| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The amendment is much more modest than that which we originally had in mind. We had proposed that such people should have the same deal as is offered to those who are aiming for level 2. We have watered that right down and limited it to the 19 to 25 year-olds, mirroring what the Government propose at level 3. We have referred specifically to information and communication technology as part of the area which should be under consideration. The government policy paper published on 17 October identifies information and communication technology as on a par with English and maths as the requirement for any pathway in the foundation framework that they are developing. We argue for other qualifications as well, but leave it to the Secretary of State to specify what they should be.
In tidying up my inexpert drafting of these amendments, the Table Office has missed out what was, to me, a key word from Amendment No. 76. I wished to say of the Secretary of State’s power to determine what should happen, that it “shall be” as—the word “as” was missed out—
- “specified by the Secretary of State from accredited units and qualifications within in the foundation learning tier”.
That leaves the Secretary of State to decide when and what. In other words, this is a marker—an opportunity for and challenge to the Secretary of State to pick up what he thinks that the Government can afford, and what is more useful at a particular time. It could not be a more discretionary amendment to the Bill. It does not make immediate demands on the public purse.
I move the amendment on level 3 out of concern for our competitiveness and have tabled Amendments No. 75 and 76 regarding those at the foundation stage out of concern for our fellow citizens who most need our help, for their own sakes and for ours. I beg to move.
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1798
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, two things are different from the last time I was on my feet on this subject. First, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has been able to take forward these complicated matters. I am enormously thankful for that. Secondly, sadly, the economic situation has changed quite dramatically. So, as we have already heard, we are reluctantly looking at a different situation.
What is decided at level 3 bears directly on what we can achieve at level 4. Let us focus on that. Our achievement at level 3 will largely determine the ceiling of what can be achieved at level 4. In supporting the amendment to extend to 30 the age limit for support for level 3 students, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred to Germany and the United States having already exceeded the commonly quoted target of 40 per cent at level 4 by 2020. The same may of course also be said for Japan, Canada and Russia, which have similarly already achieved that level 4.
How can a Government be serious in setting targets for 2020, as we know this Government are, which five competitor nations have already achieved? Who knows how many more will join them, including France and South Korea, for example? It would not be extremely worrying if we could assume that, having already passed 40 per cent at level 4, those countries would rest on their laurels; but we have no grounds for assuming that that will happen, when it is commonly accepted across the globe that competitive advantage is achieved by investment in education. In 12 years, those countries could well reach 50 per cent.
Speaking bluntly, I am more than sad that we are pulling back from the proposals that we made earlier that support for students aspiring to level 3 should extend across the entire working life, or certainly until at least the age of 50; but I am aware that cost is very much an issue. I note, however, that at the Labour Party conference—admittedly it was last year, but nevertheless it was important—the Prime Minister said that,
- “this is the century when we cannot afford to waste the talents of anyone ... we need to unlock the talents of all our people. In the last century the question was can we afford to do this? In the face of economic challenge, I say: in this century we cannot afford not to”.
I would gladly accept the argument that there are more cost-effective ways of achieving progress towards the kind of level 3 performance that we need by 2020—somewhere between 45 per cent and 50 per cent, as my noble friend Lord Dearing argued. However, if the Government cannot even accept our proposal to extend the age limit for support to 30, or something around that age, bearing mind that 70 per cent of those who will be of working age in 2020 are already at work, will the Minister answer the following now, or before the next stage of the Bill? First, in the light of the performance of other countries, what is a desirable level of achievement for level 4 by 2020? Secondly, by what measures will the Government achieve that figure and what will each measure contribute?
Baroness Verma: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and I quite understand why he made these proposals. I am sorry to say, however, that I cannot support his amendments. I am worried that if a person has not yet reached the
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1799
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley were added to these amendments and we did that with pleasure. In many senses, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, knows that we believe that the amendment is rather tame. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, explained that they would have liked to endorse the earlier Liberal Democrat amendment which proposed that there should be an entitlement to a level 3 education at any age—including after retirement—for all students if they had not received the benefit of it previously.
These days, we often talk about the lack of aspiration of young people, and perhaps of the teachers of young people. Here there is a lack of aspiration by the Government. We know perfectly well, from the Leitch report, that we must look to mature students to fill the gap in our skills base, which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, rightly pointed out. The gap at level 3 is glaring and has been for a long time. The Government are doing practically nothing to fill that gap. We have not got enough young people coming through the system at level 3 and level 4 and we must be prepared to help students achieve qualifications at this level.
