 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Further Education and Training Bill [Lords] |
Further Education and Training Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan
Sandall, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 12 June 2007
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]Further Education and Training Bill [Lords]Clause 16Publication
of
proposals
Amendment
proposed [this day]: No. 29, in clause 16, page 11, line 4, leave
out subsection (2).—[Mr.
Hayes.]
4
pm
Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
No. 19, in
clause 16, page 11, line 10, leave
out ‘and (2A)’ and insert ‘(2A) and
(2B)’.
No. 20,
in
clause 16, page 11, line 16, at
end insert—
‘(2B) The third
requirement is that the
council—
(a) has regard
to any representation from a local authority which has
children’s services and education responsibilities in the area
in which the establishment or dissolution of a further education
corporation is proposed,
and
(b) provides such an
authority with written reasons for any decision to establish or
dissolve a
corporation.’.
No.
36, in
clause 16, page 11, line 16, at
end insert—
‘(2B) The third
requirement is that, when the councilis considering proposals
to establish or dissolve furthereducation corporations, it
must abide by guidance as set out in subsection
(2C).
(2C) The council must,
after considering representations, publish a policy statement which
must include reference
to—
(a) the preferred
structure of provision of post-16
education;
(b) the need to
ensure a choice of qualifications and courses at all
levels;
(c) the impact of any
new provision of post-16 education on existing providers of post-16
education;
(d) the procedure to
be followed when two or more further education corporations are seeking
to merge.’.
Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): Thank
you, Mr. Atkinson. We have all had a splendid lunch and have
enjoyed the break from our deliberations, but we are now pleased to be
back considering matters with the diligence for which members of this
Committee are legendary. We are returning to clause 16, and I do not
want to delay the Committee for long because we anticipate with
excitement clause 17, which is very important, and I have no doubt that
there will be long perorations upon it by all concerned.
Let me wrap
up clause 16 by saying that I listened closely to what Ministers said
about the Learningand Skills Council and its relationship with
the Government and all the other agencies associated with funding and
delivering skills in line with Government targets and popular
expectations. I remain concerned about the relationship between the LSC
and those partners, but Ministers have been immensely reassuring about
their determination to ensure that there is accountability for the
LSC’s work; that the powers that are invested in it will be used
cautiously and moderately; and that, should there be any lack of reason
about that, there will be safeguards in the form of the checks and
balances that the Minister has
described.
We have
tried to probe Ministers on that, becausewe reflect what I
think is a widespread concern thatit would be wrong to
transfer powers unless such protections are built into the system.
Having heard what the Minister said on the previous set of amendments,
we look forward to hearing what more he has to say in response to my
brief but important comments on this aspect of the
Bill.
Sarah
Teather (Brent, East) (LD): Our amendments Nos. 19 and 20
are probing amendments to test the relationship between the regional
councils and local authorities rather than local area agreements. Local
authorities are 14-to-19 strategy leaders, a point which was reaffirmed
in the White Paper. They have duties to ensure the provision of courses
for pupils aged 14 and above, to fulfil every child’s
educational potential, to monitor admissions in the area, to plan the
provision of school places and to co-ordinate building schools for the
future funding. All those roles will be affected by any decision to
close, open or merge FE
colleges.
We would
like a reassurance from the Minister that the Learning and Skills
Council will not only consult local authorities but will actually take
notice of what they say. There is a danger that when it is written
intoa clause such as this, or the guidance that goes
withit, that a body should consult a local authority,
consultation is often about going through the motions. Obviously, if
local authorities are to be the strategic lead for 14-to-19 education,
we need to be quite clear what will happen if there is a conflict of
interest. Will the Minister outline what would happen if a local
authority were opposed to a merger of two colleges in an area, or to
the closure of a college, because it believed that that would have a
dramatic effect on the provision of places? What would happen if the
council sought to override the local authority’s
views?
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Phil
Hope):
Lunch has not dimmed my memory of the comments of
the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings in introducing his
amendment. Other members of the Committee and I remember that he was
describing the halcyon days of further education under his
party’s Administration—days when, instead of £500
million, nothing was being spent on capital improvements in the
sector.
Mr.
Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): Albeit not intentionally,
the Minister has directly challenged me on my record of ministerial
responsibility. Does he recall that one of the difficulties in those
days was
that all the money as a result of the Hunter recommendations was made
available by central Government through the Further Education Funding
Council in order to repair the failures of various local
authorities—under different political control, no
doubt—in the stewardship of their buildings? Money was needed
just to meet basic health and safety requirements in the buildings, so
that teachers could teach in
them.
Phil
Hope:
The hon. Gentleman was the Minister responsible at
the time for aspects of the system. I presume that that is why he
supports what we now have in place, which allows the Government to
invest such huge amounts of capital and revenue in the system. I take
his comments as support for our spending plans, and I will put that on
the record as something that the Front-Bench spokesmen for his party
might like to note when they come to producing their thoughts for the
future.
I am also
pleased that success rates are better and that more young people and
adults are learning than in the halcyon days that the hon. Gentleman
remembers. There is more innovation and greater self-regulation. In
fact, the hon. Gentleman might regret his description of those days in
introducing the amendment, giventhat FE colleges are now the
engine driving skills attainment in this country. They have capital and
revenue resources that they simply did not have before. Indeed, their
funds were cut by some 14 per cent. in the five years in the run-up to
1997, as opposed to a 48 per cent. increase under this Government. When
we see the record numbers of learners with level 2 and level 3
qualifications today, we can be very proud—on this side of the
House, at least—of the record and achievements of the FE sector
and the support that this Government have given to
it.
Clause 16 sets out
the arrangements for publishing proposals to establish and dissolve
further education corporations. Amendment No. 29, which was tabled by
the hon. Gentleman, proposes to leave out clause 16 (2), which is
linked to clauses 14 and 15, and our plans to transfer powers to
establish and dissolve FE corporations from the Secretary of State to
the Learning and Skills Council. I set out our reasons for taking those
steps when we debated clause
14.
I am sure that the
hon. Gentleman recognises the difficulty with the amendment. It would
introducean inconsistency within the Further and Higher
Education Act 1992, such that legislation relating to the publication
of proposals would simply become inoperable. The amendment would not
work in practice, even were we to agree with it in principle, which we
do not. Therefore, I hope that he will withdraw it simply because it
will not work.
On
amendments Nos. 19, 36 and 20, we are all rightly concerned about
ensuring that the wider community, including the local authority, is
consulted on proposals to establish or dissolve further education
corporations. I want to reassure members of the Committee that
consultation of that kind is already a key part of the process for
establishing and dissolving further education
corporations.
Regulations
are in place—they have been circulated in advance to Committee
members—that set out the process for publishing proposals to
establish and dissolve corporations. Some minor amendments might have
to be made to reflect the transfer of powers from the Secretary of
State to the LSC. However, in effect, we intend to keep the current
processes in place, so the hon. Member for Brent, East can be assured
thatthe current system for publishing and consulting on
proposals will
continue.
The
regulations set out the type of information that must be included in a
proposal and the manner of publication. The regulations, which will be
updated, require all proposals for mergers or new colleges to be sent
to the local authority of the area in whichthe further
education corporation is situated. That requirement will continue.
Nothing will change and those safeguards will remain. Under clause 16,
the LSC is required to take account of all representations made to it
within a prescribed period—the very wording that the hon. Lady
was seeking.
Local
authorities will have information on the rationale behind the proposed
action as well as the ability to make comments, which must be
considered before a decision is
made.
Sarah
Teather:
I thank the Under-Secretary for giving way. His
comments are very helpful. However, may I return to the point that I
made at the end of my remarks? What would happen if there was a
conflictof interest? What would happen if a local authority
opposed a regional council’s proposal for a merger, or opening
or closure of a college, because it felt strongly that the provision of
places for 14 to 19-year-olds would be affected? I understand that the
council will have a wider remit, but who has the lead on 14 to
19-year-olds and what would happen if the local authority
disagreed?
Phil
Hope:
As we debated on earlier clauses, if the LSC is
deemed to have acted unreasonably, the Secretary of State could
intervene. However, it would have to be demonstrated that the LSC had
acted unreasonably or had not pursued its duties as spelled out in
clauses and regulations. If such circumstances were to arise, the local
authority could ask the Secretary of State to intervene. However, that
would not cover a straightforward disagreement aboutthe right
way forward. Clearly, if there were a disagreement, the LSC could make
its decision and take it
forward.
Sarah
Teather:
This might be obvious to everyone else in the
Committee, but I want to be sure: would the local authority apply in
writing to the Secretary of State or is there a formal process to get
him to
intervene?
Phil
Hope:
It would need to demonstrate—I suppose that
this might be the process—that the LSC had acted unreasonably.
It would have to demonstrate that the
proposals are unreasonable, that the LSC published
and took them forward in an unreasonable way, or that it used its
powers under the Bill in a way that was ultra vires. That is the
mechanism that the local authority would have to use in order to ask
the Secretary of State to intervene. However, I am certain that those
circumstances will not arise due to the nature of the Bill, which
requires the LSC to publish and consult on all proposals and to take
account of all representations. That means that the hypothetical
situation described by the hon. Lady will not
arise.
We believe that
the appropriate vehicle for the procedures that I have described are
the regulations, which set out the details of the process for
establishing, dissolving and merging further education corporations. We
do not think, therefore, that it is appropriate to write into primary
legislation a requirement to inform local authorities of the reasons
for establishing or dissolving an FE corporation. That would lead to
unnecessary bureaucracy, because the rationale behind the reasons for
opening or closing an FE corporation will have been set out in the
original proposal, which would have been sent to the local authority
and consulted on. When the LSC has made a decision, it will write to
the FE corporation or new institution. That letter is then copied to
key partners, including the local authority. The current arrangements,
which we are not changing, are working very well and already provide
for the requirements
proposed.
Amendment
No. 36 would impose a requirementon the LSC to publish a
detailed policy statement following the statutory consultation period,
which is undertaken for every proposal. It largely duplicates
information included in the already published proposal and would lead
to an unnecessary and burdensome increase in bureaucracy. The LSC will
already have considered current provision in the local area, the need
to ensure choice across the area and the impact of a new or alternative
provider on existing
provision.
In England,
further education corporations work with the LSC to ensure that the
right structures are in place locally, which might include a number of
options for the future, merger being the most common reason for
dissolving a further education college. Any merger option that emerges
will have been discussed, developed and planned over a long period, all
of which will ensure that more effective arrangements are in place
locally. I emphasise that the local authority will play a key role,
especially in relation to its duties in respect of 14-to-19
provision.
4.15
pm
I hope that
with those assurances, and those that I gave earlier on the guidance
and regulations, thehon. Gentleman will accept that the
amendment is unnecessary and ask leave to withdraw
it.
Mr.
Hayes:
Once again, we have had assurances from the
Minister, but I remain doubtful about some of them. However, the
Minister’s response to the points made in the debate was
thorough and robust, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 13 June 2007 |