Committee stage in the Lords
- Speaker
Baroness Perry of SouthwarkConservative- Quote
- I do not think that we are in love with the YPLA, at least not on this side of the Committee. Nevertheless we are now moving to the clauses on its structure and how it should go about its business. The amendment attempts to lay down one element in its committee structure. I wondered for a while whether this amendment might not have been more appropriate in the third schedule to the Bill, but I decided that I would move it here as it covers such a fundamental issue—how the YPLA will go about disbursal of funds—that it needs to be separated from the general section on committees in Schedule 3 and should be in the main body of the Bill. I think that not only because we have seen with the Learning and Skills Agency a fairly disastrous handling of capital building projects, but because over long experience of funding bodies of various kinds—we have had an awful lot in recent years—it is easy for them to become obsessed with the revenue aspects, which is understandable in a way. They have to decide who gets how much this year and whether somebody gets a bit more, or a bit less; whether they approve this scheme or that scheme; and all the things that we talked about in earlier clauses. It is easy for the capital projects to be tucked away with nobody responsible or, worse, a cabal of two or three of the most senior officers taking the decisions by themselves. I know that the Association of Colleges feels strongly about this amendment. It has suffered badly from what happened with the LSC and is keen to have a structure in place with the YPLA that ensures that capital projects are properly considered, that there is a committee in place with sole responsibility to ensure that the building projects for both further education and sixth-form colleges are considered carefully and in some detail, and that the budget for them is monitored with somebody making sure that the money is there. I understand that that did not quite happen with the LSC. It is very important that it is in the main part of the Bill that that is one of the two main streams of finance for which the YPLA will be responsible—the revenue and the capital—and therefore, rather than tucking it in as part of the committee structure, I want it up here in the main body of the Bill. I propose that at the end of the clause that describes the YPLA's financial responsibilities we should add provision for a committee to oversee provision for capital building projects. I beg to move.
- Time
- 21:03
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat- Quote
- My Lords, I support the amendment. As the Minister will know, colleges have been much embarrassed by the developments in the college capital building programme this year. I believe that I am right in saying that because the colleges span both 16 to 19 and adult provision, the capital programme for colleges will be split between the YPLA and the SFA. Therefore, it is important not only that the YPLA ensures that it has an appropriate committee structure but that there is a committee structure to bring the two together to run a coherent programme. In many senses, that poses a bigger challenge than the YPLA itself. One may despair about what happened with the LSC, but when two separate authorities are trying to run a single capital budget, many difficulties may arise. As I understand it, once the basic funding for Building Colleges for the Future was allocated some four or five years ago, the initial bids were very low. That led the LSC to more or less send out messages to its local arms to see whether they could drum up some bids. That is not surprising, given that if you were going to put in a bid, you had to have at least outline planning permission from your local authority. That takes a lot of time. Perhaps I should declare an interest, because I sit on the board of Guildford College, which has been caught up in the funding problem. Fortunately, we have not had a building demolished; we are not half way through a building programme. However, we have lost a substantial sum of money in consultants’ fees, which we will not get back. I believe that the total of consultants’ fees across all colleges is in the region of £200 million. That money should have gone to provide for students at colleges and it has been diverted into the pockets of the PricewaterhouseCoopers, the Tribals and all the rest of the many consultants that gather around once a capital programme is announced. There needs to be a very careful watch on capital programmes. What happened with the LSC, in a sense, was that having been a trickle, it became a waterfall, and it could not cope. It was quite extraordinary that the total amount that was bid for a year ago was four times the capital sum available and nobody in the LSC or the department seemed to be saying, “Hey! Watch it!”. Having a proper committee structure in place is important, but I stress that since the capital programme is going to be shared between the two organisations, and sixth-form colleges are going to be separate and have their own programme, there needs to be a committee structure to link the appropriate parts of the system.
- Time
- 21:03
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteCrossbench- Quote
- My Lords, I am rather attracted by this idea, not least because there is nothing in the Bill that refers to capital projects. As the school population expands and takes in those up to the age of 25 in certain respects, there will clearly be a need for adaptations, if not totally new buildings. Will the YPLA have a young person or a children’s voice helping it to decide what to do and what to spend money on? I am not certain what the group in particular areas will comprise in terms of locality, the localness of people, the expertise and the people who will benefit, or not benefit, from what is proposed. I am rather attracted by this suggestion. I can see that there are advantages in having something like the YPLA but, having listened intently to what was said in the previous debate, I find it very difficult to think that there will be any saving of money in what is proposed and that there will be any advantages in it.
- Time
- 21:03
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Hunt of WirralConservative- Quote
- My Lords, I rise strongly to support my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark and to say that I found myself very much in agreement with the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp of Guildford and Lady Howe of Idlicote. I think that they have put their finger on something that does not quite work and that my noble friend has proposed a modest amendment that seems to make a great deal of sense. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it. The amendment extends the remit of the YPLA so that it has, “to oversee financial provisions for capital building projects for further education and sixth form colleges”. My noble friend has enabled us to raise the concern that we have seen time and time again throughout these debates about where are the lines of responsibility. As I understand it, as the Bill stands, funding for schools, sixth forms, sixth-form colleges and sixth-form provision in further education colleges comes directly from local authorities. However, capital funding for the 236 further education colleges will be undertaken not by the YPLA, the body responsible for ensuring the national coherence of plans implemented by local authorities, but by the Skills Funding Agency. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, gave us a concrete example of how the complexities inherent in the sort of structure that is complained of are caused by the fact that different bodies with responsibility for education are provided in just one establishment. FE colleges will span the divide between the agencies.
- Time
- 21:03
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Department for Business Inovation and Skills (Lord Young of Norwood Green)Labour- Quote
- My Lords, Amendment 149A would require the Young People’s Learning Agency to put into place a committee structure to oversee capital allocations for further education and sixth-form colleges. I understand the concern, which follows on from the well documented problems of the Learning and Skills Council earlier this year. The LSC had a committee that was a single body, but it still did not seem to be the solution to the problem because the problem was more deep-seated than that. In his well considered and independent review of the further education capital programme, Sir Andrew Foster found that, “a good policy has been compromised by the manner of its implementation”. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, reminded us, the intentions were good—although, as we know, the road to hell is paved with those—but the implementation was, to say the least, less than satisfactory. Sir Andrew Foster went on to make a number of recommendations, including for the stronger management of the FE capital programme, better prioritisation, and the need to shift from a demand-led to a need-based approach to funding. He urged that consideration be given to future working arrangements. The recommendations of that report have been fully accepted by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and by the LSC. As a number of people have pointed out—the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, really got to the heart of this—the YPLA will have responsibility only for the 16 to 19 capital fund, which underwrites the costs of brand new places for students aged 16 to 19 in schools and colleges. The larger FE capital fund will transfer to the Skills Funding Agency. None the less, it will be important for the YPLA to devise a structure that delivers the effective management of its capital responsibilities. It will need to have arrangements for working with the Skills Funding Agency where it has an interest in how the FE capital fund supports colleges’ 16 to 19 provision. We all agree about that. The Secretary of State will set out his expectations through his remit letter to the YPLA. We will ensure that, through that letter, the YPLA takes account of the lessons learnt from the FE capital funding programme in devising effective systems for managing the capital resources that it allocates. On that point, and to give a little more detail, simply imposing a committee structure is not enough, as we know from the lessons learnt from the LSC, unfortunately. We need to ensure that the YPLA, once it begins operating, has learnt from the problems with FE capital and has devised appropriate arrangements that minimise the risk to their capital resources. The remit letter will place the duty on the new chair and chief executive to do that. In conclusion, we believe that the remit letter is the best place for any details. It would not be right to describe essentially operational matters in the Bill, which anyway only deal with part of the problem. On the basis of this assurance, I hope we will ensure that the lessons of what happened at the LSC are learnt and reflected in the remit letter. I want to give an assurance to the noble Baronesses, Lady Perry and Lady Sharp, and all those who have contributed in this debate that we are not in any way treating this matter lightly. We will ensure that the details of the remit letter are circulated in advance because we share the same concerns as noble Lords. The way in which the capital programme is allocated is fundamentally important. We have seen the repercussions that have taken place when it goes wrong. I am not in any way dismissing the concern. We do not believe that this amendment is the right vehicle for dealing with it, although we share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and others about the need to address this problem. With my reassurance about the remit letter and the opportunity to look at it, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- As I understand it, there will be one capital programme for further education, which will be divided between the SFA and the YPLA. Since the SFA is not an NDPB, it will not receive a remit letter. How will this be dealt with as regards the SFA? If the programme is to be shared with sixth-form colleges, there will be yet a third player. Will whatever letter goes to each of the bodies ensure an effective co-ordination mechanism, to make sure that they are all singing from the same hymn sheet? When there are three authorities, the great danger is that something will fall between the stools and not be addressed.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
- Quote
- The short answer is yes. I said that the YPLA will need to have arrangements for working with the Skills Funding Agency. We will ensure that we cover both points made by the noble Baroness.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Viscount EcclesConservative- Quote
- I hesitate, but I think that there is a more fundamental problem. All organisations need some focus. The YPLA focus is not on capital spending. As far as I can see, the Bill is completely silent on capital funding. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to find out, as well as to suggest a way forward, how the YPLA will tackle project management. Capital funding and capital spending is project management, which requires a completely different skill to that required to make provision for the education of young people. How will the Government guarantee that, in the selection of the members of the board of the YPLA, they will include this project management skill? I have been in project management for a great part of my career. As the chairman of a non-departmental public body, the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, I took responsibility for the rebuilding of the Palm House. All I can say to Ministers is that if I had relied on its board and staff, and had not taken special steps to ensure that the Palm House was rebuilt to the required standard, it would never have happened. The Government are simply saying that all they will provide is a remit letter. For goodness’ sake, we all get letters telling us what we should do. But have we got the capability to do it? This Government should think much more carefully about the skills that will be required—and, goodness me, the Bill is all about skills—to devise and control capital expenditure projects. Nothing here gives me comfort that the YPLA will be any good at the job.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord LucasConservative- Quote
- The YPLA has a rather difficult remit anyway. It is supposed to drive up participation without being in any way directly involved in the provision of education, and it is supposed to be involved in equipping the workforce with the right skills without having any direct connection with employers. It is altogether an odd and strange animal. I note too that the term “demand-led” in this amendment is pejorative, but in the previous amendment it was approbative. It was hymned by the noble Baroness in her reply to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Hunt. Perhaps the Government are also confused about what is going on here.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
- Quote
- In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, I think he is right that we have to ensure that project management skills are applied. I shall take that into consideration because it is a valid point. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, context is everything. As for “demand-led”, we were dealing with a totally different scenario, which is why my noble friend extolled its virtues in that situation. There was probably nothing wrong with “demand-led” in this situation if it had been controlled and properly project-managed. I do not want to repeat myself. We understand the importance of the issues and we understand where the noble Baroness is coming from. We have undertaken to write with an outline of the remit letter and will take into account the importance of the two agencies working together. I hope, with those repeated assurances, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Perry of SouthwarkConservative
- Quote
- I thank all who have contributed to what has proved to be an important issue in the structure of the YPLA. I am not entirely sure that anyone feels that they have had a complete answer to the concerns they have expressed. There is a yawning hole in the assumption that a remit letter to the chief executive and the council of the YPLA will somehow magically translate itself into the right kind of oversight of what presumably will be quite a large budget. Although the remit letter is a part of it, it must be taken delivery of by someone or some part of the organisation that will actually have to see it through, and my amendment was an attempt to secure that. Just a letter sent to the YPLA could produce exactly the same kind of situation we had with the LSC where there was a committee without expertise or any particular project management skills and which, as we all know, made a fair old mess of the job it was given to do. To say that one committee did not help does not mean that therefore you should never have a committee again, but perhaps that is a rather trivial objection. Much more important is something that perhaps I did not make clear enough in my opening remarks to move the amendment. I refer to the point made so pointedly and accurately by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. The Skills Funding Agency and the Young People’s Learning Agency will both have money for capital projects that will have to be spent in one place, so to speak: on the organisations and buildings that are to provide education. It is vital that there is one point between the two bodies which takes responsibility for that. It is sensible that it is the YPLA not only because it will get the remit letter—again as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said—but because the agency will be in close touch with the huge body of the further education and sixth-form colleges which the Skills Funding Agency quite clearly will not be. I am not claiming that the wording of the amendment is perfect but something like it should be in the Bill, not tucked away in a schedule or in advice and guidance that comes out after the Bill is passed, if it comes to pass. There should be something there which says that, for the two responsibilities that the bodies have—for revenue funding, yes, but also for capital funding—there needs to be a point where responsibility is shared. It would be nice if Ministers, just once, would say of something that has a great deal of agreement in the Committee, “Okay, we will take it away and think about it”. It would help a great deal. It would make those of us who have worked away—and we are grateful for the meetings that we have had over the summer with the Minister—feel good if the Minister could do that.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
- Quote
- We have not dismissed the importance of what the noble Baroness is saying; indeed, I stressed that I took it very much to heart. However, we do not believe that this is quite the right vehicle. What is contained in this and any arrangements that we need to make will be important in any consideration. I was simply making a plea in the circumstances and saying that we have listened to the debate, we have heard the concerns expressed across the Committee and we will take them away and give them serious consideration, even to the point of seeing whether the remit letter is sufficient to address all the concerns. It is in the light of that that I was asking the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Perry of SouthwarkConservative
- Quote
- That was a very gracious speech by the Minister and I thank him for it. Certainly at this point I am not going to pursue the matter but, unless we see something more substantial along these lines on Report, I am not promising that I will continue to remain silent. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, Amendment 153 was debated in the Commons but we feel it is worth bringing forward here because we were not satisfied with the answer that came from the Commons. The numbers studying for A-levels and other level 2 and 3 qualifications in FE colleges and sixth-form colleges are considerably greater than in school sixth forms and yet for the past 20 to 30 years—indeed, ever since the college sector emerged as an alternative provider of education and training for 16 to 19 year-olds—the per capita funding per pupil in the colleges has been considerably lower than that received by schools for sixth-form pupils. Traditionally schools with sixth-forms have received quite generous funding for their 16 to 19 sixth-form cohort. Whether running A-level courses or vocational courses it has been accepted that class sizes are often very small, sometimes as few as, or even fewer than, half a dozen and that the degree, therefore, of personal tuition is high. This in turn reflects on costs. In the old days of block grants, schools used to cross-subsidise their sixth forms. Once this was translated into funding formulas, it was reflected in a generous funding of the “standard learner numbers” for those over 16 and remaining in school. By contrast, colleges, which have traditionally concentrated on post-16 courses, have been funded on the basis of standard class sizes, with additional funding only for those with learning difficulties. When the LSC took over in 2001, the gap was more than 20 per cent; by 2005, when Ruth Kelly was the Secretary of State, it stood at 10 per cent, and she famously promised to eliminate it. Sadly it is still there. The purpose of the amendment is to bring the existence of this gap to the attention of Ministers and to make a last ditch attempt to eliminate it. Given that more students study post-16 in further education colleges and sixth-form colleges than in schools, it is cheaper and more efficient to provide teaching in these establishments. Can Ministers really justify a situation in which they encourage and subsidise the less efficient route? Indeed, in recent years they have been encouraging schools that have not so far had sixth forms to set up new sixth forms. We know that many pupils would be better off studying more practical vocational courses rather than being corralled into A-levels, yet shockingly few teachers have any knowledge of those vocational routes to higher-level qualifications. In the evidence that the Edge foundation provided to the Skills Commission, for example, it was revealed that 75 per cent of teachers admitted to knowing nothing about apprenticeships, and yet teachers are one of the biggest influences on young people in the careers that they choose. The emphasis on GCSE and the A-level route means that a disproportionate number of young people at age 16 opt for this route because it is what they, their parents and their teachers know about. It is shocking that these colleges, which already take a disproportionate number of young people from the more disadvantaged homes for 16-plus education, should receive less per student than the schools. It reflects, in many senses, an outdated class system that should have been eliminated long ago. As I have said, Ruth Kelly promised in 2005 to eliminate the gap. The college sector is still waiting for Ministers to honour that promise, and I hope that they will do so today. I beg to move.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, Amendment 153 would commit the YPLA to equalising the basic funding rate for a given programme of learning in schools and FE colleges. This important principle, that publicly funded providers of learning should receive comparable funding for comparable provision, has been at the heart of government policy and the work of the Learning and Skills Council in planning and funding post-16 learning for a number of years. We recognise that there have been historic differences in the way that schools and colleges have been funded, which has given rise to a gap in funding. In 2004-05 this gap stood at 14 per cent. We have responded to that by committing ourselves to a reduction of the gap by eight percentage points by the end of the 2008-09 academic year. I am pleased to say that, through the work of the Learning and Skills Council, at the end of the last academic year we had achieved that 8 per cent point reduction in the gap. This achievement has been verified by independent research published in 2008. We are not there yet, but I hope that the Committee—or at least the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—will agree that this represents significant progress, although that is not to deny the validity of the point that she was making. As I have expressed before, I also share some of her concerns about the nature of what we hope in the future will be more independent and balanced advice and guidance. The noble Baroness was right that there tends to be a move towards pushing everyone towards A-levels when for some the vocational route would be more appropriate and valid, and in the end could still lead them to undertake degree-course studies. So we intend to improve the nature of that advice and guidance, and indeed we are committed to doing just that. My noble friend Lady Morgan confirmed at Second Reading that the Young People’s Learning Agency would continue to operate a national funding formula as the basis for funding schools and colleges beyond April 2010, and that important commitment will ensure that the achievement to date in narrowing the gap is sustained. While we will continue to make progress as funding allows, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that our foremost priority in our use of public funds must be fully to fund a learning opportunity for every 16 to 18 year-old as we move towards raising the participation age to 17 from 2013, and to 18 from 2015. I hope that with that caveat, but with the assurance that a national funding formula will remain central to our plans and that we understand the importance of sustaining our commitment to remove that gap, the noble Baronesses will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Perry of SouthwarkConservative
- Quote
- I could not quite understand whether the Minister was saying that for the next year the 8 per cent differential will be sustained or that it will disappear.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
- Quote
- It will be sustained and, unless my numeracy skills are wrong—I hope that they are not—we have said that we have achieved an 8 per cent reduction. I hope that I have got this right. So it is 6 per cent, actually. Sometimes I worry about my own numeracy skills, but I thought I could manage 8 from 14. So the straight answer is yes, it has been narrowed to a 6 per cent gap, and we are committed to sustaining that. Definitely.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Perry of SouthwarkConservative
- Quote
- You are committed to leaving it at 6 per cent, not reducing it by a further percentage?
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
- Quote
- In my answer, I pointed out that we also have to manage the question of raising the participation age from 17 from 2013 and 18 from 2015. There is a balancing act to achieve there. We are absolutely committed to sustaining the 6 per cent that we have at the moment. If we can make further progress then, of course, we will—but we cannot ignore the scenario. It is a very important step forward in raising the participation age.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Howe of IdlicoteCrossbench
- Quote
- Perhaps the Minister could make it clear to me, because I am a little confused about this. I thought that there were plans to ensure that deprived areas had rather more resources available to them. How does that fit into the scheme?
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
- Quote
- I must apologise. I was slightly distracted, so I missed the point that the noble Baroness was making.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Howe of IdlicoteCrossbench
- Quote
- I was asking whether the Minister could clarify the position for me. I had thought that although getting parity was a good idea, in reducing the percentage, nevertheless there were special funds for those from deprived areas. How does that fit into this?