The minimum we can do is give those who aspire to a level 3 qualification the same rights as we give to those at level 4. Those at level 4 have the right to a loan to cover the cost of their tuition. Part-time students at level 3 do not have the same rights. Mature students at level 3, even if they are full time, do not have the same rights. There is a gross inequality here for those at level 3, many of whom lost out in the education system at an earlier point. That the Government do not have the inspiration or the aspiration to meet their needs is a very sad indictment. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, quoted previous Labour Party manifestos and their aspirations as to what should be achieved. The Government are letting down a whole group of the population.
As for the foundation-tier levels, these seem to be minimal qualifications. It is very sad that the Conservative Party takes the line it is taking, and very mean indeed. Here we have people with no qualifications whatever. The Conservative Party knows very well the importance these days of accreditations or qualifications of some sort or another. Surely people have a right to aspire to the lowest level of qualification. We are giving everybody the right to take what we call the full-fat level 2 qualification. If people do not have the capability of doing the full-fat level 2, surely the minimum we can do is encourage them to acquire the level 1 foundation-tier qualifications that we are now providing. From these Benches we endorse these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Dearing.
Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, I understand noble Lords’ intentions in tabling these amendments. My officials and I have met them on a number of
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1800
This Bill gives us something extra in our efforts to raise skill levels. For the first time it introduces a legal requirement to ensure the Learning and Skills Council waives fees for adults undertaking specified basic skills—first full level 2 and, for adults aged 19 to 25, first full level 3 qualifications. This is a really strong signal of the Government’s commitment to supporting skills development. Amendment No. 74 would extend to those aged up to 30 the duty on the Learning and Skills Council to secure free tuition for a first full level 3 qualification. We know level 3 skills deliver good returns to individuals and the economy. The returns over the lifetime of a person moving from level 2 to level 3 are around £45,000, so it is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, said and many employers demand, that as many people as possible should be qualified at higher levels, including at level 3, which is often a gateway to further higher level learning. However, level 3 learning programmes do not come cheap and our initial analysis is that extending the duty on the Learning and Skills Council to include free tuition for a first full level 3 qualification for adults aged between 25 and 30 would cost around £85 million over the next three years. This includes education and training secured by the LSC through both Train to Gain and mainstream further education routes.
We are already doing much to help all adults, including those over 25, to reskill and upskill by helping them gain full qualifications at level 2 and level 3. Compared with 2001, there are now 2.2 million more adults of working age with qualifications at level 3 and above, and around 100,000 adults achieved a level 3 qualification in 2006-07 through LSC-funded programmes. Over the next two years alone, we plan to increase by 20 per cent the investment in level 3 training that the economy needs. I do not see a lack of aspiration in that kind of investment.
Unfortunately, if I were to agree to this amendment—and I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that we have considered it carefully—I would have to divert resources within the Learning and Skills Council’s budget away from the priorities that we have set out for the next three years. That would have a significant impact on the provision available for the lowest-skilled and most disadvantaged individuals in the country—a subject on which I know from my conversations with him that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has strong feelings.
6.30 pm
I want to address the question of competitiveness, which was touched on by both the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. Compared with countries such as France and Germany, we have
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1801
I have cut out some of the argument in the interests of time, not because it was not necessarily important.
In Amendments Nos. 75 and 76, noble Lords focus on the other end of the learning spectrum and wish to make qualifications within the foundation learning tier free to those aged 19 to 25. As a Minister with responsibility for skills, I am fully behind the goal of supporting the most disadvantaged adults in developing new skills and bettering themselves. This is already a key objective of the Government and a core mission of our department. I wish to be clear, as was the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, that level 2 is the platform of skills that will make a real difference to an individual’s career prospects. People with skills at level 2 or higher are half as likely to be unemployed as those with skills below it. There is no evidence that individuals achieving qualifications below level 2 reap such fruitful returns. Therefore, it is right that we prioritise our efforts and resources on supporting as many individuals as we can in getting to this level.
We have a set of actions already in place that we believe will address the concern expressed by noble Lords that, for some learners, a full level 2 qualification is an extremely challenging step. Those in receipt of means-tested benefits and many on the working tax credit do not have to pay tuition fees for any LSC-funded learning. This includes those undertaking qualifications which will, in the future, be part of the foundation learning tier.
In addition, we continue to drive forward integration of the employment and skills services that we offer jointly with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the most disadvantaged individuals are given the opportunity to develop the skills that they need to find sustainable employment and progress in their careers.
