Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: The reason for the inclusion of the three
colleges that are below 80 per cent. is that they designate themselves
as sixth-form colleges. They are part of the Sixth Form Colleges Forum,
so they are very much part of the family of sixth-form colleges. That
is why they will be included in the first tranche, in the one-off
order, when they will be invited to take sixth-form college
status. The
other question was about whether sixth-form colleges feel that they
would be swamped with all the other responsibilities of the Department
for Children, Schools and Families. I would strongly refute that. The
separate designation for sixth-form colleges means that they will get
the attention that they need, while remaining independent
corporations. Once
colleges are designated as sixth-form colleges, they remain with that
designation. We are looking to the future, when FE colleges want to
move into the sixth-form college sector. There is a review period of
five years—we shall come to that when we debate another
amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton—during which changes can be made, and that is
designed to retain stability in the
sector.
Mr.
Gibb: I am encouraged that the three colleges identified
by the Minister as not falling within the definition have been invited
to join the sixth-form college sector. It is probably entirely
reasonable for those colleges to be included in the sixth-form college
sector, since they do not paint themselves as sixth-form colleges.
However, that falls within the definition in the amendment, that it
should be reasonable in all circumstances to judge that a college is a
sixth-form college. However, having made the argument, which the
Minister has in some ways vindicated, I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment 29, in
schedule 8, page 176, line 43, leave
out subsection
(3). As
drafted, proposed new section 33D of the Further and Higher Education
Act 1992, which schedule 8 inserts, prevents sixth-form colleges from
applying to the Secretary of State for redesignation as FE colleges for
five years following classification as a sixth-form college. We touched
on that issue in a previous debate, but that period seems to be
unnecessarily arbitrary and restrictive. I doubt that colleges will
swing back and forth between sectors every other year or month, so I
cannot see the need for the provision, which may well present a barrier
in some circumstances. Amendment 29 simply removes
subsection (3) of proposed new section 33D. If the Minister
cannot accept the amendment, would she explain why the period of five
years has been
selected?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: As I touched on in my response to the
previous amendment, the restriction on the application to redesignate
is designed to ensure the stability of the sector. It does not prevent
applications for a change of status if a college considers itself
better placed in the other sector, but it controls the timing, so that
multiple applications to change status do not interfere
with the good governance of both sectors. Local authorities and the
Skills Funding Agency need some assurance about the institutions that
they would be performance managing. The sectors themselves would want a
clear view of which colleges are in membership. Our view is that a
five-year gap between applications allows colleges time to focus on
their core
business. If
there was no restriction on the change of status, there would be a
danger that that would encourage short-term vision and erode
distinctions between the sectors. The worst-case scenario—I do
not believe it would happen but it is a possibility—is that a
college might attempt to move between sectors in pursuit of perceived
short-term gain rather than long-term strategy. That would confuse
other colleges, employers and those parents and students who wanted to
make use of the
college. We
discussed our proposals for the designation of sixth-form colleges with
representatives from the college sector. We are clear that they want
stability and clear and defined processes for designation, to be able
to plan their business. A period of stability, which does not prevent a
college from changing its status at some future point if it feels that
its core mission has changed, is essential to making a success of the
changes that the Bill is introducing. For those reasons, I would ask
the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb: There would not have been instability if there had
not been a split into two Departments—DIUS and DCSF. This
anti-instability measure has become necessary because of the
bureaucratic decision to split the Government’s role between two
Departments. However, I am reassured by the Minister’s response
and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment 76, in
schedule 8, page 177, line 16, after
‘of’, insert ‘and available
for’. This
is a probing amendment to determine whether sixth-form colleges can
recruit pupils from the age of 14. Able youngsters take
their GCSEs ever earlier and may wish to proceed to A-levels when they
are younger than 15. Proposed new section 33E(1), which will be
inserted into the Higher Education Act 1992 by the schedule, states
that a sixth-form college may do a number of things. Paragraph (b)
states that it
may “provide
secondary education suitable to the requirements of persons who have
attained the age of
14”. That
is a little ambiguous. On first reading, it implies that the college
can provide GCSE
courses. My
question, which was prompted by the Association of School and College
Leaders, is whether sixth-form colleges can enrol students from the age
of 14. The amendment would insert the words “and available
for” so that the paragraph states that sixth-form colleges may
“provide secondary education suitable to the requirements of and
available for persons who have attained the age of 14”.
Clarification from the Minister on this point would be very
helpful.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I am happy to clarify this matter for the
hon. Gentleman. Proposed new section 33E will re-enact for
sixth-form colleges the existing powers
of FE colleges; these are not new powers. Colleges can accept pupils
from the age of 14. We are concerned that accepting the amendment would
imply that colleges should routinely accept pupils aged 14 to 16. We do
not believe that they should. However, we think that they should have
that flexibility. The schedule gives sixth-form colleges the
flexibility to offer additional provision at the margins, while
allowing them to focus on the core provision for 16 to 19-year-olds
that so many students and their parents want. I hope that I have given
sufficient comfort to the hon. Gentleman and that he will withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful
clarification, which I am sure will be heard outside the House. I am
sure that the ASCL will find it helpful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): I beg
to move amendment 363, in schedule 8, page 185, leave out
lines 16 to
31. The
amendment would remove the ability of local education authorities to
appoint members to the governing body of a sixth-form college.
Sixth-form colleges, like FE colleges, are at the centre of their
communities, and it is important that, like FE colleges, they are
allowed to respond to the needs of those communities. It is imperative
that that responsiveness is based on independence and
flexibility. FE
colleges have independent governing bodies, which they are extremely
keen to keep. However, as the 157 Group and the Association
of Colleges pointed out in their evidence, the new chief executive of
Skills Funding will have the power to appoint governors to FE governing
bodies. The responsiveness of FE colleges means that they are in tune
with economic demand and the choices and aptitudes of learners. We are
not keen that they should be beholden to the needs of
LEAs. We
feel the same about sixth-form colleges. They require the same kind of
flexibility and responsiveness. There may be a misunderstanding about
sixth-form colleges, although not on your part, Mrs. Humble,
or on the part of well-informed Committee members. More widely, people
might assume that sixth-form colleges are more like school sixth forms
than they are. Many sixth-form colleges teach a variety of things to a
variety of learners. Their work is much more varied and is
characterised by the flexibility that I have
described. The
amendment is designed to ensure that while LEAs keep their
commissioning role and powers of intervention, the governors of
sixth-form colleges remain independent. Is there not already sufficient
oversight in these institutions without a member of the LEA sitting on
their boards? The amendment is supported by the Sixth Form
Colleges’ Forum, which argued in written evidence that
“The
Sixth Form Colleges’ Forum is concerned that Sixth Form Colleges
retain their current independence and ability to provide education
appropriate to the needs of their communities on the same basis as
their FE
colleagues.” The
Minister will know that sixth-form colleges are in the same
network as FE colleges—they are members of the Association of
Colleges and so on.
The amendment
also allays the worries of the AOC that
“local
authorities will limit student choice by seeing sixth-form colleges as
very much more local than they currently are in their recruitment. We
hope that local authorities will in no way become proprietorial about
their sixth-form colleges and try to limit their places to students
within their
boundaries.” That
reinforces my point about sixth-form colleges being more wide ranging
in the diet that they offer—both in content and in the kind of
students that they typically teach. We must ensure that sixth-form
colleges can retain this independent spirit, for the welfare of the
students and the interest of the communities that they serve. To place
two LEA members on a small governing body seems an excessive
involvement of local authorities and it does not appear to be supported
on any evidential basis. I have heard nothing to suggest that
sixth-form colleges are typically badly governed. Perhaps the Minister
knows otherwise and will make the Committee aware of any evidence she
has.
Sixth-form
colleges are already providing an excellent education for a wide range
of students with a wide range of subjects. We cannot and should not
restrict their ability to perform this vital function in the way that
they wish in the future. The amendment is therefore tabled in that
spirit and we anticipate the Minister’s response with
interest.
Annette
Brooke: I want to make a few comments. It is a matter of
getting the right balance. Things are going to change, and funding
arrangements have been going through local authorities. However, I
appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments about independence,
which is very much valued. However, it is important that new
relationships are forged in the new situation. At this stage, I am not
against the proposal that a local authority “may” perform
a duty. It is critical that whatever happens should come out of a true
partnership. I await the Minister’s
comments.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: There is a bit of a misunderstanding. The
power that “may” enable an LEA to appoint two governors
is nothing knew. It is replicating an existing power under section 11
of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, which gave the Learning and Skills
Council the power to appoint up to two persons to be members of the
governing body of a further education sector institution in England.
Schedule 6 of this Bill gives that power to the SFA to appoint to
governing bodies of FE colleges.
We are not
singling out sixth-form colleges and it is for the local authority to
decide how it should use the powers. It does not require the local
education authority to appoint a governor to the governing body of a
sixth form. It could be used, if it were used at all, in a number of
circumstances. It could build and bring additional capacity to a
governing body if the local authority identified the need for
particular expertise—say in finance or building. However, as the
hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, it is important that
it is done in the spirit of partnership and that the power provides the
means for that partnership to exist.
4.30
pm
Mr.
Hayes: Does the LSC routinely appoint two
governors, and does the Minister expect LEAs to do
so?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: The LSC’s power has never been
used in respect of sixth-form colleges, although I understand that
there have been instances where such colleges have requested support.
None the less, that power is there, and we have replicated that power,
as the hon. Gentleman said, with the
SFA.
Mr.
Hayes: My amendment was meant to be a probing one, but I
am becoming increasingly concerned. We are saying that the power has
never been used, that we are building into a new law a power that was
passed previously but never acted on, and now we are building into the
changed structure. That is a bit curious, is it
not?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I disagree. We are looking at local
authorities taking a strategic role, and looking across all the
provision, be it in a school sixth form or a sixth-form college. I do
not think that it is unreasonable for either the sixth-form sector or
the FE sector to do that. We are talking about two governors, which
will have a minor impact on the membership of a governing body. It is
certainly not the intention for a local authority to take control of a
sixth-form college that is an independent institution; it would not be
able to do so. The measure is not related to the intervention process
that is set out in section 56E in any way. We should also remember that
any governor appointed has a collective responsibility and owes a duty
to the governing body, not to the local authority. As I said, they are
not new powers, but elements of existing relationships that sixth-form
colleges have with the LSC. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to
withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Hayes: That was an odd response. We are discussing powers
that have never been used and a power that the Minister does not expect
to be used, yet we are putting it into law. My instinct about such laws
is that they should probably be struck from the statute book. Do we not
have all kinds of laws that are never implemented? One wonders why the
Government want to perpetuate that kind of legal inactivity.
Legislative inaction is not a good basis on which to frame what we do.
I am doubtful about all that; clearly, the sixth-form college sector
itself—from the representations that we have received, which I
amplified in my few brief words—is doubtful about it. But as I
do not want to delay the Committee further, even though I am not
entirely satisfied with what we have heard, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Question
proposed, That the schedule be the Eighth schedule to the
Bill.
| 
