Mr.
Hayes: While the hon. Lady is speaking about the
determination, and the balance between practicalities and what is
desirable, will she say something about the interface with Connexions?
It is critical that when a young person is released, there is good
transmission of information between other authorities and Connexions so
that the young person’s circumstances can be made known and the
options available to them explored through the Connexions service. She
said nothing about that. Will she enlighten the Committee about her
thinking on the
subject?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: That is one of the benefits of our bringing
Connexions back under the wing of the local authority. They have all
the tools at their disposal to achieve
that. I
hope that Committee members will agree that it is not practical for all
the duties imposed on local education authorities in the Education Acts
to apply to the education and training of persons detained in relevant
youth accommodation, but that our new clauses and related amendments
provide a robust and practical solution to ensure that the special
educational needs of children and young people in juvenile custody can
be supported appropriately. We will also issue guidance to which LEAs
must have regard when exercising their duties. The guidance will set
out our expectations of how LEAs should support the special educational
needs of children and young people in juvenile
custody.
The
Chairman: The question is that clause 49 stand part of the
Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say Aye. [Hon. Members:
“Aye.”] To the contrary, No. Perhaps we can do that
again.
Mr.
Gibb: On a point of order, Mr. Chope. Has that
not now happened, and can we not now move on to clause
50?
The
Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is technically correct. The
question is whether the Chair should make some allowance for the fact
that there is obviously a lack of understanding, perhaps, on the
Government Benches in relation to the material under discussion. My
inclination is to give the Government a second chance, otherwise time
might unnecessarily be taken up on the issue on Report when the
Committee might have other priorities.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 49
accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
50Detention
of child or young person: local education authority to be
notified 5.45
pm Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government new clause 18— Detention of child or young person:
local education authorities to be
notified.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: New clause 18 inserts new section
39A into the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to require youth offending
teams in England and Wales to notify a child or young person’s
home and host local education authority when they become aware that
that person has been detained in or transferred or released from
relevant youth accommodation. The new clause replaces clause
50, which is omitted by amendment 345, and extends that clause’s
requirements. Clause
50 currently requires youth offending teams to notify the home LEA when
they become aware that a child or young person has become subject to a
detention order and has been detained in relevant youth
accommodation. New clause 18 reinserts that requirement and extends it
to require youth offending teams also to notify the host LEA in the
area in which that person has been detained. The new clause also
requires youth offending teams to notify LEAs as soon as they become
aware that a person has been transferred between juvenile custodial
establishments or is released from relevant youth
accommodation. The
new clause will ensure that home and host LEAs always know when a child
or young person moves into, within, and out of the juvenile custodial
estate. It will also ensure that they know where the person is
detained, and will help LEAs fulfil their new duties under new chapter
5A of the Education Act 1996. Furthermore, the new clause will help to
ensure that suitable education
is arranged for such children and young people while they are detained
in juvenile custody, as well as upon their
release. Mr.
Hayes: The new clause ensures that youth offending teams
share and exchange information with host, as well as home, authorities,
which goes some way towards dealing with the concerns that we raised a
few moments ago. As such, that is a step in the right direction, but I
re-emphasise that we are most concerned that the right mechanism be put
in place to exchange information. That would require a considerable
investment in terms of databases, protocols and so on. Given the doubts
that have already been expressed about whether the Connexions database
is fit for the additional purposes for which it is now intended, I
remain unconvinced that systems are in place to ensure that the issue
is appropriately dealt
with. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause
50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
51Transport
policy statements for persons of sixth form age:
consultation
Annette
Brooke: I beg to move amendment 125, in
clause 51, page 32, line 43, at
end add— ‘( ) In section
509AB of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56) (further provision about
transport policy statement) after subsection (7)
insert— “(8) In
performing the duty to consult, an authority shall have regard to any
guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the timing and
manner of consultations under this
section. (9) An authority shall
make available to persons or bodies it proposes to consult under this
section such information as may be prescribed and is in its possession
or control; and it shall do so in such form and manner, and at such
time, as may be
prescribed.”.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new
clause 2— Further provision about transport policy
statements— ‘(1) In
section 509AB of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56) omit subsection (3)(d)
and insert after subsection
(7)— “(8) In
preparing a statement under that section a local education authority
has a duty to provide affordable
transport.”.’.
Annette
Brooke: We now move on to transport following our rather
tortuous discussions on education in youth offending institutions and
so on. Amendment 125 would insert a requirement for consultation in the
Bill. There is a very good reason for that. Most people would agree
that local authority transport plans need to be made—after
proper consultation with colleges and other appropriate
stakeholders—yet the Association of Colleges’ 2008 survey
found that that did not happen in 40 per cent. of cases. That is quite
staggering when considering the importance of transport in the
Bill’s proposals. It is therefore very important to make sure
that that really
happens. There are a number of general points that I want to make and I
will attach those to my comments on new clause 2.
I would like
to make a number of probing points on whether a local authority should
have a duty to provide affordable transport. The Bill proposes
strengthening transport arrangements for 16 to 18-year-old students and
I think that we all applaud that. When publishing their annual
transport policy statement, local authorities will have to set out, in
full, their thinking behind the statement and publish it in good time
so that young people and parents can take account of it when making
decisions about where to study. That is all very important, but at the
moment there is no duty to provide affordable transport that takes into
account the ability of young people to pay. Cost considerations are
from the point of view of the local authority rather than the learner,
and we have been emphasising today how important it is that the learner
should be at the fore.
There are
inconsistencies in the provision from different local authorities.
Analysis of local authority transport policies in 2006-07 for students
aged 16 to 19 shows that charges can be from between £60 to
£550 per year. Free transport provision is available from some,
but for the most part it is means-tested. The charge can cover
anything—from the student’s contribution to student bus
passes, places on local authority-provided buses, train passes, mileage
allowance, or whatever the local authority has agreed to subsidise.
While I am all in favour of local decision making, we have to determine
that there is equitable provision for our young people across the
country.
For the most
part, local authorities will provide only free or subsidised transport
to the nearest or nearest appropriate educational establishment. It is
important to consider the young person who is travelling to undertake a
course that is on offer at a particular institution only, or to a
specialist college, which might be outside the home local authority
boundary. The Government have encouraged colleges, schools and training
providers to specialise and to offer more options, but sometimes young
people need to travel further to access the right course. Choice in
education is what we all wish for, but it can be expensive. However, if
we have skill shortages, then we have to accept that travelling might
be essential. It is important that young people have a genuine choice
about their education and training, and that they should not face
barriers relating to
transport. I
have several specific questions that follow on from that. For example,
colleges have been told by the Learning and Skills Council that they
must no longer use the learner support fund—a fund to help
disadvantaged students access courses—to fund transport. It
would be very useful if the Minister clarified whether colleges can use
that fund and whether the final responsibility to fund student
transport should lie with local authorities.
There has to
be concern about transport provision when colleges currently spend an
average of £305,000 per year subsidising student travel. For
example, Kingston Maurwood college in Dorset specialises in agriculture
and many other very good courses. It manages to get a high proportion
of students attending by having a very innovative transport policy that
collects students from across the urban conurbation, as well serving
the rural area. That issue is very unclear in terms of the future of
colleges and needs to be addressed.
The Bill
proposes that local authorities publish a transport policy statement
covering travel arrangements for students aged 19 to 25 with a learning
difficulty assessment under the Learning and Skills Act 2000. Does this
mean that, on transport provision, students with learning difficulties
who do not have a relevant assessment will be treated as adults,
despite their additional needs? The purpose of the new clause is to put
a firm responsibility on the local authority to ensure that there is
genuine transport provision, so that all students can access the course
that suits them best—while taking on board any
disproportionality, as we discussed earlier today. I shall be
interested to hear the Minister’s comments on
that.
Mr.
Hayes: I want to add some brief comments to this short but
interesting debate. The hon. Lady raises some significant matters, and
I want to emphasise their significance for rural areas. She spoke about
the inconsistency of provision, and it would have the most devastating
effect in those places where people will have to travel furthest to
access the right training and education. In my constituency in
Lincolnshire, for example, there is no FE college; the FE colleges that
serve my constituents are in Boston, Stamford and Peterborough, so
journeys are significant, take time and involve costs.
There are
some important issues about guaranteeing adequate skills training and
education for people in rural communities. Not all rural areas are
immensely privileged, as some might believe. My constituency has an
economic profile that, in a nutshell, could be described as one of high
employment, low skills, relatively low educational attainment and real
deprivation, so it is important that the Minister deal appropriately
and clearly with the hon. Lady’s points; otherwise, doubts will
remain about the opportunities for young people and others in
communities such as those that I represent.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: The clause will give young people a new
voice in the local transport arrangements for those of sixth-form age,
and, by requiring local authorities to consult young people on the
drawing up of their transport policy statements and ensuring that the
statements can be amended in response to complaints, we will strengthen
local accountability in the implementation of the current duty. The
measures should ensure that local authorities are bound to give
adequate consideration to the cost of transport and affordability when
they develop their statement. Local authorities already consult young
people and their parents on a range of children’s services, and
we envisage that they will build on their existing good practice in
consulting young people and their parents about transport
provision.
Following the
proposed transfer of responsibilities from the Learning and Skills
Council, we intend that the Secretary of State issue guidance under
section 509AB(5) of the Education Act 1996. We will use the
guidance to set out our expectations of local authorities when
consulting young people and examples of good practice. Given that we
will put that in the guidance, we do not feel it necessary to include
amendment 125, so, in the light of that assurance, we ask
the hon. Lady to withdraw it.
On new clause
2, we share the hon. Lady’s view that access to affordable
transport is integral to helping young people access education and
training. Current
legislation strikes a balance between protecting the interests of young
people everywhere and giving local authorities the flexibility to
direct resources to local priorities. I am sure that she will agree
that it is right that local authorities should have the discretion to
determine how to target their funding to meet local needs. The increase
in total Government grant for local services since 1997 will stand at
45 per cent. in real terms by 2010-11. Drawing on that funding, the
current duty already requires local authorities to take into account
the cost of transport in preparing their transport policy statements,
and that should ensure that transport is affordable for young
people. 6
pm The
hon. Lady spoke about colleges and their requirements. While colleges
might wish to provide discretionary financial support for individual
learners facing particular hardship, we do not expect them to fund
transport provision routinely. With regard to young people aged 19 to
24 with learning difficulties, we are strengthening our learning
difficulty assessment guidance to include an explicit reference to
consider a young person’s wider needs, including transport. New
section 508G in the Education Act 1996 will place a duty on
local education authorities to make available in a transport policy
statement information about the travel provision they have to put in
place for young people aged 19 to
24.
| 
