Building a High-Skilled Economy

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

Well, I said I was interested in dance. I am interested in sufficient drama to add to the theatricality of this place, without which it would be poorer.

During the years of the Labour Government, Labour Members often alleged that the largesse for further education would end if we came to power. If the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), my opponent and friend, were to wish to repeat his unfortunate appearance on “Celebrity Mastermind”—I do not want to remind him of that too much—he could do worse than choose the Thatcher Government as his specialist subject. We came to realise during our time in opposition that the Labour party spent more time speaking about 1979 than about the present. They were preoccupied with that in their dark years, and perhaps that is not surprising for a party that usually looks backwards rather than forwards, whereas the Conservative party is committed to progress and taking our country to where it needs to be now.

As a consequence of that preoccupation with the past, we were left with another Labour Government who spent until they broke the bank. As a result, even before they lost office, they were already cutting adult skills. Last year’s pre-Budget report said—I have it here for those hon. Members who have not had the opportunity to go to the Library to collect it—that £300 million would be cut from the adult skills budget if Labour returned to Government. When Members hear complaints about the new Government’s performance, they should set them in that context. Mandy was first to the table to say he would cut his Department, and encouraged his colleagues to do the same. People are still making phone calls to my office to try to find him, to ask exactly where the cuts would have fallen.

While Labour Members were drifting further and further out of touch into a world populated by fictional numbers rather than real people, Conservatives were talking to adult educators and adult learners about their experiences. We were talking to employers about their skills needs and to union learning representatives about the obstacles they face in creating a learning culture among their members. So that it is unequivocal, so that there is no question and no doubt, let me say that I and the Government are committed to unionlearn; we celebrate all it does and all that it will continue to do with our support and encouragement.

As a result of the conversations we had and dialogues we enjoyed, we learned important lessons about the indispensability of further education as an engine of social and economic change. History teaches us that the better educated a nation’s people are, the more economically prosperous they are likely to be—their general levels of health will be better, too, their communities will be more united and their family and social bonds will be stronger—and the more they will appreciate the things that money cannot buy, but without which life is colourless. All deserve their chance to see, hear, taste and touch beauty.

The conviction that education is the key to so much more than a wage packet drove pioneers, such as the founders of the Workers Educational Association, who sought to take learning, until then the preserve of the privileged few, out to the many. The impulse that promoted better manual skills also created the penny classics that did so much to spread the love of English literature throughout society, and the growth of choral and instrumental societies that brought great music virtually to the factory floor. The fire that drove adult education’s pioneers still burns, and it drives the coalition Government’s programme for further education and skills. The challenge we face in rebuilding a system fit for purpose is scarcely less imposing than was theirs in building a system from scratch.

In recent years, the link between skills and craftsmanship—I am not afraid to call it craftsmanship—the ideal of self-betterment and the pleasures of learning as a means of gaining wider and richer perspectives on the world have been allowed to wither. But not any longer: we in this Government will make a bold case for that relationship—a firm case for the cohesive power of learning, how it changes lives by changing life chances and increases prospects both to gain and prosper in a job, and in all the other ways that I have described.

No one denies that one of the key functions of Government is to create, as far as possible, the right conditions for economic success, and none would deny, I hope, that adult skills policy is one of the most powerful economic levers at any Government’s disposal. But the time has come finally to acknowledge that a socialist model of centralised planning has failed, even in terms of its own narrow criteria for success. We really cannot continue the micro-managed, target-driven, bureaucratic regime that for years has dogged further education and damaged our prospects of raising skills levels.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you and the House will not underestimate the scale of the challenge. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills reported in “Ambition 2020”, published last year, that on recent trends we are likely to slip from 18th to 21st in the OECD rankings for intermediate level skills by 2020. Shadow Ministers will be familiar with the report.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I happily give way to the new Chairman of the Select Committee, whom I welcome in that role.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the Minister for his kind words. I welcome him to his position and look forward to seeing him in our Committee in due course. I congratulate him on his bravura performance—indeed, it has been quite theatrical at times. He commented on the top-down approach. I note that his colleague the Minister for Universities and Science has written to higher and further education organisations inviting them to publish employability statements. Today the hon. Gentleman placed a statement in the Library saying that the Government would be introducing measures to give

“learners the information they need to drive the system, through the publication of clear and consistent information.”

If that is not an example of a top-down and potentially bureaucratic approach, what is it? Could he enlighten us?

[Mr Hayes]

I want to be generous; as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that is in my character. I know that the hon. Gentleman is new to the task, but he has been an assiduous member of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, and a frequent contributor to debates in the Chamber. As such, I hoped he would have known that the key plank of my party’s perspective on this subject—indeed, the coalition’s perspective—is the need to inform and empower learners. It is critically important that people get the right advice and guidance, and part of that process is explaining to them the likely employment outcomes of pursuing courses of study and training. We are encouraging universities and colleges, and the reformed careers service that we will bring in, to give people a very clear understanding of what will happen if they embark on particular routes. What are their chances of getting a job? What sort of job will it be? What are the wage implications? How might they progress thereafter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is the first time I have had the privilege of speaking in the Chamber while you have been in the Chair. May I also congratulate all those new Members who have made their maiden speeches today? I have not heard them all, but I have certainly heard most of them, and on the basis of what I have heard, those Members are going to make a significant and worthwhile contribution to the Chamber while they are here.

This debate, above all, is supremely relevant to my constituents. West Bromwich West is a traditional manufacturing constituency that suffered enormously in the 1980s from the policies of the then Government. Unemployment rocketed, which resulted in the creation of a generation of people who saw no prospect of employment, and a culture of low aspiration, low expectation and low skills and training. Members said earlier that we should not live in the past. That is quite correct. On the other hand, it is important that we look to the past and learn from the mistakes that were made, so that we do not replicate them.

The mass unemployment in my constituency in the 1980s and the substantial reduction in the manufacturing sector resulted in a skills gap that, despite all the efforts of the Labour Government, has not fully been closed. Even as the economy and employment opportunities improved, there was still higher than average unemployment in my constituency, and employers complained to me that the skills they needed still did not exist locally. The reason was that in the 1980s, as the economy went into recession on two occasions and manufacturing collapsed, no efforts were made to pick up those who had been made unemployed and retrain them with the skills to fill the opportunities that would subsequently be created as our economy grew out of recession. The result of that was a drag on the local economy throughout the past 10 years of the previous Government, as they implemented policies that led to economic growth.

What we must not see is the recent recession and the fragile growth that we have seen since then operating in the same way. It is fair to say that the previous Government recognised that a recession provides an opportunity for those who cannot immediately get jobs or who have been thrown out of their jobs, given the right support, to get the appropriate training and skills that they have hitherto not had the opportunity to get, so as to equip them for the new jobs that will be created in the future. That I know was what was behind the previous Government’s approach to dealing with the problem over the past two or three years.

The current situation presents an enormous problem in that respect, although I would not pretend that it had arisen entirely as a result of the cuts that have been announced over the past two or three weeks. There were potential problems beforehand, particularly with the number of young people wanting to go into higher education and the places not being available. However, it was the previous Government who made provision for 20,000 new places and who put a particular emphasis on providing the budget for the key STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—which are vital if we are to equip manufacturing to take us out of recession. I have not heard any guarantees that this Government are going to ring-fence the funding for STEM subjects in universities to ensure that this area, which is so vital to our future, is sustained. This is particularly important because a number of universities are already reporting that, because the provision of those courses requires higher capital investment, they could be the first on the list to be removed. We could therefore be undermining our scientific, engineering and mathematical potential in vital sectors, at a time when it is so necessary to get us out of recession.

I also want to talk about a subject that I have not heard mentioned so far—the education maintenance allowance. In constituencies such as mine, where people have low incomes and, historically, low aspirations, the provision of that allowance is essential to give young people the confidence to go into further education and, eventually, higher education. With the increase in competition that is likely to arise for the lower number of university places—it might not be lower in absolute terms, but it could be lower, relative to the demand for them—there is a danger that young people from low-income and low-aspiration backgrounds could be crowded out of the competition for the scarce places. That will make the EMA strategically even more important than it has been in the past, if we are to ensure that university opportunities are open to people from all backgrounds and incomes.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

I wonder whether other hon. Members receive complaints about the education maintenance allowance, as I do. I, too, represent a constituency where there are people on very low incomes, but I get a lot of complaints that the allowance is badly applied and often abused.

[Mr Bailey]

Certainly in its early days there were some complaints, but they have not been reflected in my constituency. I had a meeting with the principals of my three local further education colleges only two weeks ago, and they stressed to me and my neighbouring Conservative MPs the important role that the allowances play in keeping young people between 16 and 19 in education in our area. I want to emphasise to the Government that they need to sustain the EMA as part of the infrastructure necessary to ensure that their stated policy of open opportunity for young people in universities can be maintained.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) mentioned the transfer of money from Train to Gain into apprenticeships and capital for colleges. I want to make one comment on Train to Gain. I find it odd that, if it is so bad—the National Audit Office certainly had criticisms of it—it has not been abolished and the money transferred elsewhere lock, stock and barrel. The Government seem to have created a hybrid system. My experience of speaking to local employers is that Train to Gain was extremely beneficial, and there is a whole raft of statistics that substantiate their claims for the programme. Train to Gain was also essential for many companies that had introduced short-time working, to help them to sustain a level of income for their employees to prevent them from going elsewhere or leaving the jobs market altogether, and to prevent the companies from losing their skills.

I also want to say a few words about bureaucracy. When Labour was in government, it was a constant theme among the Conservatives that we were strangling education with top-down bureaucracy. Certainly, when I went round schools, I heard complaints about excessive paperwork and bureaucracy, and I cannot pretend for a moment that we were able to solve that problem. I am concerned, however, that despite all the coalition Government’s brave words, they seem to be heading the same way.

Earlier, I drew to the attention of the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), a statement he placed in the Library today about getting FE colleges to give

“learners the information they need to drive the system, through the publication of clear and consistent information about performance, quality and standards.”

That sounds like fairly top-down instruction, a recipe for extra research that has no particular relevance to the people being educated, and a whole lot of form filling and publications that will siphon off money that could well be used in other directions. I sympathise with the Minister up to a point, because it is a perfectly laudable objective, but the new Government have to realise that having laudable objectives and ensuring that they are translated at the local level involves some sort of imposition and resources that have to be calibrated and calculated to ensure that they are worth while.

I am coming to the end of my comments, but let me say that in my new position as Chairman of the appropriate Select Committee, I look forward to talking to Ministers and interviewing them on their policies. I wish them well, as this matter is absolutely vital not just to my constituents but to young and unemployed people everywhere and to this country’s future and its position in the global economy. Investment in skills is as important as investment in plant and machinery, and it has the additional benefit of improving the lives of those who are prepared to get involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

What I have noticed about the targets set by the previous Government—which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech—is how often they were not met. The Government set target after target which they then failed to meet. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the targets that they set for apprenticeships, but they set those targets and never met them. We will meet our target, and I believe that we will meet it within the next 12 months. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will soon eat his words.

We heard an awful lot today about the importance of manufacturing industry. I believe that the Government’s skills programme will ensure that it receives the support that it deserves, at the basic skills and education level. Labour Members may complain about the state of manufacturing industry, but they have a poor record in that regard themselves. The hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), the new Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee—I welcome him to his post—made a thoughtful speech on the subject, but I think he should bear in mind that whereas in 1997 manufacturing represented 20% of the United Kingdom economy, by the time the Labour Government left office the proportion had fallen to 12%.

[Mr Bailey]

Will the Minister not acknowledge that one of the reasons for that was the huge increase in the service sector? It did not reflect an absolute decline in manufacturing.

[Mr Davey]

Of course that is true of many modern economies, but I think it ill behoves the Labour party to criticise this Government in their early days, given that its own approach to manufacturing industry was not to turn the tide and go against the trend.

Although we have a huge amount in common, when Labour Members talk about the skills agenda they sometimes forget some of the record of which they should be less proud. I am thinking particularly of the quangocracy that grew up around the skills agenda. There is currently a patchwork quilt of quangos involved in that agenda. Members may be interested to learn how the position has changed. In government, the Labour party did not just create the existing quangos, but created quangos, abolished them and created new ones, all within 13 years. The fact that that instability and reinvention happened time after time shows that the Labour Government never really had a true vision. They constantly spent large amounts on new quangos while failing to get some of that money to the grass roots—to our communities. A lot of money was wasted then.

When the last Government set up the Learning and Skills Council, I was sent strategy after strategy by that august body. At first I thought that I had a real duty to read every single page, but when I visited the LSC and talked to its representatives, I realised that most of those strategies would never come to anything. I am afraid that that happened time and again. Huge amounts were spent on quangos, reports and consultancy, but less money went to the companies and learners who needed it. We believe that the need to rationalise the quangocracy in learning and skills is a key issue, and we will deal with it. We will do so while also having to look at the spending issues in this area, and there will be huge challenges. I do not think there is anyone in this House or involved in FE, HE or the education system in general who does not realise that we face difficult choices in this area, but we are absolutely clear that we will do our best with the money that we have got into apprenticeships and into the capital programme for FE to ensure that the priorities get the funding they deserve.