will be left with no chance to develop new skills. Training provider Hairnet is reported to have said that it was amazed by the news. It said that it had hoped that the White Paper would offer adult learners at least part of what had been included in the ILA scheme. A Hairnet spokeswoman told the press:
Once again, England is missing out. Seemingly, England is left with no ILA replacement scheme similar to the original, while schemes similar to the original, with lessons learnt, will be introduced in Wales and Scotland. Although we know of the expensive debacle of the ILA scheme, many were under the impression that lessons had been learnt by the Government and that an improved and better managed scheme would take its place. My second question is: why has that not happened and why has it been abandoned?
It is regrettable that the Statement does not include a major schools dimension, emphasising the importance of scientific, technological and vocational options in the curriculum. There is no mention of schools education. I agree with my honourable friend Damian Green who, in another place, quoted Carolyn Hayman, the chief executive of the Foyer Federation, an admirable body. This morning, she said:
What is it that further education colleges and providers of training are not doing that they could do better, if they could only receive the funding, rather than creating yet more processing bodies? What is the timescale for the proposals, given that the snail's pace progress of the setting up of sector skills councils does not bode well for the speedy transformation of training in this country? At that point, I pay tribute to industry for the £23 billion spent on education and training. That is three times the budget of the learning and skills councils.
It is beyond belief that, in the Statement, the Secretary of State should boast that it represents the most ambitious agenda yet. Crowded in on the same territory are such diverse and unaccountable bodies as learning and skills councils, sector skills councils and regional development agencies. To those, one can add the University for Industry, learndirect, colleges, training providers, county councils and local education committees. On the horizon are the regional assemblies, which, if we are to believe what we were told during the passage of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, will also have a role in such matters.
Just liaising between those bodies and sustaining territorial integrity and the complementary delivery of policies and services will be a nightmare. The regional dimension of the proposals is worrying. What matters to young people who have lost out in education requires to be identified and provided for locally. For some young people who dip out of education, meeting the cost of getting out of a rural village to a provider is the only inhibiting factor against their taking up a training option. Thirty pounds a week will probably meet only the fare to get to the provider and will do nothing to pay for the training.
Any description of the strategy as a "simple framework" ought to be a candidate for prosecution under the Trade Descriptions Act. It is not what is being done; it is the way in which it is being done. As I said, there is a need for a good, competent, effective skills strategy. Once again, however, central control, complex procedures, endless time-consuming liaison and co-ordination and costly bureaucracy is the Government's answer to a problem. Another opportunity has been missed.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement. We share the view of the Opposition that it is disappointing that, once again, we learnt of the content of the White Paper and the Statement from the "Today" programmein spite of the Government's disagreements with that programmeand from the press, rather than in Parliament first of all.
Nevertheless, on these Benches, we are possibly rather more welcoming of the White Paper and of the Statement than are the Opposition. First, perhaps because we read the Statement together with the 14-to-19 proposals that are coming forward from the Government, we see it as part of a relatively comprehensive strategy for the skills sector. We are delighted to see, for the first time, the Government beginning to map out a pathway for vocational education and training from schools, through colleges and, if appropriate, on to the universities. In particular, we are pleased to see that it is proposed that the system should be unit-based, enabling the individual to build up qualifications over time in blocks.
We are also pleased to see the emphasis on modern apprenticeships. It is sad that, in this country, the concept of apprenticeship has almost disappeared. It is good that the modern apprenticeship, which, appropriately, is much shorter than the original seven-year apprenticeshipit is usually a three or four-year apprenticeshipis given new emphasis. We are beginning to see young people recognising it as a viable form of training, but not enough young people recognise it as a viable alternative route. Too many schools channel people into the academic, rather than the vocational, route, and all the incentives in schools point in that direction. Too many children and parents think that the right way to go is straight through A-levels and on to university, rather than to go through practical and vocational training that can lead to equivalent level qualifications. This provides a framework that provides those routes, but we are not confident yet that it is fully in place.
Finally, we are pleased, too, to see the recognition of the importance of skills in the innovation agenda and the role to be played at the regional level. In my research at the University of Sussex, I did a fair amount of work on the role of regions in helping to regenerate industry and skills. The skills agenda was a very important part of that. From time to time I have been very critical of successive governments for not paying enough attention to it. I am very pleased to see that.
However, we have a number of criticisms. First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned, there seems to be a quite unnecessary number of quangos, both at the national and, perhaps particularly, the regional level. There are the regional development agencies, local learning and skills councils, Jobcentre Plus, business links and so forth. It will be very difficult for employers, colleges and, for that matter, individuals to unravel all these networks. Again, we are sad that, as yet, the regional development agencies are unelected. We look forward to a time when some of these agencies can be properly accountable to the electorate.
Secondly, while we welcome the universal entitlement to training to level 2 paid for by the state, we are very unhappy that this is not extended to level 3. There had been some talk of extending that entitlement to 19 to 30 year-olds studying at level 3, but that seems to have been withdrawn. Instead, we
Thirdly, the introduction of the new adult learner grant is a positive step. Can the Minister explain why a full-time level 4 student studying at university from home is reckoned to need a grant of £3,000 per year for maintenance purposes, whereas the equivalent maintenance for a student at a further education college is £1,500 only? Can the Minister look at the support for modern apprenticeships again? We welcome the lifting of the age bar from 25 to 28, but why not lift it altogether? If adults are expected to extend their working life to 70, is there not need for an adult modern apprenticeship? There are a great many people in their twenties deciding that having obtained little in the way of qualifications they would like to train properly for a skill, such as plumbing or carpentry. Currently, often there are few grants available for them.
Finally, can the Minister give an assurance that the foundation degree, which plays a part, is not regarded as an end qualification, but as a staging post to be built on to go forward to an honours degree and postgraduate qualification?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am pleased to have got through the Statement with my bad throat. I am grateful for the warmish words of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in welcoming it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would expect, I shall pick up her first issue of contempt. I appreciate the comments that the noble Baroness made about me. I have a copy of a letter sent by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the Speaker of the House of Commons in which he clearly says that the purpose of the breakfast meeting today was to discuss plans for the national skills alliance. It was not to launch the White Paper. I believe that my right honourable friend fully complied with correct parliamentary procedure in the way in which he made his Statement earlier in another place.
Both noble Baronesses raised the overarching issue of quangos and the relationship between the different bodies. The core of the White Paper states that what we have on the ground are a number of different partners which are either involved in training from a national perspectiveemployers, the Trades Union Congress, and so forthor are delivery partners. In fact, they already exist. One cannot differentiate and say, "Well, actually we do not need some of these partners". They all play a different and important role. The White Paper seeks to bring together those partners in the skills alliance to recognise the different roles that each will playwhether further education colleges, Jobcentre Plus or whatever the delivery agencyto ensure that they operate together on the ground.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, specifically asked what we thought would be gained by the roll-out of the new adult learning grant. In the first pilot year, we estimate that we shall help some 12,200 learners studying for a full-time level 2 or level 3 qualification. Rolled out nationally, the grant could help more than 60,000 learners a year. The noble Baroness also raised the issue of the successor scheme to the individual learning accounts. We have discussed this issue several times in your Lordships' House. When we looked at the options, we believed that setting up a small, separate initiative was not the way forward to achieve the original vision behind the individual learning accounts and to take an integrated approach. In view of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, it is important to note that part of the focus on free learning at level 2 will be to broaden the range of training provided in order to bring within the scope of public funding those private providers which have something distinctive to offer and can meet the necessary quality standards. That is an important factor in our decision to move forward in this way.
The purpose of the unique learning number is specifically to address the issue raised by many young people and those involved in training. We have different identifiers in different organisations. In order to reduce bureaucracy it might make a great deal of sense for learners to transfer between organisations and providers in a simpler and more straightforward way.
I acknowledge the commitment by industry and the noble Baroness referred to its £23 billion input. That is why we have consulted widely with industry and employers to ensure that the new strategy is very much economic-led and the need to have skills that are appropriate to the economy of the future. It is about integration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned the modern apprenticeship, which she is very keen to see developed. I am pleased that we have some of the highest levels since they were introduced in 1994; that is, more than 234,000 young people on a modern apprenticeship. That is a good indication of its value, but I agree that more needs to be done. I also accept the need to ensure that vocational routes into employment are perceived as being as important as academic routes. Those issues have been debated many times in your Lordships' House.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I welcome the Government's initiative on encouraging vocational training. It is absolutely right to do this at a regional level. That point was made by Professor Porter in a recent study about productivity for the DTI. He identified a weakness in management and leadership as a reason for weaknesses in productivity in British industry. Does the White Paper address this problem? Could the Minister say something about that?
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page