| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Secondly, I am not sure that the local authority ought to be doing this. The Government will be running the national children’s database and they are also intending to keep a complete record of who is doing what courses. These things are not happening, particularly once children reach the age of 16, at a local authority level. Children of that age are able to leave home and many of them will. They will be living in relatively informal arrangements with other people. A local authority will have no natural way of finding out about these people. It will take a central register to establish whose training activity is not known and a central effort to find out where these young people have got to and bring them to the attention of the local authority. We do not want 100-odd local authorities all chasing round independently, trying to find out where Sam Jones, who used to live in the area but now does not appear to, has got to, or which kids are in the area whose homes are not there. It is going to be extremely difficult to track these pupils down if you do it in that disaggregated way. Given the tools that the Government have to do this, it might be better to run it centrally, even if at the end of the day the local authorities then pick up the challenge of helping the kids back into education.
Lord Elton: My noble friend raises all sorts of issues. On which local authority devolves the problem of pursuit when an apprentice is taking his apprenticeship in a different local authority, for instance? Is it the local authority where the employer is or the local authority where the young person is resident and on the records?
1 July 2008 : Column 211
8.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families (Lord Adonis): Perhaps I may first respond to Amendment No. 53 of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. We entirely support the intention behind it. Young offenders are among the most vulnerable young people and are at serious risk of missing out on the education and training that they so badly need.
The duty on a local authority, created by Clause 10, to promote effective participation in learning of all young people, subject to the new duty in Clause 2, already includes young offenders, so it would not be necessary to specify them separately. However, we have recently consulted on proposals to give local authorities responsibility for providing education for young offenders in custody. Our document Raising Expectations: Enabling the System to Deliver states in paragraph 3.46:
“Consistent with the principle that local authorities should plan, commission and fund education and training for all children and young people, we want them to do so for young people in juvenile custody (who are aged 10-17 and some 18 year-olds nearing the end of their sentence). Despite recent improvements, standards of provision still fall short of what we would expect for young people in mainstream education. New planning and funding arrangements for young people in custody must foster improved outcomes, including progression and achievement in education, and hence contribute to reducing re-offending”.
Clear commitments are made there. We will see whether—I have to choose my words a little carefully, because I cannot pre-empt legislation—it would be appropriate to make these changes in forthcoming legislation in the next Session.
The intended effects of Amendment No. 57 of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, also are already secured in the legislation. Clause 10 puts a duty on local authorities to promote participation for all 16 and 17 year-olds in their area to whom the central duty applies. That includes those with learning difficulties or special educational needs. We agree that it is important to recognise the additional barriers that some young people face, including those with SEN. It is important to diagnose learning difficulties as early as possible. That is why we announced in the Children’s Plan an additional £18 million of spending which, among other things, is to improve the workforce’s knowledge, skills and understanding of SEN and learning difficulties through better initial teacher training and continuing professional development. I launched the new units for initial teacher training last week to give effect to the first phase of our investment in this area.
The Bill seeks to strengthen assessment arrangements and accountability for those with learning difficulties through Clause 65. We will spell out in statutory guidance to local authorities that every young person with learning difficulties who is likely to benefit from an assessment should receive one. We have already consulted stakeholders on drawing up this guidance, and the Special Educational Consortium, which has also briefed noble Lords, recently commented that it was happy to be involved in the process and is pleased with the progress being made. I can reassure the Committee that Connexions and local authorities will continue
1 July 2008 : Column 212
I turn to Amendment No. 58. When determining the resources required by schools and colleges, we already expect local authorities to have regard to their duty to promote participation, as they will have regard to all their duties. The amendment makes assumptions about how the new funding system will operate when the transfer of resources from the Learning and Skills Council to local authorities is implemented in 2010-11. It is premature to make such assumptions given that the details of the new funding system will be subject to the outcome of ongoing consultation about how to take forward these proposals.
These changes should be implemented from the academic year 2010-11, which is well before plans to raise the participation age will be implemented. They will be put in place using the primary legislation, which, as I said earlier, is likely to be brought before the House in the next parliamentary Session, including amendments as necessary to the School Standards and Framework Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, raised issues relating to Clause 10 on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who we are sorry is unable to be in his place. The duty placed on local authorities is a necessary corresponding duty to the one on young people to participate in education or training. These duties are two sides of the same coin. The duty on young people cannot be delivered without the support of local authorities. If this clause were removed, as the noble Lord has suggested, Clause 2 would still place a duty on young people to participate, but there would be no corresponding duty on local authorities to enable this, or to encourage them to do so. The noble Lord and I discussed this issue in a meeting. I give way.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: The noble Lord’s intention was to delay what was intended in this clause until the local authority had those additional powers and responsibilities. That was his aim. I was delighted to hear that there will be a responsibility for certain groups with special educational needs to receive education up to the age of 25. Perhaps I may also ask about young offenders who, again, do not have the right skills and are in prison until that sort of age. Who will pay for their educational needs? Will they be part of this Bill’s responsibilities? Whose responsibility will they be?
Lord Adonis: This Bill’s responsibilities go up to the age of 18. There are responsibilities placed on the Prison Service for the education of those who are over that age. Spending on education in prisons, including for those in the adult estate, has risen significantly in recent years. We are alive to our responsibilities in that regard. In respect of Clause 10—
Lord Elton: If the Minister will forgive me, since we are on the subject of education in prison, it would be helpful to know—now or in writing—to what extent the authorities responsible for those in custody have been consulted about these proposals. How will they
1 July 2008 : Column 213
Lord Adonis: I shall be happy to provide such a background note. I covered some, but not all, of those issues in my letter on offender education to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, yesterday. I will address in correspondence the issues I was not able to raise then. The forms of education and training that are made available in the secure estate have to be consistent with the requirements of detention, which significantly limits the capacity to offer apprenticeships. The noble Lord raised the issue of what scope there is for apprenticeships to be offered within the prison industries. I suspect that is also very limited, but I will address that.
Lord Elton: I do not believe that they would be satisfactory.
Lord Adonis: I suspect that is the case, but I will confirm the precise position in correspondence. Returning to Clause 10, following an intervention to an intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and I discussed this issue with Peers at the open meeting on the Bill a week ago. I explained to the noble Lord, but I say again for the record, that the duties in Clause 10 range far more widely than those in respect of the funding that will be transferred from the Learning and Skills Council to local authorities, under legislation likely to come forward in the next Session. Local authorities have a wide range of other duties, including the provision of support services, targeted services for vulnerable groups, and the sort of training and education opportunities that we discussed earlier in our proceedings. These range far more widely than the direct funding of 16 to 18 education, which will be transferred to them under the legislation expected in the next Session. Clause 10 is a flexible clause, which takes account of that. It says:
“A local education authority in England must ensure that its functions are (so far as they are capable of being so exercised) exercised so as to promote the effective participation in education or training of persons belonging to its area”.
That duty will also apply to functions as they are extended by future legislation. Therefore, it is absolutely appropriate that this clause should be in the Bill. Its practical impact will increase as the tools available to local authorities to promote participation increase with forthcoming legislation.
We entirely agree with the intention of Amendment No. 67 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I join her in paying tribute to TreeHouse, an organisation which I know well, which does outstanding work with autistic children. However, it is not necessary to add to Clause 12 an explicit reference to those with special educational needs. The provisions in the Bill to raise
1 July 2008 : Column 214
I do not think that the noble Baroness spoke to her Amendment No. 65.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I spoke to it in relation to resources. As I pointed out, there are limits to what local authorities can be expected to do and to spend in chasing up these young people. Clause 12 states:
“A local education authority ... must make arrangements to ... establish (so far as it is possible to do so)”.
What is possible to do may cost an enormous amount of money. Therefore, I propose that it should be not only possible but reasonable that it should do this.
Lord Adonis: We are not minded to weaken the duty on local authorities in the way that the noble Baroness suggests. However, the definition of what is possible must encompass what is reasonable. I therefore suspect that the difference between us may not be as great as it seems.
Amendment No. 110 stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. I am glad to tell her that I can meet her concerns entirely. We will ensure that all statutory guidance relating to this part is placed in the Library and that notice is given when this is done. We will also publish it on the department’s website. This is routine practice for us, so alive are we to our duties to Parliament. We will ensure that our duties are fully performed in this regard, as in all others.
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord take advice from the Government’s most senior lawyers about the use of “possible” between now and Report? Most of us are much more familiar with the use of “reasonable” in legislation than with “possible,” and there may be advantages in using it.
Lord Adonis: I promise to write the noble Lord and the noble Baroness a very long letter on that subject.
Lord Lucas: In addition to writing the letter, will the noble Lord give some clues about what mechanisms a local authority is expected to be able to employ to track down people? I may have missed the definition of “belong” in the Bill, but my understanding is that it indicates that people have their residence in the area. Will young people have to register that with a local authority in some way? The local authority will presumably know where the parents are because they are usually reasonably locatable, but once a young person has left home how will the local authority know where they are?
Baroness Walmsley: The noble Lord will have the opportunity to address those issues when we come to the Clause 12 stand part debate.
1 July 2008 : Column 215
Baroness Verma: I thank the Minister for his response and for ensuring that the relevant information will be placed in the Library of the House of Commons.
The Minister says that the Bill will place a duty on local authorities to ensure that education and training is in place for young people, but it seems that young people will face criminal action if they do not comply. I remain unclear on what penalties local authorities will face and I hope the Minister can clear that up. I am not sure that he has addressed my noble friend’s question on where responsibility lies if the young person crosses the boundaries of two local authorities. The Minister says that we cannot pre-empt the levels of local authority funding until the legislation comes into force, but how can he say with confidence that adequate funding will be in place for the increased numbers who will stay on in education when the legislation comes into force? My amendment relates to an issue raised by the National Union of Teachers. There is great concern that local authorities will be short-changed when they have to deal with extra numbers without extra funding being in place. Perhaps I may press the Minister for further responses on those issues.
9 pm
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for answering a number of the queries that we raised. It would be particularly good if he could clarify the situation of those in custody. I would be grateful if he will send us a copy of the letter that he sends to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. If he produces a further background note for the noble Lord, Lord Elton, perhaps we could see that as well.
We wanted to include in Clause 10 those who are in custody precisely because local authorities occasionally forget their explicit duties under the Children Act and it is sometimes necessary to remind them. As the Minister suggests, that might be dealt with more appropriately in the legislation that he brings forward next year, but it would nevertheless be good to see it somewhere in the legislative framework.
One issue that worries me slightly relates to those who have special educational needs but who do not get a statement. As the Minister well knows, some of them fall under the category of “school action”. In particular, those who are categorised as “school action plus” fall on the borderline of needing a statement, but they may not get one. Many of these young people are vulnerable for the same reasons as are those with special educational needs who have a statement that they are vulnerable. It is important that even those without a statement continue to get the educational and training support that they received in school. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, it is necessary to regard 14 to 19 as a continuum, as distinct from regarding 16 and 17 year-olds as separate.
The Minister said that every young person with a statement will be looked after by the Connexions service and receive support and so on. Nevertheless, those covered by “school action plus”, who may well leave school and start some form of work with training when they are 17, often still need some sort of support. It is necessary to think about that issue. I think we will return to it in the next group of amendments.
1 July 2008 : Column 216
Finally, I have not addressed the Question on whether Clause 10 should stand part. We on these Benches recognise that someone has to implement the legislation, and it seems obvious that it should be the local education authority. I recognise the logic of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. However, central government already have their fingers in so many pies that it would be a good thing if they kept them out of a few. Although the right place for this responsibility might be the local authorities, this business of the permeable frontiers which they have to cope with poses some difficulties. We have largely not questioned that Clause 10 should stand part. However, we are extremely anxious that local authorities should have the resources needed to deliver on Clause 10. We are very much with the official Opposition in not feeling confident that the Government will give local authorities the resources they need to deliver their aspirations. We are also not confident about local authorities recognising their duties, which includes both the custody issue and special educational needs. But we will come back to those issues in other groupings and undoubtedly on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 54 to 58 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 59:
(1) A local education authority in England must prepare assessments of the sufficiency of the provision of education and training provision in their area (“education and training assessments”).
(2) The first education and training assessment must be prepared before the end of the period of one year beginning with the commencement of this section.
(3) Subsequent education and training assessments must be prepared at intervals not exceeding three years.
(4) The authority must keep an education and training assessment prepared by them under review until the education and training assessment is superseded by a further education and training assessment.
(6) In preparing an education and training assessment and keeping it under review, a local education authority in England must—
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 61A, which is in my name and that of my noble friend. These two amendments deal with the responsibilities placed on local authorities by Clause 10, which make them the effective body required to implement this part of the Bill. The purpose of the first amendment is to require local authorities to audit the sufficiency and diversity of education and training provision in
1 July 2008 : Column 217
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |