Jim
Knight: I shall deal first with amendments 240 and 242 to
245. Clause 58 ensures that the financial resources that local
authorities need to deliver on their new duties under the Bill are
transferred to them from the YPLA. That is the beginning of an
explanation, but I will go on at greater length for the benefit of the
hon. Member for Yeovil a bit later. These amendments would make all the
YPLA’s duties and powers with respect to securing financial
resources subject to guidance from the chief executive of the Skills
Funding Agency. Together with amendment 239 to clause 57, which we have
already discussed, they would mean that the YPLA was set up as part of
the SFA rather than as a separate non-departmental public
body. Although
I have once before set out the position to the hon. Member for South
Holland and The Deepings in respect of the barmy proposition that the
YPLA be part of the SFA, I will give it another go. As he knows, the
adult skills world is demand-led; the learners’ decisions are
very much what is provided for. The SFA will deliver through Train to
Gain and a number of other things that have been set out and will be
discussed when we reach that part. The situation for FE colleges, which
I know he is concerned about, is very different from the planned,
commissioned provision, which is what happens on the 16-to-19 side of
things. They are very different and the accountabilities for them
should be very
different. If
we are to make sense of the Education and Skills Act 2008 and the
policy to raise the participation age to 17 and then 18 in 2015, it is
important that the accountability for nought to 19 should rest with
local authorities. That is the fundamental reason why we need separate
agencies. We need an agency for adults. We then need accountability
locally through local authorities for nought-to-19 education and
provision up to 25 for people with learning
difficulties. Once
we have made that decision, we need to be able to deal with the problem
that FE colleges in particular would have, which is that without some
sub-regional and regional arrangements that can be brokered if there
are problems, they would have lots of conversations with lots of
different local authorities. A precondition to accepting the
institutional infrastructure that we have designed and which is
reflected in the Bill is agreeing with raising the participation age. I
know that in Committee on the Education and Skills Bill, the hon.
Gentleman’s party voted against that. If he opposes RPA, it is
perfectly credible for him to oppose this proposal. If he supports RPA,
I cannot see how he would not see that local authorities should have
responsibility for 16-to-19 commissioning and therefore that there is a
need for an agency to be able to broker and facilitate the
commissioning, alongside passing the funding from Government
to local authorities, according to the decisions on
commissioning that local authorities make.
Mr.
Hayes: The key issue is where we think most of the extra
young people who stay on will be educated. My assumption—perhaps
it is not the Minister’s—is that most of the extra people
who stay on, who do not currently, will be educated in the FE sector. A
very substantial number will, at least. Given that we think that the FE
sector should be largely independent and self-regulated, with a slim,
streamlined funding agency providing it with the funds to respond to
need, it is not surprising that we do not support the establishment of
the new agency.
Jim
Knight: We discussed last year where the growth might be,
but FE will be responsible for a significant part of that provision. A
certain amount will take place in sixth forms, and, elsewhere in the
Bill, we legislate to give sixth form colleges their own legal status,
which they largely welcome. They will then have more of a relationship
with the local authority, but other training providers will grow
significantly, too. Apprenticeships will grow significantly, so the
process will involve not simply FE colleges. The most important thing
for the hon. Gentleman and others to understand is that we need
seamless provision from 0 to 19 and to end the break at 16, Reinventing
the Learning and Skills Council would, in institutional terms, keep the
break at 16 and provide a substantial obstacle to increasing
participation successfully—even if the hon. Gentleman disagrees
with us about the enforcement of
participation.
Mr.
Hayes: Following the logic of the Minister’s
assertions, I must say that he is right that other, private training
providers will absorb some of the growth, and right about
apprenticeships, but neither they nor private further education
training providers—those providing what FE colleges
do—should come within the orbit of a young person’s
learning agency. They would be better off under a skills funding
agency. That seems reasonable and logical; and why LEAs have to be
involved at all is beyond me.
Jim
Knight: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like local
education authorities, even though his party is democratically
responsible for most of them, but we should put Connexions and the
information, advice and guidance duties on local authorities for 0 to
19-year-olds, and the commissioning responsibilities in the hands of
local authorities, too. That is the progressive move that will make the
process work, and it was a voice that we heard form the Local
Government Association, the Association of Directors of
Children’s Services and others, when we took evidence from
witnesses.
It is also
worth pointing out to the hon. Gentleman that participation in school
sixth forms is rising faster than in FE colleges, so it would be
difficult for us to design something that anticipated things as he sees
them; we must design something with flexibility. There is no single
body that will deliver to both young people and adults the intensity of
support and advice that our future prosperity demands, and we should
create that autonomous, non-departmental public body.
Amendment 256
would prevent the YPLA from funding providers directly and
independently of local authorities when it is necessary to do so, as
the hon. Member for Yeovil set out. For the overwhelming majority of
young people, local authorities will commission places in the
way that we have discussed at length today—through the
sub-regional groupings. Clauses 58 and 63 are intended to deal with a
number of exceptions where the YPLA may have to play a different role.
It is necessary to create those powers to enable the YPLA to pass
funding to local authorities to support their own commissioning plans,
and there is no doubt that they will be in charge of the vast majority
of that commissioning. They will be in the driving seat, which I think
was the phrase that the hon. Gentleman used, but they will need support
from the YPLA to ensure consistency and value for money. The YPLA will
fund the commissioning decisions of local authorities, and they will
also have a subsidiary role in the YPLA to ensure coherence and
budgetary control across the country. The powers in
clause 58(1)(a) and clause 58(3) are necessary in respect of
examples that we will discuss later, where there is a need to
commission from some providers—the Royal Ballet School, for
example—that are genuinely national institutions that need a
national funding arrangement rather than something that would make
sense in terms of a single conversation with a local authority, because
so few of the learners would come from that local authority
area. 8.30
pm
Mr.
Laws: Surely amendment 256, tabled in my name and that of
my colleagues, does not in any way impede what the Minister is
describing. All it does is to make clear what he has already made
clear, which is that the local authority is the overwhelmingly dominant
provider. But proposed clause 58(1)(b) makes it clear that other
persons or agencies can be used to provide the education or training
necessary, provided that it is in pursuance of arrangements made by
local authorities in the discharge of those functions. There is no
reason why local authorities should not be involved in that process,
surely.
Jim
Knight: Of course, local authorities will be involved. It
is just that there are circumstances in which certain
providers—the case has been made to us—have a
relationship with so many local authorities and are not dependent on
any individual local authority that having that single relationship
does not necessarily make sense. The YPLA will also be required to
undertake similar functions using these powers, where, under the
intervention strategy agreed with the Secretary of State under
clause 70, it has evidence that a local authority is failing
or is likely to fail in its duties under clause 40 to commission
suitable education or training. There may also be circumstances and
instances where sub-regional groups of local authorities are not ready
to take on their commissioning role and where the YPLA needs to act on
their behalf. So there are three different sorts of circumstances where
these powers may be
needed.
Mr.
Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for being typically
generous in giving way, but can he describe any circumstances in which
the YPLA would want directly to commission against the wishes of the
local authority? That is, after all, all we are calling for in
amendment
256.
Jim
Knight: In the case of intervention, where there is
evidence that the local authority is failing or is likely to fail in
its duties, there may be circumstances where a
local authority would disagree with the commissioning decisions that are
in the best interests of learners. There might be issues in respect of
those with particular needs, where there is a disagreement about what
is reasonable or disproportionate expenditure. We explored some of
those matters earlier in
debate.
Mr.
Laws: Will the Minister give
way?
Jim
Knight: I will, but we need to make some
progress.
Mr.
Laws: I am sorry to labour this point, but it is quite
important. I am happy to leave aside the cases where a local authority
clearly is not capable of carrying out its duties, because that is not
what we are talking about. We are talking about circumstances where the
YPLA might, even with a local authority operating perfectly properly,
intervene to become the direct commissioner against the wishes of the
local authority. I am not convinced yet that the Minister has explained
why that would be necessary, unless the local authority was a failing
authority.
