Annette
Brooke: I am certainly enthusiastic about the principle of
local authorities taking on extra responsibilities, but the proof will
be in the pudding, as it is quite complex, and there are a few fears
about people falling through the gaps. I appreciate what the Minister
said in his response, but I want to place on the record my concerns,
because it will be important to promote that co-operation beneath the
surface, as the Minister suggested. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
41 and 42 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
43Power
to require provision of education by institutions within further
education
sector
Mr.
Hayes: I beg to move amendment 216, in
clause 43, page 26, line 18, leave
out ‘A local education authority’ and insert ‘The
Young People’s Learning
Agency’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 217, in clause 43, page 26, line 24, leave out
subsection
(3). Amendment
218, in
clause 43, page 26, line 32, leave
out ‘a local education authority in England’ and insert
‘the Young People’s Learning
Agency’. Amendment
361, in
schedule 8, page 180, line 3, leave
out ‘responsible local education authority’ and insert
‘Young People’s Learning
Agency’.
Mr.
Hayes: Clause 43 transfers the power of the Learning and
Skills Council to direct an FE college to provide suitable education
for named individuals to local education authorities. Amendments 216
and 218 remove mention of LEAs and replace it with the Young
People’s Learning Agency, to ensure that responsibility for
providing for named students remains with the YPLA, the funding body
for FE, in an attempt to remove needless bureaucracy. Amendment 217
removes subsection (3), as it relates to students within the
geographical area of an LEA, a reference that will not be necessary if
the first amendment in the group is
accepted. As
it stands, the clause pulls further education colleges further into a
complex and confusing web of authorities and funders. LEAs will have
the power to direct FE colleges to provide education for a student, who
would then be funded by the YPLA. The governing body of an FE
institution must comply with that request. Does the Minister not see
how much that insidious movement threatens the treasured independence
of FE college governing bodies? FE colleges simply do not want to be
placed under the authority of local government again. As I said, they
look back to the incorporation introduced by a Conservative
Government—at the time, I was a member of a local education
authority—as a positive step, which led to a golden age prior to
the establishment of the Learning and Skills Council in 2000 by this
Government, who are now abolishing what they set up. As my hon. Friend
the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), the shadow Secretary
of State, argued, beginning to reform what they themselves established
is often the mark of a failing
Government. The
control and regulation of FE—the micro-management, the
target-driven culture in which colleges operate—are highly
undesirable and make them less able to respond to local needs. It is
immensely costly, inhibits their capacity to innovate and
underestimates the immense and valuable human capital that exists
within colleges, particularly at senior management level. Those are not
the views of a Conservative shadow Minister aiming to make a party
political point, but of the sector itself, reflected in the report by
Sir Andrew Foster that I mentioned earlier—I brought a copy into
the Committee, so that the Minister can study it himself. Sir Andrew
complained of the “galaxy of oversight, inspection” and
regulation faced by FE colleges. He listed organisations with a
monitoring, inspection or improvement role in FE colleges and
specifically recommended—the Committee should bear in mind that
this was four years
ago—that “The
Government should further rationalise the oversight, inspection and
accreditation
bodies” associated
with further education. Since then moves to self-regulation have been
snail-like on the part of Ministers. We hope that, by tabling the
amendments, we can turn
the Minister into something altogether more edifying than a snail, in
the fond hope that he might see sense and accept
them. Under
the amendments, colleges would have to only respond to one body that
will appreciate its education provision and student needs far better
than the system proposed by the Government. We have heard the Minister
cite both the AOC and the 157 Group as apparent supporters of the Bill.
However, Graham Moore from the 157 Group, in our witness sessions,
said: “It
is important for colleges—sixth-form colleges and general FE
colleges—which recruit over quite a wide area, that we do not
revert to the situation pre-incorporation when every local authority
had to have every bell and
whistle.”——[Official Report,
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee,
3 March 2009; c. 26,
Q74.] The
point about independence was made even more strongly by Mr.
