| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Secretary of State must be satisfied that there is sufficient and diverse provision before the duty to participate under Clause 2 can come into force. These amendments have been proposed to us by the Special Educational Consortium. The consortium is anxious, pointing out that there are approximately 772,000 disabled children under the age of 16 and that around one in five pupils have some form of special educational need.
The Special Educational Consortium supports the fundamental principles of the Education and Skills Bill, including the proposal to extend the requirement to stay in school and education to the age of 18. It recognises that many 16 year-olds also stay on in school or move into further education and training. However, those most at risk in the system are least likely to stay on, and that disproportionately includes disabled pupils and pupils with special educational needs. The Disability Rights Commission found that non-disabled young people are twice as likely as their disabled peers to transfer to sixth form or college at 16-plus. This has a significant impact on life chances. By the age of 19, 9 per cent of non-disabled young people are not in education, employment or training whereas, by our definition, 27 per cent of disabled young people are NEETs.
One of the Special Educational Consortium’s key concerns is the balance of responsibility between individual young people and the local education authorities. As currently drafted the Bill imposes sanctions that can include criminal penalties for individual pupils who are not in appropriate full-time education or training, as it imposes only a general duty through Clause 10 on local education authorities to promote participation in such education and training. In line with Barnardo’s, the Special Educational Consortium believe that the success of the Bill will rely on providing the relevant learning opportunities and appropriate support for young people with SEN who want to stay on. The Special Educational Consortium believes that young people can benefit from the Bill only if local authorities have the appropriate capacity to make the assessments and if there is a range of appropriate high quality provision available to them.
The duties set out in the amendments would rebalance responsibilities. It would place an explicit duty on local authorities to audit the sufficiency and diversity of education and training provision in their area and ensure that they have the appropriate assessment capabilities and that there is a suitable place and support for every young person aged 16 to 18, particularly disabled young people and those with learning difficulties or special educational needs.
Many local authorities currently find it quite difficult to meet the requirements for assessment within the current age ranges in schools. Children with special educational needs are often identified in primary schools, even in reception classes. By the age of six or seven, many of the behavioural traits that lead the children later to drop out of school are apparent but the help that schools get from their local education authorities,
1 July 2008 : Column 218
I return to the arguments of the Special Educational Consortium. It recognises that the duty set out in the amendments could not be implemented until funding and responsibility is transferred to local authorities. That will require further legislation, which we have just discussed.
Amendment No. 59 involves the,
It requires local authorities to,
- “prepare assessments of the sufficiency of the provision of education and training provision in their area”.
Amendment No. 61A relates to the,
“A local education authority in England must ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that the provision of education and training is sufficient to meet the requirements of young persons in their area”.
- “have regard to the needs of young persons ... for a diverse range of academic and vocational provision ... must have regard to the provision of education and training which is suitable for disabled young persons and those with learning difficulties, and ... must have regard to the adequacy of assessment procedures in relation to special educational needs and the importance of early assessment and continuing support if a young person with special educational needs is to fulfil his potential, and ... may have regard to any education and training which they expect to be available outside their area”.
The amendments would put substantial responsibilities on local authorities to provide this diversity of provision and to meet the needs of those with special educational needs and disabilities. I beg to move.
Baroness Verma: The Liberal Democrats have proposed two new clauses to the Bill which enshrine the duty of local education authorities to provide sufficient education and training provision and to assess how that provision will work. These are sensible new clauses and echo what we on these Benches have been saying: that the Bill, as it stands, talks too much about the duties of young people and not enough about the duties and responsibilities of local authorities. We are very supportive of the idea of making it clear that local authorities must take those duties seriously.
9.15 pm
Lord Adonis: The Learning and Skills Council currently has a duty to ensure proper provision for all 16 to 19 year-olds, and for all 16 to 25 year-old learners with
1 July 2008 : Column 219
- “education (other than higher education) suitable to the requirements of persons who are above compulsory school age but have not attained the age of 19 ... training suitable to the requirements of such persons ... organised leisure-time occupation connected with such education, and ... organised leisure-time occupation connected with such training”.
It defines facilities as proper if they are,
including, of course, individuals with learning difficulties and/or disabilities—
Therefore, when the LSC undertakes its planning responsibilities, it already takes account of the elements that Amendment No. 61A specifically mentions; that is to say, it draws up commissioning plans at a regional level, recognising the need for a diverse range of academic and vocational provision, and ensuring suitable provision for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities.
The Bill seeks to strengthen the assessment provisions for young people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. 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 under Clause 65. Local authorities will be legally required to have regard to this guidance, and we believe that it will ensure that provision in this area is sufficient.
