I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law of Property Act 1925 to require a mortgagee to obtain the court’s permission before exercising the power of sale, where the mortgaged land consists of or includes a dwelling-house; to make certain powers available to the court in actions by mortgagees for possession of a dwelling-house; and for connected purposes.

This Bill is about a very important human right: the right not to be thrown out of one’s home without a court order. It is a right that affects millions of people, and it is of even greater importance in times of economic downturn such as these. However, it is a right that we simply do not have in this country. A recent court judgment now allows unscrupulous lenders to sell people’s homes over their heads, without having first to go to court, when even just one mortgage payment has been missed.

The number of home repossessions resulting from defaults on mortgage repayments has increased dramatically in recent months. According to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, 45,000 homes were expected to have been repossessed by the end of last year, and 75,000 this year. The number of people in mortgage arrears rose to 168,000. The Financial Services Authority and the Council of Mortgage Lenders report that more than 1 million households are likely to default on a mortgage payment in the next year.

The Government have responded to the rising tide of home repossessions with admirable speed and decisiveness. The Prime Minister told the House on 22 October that new guidance had been given to county court judges to ensure that repossession of people’s and families’ homes was undertaken only as a matter of last resort. About a month later, on 19 November, the new pre-action protocol on seeking possession based on mortgage arrears came into force. Its purpose is to ensure that lenders and borrowers act fairly and reasonably with each other to resolve any matter concerning mortgage arrears. The Government have also introduced support for mortgage interest through the income support system, which has been improved. There is also the mortgage rescue scheme for vulnerable people and the home owner’s mortgage support scheme.

In the meantime, however, in a case involving Horsham Properties, the High Court ruled at the beginning of October last year that lenders—banks, building societies and investment companies—were entitled to sell properties, including people’s family homes, without having first to go to court for an order, following just a single default on a mortgage payment. That objective has been achieved as a consequence of the mortgage small print—according to the judge, “conveyancing shorthand”—that is in practically every mortgage deed, in combination with section 101 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The purchaser of the property who is the new owner—very likely another faceless, compassionless investment company—is then entitled to a summary possession order against the borrower, the householder. The householder is now considered by the law to be a trespasser in his or her own home, which they no longer own. There is no defence in law against that claim. The new pre-action protocol and all the other forms of support that I have mentioned are therefore easily circumvented by unscrupulous lenders who invoke their power to sell the property in this way, without first having to go to court.

Both the Financial Services Authority and the Council of Mortgage Lenders have reported that UK sub-prime lenders have been taking an increasingly aggressive approach to repossessions, and predict that this trend is only likely to increase as economic conditions worsen. Hundreds of thousands of people and their families are therefore at serious risk of being thrown out of their homes, without first having had any opportunity whatever to put their point of view to a judge or to try to persuade the court that it is neither fair nor reasonable to evict them.

My Bill will reverse the High Court’s judgment. It requires that lenders—sub-prime or otherwise—first obtain the court’s permission, before they can call in their security by selling a property that is somebody’s home. It will ensure that the court that hears the lender’s application will have the power to delay the sale of the property and to give the borrower more time to repay, if that is appropriate in all the circumstances. It does not guarantee that people can stay in their homes indefinitely if they cannot pay the mortgage, but it does ensure that people have an opportunity to persuade an independent court that it is far too early, or disproportionate, to throw them into the street—with bags, baggage, furniture and kids’ toys—at the whim of a hard-bitten property company.

Most people might have thought they had protection against this sort of thing happening but, as a result of last October’s court case, they simply do not. It is truly shocking that in Britain in 2009, such a basic legal protection for home owners is not already part of our law, especially when human rights law requires there to be such protection.

The European Court of Human Rights recently ruled in a case against the UK— McCann v. UK—that the right to respect for one’s home, guaranteed by article 8 of the European convention, includes such protection. It said:

“The loss of one’s home is a most extreme form of interference with the right to respect for the home. Any person at risk of an interference of this magnitude should in principle be able to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal in the light of the relevant principles under Article 8 of the Convention, notwithstanding that, under domestic law, his right of occupation has come to an end… the applicant was dispossessed of his home without any possibility to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal. It follows that, because of the lack of adequate procedural safeguards, there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the instant case.”

Article 11 of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights also protects the right to housing. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has interpreted this in its general comments to include a right to due process and appropriate procedural safeguards before being evicted from one’s home.

In our recent report on “A Bill of Rights for the UK?”, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, recommended that one of the rights that should be protected in any UK Bill of Rights was the right to housing. We suggested in our “draft outline Bill of Rights”, the inclusion of provisions to the effect that

“everyone is entitled to be secure in the occupancy of their home”

and

“no one may be evicted from their home without an order of a court.”

Those provisions were modelled on the right to housing in the international covenant on economic and social rights and on the equivalent provision in the South African Bill of Rights.

Of course, not everyone agrees with the Joint Committee that a Bill of Rights should include protection for such social and economic rights. However, if the United Kingdom had a Bill of Rights that included such provisions, our courts would not have been able to interpret the law in the way they did in this appalling case, thus allowing lenders to cash in on their security by selling people’s homes without first having to obtain a court’s agreement that such a drastic step was proportionate in the circumstances. Until we have such a Bill of Rights, there is absolutely nothing to stop our courts giving the highest priority to the rights of banks over the rights of ordinary people to a fair hearing before they lose their homes.

