| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin moved Amendment No. 65:
65: After Clause 58, insert the following new Clause—
“Provision of support on conditional basis: learning and support agreements
(1) Services provided for young persons in pursuance of section 56 or 58(1)(b) may include the provision of support on a conditional basis.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “support” provided for a person means any form of support and includes, in particular—
(i) support in the form of medical or social care, including care provided otherwise than to that person,
(ii) support in the form of incentives, including allowances and payments, and
(iii) other financial assistance;
(b) support is provided for a young person on a conditional basis if it is provided under arrangements (a “learning and support agreement”) under which its provision is subject to the young person’s agreement to fulfil conditions (“learning and support conditions”).
(3) Subsections (4) to (6) apply where support is provided for a young person on a conditional basis by virtue of subsection (1).
(4) The learning and support agreement must include provision (whether or not in the form of a learning and support condition) relating to the young person’s participation in education or training.
(5) The person providing the support (the “service provider”) must consider that providing it on a conditional basis would be desirable in the interests of encouraging, enabling or assisting the young person—
(a) to fulfil the duty imposed by section 2, in a case where the young person is a person to whom Part 1 applies, or
(b) in any case, to participate effectively in education or training.
(6) The learning and support conditions must be conditions—
(a) determined in consultation between the service provider and the young person, having regard to an assessment of the young person’s needs conducted by the service provider and the young person for the purposes of this section, and
(b) to which in the course of that consultation the young person has agreed;
and the service provider must make arrangements for the learning and support conditions to be reviewed periodically.
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1791
(7) Learning and support agreements made by virtue of subsection (1) do not create any obligations in respect of whose breach any liability arises in contract or in tort.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59 [Educational institutions: duty to provide information]:
Clause 61 [Internet and telephone support services etc]:
[Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 not moved.]
Baroness Walmsley had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 69:
69: Before Clause 69, insert the following new Clause—
“Personal, social and health education
In section 84 of the Education Act 2002 (c. 32) (curriculum requirements for first, second and third key stages), after subsection (3)(g), insert—
“(ga) personal, social and health education, and”.”
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as with an earlier group of amendments, I have agreed behind the scenes not to move this amendment in exchange for a meeting with the Minister, at which I will have the opportunity of asking my questions. However, I will not resist heartily congratulating the noble Baroness on the Government’s recently announced proposals on PSHE. I also congratulate other colleagues in this House, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Gould and Lady Massey, on supporting me in constantly returning to this issue, which I hope has been effective in persuading the Government to make their move. I simply ask the Minister to hold her nerve on this matter, despite some of the things that are being said in the press.
[Amendments No. 69 not moved.]
Clause 70 [Provision of transport etc for persons of sixth form age: duty to consider journey times]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 71:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 72 and 73. The amendments replicate those which we tabled in Committee. We have brought them back because we did not think that the Minister’s reply in Committee was adequate. As I said at the time, the noble Lord told me what I had already told him.
We think that this is a very serious issue. Already, well over 1 million young people aged 16 and 17 are travelling to pursue education courses. An increase in this number will come when this legislation comes into effect. The Government are very anxious that young people have a choice in their education options and that they learn to use public transport. Yet often that choice cannot be exercised and young people have no alternative but to resort to private cars because there is no public transport available or because it is unduly expensive.
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1792
We know that under the terms of the 2002 Act, strengthened by the Education and Inspections Act 2006, local authorities are supposed to have transport plans which demonstrate how they are promoting these objectives, and there are a number of outstanding examples where this has been done. Notable is the example of London, where transport is now free for all young people up to the age of 18. I referred in Committee to Somerset, where, for £420, young people can obtain an annual Rover ticket to cover all transport needs. However, far too many local authorities are not doing what they are required to do, and transport to and from college remains a big issue for many young people.
It is very lame for the Minister to respond that local authorities have these duties and should be carrying them out. This Bill will in many senses exacerbate the problem, because it will increase the number of young people seeking to travel to and from home to school or college. However, it also offers an opportunity to strengthen the local authorities’ duty, and the amendments do precisely this. Instead of lamely lamenting the fact that local authorities do not do their duty, the Minister can accept the amendments or promise to bring forward others that do the same.
It is quite wrong that colleges have to devote between £3 million and £4 million of their funds to providing transport facilities that local authorities are not providing when that money should be devoted to the education of young people.
Amendment No. 73 is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Low. I pass on the noble Lord’s apologies for not being here to speak to it. Again, we are bringing back this issue, because although there has been some progress and discussion since the Committee stage, the trail seems to have gone cold. We would like to know what has happened to it and to have assurances that the Minister will take up the cudgels and make sure that things happen.
