Clause 68
Education Bill
2:45 pm
Iain Wright (Hartlepool, Labour)
I beg to move amendment 238, in clause 68, page 53, leave out line 24.
Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 239, in clause 68, page 53, leave out line 25 to 32.
Iain Wright (Hartlepool, Labour)
The clause effectively reduces the range of courses provided for free. It also lowers the age until which young people can access free courses from 25 to 24. The Bill amends section 88 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, and brings into effect the proposals in the Minister’s skills strategy document, so that the entitlement to fee remission for a first full vocational qualification at level 2 and a specified qualification at level 3 is restricted to those aged over 19 and under 24. The purpose of amendments 238 and 239 is to stop those reductions.
I ask the Minister again: what is his intention in introducing the clause? Is he serious, as I think he is, about wanting to ensure that young people get the skills that they need? If so, can he explain why he is making the reductions? The Alliance for Inclusive Education has expressed concerns that the Bill discriminates against disabled learners:
“Too often disabled learners take longer than their non-disabled peers to gain qualifications if they are able to pass. First, disabled learners may want to leave education earlier than their non-disabled peers in order to train for employment. Disabled learners often leave school because they find school more challenging than others, either because of the level of work required or because their learning needs are not always consistently met”.
Will the Minister address those concerns, and will the Government consider making special provision for those who might need longer to complete their courses? Can the Minister assure the Committee that the move is not purely aimed at making savings? Can he tell the Committee what impact he believes it will have on young people’s access to skills provision?
It appears that 24-year-olds have had a right removed, and a charge will be imposed on adults over 23 who are doing a level 2 vocational course. Is that really what the Government want? I hope that the Minister will look at the amendment favourably and feel able to accept it.
John Hayes (Minister of State (Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning), Business, Innovation and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the subject was rehearsed in the Government’s skills strategy, published last November. I recommend it to anyone who has not studied it in detail, as I have been obliged to do. The essence of the amendments—indeed, of this part of the Bill—is to look again at entitlements. The truth, as he knows, is that we are in a very different place from the one that we were in when the entitlements were introduced. The simple fact is that in the skills strategy, we have to address the financial circumstances implicit in the comprehensive spending review, which took place in parallel with the development of our skills strategy. I was absolutely determined that the skills strategy should be not merely a response to changed economic and financial circumstances, but a fresh look at how we manage and fund skills, and who pays for what.
The question of who pays for what has pervaded the debate about skills for as long as I have been interested in the subject, and no satisfactory answer has really been provided. I wanted to begin to provide an answer. The debate about entitlements needs to be seen in that context. The fact is that in the current fiscal climate we simply cannot fund everything that, in ideal terms, we would like to. We had to look hard at priorities, and it is critical, in our view, that public investment is focused where its impact can be maximised—on individuals who would not otherwise have training, and where the market failures are strongest. Those individuals are young adults and those with poor levels of literacy and numeracy. If we are to fund fully those who need it most, as well as support sustainable levels of adult participation, there needs to be a change in the balance between what Government fully funds, and where costs are shared between Government and other agencies, particularly business and learners.
That is why we have said that we will fully fund a first specified vocational qualification at level 2 for learners who are 19 or over but under 24, and co-fund those for learners who are 24 years old or over. Sharing costs in that way enables us to retain capacity for learner places at level 2 despite an overall budget reduction. We considered carefully at what point we should maintain full funding at level 3, bearing in mind that that is where returns to the learner, in terms of the subsequent income premium that they might enjoy as a result of their acquisition of skill, is higher.
Learners aged 25 and over are already expected to contribute more towards the cost of their training; we propose lowering that to those aged 24 and over. That change is necessary to support our wider package of changes, in which we will move away from grant-funded provision for learners aged 24 and over who are undertaking a level 3 qualification to a more progressive free loan system, which will provide up-front support to enable learners to continue to undertake advanced and higher-level training.
Learners aged 19 to 24 years old will continue to be entitled to full fee remission for their first specified level 3 qualification, in line with our commitment to focus funding on young adults and the low-skilled. We had to make a judgment on where we focused the available funding. Level 3 learners should enjoy the same circumstances as students in higher education over the age of 25, on the basis that we know that the income premium that a level 3 apprentice enjoys once they have gained their apprenticeship is roughly equivalent to that of a graduate. Similarly, in terms of getting and keeping a job, they are as well off as a graduate. The return on their investment of time seems to be the greatest.
Although it is not strictly relevant to the amendments, it is important to say that I wanted to protect basic skills provision and adult and community learning, as I believe that they in particular support learners who are most disadvantaged, and provide important bridges into further learning and acquisition of skills. To do that, we needed to look at the entitlement that previously existed. That is the essence of what we tried to do. It can be justified and legitimised in the circumstances that we now face. I appreciate that there may be differences of nuance between those on either side of the Committee on the issue, but I think the shadow Ministers would acknowledge that, had they been returned to Government, they would have faced similar circumstances and would have had to look at the entitlements carefully themselves.
Iain Wright (Hartlepool, Labour)
I am somewhat disappointed that the Minister is disregarding people who are in need of upskilling. I know that the issue of priorities is always there in Government Departments, and I understand that these are straitened financial times in which the Department is operating; that is caused by the Treasury’s determination to go far and fast. However, looking at the wider point about the opportunity cost of not providing help and support to those people, the Minister has missed a trick. I will not divide the Committee on the amendment, but it is disappointing.
I know the Minister’s commitment to skills across the board; he has been put in a difficult position that is probably not of his own making, but the priorities should have been looked at again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Iain Wright (Hartlepool, Labour)
I beg to move amendment 240, in clause 68, page 53, line 33, leave out subsection (3).
Clause 68 removes, among other things, the powers of local authorities to develop skills strategies in conjunction with local employers. These have been used successfully across the country—for example, in the west midlands and in the Greater Manchester area—to develop an integrated regional wider skills strategy that seeks to match supply and demand.
I have probably used words that are anathema to the ministerial team, such as “regional” and “strategy”, but I shall persist. The Association of Colleges written submission to the Committee expressed concern:
“This”—
that is, clause 68—
“and Clause 65 do not reflect the stated desire of Government policy to give Colleges greater freedoms to respond to their local community and economic needs.”
That is a big concern, so will the Minister explain any intended benefits he expects to see that will result from the removal of that power, because the amendment would reinstate those powers? I have tried to pursue that point throughout the afternoon. What added value is the clause providing?
John Hayes (Minister of State (Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning), Business, Innovation and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
There is a difference between those who would want to fund and manage skills through a sectoral mechanism of the kind we talked about a few moments ago, and those who see the management of funding skills on a more spatial basis. The origins of some of the specified bodies dealt with in the amendment formed around a view of skills that I do not share. Skills should be funded and managed sectorally. Of course, that is not to say that there is no geographical dimension. Clearly, local authorities, through their economic development function, will have an absolute need to engage with skills systems. Similarly, we would want to encourage local enterprise partnerships to do so. However, the funding and management of skills should not be out of step with the structure, form and character of the economy, which is essentially sectoral rather than geographical. That is not to say that different areas do not have different economic profiles; of course, they do. In essence, however, skills in an economy need to be transportable and defined around purpose rather than around where they are gained and used.
Iain Wright (Hartlepool, Labour)
Does the Minister really believe that? I know he talked about his constituency being predominantly agricultural and relatively low skilled. Is he suggesting that improvements to his local economy will be made as a result of placing an emphasis on sectoral priorities, as opposed to local authorities coming together to share an economic development vision in that area?
John Hayes (Minister of State (Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning), Business, Innovation and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
The amendment would retain a skills landscape dominated by intermediary bodies, formed around the idea—I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman of thinking this—that they might command and control the supply of and demand for skills. I am talking about a much more skeletal arrangement for funding and management that is more dynamic and responsive. Some of the bodies that would be retained if we accepted the amendment—it is an allusion to the employment and skills boards and other intermediate bodies in London and elsewhere that previously prevailed—would create clutter and bureaucracy, making the system less responsive and dynamic.
The Bill will free providers and trading organisations to respond with what employers and learners want, without some of that bureaucracy. In essence, formal powers of control are not necessary; they add to the bureaucratic burden. Although I understand the intention behind the amendment, the experience of recent years has been that those bodies, while well intentioned and not without some value, in the end, in net terms, created a bureaucratic system that bemused employers and confused learners.
We need a system that is much more driven by employer demand and learner choice, which is what we are determined to deliver. T.S. Eliot said:
“Half of the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important.”
By the way, I do not want to feel important. I want to be important, but I will leave that to one side.
John Hayes (Minister of State (Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning), Business, Innovation and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I am important for the hon. Gentleman, which is good enough for me. I wonder whether the amendment is not about creating structures that feel important rather than do the business.
Iain Wright (Hartlepool, Labour)
We have a difference of opinion. I am not obsessed with processes and structures; I want to see skills rise dramatically in this country, and I am interested in the means by which we can achieve that. On the basis of what the Minister has said and given the obvious difference in philosophy, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.