![]() House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris Shaw, James Davies,
Committee Clerks attended
the Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 17 March 2009(Morning)[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning BillWritten evidence to be reported to the HouseAS
16 Andrew Wright (Central Training Group) and
others AS
17 Jamie Stevenson (Keeping Excellence in Training Standards
Ltd) AS
18 Rosie Ross (Key
Training) AS
19 Association of National Specialist
Colleges AS
20 Lindsay Jardine (Kent Association of Training
Organisations) AS
21 Eric Collis (Humberside Engineering and Training
Association) 10.30
am Schedule
1 agreed
to.
Clause 40Education
and training for persons over compulsory school age: general
duty
Annette
Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): I beg to move
amendment 250, in clause 40, page 23, leave
out lines 21 to 26 and
insert (1) A local
education authority in England must secure the provision of proper
facilities for education and training (as defined by subsection 2)
suitable to the requirements of persons in their
area (a) who are above
compulsory school age and under 19, and
(b) who are aged over 19 or over but under 25 and
subject to learning difficulty
assessment. (2) Facilities are
proper if they are (a)
of a quality sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of individuals,
and (b) of a quality adequate
to meet those
needs..
The
Chairman: With this we may discuss the following:
amendment 251, in
clause 40, page 23, line 22, leave
out
reasonable. Amendment
252, in
clause 40, page 23, line 31, leave
out to meet persons reasonable needs and
insert to the
requirements of persons in their
area.. Amendment
253, in
clause 40, page 23, line 31, leave
out reasonable.
Annette
Brooke: This group of amendments probe the apparent
contradictions between the wording in the Learning and Skills Act 2000
and the Bill. Clauses 40 and 41 replace provisions in that
Actin particular, sections 2, 3 and 13which will be
repealed. Clauses 40 and 41 do not follow the same wording as those
provisions in the Act and it is not easy to judge whether the
differences are necessary, or appropriate, in view of the shift
in the Education and Skills Act 2008 from the entitlement for 16 to
19-year-olds to participate in education, to a duty for them to
participate in education and training.
I would like
to expand on amendments 251 and 253, because they both require that the
word reasonable be omitted. With the previous
legislation, there were two qualities required for education and
training: that they must be suitable and that they must be enough to
meet the reasonable needs of persons in the area. From the proposed new
section, 157A(3), it is not entirely clear how the criteria for
suitability is to be judged; there are criteria, but there is no guide
as to what meets reasonable needsthat is the
point that I am making. In particular, it seems to be left up to local
authorities to decide whether the needs claimed by persons in their
area are reasonable. The clause uses the phrase
reasonable needs
of persons in their area.
Does that refer to the
reasonable needs of each person, or the reasonable needs of the
collective of persons? It is a significant question. Judged by a
reference to each individual, that might be entirely reasonable.
However, it might be considered unreasonable to have to meet the
similar needs of a large number of people all at the same time. That
problem of interpretation does not appear to arise in the wording
currently used in the Learning and Skills Act, which makes it clear
that it is the reasonable needs of the individual that must be
satisfied.
Removing the
word reasonable from subsections 1 and 3 would not have
the effect of obliging local education authorities to make absurdly
over the top provision; the danger is clearly checked by subsections
4(e) and 5, which re-enact similar provisions of the Learning and
Skills Act. The significance of the word reasonable in
the Bill is very difficult to understand and could be dangerous when
the Act comes to be interpreted. The amendments are probing amendments,
but they reflect important concerns, particularly on whether we apply
reasonable needs to individuals, or to the collective individuals in a
particular community.
Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): It is a
pleasure to welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Chope. After
a brief respite in our rigorous scrutiny of the Bill, we return to our
work with renewed enthusiasm and consider the amendments that stand in
the name of the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends.
Amendment 250
is the key amendment in this group. As she argued, it seeks to amend
subsection (1), which states that local education authorities must
secure that enough education and training is provided to meet a
persons reasonable needs, by qualifying that requirement
further and referring to proper facilities for suitable education and
training, married to the requirements of the individual. That is
further underlined by a proposed subsection (2), which stipulates that
facilities are to be considered proper if they of a quality sufficient
and
adequate to meet those needs. Amendments 251 and 253 follow on from that
and would leave out the word reasonable when referring
to needs. Indeed, the hon. Lady has reinforced that in her brief
contribution today.
Although I
entirely endorse the sentiments that lie behind the amendments, I think
that the difficulty with them is that though it is not easy to define
what is reasonable, equally, it is not particularly easy to define what
is proper, sufficient or adequate. The risk is that we would be laying
down three concepts on which local authorities have to come to a
conclusion, rather than one. I have said before in earlier
considerations that reasonable is frequently used in
legislation as a catch-all for proper, sufficient and
necessary. Although I entirely understand their purpose, my
concern is that the amendments might further complicate a Bill that is
complicated enough already.
If the hon.
Lady wants to intervene, it might be helpful if she could say a little
more on what exactly is meant by proper, sufficient and
adequate and perhaps cite other examples of where those terms
have added greater clarity to legislation than the word
reasonable. That might be a tall order, and I emphasise
that I am not trying to be difficult, but I just wonder whether the
hon. Lady might say something further on
that.
Annette
Brooke: The important point is that that is a cross
reference to previous legislation that does express that differently.
The whole point is to go back to the legislation of 2000, which, as I
understand it, expresses that differently from the Bill. There are
concerns that the Bills provisions could be inferior to how it
has been expressed in the past. That might unwittingly be bringing a
change we are not aware of, so we need to hear the Ministers
response.
Mr.
Hayes: That was a most helpful intervention. The hon. Lady
referred to that point in her earlier remarks but has now made it
absolutely crystal clear. In that sense, it will be interesting to hear
what the Minister will say. Far be it for me to lead him down a path he
does not want to go down, or indeed to anticipate imperfectly his
contribution, but he might say that such details could be enforced in
guidance and that reasonable could be supported with a
further definition of how provision is to match learner needs. He might
offer us such an assurance, and that seems to be critical to the hon.
Ladys amendments. There is an argument that putting those words
in the Bill would tie the hands of providers, but if they were in the
guidance, that would ensure that what the hon. Lady fears, that the
requirement set out in previous legislation will be diluted, are not
realised.
I just wonder
whether an amendment is the right way forward in regard to that
concern, and whether the Minister has another way of ensuring that
proper, sufficient and adequate provision is made, tied to the needs of
the learner, because that is what we all desire. Perhaps he can come up
with reassurances, or perhaps he will disappoint us. I hope that he
does not. This is the beginning of a new week in our considerations,
and I do not want him to be disappointing, but to exceed our
expectations.
The
Minister for Schools and Learners (Jim Knight): It is a
delight to welcome you back to the Chair after your weeks
sojourn, Mr. Chope. Clause 40 sets out the
new central duty being placed on local authorities, as
announced in last years White Paper, Raising
Expectations: enabling the system to deliver. The clause
inserts section 15ZA into the Education Act 1996 and requires local
authorities to secure enough suitable education and training to meet
the reasonablea crucial word in this debateneeds of
people in their area who are aged 16 or over but under 19, and those
who are aged 19 or over but under 25 and are subject to a learning
difficulty assessment.
The duty has
been carefully crafted to reflect the new duty on young people to
participate, for which we legislated last year. All young people will
be required to participate in some form of education and training up to
age 17 by 2013 and to age 18 by 2015. The Bill places local authorities
in the lead for the outcomes of all young people aged 0 to 19 and those
more vulnerable adults up to the age of 25. With those
responsibilities, local authorities will, for the first time, be able
to take a multi-agency and integrated approach to providing targeted
support for the educational and wider needs of those for whom they are
responsible. At
first glance, amendment 250 seems to be not much more than a stylistic
change to include a reference to facilities. As the hon. Member for
Mid-Dorset and North Poole has explained, the amendment uses the
language used to express the core duties, as set out in legislation in
2000, of the Learning and Skills Council. I understand the concerns
that lie behind the amendment, namely that the clause somehow imposes a
lesser duty upon local authorities than that currently imposed upon the
LSC, but I emphatically reassure the Committee that that is not the
case. The new duty will be every bit as tough as the duty on the LSC;
it is juts a different expression of that duty and one that is better
focused on the needs of learners. The new duty also has the advantage
of fitting better with other local authority duties under the 1996 Act
into which section 15ZA has been
inserted. Local
authorities will have a duty to secure enough suitable
educationas opposed to facilitiesand the clause applies
a series of tests to ensure that that provision is of the right quality
and meets the aptitudes and abilities of young people in their area.
Provision of facilities implies that they would meet all learner
demands locally, rather than securing provision for learners, wherever
it is appropriate, which is, in effect, the core difference. The
Learning and Skills Act 2000 refers to a national organisation and its
requirement to secure facilities nationally for all learners; the
provisions under discussion apply to the need for local authorities to
secure the needs of learners, rather than securing facilities in their
local area. I hope that that clarifies the
issue. We
have already heard that amendments 251 to 253 would make the duty in
section 15ZA an absolute duty requiring local authorities to meet the
individual needs, whatever they might be, of every learner within their
authority area when securing learning opportunities. I accept that
these are probing amendments, and are therefore not an
attemptnot at this stage, anywayto amend the
legislation so that, for example, if a learner in Northumberland wants
to study a course in Cornish literature, or another in Derby wants to
pursue a course in maritime engineering, a local authority would have
to provide for them in its local area. I am sure that the Committee
agrees that that is not a reasonable request,
but an equivalent request for either course in Cornwall, where there may
be greater demand and a greater chance that at least one institution
could provide such courses, would be more reasonable. Amendments 251 to
253, however, would remove any flexibility for local authorities to
make a judgement as to what is
reasonable. Clause
40 contains a reasonableI should probably use the word genuine
insteadattempt to offer some guidance on how subsection (1)
should be interpreted. Subsection (3)
notes: In
deciding for the purposes of subsection (1) whether education or
training is suitable to meet persons reasonable needs, a local
education authority must (in particular) have regard
to four
things. Subsection (4) then
states: In
performing the duty imposed by subsection (1) a local education
authority
must comply
with five further things, such as acting in accordance with diversity,
which effectively offer the legislations definition of
reasonableness. As we have heard from the hon. Member for South Holland
and The Deepings, reasonableness is a familiar concept to us in
legislation and as a term that is ultimately interpreted in
court. 10.45
am On
the fundamental question that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North
Poole raised about whether reasonableness applies to the individual or
the collective, there is a duty to look at the needs of all young
people in the area. The needs of every individual in the area need to
be addressed by the local authority. That is fundamental to making a
success of raising the participation age, which we legislated on in the
2008
Act.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 18 March 2009 |