This example of home repossession provides a good practical example of the way in which a Bill of Rights protecting social and economic rights such as the right to housing—including the right to minimum procedural safeguards before eviction from one’s home—could defend hundreds of thousands of ordinary people against more powerful interests at times of economic hardship. It shows that human rights are, and should be, universal. They are not a villains’ charter; they are for the middle-class professional struggling with a mortgage just as much as for the council or private tenant with rent arrears when each falls on hard times. No one should lose his or her home without good reason, without proper and fair justification, and without an impartial court hearing.

This problem is immediate and it is urgent. The judge in the Horsham Properties case said that it was a matter for Parliament to resolve. In the absence of the Bill of Rights that I advocated, there is no alternative but to try to change the law through this Bill, which amends the Law of Property Act 1925.

Question put and agreed to.

That Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr Virendra Sharma, Shona McIsaac, John Austin, Mike Gapes, Ms Karen Buck, Siobhain McDonagh, Judy Mallaber, Rob Marris, Mr. Chris Mullin and Dr. Evan Harris present the Bill.

Mr. Andrew Dismore accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 June, and to be printed (Bill 52).

I inform the House that I have selected the Prime Minister’s amendment to both the motions that are to be debated today.

I beg to move,

That this House regrets that the number of young people not in education, employment or training in England has grown from 686,000 to 850,000 since 2000, that the number of adult learner places has fallen by 1.3 million in just two years, and that the number of UK students enrolled at university is now falling; notes that current policies are hindering training opportunities by cutting support for second-chance students, placing too much emphasis on paper-based qualifications rather than raising skills, imposing too many bureaucratic obstacles on employers wishing to offer apprenticeships and freezing the further education capital spending programme despite the Prime Minister’s commitment to bring forward capital projects; believes that providing improved opportunities to up-skill and re-skill is more important than ever given the challenges posed by the recession; and calls on the Government to boost the number of apprenticeships, provide more support to young people not in employment, education or training, help small and medium-sized employers access training, improve opportunities for adult learners, and introduce an all-age careers service.

These are tough times. Our challenge is, of course, to emerge from this recession with a better-balanced and stronger economy, which means an economy that has invested properly in skills. In order to assess the challenges that we face, we should review the record of the past 10 years to see how we managed to prepare ourselves for the tough years ahead during the boom years, which are now dismissed as the age of irresponsibility. Those were the years when employment was rising but the number of young people not in education, employment or training, or NEETs, also rose, from 660,000 in 1997 to 780,000 10 years later, an increase of 18 per cent.

That is what we were doing in the good times. We also know what we were doing in comparison with other advanced western countries. A valuable report from the OECD entitled “Jobs for Youth” records our performance during the growth years compared with the performances of those other countries. Again, the story is very clear. While our rate for NEETs was getting worse and worse, the rate across the OECD on the very same measure was improving. Having been better than the OECD average at the start of Labour’s time in office, after 10 years our rate was below that average.

The unemployment rate among 16 to 24-year-olds rose in Britain from 13.4 per cent. in 1997 to 14.4 per cent. in 2007. In other words, youth unemployment was higher by the end of the boom years. By contrast, across the OECD as a whole the average youth unemployment rate fell from 15.6 to 13.4 per cent. In other words, we entered the boom years with a youth unemployment performance that was better than the OECD average, and we now enter the recession with a performance that is worse.

In his plethora of statistics, the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the historical record of the unknown, as opposed to the known, NEETs. Will he compliment Connexions in the black country, which has bucked the national statistical trend by both getting an increased number of 16 to 18-year-olds into training and work, thereby reducing the number of NEETs, and, in Sandwell, lowering the percentage of unknowns? It has therefore managed to improve statistics in both those areas.

That was an excellent speech. I happily congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the performance of the Connexions service in his area, especially as he made the crucial point when he described its performance as bucking the national trend, because it is precisely the national trend that we are focusing on in this debate.

If we had predicted in 1997 that we would be in the situation that we are now in, nobody would have believed us. If we had said that after 10 years of economic growth, and even after all the well-intentioned initiatives such as the new deal, we would have more young people not in education, employment or training and more youth unemployment than when the Labour Government came to power, Labour Members would not have accepted our forecast, but that is exactly what has happened.

I spent many years working in further education, and I recall that, in the period leading up to 1997, FE was left to go to rack and ruin; indeed, there was no capital spend towards the end of that period. One day when he has a spare moment or two, will the hon. Gentleman come with me to the A511 just a little north of Coalville town centre to have a look at the magnificent Stephenson college, named after George Stephenson, that has been built there, and which is having a huge impact on FE in Leicestershire? We will then see whether he can still read with a straight face the following phrases in the Conservative motion:

“current policies are hindering training opportunities…freezing the further education capital spending programme”.

What hypocrisy! If I were allowed to say that, that is the word I would use.

Order. “Hypocrisy” is not a term we should use in the Chamber.

I withdraw it.

Thank you. Let me add that an intervention should not be taken as an opportunity to make a speech; it should be brief.

I will happily accompany the hon. Gentleman on a visit to his FE college if he will come with me and some of my hon. Friends to visit all the FE colleges whose governing bodies are now in little short of a state of crisis as their capital spending plans have been held up by this Government. That is the crisis in FE that we are drawing attention to, and it is causing a great deal of concern across the FE sector.

On 12 February, the Secretary of State will have an opportunity to visit Southgate college and there to hear of the plans for an £80 million development that would transform the college and make it a community hub. Sadly, however, the rug has been pulled from under its feet, because the capital approval has been withdrawn. That is the reality of the future facing what the Prime Minister said would be world-class accommodation.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope to turn to this issue later in my remarks, because we very much hope to get clear information on it today from the Secretary of State so that our FE colleges know where they stand.

We enter this recession with a weak position on skills, youth unemployment and young people not in education, employment or training. We need to learn the lessons from this policy failure so that we do not carry on making the same mistakes. There are several such lessons.

May I most warmly commend my hon. Friend for the good sense both of his motion and his speech so far? However, as he has moved on to the subject of skills, may I kindly ask him to rediscover his legendary cerebral powers and make sure that future motions in the name of our party do not contain such appalling terms as “up-skill” and “re-skill”?

My hon. Friend is fighting a very important battle for common-sense English. I shall take careful account of the point he makes, and we shall try to do better.

One of the reasons we face the problems that I am discussing is the policy mistakes made by this Government. One of those mistakes is, of course, the endless reorganisation of the world of skills. I am not going to give the House another potted history of the Government’s measures—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), says that he is relieved, but we are talking about his Government’s measures: the abolition of the training and enterprise councils, at a cost of £62 million; the abolition of the Further Education Funding Council for England; and the creation of the Learning and Skills Council and its 47 different local LSC branches. They had to be abolished so that instead there could be nine regional centres and, of course, the LSC itself is to be abolished and replaced by three new bodies.

In 10 years, we have seen a classic example of Labour’s hyperactivity in its endlessly abolishing and reorganising things. The end result was very well put in the recent “Simplification of Skills in England” report, in a section entitled “Rapidity of change”, which stated that

“the rate of changes in programmes, initiatives, organisations and procedures adds a further dimension of confusion for employers, who can find it extremely difficult to keep up with change and even become aware of new developments, let alone understand them.”

One of the problems is the endless process of change and confusion, which means that it is very hard for individual employers, and for individual young people who are trying to increase their skills, to find their way through the system.

Another problem has been the failure to reform our schools. As well as that schools failure, there is a skills failure: the failure to establish an effective skills policy that understands the difference between skills and qualifications. The Government have become obsessed with paying FE colleges to churn out paper qualifications, even if they are not valued by employers and even if they are not what young people or learners of all ages need. There is more to life, and indeed to education and skills training, than simply building up paper qualifications. It is because of the Government’s obsession with paper qualifications that so many people have lost out.

Adult learners have lost out, so I commend the excellent early-day motion signed by Members from all parts of the House on behalf of the Alliance for Lifelong Learning. Some hon. Members who are present have subscribed to the

“concern that over 1.4 million”

adult learner

“places have been lost in the last two years”.

We thought that the Labour party believed in adult learning; we thought that was one of the commitments and beliefs in the history of the Labour party. It is shocking to see this Government presiding over such a big decline in opportunities for adult learning across the country. The Government say that we do not need to worry because these are places for people to do basket weaving and belly dancing. Conservatives understand the value of those things—

indicated assent.

I see my hon. Friend nodding in assent to that proposition. It is very important that people have an opportunity to enjoy those sorts of skills and activities, but it is not just those activities, however worth while, that have suffered—many that are of direct economic benefit have lost out as well.

rose—

I shall give way, provided the hon. Lady is a little briefer than her two colleagues were—I would appreciate that.

I recall that when I was working as an adviser in Surrey county council in the 1980s and 1990s, the then Tory Government cut belly dancing and basket weaving classes. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman recalls that too?

I do not recall those exact details. My recollection is that if one examines the figures for adult learning places, one finds that there has clearly been a significant reduction in the past few years. That is a direct result of this Government’s policies, and those reductions are not simply in respect of basket weaving and belly dancing.

Only last week, I received a parliamentary answer to a question in which I asked Ministers to describe in detail the different types of learning opportunities that had been cut under this Government. It revealed that in 2004-05 the Learning and Skills Council funded 1,456,000 places studying information and computer technology, but many of those places were filled by people who were not necessarily going to get a paper qualification in the end, so the axe came down. So by 2007-08, the number of places had fallen to 590,000, which means that nearly 1 million places have been lost in the last three years.

While the number of places has undoubtedly fallen, may I commend the proactive work of the Open university? It has recently introduced the Re-launch website which acts as a search engine to find both places and potential sources of finance?

I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does on behalf of the Open university, which is based in his constituency. His point is well made and I strongly agree with him.

I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to Oaklands college in my constituency, which provides many courses for severely disabled learners, who struggle desperately to get funding, especially those in the 19 to 21 age bracket who cannot access student grants. The Government have severely cut the support given to my local college.

My hon. Friend is right, and that is another example of the obsession with paper qualifications. I spoke recently to a student with learning difficulties who was studying horticulture at an FE college, but the course would not gain her an NVQ. The LSC decided that it would fund the course only if it resulted in a paper qualification, so her worthwhile activity was cut as a result of a policy decision by the Government, and they should be ashamed of that.

Does the hon. Gentleman regret the way in which the Conservative Government introduced the national curriculum into schools in the early 1980s? It had the effect of pushing vocational education off the curriculum and alienating a generation of less able children.

We are now digging into the distant past. In fact, I support the principle of a national curriculum. As the hon. Gentleman will know, over the years it has been amended and changed in the light of concerns such as the one that he has expressed. I am trying to draw attention to why the decisions made by the Government have meant that this nation is not investing in the skills that we need, especially now in these tough times of recession.

My hon. Friend has made a powerful case about elements of complacency in the lifelong learning agenda over the past 10 years, but I am sure that he and others would want to look to the future instead of going through the history. Does he agree that, in view of globalisation and the tumultuous economic events of recent months, which will have a great impact in the decades ahead, we now need to train and retrain for four or five different careers over a lifetime in work that may last for 50 years, depending on changes to the retirement age? That is important beyond the paper qualifications achieved at university and to those who may never go to university, but who will need skills in a career that may last many decades.

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why many of my hon. Friends were shocked by a brutal answer from the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, in oral questions last week. We were talking about the importance of what are called—if I have permission from my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) to use the phrase—green collar jobs. The Under-Secretary said that people could get such jobs only if they had studied a STEM subject—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—at university. We then asked about retraining, including going back to university to get a new qualification that might help people to obtain one of those new jobs. Such opportunities have been cut yet again by the notorious equivalent level qualification cuts made by this Government. They simply do not get the importance of adult learning and giving people the opportunities to learn and reskill.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have been generous in giving way, and I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because I know he has a longstanding interest in this subject. However, after that I will try to make some progress.

If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about adult training places, why is he proposing to cut £610 million from the budget?

No such cuts are proposed. We are refocusing the Train to Gain budget on what we think is the real need in our economy, which is more apprenticeships. Those are the proposals that my party has set out and they are the right policies for the economy.

rose—

I want to make some progress by inviting the Secretary of State, as he is about to intervene, to tell us more about the facts and figures behind the concern of many further education colleges across the country about the future of their capital spending plans. That is what we want to hear about today.

Indeed, I shall do that in a moment. However, will the hon. Gentleman help us? The leader of his party announced billions of pounds of spending cuts for the next financial year. He protected some areas of spending but not this Department. That is where the £610 million of cuts comes from. Is the hon. Gentleman in complete denial about the promises made by the leader of his party on 5 January?

The leader of the Conservative party made it absolutely clear that there would be reductions in the growth rate of public expenditure in the financial year 2009-10. They are a proposal in aggregate. Where we would make those necessary savings if we were in government is a subject for careful consideration. That is the position. I want to hear about the Secretary of State’s plans for the capital spending of FE colleges which are today trying to decide whether they should go ahead. We have already heard from several Conservative Members, but I shall quote to the Secretary of State some of the concerns that are being expressed in local papers. Let me quote from The Argus in Brighton, for example. City college Brighton and Hove was

“approaching a key stage in its application for funding but will now face an anxious wait to see the LSC’s next move…Plans for major work at Chichester College, Worthing College, Northbrook College in Worthing, Central Sussex College’s Crawley campus”—

and other colleges “have also been affected”. We have the same concerns about Wakefield college in Yorkshire and there are concerns in north Norfolk about an FE college there. We want to know from the Secretary of State—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

If the hon. Lady is going to tell us what she is doing on behalf of her FE college, which is faced with capital cuts imposed by this Government, we shall be very interested to hear her.

I met the relevant Minister and representatives of Wakefield college less than a week ago, as soon as I was aware of the delay to the capital spending programme. I reinforce what I am sure my Front-Bench colleagues will say: this is a three-month review. It is a delay, not a capital cut. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should be wary of exaggerating and causing greater anxiety up and down the country.

If I may say so, the anxiety is not created by us. There is real anxiety among people on the governing bodies of FE colleges and the principals of FE colleges who are approaching us and asking us to raise on their behalf a statement from the Government about what they are doing. Perhaps it was my eternal optimism, but I thought the Chancellor meant something when he said in his pre-Budget statement last November:

“I can announce today that £3 billion of capital spending will be brought forward from 2010-11 to this year and next.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2008; Vol. 483, c. 495.]

I thought the Prime Minister meant it when he said in a speech on 5 January that

“we have…taken…tough decisions that will also benefit every region and nation of the UK to bring forward our capital spending programmes”.

If the Government are bringing forward capital spending, why is capital spending being delayed in the FE college sector?

The Secretary of State said in answer to questions on the subject last week that we should not worry because it is all in the pipeline. His pipeline is about as reliable as the one bringing gas to the Ukraine. His pipeline is not delivering the capital projects that Conservative Members are fighting for on behalf of our FE colleges. If it is all so fine, why has the Secretary of State asked Sir Andrew Foster to review the matter? What is the purpose of calling for yet another review if it is not a recognition that there is a problem? We want to know how many capital projects proposed by FE colleges are affected, the size of the funds involved, and when the Department first knew about the problem.

Another matter I want to refer to is the crisis involving wildcat action by workers in various parts of the country, which has been caused by their concern about what they believe to be the threat to their jobs from foreign workers. Clearly, we have to be very careful in how we approach this, as no hon. Member on either side of the House would have any truck with xenophobia. We believe in the free movement of goods, services and people around the EU, but perhaps the Secretary of State will illuminate the rather striking gap between what the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform have said about the action. The Secretary of State for Health said:

“If workers are being brought across here on worse terms and conditions to actually get jobs in front of British workers…that would be wrong and I can understand the anger about that”.

However, the Business Secretary said in another place the following day that there was no problem with the EU rules on the free movement of labour. He said:

“The statement issued by Total last night confirmed that workers from overseas are paid at the same rate as other workers on the site.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 February 2009; Vol. 707, c. 473.]

Being very generous-spirited, I shall take at face value the words of Lord Mandelson—and it is a long time since anyone has done that—about what he had discovered and the “confirmation” from Total. If all that is so, however, what is the competitive advantage of the workers being brought in from abroad over the workers we have seen demonstrating and asking for their jobs? That is the crucial question, and the crucial clue is surely in what the Prime Minister said when trying to explain the slogan—taken from the British National party—that passed his lips about British jobs for British workers.

On “The Politics Show” of 1 February, the Prime Minister said:

“When I talked about British jobs, I was talking about giving people in Britain the skills, so that they have the ability to get jobs which were at present going to people from abroad.”

That was the Prime Minister’s attempt to explain his egregious remark. If we take him at face value, the only explanation left for the failure of the workers we see protesting to get the jobs they hope to secure is the failure of his Government’s policies on skills. That is the only explanation left if we accept what the Business Secretary said and what the Prime Minister has offered as the meaning of his remarks. He meant that he was going to raise the skills of British workers so that they could secure those jobs, and they are protesting because they cannot get them.

I know the hon. Gentleman wants to be constructive on this issue, and it is clear that we want more skilled people and that there are people in this country who need more skills if they are to compete in any labour market, be it in England, Scotland or elsewhere. I have no particular knowledge of these matters, but I want to make an observation about remuneration and the rates for the job. I do not know what arrangements are made for workers’ accommodation—for instance, they may be put up in a large hulk or vessel—so we must be careful about this matter. The real point is what they take home and what they can send home, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that we must be constructive in our approach. We want as many skilled people as possible in this country, and it does not matter whether they are 20 or 60.

The right hon. Gentleman’s comments are a very salutary warning for Lord Mandelson, who should bear them in mind before he makes remarks such as the one that I cited about pay rates for workers from different countries.

The hon. Gentleman represents the party that gave us “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet”, at a time when hundreds of thousands of British workers had to flee because there was no work for them here. He is talking about European directives, so can he confirm that, were his party to win power, its official policy would be to withdraw from the European social rights packages that are part of the law of this land—yes or no?

We believe that that is one of the things that need to be looked at as part of a negotiation about how the EU can tackle the jobs crisis that it faces. I am trying to focus on the Prime Minister’s words: his defence of the statement “British jobs for British workers” was that he meant that, by investing in more skills, we would be able to secure more British jobs for British workers. By its own measure, that approach has clearly failed.

We need more apprenticeships, and we can finance them by refocusing the money in the Train to Gain budget; that would pay for more apprenticeships, especially for people aged over 19. Labour Members raised the issue of the age range of people studying. The difference between the funding for apprenticeships for those aged under 19 and those over 19 is a form of age discrimination that we do not think is right. We want to offer workers aged over 19 a better deal when it comes to apprenticeships. We also want to offer a better deal to small and medium-sized enterprises. We believe that that, too, could be financed by a refocusing of the Train to Gain budget.

I have waded through one of the more tedious Government documents—their response to the Cabinet public engagement event in Birmingham in 2008. On that occasion, the Cabinet went to my home town and apparently met large numbers of local people, who raised with the Cabinet their concerns about various aspects of Government policy. Most of the comments in that Government document are pretty sanitised, but on skills for employment, the following crept in:

“While acknowledging the greater availability of apprenticeships, some employers were of the opinion that Government initiatives such as Train to Gain did not always meet their needs. Individuals also found it difficult to find the right apprenticeship for them, particularly in their local area.”

That is the Government saying that Train to Gain is not meeting the needs of local employers. That is what employers tell us, too, and that is why we think that the money should be focused on helping with apprenticeships.

I have set out the problems that the nation faces when it comes to skills. We want investment in apprenticeships, and we want more opportunities for people to get practical training, including adult learning places that are not linked to paper qualifications. What we have from the Secretary of State is an endless flow of announcements, many of which, on close inspection, add up to very little. Last week in oral questions I referred to the national internship scheme, which does not appear to exist.

Perhaps I could refer to another of the Secretary of State’s announcements—one that made the front page of The Daily Telegraph before Christmas, on Tuesday 9 December 2008. Underneath the fantastic banner headline of an article by Boris Johnson, “When did Christmas Trees Get So Expensive?”, there was the following headline: “Jobless middle class get study cash”. That article included the statement:

“John Denham, the Skills Secretary, announced in the Commons yesterday that he had spoken to university vice-chancellors to urge them to use the extra funds they will receive as a result of recent changes to VAT rates to spend on the ‘hard to reach’ group.”

I was in the House debating with the Secretary of State on 8 December, and I read that day’s Hansard. There was no such announcement by the Secretary of State. He did not announce any use of VAT. He had briefed The Daily Telegraph—[Interruption.] Well, the story comes from him. He had briefed The Daily Telegraph on an announcement that he did not even make in the House of Commons. That is typical of the way in which the Government approach skills—through bogus announcements with no real policies behind them. That is no way to tackle the skills crisis that we face in this country.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman. What we need is very simple: less bureaucracy, less interference in further education colleges and fewer fake announcements. We need more real apprenticeships, more adult learning, and more assistance to get young people who are not in education, employment or training into work. We need a more robust and responsive skills system. That is why we Conservative Members will vote for the motion tonight.

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

“commends the Government’s efforts to boost the number of apprenticeships, provide more support to young people not in employment, education or training, and improve opportunities for adult learners and introduce an adult advancement and careers service; welcomes the real help provided to those affected by the downturn, including increasing the support available through the further education and skills systems; further welcomes the £240 million allocated to help those facing redundancy or newly unemployed; welcomes the additional £140 million to boost apprenticeships, the trebling of Professional and Career Development Loans, and making the Train to Gain programme more responsive, including through £350 million support for small and medium-sized enterprises; notes the Government’s planned investment of £2.3 billion in renewing and modernising further education facilities over this spending review; commends its efforts to help colleges and universities become more responsive to the employer’s needs, including the £50 million Higher Education Funding Council for England economic challenges fund, and to ensure the £175 billion public procurement budget maintains and strengthens investment in skills; further welcomes the simplification of existing systems; further notes that three million people access the skills system every year, with more 18 to 24 year olds working or engaged in full-time education compared to 1997; further notes the number of students in higher education in England is rising, not falling; and further notes that the Government will resist calls to cut skills budgets, as this would undermine the steps being taken to provide real help to business and individuals now.”

I shall choose my language with care. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) chided his Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), for using the words “up-skill” and “re-skill”. He may not know that I know that the hon. Member for Havant took those words from the recent Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee report on skills—the same Select Committee that recently criticised my Department for using “impenetrable” jargon in our annual report. This is probably a topic where we should all tread very carefully, because it is easy to slip into the jargon of the insider and the professional.

I very much welcome the debate. The hon. Member for Havant has saved me a little time and effort, as I had been urging the usual channels to hold a debate in Government time on the very same topic that we are discussing today. The debate is needed to remind everyone just how much the Conservatives neglected skills and further education when they were in government, and how much the legacy, such as the appalling number of adults left without basic numeracy and literacy at the end of the Conservatives’ term of office, has hung over, and still hangs over, the population of this country. The debate is necessary to remind people just how much of a threat the Opposition still pose, because they get it wrong time and again—as we have heard this afternoon. They misunderstand the problem and propose the wrong solutions time and again—as we have heard this afternoon.

Can the Minister explain why, after 10 or 12 years of a Labour Government, 40 per cent. of school leavers are unable to get five GCSEs, despite the fact that those have been watered down, and 60 per cent. of working class boys are leaving school with virtually nothing at all—one in four people unable to read and write after 10 or 11 years of Labour government? How on earth can the right hon. Gentleman put the blame for that on the Conservative Administration?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman go back and look at the statistics about 10 years ago, and he will see that on every one of the measures that he quoted, there has been a dramatic improvement under this Government as a result of the investment that we have made. I, and other Labour Members, give nothing to the Opposition for the fact that we remain dissatisfied and want to continue to press forward, but we have every right to know how much we have achieved following the appalling legacy that we inherited.

I acknowledge, by the way, that there are hon. Members on both sides of the House concerned about local further education college projects currently in the pipeline, and I will deal with that situation as fully as I can in a few moments.

Does my right hon. Friend find it interesting that the Front-Bench spokesman for the Opposition totally neglected to mention the huge amount of money that has been spent on union learning representatives—the £400 million or so that is vital to provide peer education? In Wakefield 39 per cent. of people in work have no formal qualifications whatsoever. Is it not vital that we invest in peer education and making sure that those people have qualifications? When we talk about ancient history and people in the 1980s going on youth training schemes and on the other botched training schemes that the Conservative Government ran, we should recognise that those people are now in their 30s and 40s, and will be working for the next 20 years.

My hon. Friend is right on both points. It is indicative that the hon. Member for Havant was unable to recognise one of the biggest success stories of recent years—that by providing modest financial support for people at work to encourage their friends to get involved in learning, we have reached many thousands upon thousands of people—about 250,000 every year—who would not otherwise have gone into learning. And they often volunteer for learning in basic numeracy and literacy, two areas where people find it most difficult to say, “I’ve got a problem and I want some assistance.” My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

I shall set out the huge gulf between the Opposition and the Government in respect of skills. We believe that in a downturn we need to invest in skills and training. The Opposition want to cut investment in skills and training. It is not acceptable for the leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), to announce that if his party was in power, from 1 April 2009 it would cut billions of pounds from public expenditure, and to name the Departments that would be protected and those, including this area of work, that would not be protected, and then for the hon. Member for Havant to say that there would be no cuts in any of these areas of spending. It is not credible or believable, and until I get a different answer, I will proceed by analysing the share of cuts that would fall to this Department and telling the House exactly what those Conservative cuts would mean for education and training.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that there are seven spending commitments in the Conservative party motion before us? They are:

“support for second-chance students…opportunities to up-skill and re-skill…boost the number of apprenticeships…more support to young people not in employment…help small and medium-sized employers access training, improve opportunities for adult learners, and introduce an all-age careers service.”

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a lack of shame is a hallmark of the bourgeoisie, and is now being exposed in Conservative Front Benchers, who put forward all those spending commitments but also wish to cut spending?

I might choose more temperate and moderate language. However, it is reasonable to assume that many Conservative Members seeking to intervene will, like the hon. Member for Havant, want to suggest that more money should be spent. Conservative Members need to understand that they come from a party whose leader has told them that less money—that includes less money for skills and further education—should be spent. That means cuts.

On the subject of Train to Gain, I should say that the Government, along with the various bodies, have announced some important flexibilities for small and medium-sized companies. That will be really important for constituencies such as mine.

We have talked about how money has been spent in different ways. Does my right hon. Friend not find it curious that the Conservative party seems to be unclear about whether it intends to abolish Train to Gain or whether—like the Liberal Democrats and their “penny on income tax” before the last election—it intends to spend the money in about five different ways?

As the Conservative party has made clear, the whole £1 billion in the Train to Gain budget for 2010-11 would not be spent on those activities. I shall come back to that issue later. The whole package of support for small businesses, and now for larger companies, and for the 1 million people who will gain qualifications every year under the Train to Gain programme, would be removed. There is no doubt about that, and it is a great shame.

Further to my right hon. Friend’s comments about cuts, does he share my puzzlement that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) claimed that under his plans there would be more apprenticeships for young people over 19? In fact, the cuts announced by his party leader would mean that not one young person over 19 would have an apprenticeship next year.

