Clause
10
Local
education authority to promote fulfilment of duty imposed by section
2
Mr.
Laws:
I beg to move amendment No. 165, in
clause 10, page 5, line 32, leave
out from ‘must’ to ‘persons’ in line 34 and
insert
‘secure a
sufficient and appropriate supply of provision
for’.
We
have reached a landmark. We have cleared chapter 1 and raced on to
chapter 2. So, all hon. Members can feel reinvigorated that we have
passed the first hurdle. The next chapter deals with the duties on
local education authorities and educational institutions. Clause 10 is
important, establishing the duty on local education authorities to
promote the participation of young people in education or training in
their area who are subject to the duty to participate. There have been
many comments on the clause, which have led to this group of
amendments, starting with amendment No.
165.
In a nutshell,
most of the people who have made representations to us on the matter
are concerned about the imbalance between the responsibilities on young
people to comply with the obligations of the Bill, and the rather
looser ones on local authorities to ensure an appropriate supply of
places in order to allow the education and training option and perhaps
other forms of support to be taken
up.
The
special educational consortium was one of the bodies that made
representations to the Committee early on, indicating its concern about
the balance of responsibilities between individuals and local education
authorities. In a briefing note to the Committee issued jointly with
the Royal National Institute for Blind People, on 14 January, it stated
that:
“The duty
is so general as to be
unenforceable”,
and
contrasted it unfavourably with the duty on young people, including the
penalties and criminal sanctions contained in the Bill.
The amendment
seeks to make the duty upon local authorities clearer and more general,
in not constraining it only to education and training. The original
clause provides a
responsibility
“to
promote the effective participation in education or training of persons
belonging to its area”
to
whom the Bill applies.
The
amendment ensures that a local education authority is obliged to secure
a sufficient and appropriate supply of provisions to those persons.
Therefore, it not only provides a stronger requirement on local
authorities, but opens up some of those fourth option solutions about
which we were talking earlier, to ensure that support services other
than education or training are being provided, which might ensure that
young people can engage in the future with education and training.
Other amendments, tabled by the Conservative party, deal in slightly
different ways with the same consideration, including amendments Nos.
14, 84 and 148, to some
extent.
However, there
have been concerns that the Bill should go even further and the duty
should be clearer. Therefore, we have tabled the amendment, which was
suggested to us in a representation sent by the Special Educational
Consortium, that other members of the Committee may have seen. It
places an explicit duty on local authorities to ensure that there are
sufficient and appropriate opportunities for young people in their area
to participate in education and training. The consortium sets out some
of its concerns, in particular that the needs of young people with
disabilities are often not met adequately and they often end up leaving
the education system at 16. It
says:
“The
Disability Rights Commission found that non-disabled young people are
twice as likely as their disabled peers to transfer to the sixth form
or college at 16
plus”.
It said that has a
significant impact on life chances, and
continued:
“By
the age of 19, 9 per cent. of non-disabled young people are not in
education, employment or training, but 27 per cent. of disabled young
people are in the same
category.”
That
is a significant concern, particularly for that group of young people,
although the amendment would apply to all those who would be caught by
the duty. It would impose an obligation on the local authority to
ensure a wide range of provision for all those youngsters who need it.
We will talk about some of those groups in a
moment.
The Special
Educational Consortium
said:
“We
believe there needs to be a stronger duty on local authorities to
secure appropriate opportunities for young people in their area. As the
Bill is currently drafted, responsibilities fall disproportionately on
individual pupils with criminal sanctions for those who are not in
appropriate full-time education or
training.”
It believes
that provision should be better tailored to local needs, particular of
young people with special educational
needs.
Mr.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool, South) (Lab): The hon.
Gentleman makes the Special Educational Consortium’s case
persuasively. I have also heard its case, and I agree that we must put
much greater emphasis on local authorities’ obligation to
provide support. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that support outside the
school for children with special educational needs and disabilities is
as crucial as that within it? Does he welcome the investment and
initiatives that the Secretary of State and Lord Adonis in the other
place have brought forward in the past 12 months to provide support to
those
families?
Mr.
Laws:
I certainly agree with the first point that support
outside the school or educational setting is as important, and we
welcome many of the measures in
that area. Our point, and that of many of the bodies that have made
representations to us, is that there is still a big gap in reality
between the level of support needed and what is
available.
In the
final part of its representations, the Special Educational Consortium
says that it
recognises
“that the
duties set out in this amendment could not be implemented until the
funding and the responsibility are transferred to local
authorities”.
That
obviously requires further legislation. The consortium wants a
commitment from the Minister that when the Government introduce
legislative proposals, they will include a duty on local authorities to
secure sufficient and appropriate
provision.
Other
groups that gave evidence to the Committee have made many similar
points. TreeHouse, a charity for those with autism, said in its
representations that there was a need to strengthen the
responsibilities on local authorities.
We received detailed
representation from Barnardo’s, which gave oral evidence to the
Committee. Sadly, its detailed amendments came to me slightly too late
to be included, but they seek a similar effect to amendment No. 165.
Barnardo’s approaches the matter from a slightly different
perspective from that of Conservative Members because it is more
sympathetic than we are to the compulsion and criminalisation elements.
However, it agrees strongly that the Bill will work only if there is
appropriate provision for those hard-to-reach young people, and that it
needs to go beyond education and
training.
1.45
pm
The paper
from Barnardo’s to the Committee details the four priority areas
for expansion of existing services. It refers to the need for more
work-based learning— particularly transitional provision to
reconnect the most disaffected and disengaged young people and to help
them to address barriers. It suggests that at the moment, support
services are not adequate for young people, which includes teenage
parents, young carers, young people with learning difficulties and
disabilities, and those with mental health problems. It also wants to
see an expansion in provision, with suitable routes for progression,
for young people with learning difficulties, many of whom drop out at
16 or take repeated courses.
There is
widespread concern—among both those who do not support the
existing compulsion and criminalisation and those who do—that
there must be a greater acceptance by local authorities of their duties
to provide. There must be adequate funding, not only from central
Government but also from local authorities, to provide those services
that can often be very expensive.
In earlier sittings, the
Minister acknowledged his willingness to open up the possibility of a
fourth option that does not restrain us to something that looks like
education and training in its narrowest sense. The clause indicates
that the obsession with activities to do with what we regard as
education and training, is very much there in the Bill. We want to
ensure that that is widened out so that young people who need other
routes back into education and training can have those routes opened up
to them— in exceptional cases, even for long periods of
time—and to ensure that there is a realistic pathway back into
education and training.
Mr.
Hayes:
You certainly know,
Mr. Bercow, and the Minister may know of my interest in
matters to do with special educational needs and disability. Therefore,
I will not waste this opportunity to say a word about those interests
in relation to the amendment which, I think, does the hon. Member for
Yeovil great justice. It is right that at this juncture we should
consider the particular challenges facing employers and young people
who have disabilities or special educational needs. The two challenges
above all others are the attitudes of employers and young people. Many
of the barriers associated with getting young people with special
educational needs and disabilities into employment are due to
people’s belief in their own potential. That can be greatly
assisted by the right kind of advice, guidance and support.
