Mr.
Simon: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bognor
Regis and Littlehampton on having made his case with his customary
eloquence, erudition and assiduity. He has put his points on the
record, where they will remain for ever. However, he knows—the
hon. Lady gently pointed out to him—that it is with some
ingenuity that he has managed to insert his case at this point in the
proceedings. We use the GCSE as a demonstration measure because it is
readily and widely understandable. We are not even talking about GCSEs
here, but about vocational qualifications. Paragraph 6 of schedule 5
provides a generic description of level 2 qualifications, giving five
good GCSEs as the example, and amendment 201 inserts the IGCSE into
that description. We use GCSEs as the benchmark simply because they
provide a generally recognised measure of this level of attainment,
which is easily and widely understood by potential learners. It would
not add anything to the general public’s understanding of the
meaning of level 2 to insert the IGCSE, and the same argument holds for
level 3 qualifications, A-levels and the Cambridge pre-U. I
congratulate hon. Members on making their points so eloquently.
However, these matters are not for me but for the Minister for Schools
and Learners. They are not connected with these particular provisions,
and on that basis I humbly beg that the hon. Gentleman withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb: I have listened carefully to the Minister and the
hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I accept that this is
not the right part of the proceedings in which to debate these issues.
As the hon. Lady said, there is an important principle here about the
independence of Ofqual, which we will come to later. This was an
opportunity to raise the matter, and we ought to return to it on
Report, when a new clause could be tabled, explicitly setting out this
point of principle about the independence of Ofqual and whether the
ultimate decision about choosing qualifications should rest with the
Secretary of State or schools. I agree that it should be up to schools
to decide on the use of a qualification, once Ofqual has approved or
accredited it. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule
5 agreed to.
Clause
94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That
clause 94 be transferred to end of line 33 on page
50. —(Mr.
Simon.) Clause
95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That
clause 95 be transferred to end of line 33 on page
50. —(Mr.
Simon.)
Clause
96Encouragement
of education and training for persons aged 19 or over and others
subject to adult
detention Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Hayes: I have just one question. The clause sets out the
chief executive’s general duty to encourage participation by
employers in education and training for people aged 19 or over and
others in adult detention. With the office of the chief executive being
located in the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, what
methods would the Minister expect to use to encourage participation and
how does that clash with the position of the SFA, which carries out no
actual delivery of
service?
Mr.
Simon: I meant to intervene before the hon. Gentleman sat
down to ask him whether he could go through that more slowly and
clearly.
Mr.
Hayes: I am trying to make progress so I am speeding up my
delivery; I do not mean to confuse the Minister. First, the essence of
my question is, how would the CEO’s office be expected to
encourage participation? By what means would the duty to encourage
participation set out in clause 96 happen? Would there be guidance to
support it? What would be the methodology? The Government must have
looked at that. Secondly, how does that work with the SFA’s
status and role, given that it does not actually deliver the
service?
Mr.
Simon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his
clarification and apologise for briefly slowing him down. The answer is
that the SFA would increase participation through all that it does. The
structure of the SFA is designed to raise participation: through Train
to Gain, which is currently successful in raising participation for
people at work; through the Adult Advancement and Careers Service and
skills accounts; and through the National Apprenticeship Service and
the National Employer Service. All these gateways of the Skills Funding
Agency are specifically and explicitly designed to drive demand and
raise participation and quality in the skills system. It is through
them that we expect the chief executive to discharge those
duties.
Mr.
Hayes: I do not want to put words into the
Minister’s mouth, but I would hope that in that endeavour they
will draw on some of the best practice currently abroad, which suggests
a lateral approach because of many of these people’s previous
experience of education.
I have spoken to people involved in this field. There are any number of
good projects that deal with people who are detained and they employ a
range of methods that I hope would form part of the approach. It is
fine to talk about the standard methodology, and the hon.
Gentleman’s answer was rather generic. What are the plans to
take advantage of existing good practice that is particular to this
field?
Mr.
Simon: To be clear, the clause as drafted refers to all
adults in the entire skills system—
Mr.
Hayes: Including those in
detention? 11.15
am
Mr.
Simon: Yes. My generic answer was about all adults. If the
hon. Gentleman’s question is specifically on the new themes
associated with offenders and offender learning, I can tell him that we
recently published a hefty response to the PAC and NAO reports in
precisely that area; I assume that he has read them. I do not think
that this is the right time to go into that in great detail, nor do I
think that it belongs on the face of the Bill. The underlying
principle, to the extent to which the legislation refers to adults in
detention, is that as far as possible—it will not always be
perfectly possible—all the opportunities and facilities offered
to the population at large should be offered to those in detention, and
that includes extending to them those facilities that particularly
address their needs, such as embedding skills for life training and
learning into vocational training in construction skills, for example,
in offender
institutions.
Mr.
Hayes: Let us try a little role play. If I were the
Minister and he were the shadow Minister, would he be comfortable with
my saying, “Given the PAC and NAO reports and our response to
them, we will reinforce what we concluded in that response in the
methodology we now employ to deal with those in detention, drawing on
best practice and using the methods that are necessary to re-engage
those people in education and
training”?
Mr.
Simon: If I were the
Minister—
Mr.
Hayes: You are the Minister.
Mr.
Simon: I am not comfortable pretending to be the shadow
Minister. I do not disagree with any of that, but I am not sure that it
takes us terribly far. It is not something to be dealt with today or in
the Bill, and it is not really a matter for guidance. I broadly support
what the hon. Gentleman says, and on that basis I would be grateful if
we could perhaps move
on.
Annette
Brooke: I have a brief question and point of clarification
for the Minister. I am concerned about young offenders aged just 19 who
do not have special needs or learning difficulties but who nevertheless
need a lot of support from their home authority. How will the clause
tie in with the need for support from home authorities, which we have
emphasised so strongly, for under-19s, given that there will be some
young people
on the cusp, probably quite immature for their age, who might need a
double level of support? Will the Minister address that
concern?
Mr.
Simon: The main point to note about offenders aged 18 in
adult custody, with regard to learning, is that if they were in the
non-custodial skills or education systems they would still be treated
as youths, but once they enter the custodial system at 18 they become
adults. However, that is not to say that there should not be a role for
overlapping follow-through from their home authority. I cannot tell the
hon. Lady off the top of my head exactly what role there is, but I will
certainly look into
it. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
96 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Ordered, That
clause 96 be transferred to end of line 33 on page
50. —(Mr.
Simon.)
Clause
97Provision
of financial
resources
Stephen
Williams: I beg to move amendment 3, in
clause 97, page 58, line 30, leave
out ‘may’ and insert
‘must’. My
hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said to me that
it would not be a Bill Committee if we did not have what appears to be
such a simple amendment—to substitute “must” for
“may”. She is a veteran of these Committees, so she must
be right. Of course, often simply changing one word for another has far
reaching consequences. This amendment is not quite as innocent as it
may seem at first reading.
The purpose
of the amendment is to probe the Government’s intentions for
funding the ambitions behind the Bill—to encourage more people
to enter an apprenticeship—and the ambitions of the individuals
themselves. As has been referred to many times, on the back of the
Leitch report the Government wish to construct a demand-led skills
system that responds to the choices and needs of employers and
individuals. This section of the Bill looks at the choices and needs of
those aged over 19. The amendment is intended to provoke discussion and
a response from the Minister about the Government’s intentions
for funding the choices of over-19s.
If we build
on the earlier clauses and the Bill is a success, what happens next? A
young person has received adequate advice and guidance and has
successfully concluded a level 2 apprenticeship by 18 or 19. Then what?
They will want to continue in employment and may want to study in
higher education, but the funding regime for them and their employer is
not as favourable as it was when they were 16 and 18. If the Bill and
the Education and Skills Act 2008, which will raise the leaving age in
2013 to 17 and in 2015 to 18, are successful and many more people stay
on in compulsory education and training until 18, not just because they
have to but because they have achieved level 2 qualifications and want
to do level 3, how will their choices at that juncture in their lives
be met?
When an adult
turns 19, the funding arrangements for them and for an employer place a
barrier to progression to a level 3 apprenticeship or another
vocational course. The contribution from the current Learning and
Skills Council is usually only half of that available to a young person
going for a level 2 apprenticeship. It is the position of my party and
of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that to get more
employers to offer apprenticeship places to adults, particularly
advanced apprenticeships at level 3, further funding should be made
available to incentivise employers to provide those places. We have
identified broadly the same pot of money as the Train to Gain
programme, which will have more than £1 billion of resources
available to it by 2011.
The purpose
of the amendment, simple as it may seem, is to get an idea from the
Government of what will happen in the funding regime if the Bill and
the building block of the Education and Skills Act 2008 are a success.
How are the aspirations of, and the demands from individuals and
employers, going to be
met?
Mr.
Hayes: The amendment is important because it sheds light
on a large issue at the heart of the Bill and on the difference between
the Government’s approach and the shared approach of the
Opposition. As the hon. Gentleman elegantly put it, it is about the
nature of the funding regime that will ensue as a result of these
changes. It is not terribly clear what that regime will be. The Bill
establishes a complex structure. It has been described as obscure,
opaque and obtuse, which reflects some of the concerns expressed by
various expert witnesses during the evidence sessions. The amendment is
helpful because it highlights the rather worrying status of the Skills
Funding Agency’s chief executive officer, particularly in terms
of the power that the agency will
wield. Indeed,
many representatives of the further education sector have raised
concerns about that. For example, Graham Moore of the 157 Group told us
during an evidence session that if the
FSA “is
going to be an interventionist structure—and it looks like
one—I do not think it appropriate that it is run from within the
Department. If it is going to operate, I would be happier to see it
with a board, being accountable to the sector and the providers. So,
the structure of the SFA is a missed opportunity, and I would like to
see much more power and action at local level, between local
authorities, providers, employers groups and so on, which is where the
difference has to be
made.” As
the hon. Gentleman has said, that would be more in tune with the
demand-led system recommended by Lord Leitch, to which the Government
at least pay lip service. It is hard to see how the mantra of a
demand-led system fits with the structure that the Bill will establish.
It is important that the issue is raised now, because in its current
form, the SFA lacks accountability to those it purports to serve and is
extremely complex in the delivery of its
functions. Mr.
Moore also
said: “If
you look at the complexity behind that single voice from the SFA, you
will see that it is about its funding methodology and its rules and
regulations on what you can and cannot do. You are not actually saying,
‘We want to make a difference. These are the issues in your
community, and the employers say this and the local authorities say
that.’ You try to come to an agreement on how to address the
Government’s priorities in your local area, and I stress that
that is where the difference needs to be made, and
not on a national level.” ——[ Official
Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill
Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 29-31, Q77 and
85.] He went
on to say that the system needs to be “relatively simple,
unbureaucratic”, and so on. Furthermore, he was not certain that
a body with 1,800 people was likely to deliver that clarity, simplicity
and
responsiveness. I
hope that the Minister uses this opportunity to say something about
those concerns, because they are being expressed not only by Opposition
parties, but by many of the people whom the Bill will directly affect,
particularly in terms of the FSA’s
powers.
| 