As I said, it is our intention that responsibility for funding and commissioning 16 to 19 provision will be transferred from the LSC to local authorities from 2010. Local authorities will be responsible from 2013 for making a reality in their area the national entitlement to a new, wider choice of options. Drawing on the plans drawn up by their local 14-19 partnerships, local authorities will be required to analyse demand from young people and ensure that choices are informed by good information, advice and guidance. They will compare the pattern of demand to the existing pattern and performance of local provision, and work with schools, colleges and other providers to assess the best way of filling any gaps and promoting quality. This analysis and these decisions will lead to a commissioning plan agreed within and outside the area, either as part of, or closely aligned to, the local authority’s children and young people plan.
Local authorities will work together in subregional groups in their commissioning, in order to analyse and understand demand from across the travel-to-learn areas of all their learners, to consider gaps in provision and to share judgments of quality. Local authorities need to plan for all young people up to the age of 25. For some, including learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities, provision may be highly specialised and costly. Planning across a wider area for such provision will be particularly important.
1 July 2008 : Column 220
We intend to legislate for these aspects in the next parliamentary Session. Subject to such a legislative slot being available and the Bill being passed, by the time the policy to raise the participation age comes into force, local authorities will have duties to secure sufficient appropriate provision, including provision for students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. They will also have duties to keep that provision under review. We therefore do not believe that it would be appropriate to legislate here for these new duties. However, I hope that I have given sufficient assurances to the noble Baroness for her to be confident that the existing planning duties on the Learning and Skills Council meet the points that she has raised, and that we will transfer and strengthen those duties when local authorities take them over, under legislation to be forthcoming in the next Session.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply. It is a little unsatisfactory that we are legislating here in two bites. We have to take it somewhat on trust that the next Bill will contain these clauses. I accept what the Minister says and that at present these are the responsibilities of the Learning and Skills Council, but clearly, in so far as local authorities are assuming the responsibility for implementing the Bill, we want some assurance that they will have the resources and capacity to deliver on these requirements.
As I said, I accept what the Minister says, although it does not seem to be totally satisfactory. We need to think about these things a little more, and the noble Lord may well find us coming back to some of them at Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 60:
(1) A local education authority may designate any educational institution or other person as a provider of education or training for the purposes of this section.
(2) An institution or person so designated may issue a young person with a certificate in a prescribed form to the effect that the young person has made appropriate arrangements for training or education within the meaning of section 21(1) which shall include a telephone number and other contact details to enable an employer to ascertain the currency and veracity of the certificate.”
The noble Lord said: The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, should be grateful that the Government are not intending to create the second Bill by means of a Henry VIII clause in this Bill. The Pensions Bill, which we shall consider tomorrow, contains a second Bill in just that fashion.
Amendment No. 60 is intended to be helpful, particularly to employers, who have a duty under Clause 21 to take all reasonable steps to ascertain that a prospective employee is undertaking the required amount of training. However, the clause is entirely silent on how they should ascertain that and it does not provide any helpful mechanisms to enable them to do so. I spent a good deal of my life trying to get information out of educational establishments, which in many cases is extremely difficult. They are not set up to answer questions from people outside. They often tend to be neither efficient nor helpful and, when
1 July 2008 : Column 221
In a rather roundabout way, therefore, the amendment is intended to provide such a duty, together with a mechanism for making it easy for an employer. It would produce no disincentive to employing 16 and 17 year-olds because the said prospective employee would arrive bearing a certificate, which would make it extremely easy for the duty in Clause 21 to be satisfied. I suspect that the Minister will say that he has a better way of doing these things but I shall enjoy listening to him. I beg to move.
Baroness Verma: The new clause proposed by my noble friend Lord Lucas is an attempt to make it easier for employers to fulfil their obligations by making available a certificate showing that a young person has made appropriate arrangements. I agree that as much as possible should be done to ease the duty on employers. I should like to speak to my Amendment No. 114 in this group, which limits the steps that an employer is expected to take to fulfil its obligations so that it does not have to ask the young person’s college of further education for details of the individual’s course.
It has been made very clear by parties whom we have consulted, including the Institute of Directors, 70 per cent of whose members are small and medium-sized enterprises, and others, that one of the biggest day-to-day problems facing business is the ever-increasing flow of red tape and bureaucracy. We want to keep the burdens imposed on employers to an absolute minimum; otherwise, we run the risk of seeing the young people whom we are trying to help in this Bill excluded from the workforce because the bureaucracy involved is too daunting and time-consuming. I seek the Minister’s assurances on that point.
Amendment No. 112 is a probing amendment. The intention behind it is to ensure that training is rigorous and of a high quality; in other words, that it is sufficient for purpose and not merely relevant for the needs of the learner who requires new skills. I have chosen the word “sufficient” because I am talking about the level of learning that is to be achieved; otherwise, we will just be wasting everyone’s time. The amendment would ensure such an outcome, as I am sure the Minister will agree.
Baroness Garden of Frognal: I wish to speak to the Question whether Clause 21 shall stand part, which is grouped with these amendments. Much of the debate on the Bill centres on issues of compulsion as against willing co-operation—sticks and carrots were mentioned frequently last week. In Clause 21, we can see there may be unintended consequences, which could be foreseen and forestalled at this stage.
I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, has just said about the messages coming from employer organisations. The figures show that young people are
1 July 2008 : Column 222
Small businesses are an essential part of the national economy, and in the current climate, when times are particularly hard for them, they will naturally take actions to increase their profitability. You do not run a flourishing small business without being quite aware of the rules and regulations, and how you can work with them. The requirements of the Bill—specifically, within Clause 21—provide a significant disincentive to employ 16 to 17 year-olds. For instance, the cost of checking that the 16 or 17 year-old has,
which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned, will not always be straightforward. Indeed, the employer might well ask themselves whether they would be infringing the age discrimination law by asking a young person’s date of birth.
There are various other factors, including that these young people rarely stay in a job for any length of time—often, only a few months—so there will be frequent employee turnover. Training programmes may vary, with delays in gaining an appropriate training opportunity, for instance, when the timings might not suit the working day so that employers may have to alter other work schedules or call on other employees to work more flexibly, to fit around the young person.
Employers will need clear guidance on this clause. At its simplest, there will be additional administrative burdens. We had a government projection that a 10-minute check would be required. That seems optimistic, and a conservative estimate has been set that employers checking for any young person might accumulate some £8 million a year across all businesses. Indeed, there are higher estimates from calculating, using the hourly rate, the time spent on this additional monitoring which could be made earning money in the main course of the business.
We are talking about a cohort of young people who may not have responded well, if at all, at school—that has come up in previous interventions from your Lordships—but who could learn valuable, on-the-job training and transferable life skills if they go into employment, even if that is not directly associated with formal qualifications and training. The demands of this clause could well close off some of those routes. If it is simpler to look elsewhere, employers cannot be blamed for being more attracted to employing 18 year-olds, or even migrant workers, rather than this cohort that carries additional burdens for them. The employer organisations the CBI and the IoD have expressed concerns about the impact of this clause. Little will be lost by removing the employers’ statutory obligation to check on appropriate education or training, but if the clause remains it could significantly affect the job prospects of some of the young people who need the most encouragement. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
1 July 2008 : Column 223
9.30 pm
Lord Adonis: As so often happens now in our debates, I am being pulled both ways. I have just heard the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, put a case for having no duties at all on employers to ensure that their employees are undergoing proper education or training. Yet Amendment No. 112, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, would significantly increase the duties on employers because, in addition to checking that the young employees are participating, they would be required to check the number of hours that those individuals are in education and training, in order to ascertain whether that was “sufficient”, which is what she seeks to do by inserting that word. Such detailed checks to ascertain not merely that a young person is engaged in education and training but that the number of hours required in the Bill are completed would be a complicated and time-consuming exercise, which we do not think it would be appropriate to expect employers to undertake. For example, if checking hours added 10 minutes to our overall estimate of the time needed for employers to fulfil their duties under the clause, the cost to employers would double. We are certainly not minded to go further than we set out in the Bill.
Why do we think it right to go as far as we do in the Bill—the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, in her remarks on whether Clause 21 should stand part? We have worked hard with employer groups to ensure that the duties on employers are as light touch as they possibly can be, but deleting the clause would mean that employers would be under no duty whatever to check that young people are in learning before letting them start work. That would mean that a young person could start work breaking the law and the employer would, knowingly or unknowingly, be complicit in that act. That is not acceptable. If the law is to be enacted, employers should exercise responsibility to ensure that their employees within that age range are undertaking education or training.
The clause is designed to place an important incentive on young people who want to work to get a place in learning first, knowing that they will not be able to get a job if they have not. Having no duties on employers would seriously disrupt the balance of roles and responsibilities that is fundamental successfully to raising the participation age, so we are anxious that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Amendment No. 60, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on certificates, is, we believe, covered by the Bill. The question of whether a young person in employment has made appropriate arrangements for their part-time education or training will depend on whether they are working towards accredited qualifications, not on the type of institution at which they are doing so. They could be studying towards an accredited qualification at any one of a range of institutions: a maintained school, an independent school, a sixth-form college, an FE college or a private training provider. All those institutions can already provide young people with a letter confirming their offer of a place or their enrolment on a course and will already routinely do so. They do not need a legal power to do that.
1 July 2008 : Column 224
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |