House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2009 - 10
Publications on the internet
General Committee Debates
Delegated Legislation Committee Debates



The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mr. Mike Hancock
Blunkett, Mr. David (Sheffield, Brightside) (Lab)
Brooke, Annette (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Drew, Mr. David (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Flint, Caroline (Don Valley) (Lab)
Gibb, Mr. Nick (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Heyes, David (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Holloway, Mr. Adam (Gravesham) (Con)
Hoyle, Mr. Lindsay (Chorley) (Lab)
Laws, Mr. David (Yeovil) (LD)
McCafferty, Chris (Calder Valley) (Lab)
McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol, East) (Lab)
Meale, Mr. Alan (Mansfield) (Lab)
Rifkind, Sir Malcolm (Kensington and Chelsea) (Con)
Whittingdale, Mr. John (Maldon and East Chelmsford) (Con)
Wiggin, Bill (Leominster) (Con)
Wright, Mr. Iain (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families)
Mick Hillyard, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee

First Delegated Legislation Committee

Monday 22 March 2010

[Mr. Mike Hancock in the Chair]

Draft Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (Consequential Amendments) (England and Wales) Order 2010
4.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Mr. Iain Wright): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (Consequential Amendments) (England and Wales) Order 2010.
The Chair: Before we begin, anybody who wants to take off their coat or anything else may do so.
Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab): Other than a coat, what else?
The Chair: You may shed whatever you choose, Mr. Meale. I know that with your inventive mind, that could lead to anything.
We could take the orders together or consider them successively for an hour and a half each. I know that the Minister and Mr. Gibb are eager to give us lengthy presentations on the merits of each. Is it the wish of the Committee to take the orders together?
Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside) (Lab): Yes, let us take them together.
The Chair: I am delighted to see you with us, Mr. Blunkett. Is that the wish of the Committee?
Hon. Members: Yes.
The Chair: In that case, it will be convenient to consider the draft Local Education Authorities and Children’s Services Authorities (Integration of Functions) Order 2010 with the motion.
Mr. Wright: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. Hancock. If my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield wants to take off anything other than his coat, I request that it be put to the Committee for a vote.
Both orders were laid before Parliament last month. I shall set out briefly what each order seeks to do. The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (Consequential Amendments) (England and Wales) Order 2010 has three principal objectives. It will enact a necessary and technical part of the parliamentary reform process that was set in motion when the 2009 Act received Royal Assent. The 2009 Act made provision for the replacement of the Learning and Skills Council with two new systems to drive forward pre and post-19 education and skills. That change was debated comprehensively during the Bill’s passage through Parliament last year. The changes will take effect from 1 April 2010. The order will provide for further consequential amendments to primary legislation that were not covered by the 2009 Act.
The first objective of the order is to repeal all remaining references to the Learning and Skills Council for England in primary legislation. In most cases, such references will be replaced by references to the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency, the Young People’s Learning Agency or local authorities, depending on which is the appropriate body.
Secondly, the 2009 Act creates a new sixth-form college sector. Existing further education corporations can be redesignated as sixth-form college corporations and new sixth-form college corporations can be established to run institutions that cater mainly for those of sixth-form age. So that new sixth-form colleges are recognised in existing legislation, the order will replace any reference to further education corporations with a reference to sixth-form college corporations or sixth-form colleges.
Finally, the order will make technical amendments to the Childcare Act 2006. Those are needed to give full effect to section 199 of the 2009 Act, which inserts provisions into the 2006 Act about the inspection of children’s centres by Ofsted. The order amends the 2006 Act so that the definitions of the terms “prescribed” and “regulations” apply to the new regulation-making powers on the inspection of children’s centres.
Subject to the approval of the House, we intend to bring the consequential amendments order into force at the same time as the main provisions of the 2009 Act on 1 April 2010.
The draft Local Education Authorities and Children’s Services Authorities (Integration of Functions) Order 2010 will bring primary legislation into line with current policy and practice, and remove the scope for confusion. Since the Children Act 2004, the local authority departments responsible for education and children’s social care have been integrated under a single director of children’s services, rendering the term “local education authority” obsolete. The order removes reference to the terms “local education authority” and “children’s services authority,” which was introduced by the Children Act 2004. Those terms are replaced with the single term “local authority,” thereby bringing the terminology used in primary legislation in line with current policy and practice. I hope the Committee agrees that these changes, which have the support of the Local Government Association, are straightforward and sensible.
The term “local education authority” has had a long history in primary legislation. In the vast majority of cases, replacing “local education authority” with “local authority” is straightforward, but in some cases, it has not been possible to do so. For example, some provisions in the Children Act 1989 would now state that the local authority should consult the local authority. I believe that the intention of that Act when it was originally drafted and debated was to ensure that staff in local authority education departments worked closely with their colleagues in local authority children’s social services. We have, of course, dealt with that through the Children Act 2004. As I said earlier, that Act created the post of director of children’s services, which is responsible for both.
So, where the effect would be that the local authority must consult the local authority, we have repealed the relevant provision or made it clear that it applies only to consultation between different authorities. In addition, there are several cases in legislation that refer to the functions of a local education authority. If that expression was changed just to refer to the functions of a local authority, there is a risk that it might include everything that a local authority does. To deal with that issue we have introduced the concept of the education functions of the local authority, which mirrors the existing concept of the social services functions of the local authority and enables us to dispense with the term “local education authority” without changing the meaning of the original legislation. The bulk of the order deals with somewhat out-of-date terms such as those.
The intention is clear: to retain the original meaning by using terminology that is current and relatively accessible. We intend that the integration of functions order will come into force five weeks after it is signed. At the same time, another order amending subordinate legislation will also come into force, which will be subject to negative resolution. I hope that I have explained the orders sufficiently to get the Committee’s approval. I look forward to taking questions from hon. Friends and hon. Members, and I commend the orders to the Committee.
4.37 pm
Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): As the Minister so ably explained, these orders—particularly the first one—were made as a consequence of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. It is good to see so many Labour Members in their places because, as many hon. Members will recall, on some early Thursday mornings when the Bill went through Committee, there were not as many hon. Members in their place as there are today. Those hon. Members are very welcome.
The 2009 Act came hot on the heels of the Education and Skills Act 2008, the Education and Inspections Act 2006, the Education Act 2005, the Education Act 2002, the Learning and Skills Act 2000 and the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. It is good to see the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside in his place. He was responsible for a number of those pieces of legislation.
It is impossible to forget that the 2009 Act, to which the order relates, has already been followed by yet another Bill—the Children, Schools and Families Bill—which is still making its way through another place. Each Bill and Act brings not just clauses and schedules, such as the 270 clauses and 16 schedules of the 2009 Act, but a deluge of regulations, guidance, consequential amendments and further statutory instruments. We are yet to discover what that whirlwind of activity has achieved. After nearly 13 years of this Government and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, the education system still fails far too many children. The Government have failed to tackle the problems that lie at the root of under-achievement in too many schools. Those problems will not be resolved by passing yet another law, and strangling our schools with ever-increasing layers of bureaucracy will not fix our education system.
The order, which deals with amendments to primary legislation, is symptomatic of the Government’s haphazard and hurried approach to law-making. These changes should have been made in the original Bill, rather than by issuing secondary legislation to amend primary legislation a year later. The use of Henry VIII clauses, such as clause 265 of the 2009 Act, is not an approach to legislating that we on the Opposition Bench supports. This is by no means the only statutory instrument that the Government are hurrying through Parliament before the election. The House of Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee included a special section in its report of 23 February complaining about the number of statutory instruments laid before the Committee since the Christmas recess. Almost double the number of affirmative and negative resolution statutory instruments were laid in January 2010 compared with January 2004 to 2009. Statutory instruments subject to the affirmative procedure usually make up around 10 per cent. of the instruments considered by the Committee, but in January 2010 nearly 60 per cent. of the instruments laid were affirmative. The report stated:
“The Committee understands the apparent desire of Ministers and their departments to ‘clear the decks’ of affirmative instruments ahead of the forthcoming general election. But the end of the Parliament is not coming as a surprise to Departments, and better planning to avoid such a surge in affirmatives should have been possible.”
The Committee went on to say:
“The number of instruments has made it more difficult for this Committee effectively to fulfil its responsibility to the House of sifting instruments and identifying any significant issues. It also makes it more difficult for this House, and the Commons, to ensure that every instrument is examined with appropriate care.”
Setting aside the affirmative instruments, we must also consider those laid using the negative resolution procedure. An analysis by the House of Commons Journal Office has shown that the Department for Children, Schools and Families alone has laid 19 negative instruments so far this calendar year, which is almost two a week. Furthermore, the flood of instruments shows no sign of easing. If the pattern proceeding the 2005 election is repeated, the number of negative instruments laid before the House will only increase in the coming weeks. I am looking at various officials to see whether that is true.
The Chair: I have to draw you back here.
Mr. Gibb: I take your point, Mr. Hancock. With the deluge of secondary legislation being rushed out by the Government, it is becoming more and more difficult for the instruments to receive the appropriate level of scrutiny. I am talking about not just members of this Committee scrutinising this particular instrument, but those outside the House who may wish to comment on the mass of instruments.
The order seeks to replace references to the Learning and Skills Council for England with a reference to the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency, the Young People’s Learning Agency and the local authorities as appropriate. We were opposed to the introduction of such bodies during the debates on the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill last year, and we are opposed to them now. At the time, I quoted from my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who said of the Bill that
“it reveals the besetting problem of a decaying Government coming to the end of their term: when in doubt, reorganise...Even worse than that, they are now reorganising their own reorganisations, and changing the institutions that they themselves created earlier.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2009; Vol. 488, c. 115.]
We debated our opposition to the creation of a host of new quangos during the Committee stage of the Bill last year, and I will not repeat those arguments again today. However, I will repeat my concerns that this move from one quango to three should not lead to disproportionate cost.
The noble Baroness Morgan, the Under-Secretary of State for the DCSF, stated in another place on Monday that
“there will be short-term costs in reducing the premises of the estate of the LSC, currently estimated at about £36.8 million”.
Added to that are further
“one-off costs of £3 million to standardise the terms of transfer to local authorities, and £3 million for pensions.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 March 2010; Vol. 718, c. GC216.]
That adds up to £42.8 million, which could have been spent on almost 1,300 extra teachers in the classroom. In times of necessary constraints on budgets, that seems to be a wasteful use of scarce resources.
The Government claimed during the passage of the Bill that creating three quangos from one will slim down bureaucracy, but the noble Baroness Lady Morgan said that
“no additional staff are being recruited, other than to fill vacancies, which we would expect, in respect of functions that are transferring from the LSC to other bodies”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 March 2010; Vol. 718, c.216.]
Will the Minister confirm to this House that there will not be an increase in the number of staff as a result of those moves, which are being notarised by the order that we are debating today.
The order was laid to tidy up loose ends from one of this Government’s many Bills, which increased the layers of bloated bureaucracy, burdening both schools and teachers. The Government’s priorities in the Act are diametrically opposed to the real need for reform in our schools and to greater freedom from bureaucracy, greater choice for parents, greater autonomy for heads and greater budgetary responsibility for schools. For that reason, we must wait not only for a new order, Bill or Act, but for a new Government.
I have one final point on the draft Local Education Authorities and Children’s Services Authorities (Integration of Functions) Order 2010, relating to the correction that was made after the statutory instrument was published to amend the words “local education authority” to “local authority”—even his statutory instrument cannot get the terminology right first off. Could the Minister confirm that there are no other errors in that large statutory instrument that makes that name change in several pieces of legislation currently on the statute book?
4.45 pm
I have a specific query following a point I picked up in the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families. As I recall, the Secretary of State said that the Young People’s Learning Agency would establish regional offices to offer support and challenge to the growing number of academies. I cannot feel that that will have no resource implications and will come about as a consequence of the YPLA being set up, so I seek clarification from the Minister on that large and entirely new function of the YPLA.
With regard to the draft Local Education Authorities and Children’s Services Authorities (Integration of Functions) Order 2010, it clearly makes sense to tidy up the vast array of legislation that we have had in the past 13 years on education. The Children Act 2004 is obviously of great significance, and it is potentially very important if we can get its proposals working well and all the relevant agencies working together, but I feel that something was lacking from that Act that the Government have still not addressed: housing was not taken as a separate strategic partner for the children’s trusts. I am sorry that it has not been picked up in the tidying-up action.
I am wary that the redefinition to “local authority” could lead to some confusion on children’s issues. Wherever one has a two-tier authority—I speak from experience—it is extremely difficult to solve the problems of housing for a family with a disabled child, for example. There is a host of matters that means that housing must be a core partner. The local authority could be said to be that core partner, but that is no longer the case with housing associations. I feel that they are left out of the loop and seek clarification on the term “local authority”, because clearly that goes beyond education and social service functions when we are talking about children. Play, of course, is often dealt with by district councils, so I want to ensure that we pick up all the functions that cover children, but without counting every council every time there is some reference to education and social services. When we are saying that all bodies have to work together, it is important that we include all the core partners in the definitions, and I do not think housing provided by housing associations and other such bodies is currently covered. I leave those points with the Minister to respond to.
The Chair: In the absence of any other Members eagerly rushing to their feet, including Mr. Holloway, I call the Minister.
4.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Mr. Iain Wright): I thank the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for his courtesy in asking questions and for mentioning the fact that a distinguished former Secretary of State for Education and Employment is a member of this Committee: my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside. I rise with some trepidation. I am so glad that he did not try to catch your eye, Mr. Hancock.
Let me deal promptly with the points that have been raised. The hon. Gentleman knows that the use of the affirmative resolution procedure, which was promised by the Government during the passage of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, thereby allowing the Committee to debate consequential amendments, is a necessary, essential and effective part of parliamentary scrutiny, freeing up time to debate the substance of a Bill in Committee and allowing technical amendments to be dealt with thereafter. That is an important part of democracy and it helps streamline the process as much as possible. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned somewhat churlishly the fact that education standards have not risen. Now is not the time to debate education standards, other than to say that the proportion of students earning five good GCSEs or more has doubled since 1997. There have been enormous advances in the fabric of school buildings, the quality of teaching, the professionalism of the work force and standards for students. The fact that we are celebrating record historic levels of participation in education and training for 16 and 17-year-olds is real cause for celebration.
The hon. Gentleman focused mainly on costs. I understand his point about ensuring that there are short-term costs in the region of £37 million to make the transition from the Learning and Skills Council to the Skills Funding Agency and the Young People’s Learning Agency. He cited a debate in another place, involving my noble friend Baroness Morgan, but he failed to mention the full quote from my noble Friend, so let me put it on the record:
“I reiterate that, over time, those changes are expected to generate net annual savings of £77 million from rationalisation of premises, IT, shared services and streamlined contracting and data collection processes. The new system is expected to be revenue-neutral for providers, with prudential savings through reduced bureaucracy.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 March 2010; Vol. 718, c. GC216.]
In the medium term, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the machinery-of-government changes will produce substantial savings to the public purse.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I can confirm that there will be an increase in the number of staff. I can confirm that there will be no increase in the number of staff as a result of the machinery-of-government changes. I hope that that reassures him.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole made an important point about housing. I have mentioned that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside was a formidable Education Secretary. May I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, my former boss, who was a brilliant Housing Minister when I was in the Department for Communities and Local Government? The hon. Lady makes an important point about housing associations and makes the argument in respect of machinery-of-government changes for me. Agencies cannot rely on looking at things in silos, with education over here and housing over there, for example. The raison d’AŠtre of the machinery-of-government changes, and the powers to commission wraparound services for young people from birth to 19, is designed directly to focus on the integrated commissioning of youth services. That is exactly the right point.
The hon. Lady says that housing associations are somewhat out of the loop. I disagree. Committee members should not forget that the Housing Act 2004 gave local authorities the strategic responsibility for housing in their area. The local authorities will have an important part to play, whether in respect of housing or education, in working out what is needed for young people. The machinery-of-government changes that the ASCAL Act brings into play will help to take that on to the next step. Housing is key part of that strategy. I can write to the Committee and the hon. Lady to clarify and confirm that. Housing associations play a key part.
I detect that the Committee is largely in favour of the consequential amendments. I hope that I have dealt with hon. Members’ points. I commend the orders to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Draft LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES AUTHORITIES (INTEGRATION OF FUNCTIONS) ORDER 2010

Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Local Education Authorities and Children’s Services Authorities (Integration Of Functions) Order 2010.—(Mr. Wright.)
4.56 pm
Committee rose.
 
Contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index


©Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 23 March 2010