Jim
Knight: The hon. Gentleman has asked us to leave aside the
very scenario where it would be necessary to use these powers. In the
vast majority of cases the normal practice will be for the YPLA to fund
the local authority’s commissioning decision. I want to be
really clear about that. However, we want to hold these powers for the
YPLA in those unusual circumstances where it is necessary for them to
intervene. I can only see the YPLA acting against the wishes of the
local authority if it was failing to deliver its duties under clause
40. Amendment
122 would restrict the YPLA’s duty to provide funding in respect
of 16 to 19 learners and learners with learning difficulties. The
extension of the duty on local authorities to be responsible for
specific learners over 19 reflects the Department’s recognition
that some learners with learning difficulties who are subject to a
section 139A assessment of their needs may require more time to
complete their education, so would remain in lower-level provision for
longer. I
understand that Committee members may be concerned that some specialist
colleges, such as residential colleges, that serve learners from a
number of local authority areas may need separately to contract with
those local authorities. I reassure the Committee that that will not be
so. The overriding principle is that each provider should have one
commissioning dialogue for the provision being commissioned by local
authorities and that dialogue will be with the lead local authority,
decided by the sub-regional
group. Amendment
241 would go even further and remove the YPLA’s duty to provide
financial resources to local authorities for any education and training
provision that they secure under section 15ZA and would result in an
even unfunded burden falling on local
authorities. 8.35
pm Sitting
suspended for Divisions in the
House. 9.4
pm On
resuming—
Jim
Knight: Before we were interrupted by the bell, I think I
was about to say that I hoped that I had reassured hon. Members that
none of their amendments to clause 58 was necessary, and I hope that
they will not press them to a vote. Government amendments 308 to 311
are consequential to amendments made to part 2 about young
offenders.
Mr.
Laws: I still think that the Minister’s explanation
is rather odd and at variance with the early part of clause 58. He has
described the circumstances in which the YPLA would fund provisions
directly, which seem, in his view, to be only when the local authority
is completely failing to discharge its responsibilities. The impression
given by the first few lines of clause 58, particularly lines 5 to 12,
is rather different. However, I accept what he said about the
intentions in this part of the Bill, so we will save any further
amendments to this section until we have had an opportunity to reflect
on what he said.
Mr.
Gibb: As my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and
The Deepings said when he moved amendment 240, these are probing
amendments. Having listened to the Minister, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment. Perhaps we can return to it later in the
proceedings.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments
made: 308, in
clause 58, page 38, line 10, at
end insert— ‘(aa) persons
providing or proposing to provide suitable education to children
subject to youth
detention;’. This
amendment places a duty on the YPLA to fund the provision of education
to children who are subject to youth detention. “Subject to
youth detention” is defined in clause 77, as a result of
amendment
318. Amendment
309, in
clause 58, page 38, line 12, leave
out ‘such education or training’ and insert
‘education or training within
paragraph (a) or
(aa)’. This amendment
is consequent on amendment
308. Amendment
310, in
clause 58, page 38, line 30, after
‘(1)(a)’ insert ‘or
(aa)’. This amendment
is consequent on amendment 308 and confers power on the YPLA to fund
persons providing goods or services in connection with education
provided to children subject to youth
detention. Amendment
311, in
clause 58, page 39, line 12, after
‘(1)’ insert ‘(a)’.—(Jim
Knight.) This amendment
is consequent on amendment
308. Clause
58, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
59
Financial
resources:
conditions Amendment
made: 274, in
clause 59, page 40, line 3, leave
out ‘a learning difficulty assessment’ and
insert ‘an assessment
under section 139A or 140 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000
(c. 21) (assessments relating to learning
difficulties)’.—(Jim
Knight.) This amendment
is consequent on amendment
276. Clause
59, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