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
- Quote
- The best thing that I can do is write on that specific point about deprived areas, because I do not have the information to hand.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Perry of SouthwarkConservative
- Quote
- I congratulate the Government on having reduced the differential during the past year. It is very good news to hear that it has been so substantially reduced. We all recognise that increasing public expenditure at the moment is not the easiest thing in the world to do. Nevertheless, it is worth recording, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, so clearly said, that it is more expensive to expand vocational than academic provision. The kind of equipment that will be needed for the additional young people staying on and taking vocational courses is much more elaborate than much of what will be needed in sixth forms. That is something that will have to be borne in mind.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I thank the Minister for his response, but it is not a very adequate one. I congratulate him on reducing the figure from 14 per cent in 2004-05 to 6 per cent now—that is an 8 per cent reduction. Yes, that is good. However, I had hoped he would say that the Government would sustain that continuing reduction and that they would have in sight, for perhaps 2011-12, a total elimination. It is madness that they are proposing to allow schools that currently do not have sixth forms to promote them to teach vocational subjects when they have neither staff nor the equipment to teach them properly. It is incredibly expensive to do so. Yes, it is all part of raising the participation age, but this is a very expensive programme. In the colleges, there is a very efficient way in which to teach these things. The Increased Flexibility programme, which used to be so successful, has largely been closed down. I hope that the Government are now beginning to expand the young apprenticeship programme. That is what I would like to see. Colleges take some of the more difficult learners, and are compensated when they have statements and so forth, but they are not completely compensated, and are currently providing an incredible service to the country in terms of helping many of those people to achieve qualifications that they would not be expected to achieve in schools. Yet we are not rewarding those colleges or even promising them that they will get an amount equivalent to what their sixth-form comparators are getting. If college lecturers move to a school and teach the sixth form, they are paid more than as a lecturer. That is very galling because they are teaching the same subject. One of the reasons that colleges cannot pay them more is because this differential exists. I hope that the Government can come back and promise us that they will sustain the reduction rather than just sustain the margin.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
- Quote
- I want to examine some of the points made by the noble Baroness because I cannot give a comprehensive answer to all of them. I sense some validity and concur with the noble Baroness. In my journey around FE colleges I, too, have been immensely impressed with the work that they do and with the range of students that they handle. I will take away and examine the points that have been made. We are absolutely committed to sustaining the reduction. I need to look at the capabilities and see whether we can go further. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise the scenario in which we are operating at the moment. There are differences between the way that we fund sixth-form colleges and colleges supplying the same course. I would like to take that away and I will write to the noble Baroness on that issue. On that basis, I hope that she will feel capable of withdrawing the amendment.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I am extremely grateful to the Minister. It would be good if he could take this away. The whole college sector would be much encouraged by that. I know in these days of the credit crunch and so forth it will not be easy, but it would be encouraging for them. After all, they will be taking a huge increase in the number of students with the raising of the learning participation age. They are a key player in this and it would be a great factor if the Government really want to boost morale in that sector. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord AddingtonLiberal Democrat- Quote
- In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment 211A. The aim of these amendments is to expose what may be an unintentional result of some of the changes that the Government are proposing. The amendments were suggested by the Alliance for Inclusive Education, also known as Alfie. The alliance suggests that the Government’s new funding structure may punish those who bring people with learning disabilities and other disabled groups on to courses that they may not be able to complete, although they have traditionally taken part and benefited from that learning process. Those people can acquire skills on a mainstream course and get some benefit from it, but will probably not be able to finish the entire course. That is the fear, and these amendments encapsulate that. It has been suggested to me that the Learning and Skills Council withdraws up to 10 per cent for students who do not successfully gain a qualification. If you have a group that are almost guaranteed not to pass, are we not suggesting that people will be encouraged not to take part in these courses and that those college providers will be encouraged not to present them for the course? Also, what tends to happen is that funding can be acquired, as I was told by this group, for more discrete courses, which often do not lead to as meaningful a qualification or learning capacity, but where you are guaranteed 100 per cent. This fear is very real, and it seems to be based on fact. Can the Government assure us that they will make more flexible arrangements that will mean that this does not take place? I think this is simply a case of trying to get a “one-size-fits-all” package. It does not apply to the best practice of the past, so can we go back and make sure that we allow people who have been undertaking and benefiting from courses back in? A small allowance or discretionary ability somewhere would probably address this. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response on this point. Really, they do not seem to be asking for very much. Also, if it has happened in the past, why get rid of good practice? I beg to move.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Hunt of WirralConservative
- Quote
- I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for raising these very important concerns. I am sure I speak for both sides of the Committee when I say that we would not wish there to be any situation where an education provider would be discouraged from accommodating students, in the way that the noble Lord described, because they might risk a reduction in funding. We are looking to the Minister for some reassurance on this matter. Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I have seen the arguments from ALLFIE, the Alliance for Inclusive Education, which argues that, “education providers who would like to give greater opportunities for disabled learners wishing to access mainstream educational opportunities are financially penalised if the learners are unable successfully to complete the qualification”. What we are looking for this evening is an assurance from the Minister that this will not happen under the new organisation. I am sure that the Minister will assure us that the Government have no intention of allowing disabled students to be discriminated against in this way. I will just say that even a perception of disadvantage accompanying accepting disabled students could be very damaging. That would be very worrying indeed. We look forward to hearing from the Minister, just to reassure education providers that this will not be the case.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
- Quote
- Amendments 153A and 211A reflect the concerns of such organisations as the Alliance for Inclusive Education that there are no barriers to participation in further education for young people and adults with learning difficulties. There is a particular concern that funding on the basis of completions discourages colleges from enrolling students with learning difficulties. Please let me reassure noble Lords that both departments fully recognise and support the need to ensure access for all learners and that, where appropriate, this should be to mainstream provision. Mainstream provision is already widely accessed by such learners. In the last financial year there were approximately 320,000 learners who self-declared having a learning difficulty or disability in mainstream further education provision. This represents 13 per cent of all learners. This success has been achieved through excellent work across the FE sector in supporting students and additional funding being made available by the Government. For example, the Invest to Change programme is investing £66 million over a three-year period specifically to improve the accessibility of local provision. It is also important to note that success factors such as completion rates are just one of a wide-ranging set of weightings that are used to calculate funding rates. Colleges receive extra funding through additional learner support, which they can use to ensure that the needs of learners with learning difficulties and/or other special requirements are met. The Skills Funding Agency will monitor colleges’ and other providers’ performance in ensuring access through the Framework for Excellence. This quantitative performance monitoring tool will incentivise providers to be responsive to the needs of learners and will include indicators on learner views and learner destinations, encompassing, of course, learners with learning difficulties. The framework will provide data to enable those making funding decisions to assure themselves that there is no unfair treatment in terms of inclusion, access, or delivery of services. Ofsted will also continue to look at the accessibility of provision and support provided to learners with learning difficulties as part of its quality assurance process. We are continuing to work with ALLFIE and other stakeholders on this issue as we move forward in this area. I share the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about this vital issue.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Noble LordsConservative
- Quote
- Oh!
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
- Quote
- I did not mean to refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord AddingtonLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- It is late.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
- Quote
- It has been a long day. I hope that with the comprehensive range of assurances that we have given, noble Lords will recognise our commitment to ensuring that people with disabilities or learning difficulties are not disadvantaged and that colleges do not in any way feel a disincentive as regards catering for those students. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, many colleges are responding well to that challenge. However, there is no room for complacency, which is why we have included the extra measures that I have described. I hope that on the basis of those assurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord AddingtonLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I thank the noble Lord for that response and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his support. This is something of a first. I do not think that I and my noble friend have ever been mistaken for each other before. However, it is nice to hear something new. I appreciate the noble Lord’s response. There is fear in this regard. I hope that he does not take this in the wrong spirit but we need to look through the relevant list to see whether we have killed it dead. That is very important. We need to ensure that we have dealt with this properly. The perception within colleges is also very important. We may have to follow up this point to ensure that it has been addressed. However, I accept the assurances in the spirit in which they were given; namely, that the fears behind this amendment are probably more imagined than real. I hope that we have a basis for further progress. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