Moore later on. He felt that LEAs were not the right bodies to oversee
FE colleges’ work, and specifically not to direct their student
body and learning provision. We agree wholeheartedly with that
position, which is why we have tabled the amendment, which will enable
us to reach the stage suggested by the Association of Colleges in the
evidence session at which they
argued “there
should be one rather than two national
agencies”. 12.45
pm Mr.
Moore went on to
say: “In
a sense, the great strength of colleges is their
independence—their ability to look at the situation locally. I
welcome in the Bill the commitment to economic and social well-being,
which is absolutely what we are all
about.”——[Official Report,
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee,
3 March 2009; c. 27,
Q76.] However,
having welcomed that commitment, he made it clear that it was important
that colleges had independence, interfacing and interacting with their
community to be as responsive as possible to local needs. We simply
look to a day when self-regulated, independent FE colleges are no
longer subject to the micro-management and diktats of Ministers. The
amendments go some way towards turning that dream into reality within
the strict confines of a largely unhelpful
Bill.
Jim
Knight: I shall be relatively brief. We have heard the
intention behind the amendments, which deal with a power that has never
been used by the Learning and Skills Council. We think that it is
important that those powers remain to direct FE institutions to provide
for a named individual, so that there is a motivation for those
institutions, if there was a problem, to co-operate. They have never
been used, and it is right for them to be transferred to the local
authority, rather than the YPLA. If we did not do so, a local authority
seeking to meeting the duties set up in clause 40 would find that if it
needed to direct an institution to accept a learner, it would have to
go through the bureaucratic burden—I know that the hon.
Gentleman is concerned about the burdens, because he goes on about them
a lot—of getting the YPLA to issue an instruction, rather than
them doing it themselves. It is an important tool in local
authorities’ toolbox, enabling them to deliver their obligations
to rise the participation
age. It
is not, however, about giving local authorities more control over
colleges. The colleges will remain as autonomous as they are
now—they will have their own governing body and business
practices, with reduced
inspection for good providers. Local authorities will have no more
control than they do now. We want colleges to be self-confident,
self-improving, autonomous bodies that can deliver a high-quality set
of provisions—that is the vision that underpins the Bill. There
is nothing in the direction powers which, as I said, have yet to be
used, that would undermine that in any way, and I urge the hon.
Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. Mr.
Hayes: We need to make progress. The Minister has been
entirely unhelpful in the way in which he has dealt with the
amendments— [Interruption.]—and as
unimpressive as he has been unhelpful, notwithstanding the fact that he
has made so little impression on me and on the Committee. I hope that
he will, at some stage, illustrate to the Committee why the system that
will pertain, should the Bill be passed, is less onerous on colleges.
How will it take us closer to the vision that Sir Andrew Foster
identified on FE colleges? Will there be fewer bodies with which FE
colleges have to deal, or more? With those thoughts, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause
43 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
44Duties
in relation to the core and additional
entitlements
Annette
Brooke: I beg to move amendment 254, in
clause 44, page 27, line 14, leave
out ‘that an authority
decide’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 255, in
clause 44, page 27, line 38, at
end insert— ‘(9) Provision
is not to be considered as giving rise to disproportionate expenditure
only because that provision is more expensive than comparable
provision.’.
Annette
Brooke: The two amendments go together. They would remove
the subjective element in the decision about whether provision would
involve disproportionate expenditure and replace it with an objective
test that the authority would have to satisfy on the basis of national
guidance. Rather fortuitously, amendment 254 uses wording that we have
discussed this morning and that is already in the Bill, so it is
difficult to imagine that the Minister will disagree with
it.
Under clause
44, proposed new sections 17B, 17C and 17D of the Education Act 1996
are effectively re-enactments of sections 3A, 3B and 3C of the Learning
and Skills Act 2000, with very little difference in the wording.
Proposed new section 17A of the 1996 Act is the section under which
local education authorities will acquire the duties and
responsibilities of the Learning and Skills Council, and that in turn
is based on section 3D of the 2000 Act.
The amendment
would remove the subjective element in the decision about whether
provision will involve disproportionate expenditure and replace it with
an
objective test that an authority would have to satisfy on the basis of
national guidance. Given that the Bill will replace provisions that
give a reasonable assurance of a nationally consistent approach, it
cannot be right now to adopt terminology that would allow each
authority to decide subjectively for itself. Although I am
very much in favour of local decision making, it is important to have
some comparability throughout the country. In fact, the deletion that I
propose would clarify that the test is objective. That is the only way
to ensure that the provision is consistent with proposed new subsection
17A(6) of the 1996 Act, which would oblige authorities to follow the
Secretary of State’s guidance. I hope that the Minister will
consider the amendments favourably, bearing in mind that, following the
previous discussion this morning, there is a certain logic to
them.
Jim
Knight: Amendment 254 would remove not the requirement to
take account of disproportionate expenditure but local
authorities’ powers to decide whether disproportionate
expenditure would be incurred by delivery of the
entitlement—although it is not clear whom the hon. Lady believes
should make the decision instead. Local authorities are the bodies
responsible for delivering the entitlement and, as such, should be
responsible for making the corresponding decisions associated with its
delivery. Furthermore, disproportionate expenditure will vary greatly
between areas, and, therefore, local authorities are best placed to
make that
judgement. We
welcome the spirit of amendment 255, which would ensure that the
diploma entitlement was delivered and that young people were offered
not just the least expensive provision. That is our intention, too.
However, the amendment is unnecessary as the diploma is a unique path
that is not comparable to any other provision. Furthermore, the
Secretary of State will publish statutory guidance on the delivery of
the entitlements as we near the date on which they will take effect.
The aim of the entitlements is to transform opportunity and achievement
for young people, so that all young people are prepared by their
education to succeed in life. The Bill introduces a number of measures
to achieve that.
Local
authorities are already making good progress to deliver the
entitlements. By September, 95 per cent. of local authorities, 72 per
cent. of schools and 88 per cent. of colleges will be involved in
delivering them, and, as I said, local authorities will have to have
regard to the Secretary of State’s statutory guidance when
exercising their functions under the clause. The guidance will include
further clarification on disproportionate expenditure. On the basis of
my assurance that we will give authorities guidance, I hope that the
hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.
Annette
Brooke: Perhaps I can clarify one matter. The point about
the amendment removing “that an authority decide” was to
replace the phrase with something that gave the local authority a clear
basis on which to make its decision. The Minister has responded to say
that, effectively, the criteria will be set up in statutory guidance.
With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Jim
Knight: I beg to move amendment 267, in
clause 44, page 27, line 38, at
end
insert— ‘(
) The references in subsections (1) and (2) to persons in a local
education authority’s area who are over compulsory school age
but under 19 do not include persons who are subject to a detention
order.’. This
amendment makes it clear that new section 17A does not apply to persons
subject to a detention order. A local education
authority’s duties towards these persons are set out in
clause
47. I
think that the amendment is relatively
clear. Amendment
267 agreed to.
Clause 44,
as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
45Provision
of boarding accommodation: persons subject to learning difficulty
assessment Amendment
made: 268, in clause 45, page 29, leave
out lines 6 to 8.—(Jim
Knight.) This amendment is
consequent on amendment
282. Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Gibb: The Association of National Specialist Colleges is
concerned about the use of the word “may” in subsection
(1) of proposed new section 514A, which the clause inserts into the
Education Act 1996. The association says:
“In
order to safeguard learning opportunities and funding for the
relatively small group of vulnerable learners with complex learning
difficulties and/or disabilities who require specialist provision, in
line with what is currently available, we believe that the Bill should
not dilute former legislation about residential specialist college
provision.” It
notes that the law previously required the LSC to secure boarding
accommodation if—I quote from the Learning and Skills Act
2000— “it
cannot secure the provision of facilities for education or training
which are sufficient in quantity and adequate in
quality”. It
goes on to say that
“we do not
believe that the current wording of the Bill is strong enough to
safeguard and ensure this right for learners. We believe that this Bill
must ensure that Local Authorities and the YPLA must secure residential
specialist college provision where local schools and colleges cannot
adequately or effectively meet a student’s learning and support
needs.” I
would be grateful if the Minister addresses those very real
concerns.
| 
