§ 13. Dr. Michael ClarkTo ask the Secretary of State for Employment what methods he uses to assess value for money with regard to engineering training for young people.
§ Mr. NichollsWe assess value for money in public expenditure on youth training by the number of young people obtaining the skills needed by employers reflected in the achievement of recognised vocational qualifications.
§ Dr. ClarkDoes my hon. Friend accept that, despite considerable efforts in recent years, this country has fallen consistently behind its major competitors in respect of the number of young people in engineering and the quality of their engineering training? Are the ad hoc, ever-changing, piecemeal schemes that we have now appropriate, or should we return to a structured but modern form of apprenticeship?
§ Mr. NichollsI do not accept what my hon. Friend says. Youth training in recent times under this Government has improved considerably on what took place under the previous Government. Engineering training on YTS is extremely effective; more than 50 per cent. of trainees leave YTS with a vocational qualification. Overseas comparisons are difficult because different countries do these things in different ways, but apprenticeships in themselves are only a delivery mechanism, and other factors must be taken into account, too.
§ Mr. KnapmanIs my hon. Friend aware that engineering training received a great boost in my constituency in the form of a £1 million extension to Stroud college recently, and that 60 per cent. of that money came from local employers, so that courses can be directly relevant to local employment prospects? Is not that a good thing?
§ Mr. NichollsIt certainly is. It also says something about the quality of training in engineering provided under YTS. About 75 per cent. of engineering trainees on YTS are in a job within three months of leaving the scheme, and that is obviously good.