We are backing up our commitment to learning below level 2 with significant funding. Each year we invest a total of £1.5 billion in learning below level 2. Again, that does not strike me as lacking in aspiration or willingness to invest. In 2008-09 alone, we expect to support more than 2.2 million LSC-funded places on learning below level 2. Shortly, we expect to publish the Learning and Skills Council’s grant letter for 2009-10, which will reflect our strategy for continuing investment in further education and skills.
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1802
I should like to address the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, emphasised. We believe that equipping people with essential skills in numeracy and literacy is one of the best ways in which we can help them. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, wanted what they saw as a rather modest extension to that to include information and communications technology. Having done a bit of investigation, I can say in response that in many cases of improving literacy and numeracy, ICT is used as a means of delivery. It is a very good means of doing it. Also I am told by those involved in further education that it is not the only means of delivery. Some people respond much better to embedding this in other forms of delivery. We are going some way towards equipping people, albeit not quite as far as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and his supporters wish.
I stress that we still believe that we have got it right in focusing on numeracy and literacy, as did the Leitch report. We are committed to examining the scope for extending administrative entitlements to free learning into the foundation learning tier in the future, as set out in the Adult Learning and Skills: Investing in the First Steps document, which we published in November 2007. Over time and as resources allow, we will concentrate public funds on programmes that align with these ladders of progression. In particular, we have stated our commitment to look at extending the administrative entitlement for 19 to 25 year-olds to foundation learning tier programmes.
The Government will continue to monitor progress towards the ambitions of the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, very closely. In the future, should we decide that we are in a position to extend the funding duty in proposed new Section 4B(4) to courses below level 2 or to those aged over 25 at level 3, the proposed order-making power in proposed new paragraph 9 of Schedule 1A will give the Secretary of State this flexibility.
I return briefly to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. The Leitch report did not say 45 per cent; it suggested exceeding 40 per cent at level 4. In response we said that we would aim for 36 per cent of adults qualified at level 4 and above by 2014, on the way to world class by 2020. This is up from 29 per cent in 2005. I shall write about the impact of measures to get to level 4 because the amendment is on level 3. The noble Baroness has that assurance.
I hope that noble Lords are sufficiently reassured that the Government are serious about improving higher level skills and supporting the most disadvantaged adults, and that the Bill builds in flexibility to reassess our priorities in the future. We do not have infinite resources, but we believe that we are focusing and targeting them in areas where the Leitch report indicated there was the greatest need, and in areas where employers identified the greatest need. That will benefit employers, employees, and the country as a whole. In light of that I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and found his remarks on the foundation stage very encouraging. I took it as meaning that the Government will look for opportunities to help these
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1803
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 not moved.]
Clause 79 [Independent educational institutions]:
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin moved Amendment No. 78:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we come to a large group of government amendments. I wrote to noble Lords on 23 October setting out the detail of the amendments that were laid in response to concerns and debates in Committee. The amendments put into effect the commitment made by my noble friend Lord Adonis that the Government would no longer seek to move the responsibility for registration, regulation and monitoring of independent educational institutions and non-maintained special schools from the Secretary of State to Ofsted. I will outline them rather than go into detail because I have written to noble Lords on the question.
Noble Lords may ask why the Government have decided to implement this change to the Bill through a large number of separate amendments to Part 4 rather than deleting it in its entirety and relying on the regulatory regime as it exists for independent schools in Chapter 10 of the Education Act 2002 and for non-maintained special schools in Section 342 of the Education Act 1996. Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Bill re-states the entire regulatory regime for independent schools and, as we have just discussed—or as we might have discussed—offers the opportunity to ensure that protection is in place for children in the growing independent and part-time sector. In doing so, Part 4 makes a number of drafting and policy improvements. As one example, the Bill introduces a new right of appeal for proprietors of independent educational institutions and non-maintained special schools against decisions by the regulator, such as the refusal of an application for initial registration from a new institution.
There are other changes in Part 4, which, my noble friend Lord Adonis stated, the Government will continue to support. In particular, he drew attention to the two issues of concern to the Independent Schools Council and on which, having discussed further with the ISC, we have reached agreement. To avoid any doubt, it is worth reiterating these commitments here. First, we have agreed that regulations sitting under the new standard for leadership and management in Clause 81
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1804
Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, in Committee I expressed my enormous gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, when he indicated that the Government had reconsidered these issues, so I warmly welcome the important concessions embodied in this vast group of amendments. Many barriers have been broken down, and there is now a good relationship between the state and the independent sector, which the Government’s action and these amendments can only strengthen.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin moved Amendments Nos. 79 and 80:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 85 [Applications for registration]:
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin moved Amendments Nos. 81 and 82:
82: Clause 85, page 52, line 21, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must notify the Chief Inspector of an application under this section.”
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |