| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall speak to those in the Montessori community between now and the next stage of the Bill. There was a slightly warmer reception to the amendments today. There was a distinct chill in the air when similar amendments were tabled in Committee. I do detect a slight aversion to Montessori within the department—not on the part of the
Minister. I believe that within the department there is a frisson of some sort towards the organisation and, frankly, that is a barrier that we need to break down.I believe that this is a most valuable part of nursery provision across the country. It should be recognised as such and we should do what we can to ensure that it remains so. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 128A:
- After Clause 193, insert the following new clause—
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment, which we discussed in Committee, relates to the transport of those over compulsory school age. It is a longstanding issue, particularly with colleges of further education, partly because conditional obligations are already placed on LEAs. Clause 193 and Schedule 19 make it somewhat clearer that there will continue to be obligations on LEAs but they remain conditional.
It is not explicit that LEAs must be responsible for the provision; it is assumed that colleges will continue to provide via their own access funds. In addition, the provision focuses only on 16 to 19 year-olds and there are problems because those older than 19 need help with transport costs. In addition, with the new 14 to 19 provision, there will also be the issue of the transport of those under 16 who need to get to the colleges and to work-based places.
In Committee, the Minister responded at some length. We raised the matter at half past midnight and we have done a little better this time—but not much! It was suggested that the amendment was totally inappropriate. The Association of Colleges was not happy with that response. It has asked me to bring it back. It said that the amendment was designed, first, to impose on the LEA an absolute duty to arrange transport for students rather than the conditional duty of Section 509 even if that section is enhanced as envisaged in Schedule 19; secondly, to extend to all
To date, the Government have given no public explanation of how they believe that the new requirements set out in Schedule 19 will strengthen the obligations on LEAs in respect of transport for 16 to 19 year-olds or under what circumstances they might be willing to use their powers of direction, which have never been given under Section 509 or its predecessors despite a virtual withdrawal from the field of 16 to 19 transport by some LEAs.
The Government have not given any public explanation of why they believe it appropriate to draw a distinction between 16 to 19 year-olds and adults in the obligations they believe reasonable to lay on LEAs or about their thinking on the way in which policies for assistance with transport might assist adult access to continuing education. Equally, they have been silent on the question of how 14 to 16 year-olds will access vocational or work-based learning. Is the duty to provide on the LEA, the learning provider, the parent or no one?
There are, I think, real problems here. We are anxious to encourage participation on the part of 16 to 19 year-olds. Transport costs can be very considerable for those young people. They can be a major disincentive to participation. While there remains obscurity as to who bears the burden, if the buck can be passed it will be passed between LEAs and colleges and from colleges to parents. That is not satisfactory. A clearer delineation of responsibility needs to be given. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, unless I have missed it, there is no reference to an upper age limit. I assume it to be post-14 education. In speaking to the amendment, the noble Baroness referred to 14 to 19 year-olds.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, there is a problem with some of the young adults, in particular those up to 25.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, secondly, as far as I know—unless the law has changed or is about to change—from 14 to 16 statutory school age transport arrangements are in place which meet the distance from school requirements. I assume that that is subsumed in this discussion.
Another big issue arises here. The Government go on ad nauseam about inclusiveness. A large number of post-16, non-statutory aged children, in rural areas cannot get to their local tertiary college or further education college to undertake foundation courses, or whatever they might want to do. It is not that they cannot afford the bus fare; for many there is no bus. In large tranches of the country, there is no public
There is an issue here that needs to be considered if a large number of young people are not to be prevented from taking advantage of what is really very basic and fundamental post-16 education.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness has brought this amendment back. This has never been a subject which the education department, in any of its previous incarnations, has wanted to address because the potential costs involved in reforming the school transport system are so large. This amendment illustrates quite graphically why they are large. However, the distortions that over the years have developed in the education system as a result of not facing up to this are now reaching the point where they must be dealt with. To have the matter spelt out so clearly and extensively in the amendment is immensely helpful.
I hope that the noble Baroness will press the amendment to a Division. The Government have sent their troops home and at least we would achieve an adjournment of the House at 11 o'clock. That would be a nominal victory. I have wandered around the House and, unless noble Lords are hiding away in a bar or in someone's private room, they must have left. They are not to be found in any of the public rooms. I encourage the noble Baroness to say that debate until 11 o'clock is enough. An extra hour put on the business tomorrow would not be a great problem for the Chief Whip. I am sure that he would be able to fit in the remaining amendments then.
I return to the amendment. It raises the whole question of how we should deal with children living in a relatively widely dispersed society, such as the countryside. However, when considering a suitable FE college for 16 year-olds, it could be anywhere. The cost of attending school for 16 to 19 year-olds living in the country can reach as much as £1,000 per year. That is the case if, as my noble friend Lady Blatch pointed out, they can even get to a college. That cost really should be taken into account, if for no other reason than that it should be considered when planning the pattern of provision of education for this age group.
It is seductive to seek to gather all provision into big centres because the unit costs are cheaper, but if transport matters are taken into account, then the total costs and the possible reduction in opportunity might outweigh those reduced unit costs. That consideration should be a part of the decision-making
I am also delighted to note that the amendment faces up to the need to provide for some of the costs of pupils being able to choose which educational establishments they attend. If it is decided to provide a bus service to one particular FE college—that would follow the pattern of provision made for schools—then young people will be deprived of a great deal of opportunity. FE colleges do not all provide the same range of courses. Young people living in the middle of Hampshire might want to attend college at Eastleigh, Andover or Basingstoke. Some courses might only be available even further afield. It is not a question of finding everything at the local FE provider.
Many questions have to be asked and some radical thinking will be required. That would go a long way towards improving the provision of transport for pupils of all ages, in that potentially it might improve the position for parents who, for one reason or another, do not have access to free school transport. That may be either because they live too close to the school or because they have chosen a school other than that designated by the local education authority.
For that reason, I am saddened to see subsection (4) of the amendment which states that,
Beyond that, I support the amendment. If we do not agree it tonight, I hope that we shall return to the subject frequently and that, over the years, we shall see some movement on it.
"TRANSPORT FOR PERSONS OVER THE AGE OF 14
(1) A local education authority shall make such arrangements for the provision of transport or otherwise as may be necessary to secure the attendance of persons over the age of 14 receiving education or training—
(a) at schools,
(b) at any institution maintained or assisted by the authority which provides further education or higher education (or both),
(c) at any institution within the further education sector,
(d) pursuant to an order made under section 82 of this Act, at any establishment, or
(e) at any establishment (not falling within paragraph (b), (c) or (d)) which is supported by the Learning and Skills Council for England or the National Council for Education and Training in Wales.
(2) In considering what arrangements it may be necessary to make for the purpose specified in subsection (1), the local education authority shall have regard (amongst other things) to—
(a) the needs of those for whom it would not be reasonably practical to attend a particular establishment to receive education or training if no arrangements were made,
(b) the need to secure that persons in their area have reasonable opportunities to choose between different establishments at which education or training is provided,
(c) the distance from the homes or persons in their area of establishments such as are mentioned in subsection (1) at which education and training suitable to their needs is provided,
(d) the costs of transport to the establishments in question and of any alternative means of facilitating the attendance of persons receiving education or training there,
(e) the age of the person and the nature of the route, or alternative routes, which he could reasonably be expected to take,
(f) to any wish of him, or if the person is under the age of 18 his parents, to be provided with education or training at an establishment in which the religious education provided is that of the religion or denomination to which he or his parent adheres, and
(g) any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
(3) Before determining what arrangements it will make under subsection (1), a local authority shall consult—
(a) any other local education authority that they consider it appropriate to consult,
(b) the governing bodies of schools maintained by the authority and of any institutions in the further education sector providing education or training for the people in its area,
(c) the Learning and Skills Council for England (in the case of local education authorities in England) or the National Council for Education and Training in Wales (in the case of a local education authority in Wales), and
(d) any other person specified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.
(4) Any transport provided in pursuance of arrangements under subsection (1) shall be provided free of charge.
(5) A local education authority may pay the whole or any part, as they think fit, of the reasonable travelling expenses of any person receiving education or training at any institution mentioned in subsection (1) for whose transport no arrangements are made under that subsection.
(6) Arrangements made by a local education authority under subsection (1) shall—
(a) make provision for persons receiving full-time education or training at any institution within the further education sector which is no less favourable than the provision made in pursuance of the arrangements for pupils of the same age at schools maintained by the local education authority, and
(b) make provision for persons receiving full-time education at institutions mentioned in subsection (1)(d) which is no less favourable than the provision made in pursuance of the arrangements for persons of the same age with learning difficulties (within the meaning of section 13 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) (persons with learning difficulties)) at schools maintained by a local education authority, or where there are no such arrangements the provision made in pursuance of the arrangements for such persons for whom the authority secures the provision of education at any other institution.
(7) Regulations may require a local education authority to publish, at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed, such information as may be prescribed in respect to the authority's policy and arrangements relating to the making of provision under this section."
11 p.m.
"Any transport provided ... shall be provided free of charge".
That misses the point. At present many children have to pay large sums of money. It would be better and more reasonable to put in place an arrangement whereby children could pay rather less, but at least contribute something. In that way everyone would be better off than they are at the moment.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page