[back to previous text]

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Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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 96

Encouragement 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. 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 97

Provision 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.
 
Previous Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 25 March 2009