I am afraid that that is true. If we move to cut hundreds of millions of pounds from a budget in just a couple of months’ time, large areas of spending will not be possible. For that sort of cut, we could shut six universities—but of course we could not do that overnight, and huge costs would be involved. The only things that could be turned off to achieve that are those that can be turned off quickly, and that means cutting all apprenticeships for those over 19.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I shall make a little progress and then come back to my hon. Friend.

We believe that, in addition to support for investment in skills and training, there should be an increase in support for those who lose their jobs. The Conservative party opposed the measures needed to pay for that. It would do what it did before—nothing. We should work with Britain’s businesses to deliver the training that they say they want. That would give people the chance to gain the skills that they need. As we have just said, the Conservative party would take that chance away from 1 million people and thousands of firms.

In these difficult economic times the Government have three priorities: first, delivering global action to tackle a global downturn; secondly, delivering real help now to families and businesses to help them through the challenges of the here and now; and, thirdly, delivering real hope for the future by stepping up investment in our infrastructure, industries and skills.

Let us start with investment. When the Conservative party left office—at the time when the current, recycled, shadow shadow Chancellor was Chancellor of the Exchequer—the budget for further education colleges was zero. At the time, the National Audit Office described FE colleges as

“ageing and their quality and fitness for purpose was often unsatisfactory, affecting the reputation of the sector.”

Colleges were not fit for purpose. Since 1997 the Government have invested more than £2 billion in renewing and modernising FE facilities, and we will spend another £2.3 billion in the current spending review period. Since the programme began, nearly 700 projects in 330 colleges have been agreed.

rose—

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, yes.

I sense from the Secretary of State’s tone that he welcomes this intervention. I hope that he will be able to give good news in advance of his visit to Southgate college, where people are hoping to improve their build dramatically but where its principal and governors, and other constituents, are concerned that although a lot of money and time has been spent on these plans, which went to the planning committee last Thursday, they have effectively been withdrawn because of the removal of capital approval. Will he now give a commitment that there will be approval for Southgate college’s plans?

As I understand it, no college plan has been presented to the LSC in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency for approval, even in principle. It may well be that his local college has aspirations and hopes to move forward, as many others do and rightly should, but it does not do this debate much good to claim that colleges were on the verge of final approval when they are clearly some way further down the line in terms of planning procedures. I will be happy to discuss the situation at the college when I visit it in a few days or a few weeks’.

As I was saying, since the programme began nearly 700 projects in 330 colleges have been agreed. At present, 253 schemes are under way or are fully approved. Only 42 colleges in the whole of England have yet to receive any investment. Last summer, the National Audit Office reported the programme as making good progress with the renewal and modernisation of the FE estate. It found that the great majority of projects had come in on budget and delivered great improvements for learners, and said:

“The capital programme for further education is enabling colleges and the Learning and Skills Council to achieve together what neither could have achieved on their own, and is delivering high quality buildings.”

rose—

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Let me get a little further, if I may, in setting out the position.

As part of the boost to the economy, which the Conservative party has opposed, we have brought forward £220 million over the spending review period to this year and the next. Let us be clear: it is my intention to ensure that every pound that we have promised to spend will be spent. The capital programme has not been suspended.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the problem has been that the Learning and Skills Council announced the deferral of a small number of projects for three months, alarming every college principal with a capital project? Aquinas and Stockport colleges in my constituency have capital projects worth over £60 million, which is a big investment in Stockport and in further education. Those two colleges have planning permission. Can he assure me that their plans will go ahead?

As I understand it, the two projects to which my hon. Friend refers have received full approval in detail. None of the colleges that have received such approval is affected by the current delay in LSC consideration.

My constituency, Rotherham, has been hard hit, with job cuts at Corus and with Burberry shutting down. Three weeks ago, the Rotherham Advertiser filled two pages with the new plans for the new development at Rotherham college of arts and technology, which had been signed off. I was concerned about that being displayed, given the misleading guidance to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) has just referred. I am meeting George Trow, the college principal, on Friday. Could the Secretary of State’s private office write to me before then with the assurance that he has now given at the Dispatch Box, with reference to Rotherham college of arts and technology? I would be most grateful.

The remarks that I made apply to colleges that have received full approval in detail to proceed. I am happy to write to my right hon. Friend ahead of his meeting.

Having set out the success of the programme and made it clear that it is my intention to ensure that every pound that we have promised to spend will be spent and that the capital programme has not been suspended, let me turn to an issue that is of genuine concern to Members on both sides of the House. There are schemes in the pipeline that have not yet been fully approved, and the LSC has put further approvals on hold until it has assessed the whole programme. The LSC has not yet provided a full analysis of all those schemes, but I need to be frank: many more schemes are currently in preparation than can be funded in this spending round. Some colleges that have anticipated early approval will be disappointed. Priorities will have to be set and hard decisions will have to be taken.

It is clear that in some cases, unrealistic expectations have been allowed to develop or have been encouraged, which is unacceptable. The LSC is, by statute, responsible for the management of the capital programme, but as Secretary of State, I will apologise to any colleges that find themselves in the position we have discussed, and as Secretary of State I need to find out how that situation arose and what lessons must be learned for the future. That is why I have agreed with the Learning and Skills Council that Sir Andrew Foster should carry out an independent review of the LSC’s handling of the programme. I hope that I have outlined the current position to the House as much as I can, and I undertake to bring forward more detailed information when it becomes available and when I am able to do so.

I appreciate that the Secretary of State has recognised the problem faced by FE colleges. Could he add a bit more information about the number of colleges whose plans are “in the pipeline”, and on the value of those projects, so that we can have a rough idea of the scale of the disappointment that he is talking about?