We have redrafted the amendment in order to meet some of the objections that have arisen. As before, the amendment puts an explicit duty on local authorities to ensure that qualified disabled students up to the age of 25 have access to a means of transport. We define qualified disabled students as those who, by reason of their disability, cannot use public transport without assistance and for whom private transport is also out of the question; for example, blind and visually impaired students.
The main stumbling block in the discussions that have been held has, as always, been costs, and the danger that the amendment would lead to vast expenditure on taxis for long journeys for the students concerned. There are two responses to this objection. The first is that the total number of students involved is extremely small, in the region of 10,000 from a total in further education of well over 1.5 million. The number is so small in relation to the total that it should not worry the Ministry.
Secondly, “qualified disabled learners” consist only of those who are visually impaired or who have complex disabilities. There is a large number of people who are listed as disabled but who are perfectly able to travel by public transport. Even among those who might be
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1793
- “may include the provision of training or assistance with travel on public transport as well as the direct provision of the means of transport”.
This issue has been around for a very long time. When we discussed it in Committee, I spoke about the extent to which I had worked on it with Lady Darcy de Knayth. We saw a little movement from the Ministry during the summer. Some meetings took place, and there has been correspondence with Skill about it. However, the trail seems to have gone cold. I hope that the Minister will tell me that she will take up the cudgels on behalf of the disabled students that we are discussing. These rights and duties already exist in legislation relating to local authorities but, once again, local authorities are not delivering on those duties. The Ministry should make sure that they do. I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept our reasonable amendment and that we can see some real progress. I beg to move.
6 pm
Baroness Verma: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Baroness has said. As I prepared for this Bill I had the opportunity to meet representatives from a wide range of organisations, many of whom have devoted years to helping young people to find the opportunities that we are discussing in this Bill. By and large, they welcomed the Government’s proposals to one degree or another, but one point that was impressed on me several times was that even if the Government and local education authorities opened up new courses, apprenticeships and training programmes, they would be worthless unless the people supposed to benefit from them were able to get there. Young people who seek training and education opportunities may not have the wherewithal to travel from place to place in pursuit of their duty under the Bill unless some provision is made for them.
I have already spoken about the need for the Government to be quite certain that they have done all they can to enable young people to fulfil their duty. These amendments follow that theme.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, we share the noble Baroness’s views that access to affordable transport is integral to helping young people to access
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1794
I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that local authorities should have the discretion to determine how to target their funding to meet local needs. By 2010-11, the increase in total government grant for local services since 1997 will be 45 per cent in real terms. Drawing on this funding, the current duty requires local authorities to take into account the costs of transport in preparing their transport policy statements and this should ensure that transport is affordable for young people.
Furthermore, I can announce that we will use the opportunity of the fourth Session Bill to amend the current post-16 transport duty and strengthen local accountability. We will do that by bolstering the current duty on local authorities to prepare and publish a transport policy statement, requiring them to set out in the statement the assessments they have made in drawing up their transport policy, and by improving the route for appeal to local authority policy, if a parent or young person believes that transport provision is a barrier to their participation in education or training and that their circumstances have not been adequately considered in the transport statement. I therefore hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Amendment No. 73 relates to transport provision for learners with learning difficulties. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Adonis committed to looking at this issue over the summer. Over the summer we have been working with Skill: National Bureau for Students With Disabilities to work out the best way forward. I recently met the noble Lord, Lord Low, who is unfortunately not able to be here today, to discuss progress and the need for momentum. As part of this work, my department has looked at the services and support that are made available to learners with learning difficulties by local authorities and how we can support them to develop commissioning and other systems to improve their efficiency and reach. We have also commissioned some work from Skill, looking at the needs of this group and possible solutions. This research is in its final stages, and we will consider the findings very carefully; in particular, it will inform decisions about how we legislate in the new fourth Session Bill.
As noble Lords will be aware, this new Bill proposes transferring the funding and responsibility for commissioning 16 to 19 provision from the Learning and Skills Council to local authorities from 2010. Local authorities will also have responsibility for commissioning provision for learners with learning difficulties and disabilities. We are sympathetic to the purpose of this amendment and think it needs to be considered within the changes as a part of the fourth Session Bill. The proposal made in the White Paper was that responsibility for the participation of these learners will sit with local authorities.
In the mean time, we believe that we can make a number of improvements to the existing system. The noble Baroness highlighted those, including strengthening
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1795
The noble Baroness is right that travel training can be extremely beneficial for this group of young people. It is an area that we particularly asked Skill to consider. Its interim findings advocate the benefits and the good work that is going on in many areas but it also recognises that it can be of variable quality and not available everywhere. To address that we have committed to highlighting good practice in travel training through our guidance on transport to local authorities and we will underline their responsibilities in this area in a series of workshops to take place in the spring. We will also work with awarding bodies, which I see as an important mechanism to encourage the accreditation of travel training as part of the foundation learning tier to enable colleges and providers to attract funding for this training more easily. That will really help.
We believe that these measures will improve the transport support available to this group and will bring all local authorities up to the standards of the best. I will be looking closely at progress and will consider whether it is necessary to do more alongside other local authority duties as we introduce legislation in the fourth Session. I assure noble Lords that the trail is not going cold. In the light of my comments, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for a positive reply on both scores. As I understand it, the Government will bring forward legislation in the next Session to put rather more pressure on local authorities to require them to be specific in their travel plans and to justify their assessments of what is needed. There will also be appeals where it is felt that they are not doing what they should. In relation to the first two amendments, that is a good response. We shall be looking at what comes forward in the next Session and will raise the issue again if we feel that it is not being adequately addressed. We look forward to seeing what comes forward.
In relation to the third amendment, I am delighted to hear what is happening. All that the Minister mentioned sounds positive. I know that the Government have been working with Skill partly in order to establish the numbers involved. As I indicated, it looks as though the actual numbers needing help in this way are relatively small in relation to the total number of disabled students and those with learning difficulties. Many of them do not need special transport arrangements. I am pleased to hear that the Minister will carry these discussions forward. Again, we look forward to seeing legislation in the next Session. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 not moved.]
Clause 73 [Learning aims for persons aged 19 and over]:
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1796
Lord Dearing moved Amendment No. 74:
The noble Lord said: Lords, this is one of a group of three amendments, the first of which proposes that the financial support that the Bill proposes should be given to those between the ages of 19 and 25 to obtain a level 3 qualification should be extended to those up to the age of 30. I propose this amendment against the background of what our Select Committee on Economic Affairs in 2006-07 said about apprenticeships in this country. In its report for 2006-07, the committee said that whereas we had 43 per cent at level 3, France had 52 per cent and Germany had 78 per cent. That is indicative of how far behind we have fallen.
The noble Lord, Lord Leitch, in hisfinal report on world-class skills, tells us, in section 3.50, that we need to deliver more than a doubling of the number of adults at level 3. Bearing mind that the Germans and French will not stand still, that seems about right. It is an awesome challenge, born out of the necessity to be competitive; and it is the foundation from which we can aspire to move on from level 3 to meet the targets that the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, sets for us to be competitive at level 4.
The Government and others have talked, in the light of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, of the need for 40 per cent of our adults to reach level 4 by 2020. The noble Lord, Lord Leitch, says in his report that we need to reach 45 per cent to be competitive. The United States and Germany were already at 40 per cent two or three years ago. To aim for 40 per cent by 2020, when major competitors are there already, hardly strikes me as aiming to be competitive. The figure of 45 per cent, which the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, says is necessary, is a modest target.
The history of this country is one of report after report telling us that we are not competitive in our skills base. The first report that I know of was in 1867, at the time of the great Paris Exhibition, which awakened us to the fact that we were no longer out in front. Professor Alison Wolf, in a book a few years ago, recalled I think 23 reports in the following century repeating that message. Of course, there have been more since; the report of the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, is the latest. Looking at that evidence, are we doing enough? By raising the issue of level 3, are we confident that we will not be once again in the same position as all those illustrious persons and committees who have made their recommendations and said, “We must wake up and do much better”, only to find themselves saying the same again a few years later?
I welcome what the Government are doing, but they must do more. Originally, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and I were proposing, as with level 2, that we should cover all ages. We have brought that down to 30 because we know that money is scarce now. However, given the challenge of our imperative need to be competitive, it seems that the Government need to consider the means by which we will achieve what needs to be achieved—I refer to the call of the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, for a doubling of the number of those at level 3. I put forward the amendment on that basis.
30 Oct 2008 : Column 1797
The following two amendments refer to those who left school with least to show for it; not even a level G pass in their GCSE. The Government have provided—and this corresponds with the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Leitch—that, for those who left school without the English or maths to make sense of life and be basically competent at a low level, there should be free educational opportunities throughout their working lives. This is excellent. However, I say to myself, this is good for starters, but they need vocational skills as well. What is proposed at level 2 is the equivalent of five GCSEs for free in vocational subjects. These people need vocational skills. They are our fellow citizens who have least to offer to employers. I have heard it said that employers are not interested in investing in vocational skills at these very low levels. That may be because they can meet their requirements through the highly skilled workers coming from eastern Europe, notably Poland which has first-rate vocational education. That is reflected in those coming across to this country. Are we going to say that we are not going to do as much for the people whose need is greatest as for other groups, to enable them to get a job and contribute to the economy? I fear that we are not doing what we need for both our own interests and theirs.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |