HC Deb 21 July 2004 vol 424 cc88-96WH

11 am

Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon) (LD)

This is probably the first time in recent years that I have raised further education. FE is sometimes thought of as the Cinderella of the education sector, and it is important that that should not be so, as the Minister will agree.

My attention was drawn to the issue by an event earlier this month that affects people in my own and neighbouring constituencies: the decision by Filton college to close, or substantially reduce, an IT outreach course run at four centres in the Bristol area, one of which is at Bradley Stoke, the nearest centre to my constituency. I have informed the Minister's office that I wish to raise the issue.

It is to be expected that cutting an IT course will prompt a large number of e-mails. The course has clearly been well taught: I had many e-mails on the subject within moments of the staff being told about the changes. There is some confusion about exactly what is planned—about whether the course is being cut and about whether that would happen the next day, and there are more extreme versions of what would happen. It is not quite as dramatic as some believed, but the staff were told that within a couple of months, new entrants to the IT outreach course would cease, and existing students would have some continuing service until Christmas, but that was the extent of what was planned for the courses.

I want to allow the students on the course to speak to the House and to get the Minister's response. I shall quote several of those who contacted me to express the different facets of the problem. A student wrote:

I am extremely dismayed that this valuable commitment to lifelong learning with regard to IT is going to be withdrawn".

I should explain that although numbers are lower this year than last, nearly 1,000 students attend the course at Bradley Stoke and more than a quarter are pensioners or people with disabilities, while many others are older people—not necessarily pensioners but more mature students. I shall return later to the matter of lifelong learning, which means not focusing just on teenagers.

To give hon. Members an idea of the age range of the students, I quote another student, who said:

I am fast approaching the age of 76 and I find the courses stimulating and apart from that it is an opportunity to meet like-minded people. The environment is good and the tutors excellent … …I am putting to use the lessons I learned".

There is a breadth of age ranges on the courses, going up to the 70s and beyond.

I want to discuss the priority or otherwise given to older students, including pensioners. Older students get a lot out of the courses. I was contacted by someone who runs IT courses for pensioners through the college. She said that they say that the courses keep their brains alert and keep them up to date. There is evidence from the Alzheimer's Society that learning activities help to delay the onset of the disease, and that older adults' memories and decision making improved when they thought the tasks they were doing were relevant or when they were held accountable for their performance. The lady who runs the courses found that to be the case with her students. She said:

When they first joined they had difficulties sometimes in remembering, but they have considerably improved. This leads me to believe that additional funding for this age group would probably save the Health Service a great deal of money by not needing to care for so many elderly persons with Alzheimers Disease.

Part of the message from the college is, "We can't do everything. We've got to cut back on something, and that is what we are going to cut back on." But investment in that age group, and helping older people and pensioners to learn could have beneficial spin-offs in other areas and be a sound investment.

Paragraph 4.48 of the Government's Skills Strategy White Paper on the subject of provision for pensioners, states:

We want to safeguard a wide range of learning opportunities for pensioners … we expect pensioners to benefit substantially from the arrangements for safeguarding funding for leisure learning, and that in all areas learning for pensioners would be one of the priorities to be pursued through the new planning and funding agreements.

That is significant, as the college's argument for cutting back on the course is that the group involved is not a priority group. But the Skills Strategy White Paper states that pensioners should be a priority. I appreciate that not everybody can be a priority, but the Government say that pensioners should be a priority group, and the experience of pensioners on the course in my constituency is that they have not been treated as such.

That affects not just pensioners but disabled students. One young woman with cerebral palsy is very upset about the course ending and has featured in a number of our local newspapers. She writes:

The Flexible IT is a great environment because it is designed to be taken at the student's own pace. It helps to build my confidence.

The fact that people with cerebral palsy are actively involved in the course is obviously positive, and I am sure that the Government would be in favour of it. This is the sort of course where students who may need extra support can find it. The course is flexible, and the students can come when they need to—the staff have the time that they need. Such courses will never be profitable or carried out by a profit-making organisation, but they are still important.