I have seen
at first hand—as I am sure the Minister and other members of the
Committee will have done—how young people with the most profound
challenges can be supported in employment. My hon. Friend the Member
for Upminster is a doughty champion of young people in her constituency
with those challenges. She was kind enough to introduce me to the
realistic opportunities for supported employment project, which she
never misses an opportunity to champion in the House—I hope that
I am not stealing her thunder. That project takes people with very
profound difficulties and, using appropriate levels of support, places
them in work and gives training opportunities which, until seen, one
would scarcely believe possible. That one is an exemplar, but there are
projects like that up and down the country that must and will form part
of making the Bill a success.
The hon.
Member for Yeovil rightly pointed out that the number of young disabled
people who are not in education, employment or training is a shockingly
high 27 per cent. If we are to place new duties on individuals,
employers and local authorities, we must be clear about the support and
resources that will be necessary to change attitudes both of young
people, who need to be enlivened and have their personal aspirations
rejuvenated, and of employers who must know what is expected of them to
make those opportunities possible.
The hon.
Gentleman quoted a number of organisations, and he could have quoted
many more, which support the thrust of what he said. I have had
discussions with a number of organisations representing disabled people
that share his concern that the Bill should be specific about the
duties on local authorities. Knowing your personal commitment and
interest in these matters, Mr. Bercow, I know that you will
take a great interest, as I do, in this part of our
considerations.
The amendment
is a useful addition to our consideration and it may be something that
the Government want to reflect on further. Again, it concerns
sufficient appropriate provision. This word “appropriate”
is coming to punctuate our considerations. It seems that
“meaningful” and “appropriate” are
sometimes more useful ways of expressing this kind of opportunity than
“relevant” because, as I said earlier,
“relevant” is a rather loaded term.
On that
basis, I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contribution and I look
forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that the Bill, for
all its faults—we all have our doubts about it—will, at
the very least, act as a catalyst for engagement with training and
employment on the part of young, challenged, disabled and disadvantaged
young people.
Jim
Knight:
I absolutely agree that the key
to the success of this policy will be ensuring that there is an
appropriate—the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings
will be delighted that I use that word—worthwhile and engaging
learning place for every young person, including those with special
educational needs. The amendment would reduce the duty of the local
authority to solely that of securing appropriate provision. While that
is clearly an important part of ensuring that all young people
participate, the duty set out in clause 10 is currently much wider than
that, and is not confined to any one local authority function. It could
encompass economic development or regeneration activity, or the local
authority’s responsibility for careers guidance for 16 to
19-year-olds, as provided for in the Employment and Training Act 1973,
and other activities that are not directly linked to the securing of
provision for education and training. Those broader functions are
essential for promoting the culture of participation and achievement
that Opposition Members are in favour of.
Some
interesting points were raised in the debate, particularly about those
with special educational needs. The hon. Member for Yeovil said that
the legislation was very vague and insufficient in terms of the duties
on local authorities. I remind him of some of the other duties
contained in the Bill. From Royal Assent, whenever that may be, and
subject to the will of Parliament, there will be measures relating to
support functions, such as clause 54, on the duty to provide Connexions
services. There will be a duty to arrange assessments of the learning
difficulties of young people with statements who intend to leave school
and access post-16 education or training. From commencement in 2013
there will be functions relating to raising the participation age, such
as the duty to promote fulfilment of the duty to participate in clause
10. Clause 12 imposes the duty to make arrangements to identify young
people who are not participating. There are also duties in clauses 39
and 41 that relate to attendance notices and in clause 42 concerning
attendance panels, and so on. There will be a commissioning provision
from 2010-11, which will be transferred to local authorities from the
Learning and Skills Council.
In respect of clause 10, I am
sure that the Committee has noticed that clause 18
specifies:
“In
exercising its functions under this Part, a local education authority
must have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of
State.”
That
guidance, which would obviously be statutory guidance that the local
authority would have to follow, would include such things as an
explanation of how these duties differ from those for children of
compulsory school age. It would also include links with the Connexions
service, the minimum requirements for the tracking service used by
Connexions and, crucially, an explanation of the requirements on young
people, parents, learning providers and employers and the local
authority’s powers and responsibilities for ensuring that those
are met. It is there that we will set out the local authority’s
duties with regard to young people with special educational
needs.
Mr.
Laws:
Is there anything in the wording of the amendment
that the Minister objects to, and are the Government against placing a
responsibility on local authorities to secure a sufficient and
appropriate supply of this provision?
Jim
Knight:
No. As I have set out, I object to the fact that
it defines the local authority’s duty more narrowly than we
would want. It is vital that the local authority secures a sufficient
and appropriate provision of services for young people to ensure that
they can fulfil their duty, but I do not want to close it down solely
to that, as I have said in my comments. With regard to young people
with special educational needs, I argue that raising the participation
age will be particularly important in ensuring that they have the
opportunities to participate and do so. There is a good instance of us
using that as a catalyst—I think that that was the phrase used
by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—to secure
better provision.
Mr.
Marsden:
My hon. Friend puts forward a persuasive argument
on how the legislation needs to go hand in hand with a change of
attitude and the catalyst that he described. Does he agree with me that
it is particularly important that local authorities take up that
message as well and take advantage of the various initiatives that are
coming forward from the Government, and does he share the concern that
some of the support that was given in the past on a ring-fenced basis
will no longer be
available?
Jim
Knight:
Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. It is
important that local authorities continue to deliver for that section
of their population, particularly now that we are in common with the
local government White Paper on trusting local authorities to respond
more flexibly to the needs of their population by removing
ring-fencing. However, we will be introducing other things as well,
such as the foundation learning tier, which I have mentioned on a
number of occasions, and the Learning and Skills Council’s
national strategy for improving opportunities for young people with
learning difficulties and disabilities. Obviously, the Learning and
Skills Council’s responsibilities will to some extent be
transferred to local authorities.
Angela
Watkinson:
My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and
The Deepings referred to the realistic opportunities for supported
employment project, which is run from Havering college of further and
higher education. What has been so surprising about the success of that
course is not the success of the students, which we would all have
predicted, but the willingness and even enthusiasm of local employers
to become part of the scheme. What started as an outreach from the
college to persuade employers to give the students a chance has been
completely turned on its head, as the employers are now approaching the
college to ask if they have any student replacements. That project is
an example of good practice that could be disseminated up and down the
country.
Jim
Knight:
I am grateful to the hon. Lady
for continuing to draw our attention of the ROSE project in her
constituency. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will
not be disappointed that she continues to champion its work, which he
described as an exemplar. I am sure that what the hon. Lady says is
correct—I have no reason to doubt it. If I ever have an
opportunity to visit the project, I shall take it up.
I hope that I have given the
Committee enough of an explanation of how we intend the clause to
function in its breadth and, through guidance, in its
depth.
2
pm
Jim
Knight:
Before I sit down more permanently, I shall of
course give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr.
Hayes:
To be clear, is the Minister saying that the
amendment would narrow the provisions in the
Bill?
Mr.
Hayes:
But I do not see how the words “sufficient
and appropriate” could be described as narrow. They seem to me
to be rather broad terms. Are they not inherently
flexible?
Jim
Knight:
I repeat for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman
what I have already said. The amendment would reduce the duty on the
local authority to one of securing appropriate provision. Although that
is clearly important, there are other local authority functions that
can help to achieve the change to the culture of participation, such as
their economic development or careers guidance duties, which I
mentioned. Those would be precluded by the amendment. Clause 10
states:
“A
local education authority in England must ensure that its functions
are...exercised so as to promote the effective participation in
education or training”.
The wording, “its
functions”, is as wide as that. That is why the measure has
breadth.
Mr.
Gibb:
Does that mean that all other local authority
functions must be seen in the light of promoting participation? Will we
not have refuse collected because that would not promote effective
participation? That is the essence of the Minister’s argument
against the amendment. He says that it would narrow every other local
authority duty to the one duty, which is an absurd interpretation, just
as my tongue-in-cheek remark about clause 10 and refuse collection is
absurd.
Jim
Knight:
For the convenience of the Committee and to save
time, I missed out the bracketed text in the clause, which would have
dealt with the refuse collection concern. For the sake of clarity, the
clause
reads:
“A local
education authority in England must ensure that its functions are (so
far as they are capable of being so exercised) exercised so as to
promote the effective participation in education or
training”.
I hope that on
that basis, the hon. Gentleman and the Committee are satisfied
sufficiently.
Mr.
Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Listening
to this discussion, especially in the context of special educational
needs, made me wonder how the measure will work for people with mental
health problems. Clearly, not very many people with serious mental
health problems get work—as few as 7 per cent. of people with
schizophrenia do so. Does the Minister have plans for that in the Bill?
We are talking about “sufficient and appropriate”
provision, so now might be a suitable time to comment on that point.
Has the Minister thought about how young people with mental health
needs can be helped into work?
Jim
Knight:
As I have sought to clarify for the Committee at
least every time that we have met, we need to ensure that the
opportunities attached to the duty and the galvanising of the system
that the duty will create apply to every young person, regardless of
their circumstances and needs, including people with mental health
difficulties. We signalled in the children’s plan that we are
concerned about how well child and adolescent mental health services
join up with other services. We will look this year at how we can
sharpen CAMHS up. Local authorities and their strategic partners in
their localities should ensure that such individuals get sufficient
support for them to be able to move into appropriate forms of education
or training.
Mr.
Heald:
One of the reasons why I asked is that CAMHS hand
over to adult services at different ages in different parts of the
country. In some areas, the handover is at 16. The Minister will need
to ensure that the measure works for those who have mental health
problems.
Jim
Knight:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I shall
certainly bear in mind the consistency of the arrangements. We will
look at those between now and when the raising of the participation age
elements of the Bill come into effect.
I hope that I have given the
Committee enough information and that the hon. Member for Yeovil thinks
it sufficient to withdraw his amendment. At best, he tends to be mildly
reassured. I shall be interested to know at what measure of reassurance
I have managed to pitch it on this
occasion.
Mr.
Laws:
I have once been totally reassured
by the Minister. I am usually moderately or mildly reassured, but on
this occasion I do not feel reassured at all. He has attempted to stamp
his ministerial boots on my amendment by suggesting that it would
weaken the duties in the Bill and that he is worried that local
authorities could not do all the things that they could under clause
10. However, I feel that he rather underlined the weakness of his
argument when he cited parts of clause 10 in his response. Let us
remind ourselves how vague is the wording that my amendment would
remove:
“A
local education authority in England must ensure that its functions are
(so far as they are capable of being so exercised) exercised so as to
promote the effective participation in education or training of persons
belonging to its
area”.
That is pretty
weak and vague. It talks about the generality of local
authorities’ responsibilities, but it does not place a duty on
local authorities to
“secure a sufficient and
appropriate supply of
provision”,
which is what
amendment No. 165 would require. The Minister said that he had no
objection to that duty being in the Bill. I see no reason why he should
have a problem with those much firmer
words.
Jim
Knight:
In fairness to the hon.
Gentleman, I probably should have made it clear that the Learning and
Skills Council has such a duty now. We signalled that we will
legislate—perhaps during the next Session—on transfers
from the LSC to local authorities, but under section 2 of the Learning
and Skills Act 2000, the council has a duty to ensure learning
provision for 16 to 19-year-olds. In particular, section 2(1) states
that the
“Council must
secure the provision of proper facilities for”
education, training and so on. It
therefore sets out many of things that he is seeking. In correspondence
with us, the Special Education Consortium sought reassurance that those
duties incumbent on the LSC will be transferred to local
authorities.
Mr.
Laws:
That was very helpful and I shall return to it in a
moment.
To
finish my earlier points, I think that the Minister was saying that he
does not want to displace the existing wording with the new, much
clearer and firmer, wording because of the various other duties on
local authorities. He cited economic development departments and so on,
although it is not entirely clear how effective and powerful the clause
will be in relation to those other duties. Then he cited various other
clauses under which duties are placed on local authorities, such as
clause 54. He also mentioned Connexions and statementing. However, our
amendment would not remove any of those requirements under later
clauses. It would be an addition and provide a stronger and firmer
commitment to
“secure a
sufficient and appropriate supply of
provision”,
and ensure
that that is not restrained to education and training
only.
I am inclined to
press my amendment to a Division, unless the Minister can reassure us
that he is prepared to return and place that duty in the
Bill—after all, he said today that he does not disagree with the
wording—or provide the reassurance, in clear and unambiguous
terms, sought by the Special Education Consortium. I shall make it
clear what that would require. In its representation, from which I
quoted earlier, the consortium said that it
“recognised that these duties
would require the transfer of responsibilities from the Learning and
Skills Council to local authorities requiring further
legislation.”
It said that it would
welcome a commitment from the Minister that when the Government
introduces legislative proposals they will include a duty on local
authorities, which is the first point, to secure sufficient and
appropriate provision that those words are important, which is the
second point. The third point is that sufficient and appropriate
provision must relate to not only education and training, but to
provision in its widest sense. If the Minister feels that he is in a
position to indicate that the legislation would include a duty,
it should be in the form of those words: “sufficient and
appropriate...provision”. Such a measure should not simply
be constrained to education and training. It would be helpful if the
Minister could address that, as it would not then be necessary to press
the amendment to a
Division.
Jim
Knight:
I have no wish to divide the
Committee unnecessarily. If it helps the hon. Gentleman, we indicated
in July last year that, in future, local authorities will have
responsibility for funding and commissioning 16-to-19 provision. We
will issue proposals for consultation shortly, but our intention is
that the provisions in section 2 of the 2000 Act, which places a duty
on the Learning and Skills Council to secure learning provision for 16
to 19-year-olds, will transfer to local authorities. If I can beg the
patience of the Committee, the relevant sections of the 2000 Act that
we seek to transfer
include
“The
Council must secure the provision of proper facilities
for—
(a) education (other than higher
education) suitable to the requirements of persons who are above
compulsory school age but have not attained the age of 19,
(b) training suitable to the requirements
of such persons,
(c) organised
leisure-time occupation connected with such education, and
(d) organised leisure-time occupation
connected with such
training.”
Those are not
the specific words that the hon. Gentleman wants, but they are
sufficient to reassure the Special Education Consortium. I am pleased
to be able to satisfy the consortium, even if the measure is only
mildly, moderately or not at all comforting to the hon.
Gentleman.
Mr.
Laws:
I like to be a man who is easily satisfied and the
Minister has gone a long way to doing that. However, an element of
uncertainty hangs in the air so I would like to press the amendment to
a Division. I hope that as the Bill goes forward, the Minister will
decide to introduce his own amendments to clarify the
Government’s acceptance of this duty.
Question put, That the
amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
9.
Division
No.
9
]
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
Question
accordingly negatived.
Mr.
Hayes:
I beg to move amendment No. 14, in
clause 10, page 5, line 36, at
end add—
‘(2) In exercising
its functions in subsection (1), a local authority must ensure that it
promotes the effective participation of persons belonging to its area
to whom this Part applies and who have special educational
needs.’.
This
amendment also deals with issues about provision in respect of young
people with special educational needs. What is the reason for the
amendment? There is currently a lack of clarity about who is
responsible for ensuring transition to post-16 education and training
for SEN students. The Green Paper “Raising Expectations: Staying
in Education and Training Post-16”,
states:
“We
must ensure that there is appropriate provision and support in place to
enable those with Special Educational Needs (SEN) to continue in
learning. This can be a particular issue at the point of transition.
The system of support that has been in place stops when the young
person leaves school and sometimes there can be a gap before new
arrangements are made in the post-16 provider they transfer
to.”
The Green Paper says
that the Learning and Skills Council will consult on this issue, but it
has no direct responsibility for school-college transition—a
point to which the Minister may wish to respond. That responsibility
lies with Connexions, as the hon. Gentleman implied in
a previous debate when he was trying to persuade us that appropriate and
sufficient provision was somehow narrower and weaker than effective
participation—curious argument that I did not entirely follow
and clearly did not
support. 2.15
pm
The
Connexions service begins with the section 140 assessment and, where
appropriate, a special educational needs transition review. Under the
Bill, responsibility for Connexions transfers to local authorities and
the amendment provides for local authorities to have a specific
obligation to ensure effective participation on the part of SEN
students. Essentially, it would further strengthen the circumstances
surrounding those young people with special educational needs against a
background in which we know that they often do not get the chances that
they warrant. I hope that on that basis the Minister will accept the
amendment, and we can deal with these matters very
briefly.
Jim
Knight:
I will struggle to add anything to the previous
debate, as we are setting out to ensure that all young people have the
opportunity to participate and be engaged in education or training.
Clause 10 puts the duty on local authorities to promote participation
for all 16 and 17-year-olds, including those with special educational
needs. It will transfer commissioning responsibilities from the
Learning and Skills Council to local authorities, which will have a
responsibility all the way through to 19. It is precisely to capture
the needs of vulnerable young people, especially in respect of the
transition, that we want to bring those responsibilities up to the age
of 19 into the remit of local
authorities.
There is
little more I can say to satisfy the hon. Member for South Holland and
The
Deepings.
Mr.
Hayes:
Perhaps I can help the Minister. He can say a great
deal more, specifically about transition arrangements. He should be
able to speak about that for hours.
Jim
Knight:
As I said, we have the transfer of responsibility
to local authorities from the Learning and Skills Council. Section 140
of the 2000 Act becomes, in effect, clause 65 of this Bill, which gives
responsibility for section 140 assessments to local authorities. That
will help transition because local authorities that currently have
responsibility pre-16 will now also have responsibility post-16. We are
consulting on the responsibility for provision and the transfer to
local authorities so that transition, for the important reasons given
by the hon. Gentleman, can be smoothed as part of the local
authority’s duty under clause 10 to promote participation for
all 16 and 17-year-olds.
Although I have not spoken at
great length in response to the interesting points that the hon.
Gentleman made, I hope that what I said is sufficient for him to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Hayes:
I am not entirely satisfied. I do not want to
over-egg this pudding. The hon. Member for Yeovil was unpersuaded by
the Minister’s argument.
Angela
Watkinson:
Does my hon. Friend agree that participation
rates among this group of students are likely to be high? They are
certainly not difficult to reach. So many of them would otherwise be
condemned to a life of inactivity and boredom that they, more than
perhaps any other section of the 10 per cent. that we are trying to
reach, will welcome these opportunities. Having said that, there will
be huge cost implications in making provision for
them.
Mr.
Hayes:
Yes. My hon. Friend is right. I described two
challenges earlier: the challenge of persuading young people that they
had the opportunity to fulfil their potential and the challenge to
employers in persuading them to engage with young people. My hon.
Friend is right to point out also that once that process has begun, it
accelerates rapidly. Once employers know what can be done, they want to
do more. The ROSE project makes that case very powerfully. Once young
people have opportunities presented to them, I think that they will
accept them with enthusiasm, for the sort of reasons that she gave.
That does not make it any less challenging. That is why the amendment
strengthens the
Bill.
I am surprised
that the Minister finds the proposal alarming. The historical record of
helping people with disabilities and special educational needs is not
an altogether glowing one. I do not speak of this Government; I speak
Governments per se. It is not as if we could say with confidence that
all young people with disabilities and special educational needs are
getting what they are due. The reason for some indignation in my tone
is that I could not sanction—I do not suggest that the Minister
is guilty of this—any complacency in this regard. As a nation we
have a patchy record in special educational needs provision and the
treatment of disabled people in employment and learning opportunities.
That is not a partisan matter, but it is a matter of real concern to
members of the Committee and the
House.
Jim
Knight:
I am sorry if I gave any impression of
complacency. We know there is a strong correlation between not being in
education or training and other risk factors such as 16 to 19-year-olds
with learning difficulties and disabilities. That is why we are
currently investing £19 million in a transition support
programme for young people with special educational needs. That is why
the Learning and Skills Council has been consulting on changes to SEN
provision in FE and workplace-based learning, post 16, following the
recommendation of the Little review that it should develop a national
strategy for the collaborative delivery of provision for this group of
learners. My only criticism of the amendment is that it is superfluous.
The duty defined in the clause already allows for exactly what the
amendment identifies, which I agree is necessary. I hope, on that
basis, that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment
rather than press it to a
Division.
Mr.
Hayes:
The amendment builds into the Bill a specific
obligation. The Minister has repeated what he said in the debate on the
last amendment: that the duty to ensure effective participation is
sufficient. My judgment is that we need to, to use a word that he is
fond of using, galvanise the system. When he says galvanise I think he
really means catalyse. To galvanise means to copper-bottom something
and introducing a catalyst is to give it a boost. However, for the sake
of argument, let us use galvanise. We need to galvanise this aspect of
the Bill’s provisions because of our doubts, which are born of
our understanding and experience of the historical treatment of
disabled people and particularly those with special educational
needs.
As the hon.
Member for Yeovil argued in respect of the previous amendment, I think,
that the more insistent that we can be and the Bill can be on these
matters, the better. We must not be found wanting in any way, shape or
form when it comes to people who are the most challenged. The mark of a
civilised society is how it deals with those who are least fortunate. I
will not stint from making the case on behalf of those people, in this
Committee or elsewhere. If I sound uncharacteristically intemperate, it
is only because of my enthusiasm and my fierceness in defence of the
gentle.
Jim
Knight:
We share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm
for specifying provision in respect of people with learning
difficulties. That is why we have a whole clause—clause
65—dealing with assessment for people with learning
difficulties. That is why Connexions and local authorities will
continue to offer support to young people with learning difficulties
until their 25th birthday. However, I would argue that the amendment is
superfluous. On the basis of the commitment that I have offered the
hon. Gentleman with regard to these young people, I hope that he will
not press the amendment to a
Division.
Mr.
Hayes:
I do not doubt the Minister’s integrity on
this matter. I would not want to suggest that there are doubts about
it. I think that this matter can unite the Committee, as it unites the
House. As I said, I do not think that this is a partisan
matter.
To put it
bluntly, However, I think that the more demanding we can be in respect
of the interests of young people with special educational needs, the
better. Having been involved with and interested in these matters for
more than 20 years, as a county councillor and as an MP, I will take a
lot of persuading that any but the most demanding provisions are likely
to yield consistently high-quality provision for people with special
educational needs.
To
that end, I am minded to press the amendment. It might not be perfectly
worded because we are imperfect creatures who have fallen from a state
of grace. Therefore, it may be that the Minister, if and when we do
press it, reflects on it over time to see whether the Government can
come back at a later stage of our considerations with a renewed
enthusiasm for strengthening the Bill in the way that the hon. Member
for Yeovil and I have articulated. I would therefore
love—perhaps love is too strong. I would like to press the
amendment to a
vote.
Mr.
Heald:
I would like to add a word of
support for my hon. Friend. For those with mental health problems,
there is a quality of provision that could be available that is not
available at present. The Minister might find it of interest if I
explain the sort of thing that I have in mind.
In Southend,
Rethink Severe Mental Illness has an employment agency on the top floor
of a building. Below it is a pet supplies shop and at the back of the
building is a warehouse. The organisation trains people with mental
health problems upstairs in the employment agency and then starts them
on retail in the pet supplies shop. If that goes well, so be it; if it
does not, they are given an opportunity in the warehouse. Once they
have the frame of mind and the discipline needed for work, they are
given placements at businesses in the community, using the same sort of
approach that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster talked about in
relation to other
groups.
Specialist
provision such as that, provided by charities or voluntary bodies, is
incredibly helpful for some of the most vulnerable people in our
society. Is there provision in the Bill to put a duty on local
authorities to co-operate and consult with charities and voluntary
bodies of that sort, to ensure that the sort of provision that is made
is not just a college place, which might not be suitable, or a rather
feeble work placement, but something solid and sufficient for this sort
of group? I support the amendment not because I think that the wording
is right, but because I hope that it will galvanise the system not just
for the able-bodied and those who are fortunate, but for some of the
most vulnerable people in our society—not just those who cannot
read, write and add up, but those who have mental health
problems.
2.30
pm
Jim
Knight:
I am grateful for the opportunity to address the
Committee once more on this interesting amendment. I have little to add
but, in response to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, may I
draw his attention to clause 69, which is headed, “Co-operation
as regards provision of 14-19 education and training”, and
states that
“arrangements made by a
children’s services authority in England...must include
arrangements within subsection (2) or
(3)”.
Subsection (2)(c)
applies to
“other persons
and bodies (of any nature) who exercise functions, or engage in
activities, relevant to the provision of 14-19 education or training in
the authority’s
area.”
I hope that that
reassures the hon. Gentleman that some thought has been given to
co-operation between local authorities and others who are capable of
support in that
area.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
8.
Division
No.
10
]
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
Question
accordingly negatived.
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 84, in
clause 10, page 5, line 36, at
end add—
‘(2) Each local
authority shall conduct an annual audit into the sufficiency and
diversity of educational provision to assess its adequacy for
fulfilling its functions in subsection
(1).’.
This
amendment, too, relates to the sufficiency of provision. I want to
refer to comments by my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster and for
South Holland and The Deepings about the ROSE project. I responded to
the invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster to visit
that project, which is run by Havering College of further and higher
education. I saw a young woman with severe learning difficulties who
was engaged in the project at a branch of Sainsbury’s in the
Brewery retail park at Romford. It was inspiring to see her at work,
because the challenge of filling shelves was developing her intellect.
She was developing in other areas as well, and in time, she would be
able to take a bus from home to work by herself. That was absolutely
inspiring, but what was particularly impressive was the enthusiasm of
the manager of that branch of Sainsbury’s. I met other
employers, too, including a franchisee who ran several
McDonald’s branches in the area, and was determined to invite
more ROSE project participants to do some of the simpler jobs in his
franchises. It is a wonderful scheme and I wish them all the
best.
Clause
10 is the key clause in the Bill. It imposes a duty on local
authorities to promote participation in education and training. In
theory, that should mean that local authorities have a duty to ensure
that there is sufficient educational provision to help young people to
fulfil their duty to participate. That was the essence of the debate on
the previous two amendments. Although there are other duty provisions
about support services in the Bill, and other duties elsewhere in
legislation generally about the provision of education, there is no
specific duty linking the provision of educational facilities with the
duty of all young people to
participate.
There is
a danger, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The
Deepings said in relation to the previous amendment, pf complacency. A
local authority might take the view that its education and training
provision is just fine, and it will focus on exercising its duty under
clause 10 by monitoring 16 and 17-year-olds and pursuing penalties: it
will concentrate on the second part of the sentence in clause 10,
rather than the first part. I remember the director of education in the
local education authority in my constituency telling me that there were
no weak schools in his area only a month before two comprehensive
schools were put into special measures. Either he did not know what was
going on in his area, or he has very low standards regarding adequate
provision in that
area.
Amendment no. 84
would add to clause 10 a requirement that each local authority
should
“conduct an
annual audit into the sufficiency and diversity of educational
provision in order to assess its adequacy for fulfilling its
functions”
when
promoting greater participation. The words, “sufficiency and
diversity”, were proposed by Barnardo’s, which points out
that the 10 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in education,
training or work—“ETWs” is my new mnemonic, which
is more cumbersome than “NEETs”—require provision
that is not simply more of
the same. It is not just Barnardo’s that has raised concerns.
Martin Ward, the deputy general secretary of the Association of School
and College Leaders, told the Committee
that “we will indeed have
a larger number of young people for whom it will be difficult to
provide the sort of support, per head, that they will need and
deserve.”——[Official Report, Education and
Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 61,
Q154.]
Sue Dutton, the acting
chief executive of the Association of Colleges told
us:
“We
recognise that there will have to be some transformations in the way
that colleges currently operate, given the new
arrangements.”——[Official Report, Education and
Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 33,
Q85.]
She also
said:
“There
will be, and are, occasions when colleges cannot fulfil the
personalised service that they would like
to.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills
Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 31,
Q79.]
Similarly, in its
briefing, TreeHouse made its concern about the quality of provisions
available in colleges for vulnerable young people very clear. It called
for further clauses to
“ensure there are appropriate
supports for young people with autism and SEN to stay on...as well
as reliable monitoring of the
supports.”
The
Association of School and College Leaders, too, referred to the
difficulties facing
colleges:
“Re-engaging
the last 10 per cent. of young people is a huge challenge that will not
be achieved cheaply.”
The
Royal National Institute for Deaf People
said:
“We would
like to see more duties on LEAs to ensure that they provide sufficient
and appropriate provision for pupils with
SEN”
If we impose a duty
on young people of 16 and 17 to participate in education and training,
the people whom this duty is most likely to affect—the 16 and
17-year-olds who would not have been going on to further or higher
education or a job with training—are likely to have a wider
range of needs than the rest of the population of that age. It seems
right therefore to impose a duty on local authorities, as part of the
requirement to promote participation under clause 10, to look at
themselves annually to ensure that the young people on whom this
legislation is most likely to impact are catered for by the education
and training provision in the local authority area. Amendment No. 84
seeks to do that, and it guards against the public sector’s
tendency to be complacent about the quality of services
provided.
Jim
Knight:
I shall seek to address the amendment directly,
and not be distracted by new mnemonics for NEETs such as NETWAs and
NOTWETs—there are all manner of things we could discuss if we
were so minded. The Learning and Skills Council has a duty to ensure
16-to-19 provision. That role includes auditing the provision available
in an area, assessing demand from young people, and planning provision
to meet that demand. It is clear that the LSC takes its duties very
seriously in that regard, and so do local authorities regarding the
pre-16 age group. In June last year, we announced that in future the
funding and responsibility 16-to-19 provision would be transferred
from the LSC to local authorities. In one of our evidence-taking
sessions, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services
said
that
“we
need to look very coldly and calmly at the provision being made,
matching that to the needs of the economy in consultation with
employers and employers’ organisations in order to commission,
to recomission and, in some cases, to decommission provision to ensure
that what we have matches what is
needed.”——[Official Report, Education and
Skills Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2008; c. 79,
Q182.]
The association clearly
takes its responsibilities seriously in that regard. However, the fact
that the LSC’s duty will be transferred, means that in the
future auditing provision will become the role of the local
authority.
In many ways,
we agree with both the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton
and Barnardo’s about the importance of that audit. However, it
does not make sense to put the duty on local authorities before we have
legislated and make them responsible for commissioning the
provision—that would put them in a difficult position and we
have not even consulted on the best ways of making that transfer. We
have always said that we could not require all young people to
participate until we believe that there is a suitable route available
for everyone in every area of the country. That is why we are not
raising the participation age until 2013, when the national entitlement
to the new diplomas and the apprenticeship guarantee will be in place,
and the foundation learning tier for provision at entry and level 1
will be established. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that we
must go through an important sequencing to deliver by 2013. The
auditing that he requires will, by that time, have been put in place by
future legislation.
Mr.
Gibb:
I am more than moderately—perhaps even
comfortably—assured by the Minister’s response. On the
basis of his assurance that the matters will be tackled and legislated
upon once the transfer from the LSC is complete, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 148, in
clause 10, page 5, line 36, at
end insert—
‘(2) In
subsection (2) of section 47 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act
1998 (Determination of school’s budget share), after paragraph
(g) insert—
“(h)
requiring local education authorities to have regard, in determining
the resources required for each school and college maintained by them,
to the duty imposed on such authorities by section 10 of the Education
and Skills Act
2008.”’.
The
amendment was inspired by the National Union of Teachers—as so
much is. We share its concern about ensuring that there are sufficient
resources in place for schools to provide for, and meet, the needs of
the 16 and 17-year-olds to whom the duty to participate applies. The
Government’s Green Paper says at paragraph 4.37 that
“our modelling suggests the
majority of additional learners would be based mainly in the FE sector,
although some would be in schools.”
In his evidence, the Minister said in
response to his hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield:
“Getting to 100 per
cent. averages out at about 100 learners per local authority, or about
50 per cohort.”——[Official Report, Education
and Skills Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2008; c. 217,
Q502.]
There are 150 local
authorities, so I multiplied 100 by 150 by adding two zeros to
150—it is a formulaic method of multiplication that has served
me well throughout my life, including 13 years as an accountant with
KPMG—which comes to 15,000 extra students. The
Government’s Green Paper says, at paragraph
4.43
“We estimate that if we
introduce compulsory participation to age 17 in 2013 there will be
around 5,000 more 16 and 17 year olds in schools that year than there
will be next year (the 07/08 academic year), and in 2015, when the age
would be raised to 18, there will be around 15,000 more in schools than
in 07/08. All of this growth is accounted for by the already planned
growth in Academies, most of which will have sixth
forms.”
That makes 20,000
more school places in sixth forms. Moving on to colleges, the Green
Paper says at paragraph 4.45
“And in relation to FE
we estimate that if we were to introduce compulsory participation to 17
in 2013, 13,000 additional places would be needed compared to next
academic year (07/08), and then on raising the age to 18 in 2015,
another 31,000 more would be needed on top of that.”
That is 13,000 plus 31,000, which means
44,000 more college places.
2.45
pm
With
regard to new full-time education, the Government predict 20,000 more
places in schools and 44,000 more college places. That is 64,000 places
in total, of which just under a third would be in schools. When the
Government imply that the majority of the new provision will be in FE
colleges, they are technically correct, but I think that most people
implicitly understand that few of those places would be in schools,
because the Government keep emphasising that the Bill is not about
raising the school leaving age to 18.
The final part of the jigsaw is
the number of 16 and 17-year-olds in work-based learning. According to
figure 4.3 on page 31 of the Green Paper, there was an increase in that
total from 97,000 in 2007-08 to 141,000 in 2015-16, which is an
increase of 44,000. If one adds together the 20,000 school places, the
54,000 college places and the 44,000 work-based learning places, one
reaches 128,000, which is just over 10 per cent. of the 16 and
17-year-old cohort and therefore about right. My concern is that 64,000
new college places means 426 places per local authority and 133 school
places per local authority, which makes 559 student places per local
authority, rather than the 100 referred to by the Minister. I am sure
that I have misunderstood either some of those numbers or the
Minister’s answer to his hon. Friend’s question, so it
would be helpful if he clarified the position.
That leads me on to the
question posed by Professor Alison Wolf on page 16 of her book,
“Diminished Returns”, in which she says that
“while the Department expects very
few of the ‘new’ participants to be taking A-levels, the
economic benefits analysis provides for 27 per cent. of the additional
16-year-olds and 34 per cent. of that additional 17-year-olds to do so
(with another 13 per cent. of each doing GCSEs.)”
She queries that assumption, because she
believes that it exaggerates the economic benefits of the policy, as
A-levels bring with them a higher level of economic benefit than other
qualifications. She makes points out
that
“we know from a
variety of...sources that those who are realistically able to take
A-levels almost universally do so already.”
It would be helpful if the
Minister told the Committee how many of the new 10 per cent. of
participants he expects to study A-levels in 2015 as a result of the
new duty to participate under the Bill. It is an important question,
because it goes to the root both of the economic analysis of the policy
and of the likely costs that schools would be expected to incur. That
is why the amendment would require local authorities to take into
account the new duties imposed by clause 10 in determining the
allocation of school budgets.
The NUT’s concerns were
shared by the Association of School and College Leaders and the
Association of Colleges. Brian Lightman, the president of the ASCL,
told the
Committee:
“There
are certainly additional costs. I think it would be very wrong and
naive to assume that you could do this on the cheap, and I do not think
that would be
practical.”
He also said
that
“you are going to
need additional staff who can offer specialised support. For
example...a youth support worker who provides specialised
counselling and mentoring to young
people.”——[Official Report, Education and
Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 64,
Q161.]
Martin Ward, the deputy
general secretary of the ASCL, referred to the hardest-to-reach of the
10 per cent. cohort, and said that
“it is not going to be cheap
because they are going to need extra
support.”——[Official Report, Education and
Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 64,
Q161.]
Finally, Sue
Dutton, the acting chief executive of the Association of Colleges told
the Committee:
“There will be extra
costs in work force related matters. If you offer a more personalised
service to a more difficult cohort of learners, it inevitably must come
at a higher price.”——[Official Report,
Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 33,
Q86.]
An amendment that simply
requires local authorities to have regard to the duties imposed on
schools by this legislation when they determine budgets is therefore
sensible.
Jim
Knight:
There is a straightforward way in which to address
the amendment which is not unrelated to how I addressed the previous
one, but to be helpful I shall deal briefly with some of the issues
raised by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton.
As for
what I said in evidence, having reread the transcript I accept that
there is a danger that it would be misleading because I omitted to say
that the average of 50 places per cohort per local authority applies
only to schools. The hon. Gentleman’s maths is correct that that
would become about 15,000 more 16 and 17-year-olds in 2015 than there
are this year. In FE in 2013, we estimate that 13,000 additional places
will be needed compared with this year and, in 2015, another 31,000
places will be needed. I hope that I have been
helpful.
The
substantial point remains that the total number of 16 and 17-year-olds
in each year group decreases after 2007-08. Although the proportion of
young people will increase significantly, the increase in actual
numbers will not be that large What I was saying to my hon. Friend the
Member for Sedgefield about now being an opportune time to pursue such
a measure remains true.
Mr.
Heald:
Does that mean that the article that the Minister
will remember from T
he
Times Educational
Supplement last November, which said that his Department needed to
be build 17 new colleges, was not right and that it would be possible
to manage with existing numbers? What is his
plan?
Jim
Knight:
I do not think that we need to
build all those new colleges. They certainly do not need to be built
overnight or between now and 2015. I have just said that, in FE in
2013, we estimate that 13,000 additional places will be needed compared
with this year, and in 2015 another 31,000 places will be needed. In my
reckoning, that does not bring to mind that number of colleges. We have
not averaged it out throughout local authorities by dividing by 150
because colleges do not tend to relate in the same way to local
authorities. Nevertheless, the current capacity of colleges in FE
spread throughout the country can cope with the numbers. Obviously,
some capital commitments in FE will go towards increasing the
capacity.
Mr.
Laws:
Is it the Government’s intention that some of
the extra demand will be soaked up by encouraging more schools to have
sixth form
provision?
Jim
Knight:
We expect about 15,000 more 16 and 17-year-olds in
school in 2015, so the provision of post-16 sixth forms will require a
modest expansion. However, as I set out in evidence, that will be an
average per local authority of 50 per cohort. That is extremely modest,
and I do not anticipate swathes of new sixth forms or sixth form
colleges cropping up throughout the country which we would have to
fund.
On the
slightly complicated issue of the proportion of additional participants
who might be doing A-levels, we have calculated the figures on some of
our assumptions of economic benefit by looking at the level of
qualification that non-participants achieved at the point at which they
stopped participating and what individuals with a similar level of
qualification are going on to study. On that basis, about one fifth of
16-year-olds and one quarter of 17-year-olds have reached level 2 at
the point of leaving school, when they do not participate. The vast
majority—83 per cent.—of those 16 and 17-year-olds who
reach level 2 opt to do A-levels, but they are not the only ones who do
so. Among 16 and 17-year-olds leaving school with no qualifications, 11
per cent. go on to do A-levels, probably with extra support to reach
that level. Similarly, among the 16 and 17-year-olds leaving school
with below level 2 qualifications, 23 per cent. make the leap to
A-levels. On the basis of that level of prior attainment for
non-participants, we have been able to assume that 31 per cent. would
go on to do
A-levels.
Mr.
Gibb:
Presumably, the one fifth of 16-year-olds and one
quarter of 17-year-olds who go on to do A-levels after they leave
school, do that without being compelled to by legislation. Therefore,
they are likely to be more motivated, and perhaps more able, than the
10 per cent. of the cohort that we are trying to address in the
legislation. Why does the Minister assume that the same proportions of
this 10 per cent. will pursue these qualifications as a result of the
legislation? That is a cumbersome and long way of asking a simple
question. Are those people leaving school at 16 and 17 to go on
to sixth form college, and do they therefore count as leaving school? Or
have they left school in a more definitive way, and returned to
education later
on?
Jim
Knight:
We needed a consistent basis on which to predict
future qualification choices, and it was felt that prior attainment
provided that, and it is evidence-based. I would certainly argue that
this 10 per cent. cohort would be less able. If we know that one fifth
of 16-year-olds and one quarter of 17-year-olds who are not
participating have achieved level 2, we know that they are of the same
ability as other people who have achieved level 2 who are
participating. They are certainly capable of going on to do
A-levels.
We know that
A-levels are deemed to be a strong choice for people who stay on. If we
can motivate them by whatever means to carry on in education or
training, we think that it is fair to make some assumptions on the
basis of the prior attainment of people who are
participating.
Mr.
Hayes:
That is a curious argument, because it presumes
that all those who leave at 16 would, if compelled to stay on, welcome
that compulsion. Some people who leave school at 16 want to do so. A
measure of their attainment at 16 is not the same thing as a measure of
their desire to continue learning, is
it?
Jim
Knight:
Either I did not get the point or I was having a
Proustian moment of reflection. Would the hon. Gentleman like to ask it
again?
Mr.
Hayes:
I shall explain more simply. Some of the people who
currently leave at 16, who will be compelled under the Bill to stay on,
leave because they face all kinds of challenges and difficulties. For
all sorts of peer group and perhaps family reasons they do not stay on,
but would rather like to, given a reasonable amount of
encouragement.
Other
people who leave at 16 do so because they want to get out and do
something else. Differentiating between those groups is critical to the
modelling described by the Minister, because the assumption that
underpins it is that prior attainment is more significant than
desire.
Jim
Knight:
I accept that the modelling is predicated more on
ability than motivation, if that is the hon. Gentleman’s point.
But we do not have any better data on which to model. Anything else
would be, to use Alison Wolf’s phrase, “a
hunch”.
The
reality is, before we get too preoccupied by the matter, that the
change in the assumption makes very little difference to the overall
economic benefit. We have looked at various other ways that are more
hunch-like and we did not see massive differences to the economic
benefit. Certainly, they would pass the Treasury prescription on
legislation, even if we assume that all leavers went on to do
vocational qualifications or GCSEs. I hope that that answer satisfies
hon.
Members.
3
pm
The
straight answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis
and Littlehampton is,
obviously, that we do not know how many people will go on to do
A-levels. They will have a whole new set of qualification choices by
then, but to satisfy the perfectly legitimate requirements of
Parliament for us to conduct an impact assessment, we have made some
assumptions based on what we know. There are many known unknowns and
unknown unknowns that we have to grapple with as we gaze into the
crystal ball. When
determining the resources required by schools and colleges, we expect
that local authorities will have regard to their duty to promote
participation, as they will have regard to all of their duties. The
amendment makes assumptions about how the funding system will operate
when the transfer of resources from the Learning and Skills Council to
local authorities is implemented from 2010-11. That is premature, given
that the details of the new funding system will be subject to
consultation in the spring. These changes should be implemented from
the academic year 2010-11, well before plans to raise the participation
age, and they will fundamentally change the funding system. Those
changes will require primary legislation, which we will bring before
the House in due course, including amendments to the School Standards
and Framework Act 1998. It would be premature to make detailed
alterations of primary legislation now, before that comes into place.
Yet again, for the sake of proper sequencing, I ask the hon. Gentleman
to withdraw his amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
On the last point, I take on board the
Minister’s argument, as I did on the previous amendment, and I
will withdraw the
amendment.
On
the substance of the debate, the Minister overestimates the benefits.
If the economic benefits have been calculated on the assumption that 27
per cent. of 16-year-olds and 34 per cent.—a third—of
17-year-olds will take A-levels, and if Alison Wolf believes that that
assumption would exaggerate the benefits quite substantially, it would
be interesting, as the hon. Member for Yeovil said, to call back
Professor Wolf to address those points, given the new information and
arguments that have been put to us. She says in her
pamphlet:
“we
know from a variety of...sources that those who are realistically
able to take A-levels almost universally do so
already.”
The
Minister also underestimates the costs. During the evidence-taking
sessions the hon. Member for Sedgefield
asked:
“do you think you
will have enough suitable people by 2013 and 2015 for all the young
people who will come on stream
then?”——[Official Report, Education and
Skills Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2008; c. 217,
Q502.]
The answer was based on
100 per cohort—I accept that that related to schools
only—but we are actually talking about 133 school places per
authority and 426 college places per local authority. Those are
substantial numbers, and I wonder whether the Government have
underestimated the implications for those institutions. I have made
that point during the debate, so the Minister need not respond again
now, but having tested the arguments and brought these issues to the
attention of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
The
Chairman:
I notice the hon. Member for Yeovil shifting in
his seat. I was going to say to members of the Committee that I am of
the view that the germane matters contained in the clause have been
thoroughly considered and I am not, therefore, minded to facilitate a
clause stand part debate. Simply because I am not psychic and cannot
anticipate precisely what the hon. Member for Yeovil is going to say, I
am willing to allow him briefly to say it. I hope that the Committee
understands why I propose to proceed in that way.
Question proposed, That
the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Laws:
I understand your concern to not go back over other
ground, Mr. Bercow. I want to raise a fresh issue that is
relevant to the clause and to ask whether it would be reasonable to ask
the Minister to respond
briefly.
The clause
deals with local authority responsibilities in relation to helping
young people to be in education, training, and employment with
education and training. I want to ask whether any duties will be placed
on local authorities in relation to financial support for young people,
which is something that we have not considered so far. I cannot see
another point in the Bill on which there will be an opportunity to
discuss this issue
directly.
Some outside
organisations have raised concerns about the lack of any specific
detail in the Bill on the future of the educational maintenance
allowance and the provision of support for fees. We assume that all the
courses that we are talking about will be exempt. Later in the Bill,
there is provision to deal with the cost of books, equipment and
materials for 19-year-olds and above. That could be relevant for people
whose parents are not willing to support them financially beyond the
age of 16. Issues have been raised about whether local authorities will
have hardship grants to deal with such issues. Presumably, some young
people will stay in settings beyond the age of 16 where uniforms are
required. There are concerns about financial provision in that area.
There are issues about the loss of earnings that might result for some
young people from sticking to the duties in the
Bill.
The
Government have indicated that they will have to look in detail at what
responsibilities will fall to them and to local government in relation
to the educational maintenance allowance. Its original purpose was to
support young people and to galvanise them into staying in education
post-16. As a consequence of the compulsion in the Bill, they will have
to stay on, but the Government have not indicated how they intend to
frame the future of the EMA to allow for the change from volunteerism
to compulsion. There has been some hint of significant changes, but no
further detail from the Government of which I am
aware.
We would like
to know not only what thinking there is on these issues, but, in
relation to the clause, whether local authorities will have
responsibilities to fund any of that support, and whether any duties
will be imposed on
them.
Jim
Knight:
The EMA is, of course, important. It is
referred to in paragraphs 5.39 and 5.40 of the impact assessment, which
gives a helpful description of EMAs
as
“means tested weekly
payments currently made directly to 16-19 year olds in education or
unwaged training.”
It
is described as a “something for something” incentive.
Clearly, there will need to be changes because the EMA was introduced
to encourage people to stay in full-time education or training. We are
changing the law in that area, so we will have to change the way in
which EMAs work to respond to
that.
EMAs have been
successful in raising participation for 16-year-olds. Between 2003-04
and 2004-05, they increased participation by 3.7 per cent., which is
highly significant. EMAs are one of the only things to have worked in
addressing the problem NEETs. Given their success, we want them to
continue in some form. We will need to look at the structure of
financial support to ensure that it continues to be as effective as
possible.
Once
we have raised the participation age, it will be essential to ensure
that financial circumstances are not a barrier to participation. The
hon. Member for Yeovil is right about some of the issues, such as
learning materials and transport. The EMAs are quite important to some
families in securing transport, for
example.
Mr.
Laws:
In dealing with how EMAs could change under the new
proposals, does the Minister envisage there being the same level of
financial support per young person? Who will administer the
EMAs?
Jim
Knight:
At this point—several years off and in
another spending period—it is impossible for me to make
commitments on what the level will be. Naturally, we will be mindful of
the success of EMAs at the current level. I would not envisage that we
would be looking to reduce the financial support to the sorts of people
who have been receiving EMAs as they are. Indeed, we have been
extending EMAs to people on the entry to employment programme. If
anything, we are looking to deepen the benefits of EMAs, rather than
dilute them.
We will
ensure that the financial constraints are not a barrier. As for who
will administer the EMAs, they are currently administered on our behalf
by the Learning and Skills Council. When we publish consultations on
how we will implement the transfer of commissioning from the LSC to
local authorities, we will need to give some indication of how they
will be administered. At this stage, I am not in a position to be able
to give the hon. Gentleman the sort of answer that would even mildly
satisfy him on the Laws scale of
satisfaction.
Mr.
Heald:
Would the clause be justiciable? If I was a person
with a special need of some sort or some desire for a particular kind
of education, would I be able to sue the council on the basis that it
had not exercised its functions to promote my effective participation
in education or
training?
Jim
Knight:
The hon. Gentleman, as ever, poses a fascinating
question around the—what was the word he
used?
Mr.
Heald:
Justiciability—can one
sue?
Jim
Knight:
On the justiciability of the clause, I would liken
it more to the current duties on a local authority to provide
schooling. It would be treated in law in a similar way as the
justiciability of local
authorities in respect of the provision of schooling. That is a good
example of the general duties elsewhere in law that are similar to
those in the clause. I would expect the courts to deal with them in a
similar
way.
Mr.
Laws:
I am grateful to you, Mr. Bercow, for
your patience and to the Minister for his comments. This short debate
highlights the fact that there is little bit of a hole in the Bill in
relation to the detail of future financial support for young people.
There seems to be uncertainty about how the EMA will survive. In the
section of the impact assessment to which the Minister referred, there
is a comment about the Government looking at how they can strengthen
the link of these payments to behaviour and attainment. I am not sure
what that means. I did not pick up any response from the Minister about
issues of hardship grants and how young people might be helped with
costs that previously would fall quite often to their parents, but that
their parents might be less willing to engage with post
16.
Jim
Knight:
Learner hardship grants are available separately
from EMAs, as I recall. They are slightly more flexible than EMAs,
which have a particular point of assessment, and I certainly foresee
those continuing. Obviously we could have waited a considerable time
and changed the sequence in which we legislated to do this. However, we
thought that it was important to put the basic legislation in place to
raise the participation age now so that the cohort currently in year 6
goes into secondary school with the expectation that they will
carry on learning. Undoubtedly, there are unanswered questions and we
have to be upfront about those. One of those is around financial
support, but we are committed to ensuring not only that there is an
engaging choice of worthwhile learning options, but that there will be
financial support where it is needed to enable those learners to
participate.
3.15
pm
Mr.
Laws:
It is helpful to understand that there are these
unanswered questions. We may come back to them later in the proceedings
as we continue to scrutinise the Bill.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 10
ordered to stand part of the
Bill
| 