I am not able to do that reliably. The problem is that if I were to give the number of schemes that have formally been through every process and which are, as it were, sitting in the LSC’s in-tray for approval either in detail or in principle, I would be understating the problem—and I do not want to do that. We have just discussed a college in north London that would not fit into that category, but where I accept that some work has been done in drawing up plans for the future. The procedure has a regional and a national element, and I would prefer to make information available to the House when I have a full picture of the number of projects in the pipeline, and the stage that they are at. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that as an honest answer. It would not help for me to present what might be seen as a narrow definition of the colleges that have expectations of approval in the next year.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way a second time. I understand what he is saying, and I appreciate the suggestion that he will make information available, but will he undertake to come to the House with such a statement? Can he tell the House when he might be able to give us the information? The uncertainty is itself part of the problem for the FE sector.

The LSC told me that it is working towards being able to take the complete picture, with some clarification on the decisions it can take, to its council meeting, which is due to take place on 2 March. I hope that in the days or weeks before 2 March it will be possible, by written statement or in whichever way is appropriate, to make information available. I make that undertaking to the House because we are very proud of the programme. It was praised by the NAO and it has achieved a great deal of good. Colleges are being built, the programme will be delivered over the next two years, and it is unacceptable that some colleges that hope to be part of that process in the near future may face disappointment. We will make available any information that we can as it becomes available.

Before the Secretary of State leaves that point, he will note that the management and administration of the LSC has been one of the most messed-about aspects of education in recent years. Will the inquiry have a look at whether the continual chopping and changing in the way in which the LSC did its job contributed in any way to the freeze that he is dealing with at the moment?

I have asked Sir Andrew Foster to look specifically at the handling of the capital programme. Moreover, we are going to establish an agency focused on young people and on skills, which the House will be debating in a few days’ time, to advise us and the LSC on what lessons should be drawn from what has happened in the past few months for the future handling of the programme by those two agencies. I hope that that addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point, at least in part.

I look forward to the Secretary of State’s visit to my constituency in a few weeks’ time, where he will be able to see for himself the remarkable rebuild of the two outstanding colleges in my constituency. But, as far as future capital spend is concerned, would he remind us about what the Opposition have said about the extent to which they are prepared to match the Government’s spending programme?

It would have been seriously remiss of me to forget to draw attention to that point, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Opposition spokesman told the Association of Colleges that he could not even guarantee to deliver the capital spend promised by this Government in 2010. I hope that any Opposition Members who are rushing to put out press releases saying how terrible the whole thing is will say that their own party wishes to cut spending in 2010.

A global economic slowdown is the time to increase, not to reduce, investment in skills and training. Companies that invest in training are two and a half times more likely to come through the downturn successfully than those that do not. Today it is even more important that business knows that it can get real help from the Government. Those who lose their jobs need support, including help with skills to get back into work, and young people need more opportunities to learn and train for the jobs of the future. That is what we are providing, and what the Opposition oppose. They say that my Department should cut £610 million a year, starting from 1 April. They oppose the Government’s fiscal stimulus and the borrowing needed in a downturn, so they could not match the new investment that we are making or the new support provided by Jobcentre Plus. Now is the very worst time to make cuts, just when people need training to help them keep their jobs, when businesses need to train their staff to boost productivity, and when people need extra support to help them train or retrain to get a job.

The hon. Member for Havant talks of young people without work, education or training. He knows that the figures that he throws about represent a smaller proportion of a much larger generation of young people. Not content with ignoring the extra 1 million young people in work or education since 1997, he throws into the figure young people who are at home bringing up children—the Tories used to be in favour of that. He throws in part-time students—they used to be in favour of them, too—and students on gap years, just to pad out his press release.

Of course there is a real, if much smaller, problem of young people apart from the system. But what does the hon. Gentleman do? He opposes the very things that would help, such as raising the participation age so that more young people get work with training, and the new deal, which is giving young people extra support. His concern turns out to be empty rhetoric.

I hope that the Secretary of State will treat this as a genuine request for information. Given his commitment to getting people back to work, what assessment has he made of the potential cost of adding students currently on benefit to those who are exempt from his reversal of funding for equivalent or lower qualifications?

That is a slightly complicated question, which I may need to reflect on when I have a look at Hansard. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the change that we have made to ELQ funding, to create new opportunities for those who have never been able to go to university, was the right decision. Further measures have been taken to ensure that there are higher education courses to enable people with higher-level skills to reskill—I can say that word, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire is no longer in his place—and gain new skills. That is the right approach to meeting the labour market’s need for people to retrain for a new career or a new direction.

The hon. Member for Havant mentioned apprenticeships. This Government have rescued apprenticeships from their collapse under the Conservatives and built them up so that they are well on their way to taking their rightful place as a mainstream option for young people. He could not match the extra £140 million that we are investing to provide 35,000 extra places this year. We want more than 250,000 apprenticeships next year, just when young people, and business, need that boost. The new national apprenticeship service will enable us to meet our ambition that one in five young people will take up an apprenticeship in the next decade, and to extend group training associations and support the extension of existing schemes. We expect the public sector to shoulder its share of responsibility.

Labour Members all know that when the Opposition were in power, apprenticeships were going the way of the dodo. None the less, does my right hon. Friend accept the concern about the position of some apprentices, given the difficult economic circumstances in which their employers find themselves? What action might be taken to ensure that the investment in current apprenticeships is not lost?

We have established a clearing house in the construction sector to try to match apprentices who may lose their jobs with other placements. We have also changed some of the rules in the system to make it easier for apprentices to continue their college-based training to get the necessary technical qualifications. We acknowledge the problem that my hon. Friend mentions and we are tackling it.