A further concern was expressed about the short notice given for closure of the course—that is more about how the college handled the problem than about wider Government policy. One student said:

Two weeks' notice is unreasonable especially for the hardworking tutors".

The college told me that it found out what it was getting from the Learning and Skills Council well into the financial year. It therefore had only a short period in which to tell staff, as it is obliged to do. The staff told the students, then the students came to me. It all seems to have happened at short notice. I do not know whether anything can be done to ensure that colleges know much earlier in the year where they stand financially, but in this case the college found out about its financial position very late.

As I have said, existing students can continue until December, but that is of limited consolation. One said:

I can't believe that the doors will be shut in December. Now that I'm going to finish this course I would like to start another one, but I can't think about it now". Merely to say that the course is running until December is of limited consolation to those who were getting into IT and wanting to do longer courses.

A similar point was made by another constituent:

I have just enrolled on a course … to further my computer skills, and have now been told that the centre is closing within the next few months and I will no longer be able to complete the course".

A lot of students take a long time and do not do things neatly to schedule. That is the point of the course, so stopping on a fixed date will be a problem for them.

So far, I have stressed the social value of the course—the benefits to older people and to people with disabilities—but the course is also relevant to jobs and employment. One constituent who contacted me said:

This centre provides excellent facilities enabling people who are not computer literate to become so. Those who have computer skills have the opportunity to enhance those skills greatly. These are skills greatly in demand".

Importantly, she continues:

I myself am a teaching assistant within a local primary school and have found that computer competence is becoming more and more essential.

This is not just about retired folk having something to do in their spare time; it is about vital skills that benefit our children and the economy.

On the issue of relevance to the job market, another constituent said:

The centre staff are wonderful",

and I want to put on the record the students' appreciation of the centre staff. She continued:

The venue is accessible to people who would never enter a typical college"—

as it is an outreach provision; it is not on the college campus but at a community centre. She went on, saying that

being able to attend has enabled me to return to the workplace with new qualifications at the age of 53. I am not alone.

Again, the importance of the course is not just for social or leisure reasons; it is relevant to the jobs market, and people who might otherwise be on the scrap heap are acquiring relevant skills.

I want to try to convey to the Minister the strength of feeling of the students. One wrote:

I urge you to use your influence to prevent the act of educational vandalism. In this modern age it is essential that as many people as possible are given the opportunity to learn this important skill.

Feeling is very strong: the impact of the suddenness of the decision and how much people value the course is clear from that strength of feeling. The staff are enormously valued and do a tremendous job. Some will be able to find jobs elsewhere in the college, but some may face redundancy. One student said:

Kelly and the entire team at Bradley Stoke show professionalism, commitment, dedication to quality, helpfulness and patience"—

patience is a key word: a lot of the students need someone who will be that bit more patient. It may be expensive, but it is necessary—

in helping everyone to attain their goal and achieve a qualification which will benefit them".

Again, this is a flexible course to which people can come when it is convenient for them. Every single quote I have read out has been from a different person who has contacted me, including this one:

The IT centre is well appointed and offers a convenient and flexible way to study and its closure should be considered at the highest levels before a firm decision is taken".

That is part of the reason for bringing it to the Minister's attention today. I appreciate that colleges have to make their own decisions, but I am asking the Minister to take a personal interest in this case.

I could read out quotations all day, but I will not. However, I have a final one from a student in my constituency on the difference that the course makes to individuals. The person started in February 2003 and, interestingly, was told by the college that its aim was to have all pensioners able to use a computer. The person finished the course, took exams and wanted to continue. My constituent has written: It has opened up a new life to me, and others in our Group, and must not be allowed to close. I understand from Newspaper articles the college is focused on 16–18 year olds in line with Government priorities. There is a sense among people on the course that somehow they do not matter. Despite the fact that the skills White Paper says that pensioners are a priority, these people feel that they are not.

The college's press statement about the decision to close the course to new entrants, headed "IT outreach provision", said: The Senior Management Team and the Corporation have given due consideration to the financial position of IT Outreach". It says that the numbers are down, although there are still nearly 1,000 people at the Bradley Stoke site alone, and that the college is not covering its costs. I accept that—the money that it receives does not cover the cost of putting the course on. Critically, however, the statement says that the management team has considered the financial position in conjunction with its strategic importance. What that says is that the college has other priorities and that the course is not important enough to continue. People feel offended by that.

I looked at the college website to see what its priorities and values are. It says: One thing's for certain—whatever you want to achieve in life, Filton College will set you off on the right road! Another important feature … is the fact that we're a community college. The website also says: We get out into local cities, towns and areas to run courses … hold demonstrations and events and introduce people of all ages to the concept of lifelong learning. So, the college website says that it goes out and does things for people of all ages, and it is true that the IT outreach course is not the only thing that it does, but the website also says: The College embraces diversity in all its aspects, and aims to employ a workforce and to attract a student body, which reflects, at every level, the community it serves. The community that it serves includes many older and disabled people, but where is the provision for them? A further quotation from the website is: The College aims to ensure that all actual or potential … students are treated equally, regardless of age or disability". That is not true. The students are being treated unequally because of their age. If they were 17, they would be fine, but because they are older, they are not.

I wrote to the college principal, who kindly replied. He said that the college has three priorities, which come from the Learning and Skills Council and, in turn, from the Department for Education and Skills. According to the principal, the "key priority areas" are 16 to 19-year-olds, basic skills for adults and work-based learning. The course in question does not fit into those. The principal then said: In light of finite budgets and infinite demands"— which we understand— it is necessary to reposition our business to reflect the role being asked of us. I do not think that the college is a business; I think it is a public service. I understand that it has to consider costs and be efficient, but the principal thinks that he runs a business. I do not, and I am worried that courses that are not profitable are being dropped because the business-minded approach says that as certain people are not a Government or college priority, they are therefore not economic. That is the wrong approach to education, and I hope and believe that the Minister agrees.

We have talked about the priorities coming from Government through the Learning and Skills Council. I have mentioned already what the skills White Paper says about pensioners, but the foreword signed by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and three other Cabinet Ministers says: Our ambition is to ensure that … individuals have the skills they need to be both employable and personally fulfilled. So the Government's agenda is not just about jobs, jobs, jobs; personal fulfilment is important. The Prime Minister continues: We must motivate and support many more learners to reengage in learning. That is what the IT outreach course does. He goes on: For too many people, learning is something that stops when they leave school. Learning new skills, at work and for pleasure, must become a rewarding part of everyday life. One final quotation from the Prime Minister is: Creating a truly demand-led approach means reforming qualifications, reforming the way we fund colleges, and reforming the way we deliver training. There is plenty of demand. There may be other sources of workplace-based training, but colleges are often the only place where courses such as the IT outreach course can be done. Where can someone who needs the extra time find such a course? I do not know.

I have a specific question for the Minister on funding. I understand that although FE colleges have been given the funding that they requested, they have been asked to do 3 per cent. more for it. Previously, if they delivered 97 per cent. of their target, they got the funding that they needed, but now they receive that funding only if, for that same money, they deliver 100 per cent. The colleges thought that they had been given long-term funding stability, but then discovered that they had to squeeze out a further 3 per cent. That is part of the reason why colleges such as Filton are considering the future of courses of that sort.

I hope that I have given a flavour of how important the course is to my constituents. They think that they should be as much of a priority as teenagers or folk who need basic skills. They think that that course is important, and I agree.

Although I am unhappy with the idea of colleges as businesses, I am not critical of the college itself. I pay tribute to the staff, who have done a tremendous job.

My constituents want to know what the Minister can do to help them. I know that if I were in the Minister's position I would respond to this debate and then go on to do something else, and might even forget about the issue. However, I urge him not to forget about the people who have contacted me. I ask him to intervene personally to try to ensure that courses of that sort, which are valued so much by my constituents, will continue to be available to them and to others like them in the future.

11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing this debate. The issue is important; it concerns people, and most politicians are in this business because they care about making a difference for the people that they represent and for society in general.

The hon. Gentleman powerfully articulated the concerns of his constituents, and the impact and benefits that many of them felt that they had gained from participating in such courses. I agree that there must always be a place in our lifelong learning system for learning for leisure, pleasure or self-development, which is distinct from learning for employability and for direct tangible economic ends.

Over the past three years, since I have held the brief for education, I have spent a lot of time meeting adults for whom learning has not been part of their lives for many years, but who have gone back into learning later in life. I have seen how that can transform people's self-confidence and how people can experience what I describe as the dignity of self-improvement, which many of them have not had the opportunity to experience in an educational context.

As the hon. Gentleman said, it is also true that for older people, this is as much a health policy as an education policy. It can make older people feel that they have something positive to offer their communities, and that they can continue to develop into their 80s and 90s and beyond. There is strong evidence that that supports their physical and mental health.

People with disabilities should also be given the opportunity to fulfil their potential in the same way as everyone else, although that cannot always be achieved through conventional or mainstream means. There must be particular provision to enable people with disabilities to do so.

We accept the importance of that kind of learning in the context of lifelong learning. It might be worth reflecting on what has happened to the adult and community learning part of the lifelong learning budget. We have agreed a national budget with the Learning and Skills Council for 2004–05 of £207.4 million, which has increased from £206 million in the previous year. I believe that that demonstrates our commitment to safeguarding opportunities for lifelong learning that does not lead to qualifications.

We do not apologise for saying that the Government have to make tough choices about priorities on the adult skills agenda—we were supported on that issue by the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench Liberal Democrat colleagues. It is the Government's responsibility to make those choices, and I shall explain some of the priorities in a moment. However, in that context, there must be a ring-fenced, protected place for adult and community learning—for learning for leisure that does not have a direct, tangible economic gain.

In the context of the courses in which the hon. Gentleman's constituents participated, he rightly says that people are very emotional about using a facility that they have got used to using, that they feel comfortable with, and where they feel that the staff are focused on their needs—positive and complimentary things are said about the staff. I totally relate to and understand that on a personal level, but I also accept that the college has a finite budget and that it has to make difficult decisions.

The college's argument with regard to the outreach programmes at Bristol Rovers and Bradley Stoke is that demand has fallen significantly in recent years and the courses have been running well below capacity. It has been willing to subsidise them for a couple of years, but, having reviewed matters, it feels that that is not the best use of its resources, because those resources are finite.

Liberal Democrat spokespeople and I do not differ on the human importance of lifelong learning and its centrality to the future of the country. Often, our only difference on these issues is about the pretence that the state never has to prioritise and make tough decisions and that there are never finite resources. To pretend to constituents that any country or college can be run in that way is to deny reality. That is my only real criticism of the presentation of today's argument.

The hon. Gentleman rightly asks what will happen to the learners involved. Fundamentally, that is the most important thing. Are we telling them that, as a consequence of these changes, there will be no access to IT learning in the vicinity of where they live or within a reasonable distance? That is not the case. The college assures me that learners will be able to complete their courses at the main college and then enrol on other IT courses. The college is also working with the local learning and skills council to provide a mobile digibus service that will take IT training opportunities directly to the community.

If we look at ICT provision available in the area that the hon. Gentleman represents, we find that there are other colleges. There are 15 learn direct centres and 18 UK online centres, all of which are a consequence of the investment that this Government have put into further education and lifelong learning, and specifically into ICT.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to take a personal interest. The personal interest I will take is that if that information proves inaccurate and if alternatives are not available to the individuals concerned, I will want to know about it. I cannot guarantee that every individual will be fixed up with a bespoke, on-your-doorstep service, but I am anxious that as many of them as possible continue to have the opportunity to access ICT courses within a reasonable distance of where they live.

Mr. Webb

I am grateful to the Minister for that offer. He says that it is all very well for Liberal Democrats to say that everything is a priority, but I was quoting the Government's priority. They said that pensioners should be a priority, so why are they not ensuring that their own priorities are seen through?

Mr. Lewis

That is the disingenuous and inconsistent bit of the argument. Saying that the Government will protect adult and community learning as part of the skills strategy, which I have demonstrated that we have done this year, and saying that we regard pensioners as an absolutely top priority in terms of the adult and community budget, which is part of the overall lifelong learning budget, does not mean that every single existing course and centre will be kept open ad infinitum. That is the inconsistency and dishonesty I referred to. In every area, college principals have to make decisions.

I accept that colleges are public services, but like every other public service they have to be run in a business-like way. I hope that the Liberal Democrats who run local authorities expect the officers who run the departments to do so in a business-like way. I am sure that they expect that, because in the end we have to represent the interests of the taxpayers and to ensure that public money is spent appropriately. Everyone who runs institutions of any kind—not just governmental ones—have to make choices about priorities. My contention is that all the individuals affected are entitled to be emotional and upset, and to feel bad about the decision that has been made. It is his duty to advocate their interests. However, it is not right to go on to say that this demonstrates a lack of Government commitment to lifelong learning and to adult and community learning, or to ensuring that, as part of our commitment to that learning, the provision available to older people is central. The Government have ensured that nearly 1 million learners access ICT through learn direct, and a very high proportion of them are pensioners. We know that many pensioners are enrolled on college courses of one kind or another; sometimes they are doing quite basic ICT skills and sometimes more advanced courses.

My only difference with the hon. Gentleman is about the pretence that one or two centres closing is a demonstration of the situation on the ground not matching what we say about national policy. That is a very deliberate Liberal Democrat strategy. If one examines the range of alternative provision available, one finds that there are still plenty of ways that pensioners can access such provision. No Government can say that everything is a priority of national policy.

I want to put this matter in a wider context. We have said that, in terms of skills and post-16 education, our priorities on where the state should put the bulk of its resources are straightforward: the education of 16 to 19year-olds, and of those adults who do not have basic skills or do not have up to the full level 2 qualification. There is massive consensus that that is an appropriate way for the state to prioritise its resources in the context of skills leading to economic objectives. There is also a ring-fenced pot of money specifically for lifelong learning, for leisure learning, and for quality-of-life learning.

That does not mean that the only people who matter are 16 to 19-year olds or those who do not have the equivalent of level 2 qualifications. It means that we will have to get additional income from employers, and from individuals in some cases, for other areas of educational and training provision. We are being clear about where the Government intend to put the bulk of their resources.

As for the skills strategy, we have also been clear for the first time that if we are to deliver, whether on the skills agenda or on the lifelong learning one, there must be a partnership of contributions from the state, employers and individuals. As we become clearer about priorities, that has implications. Even given that clarity of purpose and that focus in terms of the respective responsibilities of the social and economic partners on the skills agenda, adult and community learning still has a special and distinct place. The commitment to protect it is not just a national one.

We have said that we expect every local learning and skills council to secure reasonable delivery of adult and community learning provision in their local communities and, as part of that, to recognise that learning makes a much broader contribution for older people than merely a narrow educational one. As I have said, it is about contributing to people's mental and physical well-being and to their sense of being part of the community and of being active citizens. It also boosts intergenerational relationships. In lifelong learning settings, people of all generations come together and learn together. In a society where there is unfortunately a lot of mistrust and suspicion between the generations, that is important.

I understand the passion and concern of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and I will, of course, take an interest in ensuring that, wherever possible, alternative provision is made available to them. However, he should not be disingenuous and pretend that any Government can prioritise everything or that if one centre closes in one constituency, that represents a dilution of this Government's commitment to adult and community learning or to the place that learning rightly plays in older people's lives.

Sitting suspended till Two o'clock.