 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris Shaw, James Davies,
Committee Clerks † attended
the Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 24 March 2009(Afternoon)[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning BillClause 57The Young People’s Learning
Agency for
England Amendment
moved (this day): 423, in schedule 7, page
172, line 15, at end
insert— ‘( ) Where the
transfer results in a substantial change of terms and conditions, by
the new employer or the previous employer pre-transfer, that are to the
material detriment of the transferee, this will be seen as a breach of
contract by the employer.’.—(Jeff
Ennis.) 4
pm Jeff
Ennis (Barnsley, East and Mexborough) (Lab): On behalf of
the Committee, Mrs. Humble, I would like to welcome you back
to the Chair for this afternoon’s interesting sitting.
As members of
the Committee will recall, we had just started examining schedule 7,
and I was referring to the fact that members of staff who are likely to
transfer away from the Learning and Skills Council were a bit anxious
about the security of their follow-on employment. I was about to quote
from an e-mail that I had received from one of my constituents, which
sums up very eloquently the position that the staff find themselves in.
I will read out the salient parts of the
e-mail: “Dear
Mr. Ennis...As a member of staff currently employed by
the LSC, I can expect to transfer to the YPLA, the SFA or a local
authority... The bill will not result in a straightforward case of
abolishing one organisation and transferring staff to two or three new
bodies—some 3,300 LSC staff will be affected, and up to 1,000
may transfer to 150 local authorities. Given the complexity of these
arrangements it is imperative that the terms of the transfer and their
likely impact upon staff terms and conditions are placed beyond
doubt.” There
is no doubt in my mind, Mrs. Humble, that staff, when they
are affected by a change and have to move on from one organisation to
another, are faced with quite a challenge at a worrying time. That is
why I have tabled amendment 423, which seeks reassurance from Ministers
that all the staff involved will be treated very sensitively regarding
the transfer of undertakings for public employees and so on. I will
leave it at that for now.
I,
too, have received representations from a constituent and at this stage
I would just like to make some points on their behalf. I am equally
concerned about what is not in schedule 7 and I hope that the Minister
will be able to throw some light on matters.
There is
obviously deep concern that all TUPE arrangements will remain in place,
which is what one would normally expect in situations such as this one.
Employees of the Learning and Skills Council, and others who are
affected, need some reassurances from this afternoon’s debate.
Apart from obvious concerns about continuity of service, pay and
conditions, there are additional concerns about pensions and how they
will be affected. I support this probing amendment, because what we
need are full assurances that what might be expected to be in place,
with this very large transfer of staff, truly is in
place.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and
Skills (Mr. Siôn Simon): A very good
afternoon to you, Mrs. Humble, and to everybody
else.
I thank the
hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) for her
contribution; she is as assiduous as ever on behalf of her
constituents. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for
Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) for his contribution. He is
famous in this place for the energy and assiduity with which he works
on behalf of his constituents; he is their champion. It therefore comes
as no surprise that he has taken this opportunity in an otherwise
rather mundane afternoon in Committee to bring these matters to our
attention. I
sympathise with the intention behind my hon. Friend’s amendment
and with the comments by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North
Poole, and I am grateful to them for raising this issue. I know that it
is one that the Public and Commercial Services Union is anxious about.
My ministerial colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Minister
for Schools and Learners, and I have had several conversations with the
PCS directly about this issue. One of the principles guiding the two
Departments in the transfer of responsibilities is the retention of the
expertise that the new bodies will require to deliver outcomes for
young people and adults. To that end, we have made a commitment in
writing that the Cabinet Office statement of
practice—COSOP—and a fair deal for pensions will inform
and guide our approach to a complex TUPE-like transfer. I am pleased to
have had the opportunity to restate that on the record. Nevertheless,
the amendment would be technically difficult to implement. Who would
judge detriment, for example? What does “substantial”
mean? What would happen if it were after the transfer and so on? While
I am sure that we could debate those elusive finer points for hours,
the best thing to say is to note the strength of feeling shown by
Members today and in representations from
outside.
Annette
Brooke: I think that I heard what the Minister said, but I
wish to be doubly sure that the staff transfer orders will fully comply
with the Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfers. I am
not sure whether the Minister said that
fully.
Mr.
Simon: I did say that, but I had not gone on to make my
main point, which is that the strength of representations, particularly
from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough but
also from the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and others,
has given me cause to think again. Although I will ask my hon. Friend
to withdraw his
amendment, I intend to return on Report with another view, having taken
the advice of our departmental lawyers and counsel. I hope that the
hon. Lady is satisfied with my hon. Friend’s successful
afternoon, and I hope that he will withdraw the
amendment.
Jeff
Ennis: As ever, I am really pleased with the
Minister’s response, and I thank him for his patience and
indulgence. I am glad that the issue has been placed on the record and
that we will look at it again on Report. Thanks to the
Minister’s encouraging remarks, I have pleasure in saying that I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Schedule
7 agreed
to. Clause
122 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule 8Sixth
form college
sector Mr.
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): I beg to
move amendment 28, in schedule 8, page 175, line 21, leave
out from ‘that’ to end of line 24 and
insert— ‘(a) it is
reasonable to classify the institution as a sixth form
college.’ Schedule
8 and clause 122 establish sixth-form colleges as a distinct legal
category. The rationale, from the policy set out in the impact
assessment, is as follows:
“Ministers
want to recognise the strength of SFCs and their contribution to the
education of young people by identifying the SFC sector as a distinct
legal
category.” That
means enabling the sixth-form college sector of 94 colleges to
be split off from other further education colleges and be divided up
between the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills and the
Department for Children, Schools and Families. That is all very
important and bureaucratic, which is the view of the Association of
School and College
Leaders: “We
are concerned...that the changes for sixth form colleges will
bring about a significant increase in bureaucracy for both colleges and
local
authorities.” The
Association of Colleges, too, is mildly
anxious: “Sixth
Form Colleges will be small in number...within a Department which
includes approximately 25,000 schools and nurseries but we hope
Ministers and officials in DCSF are able to devote sufficient attention
to their work and ensure they
flourish.” Amendment
28 would amend the definition of a sixth-form college. At present,
proposed new section 33B of the Further and Higher Education
Act 1992, which would be inserted under schedule 8, defines a
sixth-form college as a college
where “at
least 80 per cent. of its total enrolment number will be persons over
compulsory school age but under
19”. That
means that a college where, for example, 75 per cent. of students are
within the age range would no longer qualify, which seems unnecessarily
heavy-handed. Our amendment would change the definition to one in
which
“it is
reasonable to classify the institution as a sixth form
college.” I
am sure that the figure of 80 per cent. was just plucked out of the
air, so I urge Ministers to consider our more reasonable amendment to
define a sixth-form college and how it should be distinguished from a
regular further education college.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and
Families (Sarah McCarthy-Fry): I am pleased to welcome you
back to the Chair this afternoon, Mrs. Humble, on my first
opportunity to do so in Committee this
week. In
answer to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, the
threshold for the designation of new sixth-form colleges is based on
the age range of those colleges that currently identify themselves as
sixth-form colleges. It certainly has not been plucked out of thin air.
Of all the sixth-form colleges, only three have less than 80 per cent.
of full-time equivalent students aged over 16 years and under 19. It
was in fact a threshold that came out of existing colleges that
identify themselves as sixth-form colleges and provide predominantly
for young people over 16 but under 19. The majority of those colleges
have at least 80 per cent. of their full-time equivalent students
within that age
range. In
our view, the threshold protects the essential nature of the sixth-form
college sector providing mainly for those over 16 and under 19. It also
gives a clear steer about eligibility to further education colleges
that might consider applying for sixth-form college status in the
future. The threshold is generally supported by representatives of the
sixth-form college sector as a firm indicator of the main criterion for
sixth-form college status. I am worried that, if accepted, the
amendment would introduce doubt and confusion into the
system. Colleges
in the FE sector have become more diverse since they were first
incorporated as FE colleges under the Further and Higher Education Act
1992. They admit a wider range of students and serve broader
communities than may have been the case in the past. Many colleges
would therefore be unclear about when they have grounds for applying to
become sixth-form colleges and what might be considered
“reasonable”. I am concerned that that uncertainty might
destabilise the FE system generally, and that would not be in the
interests of all colleges and
learners. For
the record, I should point out that the Sixth Form Colleges Forum is
broadly supportive of the new arrangements, because it thinks that
there is more coherence in having local authorities, which are
primarily responsible for the strategic direction of schools, having
responsibility for the major direction of sixth-form colleges. On that
basis, I ask the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to
withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb: The sixth-form colleges have expressed concern to me
through their briefing that, because the mere 94 sixth-form colleges
are among 25,000 schools and nurseries, they may not receive the
attention that their importance requires. Moreover, the Minister said
that three of those 94 sixth-form colleges will not constitute
sixth-form colleges according to the definition. Will she therefore say
what will happen to the three sixth-form colleges where it is not the
case that 80 per cent. of students are over 16 and under 19 years? What
would happen if a sixth-form college had applied to be a sixth-form
college and had more than 80 per cent. of students in that bracket once
it had applied, but then it dipped below the 80 per cent. requirement
the following year? Would that lead to its being disqualified? If there
is to be a de minimis period during which the colleges can drop below
80 per cent., how long would it be and what would be the consequences
if, at the end of that time, the sixth-form college was still at, say,
79 per cent.?
4.15
pm
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 25 March 2009 |